The Orthodox Trinity and the Monarchia of the Father

[@titorios2543]

The way that you tie in examples like “The father is greater than I” and “the husband is the head of the wife as God is the head of Christ” really displays the monarchy of the father. One of the best explanation of the trinity I have heard in a while!

[@Mr.MacMan]

The Father is not greater ontologically, but is greater is postion and relationship.

[@inkw100]

​@@Mr.MacManThe father is the author of this fairytale.

[@yaltsyaboi7489]

@@inkw100 kzbin.info/www/bejne/aamVkGBoqa9gq68

[@CHARGERDON55]

I became Orthodox 20 years ago. Thank you for explaining this so clearly.

[@steadfastgodcast]

Loving your videos brother, Lord bless you

[@Chris-on5bt]

Thank you Jeem, I have be unpacking the trinity over the past couple years as I have to Orthodoxy and this video has been a valuable piece in my understanding.

[@joshuastevens1200]

I’m an inquirer into Orthodoxy from Protestantism. You explain this very well. Thank you for providing reading material as well.

[@thet-poser623]

Love your in depth content, rather than just the standard message!

[@mikeparker840]

You are so right brother. I have seen so much confusion and ignorance in the western view of the Trinity from the Catholics. Monarchial view makes the most sense and is true to scripture.

[@nyssa__]

name the problems

[@the4gospelscommentary]

The Catholic view DOES NOT deny the monarchia of the Father. The Catholic view preserves the doctrine, that the Father is the cause of the entire Trinity, but he produces the Son directly, while he produces the Holy Spirit through the Son. Or, in other words, the Son is begotten by the Father in such a way, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him.

[@marcomasullo4049]

​@@the4gospelscommentary exaclty, I wanted to write it down myself. Thank you. The filioque controversy is just a semantic issue, not a theological one.

[@the4gospelscommentary]

@@marcomasullo4049 I wouldn't say it's just semantic. The eastern "orrhodox" Council of Blachernae anathematized any view where the Son has any role at all in the production of the Holy Spirit. It is true however, that probably the majority of eastern "orthodox" have no idea about Blachernae and what it taught.

[@maximiusvernandi2858]

For me when Muslims or Unitarians ask me:“ how can Jesus be God and have a God?“ I explain that Jesus has two natures. The human and the divine. In Jeremiah 32,27 we read: I am the God of all flesh. So if the Son of God became flesh, he must have God as his God, too. God bless you brother 🙏🏻✝️❤️

[@IAmisMaster]

That's an incorrect response. The correct response is that Jesus is God by virtue of His nature and unity of action with the Father, being a true Son of God, and thereby having the same nature, just as a human son has his father's nature. But Jesus has a God because the One God is the Father, just as Scripture teaches (1 Corinthians 8:6), the Nicene Creed states, and all ante-nicene Christians believed.

[@ukasxm8245]

Modalism

[@samueljennings4809]

Modalism teaches that the person of the Son IS the person of the Father. I don’t see anything in these comments implying that.

[@nyssa__]

@@IAmisMaster nonsense

[@sanukatharul1497]

​​@@nyssa__ makes decent sense to me. And 1:50

[@monthc]

Im just scratching the surface on this topic, lifelong protestant. But the detail of the Son receiving the Spirit in baptism is a really great point that I never really thought about before.

[@continuumastra1018]

Everything theologically is pointing towards Orthodoxy.

[@xUncleA123x]

Some Protestants, me for example, also believe in the Monarchical Trinity. Protestantism has me wanting to go back as much as possible to the Earliest Church, so I very quickly adopted it after learning about the original version of the Creed and the Monarchy of the Father from Dr. Beau Branson

[@anaarkadievna]

"Some Protestants, me for example, also believe in the Monarchical Trinity." But do they also reject Filioque?

[@xUncleA123x]

@@anaarkadievna If they accept the original formulation they should. I know that the Protestants who reject the Filioque are fewer than those who accept it, but we're still out there.

[@anaarkadievna]

@@xUncleA123x Interesting... I thought all protestant go with Filioque!...

[@Chris-on5bt]

@@anaarkadievna Yes, I have an uncle who is Anglican and they from his report are making moves away from many of the western innovations such as the Filioque. Interesting he and I (I am Orthodox) have the most in common compared to the rest of my Protestant relatives.

[@anaarkadievna]

@@Chris-on5bt hm! interesting development...

[@reclaimingchristianity]

"Among the Greek Fathers the unity of God, the one God, and the ontological “principle” or “cause” of the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God, but in the hypostasis, that is, the person of the Father. The one God is not the one substance but the Father, who is the “cause” both of the generation of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit. Consequently, the ontological “principle” of God is traced back, once again, to the person." John D. Zizioulas Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Contemporary Greek Theologians Series, No 4) "If God exists, He exists because the Father exists, that is, He who out of love freely begets the Son and brings forth the Spirit. Thus God as person-as the hypostasis of the Father-makes the one divine substance to be that which it is: the one God. This point is absolutely crucial. For it is precisely with this point that the new philosophical position of the Cappadocian Fathers, and of St Basil in particular, is directly connected. … The being of God is identifed with the person" John D. Zizioulas (Being as Communion [BC], pp. 40-41) "On the other hand, there is another terrible error, and the other terrible error, usually called Modalism in technical theological terminology, is where people say there is one God Who is the Holy Trinity, There is "He Who Is the Trinity." And we Orthodox Christians, following scripture, and the creedal statements, and the liturgical prayers, can never say there is one God who is the Trinity. There is one God who is the Father. And this one God who is the Father has with Him eternally, Whom He begets timelessly before all ages, His only-begotten Son who is also His Logos, his Word, and also his Chokhmah, His Sophia, His Wisdom, also His Eikona, His Ikon, His Image-but this Wisdom and Word and Image and Ikon, is" FR. THOMAS HOPKO (FORMER DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY) "So how can Christians believe in and worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and yet claim that there is only one God, not three? How can one reconcile monotheism with trinitarian faith?... The Father alone is the one true God. This keeps to the structure of the New Testament language about God, where with only a few exceptions, the world "God" (theos) with an article (and so being used, in Greek, as a proper noun) is only applied to the one whom Jesus calls Father, the God spoken of in the scriptures... This same fact is preserved in all ancient creeds, which begin: "I believe in one God, the Father..." Such, then, is how the Greek Fathers, following Scripture, maintained that there is but one God, whose Son and Spirit are equally God, in a unity of essence and of/existence, without compromising the uniqueness of the one true God... The Living Pulpit (April-June, 1999), pp. 22-23 FR. JOHN BEHR (DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY) The one God is the Father. Substance is something common to all three persons of the Trinity, but it is not ontologically primary until Augustine makes it so. ('On Being Persons: Towards an Ontology of Personhood', in Persons Divine and Human, ed. Christoph Schwöbel and Colin Gunton, p. 40. By John D. Zizioulas) "St Gregory Nazianzen contributed the solution by making a distinction between “will” and the “willing one” [Or 29.6-7]: the “will” is common to all three persons of the Trinity; the Son shares this one divine will common to all three persons, which, as St Cyril of Alexandria put it, is “concurrent with the divine ousia.” Yet, there is no will without the willing one, as there is no ousia without the hypostasis. The “willing one” is a person, and as such is primarily none else but the Father. The one divine will shared equally by all three persons and lying behind the creation of the world, in accordance with Athanasius and Nicaea, does not emerge automatically and spontaneously as it were out of itself, but is initiated by a person, namely the Father, as “the willing one.” (Communion and Otherness [CO], p. 121) John Zizioulas "In a sense, all this remains a puzzle to our common logic, because we tend to associate freedom with individuality: how can one be constituted freely if someone else with his freedom constitutes him? Has the Father “asked” the Son and the Spirit for their free consent before he brought them into being? Such a question presupposes individualism, for how can you “ask” someone’s consent for his being if he does not already exist? Ontological individualism is precisely the establishment of an entity prior to its relationships. Its opposite is the establishment of the entity through the very relations that constitute its existence. This is what we mean when we speak of the relational character of “divine substance,” or of Father, Son and Spirit as relational entities. The Father as a relational entity is inconceivable without the Son and the Spirit. His freedom in bringing them forth into being does not impose itself upon them, since they are not already there, and their freedom does not require that their consent be asked, since they are not established as entities before their relationship with the Father. This is the difference between moral and ontological freedom: the one presupposes individuality, the other causes individuality, or rather personhood."" (CO, p. 122)" John Zizioulas "For the Christian faith there is, unequivocally, but one God, and that is the Father: ""There is one God and Father." For Basil, the one God is not the one divine substance, or a notion of "divinity" which is ascribed to each person of the Trinity, nor is it some kind of unity or communion in which they all exist; the one God is the Father. But this "monarchy" of the Father does not undermine the confession of the true divinity of the Son and the Spirit. Jesus Christ is certainly "true God of true God," as the Nicene Creed puts it, but he is such as the Son of God, the God who is thus the Father. If the term "God" (theos) is used of Jesus Christ, not only as a predicate, but also as a proper noun with an article, this is only done on the prior confession of him as "Son of God," and so as other than "the one God" of whom he is the Son; it is necessary to bear in mind this order of Christian theology, lest it collapse in confusion." -The Nicene Faith II: pp. 307-308 FR. JOHN BEHR (DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY) "Now in the Bible, in the creeds, and in the liturgy, it's very important, really critically important, to note, and to affirm, and to remember, that the one God, in Whom we believe, strictly speaking, is not the Holy Trinity. The One God is God the Father. That in the Bible, the One God is the Father of Jesus Christ. He is God Who sends His only-begotten Son into the world. And Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And then, of course, in a parallel manner, the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God." -FR. THOMAS HOPKO (FORMER DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY) www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/theholy_trinity "The Greek Fathers always maintained that the principle of unity in the Trinity is the person of the Father... This is why the East has always opposed the formula of filioque which seems to impair the monarchy of the Father: either one is forced to destroy the unity by acknowledging two principles of Godhead, or one must ground the unity primarily on the common nature..." -VLADIMIR LOSSKY ON THE FILIOQUE The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 58 "What Christian can endure to bring two causes into the holy triad, the Father [being a cause] of the Son and Spirit, and again the Son [being a cause] of the Spirit, and to dissolve the monarchy into ditheism, and to rip the theology of Christians into nothing but the most evil mythology of the Hellenes, and to treat with insolence the dignity of the super essential and monarchic triad?" -ST. PHOTIOS THE GREAT, ENCYCLICAL TO THE EASTERN PATRIARCHS “11. Leaving aside the aforementioned, if one admits of two causes in the thearchic and superessential Triad, where then is the much hymned and God befitting majesty of the monarchy? Will not the godlessness of polytheism be riotously introduced? Under the guise of Christianity, will not the superstition of Hellenic error reassert itself among those who dare to say such things?" -ST. PHOTIOS THE GREAT, ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT "12. Again, if two causes are imposed upon the the monarchic Triad, then according to the same reasoning, why should not a third one emerge? For once the principle without principle and above principle, is cast down from its throne by these impious ones and is cleaved into a duality, the principle will proceed more vehemently to be severed into a triad, since in the supersubstantial inseparable, and simple nature of the divinity, the triad is more manifest than the dyad, and indeed also harmonizes with the idiomata." -ST. PHOTIOS THE GREAT, ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE H OLY SPIRIT "... Gregory (of Nyssa) does not identify “God” as that which is common, a genus to which various particular beings belong. Rather, Gregory stands clearly within the monarchical approach Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzus. It is “the God overall” who is known specifically as “Father”..." -The Nicene Faith II: p. 420 FR. JOHN BEHR (DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY) (of Nyssa) added for clarity.

[@the4gospelscommentary]

These quotes are completely wrong and heretical. Yes, the Divine nature IS God. Yes, the Holy Trinity IS God. Also, the eastern Fathers unanimously taught the filioque, and nobody opposed it until Photius. Especially the Cappadocians, who are mentioned in your citations, explicitly teach that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit. That teaching is perfectly compatible with the monarchia of the Father, because everything that the Son has, he receives from the Father when he is begotten, and this includes his eternal spiration of the Holy Spirit.

[@anyavalenty7148]

@@the4gospelscommentary lmao. Can you explain if everything the father has the son has, and if causality is an essential property, then why does the spirit not possess this essential property of spirating the spirit?

[@the4gospelscommentary]

@@anyavalenty7148 I never said that causality of another divine person is an essential property. Thus, there is no need for the Spirit to posses it.

[@aleksajankovic3461]

​@@the4gospelscommentary Can you give me quotes from the Cappadocian Church fathers who taught Son is cause of the Holy Spirit?

[@the4gospelscommentary]

@@aleksajankovic3461 Yes. First, in his work On not three Gods St Gregory of Nyssa teaches about the Trinity: "... we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, BY WHICH ALONE we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another." So, the only way by which the three divine Persons are distinguished one from another is on the basis of causality, or in other words hypostatic origin. In Against Eunomius, book 3 chapter 1, St Basil first says: "The Son is second to the Father in rank BECAUSE HE IS FROM HIM. He is second to the Father in dignity BECAUSE THE FATHER IS THE PRINCIPLE AND CAUSE by virtue of which he is the Son's Father." After explaining in which way one divine Person is said to be above another, he continues: "Likewise, it is clear that, even if the Holy Spirit is below the Son in both rank and dignity, SOMETHING WITH WHICH WE TOO ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT, it is still not likely that he is of a foreign nature." In his work Against Eunomius, book 1 chapter 42, St Gregory of Nyssa says: "Our account of the Holy Ghost will be the same also; the difference is only in the place assigned in order. For as the Son is bound to the Father, and while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit's subsistence ONLY IN THE THEORETICAL LIGHT OF A CAUSE. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, WHEN WE HAVE REMOVED THE THOUGHT OF A CAUSE, the Holy Trinity IN NO SINGLE WAY exhibits discord with itself." In On the Holy Spirit, Against the Macedonians, Nyssa describes the communication of the divine nature: "It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches, and we will suppose that the third flame [the Holy Spirit] is caused by that of the first [the Father] BEING TRANSMITTED TO THE MIDDLE [the Son], and then kindling the end torch." And again from On not three Gods: "... one is the Cause [the Father], and another is of the Cause [the Son and the Holy Spirit]. And again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is DIRECTLY FROM THE FIRST CAUSE [the Son], and another [the Holy Spirit] BY THAT WHICH IS DIRECTLY from the first Cause."

[@michaelemmanuelhutagalung-948]

BLESSED BE THE KINGDOM OF THE FATHER AND THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT...AMEN.

[@bradbrown2168]

Forgive me if this illustration is offensive. I’m just trying to understand your thought here. Like a single celled organism can replicate asexually, Does the Logos(Son) and Holy Spirit come from the Father? Same “material”proceeding from the Father.

[@Anna-mc3ll]

Thank you for this comment! However, I must admit that I’m still struggling with two main questions: 1) Where exactly in the Jewish Torah or the TaNaKh is the trinity explicitly mentioned? According to the (orthodox) rabbis, there is not a single passage in their holy writings where it can be found. 2) What precisely is the meaning of the notion “a person (of the trinity)”? How is this concept defined in orthodox christianity? Please note that this is NOT SOME KIND OF CRITICISM, BUT RATHER A SINCERE QUESTION. I would honestly appreciate your answer and your explanation! Kind regards, Anna

[@nyssa__]

a notion according to catholic understanding is a way by which we know the hypostasis

[@stylist62]

Excellent explanation, I am really happy to have found your Chanel 🙏🌺🥰

[@contemplativepursuits]

Thanks for the clarification ❤

[@Shevock]

The actual historical fact is the Church Fathers held to something like the filioque. Both views are orthodox. In fact in Florence all but one orthodox bishop voted that the filioque was also orthodox. They returned to Constantinople to teach that. Just to clarify the filioque clarified in Greek as "through the son" was cause for the end of the schism in 1439.

[@Shevock]

“I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” Tertullian. “Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” Basil the Great

[@OnTheThirdDay]

As a protestant, I don't really have a problem with seeking what God says. I found the "ho theos" and "theos" discussion from the Greek to be very interesting to explain some patterns in Scripture.

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

Greek orthodox use in church 2000 years in all there says prays hymns readings koine greek of the New testament the ο Θεός and Θεός has actually no difference .

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

Actually the main word in greek for God is o ων. See a greek orthodox church icon of Jesus Christ it never says on it Θεός Theos God but allways o ων That is taken from the New testament original language and from the Septuagint exodus 3:14 Then is the word Θεος.read saint John the Damascian exact expodition of the orthodox faith ch 9

[@OnTheThirdDay]

@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Thank you for the interesting comment. Why does it say "theos" when it says Jesus was with God "ho theos" and was god "theos"? Does John explain that?

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

@@OnTheThirdDay i am greek you can use the article o that you show as ho the h is actually the small mark dasea on the o . Now on the issue of the word ΘεόςTheos God it can mean and be shown with the article or without the article and mean actually the God, no issue in the greek language.

[@OnTheThirdDay]

@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Yes, I am learning koine Greek with the modern pronunciation, however I believe that the 'h' is still written but not spoken. I am not sure what the second thing you are saying. I was asking about the word theos and the other word you use. Is the other word used in the New Testament? If so, do you have an example verse?

[@albionblue123]

This is radically different to Protestantism. It’s interesting, I’d love to know more about what your views are on Jesus being the word pre flesh and how that fits in with this view of the trinity.

[@hudsontd7778]

I use to Think that Monarchy of the Father Trinity view was Incoherent Nonsense but after watching this I now KNOW it's Incoherent Nonsense! Thanks.

[@johnsey2625]

What do you mean?

[@hudsontd7778]

Monarchy of the Father is a form of Arianism, this is two demi-gods Subornate to the ONE True Almighty God the Father? That's NOT Tri-Unity Trinity

[@johnsey2625]

@@hudsontd7778 expound on your case completely please. I suspect you have made strawman and an incomplete comparison. If you listen carefully with that is said and not try to redefine terms, misconstruing what was said then you cannot arrive to the conclusion of Arianism and then would avoid contextomy. From your post it sounds like you derive Arianism from the fact the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and so the son is subordinate to the Father. However, it sounds like you fail to understand that the begotteness is not temporal ie it occurs outside of what we humans know as space and time. Of course this assertion assumes an argument from silence as no human can fully understand an infinite, eternal being that is outside of time and space.

[@hudsontd7778]

@@johnsey2625 what verses say the Son was Eternally Begotten of the Father outside of Time?

[@samueljennings4809]

@hudsontd7778 I would say that while it may SEEM like Arianism, the fact that Monarchian trinitarianism does not teach that the Son was created, which is THE hallmark of Arianism. Also, Arian subordination is rooted in the Son’s creation, thus being different ontologically and not having the same essence as the Father. The Father as eternal source of the Godhead IS the biblical and early patristic view. The error of the Arians is coming to the conclusion that this means that the Son was created and not of the same substance as the Father, when that is not the case.

[@jimmyquinto3235]

Thank you so much for this video!

[@carlosm6759]

Súper banger of a video

[@TwinCitiesOxygen]

Glad I found your channel. What if someone argues we are just making up our own rules and logic with the unified plurality or whatever the term you used was? Thanks ☦️

[@jonaszswietomierz8017]

I have an honest question that comes from a spirit of being charitable to your position, I'm really struggling to understand what the Orthodox trinitarian model is. You state that the Father is the authority among the three persons, but I can't help but see that as a some sort of subordinationism. Sure, they may be of the same eternal uncreated divine essence or homoousioi (Arianism rejects that the Son shares an essence with the Father), but you're suggesting that the Son is subordinate to the Father despite being of one essence. You said that the Catholic model is somehow Macedonist by saying that the Spirit is subordinate to the other persons, but I don't get how that is different from what the Orthodox believe. Could you please clarify? I would appreciate it a lot. As I minor note, from what I understand, the Son is not essence unto himself, since he is begotten from the Father, but that does not necessarily contradict filioque because while the Holy spirit proceeds from one source and not two, since the Son receives his from the Father, the essence of the Father and the Son is common, therefore follows that it is not unreasonable to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son (the essence is common and from one source, not two sources). My understanding on the topic is limited, I may have made a mistake somewhere, I'm only trying my best to understand what the Church fathers meant in the councils.

[@nyssa__]

your point is exactly right but they probably wont answer this :(( but theyll happily answer other questions :((

[@frankhlebogiannis5186]

Hello! I really enjoy the videos you put out. Do you think at some point, you would consider making a video regarding Christians observing OT Holy Days? God Bless, my friend. May the lord bless you abundantly! ☦️☦️

[@Maximusinthehouse]

If you ever want to dialogue or do a collab let me know thanks

[@Terri7665]

Great explanation

[@marcokite]

thank you brother

[@장인호-s3m]

Does the Monarchial Trinity imply the Eternal Functional Subordination of Jesus Christ to God the Father? Thanks in advance.

[@nyssa__]

technically it would according to them

[@johnnyd2383]

Are you saying that Son, before incarnation, was not Functionally Subordinate to the Father.?

[@nyssa__]

@@johnnyd2383 if you’re referencing begetting and being begotten, no, the son is not

[@samueljennings4809]

@user-wc1pf1ne8v not necessarily. That would involve multiple divine wills, which is more akin with social trinitarianism. Multiple divine wills = multiple gods, as the Cappadocean fathers said, so eternally the Godhead had only one eternal Will. The Word in becoming flesh took upon Himself a human will and this is what Jesus submitted to the Father’s in Gethsemane. Luke 2, the Gethsemane story, and Hebrews 4-5 only make sense if Jesus has some human will and mind in the Incarnation.

[@LW-vw5cu]

What is your opinion on Daniel 9, where the prophet was given a time-prophecy on when Messiah would appear?

[@eduardowestphaldacunha8761]

Nice video! I'm a protestant and I have an honest question (sorry for my ignorance). Saying that God the Father has more authority than the Son seems (at least to me) to make the Father "more God" than the Son and the Holy Spirit doesn't it? I'm trying to understand more about the eastern churches. Please, be patient with me 😅

[@nyssa__]

@swordthroughsoul Without the Son there is no Father, without the Spirit there is no Father or Son and vice versa

[@Averyaveragedeskin]

@swordthroughsoul in the monarchial trinity equation, does the Son have no relation to the Spirit?

[@Celestium.1s]

So they’re all dependent?

[@nyssa__]

@@Celestium.1s no

[@livesimplified7970]

Awesome vid ty ty

[@andys3035]

Interestingly, John 14:12 uses the same word for greater where it talks about the Apostles doing greater works than Jesus. Nobody would interpret that to mean those works are better than Jesus' works. The same word 'megas' is used in verse 28 and unitarians will now use the same word in the same chapter to mean better or higher in quality. John 5:36 uses the same word as well.

[@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve]

Great video Sr. Jeem... Perfecto.. Who seperated from the OG Church. Orthodox from Chatholic or Catholic fr Orthodox.... Thank you in advanced my kind Sr.... 👍🏼🙏🏼🕊️😇

[@Jeem196]

I’ll cover this topic soon too as fairly as possible!

[@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve]

@@Jeem196 Thank you so much. Friday i will give another donation. 👍🏼 And also look forward hoping you make a video about GEN. 6 1-4 on the Fallen Angels. Im catholic but ive always liked and been into MICHAEL S HEISER interpretation on that subject. Thanks once again... 😇👍🏼

[@Jeem196]

@@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve Thank you as well my friend. I've been watching Shamoun's material on the fallen angels too actually

[@utubewillis24]

Great video. Thanks. Totally agree. See also Michael Heiser's work on the 2 powers in heaven. Jews did have the theology of 2 powers (before clear theology of holy spirit in NT for trinity) in heaven due to angel of the lord theology before incarnation of Christ

[@greg3412]

The definition of God in philosophy is usually the greatest possible being you can think of. Using this definition would only God the Father be the only God? I ask this because this definition would include both essence and authority in terms of God’s greatness. Since Father and Son are equal in essence but unequal in authority then the philosophical God as defined above would only be the Father under this definition. But if you define God as any person with the divine essence then that would include the trinity.

[@nyssa__]

the East have very weird ideas of what things mean

[@the4gospelscommentary]

The Father being the primary source of the Trinity (monarchia of the Father) and the filioque are not mutually exclusive. The Catholic doctrine of the filioque presupposes that the Son receives the spiration of the Spirit from the Father. As St Augustine said: "The Son was begotten in such a way that the Spirit proceeds also from him."

[@johnnyd2383]

St. Augustine was wrong on many points. In Orthodoxy, Saints are not infallible.

[@the4gospelscommentary]

@@johnnyd2383 Nobody said that he is infallible. That being said, no, there is very few things (if anything) that St Augustine was wrong about. Actually, none of his teachings were ever condemned by the Church.

[@johnnyd2383]

@@the4gospelscommentary Well.. you can't speak the truth about one of the "doctors" of your religious group. But, we, Orthodox, can. He was wrong about the Original Sin, where he wrongly understood the consequences and due to problem he created, he went on to invent "prevenient grace" to patch things up, etc. By making those errors he enabled Inquisition and forcible conversions, etc. Shall I go on.? Nuh... it won't matter to you. We recognize him as a Sant, but we do not use his theology much. We have scrutinized the useful from heresies and use only a good stuff.

[@the4gospelscommentary]

@@johnnyd2383 He was not wrong about original sin. And he "invented" prevenient grace? What on earth are you talking about? Can you even define what prevenient grace is? Not to mention how Augustine supposedly "enabled" the inquisition and forced conversions, that babbling doesn't even merit a response.

[@johnnyd2383]

@@the4gospelscommentary Oh.. I am sorry to see your ignorance of your own faith. Let me lecture you on all points I earlier mentioned. I will use my own vocabulary and words to make it more efficient, that is, to type less. His false premise that men got deprived of the Grace of God at the Fall, created problem as immediate question arose - how men can then recognize Grace as he became alien to it... and eventually accept it thus coming back to God. And in the desperation over that problem, Augustine invented Prevenient Grace that is imputed to the candidate so that he may accept real Grace as it is poured upon him. Now moving to Inquisition... His false premise that men got deprived of Grace completely made men beast-like/animal-like creature... that has no God-like properties anymore and thus it is perfectly fine to torture IT in order to impose Grace upon him... thus saving him from the damnation. In other words, cruelty was justified as it was all for the sake of salvation of the fallen creature. Result was Inquisition, tortures, burning at the stake, etc. you name it. On the contrary, Orthodox faith surrounding Fall is completely different, and hence no horrible outcomes as in the case of the Latins. In Orthodox faith, men have never lost or being deprived of the God's Grace, men's nature got stained, ill and inclined towards sin. We see fallen humanity as ill and in need of cure, our churches are hospitals for the souls, etc. You can google on the phrase "prevenient grace augustine" and read it yourself.. you do not have to take my word...

[@atajoseph]

In what way the Father is the origin of the Son?

[@nyssa__]

begetter

[@Dadbelly]

So we’re all heretics to someone

[@ChrisBurton-mf3gk]

Why is the Holy Spirit called the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of Jesus?

[@dante-lj4ow]

In the sense of Energetic Procession, the Spirit proceeds from the Son

[@prayunceasingly2029]

I thought the father was greater because Jesus lowered himself and became as a servant? That as a human servant Jesus had to be below the father because of the human nature he took on?

[@LoveLove-jk9kz]

There is different interpretations, but even within the life of the Trinity, the Father is greater in terms of the Monarchy of the Father (thats why we say the Son and the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father and not vice vera). But not greater in essence, the Trinity is one in essence.

[@prayunceasingly2029]

@LoveLove-jk9kz The procession of the Son and Holy Spirit were eternally in existence without beginning right?

[@dante-lj4ow]

@@prayunceasingly2029 yes

[@readlesspraymore4686]

1:54 .... well this is embarrassing. Jer 9: 24 But let him who glories glory in this, 👉That he understands and knows Me, That I am YHWH, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says YHWH.

[@readlesspraymore4686]

2:47 Why are you using singular PERSONAL pronouns for the essence of God. You should say ..... "If God wants to manifest in 3 distinct persons... then THEY can." God uses SINGULAR PERSONAL pronouns for HIMSELF because HE is 1 SINGULAR Person. Get it? The Truth is meant for babes.... repent of this irrational non biblical theory of humans.

[@JohnQPublic11]

lol! That's pretty funny; so according to you nobody was a Christian prior to the 5th century since it took that long to finalize the definition of what the Trinity is and you couldn't be a Christian *UNLESS* you believed in the final definition!!!!!!

[@webmasterultra3487]

There’s not a Monarchy of the Father. Why? Because that would make the Father the essence of the Trinity. Now, don’t get this mistaken, the Father is the sole source, however the Spirit and the Son are coeternal with the Father, this means that the Father always existed with the Spirit and the Son. The Father put all things under the foot of the Son. The Son is also the Alpha and Omega. Here’s another thing, the Father is also humble, and shares this attribute with the Son. Christ is King!

[@jeffinjapan9005]

The Father IS the source of the Trinity.The Son receives via begotteness, and the Holy Spirit via procession, their divine essence from the Father.

[@LoveLove-jk9kz]

you said the Father is the sole source, this is the Monarchy of the Father. We believe the Father, Son, and Spirit have one essence

[@user-qn6qo4ei5o]

Man is also the head in origin like God is the head in origin.

[@tylerthebeliever9080]

1:50 "God doesn't have to make sense." A hindu can say the same thing regarding their doctrine, doesn't make it any more true

[@johnnyd2383]

... or less true.

[@tylerthebeliever9080]

@@johnnyd2383 does the trinity makes sense? Is it logical?

[@johnnyd2383]

@@tylerthebeliever9080 The only God that there is, doesn't have to make sense or be logical. That is how He has revealed Himself to the mankind. He is above and beyond our intellect, reasoning and/or logic.

[@tylerthebeliever9080]

@@johnnyd2383 If y'all claimed God is triune regardless of the logic, then Hindus would claim multiple Gods or millions in one and it would be as significant. If we can't use at least a bit of logic to address the truth,,then anything can be true

[@johnnyd2383]

@@tylerthebeliever9080 Hindus should go back to their own history where they will find out their original faith was monotheistic just as ours is. And then ask themselves as to why and how they went polytheistic. We believe in the antiquity all mankind held belief on only God in existence and then gradually fell away into false beliefs. Going back to your claim that number of persons of God should be logical or else, any number can be claimed... That angle of approaching the problem is difficult. We can come to the result by using a different approaches, like investigating the actions, behavior and properties of the Holy Trinity vs. actions, behavior and properties of the Hindu gods. Then we assess findings and draw conclusions. For example.. can we find any sinful behavior in the Holy Trinity.? Can we find any sinful behavior in the Hindu gods.? That could tell us who are real God vs. false ones. The other angle of approach could be to observe nature and find signs of the Holy Three in the matter, faculties and properties that surround us. For example, family is comprised of father, mother and children (3), time is comprised of past, present, future (3), any color is combination of red, green and blue (3), atoms are built by protons, neutrons and electrons (3), universe is built on three numbers - 3, 6, and 9 with 3 being basis for other two numbers, etc.

[@jocelynyared2150]

Jesus taught us to pray TO the Father in the "Our Father.' Nevertheless, Christ did not mean not to pray to Him.

[@au8363]

So you don’t Pray To Jesus who Is God?

[@dante-lj4ow]

he did

[@liveforjesus5005]

Aren't origin and eternal oxymorons? How can something have an eternal origin please I am only trying to understand. Please recommend books to me that can help me understand this as well.

[@Jeem196]

Not in this case, as Christ is eternally one with the Father and the Spirit, He did not originate with the Father and then move on to something different, like a child originating in New York City but moving to Kyoto 20 years later. Christ is always united with the Father and the Father is always the supreme monarch of the Triune Godhead. I will look up some books for this topic in particular

[@marcokite]

i'd say that we mortal humans have to explain this Mystery as best we can. basically our understanding and our use of words is totally inadequate. we say 'origin' in terms of the Eternal Son and Holy Spirit because we have no other words, the Father is the cause of the Son but there was never a time when the Son 'was not'.

[@zackm5693]

Unfortunately not a great treatment in the Filioque.

[@Jeem196]

This is a very old video (at least by my standards). I've greatly improved since then.

[@zackm5693]

Do you have a newer video on this topic?

[@pede8889]

Wow so many mistakes here Firstly the nicene creed is not appearing in scripture. Secondly you cannot say whoever doesnt believe in the Trinity is not christian. I suppose your definition of christian is catholic prodestant or orthodox. None of those are scriptural terms so chrisrian must mean something else. There are many believers who do not believe God is triune and they are scripturally called christians.

[@evangelgreek6864]

"the Orthodox Trinity" ! Is there an .... "Unorthodox Trinity" and dont run to Revelation for explanations. The "3 dwell in heaven", why not 5 or 7 ? We see "7 spirits of God" and "7 eyes of God" So why the "Trinity" is literal and and the "7 spirits"...figurative ? Never mind. Again, the Gospel mainline teaches salvation and behaviors towards each other on the side and not "theology".

[@nyssa__]

the reason for 3 and only 3 no less no more is because there are only 2 immanent operations of God, Intellect and Will and the result of these processions are the Son and Spirit

[@OnTheThirdDay]

I am just not sure why monarchial trinity is not tritheism. How is it not one God (the Father) who "begot" (i.e. created) another god, the Son, and from whom proceeds (due to some other form of creation) the Spirit, a third god. What actually is the reason that the Son and Spirit are not eternally existant creations? What exactly is a creation? I understand that philsophically, one says that God is a necessary being and as part of him being a Father the Son is also a necessary and so exists in every possible world. However, I don't know that I buy the modal logic definition of God. Certainy Scripture and the early Fathers did not think in these terms. I also think I understand eternal causation (a bowling ball eternally causing a pillow that it sits on eternally to be deformed), but I don't understand eternal causation where the existence of one is due to te existance of the other. Causation is like for us is always connected to time, a "there was a rime where X did not exist, then it was caused and so X began to exist." I have heard Beau Branson say that "the strong monarchial trinity" is that "the one God is the Father" which is defended by some Orthodox. Why is this not just unitarianism? I just am not sure. I am not sure I understand how the Father and Son can be not "distict centers of consiousness" (i.e. a definition of person) because Branson says this would mean that tey do not share al the same energies. The benefit of saying that "the trinity is the one God" and "God is a being that has 3 persons" is that it is philosophically understandable from my perspective after listening to many people explain it. It is weird, but it can be imagined. This is what I believe I have heard Jai Apologetics defend, so I guess that he is not Orthodox. However, when people (e.g. Anthony Rogers) talk of "worshiping the Trinity" it does not feel that it fits Scripture very well. The Monarchial view seems to match Scripture in several ways, some of which you mention in the video. I would be really interested in a debate on this between Christians but I coudn't find one. I am not sure I understand yet the Monarcial view yet. I watched about half of the many, long videos that Orthodox Shahada has in his playlist on the trinity but I am still not sure I understand.

[@Jeem196]

They are eternally existent, the idea that the Son or Spirit come later is Arianism particularly for the Son being a created entity. The Son & Spirit in Orthodox Monarchial Trinity are the same as the Filioque in that they are always eternal. The difference is that rather than there being 2 sources (Father & Son) that can cause divine procession (Holy Spirit) there is only 1 source. Through the 1 source of the Father, all things are originated including the eternal Son & Spirit. The eternality of Son & Spirit is the same compared to the Latin Trinity, the difference is the source and authority. Hope that helps

[@marcokite]

'begot' DOES NOT MEAN 'created'

[@reclaimingchristianity]

@D imagine an Enternity where there is no time.. the Son is begotten and the Spirit is proceeds before time began. The Son is begotten before all ages from the Substance of the Father . The Spirit is proceeding before all ages from the Substance of the Father

[@LoveLove-jk9kz]

in logical order, but not in order of time. in what sense, I am not fully sure. I tend to think of it as how the simple essence relates to itself, the essence is both lover and loved, as Augustine said. For God to be love as Scripture says, there must be an object of love.

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

The word translated as beget is γέννησις see the difference with Γένεσις genesis there is pne v because it shows creation in the first word are two v showing in reality same essence because you cant have a Γέννεσις if it is not from your own essence. Simple greek but some are lost in translations getting in satanic heresies and confusion

[@camerong2323]

You just admitted that the trinity makes no sense WITHOUT believing in it when you say “the answer is quite easy if you believe in the monarchical trinity, if not it’s hard to answer” …so I have to be Christian IN ORDER FOR THE TRINITY TO MAKE SENSE? No thank you. Islam is the only true religion.

[@monmonmon333]

if you don't need to know how the trinity works why do u have to believe it

[@orthobro4806]

You have to believe it because it's true. What kind of question is that?

[@monmonmon333]

@@orthobro4806 how can i know its true and believe it if i dont even know what it is

[@orthobro4806]

@@monmonmon333 By humbling yourself and understand it in a simple way?

[@thenabilamrani]

when you say something is christian and something is not, what do you base this categorization on? because it seems to me you just believe in the authority of the people who told you what Christianity should look like, I like this video but I think you could allow yourself to be more open minded if you wanted to because christianity is the best way of life that exists in this world and I think we should have more christians in this world not less

[@the4gospelscommentary]

This video is nothing but a denial of the Divinity of the Son of God.

[@daniyeldesscent4688]

For a 20 minutes you are actually defending Arianism.. and you didn't even noticed that. Who is the angel of Yhwh in the Old T ??

[@bobbyhummus4644]

Jesus is the angel of the LORD

[@Jeem196]

The Pre-Incarnate Christ. Nothing I said was Arian at all. I spoke only of authority of the Father above Christ, not power. Jesus tells us this Himself in the gospels

[@daniyeldesscent4688]

@@bobbyhummus4644 Correct.

[@daniyeldesscent4688]

@@Jeem196 Does this pre-incarnate Christ have a name? The Angel of Yhwh that never reveals his name(?)

[@Jeem196]

@@daniyeldesscent4688 What do you mean? The Angel calls Himself YHWH in Exodus 3 when Moses asks who it is that is sending him to the Israelites

[@alwaysjustjohn]

Why lie and say you're not a Christian if you're not a trinitarian.

[@andyayala5639]

This is so backwards man. Mormons are not Christians because they go beyond the Christian scriptures to get their beliefs. And you’re saying that if someone doesn’t want to go beyond the Christian scriptures to get to the word “Trinity” and it’s non biblical definition, that they aren’t Christian??? How do you not see this glaring contradiction…

[@palermotrapani9067]

Mormons are not Trinitarian. They do not believe in creation ex nihilo, thus God the Father came into being from existing matter, which then means who was the God who is just existence. They also based on what I have seen and read believe that God the Father had a spiritual marital union with a spirit mother and Christ was the son of this spiritual union between God and some spirit wife. They are not Trinitarians.

[@claudiozanella256]

The "Father" is God, the "Son" is God and the "Holy Spirit" is God. However, they are THREE different MANIFESTATIONS of the same ONE God, not THREE PERSONS! As reiterated over and over again by Jesus, the concerned PERSONS are just TWO: the FATHER and the SON, "I am in the Father and the Father in me". Jesus NEVER states to be with other TWO Persons! No "Lord who gives life" exists. The "Comforter" is not a third divine person either, he has nothing to do with Jesus' life: "I am not ALONE because the Father is with me". I.e. no Comforter is there. For example, if you live in New York and you are able to appear as a spirit and talk to people in L.A. (actually you are not there) there exist TWO manifestations of you. However, the concerned person is only ONE: you.

[@DrownedinDesigner]

Heretic

[@DrownedinDesigner]

You’re spreading modalism

[@DrownedinDesigner]

The Father, Son and Holy spirit are distinct persons.

[@claudiozanella256]

@@DrownedinDesigner who is the Holy Spirit?

[@daniyeldesscent4688]

Good.. now how we should understand Isaiah 9/6, and Jesus foretold as "... FATHER-everlasting ..." (?)