The Trinity is Apostolic (NOT an Accretion!)

[@kgebhardt1187]

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

[@kyoto8911]

world without end🙏🏽

[@jamiecharles8334]

As it was and ever shall be

[@unexpectedTrajectory]

Amen

[@lightmind5719]

Amen

[@jtbasener8740]

"Well, why didn't you just say that from the start, Patrick!?" Brilliant cultural references aside, thank you, Dr. Ortlund! Your voice is an excellent addition to this discussions!

[@CaspianKhazar]

Pastor Gavin is spot on in his assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in apostolic teaching. Scholars like Alan Segal, Daniel Boyarin, Peter Schäfer, and Israel Knohl have shown that Second Temple Judaism already featured complex, multi-personal conceptions of God. The "Two Powers in Heaven" theology, which includes figures like the Angel of the Lord and the "Son of Man" in Daniel and 1 Enoch, and even Melchizedek in some Dead Sea Scrolls, reveals a proto-Trinitarian framework. These elements highlight that early Jewish thought had room for a divine plurality, making the Trinity a natural, not novel, development within early Christianity.

[@krzysztofglinka]

I think it is a mistake to assume that every view of Second World Judaism is orthodox. One idea, for example, was the deification of Moses. Which was not accepted by Christianity. The religiosity of the time was a very complex mosaic. There was constant intellectual and religious pressure on Judaism. It is very easy for me to imagine that the young Christian church, faced with highly educated people "converting" to Christianity, was unable to restrain such people fantasies in creating a new eclectic religion.

[@IAmisMaster]

Don’t forget that to Philo, just like Justin Martyr (Dial. w. Trypho ch. 56) and Origen (Contra Celsus Book V, ch. 14-15), Jesus is not the One God, but a “deuteros/heteros theos” (second/another God). So lest you think that this supports Dr. Ortlund’s anachronistic egalitarian Trinity invented by Augustine, it doesn’t. It proves Logos theology of the early church was subordinationist monarchical trinitarianism. There is a preexistent divine Logos, who is a distinct being subject to the One God who is mediator between God and man.

[@CaspianKhazar]

@@krzysztofglinka I don't disagree but the point many non - Trinitarians make is that the doctrine of the Trinity is a post - Nicaea innovation. However, if a divine messiah was already possible and conceivable prior to the birth of Jesus, then it shows that the divinity of the Son and the Spirit was not made up later on

[@economician]

@CaspianKhazar Please continue digging into the history of the israelites and cannanites and read Franscesca Stravipoglu’s book; God- an anatomy and you will actual find out that the Yahweh only- party were not the original israelites but Rather it was the El + Baal -party- the binitarians of the storm God. There you have your compounded unity, your Yahweh in Heaven, the Storm GOD Baal. Keep digging please.

[@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv]

​@IAmisMaster That doesn't sound right. Jesus the Christ is indeed the one God. He is God, and yet not the father or spirit. He is not a God or different God

[@ikemeitz5287]

I've been SO excited for this video. I think that a key to unity is re-emphasis on these life-force doctrines of Christianity. Gavin, I pray for you often, and I thank God for what you are doing.

[@etheretherether]

Would love to see you and Sam Tideman from Transfigured chat. Honestly, I know it's a pipe dream but it would be really great to see a round table between you, Jordan Cooper (or Bryan Wolfmueller), Sam Tideman, and Stephen De Young. I think there would be a ton of fruitful discussion on how we should read the Bible and how historicity matters/how we should "do" history.

[@drstevennemes]

That is never going to happen because people like Jordan Cooper intentionally avoid public dialogues with “heretics” and other such.

[@transfigured3673]

I'm available anytime. Somehow three trinitarians vs one unitarian seems symbolically appropriate.

[@etheretherether]

@@transfigured3673 Haha I saw it as less of a "versus" and more of a "historically critical" vs "history via tradition" spectrum. Dr. Ortlund's arguments regarding accretions always struck me as very similar to yours. Especially when it comes to infant baptism. You're the most consistent historically minimalist protestant I can think of. You also embody the "Protestantism is more catholic because it's more inclusive" ethos better than Dr. Ortlund imo. None of which is criticism of Dr. Ortlund, but it puts you guys at a nice juxtaposition with each other. What's even better, you have the same goal of "recovering the phronema of the pre-nicene fathers" as Dr. Ortlund, but you both see different things when you read the Pre-Nicene fathers and the New Testament. Dr. Jordan Cooper falls a little further down the end of the spectrum towards reading the New Testament through tradition, and Fr. Stephen De Young falls at the full end of the tradition spectrum. TL;DR, you guys all approach history different ways, and I think your philosophy of how historiography is actually done is at the root of your conclusions. I'm a full blown Trinitarian, but I gotta say, I love your videos man. They really give us theology nerds something to chew on.

[@SeanusAurelius]

Why invite a bona fide heretic to a Christian talk? Don't even give them a glass of water. If it's a debate, let it be framed as such, and then let normal courtesies apply. But let's not blur that line.

[@samuellundin5328]

@@etheretherether @transfigured3673 A modalistic Monarchian wants to join the conversation too. If a faithful Jew in 300BC read the 39 canonical books of OT, other books like Jasher, Jubilee, Enoch, the Testament of Patriachs. What view will he come to have of God and Christ ( the anointed one). I conclude that there will only be 3 like views. 1- He may conclude that the Messiah was human only and subordinate to his God his Father ( Unitarian view), 2 - He may conclude that the messiah was God divine yet subordinate to his Father. This leads to binitarian view with a subordinate " second God" just like Justin Martyr. 3- He may conclude that the Messiah is God, expressed in another form ( Human) this is the modalistic Monarchian view. Yet with these views no one will consider a Trinitarian view. Does any one here believe that all the many faithful Jews that our Lord Jesus preached to were Trinitarian. I think none.

[@debras3806]

Gavin more power to you for continuing to put out “real”/regular content in the midst of the defaming you’ve endured from Megan Basham. I pray God uses her slander to bring more not less listeners to you!

[@randomname2366]

Gavin, I think what makes your videos so effective is just how simply and direct you lay out the information. You have a wonderful instinct for knowing just the right amount of depth and clarity to provide to both educate and keep light and the thread moving forward. Additionally, many other commenters find themselves casually swinging from thought to thought and slowing their own presentations down with extraneous comments and you are always on topic, always on beat. You truly have a great gift at this. Thank you for blessing me studies with your work. Also, video suggestion: A survey of the nature of sin in scripture. What is it exactly? Is temptation to sin sinning? Where can we draw clear lines of falling into sin? Etc.

[@jonathanrocha2275]

Brother Gavin, I’m just about to watch this! I can’t wait! I was one of the viewers who voted for this topic several weeks ago in your poll. I’m confident that having someone with your pedigree and thoughtfulness to argue for the Trinity, will make a big difference for people. Thank you!

[@TruthUnites]

awesome, hope you enjoy!

[@jonathanrocha2275]

@@TruthUnites just finished the video. It was really great! Any chance we’ll get a Part 2, talking about the Nicene and post-Nicene formulations of the Trinity? I know that’s also a lot of material to cover but I think it would be helpful for people who are new to the Trinity.

[@jumpingjoy20]

I appreciate your graciousness, but I am never bored by the information inn your videos! The information is interesting, well organized, and always a treat to listen to.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

God bless you immensely for your charitable engagement. May God continue to replenish you✝️❤️🙏

[@JaredPowell-e2x]

I want to thank you Gavin because in the past I have struggled with accepting biblical trinitarianism and your channel has been very helpful to me.

[@rehbeinator]

Thank you for this video! You've done an excellent job collecting lots of early church references into one succinct package. The topic is particularly timely for me. I've recently been struggling to explain the doctrine of the trinity to some Jehovah's Witness friends. They insist that the trinity was unknown to the early church and was only invented as a political tool at the council of Nicaea, but now I'm prepared to counter their claims by citing actual writings of the early church fathers before Nicaea. Great stuff!

[@joeoleary9010]

The JW's aren't wrong on that. Let's keep in mind that Gavin allows it took *300* *years* for the church fathers to get the Trinity "right." Keep in mind also the Arianism was quite popular until orthodox Emporers suppressed it.

[@Cato1006]

Why can't you find support from the actual lips of Jesus or the Apostles themselves??? After all, we have 28 chapters in Acts which covers the first 30 years of the church's existence and yet we find no clear and explicit teaching on 1.The deity of Jesus or 2. That God is a tri-personal being.

[@rehbeinator]

​@@Cato1006 The first half of this video is an exploration of some of the verses that provide exactly the support you want, but I'll summarize here for anyone who has not watched the whole video. In John 8, Jesus claims God's title of "I AM" for himself, because he was and is the same God who spoke those same words to Moses. In John 10, Jesus says that his hand does the same thing that the father's hand does, and that he and the father are one (because both are the one God). In John 14, Jesus says that whoever has seen him has seen the father (because Jesus is God made visible). In John 20, the apostle Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God!" directly to his face, and Jesus commends him for this statement of belief. The support is there in the text!

[@joeoleary9010]

@@rehbeinator But after that verse from Thomas, John 20:31 says "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." In Jesus's time, Messiah and Christ did not mean ontologically co-equal with God the Father. This is why you don't have anyone *but* Thomas to look to as evidence that Jesus' followers believed he was God. It seems more likely that Thomas was referencing the God that sent Jesus, rather than calling Jesus God. And if that's not so, it means that everyone besides Thomas in the NT was wrong about Jesus' actual identity as God.

[@Cato1006]

@@rehbeinator The verses he claims are slamdunks are easily refuted. It's obvious he has failed to interact with his opposition. If the greater truth in the gospel of John is that Jesus is God, he surely fails to make it plain. Instead the greater truth in John's gospel is that Jesus is the son of God. John even refutes Gavin's argument soundly in John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time: that only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. The distinction is clear and irrefutable. Also John 3:16 God sends the son. God does not send himself.

[@PastorCorbin]

Awesome video Gavin! Meant to watch it last night when it dropped on Patreon, but had some ministry stuff pop up. Glad to have a chance to listen this morning! This makes me want you to make a video on eternal functional subordination.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

You’re doing God’s work Gavin. Keep up the good work defending Christianity ✝️

[@frogpaste]

Dr. Ortlund, this may be a bit off-topic, but I really enjoy how you get right into your videos without any opening theme song or 'Coming Up' previews. 😁 I've also learned a lot from your videos and look forward to continuing to learn from you!

[@johnny.musician]

What a wonderful episode …I wish it was available when I was a young Christian as the concept of the Trinity troubled me at that time. Kudos too for the pictorials ( I won’t say ‘icons’, lol) that accompanied the quotations…truly beautiful, and added to the whole.

[@ProfYaffle]

I recommend Anthony Rogers channel too. Trinity is his specialist subject. He even had a debate with a unitarian who consequently became Trinitarian

[@dodleymortune4312]

Do you have a link of this debate ?

[@benmeitzen4184]

This is an essential truth to understand clearly with all of the contemporary heretical branches that have appeared (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, etc.)

[@graysonguinn1943]

Seventh Day Adventists believe in the trinity don’t they?

[@benmeitzen4184]

@@graysonguinn1943 You're right! I was thinking of Jehovah's Witness

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@graysonguinn1943 yes and no, they say they're trinitarians but the baggage their accrued of denouncing the Holy Trinity makes a lot of their stuff incongruent.

[@samueljennings4809]

@benmeitzen4184 is Mormonism even a branch? JW and Unitarians at least acknowledge that God is eternal, Mormonism is basically a rebooted Freemasonry regarding its views on God and how he became God. Enlightenment unto deification is not even a biblical principle.

[@Psalm19-1]

@@graysonguinn1943The SDA claim that they do but it’s obfuscation. Their Christology is a mess, it’s closer to Nestorianism than Orthodoxy. According to Ellen White, Christ was a created being that entered into the Godhead and this is what caused Lucifer to rebel. If you read the writings of White and the other early founders, it’s clear that they are anti-trinitarian.

[@MoniqueBrown-1689]

God bless you Dr. Ortlund! I thank God for your knowledge and the sharing of it. I will continue to pray for you and your ministry. Keep your head up and continue to do all things for the glory of our God!!

[@skwabo]

I'm so excited for this video!! I'm really growing in my faith through studying the Fathers and especially their understanding of who Christ was. This is essential work! Thank you Dr. Ortlund! 🙏

[@ElijahBRogers]

Thank you for your continued scholarship, Gavin!

[@joeinterrante7873]

Thank you Gavin, keep up the great work of defending and explaining our faith. God bless you. If I ever get back to Nashville we will have to visit ( in your spare time.)

[@CaspianKhazar]

I think Jude, verse 5 is relevant to the discussion too even if it is a textual variant. "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe". Jude 5 ESV.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

If you're going to take that route, look at verse 25: "...through messiah Jesus our lord," where Jesus is said to operate in behalf of the only God. They are distinguished.

[@unexpectedTrajectory]

There is no problem with Jesus being distinguished from God in this way if we recognize both 1) that God can often refer distinctly to the Father, and 2) Jesus, being one Person (the eternal Son of the Father) possesses two natures, truly divine and truly human. If the author in this verse has his human nature in mind, or the person of Jesus according to his human nature, then, again, they are distinct. Distinction between Jesus and God is only problematic if you assume a unitarian God (e.g. Jesus saying, "There is only one God." It's not like he was going to say there are two Gods.)

[@unexpectedTrajectory]

Yes. Even if someone doesn't favor that as the original reading, the fact that it could occur as a variant and not immediately be recognized/rejected as a gross error indicates that it fit with the church's theology at the time the variant occurred.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@unexpectedTrajectory Every time orthodox Christians come across a verse that clearly distinguishes Jesus from God, they claim this is referring to the human side of Jesus. But there's a much easier solution: Many early Christians thought of Jesus as God's son, as the messiah, even as their spiritual lord, but not as God Himself. If this were not true, it wouldn't have taken 400 years to settle (for most) the question of Jesus' nature. Moreover, how could the human Jesus be the messiah (and lord), the way Christians consider the messiah to be? But besides these historical and textual points-yes, theologically, the only possible God is a unitarian God (small u, not the denomination called Unitarians). God cannot be three literally distinct persons and still be, at the same time, one Being. Christian Modalism could still be monotheistic, since God obviously acts in different ways and manifests Himself in different forms in the Scriptures of Israel. But different "persons" means different beings. Unfortunately, historic Christianity declared Modalism a heresy,

[@benavans6129]

Been excited for this one ‼

[@jfitz6517]

This presentation takes me back to many conversations I’ve had with Mormons & Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[@calebpearce9334]

One of the most perplexing things I see is when Catholics will actively argue against the Trinity from scripture in order to somehow undermine sola scriptura. In essence they say “there’s no way anyone would ever believe the Trinity if it weren’t for our infallible church! Just look at how unclear scripture is. No one would ever believe the Trinity if the church didn’t tell them it’s true.” Trent horn says Protestants argue like atheists. But in order to argue against sola scriptura, Catholics will argue like Muslims against the Trinity. This video does a great job of showing how trinitarianism is the entire point of the New Testament itself.

[@DavidTextle]

AMAZIMG COMMENT. I’ve thought the same exact thing, Catholics do have to argue like Muslims/atheists sometimes It is also important to note that we are in communion with that early church, we disagree with the accretions that came much later. Catholics think themselves to be the main character of some sort, “ONLY WE ARE LINKED TO THE EARLY CHRICH”, false framework to begin a discussion

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

@@calebpearce9334 Trent is great at defending the Christian faith, but his refusal to recognize Protestantism and Orthodoxy as legitimate strikes me as prideful rather than based on scripture.

[@junkim5853]

It's funny that the Catholics will say the Bible is unclear, yet they cherry-pick Bible verses like Matthew 16:18-19 and say this proves the papacy or Catholicism. I thought the Bible is unclear, and somehow, verses that they cherry-pick to support their faith is somehow clear? Bias much????

[@anselman3156]

Horn is contradicted by Catholic teaching. For example, in his encyclical on Holy Scripture, Pope Leo XIII affirms what the Catholic position has always been, namely that Christ Himself in Scripture asserts His divinity.

[@joeoleary9010]

Given that 2 billion Muslims and Jews are members of semitic religions that *don't* believe in the Trinity, it seems that everyone is reading into scripture whatever they want to see.

[@truthovertea]

Amen! 100%, unfortunately skeptics are just going to say “but the word trinity isn’t in the Bible!!”. But maybe this will change just one skeptics mind. Thanks for your hard work and dedication Gavin!

[@rickdavis2235]

Neither are the words Bible, omniscience, omnipotence or omnipresence, but when we talk about them, people know exactly what we're talking about. Trinity is just a word used to define what we see when we read scripture.

[@andyontheinternet5777]

DA Carson is a treasure to the church.

[@maryellenbowersock5099]

Thank you for a clear explanation of the confusing idea of the Trinity! Amen 🙏🙏

[@pinejared]

What Gavin is doing here is brilliant. He argues that many distinctive Romanist doctrines are accretions. The Trinity is something that is not distinct to Rome, but some might try to argue that it is an accretion. In demonstrating that the Trinity is not an accretion, he is setting the bar for Romanists on the level of evidence they need to provide to prove that their doctrines are not accretions. It's going to be a tough challenge to handle for his romanist interlocutors.

[@joeoleary9010]

But the Trinity *is* an accretion by the same standards that Gavin applies to RC innovations, such as Mariology and purgatory. That's because there is no actual evidence in the NT for the Trinity. Of course many Protestants sects love the Trinity concept because it points to Jesus being God. But there's still no evidence for the Trinity in the NT, and it took the church 300 years of fighting to finally arrive at the correct Trinity concept. Hence, Gavin is exaggerating not a little to make his case.

[@pinejared]

@@joeoleary9010 Have you watched the video?

[@joeoleary9010]

@@pinejared The video says that the Trinity took 300 years to codify, and that several church fathers didn't agree with the current def of Trinity. And somehow one can't say it's an accretion? Gavin just doesn't have a strong argument.

[@etheretherether]

All that would land a lot harder if Dr. Ortlund was part of a more historically grounded Protestant Denomination like Anglicans or Lutherans. The bar he sets here is not only met, but exceeded by their arguments for pedobaptism and many other non-romanist doctrines. And when I say non-romanist doctrines, I mean doctrines that can be found in all surviving branches of the church, including ones that schismed prior to Nicea II.

[@EmilTennis00]

@@joeoleary9010 Are you really trying to compare the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity with the biblical evidence for the doctrine of Mary's assumption and purgatory?

[@michellebanik3689]

I thoroughly enjoyed this teaching. Very interesting. I've always believed in the Trinity but accidentally made friends with some who don't believe in Christ's Deity. I never doubted what I believe but did want to learn how to better defend it against heresy because it seems like it's everywhere these days. I shared w/fb friends. I'm subscribing so I won't miss anything. You're a wonderful teacher! God bless!

[@jobeedrost]

Thank you for this video Gavin, I enjoyed it a lot. I grew up in a group (Oneness Pentecostalism) that denied the Trinity, and embraced a form of modalism. They believe Matthew 28:19 is referring to one name, that is Jesus, and every baptism in Acts is in Jesus name only. They believe Jesus is the Father in flesh, and the Spirit is God's presence in the world and in us. They believe all are God, just in different modes. I find most defences of the Trinity do well, including this one, in defending the deity of the 3 persons, but don't dive as deep into the distinctions between them. I understand you only had so much time in one video and did cover that some. During my upbringing, these distinctions were usually explained as Jesus talking as a human to the Father which is the divine part, focusing on the fact Jesus was fully God and fully man. And they do downplay the personhood of the Spirit. I still found this video very informative and helpful, but I was just curious if you are aware of these groups and have thought about engaging them specifically at some point. I only mention it due to it being so close to home for me and feel a burden to spread awareness of this specific topic. I understand you are very busy and have many topics to consider and cover. Thank you again for this very great coverage of such an important topic.

[@blissseeker4719]

How do you justify verses that refer to Jesus Christ as the Everlasting Father (Isaiah) or the visible image of the invisible God (New Testament) (no one has seen the Father but the Son) or as Jesus being the embodiment of the Godhead entirely (New Testament)? The last verse alone means that Jesus, the Son of God and the Christ, represents God in and of Himself. Indeed, unless I am mistaken, it is also written that if you glorify the Son you glorify the Father.

[@jobeedrost]

@@blissseeker4719 From what I have read, "Father of Eternity" is not about Jesus being the Father. It's a common Hebrew naming convention. For example, Abraham means "Father of many nations". Even Abigail means "Fathers delight", but she is female, it uses the same pattern. Father of Eternity is to explain Jesus' role as the source for eternal life, not him being the Father. As for your second point, Jesus can be the image of God but still be God. John says "No one has ever seen God, but the only God, who is at the Fathers side, He has made Him known" - John 1:18. John clearly makes a distinction, saying Jesus was at the Fathers side and still God. More can be said and has been said by wiser writers than me, but I hope that helps. Only the KJV uses "godhead" in that verse. Most others translate it as "godhood" or “deity”, which to me and others simply means that Jesus is fully God, in his prexistent and incarnational state. I do think that when Jesus says if you glorify Him you glorify the Father, that lines up with Trinitarian thought. Most trinitarians believe in "Perichoresis". Which just means that the members of the Trinity mutually indwell eachother. If you praise one, you praise them all, because they are all God. It gets complicated and people debate over this stuff a bit. Those are just my off the cuff responses to what you said, more can be said and I am sure I did not reply to everything perfectly. I just hope that little bit of info helped in some way. I would encourage you to look into more resources into these topics if you ever get the chance! There is a lot out there. God bless.

[@4jgarner]

@@jobeedrost I think your responses were fine personally. I have dealt with Oneness Pentecostals a good bit as I have a coworker who is and my church, a pentecostal church, has people with questions about this and even one family left to go to a Oneness church. I don't doubt that your experience is greater than mine with them though. I am not as learned as Dr. Ortlund and especially not on the subject of Church History but if you'd care to, I'd love to swap thoughts on this subject sometime as it hits close to home for both of us and we could benefit mutually from it I believe.

[@ColorsFlight]

Yo I recently moved across the country and there is a little church literally behind my house. In Washington I went to a small church in the country that was very very Biblically oriented and we would go over the entire books of the Bible verse by verse. I had no idea that this Jesus only thing existed so I started going to this little church bc they were right behind me. It was Jesus only and I was so confused about what was happening. First off they constantly had church so if I missed a Tuesday or Thursday the pastor would call and text me about why I wasn't there. Which I thought was kinda strange, then I started noticing that all the women and men dressed the same. And that men and women separated themselves at the front. I started noticing that every sermon was about this strange doctrine and bc of that doctrine they could never go to other parts of the Bible. Eventually I got bored hearing the same thing every sermon and stopped going. They still call me and text me and it was months and months ago. They even started FB messaging my husband. They said a lot of very strange things. One was that we weren't supposed to be friends with anyone who wasn't Apostolic. It was a bizarre time.

[@blissseeker4719]

@@jobeedrost thanks for the reply. I agree that Jesus is God - I just also believe the Father is in Jesus in a deeper way than the mainstream trinitarian picture seems to display. They are all God and of God and I believe the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father - mainstream states that the Father is not the Son and vice versa and I disagree but, perhaps it's just semantics at this point. Here is my case: The Son and Spirit come from the Father - thus they are all of God and God. The Father is within the Son and Spirit. Ultimately, I believe it is correct to call Jesus Christ "Father" and this lines up with the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6. Some people don't like that but I believe they are mistaken. I believe the Son and Father are one in a very deep and interconnected sense and even John calls Jesus Father here: 1 John 2:1 “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” I used to take verses like what I'll show below as symbolic in a sense but now, I believe it is very literal after further reading of scripture. John 14:9 “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”

[@BibleSongs]

Great job, Gavin. Nice to see you back on message. Go bless.

[@YeshuaApologetics]

Always doing great work Gavin! God bless you🙏🥰

[@HelloFromSaints]

I hope you do a follow up tracing homoousion, subordinationism, and eternal generation through history. Those are doctrines that I need to learn more about.

[@BradCraig9]

Very excited to watch this!

[@begelston]

Thanks for another excellent teaching. God bless you and your ministry!

[@merg-vh5sx]

This is a whole lecture! Thank you!

[@RosaChao-xk5cc]

Excelent! It's very very clear for me as a Christian believer! Thanks a lot!

[@danielmclean3227]

Thank you for your faithfulness in putting out videos. Plod on, plod on, plod on!

[@andreys1793]

Wonderful. Thanks, Gavin.

[@enzogabrielcaldas2796]

Great content! God Bless you, Gavin!

[@carymack]

Such a great, concentrated explanation of the Trinity and the history of the doctrine. So concise and clear.

[@EmilTennis00]

Hey Gavin, as many unitarians are coming out and want to argue against the idea of a biblical trinity, I can only suggest a dialogue with fellow apologist Anthony Rogers, who spends the majority of his work on the trinity. God bless!

[@CaspianKhazar]

Targum Neofiti (Aramaic translation and paraphrase of the Old Testament) on Genesis 1: “From the beginning with wisdom the Memra (Word) of the Lord created and perfected the heavens and the earth … And the Memra (Word) of the LORD said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light by His Memra (Word)".

[@EmilTennis00]

Thank you, Gavin. This part needs a part 2 for the development in and after the council of nicaea 😉

[@Jo0zek20]

It will be my tonights study

[@nerdforlife6544]

God bless you Gavin. Thanks for being such a wonderful teacher and Godly man 🥰

[@whatsinaname691]

Wish there was more discussion about Second Temple Binatarianism and the monarchy of the Father

[@AlixPrappas]

I don’t know how you could possibly disagree with this. Every single church father I’ve read back to the very beginning (1st and 2nd century) spoke about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the same way we do now in their writings. While reading them, not once did I think, “the way they discuss God seems different compared to how we do now.”

[@tomasrocha6139]

You haven't read Justin Martyr? Justin: I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things. -Dialogue with Trypho (Chapters 55-68)

[@hotcharizard874]

Thats simply because you are superimposing your theology unto their writings

[@AlixPrappas]

⁠@@tomasrocha6139I am unfamiliar with that passage. For clarity, what are you implying that that means?

[@tomasrocha6139]

@@AlixPrappas Justin Martyr sayd Jesus is another God, not the same God as the Father

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

A person can and should disagree if the Bible is truly the source of their beliefs. If the "church fathers" are the source of your beliefs, then you're not really a Christian. You're following the words of men.

[@inkman102]

This is fantastic work Gavin, thanks so much! Have you considered doing a video on how covenant theology aligns (or doesn't) with the early church/fathers? I would really appreciate your viewpoint on this matter! Calling in from Sydney, Australia :)

[@euanthompson]

I enjoy that Dan Brown describes a vote of something like 320 to 5 in favor of Jesus divinity a "close vote"

[@labraw10]

Hey Gavin it's through the Megan Basham fiasco that I found out about you. Just got your apologetics book and look forward to getting the right Hills to die on!!! Was disappointed by Alisa Childers analysis, but she is just fallible and we all can have our bad blind spots. Keep up the great work brother

[@wisalraza792]

May Greatest King Jesus Christ Bless you abundantly. I really love your videos because you beautifully explains the indepth teachings of the bible and also refute the heresies. May King Jesus be with you. Lots of love from Pakistan ❤

[@HelloFromSaints]

This is the most thorough and honest summary of tracing the doctrine of the Trinity through early sources that I have seen. Thank you!

[@andre_theist]

Imagine Dr Ortlund and Dr Cooper vs Sam Tideman and Dr Dustin Smith

[@EmilTennis00]

Anthony Rogers*

[@joeoleary9010]

Ever notice it's always men? I don't mean that in a social justice way, but it's funny that it's invariably only men are captivated by theology, whereas female Christians tend to not care less about these kind of issues.

[@briandiehl9257]

@@joeoleary9010 Top experts of any field are always men

[@TikkunFiat]

Gavin, hope you have a conversation with Sam Tideman

[@calebpearce9334]

I am begging all the non-trinitarians in the comment section to CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY!

[@joshuascott5814]

What makes you think non-Trinitarians aren’t Christian?

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

Spoken like a true Catholic. "You don't believe what millions of ppl assume to be true based on 0 biblical evidence, so you're not Christian". How do you know that you're the one who needs to convert?

[@naomisuko9203]

Perfectly timed, I have a meeting with some JWs later today! 😅

[@Strongtower]

Hope this helps. May God be with you. Jesus is Jehovah in the flesh. 🔵He's called God in Mt 1:23; Mk 2:7; Lk 5:21; Jn 1:1,18, 10:33, 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Phil 2:6; Col 1:19, 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8,9; 2 Pet 1:1; 1 Jn 5:20. 🔵He's Worshiped: Mt 2:2,11, 8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 15:9,25, 20:20, 28:9,17; Mk 5:6, 7:7, 15:19; Lk 24:52; Jn 5:23, 9:38, 20:28; Acts 17:23; Phil 2:10-11; Heb 1:6; Rev 1:17, 4:10, 5:13,14, 7:11, 11:16, 14:7, 15:4, 19:4, 22:9. 🔵He has Old Testament passages about Jehovah attributed to Him in the New Testament: Mt 1:21=Ps 130:8; Mt 3:3, Mk 1:3, Lk 3:4, Jn 1:23=Isa 40:3; Mt 7:24=Ps 18:2; Mt 9:13=Hos 6:6; Mt 11:10, Mk 1:2, Lk 7:27=Mal 3:1; Mt 11:28=Ex 33:14; Mt 13:3-9=Jer 31:27; Mt 24:35=Isa 40:8; Mt 25:1-13, Mk 2:19, Rev 21:2=Isa 62:5, Hos 2:16; Mt 21:15-16=Ps 8:1-2; Mt 25:31-46=Gen 18:25; Mk 6:48=Job 9:8; Mk 11:7,9=Zech 9:9/14:9; Mk 13:31=Ps 119:89; Mk 14:62=Ps 110:1, Dan 7:13-14; Lk 1:69=2 Sam 22:3, Ps 18:2; Lk 19:45,46=Jer 7:11; Jn 1:2-3, Col 1:16=Jer 10:16; Jn 1:3=Isa 44:24; Jn 1:4,9=Ps 36:9; Jn 5:21=1 Sam 2:6; Jn 5:27=Joel 3:12; Jn 7:37-38=Jer 2:13; Jn 8:12, 9:5=Isa 60:1; Jn 8:24=Isa 43:10; Jn 10:11, 1 Pet 2:25, 5:4=Ezek 34:15, Ps 23:1; Jn 10:27-28=Ps 95:7-8; Jn 12:41=Isa 6:1; Jn 12:46=Ps 27:1; Jn 14:6=Ps 31:5; Jn 14:13-14=Ps 65:2; Jn 17:5=Isa 42:8, 48:11; Acts 1:8=Isa 43:10; Acts 2:21,38=Joel 2:32; Acts 7:59=Ps 31:5; Rom 10:13=Joel 2:32; 1 Cor 1:2=Ps 99:5-7; 1 Cor 1:24=Jer 10:12; 1 Cor 1:31=Jer 9:24; 1 Cor 2:16=Isa 40:13 LXX; 1 Cor 8:16=Deut 6:4; 1 Cor 10:9=Num 21:5-8; Eph 4:7-10=Ps 68:18, Jer 23:24; Phil 2:9-11=Isa 45:23; Col 1:15-17=Isa 44:24; Col 3:3-4=Deut 30:20; 1 Thess 3:13=Zech 14:1-5; 2 Thess 2:8=Isa 11:4; 2 Tim 1:12=Jer 17:5; Titus 2:11-14=Ezek 37:23; Heb 1:8-10=Ps 102:24-27; Heb 5:9=Ps 62:1, Isa 43:3; Heb 13:8=Mal 3:6; Jas 2:1=Ps 24:7-10; 1 Pet 1:10-12=2 Sam 23:2, Neh 9:20,30; 1 Pet 2:3-6=Ps 34:8; 1 Pet 3:15=Isa 8:13-15; Jude 1:5=Ex 12:51; Rev 1:5-6=Ex 34:14; Rev 1:7=Zech 12:10; Rev 1:15=Ezek 43:2; Rev 1:17-18=Isa 44:6; Rev 2:23=1 Kings 8:39, Jer 17:10; Rev 5:13-14=Ps 86:9-10; Rev 6:15-17=Isa 2:19; Rev 17:14=Deut 10:17; Rev 22:12,20=Isa 40:10, 62:11.

[@naomisuko9203]

@@Strongtower Wow, great roundup of Scriptures! Thank you!

[@Strongtower]

@@naomisuko9203 No problem. I have one more thing, don't forget why you are talking to them. You are not talking to them to defeat them and claim victory in a theological battle. You are there to show them the truth. Once the truth is shown, only God can convict. If you show them something they haven't seen before, don't gloat. Always remember to stay humble ☺️ This is just good advice I've learned the hard way. It's so easy to win the argument and lose the person in the process. Start off using Heb 1:8-10 equaling pslam 102:24-27. That psalm is all about Jehovah and it is attributed to Jesus in that Hebrew passage. Another great one in there is John 12:41 and Isaiah 6:1. John quotes Isaiah 6 in verse 40 and then says Isaiah said this because he saw His glory. Read the context of that John passage and the only He in that context is Jesus. In Isaiah 6, Isaiah sees Jehovah's glory.

[@naomisuko9203]

@@Strongtower Amen! Thank you!

[@Strongtower]

@@naomisuko9203 How did it go sister?

[@edalbanese6310]

First! Where are the Catholics at?

[@primitive.notions4789]

I'm over here wondering why there is so much obsession with accretions ;) Still excited to hear my brother in Christ's opinions and exegesis

[@edalbanese6310]

@@primitive.notions4789The problem you think protestants are not saved. Hence not really a brother! Of course there is obsession when your church is wrong!

[@primitive.notions4789]

@edalbanese6310 you don't know me or what I believe ^_^ Our churches may not be in the same full communion, but we share the same gospel, and we have the same lord and savior. You may not like me, but we are still brothers in Christ.

[@ChristIsTheLifeOfMySoul]

⁠@@edalbanese6310 There are many Roman Catholics (especially those who don’t lurk on the internet debating denominations) who believe Protestants are saved, yet not in full communion with the one, holy apostolic Church. Even those who are generally in opposition of Protestantism (like Trent Horn) still say that Protestants can be saved by the gospel, they are just less likely to than members of the Roman Catholic Church. I say all of this as a Reformed Protestant who thinks the global, invisible church (rather than Rome or the east) is the one, holy, apostolic church. Humanity was once united in sin under Adam, yet we now are united in faith in Christ who takes away our sins. May the Lord bless you. May the peace and grace of the one Lord Christ Jesus and of the Heavenly Father, our God be with you.

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

@@ChristIsTheLifeOfMySoulBeautifully said. Thank you. As a Protestant, this is also my position on the church.

[@JosiahTheSiah]

This is good stuff brother, thank you.

[@DavidWoods-p5s]

Thanks, Gavin. This is a really good and helpful video.

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

The doctrine of the Trinity is found in Scriptures, no doubt about that but it needed to be defended and to be developed into theological terminology and councils. Thanks and glory be to God that the Catholic Church did that.

[@SpiritLevel888]

The Trinity ain't something we can adequately understand logically. Created beings simply can't fully understand the Eternal Godhead. Regardless, while not specifically stated as "the Trinity" it's CLEAR all through the Bible with Eyes to SEE.

[@IAmisMaster]

The Augustinian model of the Trinity cannot be undersrlod logicalky, because it is an irrational contradiction. The logical problem of the Trinity cannot be solved if someone obstinately believes the Trinity is the One God, and each member of the Trinity is also the One God, yet each person is distinct. It’s a logical impossibility, not a mystery. But that’s why all early Christians believed in Monarchical Trinitarianism like what Dr. Beau Branson taught. We have One God, the Father Almighty, and this One God has a true divine Son, Jesus Christ, who is God in the predicate sense of “divine”. The Holy Spirit is the third divine being with the Father’s same nature. There is no logical contradiction there.

[@boomgospel]

⁠@@IAmisMasterclearly didn’t watch the video. You’re welcome to make these claims, but there is a reason that the bulk of Christian history outright denies what you are saying. Further, the idea that all or even most or many early Christians believed in the monarchical model has no evidential backing at best and at worst is demonstrably false

[@Nathan-mf2yz]

I would say it’s logical but not comprehendible

[@IAmisMaster]

@@boomgospel I both watched the video and have read the ante-Nicene fathers extensively, and the one who plainly has no idea what he’s talking about is you. Tell me, what is the first point of the Christian faith according to St. Irenaeus. He says it in the oldest summary of the Christian faith we have, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching pts 4-7. Does Irenaeus say the Trinity is the One God, or the Father is the One God? Can you find even one Christian in the first 300 years of Christianity (including the NT) who ever said the One God is anyone but the Father alone? I’ll wait.

[@shaddjimenez4524]

Would you tell me to stop attending Catholic masses with my family if I am convinced of the Reformed position? Even if it means being ostracized from family... Or is it, in terms of theological triage, okay for me to stay attending Catholic masses?

[@shaddjimenez4524]

Also I'm just implying going to Catholic masses with my family. I could even tell them for sure I'm not Catholic, but maybe still attend their mass?

[@ExNihiloComesNothing]

I’d love to see Gavin address this. You need to prayerfully seek the Holy Spirit to guide you. My opinion is- If you are the husband/head of the household, I’d say you should lead your family to the Church God has called you. If you are a wife, you need to consider that submitting to you husband is important and consider going to mass but not participating maybe. Tough call. If you are a child (under 18) you go where your parents go unless they give you permission to go else where.

[@Thoreseus_]

Jesus, indeed, is referred to as King of kings and Lord of lords, but the Father alone is referred to as the God of gods (Deut. 10:17, Psalm 136:2). I found this presentation disengenuous because Gavin speaks as if the Trinity is so obvious while glossing over very serious objections and counterpoints to his interpretation. Most of these arguments from Gavin sound like, "I see three, the Father, Son, and Spirit, all mentioned together in the same sentence, therefore, Trinity!" I guess that's part of his strategy in keeping everything general, is he can claim an overwhelming cumulative case without proving the particular claims support his conclusion.

[@jamestrotter3162]

It's also straight from the mouth of Christ Himself in Rev. 1:8 where He calls Himself the Alpha, Omega, Beginning and End, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. There can only be one Alpha, Omega, Beginning and End, who is, was, and who is to come, and one Almighty God. And that one Almighty God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[@tookie36]

One could say Christ is the alpha and the omega. And yet the father is greater. Bc Christ has a beginning and an end.

[@VickersJon]

“He called us to get dunked” 😮

[@gardengirlmary]

Impressed by all the research and quotes in your videos. Excellent 👍

[@MrDanielEarle]

As an aside, Michael S. Heiser said that "begotten Son" is a mistranslation of the Greek word "monogenes." "Genes" comes from the Greek word "genos" which means "classs, kind", not "gennao" which means "bear, to beget." So Jesus is God's One of a Kind Son, which helps with the whole "Jesus is not created."

[@economician]

@MrDanielEarle Heiser also said that ancient people that worshipped statues were not stupid. They did not really believe the statutes were gods instead Kaiser says that they believed that the One True God would ENTER those statues and hence INCARNATE them.

[@BiblicalUnitarianPodcast]

I'd be interested in hear Gavin interact with some of the Unitarians who argue that the Trinity did indeed develop and that it is not present in the New Testament. I know Sam Tideman has invited Gavin on his channel. I too would be willing to have a respectful conversation on this topic. If the Trinity really is apostolic, then it can withstand the scrutiny and the objections that scholars and historians have raised against it.

[@IAmisMaster]

It’s not a fair fight. Gavin’s egalitarian trinitarian model will necessarily lose badly whenever scrutinized. Have you asked Dr. Beau Branson to dialogue? He’s dialogued with Sam and defended the only defensible form of trinitarianism: monarchical trinitarianism.

[@EmilTennis00]

I dont think there is much to discuss. We all know the arguments from both sides and neither side will be convinced by the other.

[@andre_theist]

@@IAmisMasterhe is a monarchical Trinitarian, he believes in the Filioque and therefore in the monarchy of the father. Why we must still debate such a thing as the Divinity of Christ. The Trinitarian Church determined the Canon, the NT!

[@IAmisMaster]

@@andre_theist I mean “sttong monarchy” view of the early church in which the One God is synonymous with the Father because He is plainly the monarch/first cause/“God” in the most proper sense, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are each “God” in a different, predicate sense of being divine, exerting the Father’s authority and power, etc. Gavin does not believe that. He believes in a “tripersonal God” as all Catholics and basicaly all Protestants do, which is a horrible semi-modalist accretion.

[@junkim5853]

@@IAmisMaster how is it an accretion? Ed Siecienski the leading scholar in regards to the filioque issue clearly says that there were Fathers not just from the West but East as well that believed in the filioque and you can find them everywhere from the ante-Nicene period to post-Nicene period. Besides if you want to call the Filioque an accretion might as well call the 4th ecumenical council and dyophysitism an accretion since the 2nd ecumenical council and 3rd ecumenical council agreed to never revise these creeds at all. Your kind of critique can logically lead to the rejection of the fourth ecumenical council, just look at the Coptic Christians and their rejection of that council. They literally use the same line of reasoning the Eastern Orthodox do to reject dyophysitism.

[@nuggetoftruth-ericking7489]

You talks are interesting. Thanks.

[@joshuajohansen1210]

Let's go

[@joeoleary9010]

I'll give you a million dollars if you can tell me who started the popular phrase "let's go." Well not really, but it is a mystery I've been unable to solve.

[@VincentTorleyYKH]

Hi Dr. Ortlund. Let me say up-front that if your aim was to establish that the Trinity is not a doctrinal accretion in the sense that the Assumption is, then I think you've proven your point. I would also add that there are clearly some passages in the New Testament that evince early Christian belief in some sort of Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and that the early Christians worshipped Jesus alongside the Father. Nevertheless, as Larry Hurtado (whom you quote) points out, that doesn't mean they worshipped Jesus as God: "As should be clear to any serious reader, in the New Testament Jesus is not worshiped “as God” (whatever that may mean) but, instead, with reference to God, as the Son of God, as the Lord appointed by God, as the “image” of God, etc. To be sure, Jesus is referenced as sharing the divine name and glory, and Old Testament texts originally referring to “God” (Yahweh) are interpreted with reference to Jesus, and, most importantly, in earliest Christian circles Jesus is accorded the sorts of reverence that are otherwise reserved for deities in the Roman era. So, there can be no question whether the exalted Jesus is treated in the New Testament as “divine.” But, at the same time, the New Testament (and early Christian writers generally) also distinguish God and Jesus, while also relating them uniquely to each other. (For further discussion, see my book, God in New Testament Theology, Abingdon Press, 2010.)" [See his blog article at larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/are-philippians-26-11-and-colossians-115-20-christ-hymns/ ] Another vital point that needs to be made is that the New Testament isn't clear as to when Jesus acquired divine status and came to possess equal authority with God. Did he acquire it when he was raised and exalted to God's right hand, as Mark 14:62 and Philippians 2:6-11 could be taken to imply, or at his baptism, as Bart Ehrman claims Luke 3:22 declared in its original reading (“You are my son, today I have begotten you”), or at his conception (as Luke 1:35 suggests) or at the beginning of creation (as John 1:1-2 might be taken to suggest) or from all eternity? Only if you have three co-eternal persons do you have a proper Trinity. A further point I'd like to make is that even if the three persons of the Trinity are co-eternal, they are not one God unless they share one and the same mind. The Christian apologist Michael Jones (who goes under the moniker Inspiring Philosophy) calls himself a Trinitarian, but on this point, his belief is unorthodox. Like the Christian philosopher Joshua Sijuwade, Jones believes the three persons are three eternal entities, and that only the Father is "true God" because he alone is ungenerated (the Son and Spirit being generated by him), which is basically Samuel Clarke's position (and Origen's). However, this position fails to address the question of whether the Father could have refrained from generating the Son and the Spirit, and whether the Father could destroy the Son. Philosopher Dale Tuggy has critiqued Jones' position here: trinities.org/blog/trinitarian-apologist-embraces-subordinationist-unitarian-theology/ Finally, there is the puzzling fact that the New Testament refers to the Father as "the only true God" (John 17:3) and declares the Father to be greater than the Son (John 14:28). Many of the early Church Fathers say the same thing - including Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen. I won't dwell at length on this; instead, I'll just point readers to a few videos and articles showing that even the more orthodox Church Fathers held subordinationist views: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKK1oa2ZprZkfsk (argue that Clement of Rome was a unitarian) trinities.org/blog/trinitarian-or-unitarian-1-irenaeus/ (Irenaeus) scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2019/12/athenagoras-proto-trinitarian.html (Athenagoras) scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-triad-of-early-christians-against.html (Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian) plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html (History of the doctrine of the Trinity by Dale Tuggy) www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/the-trinity-before-nicea (argues that the doctrine evolved slowly) I should add that the story of the martyrdom of Polycarp was not written in 155 A.D., but most likely in the early third century: www.bartehrman.com/polycarp/ In short: while the doctrine of the Trinity has Biblical roots, you won't find the orthodox doctrine in the New Testament. That comes later. Cheers.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for this very thoughtful comment! Regarding whether Jesus is not worshiped "as God," I struggle to see how this would be "clear to any serious reader" in light of all the explicit identifications of Jesus as God in a context of responding to his identity, like John 20:28. I understand that this verse can be interpreted differently (e.g., Sam Tideman laid out 4 options in his video, if I recall). But I am not following your language of "clear to any serious reader." Regarding your comment about when Jesus came into divine status, I think that is touched by some of the passages I referenced as well -- would be curious for your take on John 8:58, e.g. Sorry to be brief but I need to leave it there and respond to your other points later if possible. Thanks again for the illuminating comment.

[@VincentTorleyYKH]

@@TruthUnites Hi Dr. Ortlund. I'm actually inclined to agree with you about John 20:28. Even the late critical scholar Rudolf Bultmann, who was renowned for his skeptical approach to the Gospels, referred to John 20:28 as "the only passage in which Jesus is undoubtedly designated or, more exactly, addressed as God." Regarding John 8:58, there's a Mormon Biblical scholar named Dan McClellan who has put out a 5-minute video titled, "Did Jesus claim to be God in John 8:58?" Briefly, his argument is that "I am" isn't the Hebrew name for God, but a coded reference to the divine name; God's actual name is YHWH. Anyway, John 8:58 is written in Greek; in Aramaic, the phrase "I am" wouldn't have been understood as a coded reference to God's name. Finally, claiming to be the authorized bearer of the divine name, like the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament, isn't the same as claiming to be God, although it would still have been considered blasphemous. McClellan thinks this was what Jesus claimed to be. Here's the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmfXg5lro66Mapo . He has another short video on John 10:30 here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJvOgZKBrK2MfdU . I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, so I'll have to leave it there. Cheers.

[@garyr.8116]

04:15 - lol - you just described Trent !

[@wesb211]

Excellent

[@mannygeorge1687]

The first slide’s definition of subordinationism should read “is ontologically subordinate” 1:02

[@drstevennemes]

Gavin, this would have been a much stronger video if you had interacted at length with non-trinitarian arguments about the interpretation of the New Testament. You don’t mention even one text that subordinationists or unitarians reference in support of their ideas (e.g., John 8:40; Acts 10:38; 1 Tim. 2:5; etc.). As it stands, you make a lot of concessions about how the exegetical arguments are not strictly probative and how there were not many clear statements of the orthodox position throughout the second and third centuries. In that case, even granting all your arguments in this video, the most you can reasonably conclude is that orthodox trinitarianism is _a_ reasonable or founded interpretation of the apostolic teaching. But that is compatible with there being others, as well. I know that for you Trinity is a dogma and not a theologoumenon, but your argument here falls well short of showing that, I think. I also think that your characterization of the doctrine of the Trinity is too simplistic. A subordinationist or unitarian could also agree that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, _so long as the predicate “is God” doesn’t have to be interpreted univocally in each case._ There is much discussion of the sense in which Christ or the Spirit can be said to be God in the non-trinitarian literature. But if you want to avoid that possibility, you would have to add an eighth proposition to your summary of the doctrine: “The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God in exactly the same sense.” But good luck trying to prove that that’s in the Bible! I think another major problem in your argument is the confusion of Trinity and triad. A subordinationist or a unitarian could grant that the New Testament’s discourse about salvation and spirituality is phenomenologically and narratively _triadic_ in the sense that it has three foci: God, Jesus, and the Spirit in relation to the human being. But the doctrine of the Trinity is something else. It is an ontological statement about what the being of God is in itself. It’s one thing to say that God, Jesus, and Spirit are involved and cooperative in the salvation of the human being, and it’s another to say that they are consubstantial persons who have everything in common except for the interpersonal relations by which they are distinguished.

[@TruthUnites]

Hi Steven, thanks for commenting. 1. Regarding "interacting at length with non-trinitarian arguments," I stressed repeatedly that this video is not exhaustive, and mainly constructive rather than critical. That said, some of these other passages did not occur to me to work through because I think they are pretty weak in their force against Trinitarianism. John 8:40 says, "but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God." The Trinity does not deny that Jesus is fully man, so I would not agree that working through a text like this is necessary in such a video, given my goal and argumentation here. So with other verses that state that Jesus is a man. 2. "even granting all your arguments in this video, the most you can reasonably conclude is that orthodox trinitarianism is a reasonable or founded interpretation of the apostolic teaching." Here I will just note disagreement. The concessions I gave were mainly about individual passages taken in isolation. In cumulative weight, I think the case yields a stronger conclusion. I am not arguing for this here, just seeking clarification. 3. I wouldn't agree I need verses stating that "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God in exactly the same sense." That is setting the bar too high. I think I just need verses entailing they are the same in terms of essence. 4. On your final paragraph, I don't think I have confused Trinity and triad, unless I am mistaken. I made arguments from triadic language based on specifics of how it functions (e.g., the singular "name" in Mt. 28:19, and the role of the three persons in grounding Christian unity in I Cor. 12 and Eph 4.). Granted, these arguments are not in themselves conclusive, but they work in concert with the other arguments made. Thanks again for engaging and I will keep dwelling on your points. God bless.

[@drstevennemes]

@@TruthUnites 
 Hi Gavin,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate that we’re both busy and can’t go back and forth forever. I will simply respond briefly to what you’ve written here, and let you have the last word. 1. The doctrine of the Trinity does not say that Christ is fully man. That is part of the doctrine of the Incarnation, which is a separate idea. You can in principle have Trinity without Incarnation, e.g. in Nestorianism. 2. Without explicitly addressing non-trinitarian readings of the relevant passages, you can’t say you’ve shown that the trinity-suggestive readings are correct. There is no cumulative case without particular data points. In order to make your cumulative case, you have to show that the particular data points are what you say they are, rather than what the non-trinitarian says they are. That’s why I think you can’t make your positive case without addressing alternative readings, which are very many and varied. 3. Even if you say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God in terms of sameness of essence, that is still an eighth proposition that needs to be added to the list. Your original list didn’t have that specification. Moreover, you would also need to specify what “sameness of essence” means. 4. Again, I think that, if you don’t address non-trinitarian readings of those passages, you haven’t shown that they actually support the Trinity. It’s one thing to quote the words, and it’s another thing to interpret them with a certain meaning.

[@IAmisMaster]

@@drstevennemes How about the fact that even if John and Paul agreed with 2nd and 3rd century subordinationist Trinitarians that Jesus is a preexistent divine person who was not created but was begotten by the Father before time, not one of these early Christians (Justin, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen) believed that Jesus being “God” meant that He is the One God or the “same God” as the Father. Dr. Ortlund just assumes anachronistic Augustine’s definition of the trinity and of monotheism. I have repeatedly cited Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Tryoho ch. 56 and Origen Contra Celsum Book V ch. 39, Book VIII ch. 14-15 as proof that the early Trinitarians did not believe the One God was a tripersonal being, but rather that Jesus was a “second” or “another God” and defintely not the Most High God.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Steven. On 1, absolutely -- I just stated that the Trinity "does not deny" Jesus being fully man, so I don't think passages like John 8:4 needed to be vetted here. Sorry if that was unclear. On 2, we may be having a misunderstanding. I was just trying to clarify the nature of my concessions in the original video. I will read through your comment again later to see if i can better understand how it is relevant to that. On 3, I think the 8th proposition you propose here is a necessary entailment of the previous 7 -- but perhaps I could have been clearer on that point. On 4, rather than expecting my original to rebut all possible alternative views, I think it would be more helpful to state your own alternative and then we can see which of our two views is a better explanation of the passage. Perhaps in future discussions we could do that a bit more. God bless.

[@countryboyred]

Comments like these incapsulate why Protestantism is a failure. It’s all relative, it’s all up for grabs. It’s like we didn’t have countless Church councils that set down the parameters of the faith.

[@IAmisMaster]

54:50 In that very quote on screen, Tertullian literally says the “one only God” is the Father who has a Son, not the Son Himself. Tertullian never says Jesus is the “one only God.” Tertullian says plainly in Against Praxaeus that the One God is the Father, even that he retracts the name of “God” from the Son in comparison to the Father like we call the sun’s ray the sun but not when compared to the sun itself. Tertiullianms point is the Father being the One God does not negate that Jesus is the true divine Son who can be called “God” in another sense of predication.

[@samuelmamudu9973]

Weldone

[@shawngillogly6873]

Hebrew OT YHWH-> LXX Kurios-> Greek NT Kurios for Christ is one of the clearest throughlines of High Christology, and destroys the idea the Apostolic writers did not see Him as God Incarnate and equal with the Father in Divinity.

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

Paul distinctly mentions the Father as being Christ's Boss in the Corinthian letters. Furthermore, Rev. 1:1 makes this even clearer where Christ is shown receiving the information that became Revelation from the Father, and He in turn delivers it to an angel, who then gives it to John. The Father and Christ are NEVER taught anywhere as being equals, and any theology that argues that They are is robbing the Father of His honor(Mal. 1:6).

[@bitsmore6265]

thank you Sir Gavin for your scholarship that you graciously share. now we are more confident that the idea of the Trinity is existing since the new testament. i appreciate your grace in understanding the writings of the early fathers. Because not all things can be written or described perfectly specially regarding about God. Even God in the old testament and Jesus responded to men not as what they say but what their hearts really mean. And that is awesome.! remember 2 Kings 20 , Matthew 12, 22, Mark 2 and many others .

[@josenestorgutierrez3795]

Just one question/suggestion. I follow you from Spain and your videos are really a blessing for me, I am learning a lot from them and I am using many things that i learn in them specially in an apologetic facebook page in which I am the moderator ( I hav even used them in discussion with the catholic auxiliar bishop of Madrid and we have had some conversion from catholicism as well). Anyhow i think it would be a blessing for many spanish speaking christians to be able to understand your videos, so my suggestion is if it is posible to have them dubbed into spanish or at least well subtitled into spanish as we really need sonething like your work in our language. Thank you very much Gavin for your wonderfull, useful and very needed ministery.

[@hankkingofmischief4372]

Can you do a video on 1 Corinthians chapter 11 on the lords supper? This has been something that has caused me a great deal of concern and angst lately

[@stephenbailey9969]

Good resource: Larry W. Hurtado's "Lord Jesus Christ".

[@toddvoss52]

A tremendous tome!

[@fundamentality]

Imagine a devils advocate debate where Trent Horn defends protestantism and Gavin defends the papacy

[@ottovonbaden6353]

I could see Trent getting into the spirit of that kind of thing, but it doesn't feel like Gavin's cup of tea. Need someone opposite Trent who would match the energy.

[@Pacemasterx]

Excellent and helpful video👍

[@markrome9702]

If the Trinity isn't an accretion, then transubstantiation isn't an accretion. I would argue that accretions aren't bad anyway. What you call accretions, Catholics call development of doctrine.

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Difference is that transubstantiation can be reasonably extrapolated from the text - just like the Trinity, while other Catholic dogmas are severely lacking in mention or foundation.

[@markrome9702]

@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Then why don't Protestants believe in Transubstantiation?

[@rogeraraujo4900]

​@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty like physical penitence/indulgence... like, bro... why you hitting yourself?

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

@@rogeraraujo4900 Purgatory, the Marian dogmas, the Petrine office, clerical celibacy, sacramental wine denied to the laity, mortal and venial sins, a Pelagian method of salvation, the list goes on on and on…

[@JPuncut]

Hey, Brother. How can I reach out to you?

[@AaronOfJerusalemAndAthens]

I fully agree with your assessment of John 10:30 where Jesus forcefully makes his deity and equality with the Father known. This cannot be blunted by an appeal to John 17:11 and John 17:21-22. Jesus and the Father are one according to John 10:30. In order for John 17 to cancel Jesus' radical claim in John 10:30, it would need Jesus to say that the believers and the Father are one. But John 17 does not say this, it merely says that believers are one with each other as Jesus and the Father are one, and that believers are one in God and Jesus.

[@LoveAndLiberty02]

Jesus' prayer was for the disciples to be one as Jesus and God are one - he certainly wasn't praying for them to be ontologically one, or one in nature. That makes no sense. They are to be one in purpose, as God and Jesus are one in purpose.

[@AaronOfJerusalemAndAthens]

​@@LoveAndLiberty02The Son relates to the Father similar to how believers relate to each other. This means that the equality between believers reflects the equality between the Father and Son. This further emphasises the Son's deity rather than diminishing it.

[@LoveAndLiberty02]

@AaronOfJerusalemAndAthens I disagree. There's nothing in the context that suggests Jesus was speaking of equality, but there is evidence he was speaking of a oneness of mind or purpose. I believe Paul deals with the same theme in 1 Corinthians 3:8, speaking of Christ's disciples. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose...NRSVUE Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one....KJV Now he who plants and he who waters are one....NASB95, etc. To be charitable, I don't think you are insinuating that Jesus was praying for the disciples to be equal in nature, as he and God are equal in nature (right?), yet I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I see nothing in the context that suggests anything other than a oneness of purpose. This is not a "Jesus is consubstantial with God" proof text.

[@economician]

@AaronOfJerusalemAndAthens Read carefully John 10:20-32 Jesus makes it clear that he Jesus is the Human Messiah who is not possessed by demons, not because he Jesus is the One True God, but because the marvelous works he Jesus is performing are from his Father, the One True GOD. And because he is doing the marvelous work IN HIS FATHER’s NAME. The sheep of Jesus are given eternal life because they follow Jesus’s VOICE, in Jesus’s Voice are the teachings of His Father the One True God, that help you to conquer Sins thereby conquering death and thereby BECOMING ONE with the the One TRUe GOD who NEVER DiES. This is the true message that the Human Jesus is conveying to his contemporaries. The message is: I Jesus, God’s human son am not of this world that has been defeated by sin and will die in sin. I God’s human son have conquered sin and hence conquered death and hence I the human son am One With the One True God who NEVER DIES. When the sheep of Jesus follow the teaching’s of his Father that come out from the voice of GOD’s human son they as believers will conquer sin, hence never taste death and hence become one with the human son of the ONE True GOD who NEVER DIES. Your trinitarian prejudices are making you miss the true message of the One True GOD the Father just like Jesus’s contemporaries missed the point of his message.

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

There isn't a single passage in scripture where Jesus elevated Himself to the Father's lvl in authority. Not 1. He very clearly stated throughout John that the Father IS greater.

[@clivejungle6999]

If you are not trinitarian, you are not Christian. That is fine, people of other faiths of course deserve respect and kindness. But if you are not a trinitarian, then you dont worship the God of orthodox Christianity.

[@LoveAndLiberty02]

Yahweh, the Father, is the one true God (John 17:3), and he is the God and Father of Jesus (John 20:17), the disciples did not consider Jesus to be the God of their ancestors (Acts 3:13), and to be a Christian one must believe he is the Son of God (John 20:31), and we must follow him. Verses that say we must believe God is a three person being and that Jesus is a two natured being - zero. Careful with your judgments - "For the judgment you give will be the judgment you get..." (Matthew 7:2a).

[@clivejungle6999]

@@LoveAndLiberty02 Enjoy your non-Christian faith. But it has nothing to do with me.

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

Idc about being a Christian according to your standards. I'm more concerned about being considered one by God's standards. And yes, i will gladly say that i do not worship the false trinitarian god of traditional Christianity. I wear that as a badge of honor. If that makes me a "heretic" by the standards of traditional Christianity, so be it.

[@clivejungle6999]

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Not a heretic. Just not Christian.

[@briandiehl9257]

The very definiton of Christian involves the nicean creed, so no

[@phoenix21studios]

"Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." I feel like it should just be this simple.

[@my-spinning-wheel]

It can be for you - but people who argue against Trinitarianism obviously don’t agree. I believe strongly in the Holy Trinity (I’m Orthtodox) but it’s just not that simple for everyone

[@purpleatit1]

To do something in the name of, is to use their authority. There's nothing implied in that about, shared natures etc. That's why it's not as simple as you imply. The bible doesn't teach the trinity. Shouldn't we just stick with scripture ?

[@mcable217]

Mormons (non trinitarian) use the same wording in their baptismal prayers. Why would this wording imply one being?

[@samael5782]

There's a problem: this text has been edited by the church in the 2nd to 3rd century. Originally it was only in the name of Jesus, and that's how the early Christians baptized. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.“ - Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century." - The Catholic Encyclopedia As you can see it's not that simple.

[@joeoleary9010]

That verse can mean any number of things. It doesn't define the Trinity, it only points to the Trinity as one possible interpretation.

[@jiubertomonteiro1461]

Hello Professor Gavin, did you see Kipp Davis's video responding to your video about the conquest of Canaan?

[@transfigured3673]

Excited to dig in to this one. Thanks Gavin for addressing this subject. And yes, a reaction video will be coming!

[@economician]

@transfigured3673 I think we are letting the trinitarians get away a bit too easy with the ”before I Abraham I am He” passage. If this is a reference to God’s name that was revelead to Moses then why not just say ”before Moses I am He”. If he really wanted to stick it to the religious leaders that He is Yahwe why not just say ” before Adam I am He”. There is something we are missing in this passage.

[@ikemeitz5287]

@@economician It's because those religious leaders were appealing to Abraham as the source of their peace with God--and the source of their right to reject Jesus. The promise was given to Abraham and to Abraham's children. The jewish leaders were appealing to this as their confidence that they didn't need Jesus. Look at how they respond after Jesus says "The truth will set you free": "We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?” (Jn 8:33) Jesus responds by rejecting their sonship of Abraham: "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did." (Jn 8:39-41) "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires." (Jn 8:44) The jewish leaders respond by accusing Jesus of being possessed, to which Jesus says: "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” (Jn 8:51-53) So, here is the question on the table: Jesus, you just claimed to give something greater than the promise that God gave to Abraham. Who do you make yourself out to be? Jesus is claiming power over death, something that no man has ever had. The jewish leaders recognize this, and they're ridiculing him for saying it. Jesus responds by doubling down! "It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’... "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." (Jn 8:55-56) - Jesus claims to be glorified by God in a way that's greater than Abraham, the man who, arguably, received the greatest glory from God ever up to that point. Through Abraham comes every other promise to Israel and every other glory revealed to them. - Jesus claims that Abraham SAW him, and rejoiced over it. Jesus is claiming, again, to be someone greater than Abraham. Someone whom Abraham looked forward to. The jewish leaders get what he's saying. They get that he's claiming to have been there, with Abraham. They get that he's claiming to have a resolution to death. They get that he's claiming that he is greater than the greatest man to ever live and has a promise greater than the promise which God himself gave to Abraham. They respond with incredulity: “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (Jn 8:57-58) Before Abraham was, Ego Eimi, I AM. Not only was Jesus before Abraham, he was beloved before the foundation of the world. Only God can make a promise greater than the promise given to Abraham, and so God now speaks. Jesus not only offers eternal life to all who would believe in him, but Jesus himself is already eternal. They recognize that he is claiming to be God, and they pick up stones to stone him. Why didn't he say "before Moses was, I am" or "before Adam was, I am"? It's because Abraham was greater than Moses and Adam. It's because the jewish leaders claimed Abraham as their source of connection to God. It's because through Abraham came the first covenant. It's because he's revealing that the offspring of Abraham are not all "sons of Abraham," rather the offspring of Abraham are those who believe God - who believe Jesus. I'm sure you've read John 8, but I'd encourage you to reread it with this question in mind, and pray that the Spirit reveal whether my reading of it is true.

[@ikemeitz5287]

@economician It's also worth pointing out that this isn't the only "Ego Eimi" formulation in John. It seems to have the same intent (a link to the divine name spoken in Ex 3) in 8:24, 13:19, and 18:5-6. Ego Eimi also shows up linked with other identifiers in many key passages with a far greater frequency than any other gospel (6:35, 6:41, 6:51, 8:12, 8:18, 10:7, 10:9, 10:11, 10:14, 11:25, 14:6, 15:1, 15:5).

[@WhiteStoneName]

Was just looking for your comments. Was gonna message you, but I should have known that you’d already be here.

[@AndrewJohnH]

​@economician Why did Jesus say, "before Abraham" in John 8:58 rather than "before Moses" or "before Adam"? Reading the verse in context of the chapter makes it abundantly clear. Starting with verses 33-41, the Jews brought Abraham into the conversation, claiming him as their father in verse 39. Then again in verse 52, the Jews bring up Abraham again, including immediately before Jesus' statement in verse 58. The way Jesus focused on Abraham in this statement doesn't refute His claim to be God, or His claim to have existed eternally, that wasn't the point. The way Jesus focused on Abraham in this statement is a natural outflow of a conversation that had already mentioned Abraham 10 times previously! How comparatively off topic would the following exchange sound? John 8:56-58 NIV [edited] 56 - Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 - “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 - “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before [Adam/Moses] was born, I am!”

[@ryandawson2877]

I definitely believe that Jesus is 1000% God and 1000% man… Absolutely!

[@DavidTextle]

Fun fact, the Jewish community has been having the debate whether the Trinity is monotheistic or not. According to Ben Shapiro, it’s leaning toward YES (watch interview between Ben and Pints with Aquinas)

[@emiliobazzarelli4270]

If anyone is curious for a more in depth treatment of this question St John Henry Newmans essay on the development of doctrine spends a long time going over the development of the doctrine of the trinity

[@toddvoss52]

One might also read his “The Arians of the Fourth Century “ for an extremely in depth treatment of that Christological controversy

[@emiliobazzarelli4270]

@@toddvoss52 I’ve heard it’s good but I haven’t read it yet

[@BoldUlysses]

Hi Gavin. Big fan here; love your content. One question: If it's standard practice to combat accretions by giving more weight to accounts & practices closer to Jesus' own time, a potential charge might be leveled that by "leapfrogging" the Apostolic Fathers (by saying their trinitarian conception wasn't fully developed yet), you're picking and choosing which early theologians to favor to support your view. How would you respond?

[@TruthUnites]

Hey man! Thanks. First, to clarify, I would not say that "it's standard practice to combat accretions by giving more weight to accounts & practices closer to Jesus' own time." I don't hold that the earlier, the better. Second, what is ultimately decisive is the apostolic deposit of the first-century, particularly as encapsulated for us in the Scriptures. that would be the difference between the Trinity and accretions like the assumption of Mary. Hope that helps.

[@stevenrivard9246]

​@TruthUnites Question for you... If Jesus says that humans need to be spiritually BORN from the Holy Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God, then why do so many Christians refer to the Holy Spirit with male pronouns in English translations? Wouldn't all doubts about Yahweh being triune simply vanish if we recognized the Holy(set apart)Spirit as Lady Wisdom? - Wisdom is proven right by all her children (Luke 7:35) - By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place (Proverbs 3:19) I don't know how any scholar can read Proverbs 8 with an interliner bible without seeing Wisdom as the Holy Spirit. Irenaeus in his book "Against Heresies" was clear to identify Wisdom as the Holy Spirit. Read Proverbs 8 and see for yourself... Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice? At the highest point along the way, where the paths meet, she takes her stand; beside the gate leading into the city, at the entrance, she cries aloud: “To you, O people, I call out; I raise my voice to all mankind. You who are simple, gain prudence; you who are foolish, set your hearts on it. Listen, for I have trustworthy things to say; I open my lips to speak what is right. My mouth speaks what is true, for my lips detest wickedness. All the words of my mouth are just; none of them is crooked or perverse. To the discerning all of them are right; they are upright to those who have found knowledge. Choose my instruction instead of silver, knowledge rather than choice gold, for wisdom is more precious than rubies, and nothing you desire can compare with her. “I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge and discretion. To fear the Lord is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech. Counsel and sound judgment are mine; I have insight, I have power. By me kings reign and rulers issue decrees that are just; by me princes govern, and nobles-all who rule on earth. I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me. With me are riches and honor, enduring wealth and prosperity. MY FRUIT is better than fine gold; what I yield surpasses choice silver. I walk in the way of righteousness, along the paths of justice, bestowing a rich inheritance on those who love me and making their treasuries full. “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, before his deeds of old; I was POURED OUT ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. When there were no watery depths, I was WHIRLING/WRITHING. when there were no springs overflowing with water; BEFORE the mountains were settled in place, BEFORE the hills, I was WHIRLING/WRITHING. BEFORE he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth. I WAS THERE when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I WAS constantly at his side. I WAS filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind. “Now then, MY CHILDREN, listen to ME; blessed are those who keep MY WAYS. Listen to MY instruction and be wise; do not disregard it. Blessed are those who listen to ME, watching daily at MY doors, waiting at MY doorway. For those who find ME find LIFE and receive favor from the Lord. But those who fail to find ME harm themselves; all who hate ME love death.” Dismissing Wisdom as a mere personification, is like Dismissing Jesus as God's WORD.

[@Cato1006]

It's so strange that the Apostles never mention allude or explicitly teach or preach the doctrine of the Trinity. Why don't we ever see anyone in the NT letters asking questions about the Trinity? You mean to tell me the Jews accepted it easily? That's a hard pill to swallow. at least the Catholics admit it was a later invention and development.

[@IAmisMaster]

You need to read Philo of Alexandria and learn about monarchical trinitarianism. Gavin’s egalitarian trinity is an accretion, but what guys like St. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Origen etc taught is perfectly in line with Hellenistic Judaism/Logos theology first evidenced in Philo.

[@axderka]

A multi personal God was considered orthodox teaching in Judaism until the second century. What happened to change that? Hmmm…

[@IAmisMaster]

@@axderka There was no “tripersonal god” in judaism, neither in Philo nor the targums. That’s your anachronism. Neither was there a “tripersonal God” in the first 300 years of Christianity. There was the One God, the Father, who has a divine Son, Jesus, as well as a third divine being, the Holy Spirit. One God and two other divine persons. That’s what every Christian even at the Council of Nicaea believed.

[@kylie5741]

Great video as always