DIALOGUE: Is Jesus God? (and the "Protestant Trinity Problem")

[@transfigured3673]

Thanks for having me on your channel Trent! I really appreciated your respectful yet serious tone in this conversation.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Thanks for coming on the show!

[@Jerome616]

Loved your candor. Thanks for coming.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Thanks for coming on. You've helped me understand the formation of the United States in a way that I didn't before. You've also cleared up many conceptions that the founding Fathers were Trinitarians. And for that you have my sincere thanks.

[@EmJay2022]

Fantastic ambassadorship, Sam. Well done.

[@catholicguy1073]

It was a good episode

[@LadySilmarien]

Love these dialogues. Calm, informative and non-confrontational. Keep it up. I like these better than debates. They are less stressful for the listener. Well, for this listener anyway.😅

[@transfigured3673]

Certainly less stressful for the dialogue partners too

[@Jerome616]

Yes, I felt myself actually hearing the opposing side rather than waiting for Trent’s rebuttals.

[@LyovaCampos]

☦🤝✝️Yes, to pseudo Christians debating who has the Orthodox ideas. It would be hilarious if it wasn't sad, having been deceiving so many innocent souls

[@Ladya12345]

I love these because not only is Trent explaining the Catholic faith but he is also providing an excellent example of how to respectfully dialogue with people who disagree with us. This is definitely something I could work on!

[@stephencobb5044]

Thanks so much for not doing this over Zoom, but actually being in the same room and being present with each other. It adds so much to the authenticity to the friendliness of the discussion.

[@JH_Phillips]

Trent, please don’t rush or skip topics! I really enjoyed the discussion and I would have listened to several more hours!

[@PeskyWabbit.]

Yes!!! Need longer formats. Jimmy akin style

[@LyovaCampos]

☦🤝✝️He's not rushing, he simply doesn't have anything substantive to tell you other than spewing heresies. Stay away from those Catholic Answers pseudo Catholics

[@PeskyWabbit.]

@LyovaCampos huh? Can u tell me one heresy that "he is spewing"? How can someone who quotes the catechism be spewing heresy?

[@LyovaCampos]

@@PeskyWabbit. He is brainwashed by Akin the biggest blasphemer of our time & they both say that parts of Scripture is fables, the abomination of evolution is true & the "expert scientists" come before our Church fathers. Because of those modernist Trojan horses 80% of Catholics today believe those blasphemies are compatible with their faith. I am creating a channel to put a stop to this sickness & I will join true Catholics like Robert Sungenis (go to his channel instead to listen to Roman Catholic orthodoxy 101) & Gideon Lazar (who destroyed Akin in debate). If you follow those irreverent modernists they will drag you to the everlasting fire of Sheol🙏❤

[@LyovaCampos]

@@PeskyWabbit. Brother, he is brainwashed by Akin the biggest blasphemer of our time & they both say that parts of Scripture is fables, the abomination of evolution is true & the "expert scientists" come before our Church fathers. Because of those modernist Trojan horses 80% of Catholics today believe those blasphemies are compatible with their faith. I am creating a channel to put a stop to this sickness & I will join true Catholics like Robert Sungenis (go to his channel instead to listen to Roman Catholic orthodoxy 101) & Gideon Lazar (who destroyed Akin in debate). If you follow those irreverent modernists they will drag you to the everlasting fire of Sheol🙏❤

[@LukeBowman08]

Sam says (around 1:33:53) that Justin Martyr thinks Jesus is not with the same essence as the Father but this is just not true! in Dialogue with Trypho Ch.128 Justin says "when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same." this same type of analogy is used in Tertullian, Athanasius, and in the Nicene creed to show that Jesus is eternally begotten by the Father and the same essence as Him as well. Sam also says Justin thinks Christ came into existence as a Person at creation but in Ch.42 Justin says Jesus is "the eternal Priest"

[@cunjoz]

But he says that he was begotten by an act of will of the Father chapter 61: "God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself (...) and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled." He compares generation of the Son to us uttering a word, which means that there is a point when the word isn't uttered. This is the so-called 2-stage Logos christology.He also calls him a second God. The same sentiment is echoed in Tertullian in Against Praxeas ch. 5: "Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call λόγος, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; " So, when it was time to create, i.e., in the beginning, the Father uttered his Word in order to create (A.P ch. 19) It must also be He who says, "I am the First, and to all futurity I AM." The Word, no doubt, was before all things. "In the beginning was the Word;" John 1:1 and in that beginning He was sent forth by the Father. The Father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank. Most clearly in Against Hermogenes ch. 3: "Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him." Yes, he thinks that the Son is made of the same substance, of the same stuff, as the Father, but that doesn't preclude the Son being created at a certain point, after not really existing as a separate entity. With regards to Dialogue with Trypho and Christ being called the eternal priest, that's not the atemporal eternity but the everlasting future type of eternity. Trypho says in ch. 36: "Trypho: Let these things be so as you say- namely, that it was foretold Christ would suffer, and be called a stone; and after His first appearance, in which it had been announced He would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made." So Christ would be the eternal king and priest AFTER his first appearance. Also ch. 39 says: "it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ must suffer, and come again with glory, and receive the eternal kingdom over all the nations, " Does that mean that his kingdom over the nations spans infinitely into the past? no. it only has not end into the future. Sometimes, by eternal, he just means supernatural (ch. 47): "and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety,". Ch 89: "and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. " again, resurrection is endless only into the future Ch 113: "this is He who shall shine an eternal light in Jerusalem; this is he who is the king of Salem after the order of Melchizedek, and the eternal Priest of the Most High." the light is endless only into the future, and so is his priesthood since he wasn't a priest before but was made priest. Ch 119: "And He has called all of us by that voice, and we have left already the way of living in which we used to spend our days, passing our time in evil after the fashions of the other inhabitants of the earth; and along with Abraham we shall inherit the holy land, when we shall receive the inheritance for an *endless eternity*, being children of Abraham through the like faith. " In the Mass, during the institution narrative, it is said "novi et aeterni testamenti", but if the covenant is new, and is eternal, it can't really be infinite into the past, but only everlasting into the future. Yes, in ch. 96 he says: "this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ", but that is compatible with unitarianism (the "arian" kind), or subordinationism more broadly. Heb 5:10 says that Christ became the high priest, and the reason (i think) he's called an eternal high priest by Justin is because he's priest for ever. If we're going to say that it can be argued that the Son exited eternally because the substance of the Father existed eternally, then you could say that the chair you're sitting on is as old as the universe. You can't conclude Son's eternal past from one word alone.

[@dmech7171]

Shows you even the so called nicest mannered person can lie, what do you expect from a protestant, totally demonic and hell bound

[@jeanpommes]

Loved this, Trent. Your friendliness and willingness to listen reflects the best of Christian dialogue. Peace!

[@davidramsey2566]

I’ve gotten so much from both of your channels. It was great to hear you talk together. I hope there will be more great discussions like this between the two of you.

[@johnbiggs7181]

That highlight at the beginning is so good. Had to be satisfying to get that sound bite

[@LiberalMasters]

The Podcast Production quality is getting better, some more work on background is enough for Trent horn podcast to compete against Pints with Aquinas

[@Qrischun]

Also a wider table

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Indeed! This was just my desk turned sideways. Plans are in the works to upgrade the set.@@Qrischun

[@henrymalinowski5125]

He needs Michael Lofton’s wall of fake books from Bishop Barron.

[@JH_Phillips]

Well done! I’m loving the new interview format for the show!

[@quad9363]

I really appreciated the charity in disagreement throughout this dialogue. Thanks for doing this, Trent.

[@CatholicWithaBiblePodcast]

I am super excited to see this format on your channel. Keep going!

[@whaddup691]

“Where does His story begin” Right here: in the beginning there was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning” That’s a good place to start

[@Wully02]

There are many ways to read John 1:1 that aren't Trinitarian, and a lot of them are more coherent than a newly revealed second person of God.

[@Thedisciplemike]

@Wully02 there are many ways to read every scripture lol. And "more coherent" is completely subjective. Prove that your way is the correct way.

[@thatonechristian2487]

@@Wully02Such as?

[@EmberBright2077]

​@@Wully02 What are these non-Trinitarian interpretations, and how are they more coherent?

[@Wully02]

@@EmberBright2077 There are three main ones, that the beginning is the beginning of the Gospel, that the word is a personified attribute of God (like Wisdom in Proverbs), and that the word is an impersonal creation of God. I take the last view. The first thing the Bible describes as God's word is the Bible itself, and in second temple literature the Bible, especially the Law, was seen as God's word and wisdom. Jesus is the living Law, the living Scripture. God made everything patterned off of his logos, his word, the Scriptures. Jesus is that word made flesh.

[@christenh359]

Thank you for not cutting it off after an hour. This was fascinating!

[@AjaxNixon]

Loving these discussions Trent. I became Catholic last year and paradoxically I've been more open to hearing differing views like these now that my denominational grounding is in the apostolic hierarchy and the teaching authority of the church and not from reason in a vacuum where I felt anxious and confused before thinking that I needed to figure out these highly technical issues myself. But then again paradoxically once I accepted this authority I came to appreciate the depth and reasonableness of what the church teaches

[@Jerome616]

I know exactly how you feel!

[@fcastellanos57]

Catholicism and its doctrines shut down any other different way of understanding who the Almighty and how this Spirit is. It is for those who do not want to or not feel capable of pondering about this things. Basically, all the thinking has been done by others. I grew up Catholic and the Bible took me away from Catholicism when I discovered truths ignored or wrongly interpreted by them. The Bible gives us truths not religion or rituals but we have to be willing to open our minds and get deep into those questions and doubts we may have. After many years of listening and reading the Scriptures, my conclusion is that there is no Trinity and that Jesus is not God, this conclusion totally harmonizes with the Old and New Testament and all the words of Jesus. The book of John, which some argue proves Jesus is God, actually has a clear statement from John himself about the purpose for writing this book, we can find it in John 20:30-31, in those days, the question was: is Jesus the Messiah? That was the question, there was not even a hint to think that Jesus was YHWH, and this is the reason for John to write this book.

[@AjaxNixon]

@@fcastellanos57 Alright, but you're reading a canon established by the authority of the church. There are billions of unique interpretations and realistically there must be a structure to settle these disputes such as what we see with the apostles and then there successors. I choose to humble myself to their teaching authority on these matters as this is the process established by Christ through the Holy Spirit. And within orthodoxy there is still a vast amount to ponder and broadly speaking it comes together in a cohesive whole. Look even just at someone contemporary like Bishop Barron or Jimmy Akin on KZbin, and how we can always dig deeper and deeper into Scripture and it's an infinite pool of wisdom. What you said has no bearing on the Catholic tradition but would be more appropriate to certain people and sects such as many biblical literalists/fundamentalists.

[@fcastellanos57]

@@AjaxNixon Yes, I know that Catholic tradition does not necessarily goes along with Scripture. You talk about the authority of the church, however, I do not see historically or biblically that this authority was passed to those who were after the apostles. The church Jesus founded is not physical or is limited to a group, this church started in Pentecost and has continuously grown and have been replace by believers that have existed through the centuries. Everyone who has received the Spirit of the Father is part of Jesus's body who is the head. Catholicism in my opinion of many years of dealing with this, has misunderstood many things concerning what was given to us by Jesus and the apostles. Everything that comes from the Father, who is God Almighty, comes by His Spirit. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman in John 4, how he would give her living water. In John 7:37-39, Jesus speaks about the rivers of living water that those who believed in him were to received, and John said, Jesus was talking about the Spirit that was not given yet until Jesus was to die and be raised. In John 6, Jesus says he is the bread of life, "he who believes in me will never hungry and he who comes to me will never thirst", so, this is how we eat and drink of Jesus, by believing and coming to him. Catholicism has made all these a ritual purportedly to give us this spiritual food, however it is not through a ritual but through the Spirit as I showed in John 6 and John 7 above. We have already been forgiven by the Father in what Jesus suffered, so there is no need for further asking for forgiveness, it has already been taken care of. God, who is the Father only as John 7:37 says, wants everyone to live righteous lives and grow in love by the power of His Spirit, that is His will.

[@AjaxNixon]

how sure are you of this certain exegesis? I think it would make more sense to follow the actual historical church instead that was a community of faithful that was gathered together under the bishops and that real institution has passed on throughout the ages and is the living body of christ, and bodies are physical.@@fcastellanos57

[@benjaminshirley]

Interviews like this show why we shouldn't pigeon hole a certain position. This was very informative and he kept up with Trent throughout the interview. This interview also shows the importance of a magisterium. Sola Scriptura leads down many divergent paths. To disagree would be to fall into the two fallacies Trent brought up... "No true Scotsman" and the "Texas Sharpshooter fallacy "

[@Michael-bk5nz]

He does have a point, you can reject all the teachings of the ecumenical councils, or you can accept them all, but to accept some and reject others seems arbitrary and capricious

​@@Michael-bk5nzBut even Augustine said councils can err

[@Proclivitytolife]

He means in non definitive matters.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

The views of individual Church Fathers is meaningless if the same view isn't held by other such Church Fathers. The singular focus on Augustine and 1 or two others gives him a level of infallibility that he simply doesn't have, regardless of the title.

[@user-jd9zm4jf3t]

@@Proclivitytolife Can any church leadership declare infallibly? If so...who told you that?

[@griffin.xxxxxx]

You’d think this debate (*dialogue*) would be so diametrically opposed and tense but this conversation was very chill.

[@LyovaCampos]

☦🤝✝️because both are blasphemers, you need to stay away from Catholic answers

[@Fassnight]

That's because it was a dialogue. It wasn't a debate. Neither guy was pushing back on the other side.

[@LyovaCampos]

@@Fassnight No, my answer was the correct one brother: Catholic Answers blaspheme. Also, don't be influenced by Akin - American idols shirts are idolatry, so get rid of that wicked profile pic, it isn't befitting to a Christian🙏❤

[@Thedisciplemike]

​@LyovaCampos how in God’s green earth does that follow in the least? So only fiery and uncharitble discussion leans on the side of truth?

[@LyovaCampos]

@@Thedisciplemike Brother, this isn't uncharitable at all, on the contrary, I am warning my Roman Catholic brothers from false profits who destroy their faith, and there's nothing more heretical than Catholic Answers, especially Akin. False prophet are fair game in this sense, because they drag thousands of innocent souls with them to the everlasting fire of Sheol. Where has the world come to when most Catholics AND Catholic schools teach the abomination of evolution & not to take Scripture at face value...look what is happening to your Roman Catholic Church with that modernist/Protestant infiltration for the past 100 years. You need to stop it now & save your Popes from this yoke

[@PuzzlesC4M]

This is so good, Trent. The internet popularity of Biblical Unitarianism is one of the things that pushed me toward Catholicism. You were so respectful, and I can see why Sam would prefer a debate with you rather than a debate with a traditional Protestant.

[@masonsmith6299]

Trent we like the long form content! Keep it up!

[@WhiteStoneName]

Great convo. Thanks for having Sam. Love that guy.

[@almondtree]

Stay sexy, Luke ❤

[@defeatingdefeaters]

I met Trent in 2014 at an apologetics conference at Our Lady of Mount Caramel in San Diego, Ca. Trent was a kind dude. He stood off the side with me for a few minutes discussing the so-called "Hard Problem of Consciousness." I was impressed with the depth of knowledge he enjoyed. I was more impressed that he wasn't a rockstar snob. 👍

[@samueljennings4809]

Regarding the divinity of Jesus, I actually think that James 2 is an underrated text for that, and it’s done in a way that is only explained if the deity of Jesus is taken for granted by the writer and reader. I heard this from an anonymous poster that I unfortunately cannot remember, but here it is: James calls Jesus "the Lord of Glory" in 2:1. This sounds like a far more exalted title than the mere "Lord" he uses elsewhere. But it's even stronger when you compare it to other stuff, James says about other people James warns against the sin of partiality in chapter 2, especially on the basis of wealth. The idea is that every human is to be granted equal respect, specifically in corporate worship. But James increases the force of his argument in 2:7, where he says that the rich "blaspheme the honourable name by which you were called." Which name? Probably not YHWH if James was writing in a Jewish context to believers facing Jewish persecution--a more likely candidate would be Jesus, whose name, apparently, can be blasphemed. But we can go further. In 5:17 James brings up Elijah as an illustration of steadfast prayer; he says that we have the same access to God that Elijah did. Elijah was a prophet--but James' argument turns on the idea that Elijah, who held the prophetic office, was not superior to any one of us; instead, he had the same access to God that we do. So the rich aren't superior to the poor. Prophets aren't superior to non-prophets. But Jesus, James' older brother, is the "Lord of glory", whose name can be blasphemed. Sure sounds like James thought Jesus was the Lord of the Old Testament and much more than a mere prophet, or he wouldn’t have applied “the Lord of glory” to Jesus, which is only ever given to YHWH (Psalm 24).

[@samueljennings4809]

That, and Paul applies Psalm 68, about the triumph of God, to Jesus, and declares that God’s ascension in the psalm was fulfilled in the resurrection and ascension. Afterwards, Christ “gives gifts to men” (Eph 4:8; this is the context for spiritual gifts), while it is God who gives the gifts in the original psalm (Ps 68:18-19). Again, Paul seems to take the deity of Jesus for granted, and not something that has to be argued or debated to his readers. I’m sure that there are more parallel texts like this where the deity of Jesus is taken for granted.

[@Onlyafool172]

Wow

[@levrai944]

Brilliant 👌🏾

[@PETERJOHN101]

I have used Revelation 1:8 to support the identification of Jesus as the Almighty, as there is no higher appellation than *_the Alpha and the Omega,_* and here Jesus is referring to himself.

[@levrai944]

@@PETERJOHN101 yup that’s an obvious one that somehow a lot of people miss

[@stephengriffin4612]

Trent and Sam are both to be commended for their courtesy and knowledge of their various perspectives. Perhaps I could clarify and summarize their views in a simple sentence. As a Unitarian friend of mine said, Unitarians believe in the Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, and the Neighborhood of Boston. That pretty much sums it up

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

I have been bumping into Sam's material all week. Looking forward to this dialogue ☦️

[@transfigured3673]

Right back at you.

[@BazedPhilosophy]

COTEL has done a couple videos on Sam. They’re worth a watch if you haven’t seen them yet. Would be interesting to see the two talk with each other.

[@user-jd9zm4jf3t]

@@BazedPhilosophy Why would Catholics get mad at us Protestants when we AGREE with them?

[@Angelo-01870]

​@@user-jd9zm4jf3tprotestants don't agree to Catholics at all..they don't believe in Saints so protestants see Mary as a whore of Babylon.. EUCHARIST is just a symbol while Catholics believe its literally body and blood of Jesus that we eat. Baptism is just a symbol while Catholics believes its a regeneration of our soul..when u baptize u are born again.. Catholics believe that God's Words is Scripture and Tradition..while Prots is only Scripture ..Protestants don't believe in Pope or the sit of Peter Authority.. Catholics believe that We are the True Christians and have the wholeness of truth while Protestants believe we are not christians and just a other denomination.. Catholics don't get angry to Protestants instead rebuking them for thier wrong teachings about those.. Where does Protestants agree to Catholics? Only in trinity..but Not all Protestants because u have thousands of divisions some are Unitarian,Calvanist,so on and so fort in which they have wrong perspective about God..

[@BazedPhilosophy]

@@user-jd9zm4jf3tagree with them on what?

[@jimmymelonseed4068]

“If you believe in the trinity, then you should probably be Catholic” I could not agree more my friend.

[@israelcowl6764]

Great dialogue, as a Biblical Unitarian myself, I appreciate seeing this individual express his views and I'll have to listen to more of his stuff.

[@bayreuth79]

With regard to "my Lord and my God" from John: I suspect that Trent does not know Greek because there is no possibility of a lower case 'g' here. Greek distinguishes between theos and ho theos (the term god with and without the definite article) and ho theos always means God in the absolute sense of that term. "ho kyrios mu ho theos mu" means: my LORD and my GOD. It is actually the most unequivocal statement of the full divinity of Christ.

[@_eemjee_]

wow thank you.

[@racheldsouza8895]

I Appreciate this comment very much!May God continue to give you wisdom, knowledge and understanding

[@T_K_R_G]

It isn't, the most you could say is that Jesus according to this verse was acting as a manifestation or mirror showing God while himself is a mere human even if he has perfections only reserved for his rank. So Thomas realized the true God in this manifestation as if he was seeing God.

[@CommonSenseChristianityT]

@@T_K_R_G Correct. The whole point was about SEEING and BELIEVING. They kept asking to SEE THE FATHER. Jesus told them if they had SEEN HIM, they had SEEN THE FATHER and to believe because of the works themselves as the FATHER WHO DWELLED IN HIM PERFORMED HIS WORKS. From now on you have KNOWN THE FATHER AND HAVE SEEN HIM When Thomas SAW Jesus resurrected he SAW Jesus physically there AND HE SAW THE FATHER'S works which had just raised Jesus from the dead. Also, important note. Immediately after the statement of Thomas, John tells us the entire point he wants us to get out of all his writings and it's to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Not God the Son or God almighty. Trinitarians always forget the Father Two persons are being identified in John 20:28. In the greek it's The Lord of me AND the God of me Mary and the other apostles saw Jesus before Thomas did and they didnt' say we have seen our Lord and God or that God had risen from the dead...It would make ZERO sense for Thomas to finally come to the understanding that Jesus was God by seeing holes in Jesus's hands and feet and that God raised Jesus from the dead Matthew Mark and Luke don't even hint that Jesus is God Jesus is a reflection of who God is..he mirrored God. He was God's image. To see him is to see the Father as God the Father was working through the MAN Jesus (Acts 2:22) etc blessings

[@EmberBright2077]

​​@@T_K_R_G How is that the most you could say? Wouldn't it be the least you could say? Not to mention that is a little bit of a stretch on the text.

[@chezispero3533]

Sam!!! Calm cool and collected. God is one!!!

[@transfigured3673]

Amen Chezi

[@milkeywilkie]

This guy is so chill and easy-going, I really enjoyed this dialogue!

[@dvforever]

Wolves come dressed in sheep's clothing. Heretics are so calm and nice these days.

[@timboslice980]

Just have to say i LOVE this new format of interview style. Love it! It’s how apologetics can find common ground and discuss the differences without the vitriol. I hope Trent brings on some messianic jews, i used to have a friend that was into that. Its an interesting form of Christianity, theres a big channel called ‘Grafted’ they cover a lot of material.

[@JonathanRedden-wh6un]

Unitarianism is not Christian. We cannot worship Jesus if He not God. The Diety of Christ is affirmed by Scripture. Jesus cannot be our saviour if Jesus is only human. Blessings from Protestant.

[@igorlopes7589]

I don't think the Diety of Christ is affirmed by Scripture, but his Deity surely is!

[@Jk-ow8ny]

@@igorlopes7589it think the diety of Christ is clear in the bible. Matthew 1:21 “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” Jesus means “Yahweh saves” Psalm 130:7-8 “7 Israel, put your hope in the Lord, for with the Lord is unfailing love and with him is full redemption. 8 He himself will redeem Israel from all their sins.”

[@ExtraVictory]

As an agnostic, you either didn't watch the video or didn't understand the arguments on both sides lol. The Unitarian said multiple times they think Christ is the literal, biological son of God, and that his cosmic importance & ability to live sinlessly & die for the world comes from that. This doesn't make any less logical sense than the Trinity, (three distinct persons but only one god) and the idea that Christ importance comes from being one of those three persons (god the son) incarnate They are just different interpretations of the bible, & the nontrinitarian is actually way closer to you than the secular, scholarly class or the growing ranks of athiests lmao

[@JW_______]

I agree 100% that unitarianism is not Christianity, but I think that a unitarian who does not understand divine simplicity and the theological implications of the philosophical nuances involved can still be Christian. Strictly speaking, they could still hold to the words of the apostles creed - "I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who is conceived by the Holy Spirit ..." They may think of Christ as God's only begotten son, subordinate to the Father, without understanding that Christ is of one substance with the Father. This is surely a less dangerous position than denying Christ's deity, or thinking of Him as an angel. My argument hinges on an understanding that one can be theologically ignorant and simoultaneously hold to contradicting beliefs about God, thereby not falling prey to all of the implications of one's own views. However, to be ignorant is a precarious place to be.

[@igorlopes7589]

@@Jk-ow8ny You didn't get it, did you?

[@jackstewart753]

I found this more enjoyable than a debate, and i probably learnt more in this format plus it shows the guest in a more charitable way as opposed to an opponent, although he seems very likeable anyway.

[@ChristisLord2]

Love the long form content Trent, keep it up

[@yosefrazin6455]

Excellent conversation - brilliant guest. Good to see you two seriously wrestling with God

[@transfigured3673]

Howdy Yosef. Gave you a shout out in my recent video.

[@EmJay2022]

Much respect to Trent for hosting a Biblical Unitarian on the podcast.

[@rojcewiczj]

To my understanding, I think one issue that comes out in this discussion is the idea that "God" is a personal name. If that was the case, then whenever you read God, you'll think one person. However, if we understand God to refer to the divine nature then we can understand that multiple people can share that nature. The Father is a personal name, He, eternally begetting the Son and spriating the Spirit, is called God. The Son and the Spirit, by sharing the God nature with the Father are also God. Saying you just believe in God, is like saying you just believe in Humanity but not human persons. It doesn't really make sense.

[@IAmisMaster]

But God (“theos” in Greek) is a personal title for the Father 95% of the time in the NT. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” is a reference to the Father, not the divine nature. It makes no sense saying the divine nature has a Son. The Father has a Son. You should read Dr. Beau Branson and Fr. John Behr on monarchical trinitarianism. That’s the only way to harmonize the good points the unitarians make with the true doctrine of the Trinity.

[@rojcewiczj]

@IAmisMaster I'm Orthodox and understand as well that the title "God" is mostly in reference to the father, as in the Creed "one God the Father Almighty". I only ment to point out that God isn't a single person, but a title that can be shared by having the same Divine nature, by being God. The title is most often given to the Father but being God doesn't mean being the Father, it means having the same Divine nature. I think this understanding is confused for many modern people

[@IAmisMaster]

@@rojcewiczj oh I see. Agreed!

[@ryandunn5991]

​@@IAmisMaster interestingly enough Adam is the word for man Hebrew and it has some similarities to using the term God to refer to God The Father there's a really cool video by Apologetics Roadshow on an argument against abortion from Genesis that also touches into the Trinitarian discussion.

[@user-ur4rg5ph3x]

Loved this Lil chat

[@laurafreeburn8439]

Great conversation! Thanks for having this guest on

[@transfigured3673]

Fancy seeing you here

[@stevenchavez5979]

I wish you had a space like Shapiro for these...always such good content.

[@traceyedson9652]

In Orthodoxy, the Father is “the God” from Whom the Son/Word/Wisdom/Power and the Spirit receive Divinity which is the ousia/nature of the Father. The Father does not possess divinity; He is the very source of it. This is the monarchical Trinity clearly taught in the NT, shadowed in the OT, explicated by the Fathers, and upheld by the Ecumenical synods. The Son can call the Father “only God” and “greatest” because of this. The Son is begotten of the Father, not created, and possesses “all” the Father has because it has been given Him. The amazing thing is that the Son “gives all things” to those “in Him” by grace which He has from the Father by nature. Stunning.

[@masterchief8179]

I guess you get almost everything right here. Congrats for the descriptive and explanatory parts of the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. The only problem would be Eastern Orthodoxy Pneumatology (= Monopatrism) and the part you affirmed the Father doesn’t “possess divinity”, in which one could probably deduce, since the Son or the Spirit aren’t the uncaused cause (=arché) in the Trinity, that they - on the contrary - possess divinity by their relational causation (respectively, from the Father and from the Father through the Son), but “possessing the essence” or possessing the very being would be a wrong metaphysical description of the One who Is, I guess. I really think that’s not what you meant though. God bless!

[@traceyedson9652]

@@masterchief8179you are correct! I was driving to work thinking, Somebody will catch the “possess” thing! The Father self-exists in His divinity which He freely shares relationally with His Logos & Spirit. Anymore and I’m out of my depth!

[@masterchief8179]

@@traceyedson9652 Nah, I really liked your insights! Thank you, sir. God bless!

[@newglof9558]

That's one heck of a soundbite in the beginning.

[@zemotheon12987]

This was super fascinating. Thanks, Trent and Sam!

[@bearistotle2820]

Do I think the bible is more coherent within a trinitarian framework? Yes. Do I think that there is enough ambiguity to be able to read Unitarianism, Arianism, and even Mormonism into it? Also yes. This demonstrates the biggest issue with sola scriptura. Books don't talk back. If you want to make the bible support just about any conceivable position, you can twist it enough to get there and no one can stop you. We need actual human authorities as a check on leading ourselves away from truth.

[@ObioraGideon-un6ur]

Lmao. Trinitarianism is the only view derived from ambiguity. Unitarianism is more coherent

[@EmberBright2077]

​@@ObioraGideon-un6ur How so?

[@killingtime9283]

And Sola Scriptura allows for human authorities, it does not however confess them to be infallible.

[@bearistotle2820]

@@killingtime9283 If they are not infallible, you can hold them subject to your own interpretation of the Bible. Then we are back at square one.

[@killingtime9283]

@@bearistotle2820 Even if a source is infallible you'd still need to interpret it. Whether it's holy scripture or the teachings of the magisterium. There's no getting around that.

[@jeromevillanueva2207]

While watching this video, my mind goes... That's _______ism, Samuel!

[@clintd3476]

Come on, Patrick.

[@robertdolcetti450]

That video is absolute gold! Thanks for reminding me lol.

[@FlexCathedrafromIG]

Professing to be Christian while denying the Divinity of Christ is absolutely crazy

[@PETERJOHN101]

I don't think I could have said it better.

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

They simply are not Christians and never absolutely never let them get away with saying they are. Christianity is all about Christ, if they don't get the hint they're out, their baptisms are invalid anyway so they are not Christian period.

[@magepunk2376]

Not really. The Christians of the first few centuries weren’t trinitarians.

[@holyromanemperor420]

​@@magepunk2376 Yes, they were. They might not have had well defined Trinitarian theology, but they absolutely believed "in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Their entire baptismal formula was based on it. They also believed in Christ's divinity.

[@Joe-gi3nj]

@@magepunk2376 just because they didn’t have the concept defined into the word “Trinity” does not mean they didn’t believe the concept. Jesus was a Trinitarian. He explicitly stated that He is The Son, sent by The Father, and He sent The Advocate to the Apostles once He was no longer with them physically

[@mj6493]

There is so much wrong with Sam's "biblical Unitarianism" (an oxymoron) that I'll just have to let go of most of it. But, as a Protestant, I'm saddened by how many of the tired old caricatures of Protestant faith reemerged in this conversation. Sam seemed to glom onto Protestantism the way Mormons glom onto Christianity in general. Right at the start, Sola Scriptura is claimed when he is nowhere near understanding it properly. Then we are told that Protestants don't believe that Mary is the theotokos. Protestants do believe that Mary is the theotokos, but many Protestants at street level just haven't thought about Mary much and are unfamiliar with the term. I'll stop at that, but since we're only one day out from St. Patrick's Day, maybe this would be a good time to review "St. Patrick's Bad Analogies" of Lutheran Satire.

[@travispelletier3352]

Yep. Basically, Trent found a heretic who claims to be protestant (despite holding views rejected by all major protestant figures), so he can now make some clips in which protestants look bad. It would be like a Muslim talking to a Mormon and clipping the Mormon saying, "if you believe in only One God, you need to become a Muslim." Ummm, sorry but no. Mormons don't get to say they're Christian just because they want respectability. And Unitarians don't get to be Christian either - much less protestants - just because they claim to be.

[@SevereFamine]

Who are you to say he is using “Sola Scriptura” correctly. Are you saying these an authority outside of the Bible that you must consult?

[@PETERJOHN101]

Your final reference is lost on me, but regarding the Protestant distaste for referring to Mary as the mother of God, this really has nothing to do with belief in the deity of Jesus by most Protestants. Rather, it is reluctance to extend such terminology to Mary as a kind of appellation, which Protestants feel is going too far. To me as a former Protestant who came to embrace the Orthodoxy, I don't view this as doctrinally important.

[@1517the_year]

@@SevereFamineyes the Protestant reformers who penned the term “sola scriptura” believed the early church councils were authoritative. They all deemed the trinity to be an essential doctrine.

[@holyromanemperor420]

1) The point of this conversation was to explain Unitarianism since Unitarianism is getting too popular and Muslims are taking advantage of that. So it is important that we learn about it from Unitarians themselves so that we could counter Islamic arguments taking advantage of this position. Often time, I see Christians just saying "oh, that isn't what the vast majority of Christians believe" but that doesn't do the argument justice and isn't gonna convince any Muslim that Unitarianism is completely absurd from a Biblical perspective. 2) There are Protestants who don't believe in the term "Theotokos" and many even go to the point of calling it Babylonian goddess. You must be very unfamiliar with American Evangelical Protestantism. There are WAY too many Protestants who reject the title and call it pagan. This includes many popular ones like Alex, Mike, etc..

[@johndavolta3124]

Majority of Protestants believe in the Trinity just like Catholics. The thumbnail is a bit deceiving. Trent Horn is the reason I am protestant btw.

[@tonyl3762]

"When I say X, I mean Y" That's the problem right there, all the I's. The ice cream flavor approach to Christianity. And great illustration of how communication technology keeps heresies alive (printing press to Internet).

[@jeromevillanueva2207]

Imagine if St. Nicholas of Myra was the person talking Sam there and not Trent. 😅

[@JamesMonicaWillson]

LOVED this episode. Unitarianism was so well represented during this discussion. Loved the back and forth. Very interesting and informative. I love at 55mins how Trent basically says if people like it, they’ll keep watching- so true! 😂

[@iamdigory]

The Trinity is fully taught in scripture, it is very irresponsible to tell protestants that unless they are ready to be catholic, they should reject the Trinity. Edit: what we call "the Trinity" is not a single doctrine but actually a collection of doctrines such as: there is only one God, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Son is not the Father. Each of these is clearly taught in scripture so it is right to say that the Trinity is taught in scripture, even though they are not all in one place.

[@Joe-gi3nj]

I haven’t encountered a single Catholic suggest you should be ready to reject the Trinity to become Catholic (perhaps Protestants have suggested that; they wrongly believe many things about Catholicism) The only time I’ve heard people suggest anything like “Well then you shouldn’t believe in the Trinity” in regards to Catholicism is when Catholics respond to Protestants when they try to argue “if it isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible, then it’s wrong to believe it”. The trinity isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible; it’s implicit. This isn’t saying “you should reject the Trinity” to become Catholic. It’s moreso saying you should reject explicit Sola Scriptura to become Catholic. However, I fully recognize I may have completely misunderstood your comment

[@StoaoftheSouth]

I think his observation is that the same Protestants who would eagerly adopt the conciliar teaching about the Trinity and nature of Christ are also very ready to reject many other aspects of their theology because contradicted/not found in Scripture.

[@jimmymelonseed4068]

I like this guy… more protestants should listen to him.

[@user-hj8vd2od9h]

If a Protestant holds to the claim (which some do) that every Christian doctrine needs to be explicitly taught in Scripture, then this type of Protestant should logically reject the trinity, since the trinity is not explicitly (albiet implicitly) taught in scripture. But you are right that we shouldn't assume every protestant believes that every Christian doctrine needs to be explicitly in scripture. Although it appears that this guest does believe this, so we shouldn't say it is completely irresponsible.

[@carlpeterson8182]

@@user-hj8vd2od9hof course that is very few Protestants and not Sola scriptura historically. So it would telling all Protestants to do because a very small minority believe. Maybe I should tell all Roman Catholics to stop believing Mary is divine because a very small minority might believe in her divinity.

[@ChrisHuston.]

I've only just recently encountered Unitarianism as a serious and thoughtful position in Christianity, in its "Biblical" incarnation (pardon the pun), and I hadn't heard of this guy, so 1) I'm glad to see Trent engagng with this Christian doctrine and 2) I think he's picked a fairly good person to explore this with, though I think maybe Dr. Tuggy may be the primary voice for this. Still, again, I love seeing someone else defend it and do it fairly well, and with great charity and irenicism, and for Trent to grapple honestly with this view.

[@maxspringer01]

Dale Tuggy, Sean Finnegan, Anthony Buzzard are some of the main ones I know of. I'm also glad to see this position being seriously discussed.

[@giovanibenjamin9655]

Unitarians are not Christian’s, they deny the deity of our Lord, very important for our Salvation. Don’t fall for the bait that his setting up for you to actually consider his position, he’s view couldn’t be more unbiblical

[@thelonelysponge5029]

You honestly can’t be a Christian if you’re a Unitarian, but then again, you’ve probably heard this sentiment a million times already. Here is my thinking. Just because there could be “good” arguments for a position, doesn’t make it true or close to true. In fact, I think there can be such thing as good arguments for something that is objectively wrong and way off.

[@CommonSenseChristianityT]

@@thelonelysponge5029 That’s probably the silliest thing I’ve ever heard in my life, you follow a three person God, that nobody in the gospel ever tries to make the case for…. And we are never told to believe or preach it to anybody, yes, you can be a Christian if you’re biblical Unitarian, because that’s what a true Christian is True worshipers worship the father in spirit and truth, not a triune God, in spirit and truth

[@thelonelysponge5029]

@@CommonSenseChristianityT Biblical Unitarianism? I don’t believe there is a case to be made. Worshiping the Father in truth and Spirit, hmmm. How do you know you worship the Father in truth and in spirit? How do you “worship” in truth and in spirit? Besides, should we also not give worship to the Spirit of the Lord? Or give worship to his Son? Who is God almighty?

[@juliustakang2423]

Hey Trent love all the work you're doing! The only thing I can say is don't sacrifice pushing back on certain points especially when a person claims a false ciew is biblical, like when he tried to use John 17:3

[@billcynic1815]

Reminds me of the end of the discussion between Gavin Ortland and Fr Stephen De Young, which was supposed to be about Sola Scriptura and Ortland turned into a critique of Nicea 2. Ortland ends by saying the historical evidence doesn't support Nicea II, and Fr Stephen comments that his unitarian friend says the exact same thing about Nicea I. Ortland says it's different because he can get the building blocks of the Trinity from Scripture, to which Fr Stephen says he can do the same with icon veneration. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYHUf6hsZdmLaZIsi=JyR06stDW7d1hbde&t=1h31m50s

[@joshuadonahue5871]

Pretty sure Sam Tideman *is* his Unitarian friend

Where does the Scripture say you must venerate icons?

[@billcynic1815]

St John of Damascus heavily relied on the Holy Scriptures in his treatise "On the Holy Images" in which he defended iconography. If you want Scriptural evidences, read him; he does better than I could. But those get dismissed by iconoclasts as not being direct or specific or not having a clear enough historical precedent. They explain how those Scriptures don't really support iconography, and demand an explicit Scripture. In the exact same way Unitarians argue against the Trinity, and the popular proof texts don't actually prove the doctrine, and demand a Scripture that directly states the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity and that you have to believe in the Trinity to properly worship God. That's Fr Stephen's point.

[@l21n18]

That’s pretty bad really if that’s what ortlund did, changing the subject like that. Have to check it out. Ortlund does seem to have made icons his hobby horse recently

[@billcynic1815]

@l21n18 I think believes it is the easiest thing to attack as an accretion that he can play the game of both saying "I'm not convinced this is necessary for salvation" and insinuating "This idolatry/borderline idolatry and proof of the problems of Holy Tradition." And in a discussion on _sola scriptura_ it's easier to keep the frame on the offensive, since the jump from mere Christianity to _sola scriptura_ is hardly an easy or self-evident one. The problem is that his same methodology and criteria undermine the Trinity.

[@andrewborchelt305]

in the beginning of the video Sam starts off by criticizing other protestants that think that Sola Scriptura cant lead to multiple interpretations of Jesus's divinity and ends the video saying that all protestants should be Unitarians if they really subscribe to sola scriptura. Cant have it both ways guys.

[@Leonugent2012]

Before Abraham was I Am

[@Wully02]

That is more properly translated as "Before Abraham's coming, I am he."

[@CommonSenseChristianityT]

It can also be translated as Before Abraham was, I am he or Before Abraham was I am the one They asked right before If Jesus was claiming to be greater than Abraham By declaring that he was the one spoken of and foretold long before Abraham was born would have made him greater than their father Abraham which they took offence to. Nothing about a literal pre existence. Its prophetic

[@rafecolii]

I love the thumbs-up from Trent.

[@kurida7]

I hope he realizes that that was a no-no

[@ezekielcarsella]

Shoutout Sam for repping the little corner great dialogue to watch!

[@christianstephens7213]

Oddly with easter coming up , this conversation has solidified my decision to be Catholic.

[@elizabethking5523]

Hello friend! I don’t blame you! You will be blown away at how consistent the Catholic faith is! I will be confirmed into the Catholic faith this Easter, 2024! You may already know this, but if you don’t you need to sign up for their RCIA class. Visit around to a couple of different parishes on Sunday. Some classes, are during the week., and some might be on a Sunday, before or after mass.. but most importantly, as you study, keep your eyes on the Eucharist! The Catholic faith is biblical , liturgical, And Jewish! Many people may try to stop you so don’t be surprised when the opposition comes your way. Pray! Pray! Pray! Find a good parish! Find a caring priest! Asked the Lord to guide you . When you go to church on Sunday, don’t be surprised If people SEEM unfriendly. Fellowship is different in the Catholic faith in the sense, in that Fellowship, and visiting doesn’t happen in the sanctuary right before or right after mass. But, afterwards outside, and or at their other activities. Blessings to you on your journey! You can learn a lot from people like Trent Horn , Scott Hahn, Joe Hershmeir, and Brant Pietre. 🙏🏻😃

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Unfortunately, Craig DOES call himself "classical theist." Often with an irritated tone of disagreement.

[@thirdparsonage]

Thanks for being respectful! Even those we heavily disagree with we should treat honorably!

[@dvforever]

We didn't treat heretics with honor in the past. Were we wrong?

[@Taydutt13]

If you do not believe in The Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit you are not a christian

[@cbooth151]

"If you do not believe in The Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit you are not a christian." Yes, I believe in the Father, Son, and holy spirit. But, where does the Bible say they make up the same "one God"? NOWHERE!! The trinity believe is not a Christian teaching.

[@Taydutt13]

@@cbooth151 smh

[@Taydutt13]

@cbooth151 I'm sorry. However, we do not worship the same God or the same Jesus.. God is triune, not three individual gods.

[@cbooth151]

@@Taydutt13Come back later when you grow up. Maybe, then we can have an adult discussion.

[@cbooth151]

@@Taydutt13 "We do not worship the same God or the same Jesus.. God is triune, not three individual gods." Who is the God of the Catholic Church. As Trent Horn said: "There is one God who exists as three co-equal, co-eternal persons." Now, did Trent Horn get that belief from the Bible? No, he didn't. He got it from a man-made creed. As the Athanasian Creed says: "The whole "Three Persons [of the trinity] are *CO-ETERNAL* together, and *CO-ETERNAL." But, where does the Bible say that the Father, Son, and holy spirit make up the same "ONE GOD"? Answer: NOWHERE!! The "one God of the Bible is just one person, namely, Jesus' Father. As Jesus said to the Samaritan woman: "But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him." (John 4:23) Did you get that. The "true worshipers" worship Jesus' Father, not a three-person deity. So, since Catholics worship a mythical tri-personal god, they are not "true worshipers." BTW, Jesus never instructed his followers to worship him. Instead, he directed them to worship the Father, Yahweh, the one Jesus said was "the ONLY true God." (John 17:3) You need an accurate Bible study big time.

[@Catholicguy-qs3ng]

Trent , it was an amazing podcast Can you please do a video on scientific evidence for some catholic miracles I already love a documentary on the Lady of Guadalupe by gabiafterhours which have helped in my devotion to our lady🙏🙏 Thank you

[@Onlyafool172]

I rather he doesnt do that because the "skeptics" will say, well we cant be sure... because uh... acient sewing technics that are undiscovered !! Proceeds to list lost welding, proceed to use a source of a non scientist who is biased and hipothecises about it withou actually doing the experiment, and it will just be more tiring arguments and discussions.

[@Catholicguy-qs3ng]

@onlyafool172 Thanks 👍

[@mitslev4043]

I use to think trent was very dismissive of unitarians simply as heretics. I grew a lot of respect that he sat down and had a discussion with one. Im a unitarian and im glad he gave respect and understanding to our views despite not agreeing. Personally i believe god loves those who actively seek him out regardless if they are right or wrong on any given issues. I think this discussion also brings out that trinitarian views are not as definitive as they are sometimes portrayed.

[@sivad1025]

The bigger problem for unitarians is Matthew 18 where Jesus teaches that should a dispute arise in the church, the apostles have the final authority to bind the members to judgments. And if the people in question refuse to comply, they should be treated as pagans. At Nicea, a dispute arose and it was brought before the successors of the apostles. They near-unanimously bound the church to the doctrine of Jesus' eternal divinity (and later the trinity). Unitarians aren't heretics because they made an intellectual error on a tough issue; they're heretics because the explicitly reject the binding judgement of Jesus' church

[@mitslev4043]

@@sivad1025 two problems. One they were not the apostles. If the do hold authority as the successors then so did the unitarians at nicea. Two he was taking about someone sining not disputing on an intellectual issue. The passage about treating them as pagans is about unrepentant sinners.

[@sivad1025]

​@@mitslev4043 If Jesus is God, it would be highly sinful to tell people to not worship him. That's why Nicea is dogmatic. If Matthew 18 died with the apostles, then there is no real church authority today and none of Paul's commands to submit to the church make any sense. As Catholics will point out, the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" given to Peter allude back to the prime minister's keys to Israel that were passed on. Unless I'm mistaken, only two out the 318 Bishops at Nicea rejected the creed and were excommunicated. All that to say, it's strange for unitarians 2,000 years later to come in and claim to have the right answer when the overwhelming majority of the church firmly rejected that position.

[@mitslev4043]

@@sivad1025 that logic works in reverse. If Jesus is not God it would be highly sinful to say he is. I typically believe the authorities of the church in instances that don't conflict with Scripture. In this case I think you can make a good case for both the Trinity and a unitarian view. In which case the bible would take president and we would have to conced that it is an unknown. Not that we can't have a view but it's one thing we should not say for sure Yes only a few objected but out of all of the bishops invited very few actually showed up. Many from the regions that did not make it were unitarians. I don't think it's strange. Unitarianism has been around a long time. But even if it hasn't our understanding of history and our methods of reasoning have developed over the years. We are not saying the scriptures are wrong but refining our understanding of them. And I don't think just because something was historically believed or was believed by the majority makes it true.

[@catholicguy1073]

It was a more controversial dogma than any of the other dogmas as far an I am aware. The understanding of the Eucharist was not in question then and rather accepted that the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ. While I am not a Unitarian it was a hard for me to accept the Trinity. Took some time to discern and accept the Church’s teaching

[@Fassnight]

Loving these dialogues, Trent. The setup could use some upgrading haha, but the content is what matters and it is good

[@Leavemealonenowplz]

I had a bunch of thoughts yesterday and came to the conclusion that being made Imago Dei only makes sense within the context of trinitarian Incarnational Theology. I’m now gonna spend the rest of the day trying to figure out how my arguments stack up in a “Christian” Unitarian framework. Yesterday, my arguments concerning Imago Dei were objections to Jewish and Muslim frameworks, which could be seen as Unitarian in some capacity). Definitely something for me chew on.

[@sivad1025]

Should clarify *rabbinic* Judaism. Jews were much more trinitarian before Christianity. Obviously Paul and John were trinitarian. Modern Judaism's hostility towards the intrapersonality of God is largely reactionary to Christianity

[@RealSeanithan]

"Biblical Unitarian" might be the textbook definition of a contradiction in terms.

[@bad_covfefe]

The fact that it isn't is the point of this video. You don't have grounds to dismiss this guy's interpretation of the Bible.

[@stephenbailey9969]

--On the divinity of Jesus in the context of Second Temple Judaism, the Greco-Roman world, and the early church : Richard Bauckham "Jesus and the God of Israel" Larry W. Hurtado "Lord Jesus Christ" Simon J. Gathercole "The Preexistent Son" Chris Tilling "Paul's Divine Christology" Michael F. Bird "Jesus Among the gods: Early Christology in the Greco-Roman World"

[@paulencinias6413]

Great episode. Very educational!!!

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Thank you!

[@nate2435]

Really interesting conversation!

[@xrendezv0usx]

I'm protestant (although I do consider myself to be part of the mystical Body of Christ, the universal "catholic" church) and I fully acknowledge that Jesus Christ is fully 100% GOD and so does my church. And we believe in the Trinity also!

[@bad_covfefe]

Cool, but the point of this video is your view hodls no authority, and there is nothing preventing anyone from using a different interpretation of the Bible to disagree with you with equal validity. We might agree on this topic, but it is coincidence that you hold the view you do.

[@xrendezv0usx]

@bad_covfefe no not a coincidence. The Bible says what it says, and the truth is the truth. And NO not every interpretation has "equal validity" - for example, some people read the Bible and interpret it to endorse bowing down to graven images for worship. Or they read the Bible and interpret it to endorse the blessing of homosexual couples. These are NOT valid interpretations of the Word.

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

​@@xrendezv0usx1:51:51

[@xrendezv0usx]

@@danvankouwenberg7234 is this the part that talks about interpreting Scripture to endorse the blessing of homosexual couples?

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

@@xrendezv0usx haha, no.

[@1901elina]

3:46 "multiple groups independently come to the same conclusion." And that's why the Bible shouldn't be read outside of its context. It's not surprising modern eyes don't understand the multiple ways in which Jesus claims and shows his divinity in ways that Jews of that time would understand. Thank you Jesus for your Church 🙏

[@jasonbracewell6345]

Best content that Trent has put out are these new long form dialouges.

[@Fassnight]

Agreed. I feel like these are the most opposing positions yet

[@cesarerinaldi6750]

🟡 (From Dante's Divine Comedy) The Nine Heavens, the Seven Archangels and the Two Saints of Paradise: I Raphael and Mercy, II Gabriel and Hope, III Barachiel and Love, IV Uriel and Wisdom, V Jeudiel and Faith, VI Michael and Justice, VII Sealtiel and Devotion, VIII Joseph and Peace, IX Mary and Charity. (There are many Saints and Blessed who talk about them)

[@ivarkoedijker168]

Justin Martyr told Trypho that even if he could not prove Jesus preexisted, the evidence of him being the Messiah would still stand. He added: "For there are some, my friends, of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so." (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 48). People interpret this text differently. But he seems to say that some of his Christian friends (our race = Christianity) are unitarians. Although he himself believes in Jesus' preexistence, and would continue to even if the Christians who agreed with him would change their stance. So he regarded unitarians as both Christians and as his friends. In chapter 82 he writes about false prophets: "For many have taught godless, blasphemous, and unholy doctrines, forging them in His name; have taught, too, and even yet are teaching, those things which proceed from the unclean spirit of the devil, and which were put into their hearts." So he disagrees with unitarians. But apparently he doesn’t view them as false prophets and holding to unholy doctrines. Otherwise he wouldn’t call them his friends.

[@sivad1025]

This is where it gets tricky for Protestants. Protestants have no ground to diverge from Justin Martyr's view. But since Catholics have the Magesterium, post-Nicean unitarians can rightly be called heretics. Not because they made a wrong intellectual conclusion about the Bible and Jesus but because they refuse to submit to church authority. And Jesus ofc says Christians who disobey the church should be treated as pagans

[@IAmisMaster]

That’s certainly an interesting quote. But let’s not lose sight of the forrest for a few trees. Even if Justin is not willing to cast out the Nazarenes, etc. from being Christians, does Justin think it is a good idea to deny the preexistence and divinity of Christ? No. A lot of Unitarian arguments seem to be based on silence. What great “biblical unitarian Christian” existed before or contemporaneously with Justin? None. Let’s alos not rely on a false dichotomy, ie unitarian vs. Roman Catholic (basically late Augustinian) style Trinitarianism. What if Justin’s form of “Logos theology” trinitarianism was the original faith of Christians, given all the earliest fathers like Justin, Irenaeus, Athanagoras held to it? This form, where the One God is the Father like in unitarianism, but Jesus has the Father’s divine nature as a preexistent divine Son, is perfectly consitent with say Dr. Beu Branson and Fr. John Behr’s Monarchical Trinitarianism. We should follow the evidence. Keep in mind that Justin’s quote was also before the formalization of the Christian NT canon. I admit it is possible to read Matthew, Mark, and Luke with some sort of Unirarian lense. Many Jews may have only read one of those gospels and missed the more hellenistic implications of Christ’s claim of being the Son of God. John’s gospel wasn’t written by the Apostle John until much later, so there where the Logos and preexistence is generally admitted to be more explicit, the book may not have had the reach that Matthew had.

[@catholicguy1073]

Yes at that time. After the dogma of the Trinity was established then he may very well have considered Unitarians to not be Christian

[@jordandthornburg]

@@catholicguy1073that’s utter speculation.

[@jordandthornburg]

@@IAmisMasterhow would Justin know about logos christology without johns gospel? Respectfully, that just seems very unlikely.

[@carmeister_]

Acts 3:15 says Jesus is the Author of Life. He’s also called Holy and Righteous One. These are all titles of God. It’s very plain to see if you view the text from a Jewish standpoint. Paul on the road to Damascus saying “who are you Lord?” Place yourself in his position. He thought he was doing something pleasing to God stamping out heresy but he was shocked and realized something supernatural was happening “who are you Lord?” He replies “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.”

[@maxspringer01]

even pro-trinitarian Bible commentaries note that "author or life" can also be "captain of life" or "prince of life"

[@lyn1006]

@TheCounselofTrent, please please consider doing an episode on Iglesia ni Cristo 🙏🏽 We need a place to point my fellow Filipino Catholics to for them to hear objective information before being converted to becoming an anti-Catholic (and hopefully wake them up). Much of INC theology is from saying what the Filipino catholics are doing wrong so many uncatechised Catholics end up converting to INC 😢 Thank you very much 🙏🏽

[@_eemjee_]

Oh My, you mentioned Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ), that was founded in the PH a hundred years ago. they are the 1st to come into my mind when Unitarian was mentioned. there were actually some people who said that their founder died a Catholic. when he was in death bed, he apparently screamed "Jesus Christ is God!" many times then called a priest but his followers decided to hide this because they already have many members. Prayers for them though ✝️🙏

[@kurida7]

INC is a cult much like MCGI by eli soriano, both do not recognize the Trinity.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Trent, I say with utter seriousness. You need to spend some time studying with Sam Shamoun. "There's no slam dunk verses" for the divinity of Jesus. Are you serious? Hebrews 1:8 ESV - 8 *But of the Son he [the Father] says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,* the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. Acts 20:28 ESV - 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, *to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.*

[@Wully02]

Neither of those verses are clear the way you think they are, "Your throne O god" was originally applied to a Davidic king, and people other than God are called god and gods all the time in the Bible.

[@Wully02]

The verse in Acts is more literally read as "by the blood of His own."

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@Wully02 Let's focus on Acts 20:28 first. In the verse, who's Church is it?

[@maxspringer01]

Sam Shamoun, who has a reputation for his foul mouth??

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@maxspringer01 I'm not here to defend his conduct. Are his teachings on the Bible negated by how he handles blasphemers and heretics who call into his platform?

[@IAmisMaster]

After learning about Monarchical Trinitarianism from Dr., Beau Branson (see his interviews on Transfigured), it is plain that neither Protestants nor Catholics can defend their ridiculous Augustinian model of the Trinity. How can they even explain why the Nicene Creed says the One God is synonymous with the Father?

[@marlena.]

I just heard about him yesterday. It sounds interesting to at least learn more about that as I'm currently looking into trinitarianism, because eventhough I "get" it I feel I l the need to comprehend it fully myself in perspective to the Bible.

[@IAmisMaster]

@@marlena. Dr. Beau Branson has good videos on his website. Some of it is very complex philosophical discussion, but it’s worth thinking through. Most importantly, the history shows the earliest Christians believed in the Trinity but, like Sam from Transfigured mentioned, Saints like Justin Martyr clearly thought of the Father alone is the Most High God (or as Irenaeus says often the “One God”) and Jesus, though eternal and “theos” by having the same nature (as the Nicene Creed says “homoousios” ie same nature/substance), Jesus is still a “hetero theos” (read Dialogue with Tryoho ch 56). This makes sense of the NT whoch does in fact say the Father is the One God (1 Cor. 8:5-6) and Jesus is primarily the Son of God.

[@josephmoya5098]

The Catholics, Orthodox, and most protestants do not defend an Augustinian model of the Trinity. If anything, it is the Athanasian model, or the Alexandrian model. But ultimatley, we defend the Nicaean Credal view of the Trinity. Augustine was a Nicaean Christian, but was not even born when the council closed. Secondly, Nicene Creed does not say that the One God is synonymous with the Father. "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages. Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in essence with the Father; through whom all things were made." Where does it say that the One God is only the father. It clearly says that Jesus is of the same essence and is God from God. Nowhere does it say that God the Father is the only true God.

[@bradleyperry1735]

@@josephmoya5098Right there in the Creed. You literally typed it. “I believe in One God, the Father Almighty…”

[@IAmisMaster]

@@josephmoya5098 Hello. I used to believe like you but I hope you consider this evidence. First, The Nicene Creed which we should agree is the most important Creed of the Christian faith (300+ bishops signed in AD 325) says unambiguously that the One God is the Father, and it does not refer to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. That is because “One God”, “Most High God”, “the Only True God” is a particular philosophical category of the “First Cause.” Even Trent would admit that, since Jesus is eternally Begotten from the Father, only the Father has no cause/source/principle. That’s what the Bible means by saying plainly the Father is the One God (1 Cor 8:5-6) and Only True God (John 17:3). The Bible never once uses those terms for Jesus, since His source is the Father. Second, you are mistaken that Protestant/Catgolic beliefs follow Athanasius. Athanasius explicitly said the One God is the Father. The “Athanasian Creed” is widely acknowledged to be pseudonymous and based on Augustine’s Trinitarian theology. Third, the historic evidence from primary sources is overhelming that all Trinitarian Christians agreed the One God of Christian monotheism is the Father, and Jesus is “Theos” in a different, predicate sense due to being the fully divine Son of the One God. Read St. Irenaeus’ Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, pts 4-7 and 47. This is the oldest summary of the Christian faith we have (circa AD 180). Irenaeus plainly defines the One God as the Father, and Jesus is His Son and thereby God just as a human’s son is also human. Irenaeus is a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, but for some reason Augustine’s theology got all the attention. St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lecture #4 is also another old summary of early christianity during the Nicene period, and it says plainly the One God is the Father.

[@userJohnSmith]

My fiance is protestant and this, and a recent trip to a multi campus non-denominational church decrying "religiosity" (when they've struggled to keep out the kooks pastor wise in the past) has clarified how I should speak about the structure, and religiosity, of the Church. There's structure for a reason.

[@MikePasqqsaPekiM]

Wow. Fantastic conversation.

[@JW_______]

How to argue like an atheist: insist that trinitarianism is not found in scripture 🙄. This honestly disgusts me Trent. I may unsubscribe for this. 1. Lack of push back. Trying to let linger a distinct impression that trinitarian theology cannot be supported by the biblical text. The Nicean fathers drew heavily on the Bible in defending trinitarianism, appealing to it as the deciding factor between their customs and traditions and the Arians' customs and traditions, so by your presentation, I guess the take away is that they were wrong? 2. In your haste to undermine protestantism, you're far more likely to drive protestants into unitarianism than to lead them to Roman Catholicism.

[@UniteAgainstEvil]

Bye.

[@JW_______]

​@@UniteAgainstEvil what's the point of your comment? Use words

[@UniteAgainstEvil]

​@@JW_______ I just don't get why you're overreacting so much... comes off as very whiny. Why even use words to threaten Trent? Be a man and walk away silently, hold to your word.

[@SevereFamine]

@@JW_______See ya later!

[@JW_______]

@@UniteAgainstEvil You're acting like I'm walking away from a fight This is more akin to canceling a magazine subscription. I have the right to let the publisher know why I canceled. Frankly it's for the publisher's own good. Ironically, you are the overreacting by trying to bring manhood into it.

[@Sonic2Chronicles]

I love this dialoguing you’re doing, Trent. Open discussion between Protestants and Catholics is such a beautiful thing.

[@user-lr1om2uz2k]

In the beginning was the word the word was with God and the word was God and the word became flesh and dwelt among us trent is the modern Aquinas keep up the good work fellas

[@AstariahJW]

An accurate translation is word was divine or a god

[@user-jd9zm4jf3t]

@@AstariahJW How many gods do you have?

[@PETERJOHN101]

​@@AstariahJW Wrong. The article _a_ doesn't exist in the Byzantine text.

[@playdoughmaster808]

@@AstariahJWin the original Greek the sentence structure emphasized that the Word was God, the lack of ‘the’ doesn’t mean it has to be ‘a’

[@AstariahJW]

@@user-jd9zm4jf3t just 1 which is Jehovah God almighty Jesus will be king of Jehovahs kingdom which he will be a mighty spirit creature The whole bible is monotheism without the apostate trinity dogma Trinitarians change the meaning of God to suit there bieliefs Moses . Satan . Angels. Human judges were all called elohim(god)

[@shelbydaniel1330]

The thumbs up to the camera got me 😂

[@marym345]

Hey Trent, do you really think Protestants should be Unitarians? Or was that just a catchy punch line? I know that it may not have been your goal, but I actually thought you did a good job of showing the stronger case for Trinitarianism from scripture. As a Trinitarian Protestant, I appreciated that! :)

[@yepyep5006]

Trent’s discussions with this guy and redeemed zoomer really highlight the HUGE difference in temperament between him, sam shamoun (who debated sam) and jay dyer (who debated rz) 😅

[@anthonym.7653]

I don't lump Jay & Sam together. Sam is a hypocrite while Jay is upfront with his style. It may offend some but he is who he is. Sam plays games and sucks up to one guy one week and another the next. Plus Trent got hammered by Jay. Its not good business for Trent to try that again. 😂

[@yepyep5006]

@@anthonym.7653 i see how u reached that view of sam i feel he acts like being purely anti Protestant is a position which can make it seem like he tries too hard to keep Catholic n OO n EO happy. But hes an amazing exegete and he destroyed this other Sam

[@anthonym.7653]

@@yepyep5006 I agree Sam knows Scripture. But when I hear Sam, he still uses his Calvinist tricks of cherry plucking verses out of context. A habit he can't seem to shake off.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

Trying to pin "Protestants" with the label of unitarianism is just... gross. The person trying to open up the doctrinal flexibility of Protestants is... the Catholic Trent Horn. Come on! This is akin to how Pints with Aquinas hosted a debate on sedevecantism with no orthodox Catholic voice in the debate.

[@anthonym.7653]

It's low hanging fruit. Just lazy on Trent's part.

[@MarcoAntoniov.]

So, like... you think Trent shouldn't host a discussion with someone who is a Unicitarian? Also, is Trent the one who says Unicitarians are protestants or is the other guy actually the one saying that unicitarianism actually goes back to the reformation? I actually think it's the latter, this guest calls himself a protestant and roots his beliefs in the protestant reformation.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

@@MarcoAntoniov. So, this is a comment I don't really want to give too much legitimacy. Trent can host any discussion he wants. However, Trent has this tendency, when he hosts discussions, to search out for sound bites. He's done it with Randall Rouser and he did it here. It is not an accident that he put that sound bite at the beginning of the episode. Now, as he put it at the beginning of the episode, he's very deliberately being provocative. He is trying to insinuate that Protestantism leads to heretical belief. The guest was using the term "biblical unitarian" to describe himself at the beginning and Trent talked him over into saying Protestant over the conversation. He certainly had agency in it, but saying Trent doesn't is downright silly. Trent offered no correction. He let it happen and made it the highlight of this episode

[@MarcoAntoniov.]

@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf That seems like a respectable position to have over this discussion and i can see your point. In that case, you think it would've been better if Trent didn't had this conversation at all? or maybe you would've preferred for Trent to not include the soundbite? And, on the other hand, how would you classify a unitarian? A plain heretic, on the same level as JW's or Mormons? Or as a protestant?

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

@@MarcoAntoniov. I think that, given the limited time in life Trent has, there are more important conversations to have. Platforming a clear heretic is unwise. This isn't a separated brethren situation. However, if there are good reasons for this that I am unaware of, I think that removing that particular sound bite from the beginning would be good. It's just not a good thing to have. As for the classification question, it's a little far astray from the original point, but I think it's fair to make the distinction between Nicene orthodox Protestants and heretical groups like the JWs and Mormons. Protestants can affirm the need for an atonement, it's purpose in God's creation, and the way that salvation occurs. JWs and Mormons can't do that. In this case, it would seem that our Unitarian is attempting to do that. It's better in a way I suppose, but it still rejects the earliest consensus of the Church. Considering that Protestants were first arguing against an ecclesial structure and what were viewed as abuses while holding fast to tradition otherwise, not attempting to overturn the earliest agreements in the Church, I think it's fair not to put any "biblical unitarian" into the Protestant camp. He may just be a heretic, plain and simple.

[@davidcornetta2918]

kzbin.infoLMXNT7CLra0?si=hT-E6cvVzjlfSvW2 I’m Eastern Orthodox, but I love your work Trent. I was Protestant before and James White was a big resource for me. The purgatory debate was great, but I’m watching this sermon from James and it’s like he didn’t even try to listen to a word you said during it. Anyway, I hope you’re having a blessed Lent.

[@alanking4836]

I watched this yesterday and it really bothers me there's a low chance that Trent will read this but what did this accomplish I had a conversion from atheism to Catholicism over 10 years and I think that this podcast could have stopped it. Someone who's ignorant would find Sam's points a lot stronger he beat you on nearly every point just 2 examples 1 your opening clip would prove to anyone who doesn't have a decent knowledge that unitarianism is the best way to make sense of the Bible 2 Justin mayrter saying that the son and spirit were in the father's until they made the world is how I have always seen the Trinity but you let him beat you on that. Focus on building the church not what ever this was

[@jmferris542]

I think the reason for Trent's less than strong debate here is that perhaps his primary purpose in the interview was not to disprove Unitarianism from Scripture, but rather to try to show that Protestants, in particular, need the RCC Magisterium to successfully combat this heresy. He wants it to look like this Sam's flawed theology is the result of Sola Scriptura. But this is simply not true; Nontrinitarianism can be completely disassembled by Scripture alone and Trent could have easily done that if he had chosen to. So I agree with you that it's too bad that this false doctrine got such easy airtime.

[@jonathanstensberg]

This sounds like a discussion between actual friends.

[@xavierguillaume2007]

That dialogue was enlightening. It clearly shows that the Bible - although absolutely necessary - is not sufficient: we need a legitimate authority to interpret the scriptures correctly. We need the Church’s magisterium. How could Gold have let His people err in faith?

I'm really getting tired of people like Trent lumping all Protestants into one category. I mean, the Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, etc don't agree on everything at all, yet they all claim Tradition™️ guides them. So I guess they have the same problem Sola Scriptura has.

[@tombotting3345]

Trent, Very very good video. I really like your dialogue videos. Please get Matt Whitman on.

[@Ariel_Joel_Gonzalez]

I suppose I'm in the minority for saying that I'm extremely disappointed in Trent's performance in this dialogue. There were a number of instances where Trent dropped the ball in offering solid rebuttals and refutations of Sam's 'proof-texts', and when Trent could have offered solid defenses of the deity of Christ texts, but failed. For John 20:28, all Trent had to do was to read out verses 29-30 where Jesus asks, "Is it because you have seen *me* that you have believed?" Notice that Jesus is the one Thomas sees and believes, not the Father *in* Jesus. The Father is nowhere in view in this text, only the seeing and believing of Jesus. In Philippians 2:10-13, all Trent had to point out was that Paul quotes from Isaiah 45:23-25, which is a reference to YHVH's exclusive demand for worship (to the exclusion of the other gods). Trent's treatment of John 17:3 was exceptionally bad, I'm sorry. All Trent had to point out was there there's *two* ways in which "theos" is used in the Gospel of John. It can be used as a proper name, but it can also be used adjectivally. In John 17:3 it is being used as the proper name of the Father, which doesn't affect the Trinitarian position. The Father is the only true God the Father. I'm also disappointed that Trent nowhere quotes from Hebrews 1, which offers a deathblow to the Unitarian position. However, Trent doesn't seem to be very familiar with the in-depth defenses of the Deity of Christ. It's somewhat understandable, given his specialization in other areas. However, you shouldn't invite a seasoned Unitarian for a dialogue when you haven't done your homework.

[@DarkHorseCrusader]

Mr. Tideman says he believes in Sola Scriptura. That means that he believes that the Church that got the doctrine of the Trinity wrong somehow got the canon of scripture right a century or so later.

[@fotisvon9943]

Trent please get a bigger table.

[@transfigured3673]

The small table feels very intimate, I'll just say that.

[@bradleyperry1735]

And now we’re denying the traditions of our Saints. Fascinating.

[@cunjoz]

Trent, my man, you don't have to teach him or explain to him what catholics believe. Sam is sufficiently knowledgeable on those matters.