This debate highlights the irreconcilable gap between historical scholarship and philosophical theology, showing how logic is often used to bridge what the ancient texts left unfinished. It is a sophisticated intellectual duel that succeeds more in defining the divide than resolving the mystery.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Is The Trinity a Maths Problem? — Dan McClellan vs Joshua Sijuwade DebateAdded:
And fundamentally, the Trinity is an attempt to construct a philosophically defensible framework that allows us to solve an algebra problem that we find in the Bible.
>> This wasn't an algebra problem. It's an algebra problem if you state the Trinity in the way that you stated it, but which I believe is erroneous.
>> Back in February, Dr. Dan Mlen said this, "The problem is with the Trinity itself and the folks who are trying to enforce it." And the fit for this video has been data over dogma. I reached out on Twitter to say, "Let's get into a conversation." I also offered, "Why don't you talk to Dr. Josh Siguard?" Dan didn't have the time for that, so I made an hour and 10-minute video that said this. In this video, I'm going to show how Dr. Dan Mlelen gets the Trinity so badly wrong. The Trinity is not a maths problem. It is the good news that God is love, and you're invited. Dan characterized my video like this. I'm sure it set off the tuning fork in the loins of the dogmatism of plenty of people in Glenn's audience. To which I said, be fair if you've never set off a tuning fork in the loins of the dogmatism of people. You just don't know what you're missing. I see all things through the lens of Jesus because we all have dogmas and it's good to declare them. But now the conversation that was promised in February is coming to pass.
I've got Dr. Josh Siguardi in conversation with Dr. Dan Mlelen.
Essentially, Dan's claim has been that modern discomfort with the Trinity goes all the way back to the beginning. If you don't find the Trinity logically possible today, that's because it was never logically coherent and it was only held in place through imperial power.
Dr. Josh Sijouad says, "No, the problem is with us moderns, not with those ancient people." And here's a little taste of what is to come.
>> You are attacking an understanding of the Trinity, which isn't the correct understanding. The history that you've stated is just incorrect.
>> No, you wouldn't accept that. Okay.
>> No, no, no. I wouldn't accept that at all.
>> But by the end, there's a certain amount of unity.
>> You're a very nice individual, Dan. So, it's lovely uh having you as >> in person, I'm a lot nicer than uh than when I'm uh recording this.
>> No, no, no.
>> Who would have thought we would come to such a moment of harmony? The three have become one, ladies and gentlemen. And uh that is all to come. But I start off by asking Dr. to Dan Mlen why the doctrine of the trinity has been such a source of fascination for him.
>> Well, ever since I started uh in my kind of trajectory towards becoming a Bible scholar, some of the most interesting issues for me have been conceptualizations of deity. Uh I joined the LS church when I was 20 years old. I spent two years in South America as a proitizing missionary. I I fell in love with reading the Bible and particularly the gospels. I found out that I could make a living studying the Bible if if I went and got a bunch of degrees in a row. And I thought that would be about the coolest thing in the world. And the the topics that interest me interested me the most were related to the conceptualization of deity and of scripture. And particularly because I I found it so interesting that Latter-day Saint concepts of deity were so much different from so many other traditions.
And so I was just interested in why there were these distinctions. And I went away to uh I did a master's degree at Oxford. I wrote my thesis there on anti-anthropomorphism and the Septuagent, textual criticism of the Septuagent. And I then went to Canada, Trinity Western University, worked with Marty Abeg and Peter Flynn on Dead Sea Scrolls stuff. But there I I did uh cognitive linguistics and the conceptualization of Dei in the Hebrew Bible. I started off wanting to write about the threshold of monotheism in the in the Bible. I wanted to find out when do we go from not monotheism to monotheism. And as I dug into it, I realized I couldn't really get past the question of what a god is because I was not satisfied with the scholarship that was out there. And I was learning cognitive linguistics. And so I thought I think this is a good methodological lens for trying to understand how the authors of the Bible might have thought about the concept of a deity. And so that was my thesis there. I did my doctoral dissertation through the University of Exit on cognitive science of religion and cognitive linguistics, conceptualizations of deity and divine agency. And so it's just been the way people think about what a god is and how gods relate to each other and to humanity has always been of the most interest to me. Uh but very early on I got disabused of the notion that I was going to have a successful academic career if I spent all my time trying to trying to defend Mormon ideologies. And so I committed as an undergrad really to doing my best to try to engage things from a strictly academic point of view, divesting myself of concern for defending the dogmas of my particular faith. And that has made me a pariah both within and outside the church in a lot of ways. Uh, and so I spend a lot of my time trying to advocate for strictly academic approaches to understanding this, which as um, as I'm sure you can understand, does not make me particularly popular uh, among a lot of believing communities, but uh, but you know, it puts food on the table for me.
So, uh, it gets the job done. There's a very interesting episode to be done here uh, just about the psychology of Dr. Dan Mlen and uh why why it is that you're able to stand forthrightly in the position that that you're in. I'd love to do that episode.
We'll have to do that another day. We'll we'll do theology today.
>> A lot of people would love to see that on the psychologist couch. But um yeah, so that that situates um you interest in this subject. Let's go to you Dr. Josh Sidui. um you you teach philosophy, religion, but I think probably theology proper and doctrine of God um seems to be where where you focus. Is is that true? And and and if so, why why isn't that your special focus of interest?
>> Yeah. So, well, my actual main research area is philosophy of religion. And so, philosophy religion can be defined as an investigative investigation of the meaning and justification of a religious claim using the best tools of analytic philosophy. So you look at a religious claim and you try and ask two questions of it. Can we clarify it? What does it mean? Um and then the second one, can we justify it? Why should we hold to it?
And the way in which we approach those two questions or those two issues is by using the tools of analytic philosophy.
So that'll be drawing from areas of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.
And so that is my area and I've looked at various religious claims throughout my my research. And so one area is actually on the trinity and the doctrine of God and incarnation, but I do have another area which I I write on. And so for example, I've got a book coming out um within the next month or two months or so on the problem of evil. And so that would be you know why should we believe in God in light of um the existence of evil. So that would still fall under philosophy religion. So um what I do as a philosopher religion sort of um requires you to go into theology but I approach the theological questions as a philosopher um as someone who is trying to utilize my understanding of analytic theology to fulfill those two goals of um understanding the meaning and also the justification of that specific claim. And so when you're doing that related to Christianity or theology, it might be what does it mean for there to be a God? What does that mean for the Trinity to be the way that it's it's stated? Um, do we have any justification for that? Um, and so, not to plug more books, but got another book coming out on the Trinity. So, the coherence and truth of the trinity where I'm doing just that. I'm saying, does it make sense? Uh, the trinity, can we understand its meaning? And what are the good reasons to believe in it? So, that still falls under the wider broad approach of philosophy religion. Some people call when you are looking at specific theological claims, they might call it analytic theology or philosophical theology, but generally that still falls under the the purview or the the range of research of the philosophy of religion.
>> Very good. Well, we're going to use all your analytic tools right now as uh as we have a look at a short that Dan made uh back in February uh called uh why the trinity doesn't make sense. and um it's just about 90 seconds long. Should we play it and then I'll I'll ask Dan some questions and then we'll get the conversation going. Have you ever wondered why there are no adequate analogies for the Trinity or been left unsatisfied by attempts to explain that away as just one of the mysteries we have to accept? If so, the problem is not with you. The problem is precisely with the Trinity and those trying to enforce it. Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlelen. I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion. And fundamentally, the Trinity is an attempt to construct a philosophically defensible framework that allows us to solve an algebra problem that we find in the Bible. And the fundamental problem is how is it that Jesus can both not be God and also simultaneously be God? And there are two reasons that when we tried to construct this philosophically defensible framework, we ran into internal contradictions that we just couldn't resolve. No matter how far down we dug, once we hit bedrock, there was stuff left over. There were questions that were raised by the process that could not be resolved. The first is that we approached the Bible with the presupposition of univocality. that it all had to be speaking with one single unified and consistent voice and from one single unified and consistent perspective. And so the authors had to be made to be agreeing with each other.
They could not be representing different perspectives on the nature and the relationship of God and Jesus. The second problem was that the tools we brought to the issue were the canonical philosophical frameworks of the day and they were inadequate to resolve an issue that arose as a result of intuitions about deity, about agency, about personhood. Intuitions that we wouldn't be able to adequately interrogate for over a thousand years. But we couldn't just scrap it and start over with a new approach because we had imperial and institutional leaders breathing down our necks. So we had an emperor come flying in off the top rope to smash that subscribe button once we had some kind of answer. And he said, "Sign on the dotted line or you're going to be exiled." It was imperial and institutional power that enforced a fundamentally inadequate explanation for what was going on in the Bible. And ever since it has been institutional power that has been there to enforce the trinity and say this is what we believe and you just have to accept it. The problem is not with those who say this doesn't make sense to me or who say there's no adequate analogy. This is internally contradictory. The problem is with the trinity itself and the folks who are trying to enforce it. And the fit for this video has been data over dogma. Very good. And uh we'll get the fit for this video uh at at the end. Uh so that that's just a little bit of good youtubery um to to keep you hooked until the end. Uh Dan can tell us what the fit is for for this video. Um so Dan, this is in the mode of a YouTube short and so you're going to use uh analogies like the algebra problem and you're going to talk talk about emperors flying in off the top rope and that sort of thing. Um te tell us sort of how how would you how would you forward this now in in a more in a more scholarly way with you know Dr. Josh opposite you. Um what what kind of language would you would you use about the algebra problem and the and the the institutional power issue?
Well, regarding the algebra problem, I would say the what we see in the Bible is is we see I think there's a spectrum of representations of Jesus's relationship to God where sometimes Jesus seems to be equated with God and sometimes Jesus seems to be rather starkly distinguished from God. And the algebra problem was a reference to the attempts to try to reconcile all of this, try to bring it under one um conceptual roof and account for all of the different representations of Jesus using one theory, one one model. And the reason I talk about the presupposition of univocality is because without that you can say well John had a specific uh or the author of the gospel of John had a specific uh christoologgical framework they were working with. Paul had a different christoologgical framework.
Mark had a different christoologgical framework. So when trying to consider how these authors understood the relationship of Jesus to God, we don't have to make them all work together. We can allow them to operate on their own terms. And so as a because my work is in the representation of deity, divine agency, including divine images, I've uh this is a question that my my doctoral dissertation was addressing. What's up with divine images? How can a divine image both be the deity and not be the deity? And even like you have an author saying, well, this is the deity, but also simultaneously it's not the deity.
So that was the question I was trying to answer. And it strikes me that the attempt to uh bring all of the different christoologgical models of the New Testament together under a single methodological theoretical umbrella is similarly trying to account for is and is not at the same time. So, so there's I and and I have a specific uh way of approaching at least how the go the author of the Gospel of John does that.
That's probably the book I've worked on the most. Now when it comes to the um the institutional the imperial side of things we have a lot of debate in starting in probably the the middle to late 2nd century CE it's heating up at the end of uh the 3rd beginning of the 4th century CE and once we have the legalization of Christianity once we have um Constantine's patronage of uh Christian leadership and there there are a lot of uh communities these churches are being funded uh imperially.
Constantine seems to have a role in uh determining uh at least what kinds of uh what kinds of questions need to be addressed and engaged. The council of Nika is an example of Constantine convening one. Uh there was one shortly before that that I guess he didn't think had adequately resolved the issue, so he decided he was going to attend the next one personally.
>> And then >> uh Yes. Yes. Um and then the result was a a specific creed that the bishops were supposed to sign off on under penalty of exile. Now the degree to which that was enforced is debatable and we see a lot of back and forth between um Aryan and Nyine um leadership and power struggles. We even had a an Aryan emperor for a time but it things wouldn't really be resolved for a while. But imperial authority was in the background the entire time. Uh there were ways that bishops would appeal to that in order to defund certain churches in order to confiscate property uh in order to uh label some of the label disagreeers as heretics which had legal consequences associated with it. So the point there was to to show that we probably would have just continued to argue about this on an ecclesiastical level for centuries had not the imperial authority come in to say, "Okay, we're going to leverage the resources that we have in order to try to enforce this as well." which contributed, in my opinion, to a slightly shorter um trajectory towards some kind of unity which resulted in empires splitting off and in and some schisms because there were there were groups of people who refused to uh to subordinate themselves and their positions to that imperial authority. So I think the power struggles that are associated with this cannot be minimized, cannot be uh ignored. they played a significant role in how the arguments played out uh on the ground.
Now I I want to focus most of all on the algebra um problem issue and the the logical problem thing as well. But just just on that point before I throw to to Josh on the on the issue of um how the trinity has developed prior to Constantine kind of presiding at the council of Na if you've got the sinned of Antioch which sounds incredibly nice and and seems to represent the Aryan position as as a a vanishingly small you know proportion of of of what the ancient church was was saying. Um, to what degree can we say that it's institutional power that's holding in in place a fundamentally incoherent doctrine of of God? because it seems to me like the the council of of Antioch was incredibly was obviously very prone.
I think a coherent kind of thing and did not have imperial power behind it and which is why the the council of Nika was convened because there was no formal creed that was that was written up.
there was no censuring of the Aryans and I and I think there was a concern that this didn't actually resolve much because one it was not ecumenical in scope uh but also there wasn't really any um there was no there were no stakes really for the folks who who were antinine or who were uh endorsing the position of Aras and I think this is probably what precipitated Constantine's desire to call and specifically attend the council of Nika and add some significant stakes to that. But when when you look at the argument, I think you do see some eb and flow because I I don't think you have something that could be called nine uh earlier than say origin. I think you you get the trajectory in that direction starting with probably uh Tertullan and Irenaeus.
Uh but I think there are steps that are taken at Nika that were not step uh taken before. You brought up homosios.
This was something that was actually rejected much earlier because it was the the conceptual frameworks were not in place for this to uh to settle into uh a position that was widely considered orthodox. But um I I think Antioch certainly demonstrates what the consensus view at the time was. But precisely because there weren't not there were not really stakes involved.
>> Uh it didn't really seal the deal. It didn't resolve the issue. And Nika didn't either. I think it took another century and a little bit before we got to the point where people kind of broke up into their groups and said we're pretty comfortable with where we stand now. So and and that's why I would say that the uh imperial power is is salient. It is relevance to the settling of the question.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um I I mean I I do think one of the things that Nika brought was not just Constantine but also took bishops from beyond the empire um who took it as a as a kind of a binding creedle declaration as well. But I don't want to get too caught up on um that second point about the imperial power cuz I I do think perhaps most most of our back and forth has probably been on the the logical and and algebra kind of issues and we haven't heard from uh from Josh.
So So Josh, I I don't know actually. I I uh reached out to you back in February when when I first saw that short and all I was aware of is that um you had some reservations about that short. I don't even know what those reservations are.
So, um, over to you, uh, Joshua, what what were your first, uh, reactions to to that short that we saw?
>> Yeah. Um, okay. Now, uh, this is scholarly, uh, dialogue, so please, um, don't take it in a way that I'm sort of dunking negatively. Um, I just believe that it was completely wrong, uh, what was stated, uh, factually and given the data. Um, can I just ask you Glenn, is it possible that there can be openness with dialogue between Dan and myself because I can ask him some questions.
>> Exactly. Yeah. Don't feel like you have to go through mate. Absolutely. Yeah.
>> So, um, uh, yeah, the first thing, Dan, is that I just want because we have we're working with a term that we haven't really defined. Um, so when you say the trinity, what do you mean by that? So if someone was to ask you what is a doctrine of the trinity that can be stated in the sentence >> that you said wasn't existing prior to origin and it was sort of in peace more um in Irenaeus Ignatius. Um yeah what what is that as you understand it? Well, I I think I was I was addressing the idea of the nyine concept, but but fundamentally it seems to me that the trinity is the idea that the single god exists as three co-eternal, co-equal, consubstantial persons.
>> Yeah. Okay. Okay. And then can I ask you where do you find that stated in any authoritative nian document that there is a single uh divine entity that exists in three co-equal persons? Do you find any nian authoritative statements that that says it in that way?
>> Uh I think the the pseudoethanation creed is probably where it's most um kind of conveniently and efficiently stated. But but it it strikes me that what Nika is trying to do is is articulate an idea that brings together the oneness, the unity of God as well as the distinction, the triunity of of the persons. Now I I think you're an advocate for I apologize. No, go ahead.
I don't want to worry.
>> Yeah. So the reason I'm asking is just Yes. I have some basis to understand where where what I want to um uh respond to. So um I I would first disagree um in the sense that you said cuz my question was an authoritative nyan document. Um the pseudo athanasian creed is not um a nan document and it's also not authoritative. So it wasn't binding because it wasn't promagated by any council.
>> So it was something that was taken up in the western the Latin speaking um part of the church later on and it became authoritative in what we call today Roman Catholicism. But in the first millennium it was never taken to be an authoritative text. Um so what we have to take as the data to to construct the doctrine of the trinity is what um well two things. The first thing is the creed that was promagated at Nika in 325 and then a Constantinople at 381. Uh that's the authoritative statement that was declared to be um the way in which the doctrine of trinity is to be understood.
And then secondly um with less authority but with still some authority are the the um consensus of the theologians who were surrounding and within the pronian trajectory. So that would be individuals such as Athanasius of Alexandria um and that would be also uh the capidosian fathers. So Basel of Cesaria, Gregory of Nazis and Gregory of Nissa. So they would be ways in which we can further explicate and understand what the document that was promagated that we called the Nyian creed. And so then when we look at the Nyian creed, the doctrine of the trinity as it's stated in the way that you um that you stated it, it's not found there. It says very clearly once you take the statements of the creed that there is one god, the father. It starts off with that we believe in one god, the father. Then it moves on to the son and says that the son is true god of true godios with the father. That means he's of one essence with the father.
Then it um but also says he's begotten of the father. Um and then it goes on to the holy spirit to say that he proceeds from the father and that he is worshiped and adored or glorified uh with the son with the father and the son. And so from that what the creed is expressing is a simple statement that there is one god the father and two relationally distinct divine persons the son and the spirit who are of the same divinity as the father. The term they use is homoios but just for the audience it's same divinity. So that's what the trinity is.
So anything that doesn't fall into that category categoral statement of one God the father and two relationally distinct divine persons who are of the same divinity as the father is not the trinity and so what I then would say is that as understood in that way there is no conceptual problem there is no logical problem and so that's why I push back and say that this wasn't an algebra problem it's an algebra problem if you state the trinity in the way that you stated it but which I believe is erroneous that's where there is a conceptual problem and That's why the first person really to make this into a issue was Richard Cartwright in the 1970s going into the 80s with his his logical problem with the trinity. And what was his starting point? The Aanasian creed. It wasn't the Nian creed or the Constantinopolitan creed. It wasn't the Capidosian fathers or the Aan or a Athanasius and the panician fathers. So if that was the case then you wouldn't have ever had a conceptual problem. And so my push back firstly to what you're saying is that it was an algebra problem seeking a solution um is that that's not correct. It was trying to understand the relationship that the son has to the father. Um and one of the key issues was is the son correlative with the father or is he a created being. So it was trying to understand what divinity does the son have in light of the one god who is the father. And so then that was really the the main challenge that people would try to conceptualize from the biblical corpus up through the first and second and third centuries into the 4th century. Um and then in the latter half of the 4th century we had the Macedonians the uh the people who were called the numo matagmokians who are that's just a term that means spirit fighters and they started um saying the spirit is not homosios with the father and so then it became an issue of trying to clarify the spirit's relationship to the one god the father and then you have the promagation of the creed in 381 that allows us to say that the son and the spirit are of the same divinity they're homosio with the father so if I was to use this in biblical terms It would be answering the question of what Jesus said to his disciples, who do you say I am? That is what the question was trying to and it might have been framed differently by different theologians, but it was trying to answer that question. And this is just not not my own take. This is the take of one of the leading scholars in Petristic studies John Bear who wrote very three um three important works three volumes the way to Nika the Nian faith volume one and volume two where his central guiding question is that he saw throughout the the historical corpus was the question of who do you say I am that was the question in trying to understand the relationship to the father so I've talked quite a lot but I've got a bit of things to say but but I can stop now for for anything you might have uh to say Dan Dan what do you want to Yeah, thank you for the the clarification. That sounds like the the monarchical trinitarianism that you've advocated for uh in print and I'm sure in in your forthcoming book. And I actually think it's kind of closer to the position I've advocated in some ways than a lot of uh folks who endorse some other framework other than monarchical trinitarianism. because you talk about how uh at least in um John 17:3 for instance that true the true the only true God is the father which is something that I think is uh I think there's a sense the my reconstruction of the way the the trinity developed is wrestling with the sense in which Jesus is theos or or god and and I think that there is not an attempt to try to bring together God into or Jesus into the single identity of God. So I I actually appreciate monarchical trinitarianism more than than some of the other frameworks that that I've seen. Now I think fundamentally however there is still a sense in which even monarchical trinitarianism is trying to wrestle with the tension that we find in the Bible and with within early discussions about how God can be one while also uh Jesus can be distinct from the father and and we see this expressed in in a number of places and in some videos I've talked about Origin's commentary on John where he talks about how there are a lot of people who who are scared that if they say Jesus is distinct from God, then how can they affirm that there is one God and they go so far as to conflate Jesus with the father uh in order to say there is one God because they're afraid that saying Jesus is distinct from the father is going to be something like dytheism.
So I I think in the reconstructions of the development of the trinity, I think in in the Petristic literature that we see and within the Bible, we see a tension between unity and distinction.
Now the the exact framework for resolving uh that tension I I think differs between the different uh trinitarian models and and when I was talking about the trinity I was primarily talking about the way it's conceptualized today. Uh I was trying to speak to an audience that understands the trinity in in the way I represented it. not necessarily saying the trinity uh up until up through the capidosian fathers and but excluding pseudoanas. I I wasn't trying to to speak of it that way but in the way that it is generally represented today. Um would you would you acknowledge at least that contemporar contemporarily most Christians who think of the trinity think of it in a way closer to the pseudoanation creed than to the um monarchical trinitarian framework.
>> Okay. So >> yeah yeah >> I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> Sorry. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. But would you agree with that with that observation about how people talk about the Trinity today?
>> Yeah. So I do agree with that. Um and so I make this distinction sort of in my work, my written work and and when I um have dialogued and and spoken on this that there is a distinction to be made between the common understanding of the trinity and the consilian understanding >> um or the traditional understanding. And so what I >> um in my most recent work have been using the term is I don't use the term monarchical because I don't want it to come across that there are different ways in which one can understand the trinity. Instead, I want to say that there is one way in which the trinities under was understood within the pro- nyian trajectory. Um that is the consilia context from the first um council of nika in 325 to the second council of na um in the 800s. And so there was one way that was understanding the trinity um and that is again one god the father two relation distinct divine person who are of the same divinity as the father. Um and so what the issue is though and why I can explain why historically that was the case that the common understanding came up is because of the influence of Augustine in the um in the fourth century and fifth century but very interestingly Augustine is not a nian authority so he was he's a very influential theologian but he wasn't at the Nian council he couldn't uh read Latin sorry read Greek very well and he even admitted to this so he wasn't um in dialogue with the Capidosians. Um so he was right working within his own next u intellectual context and so he was the first person to identify God is the trinity. So he was the one who used the nominal sense the name god instead of saying there's one god the father there is one god the trinity and so that from augustine who then grew in esteem in the western or latin part of the the um the empire l speaking part the empire um we then have this being taken up and then with aphanasian creed developing later on and then also with the splitting in in the 11th century of the the Latin church speaking church with the Greek speaking church we then had um the influence of Augustine growing in esteem, the influence of the Consilia context of the Latins growing in esteem and a reduction of the authority of the eastern context. And so if people were aware of the um Capidosian fathers, the um Aphanas and the pre Nyian fathers like Irenaeus and Ignatius and Athanagoras and others um they would have understood that that this was never an open question. This was never an issue. It was settled. And this is why the filioquay was such a problem was because you are then making two sources rather than being a single source or a sole principle who is the father because the one god is the father because he's the sole principle. He's the monarch um he he has the monarchy of the father the monarchia um and so that's why it was a big problem for the east and so that's why in the eastern um common understanding of the trinity it is the consilia understanding as I as I expressed it we find this in our liturggical um uh um sort of document so the for example basel's anafera which is part of the divine liturgy it identifies the one god with the father and then speaks about the divinity of the son and the spirit in light of the father who is the on God that is within the lurggical context not just written documents. We also find um in later um in later Consilia panorox contexts um so for example we have the the council of blackeney in uh the 14th century which restates not the augustinian understanding or the um latin understanding but the nyian consilian understanding the one god the father and the two so that's why I'm saying you can say yes the common understanding because of the influence of augustine and the western church that's how it's been understood within the He was never understood in that way and that's why I've made a big issue of trying to go back to that.
>> Okay. So, if if I'm understanding you correctly, you're arguing that this this understanding of of God as as the only true God and Jesus and the spirit as as the same divinity but not the one true God. Uh that's the the earliest, the original, the authoritative understanding until it was to some degree corrupted or whatever language you want to use. and that has become the dominant view and you're trying to restore a an earlier more historical view. Would that be an accurate couching of of what's going on?
>> I wouldn't put the put the um my task in that way. It's more of um highlighting similar to yourself of sort of further um highlighting how second temple Judaism and Christianity and other ancient near eastern contexts how they understood deity is similar to myself of highlighting how the consilia fathers and the context of the councils understood the trinity >> but it's not um it's not like this is what I'm doing this is this is how it is understood in the eastern church so for example in the eastern orthodoxy this is how the trinity is understood as I said to you basel Nafera um in the liturg liturgy is central to the practice of the faith. So and then I spoke about panorop council. So it's more in the academic context saying hey guys if you realize this is not actually the historically grounded understanding of the trinity or the scripturally grounded one. So let's reemphasize this now more so than saying hey guys this we need to rediscover this new thing. I' I've done it myself or something because it's still an open thing and the the correct understanding in the um in the eastern context.
>> Yeah. Right. Wii which is is kind of a in in a minority position globally speaking. Uh at least in that sense it's it's a minority position.
>> No I wouldn't accept that. I wouldn't accept that.
>> No you wouldn't accept that. Okay.
>> No no no I wouldn't accept that at all because it depends. Minority is relative to a context.
>> So it depends. If you're saying minority of lay folk then fair enough. But lay folk >> Yeah. I would include lay folk. lay folk can mean can can understand many many wrong things about God. Agreed.
>> Uh that doesn't say this is what the position is in the scholarly discourse in the petristic sources. Uh because in the petristic sources I can you know list a number of very influential petristic scholars who would side with the way I of understanding the trinity.
And then also within the eastern church the orthodox church which is the second largest form of Christianity globally this is the understanding of the trinity. So I don't think it's correct in minority minority relative to lay western um influence uh theologians uh but not so much here.
>> So we've got some eastern and western issues going on as well which will take some um take some passing out but all parts of the church can affirm the creed. All all parts of of of the church can affirm the nine creed. And I I guess like one one question I've got um for you, Dan, is um I I think you're I think you're right to say that if you stop the average let's say the average evangelical Christian in the street and say what is the doctrine of the trinity?
I I think you probably will get them to say it's one God in three persons and I don't know how it works. I think I think I think that's probably true. Um but that that is not to say that they are not um trinitarian in a much richer sense which is if you show them the nine creed and you say does that make sense to you? I think your your average even 21st century, you know, completely Protestant Western uh evangelical Christian, I I think I think they probably get that that, you know, he that it is a proclamation rather of Jesus really that the second article of the creed just takes up all the all the kind of the the real estate in in the creed that it's a proclamation of this Jesus who is God from God, light from light, very God from very God. Um, now whe whether they then try and pass that into a into a into a logical mode, they probably don't. They just probably think, "Yeah, he's God from God." In the same way that you can have light from light, in the same way that you've got radiance that comes from the sun, there's a oneness to that radiance and there's a distinction to that radiance.
Jesus, there's a there's a oneness of Jesus to the father and there's a and there's and and there's a oneness and there's there's a distinction. And most Christians just happily kind of live with that. What would you say to that?
Uh I I think that that is precisely what I'm addressing. My my video is, you know, as a as a public scholar, I'm trying to make uh content that speaks to the lay person on the street. And so u every podcast I start off by saying uh we try to increase public access to the academic study of the Bible and religion and combat the spread of misinformation about the same. So, I am addressing the lay person and and and trying to address the way that they have been taught about or think about or talk about the Trinity. But fundamentally, what I'm what I'm trying to get back to is that this tension between unity and distinction is is one of the main catalysts for the debates, the need for councils, the development of these frameworks. I think that is the main issue that that I was getting at. And I think that's where an awful lot of lay folks are going to punt and just oh um and and speaking in American football uh terms uh and and I think that's where that's the the tension the the algebra problem so to speak that that I was addressing is how do we understand their unity and simultaneously their distinction and that's where I think if we go back to uh the Bible we're going to get different very different perspectives from different authors that I would say are closer to uh Josh the the framework that you're describing than to the the traditionally understood uh framework of the trinity but I think not quite the same. I don't think that the author of the gospel of John or Paul or the author of the Gospel of Mark or the author of Daniel or or any of the other um uh first Enoch any of the second temple Jewish texts. I I don't think those are going to fit into into that framework quite the same way. But Josh, are would you say that you agreed or disagreed with the idea that that tension between unity and distinction is one of the main catalysts for uh the the trinitarian debates and the uh the need for councils and things like that?
>> Um I would say it's a tension, but it wasn't the need for councils. So I I disagree with the the conclusion. It's it's not entailed. Uh so it's a non secretary. I don't believe that's the the the reason why we had the councils, but I believe there was um a way in which people were trying to conceptualize the relationship of the of the son um to the father who is the one god um in a sense that does not onlogically subordinate him. But can I just ask you a few questions cuz I know we don't have super long. Um, so you said that the Gospel of John um doesn't have sort of this this or it doesn't fit perfectly into this framework that I'm I'm I'm sort of expressing if if I'm correct. Um, so how do you interpret just one verse and one of the most famous verses the prologue of of John?
>> So John 1:1, the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.
>> How do you interpret that?
Uh well I start from the observation that that I think is probably a consensus view among scholars today that the anarthus preverbal use of theos in this predication uh indicates a qualitative sense. Now, I would argue that this is probably reflecting the logos theology that the author is in some sense adopting from Pho. Uh, and and Phohicle is included when it's referring to the one who is truly God. And it is omitted when it is talking about those who are improperly socalled. and and he talks about I think it's Genesis 31:13 where God appears to Jacob and and says I am the God who appeared to you in the place of God and Pho goes well that's odd why doesn't he say in my place is there another God and then goes on to say this is a reference to his chief word or logos and then in his commentary or questions and answers on Genesis the logos is a second god and so I think John is picking up uh I have a paper I'm going to be presenting in Rome next month uh where I will uh talk about a hybrid logos/image christologology in the gospel of John and so I think that there is a distinction between uh hos and between theos and arthusly and that Jesus is is being called divine is being called deity is not being identified as the very god of Israel and I think in John 10 when he appeals to psalm 2. I think we have kind of a further fleshing out of this notion that humans can be gods. You have the anarthus plural the quoting the the Greek translation of Psalm 82. And that is in response to their accusation that he's committing blasphemy by saying he's one with the father. And he says, "Wait a minute.
Your very own scriptures that you're not allowed to anull say that humans can be gods, the ones to whom the word of God came." And so I I think there's and and this is why I think uh what John is the author of the gospel of John is doing is much closer to the framework for which you're advocating that there is a sense in which the father is God in a distinct way from the way that Jesus is God. I would say that uh and and you see this anarthus um Arthurus distinction being drawn. Uh I I think Justin Martyr uses it without explicitly calling it out.
Origin explicitly calls it out. Uczeius explicitly calls it out. So, so I think there's definitely a recognition that the way that Jesus's deity is distinct from the way that the God the Father is Hoth.
>> So, what what do you ask?
>> Yeah. So then, >> so I don't see how that data I know you're big on data.
that data doesn't actually support then the position that I'm expressing because I said there's one God the father and yeah >> there are two relationally distinct divine persons who have the same divinity as the father now if you take exactly as the way that I normally interpret the prologue is in the exact same way you have just explicated it um it's saying that in the beginning um there was the word and the word was with hos so it's saying the word is distinct from hos That fits with what I said.
There's a distinction between them.
>> But then it says the word was theos divine. So then that's that supports exactly what I'm saying because it's saying there's one god the father. So it says hos the god that's the father and there is a son. So you can even replace it now and say and and just re reate it as in the beginning was the was the word and the word was with the father and the word was divine. So then that's data that supports my position. So when you're saying it doesn't fit, you know, perfectly I don't see that. I see it's supporting data for but it's not I'm not saying we just build it off of that. But just by even starting at the beginning of John, you already see it. So what I see again is that you you you are attacking an understanding of the trinity which isn't the correct understanding because the correct understanding uh where it identifies the one God with Jesus in a stronger sense than just him being divine um then yeah that's problematic but that's not what I was stating is the consilia position. So okay >> um I've you know I've stated for a long time that there is a way to draw between the word god which is ambiguous in the nominal sense and the predicative sense.
the nominal is as a name and then the predicate is as um as a you know ascribing a characteristic to something.
Um yeah, so the way that the word God is used very regularly for the father just even in John. So for example, the most famous verse probably for a lot of people is um you know God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son. He doesn't say the father. So it already uses the word God as a name for the father. So it interchanges very easily. Um but then also you see John saying that that the son as you even were admitting yourself the son has some form of divinity. So yeah, that is evidence for that position that I was expressing. I think that's data that should be um taken as supportive data.
>> Yeah. And and and that's one of the reasons I I if I were forced to choose a a trinitarian model, I think yours makes a lot more sense to me and I think is is is allowing the data of these texts to operate on their own terms a lot more fully than a lot of other folks. I would suggest that I agree with you regarding how John 1:1 distinguishes God the Father from Jesus. I think the sense in which they are united is where I would argue there's there's a there's a disconnect because I think that and and I think it might have it might come down to the notion of monotheism because would you would you agree with Pho that the logos is a second god or or are you would you impose a a strict philosophical monotheism on even the gospel of John insisting that there is only one god?
Um I mean it's very clear that there is only one God and so because Jesus is not the father um that's the way to answer it because the Nian fathers are very clear like Gregory of Nazanza says in his errations very famous he says um we say and I've actually got it here let me um sorry I just wanted to bring the data as such um but I wanted >> How much time do you have Dan? Can can we go for just a little bit longer? Yeah we can we can go for a little bit longer. Okay. Um, thank you. So, >> yeah, let me just sorry, just one second. Uh, yeah. So, I I can read it here. Uh, Gregory Nazanzis, this is a raation 25-6, a very authoritative um set of sermons. Again, Gregory was actually the preciding um bishop of the council of Constantinople that promaggated the the Nino Constantinopolitan creed. Um, he then left because of different reasons, but he was the starting one. So, it expresses his theology. So he states one God, unbegotten, the father, and one begotten Lord. His son referred to as God when he's mentioned separately, but Lord when he's named in conjunction with the father, the one term on account of his nature, the other on account of his monarchy. And so it says a principle for how trinitarians are to speak. Yes, you can call the son god because you're saying he's just you're saying he's divine. But when you you're speaking about the son and the father, you refer to the father as the one god. And so pho if it's sort of a trap that someone could have of falling and saying is there a second god. Well you you're counting two beings there. And so the principal would say no you wouldn't say there is a second god because there is only one god the father. So for example um Basel of Cesaria says and this is in uh against Selius. His letter to um against Selius says there is one God because there is one father but the son is also God and there are not two gods because the son has identity with the father. For I do not behold one divinity in the father and another in the son.
There is an identity of substance between because the son is from the father not by a command but rather begotten from his nature not uh separated from him but perfect radiance of the father. He also says uh in another part of again Selius he says um he says that the we must believe in God the father omnipotent on Christ Jesus his son and the holy spirit more moreover that the word is united to the god of all because he says I and the father are one. So um it's quite clear um and also that in in this I didn't have the the specific quote but in the rest of the quote of the first one it says we have never heard of a second god because of the understanding of monotheism was confl was synonymous to monarchia. So monotheism as you all know um came in later as a term and so a lot of second temple scholars um uh such as um uh Paula Friedrien and other people working in in second temple Judaism um issues and Christianity they were saying retire the term monotheism because it's not helpful in capturing what the second temple period was understanding um well the second temple period and the post um uh first uh sorry the post-biblical times the pre- Nian and Nian times there wasn't they never use the term monotheism they use the term monarch we believe in one god is there is one father yet the son is homosio with the father he's of the same divinity as him and so that's why we say um sorry Gregory Nazanza says the son referred to as god when mentioned separately and he says the one on account of his nature so he's god because of his nature so it's a predicative um >> so Dan what do you what do you want to say that >> I I think this is where you and I would probably disagree because um I I mentioned uh at the beginning that I wanted to look at when when monotheism developed and uh for my second master's degree and ended up going in a different direction. However, when monotheism begins has always been um a focus of mine and I've got the the Oxford Research and Encyclopedia of Religion, their essay on monotheism I wrote and published last year where I discuss uh the development of the concept and and I argue that it's actually not in the Bible. what Henry Moore came up with the term 1660, the grand mystery of godliness. There is one God rhetoric that you've referred to in the in the Bible, in Second Temple Jewish literature, in early Christian literature. But I I think that you see a a um an aacing of this willingness to acknowledge a second god as Pho.
Justin says another god. Origin does as well. I don't think after origin, you might know better than me. don't think after origin anybody endorses the second or other god language because I think that's where a a more philosophical approach that understands one god language as denying the existence ontologically of any other being that can be called god. Um this is where I would say John is is willing to acknowledge plural gods. In fact, John has Jesus asserting, "Hey, your own scriptures that you're not allowed to deny, call these humans gods, the plural gods." And I don't think that we have that strict philosophical framework being imposed on the understanding of Jesus as theos in the gospel of John. I I think you see it as as late as Justin Martyr. We have a very similar logos theology that Justin Martyr is is presenting talking with Trifo saying, "I will prove that there is another God beside the creator." Um, and so I think that's probably where the disagreement is because I think their unity is not necessarily in in the existence of a single soul being uh that is God. But I think their their unity is and this is where my image Christologology framework comes in is in the notion that Jesus ma bears the presence of the father and therefore manifest the presence of the father which is the intuitive logic of divine images. This is how people would have encountered gods every single day throughout the Greco Roman world in public. And and I think one of the uh manifestations that this framework is what's going on is is comparing John 14 and John 20. In John 14, uh it is Thomas who asks Jesus a question and Jesus uh says gives an answer and then Philip says show us because because Jesus says uh the one who has seen me has seen the father and and Philip goes well just show us the father and Jesus says no you don't understand the father is in me I am in the father and it repeats it a couple of times and then I think Thomas is standing right there in the narrative and then the idea here would be Jesus as a walking talking breathing ing speaking divine image because of his reception of the glory of God, the name of God, one of these vehicles of divine agency bears and manifests the father's presence. And so to see him is to see the father, which is again exactly how divine images work. And then in John 20:28, Thomas finally gets it, sees the resurrected Jesus and realizes that in seeing Jesus, he also sees haos and is able to uh declare my Lord and my God. Thomas finally gets what Philip did not get. So I would suggest that their unity is facil the conceptualization of their unity is facilitated. Um and and this is what I said in that clip. There were these intuitive cognitive frameworks that were not well understood in this time period is there the author of the gospel of John is presenting Jesus as a divine image the father's presence >> the divine image pardon he he's presented as the universal unique and eternal divine image so so yes with with that tweak I can agree 100% with what you're saying like that that that from the beginning he has been the word And and even even in the scripture that you you cite in terms of uh John chapter 10 when he when Jesus quotes Psalm 82, you know, is it not written in your law I have said you are gods? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came and scripture cannot be set aside, what about the one whom the father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?
>> And sent into the world. Yes. So it's an admorum kind of yeah you can you can call those divine beings divine beings and you can you can use you know about about them but there is the one set apart by the father from from before right and and I would say you know together with John 17 you know you loved me before the creation of the world there is one set apart he is the divine image and has always been that divine image that that's John's understanding would you say that that's at least John's coherent understanding that Jesus is the eternal unique universal image.
>> Yes, I I would agree with that. I think John is approaching this from a very traditional uh second temple Jewish uh framework of, you know, anti-idol. There there are no uh other divine images.
Jesus is the one as as the son of man, as the bearer of the name. And and I've argued before, I've been criticized for it by some some colleagues, and so I'm I'm fiddling with my my um articulation of it. But this goes back to, and I pointed out in my response to you, Glenn, the the angel of Adonai in in the Hebrew Bible, >> Exodus 20 uh 23 20 and 21. I'm sending an angel before you to guide you on the way, >> who Pho also identifies as the logos, who is the the second God.
>> Precisely. Right.
>> Precisely. So that's actually a very ancient understanding that so we we don't need the tools of later philosophy to understand that. John John could understand alongside Pho who was interpreting Exodus 23 and saying there is a scent one of the Lord who also speaks of himself as as the Lord. He is God from God, light from light, the word. So it's quite an ancient understanding then.
Yeah. My my argument is that this goes back to uh we don't need to to appeal to later philosophical frameworks to understand how the author of the gospel of John is understanding the unity of Jesus and God because we find it already in the Hebrew Bible with the messenger of Adoni. And in my book Adoni's Divine Images, which is a revision of my dissertation, it's open access. Anybody can read it for free online. I I develop an entire framework for how divine images were renegotiated in the exilic period and where this angel is coming from, why this angel becomes this um kind of animated divine uh image. And so that that's the framework, Josh, that I would say probably distinguishes my approach from yours where in regarding their distinction, I think you and I are a lot closer together than than we might be to other trinitarian um theoretical frameworks. Regarding their unity, I am suggesting that there's a different framework that was already in place that would have made sense to the the author and the audience of the gospel of John that I think is slowly being replaced probably between the late 1st century and the late 2nd century CE with a more philosophical approach where we're shifting to um a a one god conceptualization of their unity probably with uh you mentioned Athenagoras I think and Tertullian are probably the the main pivots towards emphasizing this unity on grounds other than what I think was intuitively underlying the representation of Jesus as theos um in a in the unified sense and I'll shut up now I've been talking for a while >> okay um so I I mean in my own written work I use a term which is is is we're sort of complaining on some points in that you use the sort of terminology divine image I use um metonomy. So Christ is metimically bearing the divine name um Yahweh in that. So I don't see much problems with that. I would actually draw more the distinction. I think that the history that you've stated is just incorrect. Um because I think what I'm trying to express here specifically is that from the New Testament period through the first, second, and third centuries up till the 4th century, we have an understanding of the Trinity understood in that way. And so then um what's needed to be done is to conceptualize the elements of it better. What does it mean for the son to be relationally distinct from the one god? Is he correlative or not? What does he mean to have the same divinity as the one god? So he can be predicated the term god. Is it in a homosio sense or homoio sense or hetraucian sense? So there are various ways people needed to conceptualize but there was one overriding framework that I believe is found within the scriptures the new testament up through the first and second and third century up to na so it's not starting from origin um and onwards and I want to evidence this again with the data and that so I would say okay firstly >> um >> we have individuals that state very clearly so remember just for the audience the trinity as it's correctly understood within a consilia context is there's one god the father and two relationally distinct divine persons who are of the same divinity as the father.
Now we have um Hermas stating believe that God is one who created and established all things bringing them into existence out of non-existence. So that is in the latter part of the first century going into the second century whichever way you um you um date it. You have Irenaeus in 180 to 190 writing um in against heresies. He is alone God, alone lord, alone creator, alone father and alone contains all things and bestows existence on him. We have him stating in further writings, God the father increate, ungendered, invisible, one and only deity creator of the universe. We have Theophilus of Antioch who states from nothing God created whatever he weld as he willed. The power of God is manifested in this that one out of these things are not what he makes whatever he pleases. Tatalian says we believe and this is in the 3rd century we believe in only one God.
You're subject to the dispensation which is our word for economy that the one only god has also a son his word who's issued out of himself. Okay. Um then we have last person I'll say here we have Gregory um of famugaras who says um in his in the creed that we have that survived there is one god father of the living word perfect begetter of the perfect begotten. And this was in 270.
Now we then so we have the one god being very clearly established but then the question so that's the first part of the the trinity there is one god the father um and it's found in the first late 1st 2nd 3rd century as I stated um but then we have um the divinity the question then is is he of the same divinity as the father we have Ignatius of Antioch who states into the ephesians a letter to the ephesians our god Jesus Christ we have him then stating god incarnate so he wasn't a mere man for Ignatius of Antioch. This is a late first century uh going into second century scholar. You have Justin Martr who you were already saying called him God. But there's something interesting he states in dialogue with Trifo. He says this power is indivisible and inseparable from the father. So he takes the word the son to be inseparable and indivisible from the father. Now how to conceptualize that wasn't a way in which I'd say Justin had the resources but he already was predicating an indivisibility not an independent deity but an indivisible one inseparable one from the father. You then have Athanagoras in 177 stating God from the beginning being eternal intelligence had his word in himself being eternally rational. Then we have in the key a key one here Irenaeus who states the father is God and this is sorry demonstrations of the apostolic teaching he states the father is god and the son is god for whatever is begotten of god is god another last one for this for Irenaeus he says the son is of one substance with the father this isn't against practis um and then I'll just say two more here there is only one power so this is hippolyis there is only one power that which iss issues from the all. The all is the father and the power issuing from the all is the word. He is the father's mind. Thus all things are through him but he alone is from the father. So it's predicating one power between the son and the father. Last one here and this is a key one and this is nvation who was existing at the time of origin but he wasn't a post or origian um individual so he wasn't influenced in that way. Nvation states the son is God and sorry um yeah this is on the trinity he states sorry the word from the trinity he says the son is god in as much as he derives his being from the father and the godhead has been transmitted by the father to him there is a community of substance communio substantia in the Latin so I I struggle to say um how there isn't the same divinity that's seeing by the son with the father. Yes, the term homo might have not captured it at that sense. We have origin and others who come after him using that. But the key thing we have individuals who are stating it. Sorry, I just want to just speak about one more evidence. This is a good one. Gregory of says there is one lord unique out um unique of unique god out of god impress an image of godhead.
Okay. Um and then in the triad there is nothing either created or survile. So if he's not of the same divinity as the father then he has to have a degraded divinity a created divinity which was what Aras was promoting in the 4th century. So we already have in the 3rd century there being an identity or oneness of substance where there is nothing created in the trinity Gregory Fatugus just said. So um I I I'm oh gosh sorry I want to say Dionis of Alexandria last one here sorry um let me just say this so um it's uh Athanasius restated it so we find in Athanasius preserve preservations he says and this is in 260 so again um he's a contemporary of origin but not an influenced of origin in the sense of um he's a post originian scholar um he says parents and children are different people but are homogeneous the plant and its seed or root are different yet of the same nature. So the river and its source are different in form and name but consist of the self same water. So it's using an analogy to say that there is an identity of what the son has the father has as well. So I'm I'm struggling to see again how that's not evidencing and we can speak about the spirit as well. So the trinity doesn't seem to be something that is just predicated on origin and later on.
Can I just say one more thing because I I just want to correct one more thing just just lastly. Um it's a question I want to ask you. So when you said council of Antioch, >> what council of Antioch were you referring to? Because there are there were many sinners of Antioch prior to Na. So is there a specific one that you were referring to? Um >> I think it it was the one shortly before Nika where where Aras was uh it was intended to resolve the uh the Aryan controversy and resulted in a finding that agreed more with uh with the orthodox position but didn't result in any formal censure or or anything like that. I forget the the precise year of of that council.
>> Yeah. So so it was 324. So it just happened a year before the year before.
Nice. Now something I I need to correct that you said sorry oh I push back because he might have a response to it is it Nika was already agreed before Antioch had been called. So Oizius of Cordoba who was the preciding bishop of Nika sent by the emperor. He was on his way to Nika and stopped at Antioch and saw that there was a council that was presiding over many issues but also the issue of Alexander of Alexandria and the issue he had with Aras and you said they didn't promagate a creed. They did promulgate a creed and we have this now.
We discovered this. We have a creed and I can state to you well actually I I don't want to take time but what you can see and this is found also in beer's work. So if someone wants to fact check me um it's in page 66 of John Bear's work um where he says um they also disc I'll just read what bear says they also discussed the actions of Alexander of Alexandria against Aras and adopted a creed which e echoes Alexander in a number of points though not all there is one Lord Jesus Christ begotten not from nothing but from the father not as something made but generally as an offspring that he is not a son by appointment or by will that he is always is and not previously was not and that he's immutable and unchangeable, the true image not of the will of the father but is his very hypothesis. So if it was Constantine that played such an influential role, Constantine wasn't even at all present at Antioch. Antioch was already called um before um um sorry Nia was already called >> and it was something which o um um Oius was passing through and then had a um a say in it. So it was something a creed that we didn't have until recently in the '9s. We had it seen preserved in the Syriak tradition. So we do have one.
Last thing I I'll shut uh can I can I just say this? Sorry.
Sorry. I've been talking for a while, but just just this point.
>> One one last thing. Yeah. I I'll I'll let Dan come back at you. Yeah. Go on.
>> Yeah. So that why I was asking about different councils of Antioch is that there was another council of Antioch that was called in 268 and 269 to 269 against Paul of of Samosarta and Paul of Samosarta was preaching that Christ was a mere man. Now there was a creed that was promagated by Antioch and there were letters that were written it's called the letter of the six bishops against Paul of Samuel Sultan. I'm just going to state um what it says very quickly. Uh again just looking at the evidence here.
So um it says here in the letter of the six bishops um part two it says or chapter 2 or section two though he is God in essence and sub subsistence he is not himself the unbegotten beginning beginningless invisible and unchasing God. It also says uh the cenodal letter of Antioch says no man has seen nor is able to see the unbegotten god. It says in part three of the letter of the six bishops, all the scriptures inspired by God reveal that the son of God is God.
And yet both the old and new testament and scriptures acknowledge one God.
That's speaking about the one God being the father. So that's the first part of the statement of the trinity. But then the key one now is the same divinity.
And this is quite important. So we have in the letter of the six bishops, it states and this is prior to na prior to the the edict of Milan being promagated by um Constantine in 313 to say Christianity is a permissible religion.
So it was a persecuted religion when this was stated. So Constantine had no influence over it. And it says letter of the six bishops 2 says being God before the ages not in fornowledge but an essence and subsistence.
Christ and and uh part 9 says Christ before the incarnation was made Christ in the divine scriptures. Although Christ is one and same in essence um for the most part he's known by many aspects. Then it goes on to say as God has made all things through him, he truly exists and is active as both word and God. Um and then it goes on to say the body from the virgin containing the fullness of divinity bodily was united immutably to the divinity and was um deified. And it says um last one on this account on the account of this is part eight he the same is both God and man Jesus Christ. So we already have in a council and a letter authoritative and the key thing is this council of Antioch was authoritative. It was part of the canonical tradition of Nika where they you see Athanasius and later scholars pointing back to say you're what they were doing is that you're you're like Paul of Samosarta. They said you're like Paul of Samosart because he was deemed a heretic. So they saw the council of Antioch's letter and statement to be authoritative.
every century from the first, second, third, and fourth centuries, we've we've got this evidence of distinction and this evidence of of oneness. Dan, I'd love to love to give you um a right to reply there and then we'll try and tie tie this thing together.
>> Yeah, thank you. Um I so I see a couple of issues here. Uh one, when it comes to Constantine's role, um I I wasn't aware of the the creed that had come out of uh the 324 Antioch Council. I don't think I I was suggesting that Constantine in any way catalyzed or caused the articulation of uh of the Nyine creed. I I was more talking about the role of Constantine and imperial power and enforcing it. In other words, once once we had an articulation of it that uh that could be considered um you know universal that that they agreed on, it was imperial power that helped enforce it so that there were not um constantly more regional and local uh councils and things like that. But you know more about an awful lot more about the councils than I do. um regarding you you listed a number of folks uh I think beginning with with Justin Martyr and going on about the power being indivisible that's what I recall from from Justin Martyr and and it struck me that that he um repeatedly talks about uh the logos as Christ as distinct in number and so I wanted to look up the indivisible statement and what I found is in um chapter 128 Justin is saying some teach that this power is indivisible and inseparable from from the father just as the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the skies. Uh it goes on to say u the father by his will can cause his power to go forth and whenever he wishes to return again in this manner they declare god also made the angels but it has been demonstrated that the angels always exist and are not reduced again into that from which they were created. It has also been shown at length that this this power which the prophetic word also calls God an angel not only is numbered as different by its name as is the light of the sun but is something distinct in real number and goes on to um to use the the metaphor of fire kindled from fire. And his concern seems to be that the and and you know if it's an emanation or or whatever it is, his concern seems to be countering the notion that the word coming from God but being separate from God somehow reduces God. It seems to me that Justin's argument is that this doesn't reduce God. Uh he concludes by saying the with the fire metaphor, there still remains the same unddeinished fire. So it seems to me that the issue is not is Jesus a separate being so much as it is does Jesus's distinctness reduce the father's divinity. That seems to me the argument that he's addressing. But but that's a much I think that's a a more complex argument regarding how we're interpreting what's uh what Justin means in that period. And so when I talk about uh what I think origin is the last to say, I think there's some overlap here in the nyine language with the easement as I called it of uh what I think is going on in the scriptures where people were more willing to acknowledge God's or refer to Jesus as another god as that strict philosophical monotheism is taking over. Uh now it in and I've argued this in print uh it's before and I've got more of it coming out uh this year. The the doctrine of creation x nihilo seems to be central or at least necessary to the understandings of monotheism as I have commonly seen them um articulated and defended. But the the majority of scholars today are in pretty widespread agreement that we don't have that doctrine till the end of the 2nd century CE. 70 uh to 180. Tation is probably one of the first to to articulate it and then it gets picked up by some others who read and you and you read from the shepherd of Hermas the idea of into existence from non-existence which uh I think has been reinterpreted at the end of the second century as creation x nilo. But my my understanding of the one God and God is one language in the Bible and into the about the middle of the 2 century CE is that it is distinct from the philosophical notion that develops as the apologists move the discussion into a more philosophically oriented and informed arena which is where we get uh folks like Irenaeus and and we get folks like Origin and and some of the others that you quoted. So I would argue that God is one and and I'm reviewing a book right now for Journal for the Study of Judaism on the evolution of Jewish monotheism, God is one from antiquity to modernity by David Gberg, which goes into quite a bit of detail about how distinctly this idea was understood and articulated from the biblical period all the way through to um medieval Jewish philosophy all the way down to today. And so I would argue that the the monotheism you're talking about in in my opinion and I was in a I organized a conference at Brown University last year with Paula Friedrien and a number of others and that's one of the books that's coming out later this year that is suggesting the framework of monotheism as as it is used today was not extant uh during the biblical period. It's something that developed uh after the close of the New Testament. So, so I think this is one probably one of the roots of my disagreement regarding the nature of the oneness of God and how Jesus is unified with God in the biblical texts. And and I see that again a facing as we get into the the late second and into the third century and being taken over by a more philosophically oriented concept of monotheism. So, that's where I would say you and I probably disagree uh the most about the the nature of uh the Trinity.
And I can see Glenn's getting very anxious. So, >> I'm not anxious. I just >> Wait, I'll just respond.
>> Okay. All right. I I just want to release Dan if if he needs to get on, but yeah.
>> No, I'm I'm okay. Okay.
>> Yeah. So, um I just Yeah, just a few things I I just want to push back on, but I I really want to thank you for your charity. You're you're a very nice individual, Dan. It's lovely uh having you as >> in person. I'm a lot nicer than uh than when I'm uh recording of it.
>> No, no, no. It's fine. No, but you're very lovely. So, thank you for that. Um but as this is like a scholarly discussion, I'll just push back in a strong way. Um I believe that your um your expression of firstly N how what um the authority of Nika and Constantine's authority of Nika is overblown in such a level that it seems tropish such that you always see it you know like Nika Constantine ruled the world and you know the Bible was agreed at NA that sort of I'm not saying you said that >> but it some people can fall into that because actually when you Look at the the things through the text around Na Scholars have all agreed that Nika didn't settle anything. Constantine didn't settle anything. So I went back and forth century.
>> Yeah. You have a very influential No, no, it wasn't for a century. But you have over you have a a very influential book. Very influential. I I I Glenn, I say to all your readers, do read it's very big books. It's a thousand pages, but very influential. um by a scholar called RPC Hansen called the search for the Christian doctrine of God where he goes through the whole of from Nika to um to Constantinople and his main aim and not just him but then John Bear um Lewis with his work on this a very influential work called a nice ner its legacy um they all agree that Constantine and Nier itself didn't close any question um what it did is that it provided a way in which people could express and deal with the problem of Aras. So it dealed with Aras but it didn't deal with Aryanism and the problem of um the understanding of the creation um the the the hom of the son with the father. It wasn't until Theodosius I in 380 where he promagated the edict of Thessalonica where he said the religion of the empire is Nyian Christianity and he said the religion of the empire is that of the faith of the bishop of Alexandria and the bishop of Rome. So he was saying two of the central bishops cuz Constantinople wasn't a central bishop at that time.
two of the central bishops um their faith is the faith of the church and so he sorry the faith of the empire. So what closed the search as Hansen says and others and other scholars was Theodosis and more particularly the council of Constantinople in 381.
So actually Constantine didn't do anything. All he did was he had imperial authority to bring the bishops together to debate this issue. He suggested, but only suggested the termios at the end of the debate to be able to express what they had agreed about that because they wanted to have something in the creed that would not allow the Aryans to affirm it. Because you had people like Ucius of um Cesaria and Ucius of Nademia who were playing playing around saying, "Ooh, maybe if we say um he's of the same essence in this way, we can get away with it." So they had to put that term homos and that was a suggestion by Constantine, but it was nothing after that. All happened was Aras was deemed um an excommunicated by the council and all that Constantine did was follow through with the council. So if it was the other way that the council had agreed that Aryanism was the correct faith of the fathers and the the scriptures then it would have been the same. It's like similarly um if I get sent to court and I'm I'm tried by a jury and they found me guilty all that the police does or the prosecution service um the security team is that they enforce what the jury has decided but I can't go and say oh because of that that's you know it was the jury that did anything no sorry it was the um the the prosecution or the police that did anything it was a jury so it was a council that did it and because they were within an imperial context it was then followed through in that way so that's something I want to say but the it wasn't century. It was closed at 381 going into um yeah 381 with the council of Constantinople because there were why why this was the case last thing here is because there were multiple councils that people were were bringing up. So after the council of Nika you had other councils and other councils that went and said actually no Aras and Ucius are fine um and other ones that were saying no they're not fine. You had terms like homo homoan, you had hetrausion, you had homusiosum homoyusios and they were all trying to figure out what was the way in which we can navigate na but it wasn't say so what was actually the wanted unity to say we've debated enough for over um you know 60 years let's close this question it's the bishop of Alexandria and Rome who have the authority of the faith to set and he also names um later on sorry after not not him but after it's named Gregory of Nissa is named. So one of the Capidosian fathers is taken to be the one who embodies the faith of the church. So I just push back on sort of the imperial work um and actually the the authoritiveness of Nika. Nika became authoritative after the 4th century by the council of calcedan because um we don't have any actor of Nika. We actually don't know what go what what happened in Nika. We have nothing. All we have is a letter of um of Constantine. We have Athanasius's recollection of it as a deacon. So we have other secondhand sources but we don't have anything. It wasn't until Calcedon in 451 that we have an authority of Nika and that's how the church always operates. The councils later on become more authoritative than what they were um at the specific time.
>> So Dan, just the issue of imperial power and authority. Yeah. Yeah. Just just give give us your your your thoughts on that and we'll try and wrap things up.
Well, I I don't want to carry things on too much, but but I would just say I I'm not to say that that Constantine actually had any role in in um formulating the ideas, but this is the introduction of excuse me, this is the introduction of imperial enforcement.
And and I think while it does take some time for for things to iron out where people are exiled, people are brought back, even Athanasius is exiled multiple times. Um you do suddenly have imperial patronage being a reward of uh your position uh being the leading one being endorsed by uh the empire which uh gives an awful lot of power which allows bishops to exercise an awful lot of control confiscate property. Uh there were riots that broke out. So it just um the the point there without disagreeing with with uh anything that you just articulated regarding uh the relationship of uh the emperor to the the actual debates themselves is that imper I I think without imperial power we would still be arguing about this in even more fervently than than we are anyway. But I think there would have been a lot there would have been significantly less unity if there were not imperial power involved in in the debates. Okay. Yeah. No, thank you.
That's that's clarifying. Um, let me just have one final word that to try and um draw some of these threads together and then and then a final word from you Dan and a final word from you Josh. But um the original short I think says that hello modern Christianish person. May maybe you're on the inside of the faith or on the outside of the faith. If you have never considered the trinity to be explicable, if you've never um found an analogy to be satisfying, if you don't understand how one can be three and three can be one, that's because it it never made sense. It it was an algebra problem that was never quite solved.
That algebra problem was then kind of enforced by imperial power. And that's why we've had to live with a an unsatisfying and incoherent, you know, picture of God. Therefore, if you don't understand the Trinity, that's because it it never made sense in the first place. And I guess I'd say back to you, Dan, that I think our conversation whenever we've been talking about anything in the first four centuries, we've been talking about stuff that's really quite explicable, that's really quite coherent, that is actually quite heartwarming to Christians if you understand Jesus is God from God, light from light, very God from very God. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was made incarnate by the Virgin Mary.
all of that that that is a very coherent trinitarianism that um that I think makes sense even today. And and so I I guess you and I are both speaking to people on the inside and the outside of the church in the 21st century. And yes, we both encounter people who say, "Oh, Trinity, isn't that that incoherent logical algebra problem?" Um and you your your response to that is to say, "Oh, yes, no, that never made sense."
Um whereas my response to that is to say actually if you go back and open up John's gospel I think there's a perfectly coherent account of God from God light from light very God from very God a coherent account that gets developed through those first first four centuries that is articulated in the creed in a quite coherent satisfying kind of a way and maybe what you thought of as incoherent isn't actually incoherent when you go back to the source materials whereas your approach I think I think is different and I just don't think your approach kind of stands up to the scrutiny of actually when you look at the first four centuries they're they're not really doing what you're saying they're doing. They're not solving the logical problem of the Trinity, which when you talk about capital L, capital P, capital T, logical problem of the Trinity, that problem is is younger than you and I are, Dan, that problem um in that sense goes back to 1987, which is what Josh's paper kind of kind of kind of deals with. And it seems like you're taking a modern understanding of a logical problem and projecting it back into the early centuries. And and a lot of what we've been saying in the last hour and a half is that actually those those first four centuries it hasn't really felt like the solving of a logical problem. It's it's been as Josh says the articulation of who do you say that I am and a church that's getting to grips with the full deity of Christ who is the son of the father God from God. That's that's kind of my reflection about where I'm at at the at the moment. Love to hear your reflection Dan and then Josh.
I I would say I still think if we stopped your average Christian on the street and asked them how they understand the trinity and and say well let's use this model over here uh of what Josh used to call monarchical trinitarianism uh and you said consiliar trinitarian trinitarianism is how you refer to it.
Okay. Um and explain that framework. I still think there are going to be questions left over in in what sense uh are they uh unified and and Josh does an admirable job of going into uh some deep philosophical discussion of what's going on here with with ideas about tropes and things like that in in his analytical philosophy. And so I would I would say that's not going to make sense to most folks out there. It's it's still in my opinion an an attempt to try to strike a balance between the unity and the distinction. And and I don't think that we're going to get to a point where the average person on the street is going to say, "Oh, that makes sense to me now.
How there can be both unity and distinction at the exact same time." So what and and part of it has to do with this this uh this oneness that comes in my opinion from the uh the eclipsing of a more philosophical approach to monotheism over the previous notion of God as one rhetoric. Uh that probably is is a little closer to what some people label henotheism or or monolitry. But I I think I understand the positions a lot better. or I hopefully I have expressed mine more clearly as well. Uh but but I I do still think there is going to be a discomfort with accepting the oneness and the threeness even even with what I think is a is a much better framework that that Josh has provided uh from what I think is the dominant framework among lay folks today. So I I think I'm I'm closer to understanding what's what's going on. And I think the that framework if we explain the this consiliatory trinitarianism is going to get people closer. But I still think there's a degree to which it's there's still no analogy for what's going on that is out there in the world that someone off the street is going to grasp. And I I I still think that there is a way that we cannot reconcile this concept of unity and distinction in a way that's going to be broadly understandable. Perhaps in in in analytical philosophy, maybe it it wins the day. Maybe it becomes the dominant view. But I'm I'm hardressed to imagine that that your average evangelical or or Catholic on the street is is going to feel like that actually resolves the tension. What if your own analogy would do the job? So I do like the idea of the divine image. And I, as I said, I I think the the tweak that I'd make, which is a kind of a a qualitative twe tweak, not just a quantitative tweak, is is to make Jesus as John presents him. I'd say the the unique, the eternal, and the universal image of God, uh, the one through whom God has always been made known and therefore light from light. In that sense, I I I I don't think that's the same kind of logical problem as the algebra problem that you were that you were talking about earlier. Doesn't doesn't divine image actually help?
I I in my opinion, divine image helps.
However, in for it to work the way that that I've articulated, I think we would need to move away from the strict philosophical monotheism that as as far as as I can tell is foundational and fundamental to to the concept of of the Trinity. And and I don't see the overwhelming majority of evangelicals, of Catholics, of Baptists, of of um mainline Christians. I don't see them moving away from that anytime soon. As much as Mike Kaiser has has tried to uh uh tried to help that, I think um it it makes sense to me. But I'm also not presenting it as true. I'm not saying this is the way it is. I'm I'm saying I think this best accounts for why the author of the Gospel of John and others are presenting it the way they are without necessarily endorsing it as the way it is or even the way it should be. Uh because I have my own concerns with um with presenting it that way. And I'm and and that's just I think that's just an artifact of of me pretending to stand outside of everything and and trying to call balls and strikes and and just saying this is this is what it seems to me they're doing without saying this is the way I think it should be.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Helpful Josh lead us home.
>> I don't know if I'll do that but um yeah so thank you firstly for the discussion.
I really enjoyed it.
>> Um just clarify one thing. Yeah. one thing that you brought up before and then this last point you were saying about um sort of the lay understanding.
So just with the Justin thing I want I just wanted to say that I agree with you in what you were saying. Um but what he was trying to articulate is what we already hold as trinitarians that there is an indivisibility of the deity of the father um in that he communicates it to the son without it being divided um yet there is a distinction to be drawn between the father and the son. Now, he might have not been able to explicate in a way that didn't sort of teeter on problematic language, but he was still pointing towards something that other theologians um at the time and then later were able to communicate um more effectively. Um and so, but one thing I'll also say is Justin isn't a canonical father of trinitarianism. So he's a saint of the churches of uh orthodoxy and uh Catholicism but he's not canonical when it comes to the trinity such that in the 4th century they weren't pointing to Justin as an authority as a precedent authoritative president. So he's brought up a lot in discussions, but it's sort of a a red herring um because you can then bring up who people who were canonical such as Irenaeus and others um who did get referred to backwards by the 4th century um who were saying the same thing at similar times to Justin u but in a way that was more clearer. Um, now just the last thing about um about I do agree with you if you were to stop your your lay Christian and say this but lay Christianity should never be a barometer of the position the truth of a position and also um the position of the of the body that it's representing or the representative body because if you were to stop a lay Christian and to ask them a majority of questions could be ethical questions um could be moral questions could theological questions, they will probably stump themselves and be very confused. So you can see this a speaker's corner for example that happens a bit and you see this happening because unfortunately this is more an issue with the training of lay Christians more so than actually this being the position that's taught by the churches within Christianity because an example of that would be what do Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox all recite every single um authoritative um meeting? So the mass or church service or the divine liturgy it is the nino contanapolitan creed and so each Christian is tutoed on this. So for example in the orthodox tradition you are catechized a lot on the naan creed.
So those who are catechized well wouldn't actually have that. So it's more of an issue of correct catechesis and also engagement because a lot of people these days are not very much so engaged in actually thinking through what they believe as a Christian. But it's not saying then that actually the body of Christianity um sort of this is what they're teaching and and we need to push back on it. But also as I was saying to you, you can find lay people within traditions where this is fine. So if I was to stop an Orthodox Christian and say can you do you agree with the basil? Of course. Do you understand it?
Yes, of course. And that is expressing what I was saying to you cuz they say it every Sunday. Um and so if you were to say to someone this uh lastly um there is one God the father and two relationally distinct divine persons the son and the spirit who are of the same divinity as the father and you had time to explain what the terms you're saying relationally distinction one god and divinity I don't see you will have the scratching your head moment it might be oh I reject that because I don't believe it's part of my tradition my evangelical tradition but I don't think they'll be stumped and say this is like you're talking about married bachelor here or a great circle I don't think you'll have Where you have that is and Christians are stumped is when they're incorrectly catechized on the tradition of the church the authoritative teaching where they would say God is free three in one three persons but one one God one so then they will then stump themselves and thought well how do you make sense of that but when it's correctly stated grounded on the nyan faith as orthodox are and Catholics also they are grounded on the dyian faith correctly catechized um and then some evangelicals as well so I'm not saying evangelicals aren't then you won't have this problem so it's more of a are we teaching ing it well enough and also are we pushing the correct teaching to the theological centers, the theological colleges instead of actually saying the church's role as it's always being has been the bishop, the priest is teaching you the faith of the church every Sunday and every catechist class.
So you don't have to wait to go to theology college, which most people won't to be able to correctly understand the trinity. But my bishop told me this, my priest told me this um and so on. So I say it's more of a problem that we need to fix more so than um it being a problem of conceptual understanding.
That that's why it sort of way on that.
Yeah.
>> Yep. Well, I I hope your your framework takes over and becomes the dominant framework because it makes significantly more sense to me even if I do think there there are some remainders there.
Okay.
>> Who thought who would have thought we would come to uh such a moment of harmony uh together? The three have become one, ladies and gentlemen. And uh I'm very grateful. Uh Dan, you're right.
When you're when you're just in the studio by yourself, uh there's there's a difference. And uh >> I've enjoyed >> Well, the the the audience is a little more hostile most of the time. So >> Oh, wow.
>> You know, um it's been fantastic to have you on. Thank you so much for for making time for this. and uh Josh as well. Uh at the end of a busy week, uh you guys have made time uh to be on this channel and to talk about the stuff that uh that we think really really matters. Uh so uh bless you so much. Uh uh Josh and Dan uh Josh uh you've got this book coming out soon. What what is the book?
>> Yeah, so I'm a bit of a crazy guy. So I've got two books coming out. Um so I've got um a book on the problem of evil called The Exemplarist the Odyssey.
It's published by routage um where I try to tackle the problem of evil providing a potential solution to the problem of evil in its various forms. And then I have um a book that's being published by Palgrave um which is called the coherence and the truth of the trinity where I go through all of these historical questions um laying the basis before I go into the philosophical problems um that people have raised and how to best understand it. But I try my best as I think any philosopher of religion analytic theologian should do to ground their philosophical conceptualizing on the history on the Bible on the scripture and also on the historical tradition. And that's what I really try and do. So it's not just a someone might say a purely abstract work. It was more the editor of the book who said they wanted that title more so than actually because I felt that there's a lot more going on there philosophical. There's a lot of things that people can take from. So yeah, two books um and hopefully when it does come out around the summertime um people can enjoy it. Yeah. Love that. Thank you, Josh. And and Dan, where would you point people to?
>> You're everywhere. Uh you can find Yeah, most most places. Uh not yet Omnipresent, but I'm working on it. Um uh on social media, I go by Mlelen, Mak Len. I have a book out. In fact, it was released a year ago, two days ago. Uh the Bible says So, what we get right and wrong about scriptures most controversial issues. And I'm working on uh book number two right now, which I'm I'm sure your audience will love, called uh God's Biography of Biblical History, where I go into how and why the God of the Bible changes from the earliest layers to the latest, which will be riveting, uh I'm sure. Um it's it's a lot of fun to write. So, uh and then I've got the Data Overdogma podcast that releases episodes every week, which my co-host will yell at me if I don't mention.
>> Excellent. Excellent. And the fit for this episode has been >> um >> Romanes a do which which I am given to understand means Romans go home but my my Latin is a little rusty.
>> Is that conjugated correctly? Yeah, we we'll make you copy that a 100 times.
Yeah, >> my sorry my fit is my fit is just a black polo unfortunately.
>> Power of blue for me. All right, bless you guys. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. So, I've just finished the conversation with uh Josh and Dan, and uh isn't it different when you're in person and and not, you know, either me or Dan ranting at a camera all by ourselves? So, uh that was a really uh a really good experience of um of communication and and being able to check what do you mean by that? And uh didn't didn't do that really well or what do you mean by this? and and before launching into uh addressing somebody's uh position, actually figuring out whether they actually hold that position. And in all this, it's just worth remembering where this whole conversation comes from. Um Dan Mlen has said that our modern sense of incoherence, our modern sense of misunderstanding of the trinity, if you don't understand the trinity in the 21st century, that is because it never made sense even in the the early centuries.
That that is the claim. If it is a logical puzzle to us today, that's because it was always a logical puzzle back in the past. And that logical puzzle was then kind of enforced on the church through imperial power. And that's what's led us to having the doctrine of uh the trinity today. And and Dan's claim has been that ancient theologians were basically trying to square a circle. They were trying to do a kind of, you know, there's a married bachelor sort of thing. They were they were trying to make three equal one and one equal three. Dr. Josh Siadi does not believe that. He says yes there is a logical problem of the trinity in the year of our lord 2026 and that logical problem can be traced all the way back to 1987 40 years ago but that logical problem of the trinity that we experience nowadays in the Anglo-American philosophical analytic tradition is because we're situated in a in a certain philosophical tradition and perhaps situated in a certain western theological tradition that makes us misunderstand understand what the early church was all about. And the early church was all about answering the question from Matthew chapter 16.
What what did Josh say? You know, father John Bear has said that early consilia efforts to um define the doctrine of the trinity are basically answering the question, who do you say that I am? That question that Jesus asks in Matthew chapter 16. I I love John Bear. We've had him on on the channel before. I I think that's exactly right that basically people are wrestling with who is this Jesus? He is a kind of a God from God figure. He speaks as God. He acts as God. He is worshiped as God. He seems to bring the words and the works and the salvation of God. And yet he also is of the father. He has a oneness with God and he has a distinction from God. So Dan Mlelen is absolutely right.
There there is a oneness issue between Jesus and the father and there is also a distinction issue between Jesus and the father but the oneness and the distinction are not logically incoherent or logically incompatible right um it's very possible to say that Jesus is in some senses distinct from the father and is in other senses one with god right that and and the language that was developed in the early centuries was just language of okay when we're talking in oneness terms we're talking us, the Greek word for being.
And when we're talking distinction, we're talking person terms, hippistasis in in the Greek. That's not logically incoherent. That's not like talking about a married bachelor. That's not like talking about a square circle. Like this is this is not a maths problem that people were trying to solve. And this is why I wanted to get Dr. Josh into conversations with with Dr. Dan. Dan in his last response to me said that you know to suggest that I am wrong and that Josh is right is laughable on the face of it or he said words to that effect.
My argument about the development of the trinity as an algebra problem is actually very closely related to what Dr. Joshua Siguad has said about the logical problem of the trinity. And if you'll recall Dr. Joshua Siguad is the expert that Glenn wanted to bring on to teach me a thing or two about the Trinity. To suggest that Dr. Suare is right and I am wrong is laughable on the very face of it. We're just characterizing the same concern in two different ways. But it's really not laughable. Josh is saying something really quite distinct from Dan. Josh is an expert on the councils as Dan admits.
you know more about an awful lot more about the councils than I do.
>> And I would say that Josh gets the early church right, Dan gets the early church wrong. And I think this dialogue has vindicated that the logical problem of the Trinity is younger than Dan and I are. I don't think it's younger than than Josh. I think Josh is is probably younger than born in 1987. But 1987 is where we can go back to for the capital L, capital P, capital T logical problem of the Trinity. And what Josh is saying is that our logical problem with it is just a sign that we have got to a philosophical dead end. Not that the original doctrine is faulty. He says the original doctrine is coherent. That it is a unified kind of a doctrine. It is completely consent with what people are saying in the 4th century, 3rd century, 2nd century, 1st century. It's completely consent with what John's gospel is saying. And what I would say is that if John is right, then it's a it's a doctrine of God that goes back earlier than that. John's gospel is saying, look, Jesus is the God from God who was always there in the beginning.
And John's gospel in John chapter 1 basically says, "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only son who's at the father's side has made him known."
And and in the rest of John's gospel, he goes through, well, that means that actually Abraham, you know, the the one that Abraham looked to is Jesus. And and the one that Moses looked to is Jesus.
And and the one that Isaiah looked to is Jesus. You can keep going back before the first century. And the God of the Isaiah temple vision in Isaiah 6, that's Jesus. That's what John says in John 12:41. and and back to Moses like the the one that Moses wrote about is Jesus.
That's what John says in John chapter 5.
Or you go back to, you know, Jesus saying in John chapter 8 that before Abraham was, I am the one that Abraham looked to is Jesus. And you just can't think of three more paradic visions of who God is in the Old Testament. He is the God of Abraham. He is the God of Moses, the God of the burning bush. And he is the God of Isaiah's temple vision.
this this is who God is. And if John's gospel is correct, then there is a unified and coherent doctrine of God that is in the first century, second, third, and fourth. That is the doctrine of the trinity that we're talking about.
And it's a doctrine of God that goes back into the Old Testament, too. And it's not a maths problem. It's it's the good news that this is who Jesus is. He is of the father and he brings us the salvation of God. Just one last thing.
Um, Dr. Josh is talking throughout our conversation. He's been talking about the monarchy of the father. That's what our conversation kept on returning to.
It's it's particularly an an eastern distinctive that there is the monarchy of the father and that the son and the spirit are of one being with the one God who is the father. That's a particularly eastern doctrine of God. I think a lot of my audience will be from the western trinitarian tradition who might hear um Josh as being Aryan in one sense because he's saying well there's the one God and then there's these two other add-ons uh the son and the spirit he is absolutely adamant that the son and the spirit are of one being with the father he is absolutely uh not making making an aryan move in that sense but there is a further conversation to be had about eastern trinitarianism and western trinitarianism that's a conversation we can have for another time I do think The bottom line for Josh is that the early church as they were unfolding their doctrine of the trinity is basically trying to answer the question, who do you say that I am? They were not trying to solve a logical problem. And therefore, I I think this conversation has been really really valuable. I I wonder if you think this conversation has been really really valuable, why don't you uh let us know in the comments? And uh and why don't you also go to 321course.com if you want to check out more about the threeness of God.
Start an account and you're totally in.
We won't spam you. It's free and you can explore the good news of God's threeness and the world's tuness and your oneness.
What do all the numbers mean? Well, you can probably guess what the three means.
Uh but you can figure out what the other two numbers mean by going to 321course.com and discover the good news. It's not a maths problem. the good news that God is love and you're invited. If you like the video, share it around the place. Give it a like and subscribe to us so that we can catch you on the next video.
Related Videos
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
The fourth great humiliation. #jimmycarr #crowdwork #hecklers #standup
jimmycarr
576K views•2026-05-28
