Dale Tuggy and James White debate: "Is Jesus YHWH?" (best quality, with slides)

[Music] I believe that uh everyone here is probably familiar with both speakers but I would encourage you to go to their websites Dr Whit's Ministry of course is Alpha and Omega Ministries aom men.org is his website and to learn more about uh Dr tuggy go to trinities Doc trinities oh or I'm sorry thank you trinities dorg don't go to.com who knows what's there trinities dorg trinities dorg okay um and the uh the the uh the order for the night is in your program for the sake of those watching online there are 25 minute opening remarks 10minute rebuttal there will be one cross-examination period of 10 minutes each uh I believe a five minute closing statement and about 20 minutes for audience Q&A during the Q&A it'll be 1 minute to answer 30 seconds uh to respond I think that's everything oh one one last thing I do want to say the um uh the UCA the Unitarian Christian Alliance did sponsor this event tonight they wanted to do that to keep cost down as low as possible that's how the tickets were as low as they were so uh I want to thank them for their sponsorship and you can go to their website of course to learn more uh about their Ministry so without further Ado in the these events the person answering in the affirm affirmative goes first the question is is Jesus Yahweh Dr White says yes he'll go first please welcome [Applause] [Music] [Applause] him all right well good evening thank you for being here how many of you have been here for all the debates uh all four of them oh there's the yeah all right watch those people they're the they're The Dangerous Ones our debate topic this evening is Jesus Yahweh and so it is going to be a Biblical presentation my thesis statement is that the New Testament writers specifically identified Jesus as the son as Yahweh this is a Divine truth it is revealed in Scripture it is not the result of philosophical speculation uh credal formulation over centuries so on and so forth it is a divinely revealed truth found in the pages of the Bible as such the only meaningful question this evening is do the authors of the New Testament purposefully intend to identify the son as a person distinguished from the father and the spirit as Yahweh that is the question that we will be examining this evening whether someone's philosophical system is full enough enough big enough to deal with such a divine revelation is not our subject this evening but I can assure you it will come up and my assertion is if your philosophical system is not big enough to deal with what scripture itself reveals then you need a new philosophical system so where do we find this taught in scripture the fact is the New Testament authors identify all three Divine persons Father Son and Holy Spirit as Yahweh so clearly in Isaiah 536 it is said that Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him and that him of course is the Messiah Jesus this would specifically be in reference to the Father the father identified as Yahweh in Acts 28: 25-26 Paul quotes from Isaiah's Temple Vision the specific words of Yahweh and says the Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers identifying the spirit in this way but our debate this evening is specifically about the son who became incarnate as Jesus the Messiah do the New Testament writers identify him as Yahweh if so and if three distinct persons are thusly identified then we can see clearly why Christians down Through the Ages have believed in the doctrine of the Trinity as a divine revelation grounded and in fact forced Upon Us by scripture itself now I do have Augustine's wisdom for us tonight in writing to Maxim and the Aran Augustine said these words I must not press the authority of NAA against you nor you that of ariminum against me I do not acknowledge the one as you do not the other but let us come to ground that is common to both the testimony of the Holy scriptures we could paraphrase Augustine tonight I must not press the authority of NAA against you nor you that of the rovian catechism against me but let us come to ground that is common to both the testimony of the Holy scriptures that really is what we must do this evening in this debate now Yahweh is revealed to be the Timeless immutable constant creator of all things in the scripture in Psalm 102: 25-27 we read of old you founded the earth and the heavens the work of your hands even they will perish but you will remain and all of them will wear out like a like clothing you will change them and they will be changed but you are the same and your years will not come to an end now you have the text over there on the right uh to remind you of that first this is clearly yahwe who is being addressed as the psalmist God see verse 24 this Psalm is addressed to Yahweh see verse one ever use the term kuras or kurri in the Greek sepen of this psalm is in reference to Yahweh Yahweh is affirmed as the Creator who does not like what is created grow old he is immutable and he is eternal why is this important well because you may know the writer of the Hebrews quotes directly from the septent of Psalm 102 25-27 in Hebrews 1: 10-12 and he applies these inspired words about Yahweh to the son in particular note in verse 6 the writer differentiates between the firstborn and all Angels by quoting Psalm 977 let all the angels of God worship Him in verse 7 the writer shows the angels are created beings but in verse 8 he begins but to the son in contrast to the created angels and so now he switches and he's now applying he's quoting to the sun in contrast to the created angels in verse 8 the writer identifies the son as God and he continues his demonstration of the superiority of the Sun to the Angelic creatures verse 10 begins simply with Kai and continuing the introduction to verse 8 to the son he says so without question verses 10- 12 are purposefully applied to the Sun directly from Psalm 102 only Yahweh is immutable only Yahweh is unchanging and eternal as described in Psalm 102 yet here in a text clearly discussing the father and the son these Divine attributes are purposefully ascribed to the son as the son this is the intention of the writer special pleading response that is often uh given to this text one attempt has been to say that the septent has God speaking to another Lord and that the new creation this other Lord Jesus rules over is found in Chapter 2 and is solely soteriological in nature the problem is that every reference to Lord in the Greek sepen of Psalm 102 Psalm 101 in the Greek sepen is in reference to Yahweh not some lesser Divine being verses 10- 12 in Hebrews 1 follow in perfect context with what came before beginning with verse three this special pleading fails now in concluding his account of the moving on from Hebrews 1 now to John 12 in concluding his account of the public Ministry of the Lord Jesus John records his refusal to meet with certain Greeks who were seeking him John 12: 20-21 this prompts Jesus to say the hour has come for the son of man to be glorified in 12:23 the father speaks from heaven in confirmation of the glorification of his name which is directly tied to the glorification of the son then Jesus announces that judgment has come upon this world Jesus says if he is lifted up in crucifixion He will draw all men Jews and Gentiles to himself John 12:32 when the listeners want to restart already covered topics Jesus ignores their inquiries and after a warning he says he went away and hid himself from them at this point John explains their unbelief even the face of all the signs Jesus had performed he quotes the text on unbelief from Isaiah 531 Lord who has believed our report and to whom has the arm of Yahweh been revealed upon the use of who has believed John then writes these sober words for this reason they could not believe verse 39 the consistent theme Here is unbelief as judgment from God to explain this even despite the works Jesus had performed John writes the following for Isaiah said again he has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart lest they see with their eyes and understand with their heart and return and I heal them these are the most sobering words from the Judgment Oracle delivered to Isaiah in his commissioning in Isaiah 6:10 again the context is Judgment with Yahweh actively blinding eyes and hardening hearts and it is here right after quoting from Isaiah's Temple Vision that John writes these words these things Isaiah said because he saw his glory and he spoke concerning him the hym in question is easily determined for the text continues nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in him but but because the Pharisees they were not confessing him verse 42 so when did Isa Isaiah see Jesus's glory and speak about him well the default answer is that the closest reference that being the citation of Isaiah 6 is the source hence we look back at Isaiah 6 see that Isaiah saw Yahweh in his heavenly vision and was sent by Yahweh to deliver a message of judgment upon Israel I Isaiah sees the glory of Yahweh even in the midst of judgment just as Jesus is being glorified by the father and that in the midst of judgment this is even more strongly substantiated by the textual variant in the Greek septent from which John is quoting for in Isaiah 61 it reads and the house was full of his glory so we have the same verb idon with the same subject the glory in the Greek subagent and in John 12 41 so the most straightforward reading the text would have us asking Isaiah who Glory did you see and he would respond yahweh's and asking John who Glory did Isaiah see and he responds Jesus's if Isaiah saw Jesus in The Heavenly Temple seated upon the throne well the debate is over but of course unitarians must try to find another reading one that has been offered is that the glory scene is the entire min and work of Christ seen more in Isaiah 53 than in Isaiah 6 since the septent uses Glory a great deal in Isaiah it is argued that we should not take the literal meaning of Isaiah 61 as determinative but should instead focus on Isaiah 53 the problem here is that this requires us to take the far referent over against the near to disconnect the theme of judgment to adopt a Highly Questionable definition of Glory based upon a strained reading of Isaiah 53 in a translation all to come to a nebulous conclusion that disconnects 1241 from the rest of the discourse when we read John's gospel we find him identifying Jesus as God in John 1:1 and John 2028 The Great I Am in John 8:24 858 1319 18 5-6 so seeing him say Isaiah saw Jesus as Yahweh in Isaiah 61 is consistent with John's gospel as as a whole we have seen the writer of the Hebrews and John identify Jesus as Yahweh in Striking terms so let us listen to the entire early Christian Church doing the same thing in the kmen Christi the hymn to Christ as to God found in Philippians 2: 5-1 time precludes a full reading but please note that the song begins with the assertion the son eternally existed in equality with the father but did not regard that equality as something to be grasped and held on to but instead humbled himself by taking on human nature and going to the Cross therefore God also highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name so at the name of Jesus every knee will bow of those who are in heaven and on Earth and under the Earth and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father now compare Isaiah 45: 22-25 turn to me and be saved all the ends of the Earth for I am God and there is no other I have sworn by myself the word has gone forth from my mouth in righteousness and will not turn back that to me every knee will bow every tongue will swear Allegiance they will say of me only in Yahweh are righteousness and strength now before we go on to Peter let let me just make sure we saw that the citation from Isaiah is specifically about Yahweh and it is applied to Jesus in the karmen Christi yes notice what it says every knee will bow every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord the term quidos which is what is used in the Greek septent as the transliteration not really transliteration it's sort of hiding the Divine name that is being used of Jesus in the kmen Christi in Philippians chapter 2 but we sometimes hear people say yes but it's to the glory of God the Father exactly why shouldn't it be that's what the doctrine of the Trinity is all about you're not setting up one God in contrast to another one God to detract Glory from the other the early church sang a song that took the words about Yahweh Yahweh speaking and every knee would bow to him and applied it to Jesus in recognition of Father Son and Holy Spirit that is the early hnology of the church but we have other passages as well we are pressed for time uh but we cannot skip over Peter's willingness to command all Christians to set Christ as Yahweh apart in our hearts not f with that familiar with that phraseology I'll ask I'll be asking later this evening how does how does everyone in this room fulfill the command that Peter gives us in 1 Peter 3: 14-1 15 let's look at it but even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness you are blessed and do not fear Their Fear neither be troubled but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts always ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is within you well now we all recognize that we're all familiar with this particular text it's what all apologists are referring to all the time that's where we get the very phraseology of apologetics but it's interesting to note that most the time people don't recognize Isaiah is being quoted right before that text and in fact the quotation continues into verse 15 so let me show you what this looks like so here is the the reference please notice I'm trying to use some color there to to make this uh visible to you but even if you should suffer the sake of righteousness you are blessed do not fear Their Fear neither be troubled but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts that the the the material that is in italics and in color is this citation that Peter is using from Isaiah look at Isaiah 8: 12-13 in the Greek sepen and I'm going to have to translate this for you I didn't have space on the on the screen to put the uh put the English but there is the Greek septent which Peter is quoting from and you can see the fear Their Fear do not fear neither be troubled Kion Alon hagas treat as holy to to sanctify make holy kuron Alon the Lord himself and again in the Greek septent that term cios cion here in the accusative is what the translators used to represent the Divine name Yahweh so Isa in Isaiah we are to treat Yahweh as holy we are to set him apart as holy over against the fear of the people but then when you look at the citation that Peter gives to us notice he uses the exact same material but there's one little addition when you get to Kuran then he puts dayon christon set aside treat as holy the Christ as Lord in your hearts always being ready to give a defense to those who ask you for a reason for the hope that's within you what does that mean to us how do we do that how does each one of us if we say we are under the authority of scripture How does each one of us this evening treat the Christ as Lord and that Lord is quoting being quoted directly from Isaiah about Yahweh most of the time people don't see it because either many of the translations will not continue the italics into verse 15 though it's very plain it's right there and if you look at the nessian 28th Edition sitting on my on my desk there uh they do continue in there but most of the translations do not they don't indicate that but it's right there and so how do we as Believers treat as holy the Christ as Yahweh in our heart that is the commitment that Christian Believers have and it is a commitment that utterly changes our priorities and our way of thinking which results in us living in a different way and that's why people are asking us about the hope that's within us because we know that we have a lord who is Master of the entire universe and he's given himself in our place so what do we have we have the biblical Doctrine the Trinity and we have the identification of Jesus and these are not the only places there's there's many many other places but I I don't necessarily multiply the places because some of them are places where like well God is light and Jesus's light well okay I I I I get it but these are the texts that specifically identify Jesus as Yahweh in a unique way that could not be applied to someone else so there are passages that say that God is Yahweh is King and Jesus is King and therefore Jesus is Yahweh well there have been lots of Kings that's not a unique thing but these are passages that are unique we are only to set apart Yahweh and treat him as holy in our experience it was only Yahweh that was seen upon the throne in Isaiah 6 it is only Yahweh who is unchangable and immutable in Psalm 102 and so all of these things uh are brought together in these particular texts there are others we could look at the identification of Jesus as Yahweh is a reality of Revelation it is not derived from nor can it be Li limited to philosophical argumentation or speculation this is not the result of Scholars sitting around and and uh well what if we put it this way or how do you answer this question or when we talk to the Greeks uh how are we going to answer if they ask this question or that question or can we borrow borrow this language over here all those things are things that happen after the writing of scripture and you have all sorts of interesting conversations and debates that take place over the course of centuries and we can look at some of the things some of the early uh Church writers believed about the deity of Christ and things like that if we want to but this evening what I'm presenting to you is not well you need to believe what the Council of NAA said you need to believe what the Council of Caledon said you need to you need to ignore the uh the monks that were beating each other up at the Council of Ephesus and all the rest of that stuff I teach church history there's all sorts of interesting things we could talk about I'm talking tonight about a direct Revelation from God in his own word his own scriptures the identification of Jesus as Yahweh is a reality of Revelation and therefore my suggestion to all of us this evening is if your philosophy cannot handle the Grandeur of biblical Revelation you might wish to abandon it at get something better and I'm going to have to emphasize that because in this this situation the only the only way that someone who rejects the deity of Christ and rejects the Trinity can do so is by trying to raise questions outside of the biblical text these texts are straightforward I've already responded to pretty much the only responses that that people have tried to give to these particular texts so if we and and I I said years and years ago when I wrote uh the Forgotten Trinity at the very beginning what did I say aside from the fact I love the Trinity so on and so forth I said I am a Biblical trinitarian I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because the scriptures reveal the doctrine of the Trinity the scriptures teach there is only one true God Yahweh the creator of all things the scriptures teach there are three Divine persons who are distinguished from one another they have communication with one another in John chapter 17 Jesus as the Incarnate one praise to the father and there he uses first and second person pronouns and and it's just as and any type of conversation that would would take place where persons are distinguished from one another this is the Biblical teaching and then in third place we are given the deity of Christ and the personality and deity the Holy Spirit you take those three doctrines which are taught in scripture you put them together and that is the doctrine of the Trinity and that's why I believe it and so why are we here this evening because we can argue and you you've probably talked with Jehovah's Witnesses at the door we can argue whether Jesus is called God or a God uh we can argue about Granville sharp constructions in Titus 213 2 Peter 1:1 but I remember a a friend of mine from years and years ago who many years was a Jehovah's Witness and when he in his studies came to realize that the New Testament writers specifically and purposely identify Jesus as Yahweh he said that was it if he's Yahweh then he's truly God all the discussions about God a god Representatives anything if he's Yahweh that's the end of the conversation and it is we have a divine Savior our creator has ENT entered into his own creation what an astonishing reality and truth that is and I'm here this evening to present that and to defend that thank you for being [Applause] here all right good evening is Jesus Yahweh well not according to the New Testament the debate question is Jesus Yahweh you might think that the positive answer to that would be that Jesus is the same person as Yahweh now that is what many confused trinitarians think even though the statement Jesus is Yahweh is not in any official trinitarian Creed but I'm going to charitably assume in my opening here that Dr White's view is that Jesus is both human and fully divine I will establish that the New Testament Jesus is a real man who is not fully Divine which rules out his being Yahweh my case assumes the authority of Christian scriptures it's based on numerous positive facts about what is in the New Testament and negative facts about what's not in the New Testament my position will not imply any contradiction and my arguments can be understood by anyone reading any major Bible translation my case will not beg the question my case will not depend on any controversial translation or textual critical judgment and I will not rely on any controversial philosophical Theory but first I have to explain a certain style of reasoning to you that I think you already understand because it's part of the common sense that God gave you and it's also widely employed in The Sciences philosophers call it the prime principle of confirmation or the likelihood principle don't be scared by the formulation it'll make sense in a minute it says that some observation o favors hypothesis 1 over hypothesis 2 when the probability of O given the truth of hypothesis 1 is greater than the probability of O given the truth of hypothesis 2 I'll give you two concrete examples to help you understand this style of reasoning CU like I said I think you already understand it you just don't realize it do you ever watch those True Crime shows on on TV right so somebody's been murdered this guy's been accused and they find the DNA uh of this accused guy on the dead body okay and everybody watching at home goes oh they got him boy how's he going to defend himself against this right they're reasoning in this style right because the observation is that this guy's DNA is on the body that is expected if he killed her and uh it'd be very surprising to find that DNA there if he's innocent so that's just a case of this sort of reasoning I'll give you another example true story as a teenager I went with my youth group on a ski trip to Colorado we drove there from Dallas you know hordes of Texans go up to Colorado to ski at their Resorts there and we have a reputation for being pretty obnoxious how did I learn this besides being obnoxious myself well I was riding high on a ski lift enjoying the beautiful sights looking down and I saw Texans go home written in huge letters in the snow below now we can think of a couple ways to explain this observation one hypothesis is that resentful coloradans wrote this to respond to the annoying Texans another hypothesis is that playful mountain goats chased each other around resulting in exactly these letters right each of these would if true explain what we observe but what we observe would be very surprising on the second hypothesis but it would be expected on the first hypothesis and so what we observe confirms the one hypothesis over the other similarly my case will be based on nine facts about the New Testament these facts confirm H1 that the New Testament authors believe Jesus is human but not that he's fully Divine over H2 that the New Testament authors believe that Jesus is both fully human and fully Divine for Simplicity I'll call H1 the man thesis and I'll call H2 the God man thesis each observation all on its own confirms the first thesis over the second right if for some bizarre reason you deny any of these facts okay take those out of the list the other facts still support the man thesis but taken together they very strongly confirmed the man thesis over the God man thesis and notice that this approach does not beg the question I'm not assuming Unitarianism I'm saying what if you guys were right about what they're thinking what if we're right about what they were thinking that's exactly not begging the question that's arguing for one position over the other first observation is that Jesus talks acts and is described as if the one God is someone else who is over him is the god over him he prays to God he's sent by God he said by God to be God's beloved Son the father is explicitly his God that is the god over Jesus now in his book Dr White tries to make this fact irrelevant with his so-called Maxim it says that difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature some examples you can think of will make this maximum sound plausible if a husband and wife function differently in a marriage it doesn't follow that one of them has an inferior nature right they're both just humans right but consider this difference of functions this mushroom releases spores into the air this little girl P the beautiful things around here here is a difference in function and it does indicate an inferiority of nature it's less great to be a mushroom room than it is to be a human I think we can all agree on that right White's so-called maximum is not a generally true principle it depends on what functions and what Natures we're talking about now what about divine nature and the function of living under the authority of another first consider an analogy if someone tells you they've been farther north than the North Pole you know they're either lying or confused by definition there is no place farther north than the North Pole God is kind of like the North Pole of Reality by definition he is the ultimate source of anything else there is because of this he is also necessar necessarily highest level in Authority if you're thinking about someone who is under the authority of another well you're not thinking about God ancient Jews correctly assume that anyone who's under the authority of someone else is not God almighty in his book Dr White asks what would God incarnate be an atheist no but we'd still expect him as Yahweh to not be under anyone else and no this point that I'm making doesn't presuppose that God is unipersonal or that Incarnation is impossible what it presupposes is that Incarnation does not change what qualities a Divine person as Divine must have back to to White's Maxim we've already seen that it's refuted by a counter example and here's another counter example being fully Divine implies being top level in Authority but the New Testament Jesus is under God's Authority and so isn't fully Divine White's Maxim is just a convenient unexamined assumption it's not self-evident it's not taught in scripture and as we've just seen it's shown to be false by clear counter examples that's why these facts I'm calling observation one are very surprising if the authors thought Jesus was a God man but they are expected if they think he's a man so they strongly confirm the man thesis over the God man thesis and the New Testament authors don't take the trouble to say that Jesus is under God only in a certain way observation two is that no New Testament text teaches that Jesus is under under God as human or as incarnate but not under God as God or as Divine or as Yahweh as they describe and portray it Jesus is under God full stop this is very surprising on the God man thesis but it's expected on the man thesis thus this observation confirms the man thesis over the God man thesis observation three is that all four four gospels feature mere man compatible main thesis if their big point is that Jesus is a God man it's very surprising that all four of them should drop the ball in such a spectacular fashion how could they leave out half their message arguably the more important half about Jesus being fully Divine but this observation is expected if the man hypothesis is true observation four the New Testament explains the religious worship of Jesus as due to God's exaltation of him and teaches that such worship glorifies someone over Jesus and this is an interesting exercise I won't go into it further but look at the reasons cited for worshiping God in Revelation 4 and compare them with the reasons cited for worshiping Jesus after his exaltation in Revelation 5 it's very enlightening but back to this fact this is shocking if these authors think Jesus as a God man Yahweh would automatically be worthy of worship and not to the glory of anyone over him but this observation is expected or at least much less surprising if they think Jesus is a man whom God has exalted to his right hand thus 04 confirms the man thesis over the God man thesis observation five Jesus's Divine privileges powers and prerogatives are explained by God having granted granted them to Jesus Jesus gets his power from God his authority from God his knowledge and message from God his right to forgive sins is given to him by God his right to judge Humanity he's appointed to that by God now at first glance you might think that somebody walking around with powers and privileges like these must be Yahweh himself but then you read that God has invested Jesus with all of these these new testament explanations of Jesus's powers and privileges are shocking on the God man thesis Yahweh doesn't need to get his power or authority from anyone but these explanations are expected on the man thesis and so 05 confirms the man thesis over the God man thesis observation six is both positive and negative Jesus is portrayed and described as having typical human limitations without any warning that these are only apparent or that they only pertain to his human nature he has limited power he has limited knowledge he can be tempted to do wrong he suffers from mortality and he's subject to worry so that he needs to put his faith or trust in God this lack of warnings is very telling these are competent authors and if they were trying to teach us that Jesus is divine they would have warned us against inferring from these descriptions and depictions that Jesus had less than Divine features observation seven is that Jesus is repeatedly referred to as a man and given names and titles assumed to be of a man with no nearby warnings that this is only part of what he is I.E that he's not a mere man right he's God's Messiah or Christ he's God's servant he's a prophet of the one God he's a man right anthrop or anir in Greek he's a descendant of David even his proper name Jesus of Nazareth would have been understood to mean a certain Man from Nazareth this observation is shocking if these authors Think Jesus is a God man but it's expected if they think he's a man like they say observation eight Jesus is never referred to as God in Greek Theos unless the context indicates that the word is being used in something other than its highest sense now maybe you're thinking hold on doesn't being called God in the Bible mean that you are God in reply many apologists assume that but according to the Lord Jesus Christ their assumption is false Jesus knew the Jewish scriptures where the word translated as God is applied to Moses to a King and to humans who had received God's word like Jesus says that he has I'm going to now briefly survey seven texts in which many scholars think the word Theos is applied to Jesus these are all disputed because of problems about the Greek text its translation or its interpretation but in each case I'm going to Grant Dr White the general uh interpretive approach the textual reading the translation that he thinks are correct we'll see that in each case nonetheless the context tells us that Jesus isn't being called God in the highest sense meaning Yahweh himself here in Hebrews 1 Jesus is said to be the Son of God who has a God over him which as we've seen rules out his being God in the highest sense of the term in John White in Dr White's view two different persons are called God first the father then the son but notice that on this interpretation the father is the ultimate source of the cosmos but the son is not things are made through him but being the ultimate source that's what it is to be the Creator in the biblical sense also the father here is said to be in some sense unseeable but evidently the son is not so on this way of reading John 1 Jesus isn't being called God in the highest sense is Thomas in John 20 calling Jesus is God in the highest sense the reader already knows from chapter 10 that a human can be referred to as God because God has given his message to them and she remembers from chapters 14 and 17 that Jesus tells us he got his message from God and the context of this chapter rules out Thomas call calling Jesus God in the highest sense just before the passage Jesus tells us that he has a God the same God who is the god over you and me which rules out his being God in the highest sense this is also confirmed by later in the context there Jesus is called God's anointed one his Messiah and God's son so no not God in the highest sense not Yahweh rather one anointed by Yahweh how about Romans 9:5 where many think Paul calls Jesus God overall notice first here that this God overall has human ancestry unlike Yahweh and he's God's Messiah his anointed one unlike Yahweh and a few chapters before we read that this Messiah died for us which rules out his being the essentially Immortal God here in Titus 2 notice that the God who sent Jesus as mentioned first Jesus here gave himself for us the reader knows by dying something the essentially Immortal Yahweh can't do here in second Peter 1 notice notice that the author distinguishes between God and His Christ and when we look later in the chapter we see that Jesus is God's son who pleases God presumably by his obedience to God and so no he's not being called God in the highest sense who exactly would Yahweh be pleasing in all seven of these texts as Dr White interprets them we can still see that the authors are using God in a lesser sense and this is shocking if they think Jesus is Yahweh but it's far less surprising if they think he's a man empowered by Yahweh which confirms the man thesis over the God man thesis observation nine is that no New Testament author betrays any worry that their teaching about Jesus seems incoherent that is that it implies contradictions and so must be false godman Advocates have always been mystery mongers but these authors never try to defend their christology by urging that it's a mystery or a paradox or Beyond human understanding this lack of that mystery mongering on their part is expected on the man thesis but it's very surprising on the God man thesis again strongly confirming the man thesis over the God man thesis now there's another serious problem with the God man thesis which is it attributes seemingly incoherent thoughts to the New Testament authors and people throw around phrases like fully Divine but very often they draw attention away from or just conveniently don't mention certain Divine attributes which look to be attributes that no real human could have so I want to draw your attention to some of those now for one thing God isn't subject to death and it doesn't just happen to be that way necessarily God's Divine life is not dependent on anything and so in principle there's no way God could lose his life now if you say well what if God took a flesh and the flesh died or the human nature died right that wouldn't be God dying because his life would just keep on trucking like it always has because it doesn't depend on a body being independent and perfect in knowledge power and goodness it's impossible that God should be tempted to do wrong to be tempted to do wrong is for something wrong to seem like a good idea to you that can't happen to God he doesn't have the kind of limits that make that possible like we have as we've seen a fully Divine person must be highest in Authority why because they're the ultimate source of everything else that puts them necessarily over everything else being uncreated that's just part of the concept of a monotheistic God being the creator of all and upholding it all in existence God Almighty can't be ignorant of any fact God is essentially omniscient and we should think that God essentially has the greatest sort of power anyone could have traditionally called omnipotence by theologians in contrast it seems in principle any human person can be subject to death right God can raise you to immortality that will happen to all Christians someday but yes in principle a person can be subject of death like we all currently are in principle a human person can be tempted to do wrong can't be highest in Authority must be created must be less than perfect in knowledge and must be limited in power this is why a God man is impossible and notice I'm not assuming that a God man is impossible I'm arguing for it with those six contradictions a God man is no more possible than a four-sided triangle since it implies at least those six contradictions unless you're Dr James White whose views on Divinity yield three more contradictions following Catholic Traditions Dr White misreads the Bible as teaching some attributes originally made Popular by platonic philosophers timelessness the inability to change in any way right immutability and divine simplicity if you believe in such Divine attributes then you have additional reasons to think that a God man is impossible I'm not going to say more about these as in my view scripture doesn't teach any of those about God now it's useless to just gesture and wave your hands at two Nature's speculations one has to show how a Divine and human person doesn't imply any of the above six or nine contradictions and it's uncharitable to attribute contradictions about Jesus to the inspired authors of the New Testament but this is what Dr White and others are doing out of loyalty to postbiblical Traditions they are foisting shabby contradictions onto God's inspired scriptures a contradictory christology is a false christology but in my view what the scriptures teach about the Lord Jesus Christ is true thankfully the New Testament doesn't Teach an incoherent divine human Jesus he is explicitly a man who then had limitations like ours although he's now been raised to immortality and put in the highest position under God where he too must be worshiped to the glory of God so we've seen nine classes of facts Each of which is surprising if the authors are godman Advocates but expected or at least not very surprising if they teach a human Messiah who is Being Human not fully divine these facts together provide very strong confirmation of the man thesis over the God man thesis and notice also that this case is based on the many texts and the clear [Music] texts now if you're used used to the typical apologist approach of hunkering down on traditional proof texts my Approach tonight may be unfamiliar to you it's not philosophy it's just using the common sense God gave you and expects you to use use well we interpret the fewer and more difficult passages using the more numerous and more clear passages there are of course plenty of hard to understand passages no matter what your theology is but the first public Christian sermon confirms our approach it was the man Jesus not an impossible God man whom the apostles preached do you find it hard to believe that a man could do all that Jesus did then I suggest you take Jesus's advice do not let your hearts be troubled you believe in God believe also in me now if my scriptural case has resonated with you tonight or even if it hasn't I encourage you to visit our YouTube channel for the Unitarian Christian Alliance where you'll find many informative videos on scriptural topics including new videos on the text James White has appealed to in this debate we're unarian Christians not to be confused with Unitarian universalists what we are are Protestants who reform more than the reformed we think Reformation hasn't gone back far enough and we think in the first century uh and well into the second century you had a human Jesus being taught uh historians call this early view Dynamic monarchianism so we're a minority report that goes back to that time and some of the dynamic monarchians uus tells us insisted that theirs was the earliest and Apostolic christology and that's what we think too of course you've had uh socinians and American unitarians and others thank you for your time and thank thanks for your [Applause] [Applause] attention it is very difficult to do a rebuttal when none of your presentation was addressed uh none of the key texts that specifically identified Jesus as Yahweh were addressed uh refuted dealt with even mentioned I'd like to point out Dr tuggy had my book there's an entire chapter every pre every text that I presented is in the book so now he's only got 10 minutes in his rebuttal to actually engage exegetically with these texts unless we just heard how that's going to be dealt with and that is well there are difficult texts to understand you know maybe you just go with the majority of you no we need to know why the apostles specifically and purposefully identify Jesus as Yahweh in the highest possible words and now he's only got 10 minutes to do it in instead of the 25 that he had now I want to mention to you and I think it's very important it was just said well you know those early those early centuries there was no godman idea let me give you two examples that absolutely decimate that falsehood because it is a falsehood Ignatius of Antioch writing to the Ephesians around 108 ad said the following there is one physician of Flesh and of spirit generate and ingenerate God in Man true life in death both from Mary and from God first passible and then impassible Jesus Christ Our Lord that's as close as you're going to get to saying the God man that I can imagine and it's in the first generation after the apostles those are the words of Ignatius of Antioch MOS Sardis preaching about 70 years after ignatius' death used these terms he who hung the Earth in place is hanged he who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place he who made all things fast is made fast on a tree The Sovereign is insulted God is murdered the king of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand this is the one who made the heavens and the Earth and form Mankind in the beginning the one proclaimed by the law and the prophets the one in fleshed in a virgin the one hanged on a tree the one buried in the earth Mita likewise goes on to use such phrases as the man God or The God man section 52 and by Nature being God and man in section 58 that's as close as you're going to get to that language and this is long before there was anything be called Roman Catholicism there is no no such thing at this point in history so I'm not giving you Catholic Traditions I gave you exog Jesus and we got nothing but arguments about well we just can't believe in the Incarnation the word can't become flesh God can't take on a human nature that would be that would go against our philosophical arguments and I said in my opening what this debate is going to be about is will you listen to what scripture says or will you take an external philosophical set of questions and filter out what the text of scripture says on these vital issues let me give it a clear example this time goes very very fast but there's an excellent example that came up in his presentation he said compare the praise of God on his throne in Revelation 4 with the lamb in Revelation 5 turn with me to Revelation chapters 4 and 5 look in your Bible I want you to look at these things because I was astonished when I saw this think about what we have Revelation 4 does show God the Father upon his throne and it's specifically meant to parallel what we saw in Isaiah chapter 6 but remember something John tells us that the one who was seen in Isaiah chapter 6 is Jesus sitting upon the throne as Yahweh the being worshiped By Angels there is no higher form of worship than that my friends that is not some secondary thing but now in Revelation 4 and5 now we've had the Incarnation now we've had the ministry of Jesus and so in chapter 4 this looks like Isaiah chapter 6 then something happens we have the scroll no one's found worthy John is weeping and stop weeping the lion of the the lamb the lion of the tribe of Judah who is a lamb it's meant to be it's meant to be something to make us go what is happening here he has overcome and John looks and he sees this lamb standing as if slain so here's the resurrected Jesus he has accomplished his salvific work and he is now there standing Before the Throne verse eight and when he had taken the scroll the four living creatures and the 24 Elders fell down before the lamb each one having a harp and golden bowls full of incense which are the prayers of the Saints and they sang a new song worthy of you to take the scroll and to open its seals because you were slain and purchased for God with your blood people from every tribe and uh tongue and nation and you made them to be a king and priest to our God and they will reign upon the Earth he has accomplished his salvific work then I looked and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and living creatures and the elders these are the highest creatures God has made okay and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands saying with a loud voice Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing the exact same things that were ascribed to God in ver chapter 4 and now they're being assigned to the lamb standing as if slain look at verse 13 and every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the Earth and on the sea and all things in them I heard saying to him who sits on the throne and what's the next phrase and to the lamb every created thing which is in heaven on on on on on Earth what does that tell you the lamb is not a created thing he's the object of the worship of all all created things oh but he's distinguished from the father yes he is that's what the Trinity all about it was the son that became flesh not the father so you have it right there to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever and I ask any Unitarian do you worship Jesus the way he will be worshiped in heaven itself as a mere man as a mere creature because God tells you to or does this tell us that every created thing Jesus is excluded from that category because he is the maker of all things that's the whole point of Colossians 1 for by him were all things made whether in heaven or on Earth visible invisible principalities Powers dominions authorities all things created by Him and for him he is before all things and in him all things soonest they can they hold together that's the Jesus of the New Testament he is the creator of all things and notice the end of verse of chapter 5 and the four living creatures who are right there before the throne kept saying amen and the elders fell down and what do they do they worship they worship that is the Jesus of the New Testament and raising all sorts of questions that basically say we just refuse to believe that God has the power to glorify himself by taking on a human nature and dying in the place of his people we just won't believe that you know who else doesn't believe that all the Muslims in the world and so if you'd like to hear over and over again the exact same arguments being presented by Muslims around the world go look at my YouTube page and listen to the debates I've done with them all around around the world it's the exact same argument they just simply don't believe that God can do what the scriptures say he did and so we need to hear in the next 10 minutes about Philippians 2 about John 12 about 1 Peter 3:15 we need to hear exegetical reputation it can't be possible not because well because I don't look like what that means it can't be possible because the exegesis of the text contradicts it that's what we need in the next 10 minutes thank you for your [Applause] [Music] attention all right I built my case on many clear texts in contrast my opponent has built his case mostly on three controversial texts all of which are on topics other than Jesus's metaphysical status and he ignores the evidence that Jesus had limits which a fully Divine person can't have the context of this passage in 1 Peter 3 is a practical exhortation about doing what's right despite suffering not a likely place to find a teaching that Jesus is fully Divine this passage does not apply the Hebrew name Yahweh to Jesus rather it tells us to set Jesus apart as Lord cuas now what reason does Dr White give us to think that the word curios here is a substitute for the Divine name he notes that Peter uses a few of the same Greek words that are in an ancient translation of Isaiah 8 where the subject is Yahweh but that are argument is invalid it gives us no reason to think Peter is implying that Jesus is Yahweh himself if you're impressed by Dr White's argument here is a parallel argument for you to consider notice how first Peter 2:9 uses six of the same Greek words and in the same order as Exodus 19:6 is Peter telling us that the Christians of his day are the same people as the Israelites during The Exodus of course not Peter is just recycling famous and beloved words to describe a similar phenomenon Christians are God's chosen people not unlike the Jews of the time of The Exodus back to first Peter three we Christians honor God and God's Messiah these are similar topics so finding similar words in an older text about Yahweh does nothing to establish that Peter is assuming or asserting that Jesus is Yahweh or is fully Divine about the title Lord James Dunn observes that even as Lord Jesus acknowledges God not only as his father but also as his God the curios title is not so much a way of identifying Jesus with God as a way of distinguishing Jesus from God the simple reading comprehension tells us that this author assumes that Jesus is less than fully Divine since he teaches Jesus to have a God to have died and also his mediation between the one true God and us now this actual subject of John 12 in this P that portion of it is the unbelief of Jesus's contemporaries not Jesus's deity what about the Greek words this passage has in common with an ancient translation of Isaiah 6 well here's one topic God's glory here's another similar topic the glory of God's Christ it's no surprise at all that John should use words to describe Jesus's Glory which are similar to the words Isaiah used about God's glory in this gospel Jesus's glory is exhibited in his Earthly Ministry culminating paradoxically in his crucifixion just before in chapter 12 Jesus has mentioned his being glorified by means of his death some trinitarian comments don't jump to the conclusion that John is implying that Jesus is the enthroned figure seen by Isaiah in her recent commentary Dr Maryanne May Thompson doesn't even mention that over reading why it's just not what John's doing here Dr kostenberger agrees and many commenters point out that in early Christianity you see this in all the gospels and in Acts Isaiah 6:9 and10 were commonly used proof teex to explain the unbelief of many of the Jews of that time that's why John can deploy that proof text here without worrying that his reader is going to mentally wander off into the throne room vision of Isaiah 6 in his opening Dr White asserts that the rest of this gospel identifies Jesus as God for lack of time I'll just point out that John repeatedly contrast Jesus with God here are some of the many cont contrs obviously we don't have time tonight to explore them for now I'll just warn you that you will misunderstand what this amazing book teaches about Jesus and his God unless you read it as a whole now about the I am statements which Dr White seems to read as Jesus saying I am God himself he ignores John's explanation of that phrase in chapter 4 when the woman at the well brings up the Messiah and Jesus says to her I am a good a me and John's explicit thesis statement tells us that this the Messiah is precisely who we must believe Jesus to be in White's view the deity of Christ was revealed before any new testament book was written and so it is everywhere presupposed there if that were true then the author of Hebrews would be laboring throughout chapter one to show that a fully Divine person or Yahweh In the Flesh has recently become Superior to Angels which is an absurd thing to mount an argument for Dr White has chosen to base his case in part on one of the most difficult texts in the New Testament Hebrews 1:10 through 12 interpreters have come up with as many as seven ways of understanding what the author is doing here most like Dr White suppose that in verse 10 when the author simply writes and he wants us to ment repeat his formula from verse 8 of the son he says that makes the son the subject of verses 10- 12 but as Dr Thomas Gaston has pointed out in a recent article a couple of times later in the book this author tacks on an extra quote or two using a uh simple connective phrase but the leading formula should not be understood as thereby repeated so in Chapter 2 he introduces his first quote by by saying Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers but it's a mistake to repeat that introductory formula for the second and third quotations similarly in 10:30 the author introduces a quote with the preface for we know the one who said but we're not to in so for for we know the one who said that's the intro but we're not to insert that intro before the second quotation which is in the voice of Moses not Yahweh the writer stays on a theme as he deploys his several quotations but in a way where we shouldn't think the introductory phrase is being abbreviated by the connecting words in these two cases uh and again is what he says Kai Pauline now go back to 110 through2 too many readers I suggest mentally insert the introductory phrase again after the author's simple and I would suggest that's a mistake he's just mentioned the son's God and so now with God in mind he's going to continue on his theme of the forwards eternity of the sun's Reign the basis of this unending Reign he is saying is the unending God who established it so the Lord of verse 10 is God not Jesus just like in Psalm 102 interestingly in the whole nine volume Anthony scene fathers set there are zero references to Hebrews 1 10 11 or 12 why is that well my interpretation explains why it would be that early readers took these verses to be about God not Jesus and all early Christians agreed that the Creator is the father like all the early Creeds say so much for Dr White's claim that these are an obvious deity of Christ proof text for this author of The epistle to the Hebrews Jesus is a man who obeyed God even through a terrible death Flesh and Blood persons like you and I are his siblings and he has been made a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God unlike God this man has been elevated to the right hand of the Majesty on high these teachings rule out Jesus being fully Divine now the context of the famous Philippians 2 passage is a practical exhortation and the stated subject of that passage is Christ Jesus which refers to a man a man who obeys God God even through a terrible death which tells us that he's not essentially Immortal and so is not fully Divine this is why this text can give no support at all to deity of Christ speculations the sort of scenario Incarnation theorist imagine here would not be a relevant example for people like us who never face a choice to lay aside Divine glory to become human we should think that Paul is using an example which is relevant to us and so we find some highly qual ified interpreters exting it to be about Jesus during his Earthly Ministry not before including Dr Andrew Perman of the London School of Theology and his insightful recent monograph in the form of God of a God in some the full deity of Christ is never the clear subject of any new testament passage thus trinitarian interpreters must labor to deduce it from a few unclear texts meanwhile the many clear text depict a human Jesus and it's revealing that the New Testament authors feel no need for any two Natures Doctrine thank [Music] you we have 10 minutes each for cross-examination uh Dr White will be going first and whenever you begin I'll begin the timer if I understand your last statement cor I I am if I understand your last statement correctly uh you just told us that verses 10- 12 are not about the sun in Hebrews chapter 1 that's my view yeah okay could you explain how the very next verse says but to which of the angels has he ever said sit at my right hand until I put your enemies as a foot stol to your feet what's the connection between verses 9 and 13 and verses 10-2 the entire time he's still on the subject of contrasting the greatness of Jesus to the to the status of angels and he stays on that topic when he says the basis of the sons forwardly Eternal Reign is God he's still on that topic but you know he does use a longer introductory phrase there to get us back in uh if the text is actually uh about uh the sun would that not contradict your position no uh there are some interpretations so one specialist uh this guy Kenneth shank uh he thinks that wisdom christology is at play in in Hebrews 1 and so Jesus is being uh spoken of uh using a metonym so not literally that's where you um have two closely associated things and you talk about one in place of the other for instance mentioning the Queen of England and saying the word the crown so in his view uh these verses are about Jesus but they he doesn't think that the author says that Jesus is literally the Creator uh I could talk tell more about the reasons but I don't want to fill a yeah um the specific things that are said in verses 10 11 and 12 are about the unchanging God right did you did you not say in your statement that that's a Greek philosophical thing that immutability is not taught in scripture I I didn't immutability in the sense of uh that's a good question immutability in the sense of unchanging character uh and continuing to exist forever that is a Biblical teaching uh immutability in the philosophical sense means incapable of change of kind presumably because you're outside of time I do not think that is true if God forgives me he go he goes from not having forgiven me to having forgiven me uh okay so in uh your comments in regards to Philippians chapter 2 um what do you what does it mean when it says that H and Par uh that Jesus existed was existing in the mor the so more faith Au and equality with God are two unusual one-off statements in the New Testament so they're not easy to interpret but I take it he's saying the same thing twice and his point is basically uh existing in a Godlike condition or having Godlike privileges which he is then going to not exploit he had Godlike privileges but it does but he did not exist in the form of God so morphe outside of a philosophical context in philosophy it can mean like the essential form or nature or Essence but outside of philosophy morphe is typically an observable condition so the subagent uh says that an idol is in the morphe of a man it's not a man but it looks like one right so they're both observable conditions he he loses the Morp theu and he gains the morphe of a slave in the passage you seem to indicate the cios uh is just a a term for Jesus could you explain how it is that the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians chap 8 uh takes the schma the confession of the faith of the people of Israel and expands it out to include uh Jesus as Kos yeah th this is an idea that was concocted I want to say around 1980 no ancient source says this no medieval Source says it no early modern Source says it this inserting Jesus into the sh business it it doesn't make any sense the one Lord and the one God and the shama are supposed to be one and the same um in the Lexicon you can just see that one use of curios in the New Testament is a substitute for the Divine name and there's another use for Jesus and so interpreters see cuos and they say hm is this God or Jesus and a few times it's unclear but usually it's made clear by the context as you know the general rule is if it's an an Old Testament quotation you assume it's Yahweh with outside of an Old Testament quotation you assume it's Jesus but there are exceptions so in verse six it says but to us he Theos ha does the term he Theos appear in the Greek subagent of the shma itself yes I think it does okay uh and from whom are all things and we unto him and then K kuras Jus Christos and one Lord is Christ does kuras appear in the Greek subagent of the shma yeah and what is that representing in the uh in the Hebrew uh Adonai I believe yah I don't know Hebrew Yahweh would be the Y yah would be the term um so though all the terminology is right there in the Greek subagent you don't believe that Paul is actually that this is something that was concocted 40 years ago it's remarkable that one of Unitarian absolute famous passages now we take out our secret decoder ring and find that somehow he's inserted Jesus into the shaman whatever that means the New Testament confession is there is a unique God and a unique Lord you see this in several places including Ephesians 4 and you see it here he just said the one God is the father he's literally identifying them and also in addition to that guy there's one Lord so so the one God is not the one Lord then because in in the Greek septent Kos was about Yahweh so you're distinguishing the Kos usage here from its or its origination in the shma Paul does not tell anybody here that he's going to insert Jesus into the shama so I don't know why we should accept that kind of spin on this passage he's talking about food sacrifice to idols and he's saying well for us for the pagans they believe in many gods and many lords presumably a God is like a high top tier deity because pagans usually have tears of deity and the Lord be like a second tier guy but for us there's one God the Father father that's Yahweh and one Lord that's the man Jesus like you see in 1 Corinthians 15 so even though the terms come straight from the Greek septent and are applied by Paul using the term that was used for Yahweh you will simply distinguish between the two of them and turn Jesus into a man even though it says through whom are all things and we through him yeah what he means by through whom are all things right the all things is Tanta in Paul that can be people it can be all the things in heaven and Earth it could be a mix of people and not people uh it could be just all of us like we all he he could be talking about the blessings of the new uh Covenant in that passage it's all from God and and we all exist through Christ you you don't think you don't think that Exon in regards to the father is limited but it's it is limited through because of when it's used for Jesus what I'm saying is tapon all things is extremely context dependent and it's extremely flexible and it's not terribly clear what Paul here means by it let's suppose he means all the things in the heavens and the Earth then he would be saying that the father is the creator so if this is if this is a confession many people believe that it is uh it's even set apart as poetry if this is an early credal statement or confession then this would be from whom are all things and we for him and through whom are all things and we for him would be all of creation would it not it depends if the things are Christians or all the things that were made okay there's different ways to take it who did Isaiah see in Isaiah 6 Yahweh and what does the Greek are you familiar with I'm sure you're familiar with the textual variant in the the Greek septent in Isaiah 6 right yeah I do remember reading about this I'm not sure I can tell you what it is off the top of my head uh well uh specifically that uh in the sepen it says uh Isaiah didn't see the train of his robe said his glory was filling the temple He Saw His glory yeah so when if you were to ask Isaiah who did you see he would say he saw Yahweh yes yes mhm who does John say he saw John says that Isaiah saw Jesus's glory and spoke about him okay so if Isaiah said I saw Yahweh and then John says Isaiah saw Jesus why isn't this an identification of Jesus as Yahweh first of all the context of this passage is the unbelief of the Jews so this is really kind of trying to shoehorn in something totally off subject but second as you know he's also just quoted Isaiah 53 which talks about uh the suffering Ser being high and lifted up glorified in that sense and uh as I explained in my rebuttal uh when he quotes from Isaiah 69 and 10 those are just kind of stock unbelief proof texts his point isn't here that hey guess who Isaiah saw it it wasn't only yahwe it was also Jesus this author distinguishes Jesus from God the father's the one true God Jesus is somebody who has a god namely the [Music] father okay we start him uh Dr White in you in your view is uh Yahweh tri-personal yes is Jesus tri-personal no no okay good seems we agree then there's at least one very important difference between Jesus and Yahweh yeah that's trinitarian theology it all has been there should be a difference between them yes so to go around talking about their identity is maybe an imprecise way of putting it is that a question no do you agree Dr White that the New Testament teaching with the New Testament teaching that the father is Jesus is God of course okay and would you agree that since the father is Jesus's God it follows that the father is a God the God but a God uh yes there is only one true God so yes the just as as Jesus said he's the one true God mhm right I agree and do you think that the Trinity is a God uh the Trinity is not a God that the Trinity is the biblical revelation of how God exists as father Son and Holy Spirit so the one God is the Triune God the one God is the Triune God yes okay is this Triune God the same God as the father uh this one God is made up of three Divine persons the father Son and the Holy Spirit I'm sorry that doesn't answer the question is the Trinity the same God as the father or is it a different god well again uh it doesn't answer questions when you refuse to allow biblical terminology to Define what we're talking about we believe that there is one being of God shared by three Divine person persons Father Son and Holy Spirit and it was the son who became flesh and that's why he has a God that's why he worships the father it was not the father who became flesh it was not the spirit who became flesh okay I know I know all the things you're supposed to say but you just admitted that the father is a God and the Trinity is the god is a God and you said they're the same God okay so you have one and the same God being tri-personal and also unipersonal and I think it's really unfortunate to be voicing a contradictory theology like that on the New Testament contradiction exists only in your refusal to believe what the scripture says about the Incarnation and therefore you then play philosophical games by playing Just subject changing sir I'm sorry that's just subject changing question question answer sir yes sir I want to ask you about Mark 1332 as you yes it will be U but it's also about Jesus as you interpret Mark 1332 did Jesus know the day and hour of his return in both Mark and uh the methan passage uh the son says that uh he specifically says no one knows not no man no angel nor the son only the father okay so right and what point then did Yahweh know the day and the hour Yahweh has always known the day and the hour the sun knew the day and the hour before his Incarnation there is something about the Incarnation that requires that knowledge to be limited just as the glory of of the one who was seen by Isaiah was limited during the Incarnation okay so again we see an important difference at this time the time of that passage between Jesus and Yahweh Yahweh knows something Jesus doesn't know According To Jesus question's coming no no sir that if you're going to statements and I get to respond the statements so you either ask questions because you just you just confused Yahweh and the father we are making I make the distinction the New Testament makes the distinction between father son and spirit you are trying to confuse those distinctions and please don't just make a statement and then think you can go on without you want to say the father is identified with God okay in your view is Mark is Mark a trinitarian and if so why doesn't he mention the spirit here because he says if he says only the father knows that implies that the sun doesn't know yes but it also implies that the spirit doesn't know first of all Mark doesn't get to edit what Jesus says so you're asking me why does Jesus say the things that Jesus say says in the way that he says it so uh yes Mark's a trinitarian but Mark doesn't get to change what Jesus said and when Jesus responded to the people that those the words that he said he didn't have to start talking about the Holy Spirit for the spirit to be relevant the Dr White um the one person Jesus did he die on the cross yes did Yahweh die on the cross uh again if we were talking about Yahweh as to the very being of God uh shared by the father Son and Holy Spirit no the being of God did not die on a on a cross the son who took on a perfect human nature gave that perfect life upon the cross to redeem God's people so the son died on the cross and Yahweh didn't the Lord Of Glory was crucified according to Paul's own terminology uh but that is specifically in regards to the Incarnate one not to the father not to the spirit yes of course it's the man in Romans 5 and many other places that died of course that's what we believe yeah so did the did the human nature die or the Eternal Divine person well the it was the human nature that was given it was human nature that died you can only when it when when Paul uses the terminology They Crucified the Lord Of Glory you can't crucify the Lord Of Glory unless the Lord Of Glory has taken such a form in which that can become a meaningful thing of substitution for his people who United to him yes and we read repeatedly that it was a man who died so in your view the human nature that died as a man yes uhhuh and a man by definition is a human person uh if you want whatever terminology you want to use I prefer biblical terminology like I said They Crucified the Lord Of Glory that's the terminology I'll stick with that's just that's just what anthropos and onir and man mean it mean they mean a human person who's male uh right so you have an eternal Divine son and then you also have a human person the first one didn't die but the second one did die we believe in the hypothetic union that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures and that he gave that perfect life in behalf of his people yes and we just mentioned two different persons now you're back to one person I don't know what you're talking about when you me mentioned two different persons unless you're talking about the father and the son yes of course we distinguish the father one more time there's an eternal Divine person who can't die on your view and then you also said there's a complete human nature which is a man who can die there's your two persons he took on he to he took on a perfect human nature and that is what died upon the cross yes okay so it wasn't the death of a man unlike the New Testament repeatedly says it was the death of a complete human nature I don't not even have any idea what you're talking about when you say it was the death of a man he was truly a man he was born of of the Virgin he walked he ate so on and so forth um but that man had not existed eternally it was the son who had existed eternally who was the creator of all things as we saw in Revelation 5 uh worship by all cre all creation yeah you yeah wow yeah wow you want you want to say this is not exegesis but I mean you need to go back to the exegetical drawing board if you have a man and an eternal Divine person you you just you just can't follow that rule can you has y Dr White has Yahweh ever been Tempted To Do Wrong is Yahweh ever tempted to do wrong uh as as God no is that a yes or a no as God known that just no well uh because obviously uh Bible teaches us that the second person of the Trinity became flesh and experienced temptation as we all did so we just allow all the the Bible speak not just part certain parts right so Yahweh has never been tempted to do wrong but Jesus obviously has according to Mark and Matthew because the Incarnation the very thing that you don't accept right yes and where what part did they tell you that it was because of the Incarnation that Jesus John 1:14 the word became flesh dwelt among us then of course the description Hebrews chapter 2 of Jesus being the one who has Brothers uh and his death is in behalf of those uh brothers and other passages like that Colossians would go into the similar topic yes in Hebrews 2 is a great cure for thinking that Hebrews 1 uh teaches a Divine Christ question again would you say that yah can I can I comment on on on your comment because by all means sir good because Hebrews chapter 1 specifically identifies the son as the one who upholds all things who through whom all things were created it does clearly identify him as the one who is the unchanging Creator uh the consistent reading of Hebrews chapter 1 will do that so yeah that goes right along with chapter 2 in your view is Yahweh a high priest who mediates between Yahweh and Humanity the God man Jesus Christ who took on human flesh is the one who mediates between the father and Humanity we make sure to we're not unitarians and we don't assume that Yahweh is Unitarian term Yahweh refers to father son and spirit in eternity past why do you think that in 1 Timothy 2:5 uh Paul writes that the one mediator is the man Christ Jesus rather than God the son because his role of mediation is due to the fact that he is the Incarnate one since he took on human flesh then he can not only sympathize our weaknesses but because he completed the task that was given to him then he has now entered into the holy place and stands in our place in the presence of the Father which is why we have salvation and certainty of that salvation so he's the perfect mediator because he's the God man Dr White when you're interpreting the New Testament don't you presuppose the chalcedonian credal doctrine of Christ as one person with two Natures no the Caledonian Doctrine flows from the consistent interpretation of all the Bible teaches especially the New Testament obviously but Old Testament one okay right so the main Greek word for nature is fusus where does the New Testament teach that Jesus has two of those uh he is called uh the Lord Of Glory who is crucified the only way you can understand that once you accept John 114 and read everything else that is said about who Jesus is uh those are the conclusions you have to come to okay thank [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] you if you have been paying close attention uh you know that in the rebuttal period all we were given were well there's a scholar who wrote a paper over here and uh and in Hebrews chapter 1 you know yeah everything is about Jesus up through nine and and then 13 and following but you know 10 through 12 that's that's not there and uh that's not exog Jesus that's isog Jesus and that's having a perspective that you need to find in the text of scripture first we were told well these are these are obscure passages these are difficult passages isn't it interesting you know when when you're when you're debating Purgatory with Roman Catholic there are certain passages become difficult uh and they're the ones that cause them a problem and when you're dealing with a molist there's difficult you know it's it's easy to to engage in that type of thing um what we need to recognize is we have not been given a consistent counter exegesis we've been told well these are tough passages but when you look at Philippians chapter 2 for example what is specifically being said in a Hymn of the early church is that the son had eternally existed in equality with the father but did not consider that equality something to be grasped and held on to and it's in the context of his obedience to the father that you then have the citation from Isaiah where Isaiah says every knee will bow to me you have the same thing with the shma Paul is identifying the Kos there as Yahweh you have to close your eyes and squint to avoid that and when we heard it said who did Isaiah see well he saw Yahweh who did John say he saw he saw Jesus yes that's exactly right that's exactly right I knew this was going to happen because of course I have been listening to Dr tuy stuff for a very long period of time and so I know that what we have heard this evening is simply reject the possibility of incarnation take all of that out and then use word games use Yahweh in one way and then God in another way don't talk about God the Father don't let the distinctions are made in the newest Testament actually stand in anything that you're saying play word games but it's all because you simply don't believe that God can become man you don't believe it you reject it that is the fundamental presupposition whether do Dr tuy can see it or not he functions on that presupposition and never ever hears anyone pointing out when that presupposition causes him to fundamentally misrepresent the text of scripture itself we had all sorts of other references brought up but one of them that I just want to mention because we heard nothing about Revelation chapter 5 and the lamb and the fact of all creation that type of thing but then we also had the the the testimony of the Gospel of John to Jesus as the I am simply dismissed because well in John chapter 4 I am is used this way think with me for just a moment Jesus said in John 8:24 unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins he said in 8:58 before Abraham was I am the Jews pick up stones and stone him he quotes Isaiah 43:10 which is Yahweh giving predictive prophecy of himself in John 13:19 but here's the here's the the Zinger in John 18 5-6 when Jesus is being arrested the soldiers come and they who are you seeking Jesus of Nazareth and when Jesus says ego iy to them what happens they fall back upon the ground we were told well well you know John he it's not really saying that Jesus is God in the highest sense think about it Jesus says I am and the soldiers fall back upon the ground that's the same phrase that Jesus used in John 8:24 when he said unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins let me say something to you a non- Divine Jesus will never save you it's the God man who gave himself for us it's the God man to whom the elect of God are joined and if your Jesus is merely a man oh an exalted man a highly exalted man but he's a creature I guess he's worshiping himself in Revelation 5 but if he's a creature then he cannot give himself in your place the way that the Jesus of scripture does that's why this subject is so very important I exhort you look carefully at what both of us said do your homework and you will find Jesus is truly Yahweh thank you for your [Applause] [Music] [Applause] time [Music] all right I hope you noticed that in his rebuttal Dr White tried to make up with volume what he lacked in reasons he complained I didn't talk about the text he wanted to hear about well that's not my job in giving an opening statement I in my rebuttal rebutted his interpretations of his main text as best I could uh and yes I did cite leading scholars in New Testament scholarship uh who specialize in things like Hebrews and then I was told that's Isa Jesus that's interesting um about Revelation 5 uh he seemed to equate the worship given to the son G with what's given to the father again the reasons are different and specifically the son is honored precisely because of his service to God in bringing people of all Nations to God now about the every created thing this is a glaring and clear exegetical fallacy and it has to do with not understanding how the word every works it's highly context dependent if I tell you about you know the Joe Biden inauguration and I'm sorry to bring that up in Texas I know that's a painful subject I didn't vote for president Grandpa either uh if I say all the bidens were there cheering on Joe Biden this does not imply Joe Biden isn't a Biden or that he's up on stage and also out there cheering for himself when I say every Biden was there all the bidens were there cheering on Joe Biden clearly it means all the other ones this is the Lamb who looks like he's been slain in the vision he stands in for the man Jesus a man is by definition a created thing so it's all the other creatures yes worshiping him uh am I a Muslim please uh in Colossians 1 that's the new creation the whole context is the new creation and the status of the exalted Jesus nowadays in my opening I gave you nine New Testament facts Dr White did not dispute a single one of those facts nor did he try to show that they're irrelevant or outweighed by other evidence he has his proof text and that's it and you should just believe him because he knows Greek I gave you nine contradictions he didn't rebut any of them guys a contrad ictory interpretation of the scriptures means you need to go back to the drawing board and see if you can do better and that's what I did years ago I was raised trinitarian and I too was utterly smug that every Christian believes in the Trinity and in the Incarnation two Natures duh what's the problem he's tried to give you a simplistic narrative that this is scripture versus philosophy what philosophy did you hear the likelihood principle right he's the the guy watching the crime show DNA on the body well that doesn't mean anything right he just doesn't want to think about it he's not he chooses not to think about it his main text John 12 Philippians 2 Hebrew 1 slam dunk deity of Christ texts no for lots of reasons and that's why even some trinitarian commenters who frankly are more qualified to interpret those texts than either Dr white or I don't take them the way he does they don't see them that they think it's an acronis uh it's reading them in the out of time right it's like saying that George Washington believed in the internet now in conclusion let me call out a couple of assumptions that you may have when I was a trinitarian I was raised in mainstream evangelicalism uh first of all I considered people like me deniers of the deity of Christ right like a holocaust denier like denying something obvious it's not obvious my evidence shows that it's not obvious every time Dr White says it's obvious you find another even better qualified scholar saying no actually that doesn't follow right even even the inserting Jesus into the shama thing uh in 1 Corinthians 8 lots of Scholars don't buy that and it is a new topic um yes it's not obvious I just had never looked into it properly before and a lot of a lot of times uh mainstream Christians assume that people like me our point is to try to take Jesus down a notch just to say he's just like another teacher like oh yeah he's pretty cool but he's like Muhammad or Buddha or somebody like that no that's not our point at all we want to exalt Jesus as the Son of God just like Paul says in Philippians 2 just like you see in Revelation 5 we want to set Christ apart as Lord in our hearts not the Lord Yahweh the Lord Jesus Christ and by the way that's one uh ambiguity they realize the term Lord is ambiguous sometimes they write Lord God sometimes Lord Jesus Christ so that is who we're trying to honor and we think mainstream tradition has gotten in the way of that and so that's our motive for wanting to further reform thank you [Applause] [Music] [Applause] okay we have 20 minutes of Q&A we'll stop at 9:16 or so and Dr White you'll go first uh this this will not be timed someone asked about your your books I know you love to plug uh the uh the I I can't remember the name your your the cover of your Bibles where'd you get your Bible someone ask for oh oh oh oh I'm sorry um is that the first question no no it's not oh um yes these are both my 30 seconds uh these These are both the work of Jeffrey Rice a good friend of mine in to Tennessee post tenous Lux Bible rebinding this is called as Johnny Cash uh the Bible in Black uh this is a legacy Standard Bible and then this is an NE Allen 28th Edition um if you want a Bible that will last you a lifetime and smells wonderful um then I would recommend Jeffrey Rice to you so okay first question now for real this was talked about a little bit but I think another go at it would be helpful uh the question is simply to Dr White did Yahweh become sin did Yahweh become sinim well again uh biblically we have to distinguish between between the being of God and the persons who share that one being so it was the son who became flesh and it was the son who voluntarily was made sin by the father in our behalf so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him and so it's the one God Yahweh who is revealing himself as father and as son and as spirit and each of those Divine persons take different roles in the economy of Salvation it was not the father who became incarnate it was not the spirit who became incarnate it was the son and he is the one who out of his great love for his people to wh and we are united to him uh gave his life in our place so we can have peace with the father amen sir so we got 30 seconds is um yeah my answer to that is no Yahweh did not become sin and the New Testament gospel is not that God died for you look at Romans 5 the New Testament gospel is that God sent somebody else his precious beloved Son to die for us uh that's something God can't do because again his Divine life doesn't depend on anything um and it's also notable that when Jesus dies you know the tragic kind of low point of all four gospels nobody but nobody says oh my goodness God died that's 30 seconds sorry no it goes fast yep um okay well picking up right on that theme uh Dr tuy I had several questions about what takes place at the cross so let me try to formulate a few of them uh essentially if Jesus is not Yahweh is his crucifixion uh not for the full Redemption uh of man uh or another one would be how could Jesus if he is not God uh have carried our sins so the question is about atonement which is a big and difficult uh Topic in theology um but it's interesting if you look and try to find it the New Testament doesn't anywhere ever say that uh the atonement would not have worked or Jesus could not have bore our sins or Jesus could not have paid for our sins unless he were God there are later theories and speculations to that that effect but I would point you to Hebrews chapter 2 where he said to share in Flesh and Blood like us uh and it says basically that he's qualified to be a merciful and faithful high priest uh in service of God and to make a sacrifice of atonement so according to the New Testament a a perfect man who's God's Messiah is a perfectly good sacrifice so unitarians uh struggle with this because this is God sending somebody lesser than himself in our behalf so uh it it's it's not it doesn't even live up to Abraham and Isaac that type of thing this is a creature who's dying for other creatures that is the issue in regards to the deity of Christ and whether Jesus Christ is a creature who gives his life or whether God is actually uh giving his own blood as act says okay Dr White uh Dr tuy stated Incarnation does not change excuse me does not change the qualities a Divine person has do you agree with this well I I don't believe Dr KY believes in Incarnation so I'm not really sure what what that means um if if the question is did the sun uh change or cease to be the Sun or cease to be Eternal or anything else um no he he didn't cease any of those things but there was uh for example as I pointed out he was seen by John by Isaiah and he was glorious uh That Glory was veiled during the Incarnation and only briefly on the Mount of transfiguration uh Was His True Glory scene by three uh disciples so for the purpose of accomplishing his mission as the Messiah there had to be a limitation of the expression of his Divine glory and things along those lines because he takes on that that human flesh but the sun doesn't cease being the son uh he just is acting in that way to accomplish salvation so I don't believe an Incarnation but that's where I started that's why I assumed and then I went to scripture to see if it actually provided grounds for this and it didn't I also explored all the different two Natures theories that exist there are a whole bunch of them they exist uh for the purpose of getting rid of contradictions Dr White doesn't even seem to have one of those just contradictions what me worry I don't know two Natures I can tell you what the different views are but that's another topic for another night okay Dr tuy U if Christ used the I am statements uh and they are uh well let me just skip that if Christ used the I am state ments why did the Jews try to Stone him in other words did they try to Stone him because of what he was saying or implying with the IM statements in John uh no I think in all the gospels uh they accuse Jesus of blasphemy but if you look at the accusations at his trials nobody actually accuses him of claiming to be Yahweh or claiming to be fully Divine they seem to have an expansive idea of blasphemy this is upheld by Recent research by the way um basically they think if you're claiming privileges for yourself that God didn't actually give if you're inviting yourself to the head of the table so to speak that's blasphemy a false Messiah would be a blasphemer on that definition um no I don't think Jesus is claiming to be God I am is not a name of God uh he says I am who I am in Hebrew and in the subagent they translate that as ego Ami haon I am the one who is uh it's a self-identification idiom uh but particularly in The Gospel according to John what he's saying is I am he like I am the Messiah that I think that's generally the meaning I am is a title for God and is used uh in that way in Isaiah Jesus quotes it of himself from Isaiah 43:10 uh we just told that blasphemy is very vague actually uh it says you being a man make yourself God I will take that over some Modern paper that someone wrote as the definition of what the Jews were talking about they knew and that's why the soldiers fell back upon the ground um Dr White in kind of street level apologetics there are various evidences also Marshal to prove that Jesus is God for example uh Jesus receives worship during his lifetime Jesus has the ability to forgive sin uh Jesus can perform particular miracles no one else can replicate um I'm I'm curious if you view those as equal to the biblical text where Jesus is referred to as Yahweh as significant uh well as I mentioned a friend of mine who converted from Jehovah's Witnesses he's the one who said look we can argue about God a god relative worship Pruno versus lat tro all the rest of this kind of stuff um but if Jesus is Yahweh that's the end of the of the conversation and so I think that's why this is such an important subject uh is that it is I think Primary in its in its assertion and then you then you start to see that clearly 1 Corinthians chapter 8 this is Paul taking the shma if you look at the language you have to close your eyes and squint and spin in circles to avoid the fact that what he's saying to the Corinthians is we know this this is what has happened this is the one true God that's why we know these Idols are not true Gods um but that there's great light shed upon the I am sayings and things like that when you recognize that the New Testament writers are taking passages about Yahweh and they're applying them to Jesus refuting Jehovah's Witnesses in some ways is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel they're anti-intellectual they don't believe in getting phds and master's degrees they don't believe in non Jehovah's Witness scholarship we tend to study all of the scholarship we can find and over and over we find mainstream Scholars interpreting texts like we take them and the reason for that is just the historical critical method you don't take it like athanasius took it you take it how it would have been understood all right so we know who Paul thinks God is Dr tuggy uh reference to Jesus uh referring to himself as the son of man uh do you believe that he is referencing there the 10 text from Daniel 7 I believe um using the same phrase to describe a son of man who has given Dominion glory and a kingdom that is Everlasting I absolutely do and that is precisely a case of somebody who is not God he's brought into the throne room of God and he's given all of these things Dominion Glory power Etc which God already has and if you say well I think that's a Divine figure like is now fashionable in some scholarship I would point out that uh all Scholars think that the original pre-christian Jewish interpretation of that passage had the one like the son of man being the nation of Israel which is clear if you read farther down in the passage itself okay but it's a prophecy also about Christ it has a second fulfillment in Christ like a lot of passages do and so it's a picture of what we see in Revelation 5 which is a man can you believe it exalted to God's right hand and if you can't believe it I'm not sure why you would doubt that the omnipotent God could do that I would simply point out that in Mark chapter 14 are you the Christ the son of the blessed one and Jesus said I am and you shall see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the power and coming with the clouds of heaven and tearing his tunics the high priest said what further need do we have of witnesses you have heard the blasphemy how do it seem to you and they all condemned and be deserving of death the son of man in Daniel chap 7 is not only given a people but they are to worship him that's lat tro the highest form of worship which would be blasphemy if he was not truly God Dr White uh what do you believe the first born of all creation means reference to Colossians 1 yes uh patacas in Colossians chapter 1 there again there's discussion of pretty much all of these texts in the Forgotten Trinity uh which I didn't even bring to sell because that's not something I really do but uh there's discussions of all these passages and protos means the one who has preeminence it's fascinating if you understand what the early gnostics believed about Jesus as one being just one of the eons when you deny the deity of Christ when you make him a a secondary creature even an exalted secondary creature you are fundamentally agreeing with Paul's opponents in colassi the whole reason why he says that Jesus Christ created all things not just things about a new creation anything like that Paul exhausts the language because he's refuting the gnostics the position was taken earlier about that would be to agree with the gnostics against the Apostle Paul that's why you've got to look at context very carefully yeah I think by firstborn he means uh first in position under God kind of as the inheritor of of God's kingdom the whole passage is about Jesus's current exalt status uh it says for in him all things in heaven on Earth were created not the heavens and the Earth the things in which things he says things visible and invisible Thrones dominions rulers or Powers all things have been created through him and for him he himself is before all things and in him all things hold together soon Dr tuy uh really two questions um do you worship Jesus that would be for for your strand I guess of unitarians but then the second question would be if so how is worshiping Jesus not idolatry if he is not God so yes I worship Jesus but uh the thing about the English word worship is some people use it as by definition suitable for God alone so if that's what you mean by worship then I don't worship Jesus I worship the father who is Yahweh uh but I would use the word more flexibly the things that we do for God we pray to him we sing sing to him we say how great he is we do those things for Jesus just like you see in Revelation 5 some unitarians would distinguish between worship and honor or something like that the biblical terms uh L tro is the most restrictive uh term but then again you have people doing that to the son of man who represents Israel then you have prano which generally means bowing down and this is done to human rulers and in Revelation it says that uh Jesus is enemies basically will have to do prano uh to his followers so but the basic answer is yes but I don't confuse him with God and so doing uh I worship Jesus Christ as my Creator because the Bible says that he is and I do so in the same way with those in heaven and every created thing which is in heaven on Earth and under the Earth and on the sea and all things in them which has nothing to do with all the bidens that was the worst example I've ever heard I heard saying to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be the blessing and the the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever that's true worship it's given to Jesus Christ properly if it's given to anything that's a mere creation it's idolatry period Dr White how is biblical trinitarianism different from polytheism biblical trinitarianism starts with the assertion there is one true God before me there is no God formed there shall be n after me Isaiah 4310 the Isel yah elu yahad there is one Yahweh who is our God monotheism is the absolute Foundation of that there can be no other gods separately from that and so my Muslim friends are always saying well look what you're talking about is three different gods that's why this is so important because if Jesus isn't Yahweh then you are talking about some kind of division of of the worship of God you are starting to play with some kind of henotheism or something along those lines the only way to remain consistent to the biblical testimony as to who God is is to recognize all that scripture teaches and that the worship that we give to Jesus Christ is not just detracting from the worship that's given to the father it is consistent with the worship that is given to the father because this is how God has revealed himself how is the Trinity different from tritheism um this is actually kind of my academic specialty but I don't have time to say much uh any Trinity theory is by definition monotheism is part of the theory they say we believe in one God that one God is the Triune God so it's always monotheism in that way but the problem is sometimes it depends on the trinitarian they accidentally imply that there are three Gods at the same time as they say that you got three different things each one has everything it takes to be a God why isn't that three Gods it depends on the trinitarian didn't pause it in time okay this will be our last question of the evening um as we end um please allow the speakers to get next door and to get settled in before you go over there and form a line uh to speak to each speaker again you can go through this door uh or you can go out that way and come around so but last question of the evening for Dr tuggy is that right um I think I started respond I started with you so here's the last question um was the man Jesus morally perfect if no where or how did he sin if yes how is a human or how was a human a able to never sin so I mean morally perfect uh can mean uh hasn't sinned and it could also mean uh a richer sense of perfection where you're not even capable of being tempted god is perfect in the stronger sense that he can't even be tempted to do anything wrong just he's totally uninterested nothing could make him interested Jesus could be tempted that's what you see in the gospels uh when he has that encounter with Satan when he's about to start his ministry um how is it that a man could not sin well we do think that's possible uh I mean maybe your certain reform views on the fall might make that inevitable but uh I mean one answer is uh he says in John that the father gives the son the spirit without measure meure so um he is like the perfect Adam he never does fall he never does Rebel he never does uh give to the tempter's voice but he is tempted he's just Victorious over it it was really a question specifically for Dr tuy doesn't really apply to me but I will just simply make the statement that it was implied earlier that if you could be tempted that means you're not God uh and again that just starts with the rejection of the word becoming flesh of Emmanuel all the prophecies uh Jesus does take on human form uh and he is Victorious over all those things and that's why we can have his positive righteousness imputed to us before God okay please give a round of applause for both [Music] [Applause] speakers [Applause]

Channel: Unitarian Christian Alliance

Views: 20,013

Keywords:

Id: ky2SaHscSIo

Length: 124min 8sec (7448 seconds)

Published: Wed Mar 13 2024