Видео

That's not quite the correct characterization. When Christians say that God created "ex nihilo" or "from nothing," what we mean is that God didn't use anything other than his divine power to bring the universe into existence. In other words, the universe had an efficient cause (God), but no material cause (preexisting matter). This is in contrast to things like cars and buildings, which have both efficient and material causes. There's nothing incoherent about the universe coming into existence with just an efficient cause, unless one assumes that the concept of God somehow precludes creating things other than himself. But such an assumption would need some type of defense. - RF Admin

@@ReasonableFaithOrg you mean it's not your preferred interpretation. The definition presented is misleading since it redefines no thing as a thing i.e. divine power. Now, either the Universe is emergent or it is not. If it is, then either it always existed in another form or it came from a thing that it has nothing in common with. If it comes from power, then a meaningful account for what power is must be given, either it is a substance/existent that things come from or not, in which case power would simply refer to an event. Substances cannot emerge from events since if they did, they would still come from no existent thing. Events simply refer to the motion of existent things. Abilities are not existents that things can come from. Now, it also seems that the Universe is being assumed to be such a thing that can be brought into existence especially when we have no experience of any thing being brought into existence. So this argument hinges on the fallacious assumption of existence pluralism with engages in category errors and an existential fallacy. Cars and buildings are not new existents, since different forms of matter are not new existents. A wholly distinct existent coming into existence from that which it has nothing in common with is an example of something coming from no thing. It still contradicts a strict interpretation of the law of identity, a thing cannot give what it does not have. How does an existent give that which it does not have? It is incoherent if existents are not the kind of things that can be brought into existence. In which case such a definition contradicts the law of identity similar to a married bachelor.

Why do you think it's nonsense? - RF Admin

The way I think of it is that the divine soul is kind of like a superset of the human soul. That is, it seems intuitive to me to say that there is no property that human souls have that the divine soul does not have.

And yet you fail to subject yourself to scripture for Jesus said "not my will but yours (the Father's)" and yet you are saying that the Father and the Son don't have separate wills. I pray for humility for you. I really don't think you're wise. I am deeply disturbed by your self-assuredness.

@@sedmercado24 I believe Jesus subjected his human will to the father’s divine will, and Craig believes that passage too, though in doing so he introduces change to the divine will of Christ and division between the persons of the Godhead. That is what I think is unwise. Saying that the father and son have separate wills is an innovations that is tantamount to tritheism. It has huge ramifications for the doctrine of God brought about not by scripture but by Craig’s need to wedge scripture into his own philosophical system.

@@TheRoark WLC doesn't think that they do not have a united will. Their wills are separate in terms of being different persons (different who's or I's) but the will of the persons of the Trinity are united in purpose. WLC himself enunciates the doctrine of the Trinity as thus: There is only one tripersonal being (or substance or soul) that is God. There are 3 distinct persons (each with his own will) in the one God. This is what the Bible teaches.

@@sedmercado24 if Jesus says “not my will but thine be done” and he is not subjecting his human will to the divine will but instead subjecting one divine will to another, then there is not unity of desires within the Godhead. The verse makes sense in a dyotheletist view, as the perfect human will can want perfect goods (survival, avoidance of pain) but subject itself to the divine will that wants greater goods, but if Christ has one will instead, then the wills of the father and son are different enough to warrant the submission of one to the other.

@@TheRoark I would take that passage to mean the incarnate Son praying to the Father. It still works for the monotheletist if you have a model of the incranation that allows for Jesus' true humanity. Jesus was truly human (though not merely human) and he really experienced those human temptations and feelings. Those experiences were not simply bullets bouncing off a superman. He was "at all points tempted like we are".

Interesting point, I find it difficult to counter

//Christ has two wills, Human and Divine, this is why He can pray, "Not My Will, but Your Will be done" The Trinity was not divided on whether or not the cup should pass from Christ. Christ in His humanity willed for it to pass, but humbly submitted to the Will of God.// Note that the full passage is a conditional: "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." So, Jesus isn't saying that his will is for the cup to pass. He's saying that *if* it is possible, *then* he wants the cup to pass from him. This is not inconsistent with the will of the Father, since the Father knows that it is not possible for the cup to pass from him. Moreover, to say that these are at odds is to say that Jesus' will (even if it is his human will) is contrary to God's will. That's theologically problematic, since to will something contrary to God's will is sin. - RF Admin

@@ReasonableFaithOrg it is not a sin to be Tempted. It is a sin to follow through on temptation. Christ was tempted to not go through with the Cross, but He submitted His will to the Father. God however, cannot be tempted with evil. So for Christ's to be able to be tempted He _had_ to have a human Will. If He did not have a human will, then He cannot know what it is like to be human, He cannot suffer with us, and ultimately cannot redeem our wills. He was made in all things like unto us, yet without sin. This is the teaching of Scripture.

@@beowulf.reborn //it is not a sin to be Tempted. It is a sin to follow through on temptation. Christ was tempted to not go through with the Cross, but He submitted His will to the Father.// Agreed. However, your claim was that the human will of Christ, as expressed in Matthew 26:39, was really opposed to the will of God. To will something contrary to God is sin, even if just in thought. If you say that Jesus' human will isn't really willing something contrary to God, then it doesn't serve your point against Dr. Craig's model of Christology, since the point was supposed to show that willing something contrary to God indicates that Jesus had two wills. //God however, cannot be tempted with evil. So for Christ's to be able to be tempted He had to have a human Will.// James 1:13 says "God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one." He then explains that persons (not natures) are tempted when lured and enticed by their own desire. This is an internal temptation. Jesus was never tempted in this sense. Moreover, regarding the second part of that verse, Jesus never tempted nor could he tempt other people. This makes sense on Dr. Craig's model, since the person of Christ just is the second person of the Trinity. But there's nothing about the model which precludes Christ's ability to be tempted by others. If having a human will requires the ability to sin, then Jesus could have sinned. This is contrary to John 5:19, which says "the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." //If He did not have a human will, then He cannot know what it is like to be human, He cannot suffer with us, and ultimately cannot redeem our wills. He was made in all things like unto us, yet without sin. This is the teaching of Scripture.// On Dr. Craig's model, the Logos can truly know what it is like to be human in virtue of being conjoined to a hominin body and experiencing all the things that come with that, such as hunger, fatigue, pain, and death. So, even on Dr. Craig's model, Christ is "made in all things like us, yet without sin." - RF Admin

"I and the Father are one" does not mean "I and the Father are one person" because Jesus explains in the next few verses that what he means is that "I and the Father are one in purpose or united in purpose." [37] If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. [38] But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

@@sedmercado24 It does not matter that they are different persons, they are still one same substance, given there is only one God.

@@gamefan8552 What the Bible teaches matters. And the Bible teaches that Jesus, though he is not the Father, is God. God is one substance correct. But God is one tri-personal substance (according to the Bible).

@@sedmercado24 Only thing that matters from Bible is having correct interpretation of text.

Dr. Craig addresses these passages numerous times on our website, www.reasonablefaith.org. For example, he addresses John 20:17 here: www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/questions-on-the-trinity-neanderthals-and-gravity. - RF Admin

​@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thank you for the referral to Dr.Craig's response on this subject (and I've seen some others of his) I find the responses on this to be inadequate since Dr. Craig seems to be ignoring the possibility that the holy Spirit is called God because it's simply the spirit of the Father in action, and Jesus may be referred to God in John (or related to as God) since the Father dwells IN him- just has Jesus himself explains. The alternative (and better, IMO, explanation) that I'm suggesting is that Jesus is "divine" because of the Father who is IN him. The doctrine of the Trinity literally redefines the God of the Old Testament as a 3-person being, when Dr. Craig himself has admitted that the YHWH of the Old Testament refers to the Father, and NEVER the three-person God that he advocates. As for "all things were made by him" there is little reason to think that John is intending that Jesus created the universe. He is either talking about how God the Father created things BY (for the purpose of) His son, or he is referring to the "everything" that happened in Jesus ministry, using genesis language to describe the the New Creation that began with Jesus.

@@jonorisin73 //Dr. Craig seems to be ignoring the possibility that the holy Spirit is called God because it's simply the spirit of the Father in action// Dr. Craig doesn't ignore the possibility, but rejects it due to the biblical data. In Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit speaks, ordering the apostles to set apart Paul and Barnabas for the work to which he was calling them. Note the personal pronouns "I" and "me" being used in that passage. When we conjoin this passage with John 14:25-26, this is the same Holy Spirit whom Jesus says the Father will send in his name, who will teach the apostles and bring them remembrance. Teaching, as seen throughout Scripture, is something that persons do. If this were the spirit of the Father himself, then the passage would be saying that the Father is sending his own spirit, which, if the spirit just is the Father, is absurd. //and Jesus may be referred to God in John (or related to as God) since the Father dwells IN him- just has Jesus himself explains.// Note that this doesn't work, since Jesus also says that he is in the Father. If the Father's being in Jesus makes Jesus representatively divine, then Jesus being in the Father makes the Father representatively human, which is theologically problematic. More likely, this was Jesus' way of saying that he and the Father were in perfect union of will and purpose, as indicated in John 5:19 and John 14:31. Moreover, your reading strains the text, since John echoes Genesis 1:1 by saying "In the beginning was the Word," which to Jewish ears would have immediately put Jesus in the position of God. Then he goes on to literally call Jesus (the Word) "God." Then you have Paul, who calls Jesus "God" in Titus 2:13. And Thomas in John 20:28 exclaiming "My Lord and my God." //Dr. Craig himself has admitted that the YHWH of the Old Testament refers to the Father, and NEVER the three-person God that he advocates.// If you can find an actual quote of him saying this, please post it here. This would be uncharacteristically inconsistent of him, since he notes in his Defenders class that the New Testament writers taught that various Old Testament passages which refer to Yahweh are actually about Jesus. //As for "all things were made by him" there is little reason to think that John is intending that Jesus created the universe. He is either talking about how God the Father created things BY (for the purpose of) His son, or he is referring to the "everything" that happened in Jesus ministry, using genesis language to describe the the New Creation that began with Jesus.// This is an extremely strained reading of the text. John goes out of his way to clarify what he means by laying out the converse: "without him was not any thing made that was made." Note also that Paul attributes creation of the universe to Jesus in Colossians 1:16. - RF Admin

@@jonorisin73 Saint Simeon the New Theologian discusses at length why the Holy Spirit is a Person, co-existent with the Father, and NOT some kind of impersonal force akin electricity. This is one of the issues on which there is actually a _consensus patrum_ among the ancient holy fathers of the Church.

How so? 🤔

@@gabalirealty3057 Because the evidence for it is misunderstood and weak!

On your view, epigenetics is overrated because the evidence for it is weak? Yikes might want to think about that one again 🤦‍♂️

@@gabalirealty3057 Yikes, nope! The idea here that WLC presents is garbage - that somehow there is needed and as such evolutionists seek an extended evolutionary synthesis and epigenetics as a replacement for the main driving forces in evolution. Why don't you tell me what you think epigenetics is and how it drives evolution.

Why certainly…The relationship between development and evolution has recently become a lively debated topic among philosophers and biologists. This interest has been increasingly stirred through at least four developments since the 1990s: First, through new findings of the molecular genetic mechanisms underlying the development and evolution of all morphological forms in multicellular organisms. This discovery eventually led to the foundation of the new field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). Second, the ability to rapidly sequence genes and genomes allowed genetic comparisons to be made between species. Prior to this, evolutionary genetics was confined to allelic differences within a species. Third, new discoveries of environmentally sensitive channels of extra-genetic transmission of information between organisms (e.g., epigenetic inheritance and transmission of microbiota) led to attempts to more closely connect development and inheritance, and, as a consequence, evolution. Fourth, the behavioral patterns developed by organisms are increasingly discussed not only as effects of adaptive processes, but as starting point of evolutionary trajectories. This includes hypotheses conceptualizing organisms as agents that co-modify the selective pressures effecting them (and other species). Seems to me yikes is indeed your biggest problem 🙌

Why think that the soul is an "immaterial body"? - RF Admin

@@ReasonableFaithOrg there is a lot of circumstantial evidence for this view in the tradition of the Church. Indeed, the traditional Catholic view is that soul is totally immaterial (which in my view makes little sense), yet the traditional Orthodox view rather leans to the side of the soul being an immaterially "subtle" body. There are multiple arguments for this point of view, which would be too long to write here. A XIX century Russian theologian, bishop Ignatius Bryanchaninov has written a whole book on this subject following his public discussion with another very well known theologian, and I found his arguments more convincing.

that's really christian thinking, you DISGUST me.

@@HarryNicNicholas keep crying

Exactly, like Haiti for example!

@@h.p.lovecraft6904 is that like sarcasm

Do you disagree with a point raised in this video? If so, which one and why? - RF Admin