Speaker 1: It's so insane. It's so insane.
Speaker 2: Boo boo boo boo boo boo boo boo boo. All right,
Speaker 2: welcome everybody to another installment. We will be inter viewing
Speaker 2: and reviewing the debate to get today with between William
Speaker 2: Lane Craig and Muhammed had Job and my good friend
Speaker 2: doctor Bo Branson joins me today. Of course, doctor bo
Speaker 2: is very pertinent, very adjacent to this conversation because he's
Speaker 2: published in the thing, the book that William lane Craig
Speaker 2: mentioned in the debate about four views on trinity. Is
Speaker 2: that correct?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4: So William lane Craig, me, Bill Hasker, who he mentioned
Speaker 4: during the debate, and Dale Tuggy, and.
Speaker 2: That's four views on the trinity and particularly issues that
Speaker 2: are relevant to this debate, such as inseparable operations. And
Speaker 2: we'll kind of get into that later on. But what's
Speaker 2: your before we get into the doctor bow, what's your
Speaker 2: overall feeling and assessment of the debate before we get
Speaker 2: into the particulars.
Speaker 3: I was pretty disappointed, but.
Speaker 4: I was actually really looking forward to it because, on
Speaker 4: the one hand, William Lane Craig is just like legendary debater,
Speaker 4: you know, super smart and everything, but I think that
Speaker 4: the doctrum of the Trinity is literally his like the
Speaker 4: weakest thing, you know that maybe his Christology, but anyway,
Speaker 4: it's you know, something he's like really weak on. So
Speaker 4: it's kind of like, wow, I mean this would be
Speaker 4: really interesting to see, you know, his MOHAMEDI job, I'm
Speaker 4: going to beat him? Is this going to be really
Speaker 4: you know interesting?
Speaker 3: But yeah, the.
Speaker 4: So I guess for me, I mean, I just spent
Speaker 4: a bunch of time on this book that we're in,
Speaker 4: So I've kind of, you know, recently been thinking through
Speaker 4: his whole model, and there's like a million things that
Speaker 4: I want to say about it. And it was really
Speaker 4: frustrating in the book too. It's like you just kind
Speaker 4: of have a limited word count, you know, for every chapter.
Speaker 4: So I think I had written like two or three
Speaker 4: times the word out and still had stuff that was
Speaker 4: just an outline form, and I was like, well, I
Speaker 4: gotta cut down everything. So I was thinking, like, there's
Speaker 4: so much stuff that you could you could go through,
Speaker 4: and Muhammed a job stuck the landing on any of
Speaker 4: the arguments, Like he kind of mentioned different topics that
Speaker 4: could go into like a larger debate, you know, or
Speaker 4: larger argument for the incoherence of his view or something
Speaker 4: like that. But he never really connected a lot of
Speaker 4: those things. Like the first I don't know how much.
Speaker 4: It was like quarter of the debate or something, where
Speaker 4: he was just talking about how we only in Craig's view,
Speaker 4: is heretical or whatever, and it's like, well, cool, but
Speaker 4: how does that show that the doctor of the Trinity
Speaker 4: in general?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 5: Coherent?
Speaker 2: Right? Which was the title of the debate was the
Speaker 2: coherence of the Trinity? Before we get into that, And
Speaker 2: this is an area that you you focus on you're
Speaker 2: really good in. Could you tell us a little bit
Speaker 2: I know, the lot of the audience does not know
Speaker 2: the act academic literature and the sort of schools and theories.
Speaker 2: Could you tell us a little bit on about what's
Speaker 2: the difference between this what they're calling the debate, the
Speaker 2: Latin model the Trinity and then social trinitarianism, which Wilane
Speaker 2: Craig espouses. And then we'll kind of counter that with
Speaker 2: the orthodox of you that you defend, which is monarchical trinitarianism.
Speaker 4: So we'll start with social trinitarianism maybe, So what they
Speaker 4: call social trinitarianism. Basically, all social trinitarians seem to be
Speaker 4: really focused on this idea that the Father, Son, and
Speaker 4: Holy Spirit are three distinct centers of consciousness and will
Speaker 4: and whatever, so kind of three minds. That seems to
Speaker 4: be sort of definitive of social trinitarianism. And then originally,
Speaker 4: like you know, you read old older stuff on social trinitarianism,
Speaker 4: was kind of like, well, then they formed this like society,
Speaker 4: and God is really like the society. It's like you know,
Speaker 4: God incorporated or something.
Speaker 3: It's like the whole.
Speaker 4: You know, they form this bigger thing. And there's been
Speaker 4: all sorts of different kind of variations on it since then.
Speaker 4: Those that's kind of just maybe that view is a
Speaker 4: little unsatisfying in various ways.
Speaker 2: That's what's the origin of that view. By the way,
Speaker 2: who's kind of the first to propose that? Somebody pretty modern?
Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, Actually, this is a book I'm supposed to
Speaker 4: write over you for and I'm way ling on, but
Speaker 4: this is a Protestant guy, Matthew Barrett. It's it's a
Speaker 4: decent it's a decent introduction i'd say to like Western
Speaker 4: sort of trinitarian thought, like he does a pretty good
Speaker 4: job of that, and he goes in the first part
Speaker 4: and really goes through a lot of kind of the
Speaker 4: history of social trinitarianism and basically came up with kind
Speaker 4: of to make the doctrine of the Trinity relevant because
Speaker 4: it just wasn't like in Western theology anymore. So you know,
Speaker 4: I thought, well, maybe if we make God into a society,
Speaker 4: then we can just sort of map stuff from the
Speaker 4: Trinity onto social things. And so he goes through all
Speaker 4: these things about you know, how the Trinity has been
Speaker 4: used to just you know, support like like environmentalism and
Speaker 4: gay rights and feminism and you know, socialism, like just
Speaker 4: all kinds of different things. But it definitely is in
Speaker 4: the in the I think the fifties maybe is when
Speaker 4: it when it first started. Really yeah, really kind of
Speaker 4: coming out, so so not yeah, not super old. And
Speaker 4: to say that the you know, the persons of the
Speaker 4: Trinity kind of form a larger hole is partialism, I mean,
Speaker 4: at least on a straightforward reading of it. And that's
Speaker 4: you know, that's been rejected as a heresy for centuries, right,
Speaker 4: So what they call the Latin model, I mean basically
Speaker 4: it's really that's kind of a term for really more
Speaker 4: like what people maybe a few decades ago sort of
Speaker 4: thought that was going on in most Latin like scholastic
Speaker 4: theology or something like that.
Speaker 3: People used to have this view.
Speaker 4: That there was a huge divide between like Greek and
Speaker 4: Latin thought on the Trinity. I think Michelle Renee Barnes
Speaker 4: and people like that have pretty much destroyed that kind
Speaker 4: of caricature. But anyway, that was the idea was like, well,
Speaker 4: the Latins kind of start with the one and then
Speaker 4: move to the three, and the Greeks kind of start
Speaker 4: with the three, so they're more clear about the distinction
Speaker 4: of the persons.
Speaker 3: But any case, I.
Speaker 4: Guess the basic way to put what people usually mean
Speaker 4: by the Latin view is just that God is this
Speaker 4: one substance, so one simple thing and somehow I mean,
Speaker 4: you know, if you're talking about like aquinas, the persons
Speaker 4: are subsistent relations whatever exactly that means, and the you know,
Speaker 4: the worry of course that everyone has as well. Latin
Speaker 4: trinitarianism sounds like it's really just modalism and social trinitarianism,
Speaker 4: or Greek as they used to understand it sounds like tritheism,
Speaker 4: and so what's the you know, how do you avoid
Speaker 4: both of those? Is kind of but I think that's
Speaker 4: not a very accurate.
Speaker 2: Well, but you would agree though that by the time
Speaker 2: of the Middle Ages, as this is sort of a
Speaker 2: side issue. But I know, how what people, for example,
Speaker 2: people that are proponents of the Western right will hear
Speaker 2: you say that there's not a big difference and think, oh,
Speaker 2: we'll see he's saying that there's no difference between Polla,
Speaker 2: Moss and Aquinas and everybody's teaching the same thing. You
Speaker 2: don't believe that, do you, or that's not what you
Speaker 2: mean by.
Speaker 3: Well now, I guess.
Speaker 4: I guess I would just say I think the more
Speaker 4: I I mean, the further I go along, the more
Speaker 4: I think maybe a lot of people just being misunderstood.
Speaker 4: So like Augustine in particular, I find a lot of
Speaker 4: times maybe we're just misinterpreting him. Like if you kind
Speaker 4: of read him through a scholastic lens, then he looks
Speaker 4: one way. But if you read him in the context
Speaker 4: of you know, the other church Fathers at the time,
Speaker 4: he might be closer really to the cappit oceans.
Speaker 2: But well, I'm speaking more of the Middle Ages though,
Speaker 2: Like with how am I synods in the way that
Speaker 2: they treat.
Speaker 3: About like a Quinas.
Speaker 4: I mean, I do think like Aquinas's fascination with divine
Speaker 4: simplicity is a problem, and I think that's that's kind
Speaker 4: of a criticism A lot of modern philosophers would raise two,
Speaker 4: which I don't think is well.
Speaker 2: Part of the reason I bring that up is that
Speaker 2: I remember years back I was listening to William Lane
Speaker 2: Craig and he was he had a brief debate that
Speaker 2: was only on audio with Bishop and Baron was defending
Speaker 2: the Tomistic position, and I noticed that somehow or somewhere
Speaker 2: along the way Wimline Craig apparently had got wind of
Speaker 2: modal collapse arguments, and he sort of brought in this
Speaker 2: critique of Tomism on the basis of modal collapse. But
Speaker 2: he doesn't seem to have the toolkit of the Essen
Speaker 2: Centergy distinction to really sort of make sense of it.
Speaker 2: So a lot of what he talks about in these
Speaker 2: discussions to me seems to be that he's lacking precisely
Speaker 2: that toolkit, which is in my view also connected to
Speaker 2: the a Pollinarian position that he has, because for him,
Speaker 2: person is really equated to like a like a human
Speaker 2: like an individual over there, a person is just an
Speaker 2: individual with a body and of soul. And so that's
Speaker 2: why it's the a pollinarian error, because if he visays
Speaker 2: Christ is, you know, the logos is replacing the human
Speaker 2: soul or the human mind in the humanity of Christ.
Speaker 2: That's a confusion of nature and person on the level
Speaker 2: of humans. And so I think that there's this nature
Speaker 2: person mistake, and then there's Assassin's interim. It's the thing
Speaker 2: that's missing in the in the WAE online Craig scheme.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I agree.
Speaker 4: I actually in this book, I find I find Craig
Speaker 4: very unclear at times. It's very strange because I mean,
Speaker 4: other you know, he's an analytic philosopher, and he's generally
Speaker 4: speaking very clear, very precise, and I find it hard
Speaker 4: to kind of parse. And also I guess he's changed
Speaker 4: his views, so I criticize a bunch of stuff and
Speaker 4: then he's like, oh, I don't believe that anymore.
Speaker 3: But uh, but yeah.
Speaker 4: One of the things that I, by the end of
Speaker 4: it I pointed out is like, yeah, the way that
Speaker 4: he understands being in person or person and nature is
Speaker 4: sort of reversed. So what he calls try I put
Speaker 4: it this way, what he calls tri personal monotheism, I say,
Speaker 4: is what Gregory of Nissa would probably call try theistic modalism. Yeah,
Speaker 4: it's really he really when he talks about so his
Speaker 4: view is kind of there's God is like this one soul,
Speaker 4: this one immaterial soul that has three sets of top
Speaker 4: So he really has one hyposthesis that has three different powers,
Speaker 4: which we would kind of one to one associate a
Speaker 4: particular power with a particular instance of a nature. So
Speaker 4: it's I mean, he really does ultimately have one person
Speaker 4: with three natures. I mean that's kind of how our
Speaker 4: or three energies. Explicitly he'd say that. So it's just
Speaker 4: kind of the opposite of what it, you know, is
Speaker 4: supposed to be. But anyway, that's yeah, that's kind of
Speaker 4: his his view for better or worse, which I think
Speaker 4: there's a million things you can criticize about that, And
Speaker 4: I was hoping that Muhammed a Jab would, you know,
Speaker 4: find something that it's just like he kind of focused
Speaker 4: on a handful of things, could have gone a lot
Speaker 4: deeper in a lot of issues. But anyway, I guess
Speaker 4: we'll we'll talk about that.
Speaker 2: So getting into the debate, he opens up what we
Speaker 2: online Craig does by he didn't really plan the five
Speaker 2: minutes or however long they had, because maybe it's four
Speaker 2: minutes or something like that, because he kind of like
Speaker 2: was saying stuff and then the time right now. But
Speaker 2: he did the sort of pitch on the basis of
Speaker 2: the kalamb argument, which was intended to appeal to I think,
Speaker 2: to the Islamic audience, which most Muslims don't really care
Speaker 2: about kalam and medieval philosophical disputes. And that's really why
Speaker 2: I think in this debate, Muhammed a Jab, who doesn't
Speaker 2: know these topics, was relying totally on Jake by his
Speaker 2: own admission, for a lot of this that the.
Speaker 4: Whole time he put out a Muhammed a job put
Speaker 4: out some video just afterwards that was he just explicitly
Speaker 4: said that.
Speaker 2: I was like, yeah, what it sounds. Yeah. There was
Speaker 2: a funny mistake he made where he seemed to think
Speaker 2: that the law of identity is the same thing as
Speaker 2: the is of credication and that's why it's the is
Speaker 2: of identification law, which those are not the same things.
Speaker 2: But that was an attempt to sort of trick Williamlin
Speaker 2: Craig with some version of the logical problem of the
Speaker 2: trinity and the predicating of if the Father's God, the
Speaker 2: Son's God, the Spirit's God, then the Father is the
Speaker 2: Son based on identical predication. But you know, we've dealt
Speaker 2: with that, You've covered that in terms of the debate
Speaker 2: that I did with Jake as well. But before we
Speaker 2: get to that, so he appeals to the colomn cosmologic argument.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's a very good apologetic argument. William
Speaker 2: ly and Craig believes that he's revived this and sort
Speaker 2: of made it relevant again. But the first mistake that
Speaker 2: I saw, and feel free to agree disagree with my
Speaker 2: take on it, was he began his argument for the
Speaker 2: trinity by saying first that it's a New Testament doctrine doctrine.
Speaker 2: I think it's very important that we understand that it's
Speaker 2: not only a New Testament doctrine.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that kind of came up.
Speaker 4: I mean, we didn't unfortunately, really get into that in
Speaker 4: any detail in the book, but it definitely it will
Speaker 4: be obvious to you or any Orthodox person like that
Speaker 4: we're just coming at this from completely different angles. One
Speaker 4: thing that really like irked me, and I just didn't
Speaker 4: have time. I didn't have word count, you know, to
Speaker 4: actually address it. Was he he mentions a few times,
Speaker 4: like in the Gospel of John, you know, when John
Speaker 4: says Isaiah saw his glory. But the way that Craig
Speaker 4: always like describes it, He's like, oh, look, John is
Speaker 4: like he says like retroactively doing some or like retrojecting
Speaker 4: Christ like back into the Old Testament, you know, in
Speaker 4: this appearance of yahweh or whatever.
Speaker 3: And I'm like, no, that's that's not what John's saying
Speaker 3: at all. Like that He's saying Isaiah saw yeah, exactly,
Speaker 3: sitting on the throne.
Speaker 4: Like that's that's the idea, because I go into that
Speaker 4: in my in my chapters I talk about the Theophanes.
Speaker 4: You know, it is like one of the things that
Speaker 4: you you about the Trinity needs to address because historically
Speaker 4: that was this like major one of the major you know,
Speaker 4: things that was kind of driving the doctrine was how
Speaker 4: do we make sense? And it's very clear just if
Speaker 4: you read.
Speaker 2: Justin versus Tripho for example, Yeah, yeah, like yeah.
Speaker 4: Early Christian stuff and also late Temple, late second Temple, right,
Speaker 4: and then look.
Speaker 3: At the New Testament.
Speaker 4: I mean I go in and kind of mention some
Speaker 4: of that and compare anyway, I go through sort of
Speaker 4: the probability of it all. But point being like, it's
Speaker 4: very clear that the New Testament authors themselves were looking
Speaker 4: at the Old Testament and saying how do you make
Speaker 4: sense out of the Theophanes and sort of saying, well,
Speaker 4: Christ is the god that that appeared to Moses, Jacob
Speaker 4: and so on. And Craig is just kind of like, oh, well,
Speaker 4: they're you know, sort of reading him back into it.
Speaker 2: Or well, but I mean Jesus himself, John five through nine,
Speaker 2: in the debates with the Pharisees, identifies himself as the
Speaker 2: one talk to Moses, as the one eating with Abraham.
Speaker 4: So yeah, yeah, yeah, and he just doesn't I mean,
Speaker 4: he just you know, he thinks that the Old Testament
Speaker 4: Theophanies I guess were God the Father, and that it's
Speaker 4: just sort of reading Jesus back into But for Craig
Speaker 4: that's kind of all I mean, yeah, I mean that's
Speaker 4: his view, right. It's just like, oh, we look at
Speaker 4: the New Testament. The New Testament authors are indicating that
Speaker 4: Jesus is divine and that's kind of you know, that's
Speaker 4: all he cares well.
Speaker 2: But I mean again, maybe you don't agree with this,
Speaker 2: but this is a key point I think against kind
Speaker 2: of the natural theology presuppositions that William glene Craig appealed
Speaker 2: to multiple times to say, hey, we believe in monotheism
Speaker 2: just like you Muslims. He said this multiple times in
Speaker 2: the debate. And you know, when you look at the
Speaker 2: Vatican two documents when they talk about the purpose of
Speaker 2: natural theology, it's explicitly in Lemgentium sixteen and Nostrotate three,
Speaker 2: it's explicitly to find this common ground that we're all
Speaker 2: worshiping the God of Abraham. The Muslims have the faith
Speaker 2: of Abraham like we do. Vatican two is that twice.
Speaker 2: But of course, to according to Paul, the faith of
Speaker 2: Abraham is the faith in the Angel of Yahweh. It's
Speaker 2: not a faith in a Unitarian deity. And this is
Speaker 2: very important for this this discussion. So I think that
Speaker 2: from an apologetic standpoint, that's a weak position to take
Speaker 2: if you're taking the Christian position against the Muslim to say, oh, well,
Speaker 2: we all believe in monotheism, but it's not the same monotheism.
Speaker 3: So anyway, Yeah, and I think that's right.
Speaker 4: I think it's I mean, it's it's an important point
Speaker 4: because it's like, yeah, I mean, you can you can
Speaker 4: say something like we all agree that the total count
Speaker 4: of God's equals one or something like that, right, But
Speaker 4: it's like, I mean, if you're worshiping a different god, like,
Speaker 4: no one would be okay if someone was just like, well,
Speaker 4: I worship Bail and Bail alone, you know, so I've
Speaker 4: got one guy, I'm a monotheistic just you know, like,
Speaker 4: no one would be happy with that, right, And and
Speaker 4: it is.
Speaker 2: It does.
Speaker 4: It does put things in a very different light when
Speaker 4: you when you point out, like, no, the god that
Speaker 4: gave the Torah to Moses was Jesus. Yes, well, that
Speaker 4: puts things in a very different light when you're claiming
Speaker 4: to worship this god. But also, you know, it's sort
Speaker 4: of like the scene where someone's like talking about how
Speaker 4: cool Spider Man is and then Peter Parker's there and
Speaker 4: they're like making.
Speaker 3: Fun of him. You know, it's like, well, you're maybe you.
Speaker 4: Realize the inconsistency and the irony of it, but you're
Speaker 4: you're doing something that's kind of out of place there, right,
Speaker 4: And yeah, that gets lost when you just sort of say, well,
Speaker 4: we're all Manothius.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Next to issue that I think is tied into the
Speaker 2: one about the New Testament only being or being the
Speaker 2: basis for where he supposedly wants to prove the Trinity.
Speaker 2: It says, I don't know where he would get this,
Speaker 2: my guess would be the Protestant idea of the persepecuty
Speaker 2: of scripture, and this idea that well, the text just
Speaker 2: says what it means, and it means what it says.
Speaker 2: This is a common refrain from Protestants and soul scripturists.
Speaker 2: He says that there is no metaphysics, there's no baggage,
Speaker 2: there's no hair splitting. The New Testament, doctor, the Trinity
Speaker 2: is really only two basic tenets, that there's one God
Speaker 2: and three persons. But I don't know, I mean, where
Speaker 2: in the New Testament alone is that the two basic tenants.
Speaker 2: I think he's assuming the Protestant presuppositions here that there
Speaker 2: is this lowest common denominator that we can scale it
Speaker 2: down in the New Testament. And then he said there
Speaker 2: is nothing in the New Testament about intertrinitarian relationships in life,
Speaker 2: which I thought was an odd statement.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we get into that in the book a little
Speaker 4: bit too. He's he wrote a paper about the the
Speaker 4: eternal generation.
Speaker 3: It's something like, what is you know, is Christ.
Speaker 4: Generated or be gotten in his divine nature? So he
Speaker 4: has this view just well call him the sun because
Speaker 4: he was incarnate and something like that. And he goes
Speaker 4: through and just kind of you know, he he just
Speaker 4: sort of tries to argue that the Bible doesn't sort
Speaker 4: of explicitly make that clear whatever. But he doesn't really,
Speaker 4: at least as far as I can tell, in anything
Speaker 4: he's written, he doesn't really have any like positive reason
Speaker 4: to reject eternal generation except for this thing about aseity.
Speaker 4: He just thinks like, well, if you have the divine nature,
Speaker 4: you have to be asse, which I think, I mean.
Speaker 2: I've called that a Yeah, that was the Jake argument
Speaker 2: that you guys had.
Speaker 4: And I kind of gave a I gave a little
Speaker 4: argument against that in the book. And also I just
Speaker 4: pointed out, you know, this also comes down to a
Speaker 4: question what is the Bible? Because the Septuagint says from
Speaker 4: the womb before the morning Star, I have begotten the right,
Speaker 4: and that's I don't know something else. I think it's
Speaker 4: some jumbled mess in the masoretic text that does like
Speaker 4: no one knows what it looks like, text corrupted or something.
Speaker 4: But but anyway, I mean, I'm like, well, what's you know?
Speaker 4: Is the Septuagint not the Bible. It's my Bible.
Speaker 3: It's so kind of and there's i mean, there's also
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 4: Warrant for it in the New Testament. You just kind
Speaker 4: of have to dig a little bit deeper. But but yeah,
Speaker 4: he one thing that's frustrating too to me is he
Speaker 4: he talks about what he calls the Biblical doctrine of
Speaker 4: the Trinity, and that's what he calls it in this book.
Speaker 4: But you would think that a phrase like the Biblical
Speaker 4: doctrine of the Trinity would just mean like whatever the
Speaker 4: Bible says about the Trinity, right, whatever.
Speaker 3: That ends up being.
Speaker 4: But of course if that's what it meant, then like
Speaker 4: Dale Tuggy, who's a Unitarian, would claim that he believes
Speaker 4: in the Biblical like what the Bible says.
Speaker 2: I think everybody every or something.
Speaker 4: Yeah, what's the content of that, right, Like everyone will
Speaker 4: claim to believe it. But he like just stipulatively defines like, okay,
Speaker 4: by biblical doctrum of the Trinity. I mean, you know,
Speaker 4: boom boom boom, and it's like okay, but I mean
Speaker 4: that's not necessarily like I don't know that that's all
Speaker 4: and only what the Bible says about the like there's
Speaker 4: more So it's kind of a textbook example of persuasive definition,
Speaker 4: like he's just trying to kind of pack a premise
Speaker 4: into yeah, pretend like that's the definition of it.
Speaker 3: But as I was gonna say, it's.
Speaker 4: Sort of defining trinitarianism in sort of a broad sense
Speaker 4: of the term, as like one God in three persons.
Speaker 4: But it might not be orthodox trinitarianism.
Speaker 3: It might be you know.
Speaker 4: I mean I argue like, I mean, when we really
Speaker 4: talk about the doctrine of the Trinity, we really mean
Speaker 4: what the Church settled on in the fourth century. And
Speaker 4: so that's just I mean, in my view, that's just
Speaker 4: what the term refers to. So I mean I just
Speaker 4: kind of say, by the end of the book, like
Speaker 4: if you're gonna just knowing like deliberately reject the Nicene
Speaker 4: doctrine of the Trinity, like what's in the Creeds and
Speaker 4: the Church fathers like just say, I reject the doctrine
Speaker 4: of the Trinity, like I reject what English speakers are
Speaker 4: referring to when they talk.
Speaker 3: About the doctrine of the Trinity, because you know, I
Speaker 3: don't think it's in the Bible.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, even even the Church fathers would complain
Speaker 2: that every heretic, whether it's you know, me, yes, or
Speaker 2: whether it's Nestorius, would say, well, I believe in the
Speaker 2: doctrine of the Father, the Son of the Spirit, and
Speaker 2: my my doctrine as biblical. Yeah, but what does it
Speaker 2: mean is of course the key question here. So a
Speaker 2: lot of word gains, a lot of ambiguity, of textual
Speaker 2: and referential ambiguity. Now, the next thing I noticed was
Speaker 2: that and this this might be a little more controversial,
Speaker 2: but he said there's no metaphysics involved in the Doctor
Speaker 2: in the Trinity. I'm not sure that that's the case
Speaker 2: even in the New Testament. I mean, you have in
Speaker 2: Hebrews won the statement that the Son is the direct
Speaker 2: image of the Father's hypostasis. There's some kind of you know,
Speaker 2: meaning to that that's more than just what the text says.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is again a very common Protestant argument
Speaker 2: that texts just mean when they say, they say what
Speaker 2: they mean. And when he was asked about this, why
Speaker 2: do you you know, why do you have this position?
Speaker 2: And he says, well, I believe in solar scriptura. So
Speaker 2: you know, I thought there was going to be more
Speaker 2: of a high falutin fancy reason why maybe we get
Speaker 2: into asaity like you're saying, But it just ended up
Speaker 2: being well, I just followed the New Testament, and this
Speaker 2: is what the New Testament says. But again, what about
Speaker 2: these other verses where philosophical quote unquote terminology is used,
Speaker 2: like hypostasis.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I mean scholars have tracked down so many
Speaker 4: passages for Paul and other people like use terminology from Platanism,
Speaker 4: from Stoicism and so forth. So it's like even in
Speaker 4: the New Testament, people are drawing on the resources of
Speaker 4: Greek philosophical thought, you know, to make their points.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I agree.
Speaker 4: I mean I think it's I think people want theology
Speaker 4: to be sort of metaphysics free somehow sort of feel
Speaker 4: like it should be or something. But yeah, I don't
Speaker 4: know that that really works. What was it you were
Speaker 4: I was just thinking of too? Well, anyway, I'll think
Speaker 4: of it later.
Speaker 2: But like Greek terminology and New Testament, what were.
Speaker 3: You saying just before that that you're.
Speaker 2: The text means what it says. There's no that text
Speaker 2: aren't theory laid and they're just kind of you know surface.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, one thing, I think, here's what I was
Speaker 4: thinking of. He he does this in the book like
Speaker 4: he spent it's really the book was disappointing. I thought,
Speaker 4: in some sense his first chapter a litle disappointing. He
Speaker 4: is like ninety percent of his first chapter just going
Speaker 4: through like New Testament evidence for the divinity of Jesus,
Speaker 4: like so or evidence of I guess the divinity of
Speaker 4: Jesus in the New Testament, right, So he tries to
Speaker 4: make the case that the New Testament authors think Jesus
Speaker 4: divine and that's like literally ninety percent of the of
Speaker 4: the chapter. And then he just has like a page
Speaker 4: and a half or something at the end where he's like, okay,
Speaker 4: and here's my model of the trinity years how I
Speaker 4: think this works, you know, And he's just like, yeah,
Speaker 4: God is an immaterial try personal being.
Speaker 3: Boom, no metaphysics, no, nothing.
Speaker 4: Banned out, And I, you know, I just laid out
Speaker 4: like here are kind of the arguments against the Doctor
Speaker 4: of the Trinity, like the biggest ones in the literature,
Speaker 4: and you know, you want a model to kind of
Speaker 4: be able to answer those. And you also here's you know,
Speaker 4: the theophany issue that's kind of an argument for the Trinity,
Speaker 4: and you want your model to be consistent with what
Speaker 4: originally was one of the major you know, impetuses if
Speaker 4: that's a.
Speaker 3: Word for the Trinity.
Speaker 4: So uh, and I just get like, look, you're like
Speaker 4: you haven't answered either.
Speaker 5: Of these big questions.
Speaker 4: I mean, the the obvious question is is the Doctor
Speaker 4: of the Trinity tritheistic? Like is the Father Son and
Speaker 4: Holy Spirit? Is that three gods? And just telling me
Speaker 4: like there is one God, but there are three persons,
Speaker 4: father Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom can properly
Speaker 4: be called God and properly means like literally, not just
Speaker 4: metaphorically or whatever like that that just creates the quote.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's what the big question is, is like,
Speaker 4: how do you if you can call each one of
Speaker 4: these God, then how is that not three gods? Like
Speaker 4: you have to like that's the question, and he he
Speaker 4: doesn't do anything to answer the question. I mean he
Speaker 4: just kind of acts like it's just there's no problem,
Speaker 4: and it's like, now you haven't you haven't addressed the
Speaker 4: question at all.
Speaker 2: Well, one question I have because I've only read I
Speaker 2: read Reasonable Faith, and I read his book Defending Genesis.
Speaker 2: So that's really the only William Lane Krebb books I've
Speaker 2: read over the years. I thought the Genesis book was
Speaker 2: actually pretty good. But does he ever interact with the
Speaker 2: Cappadocian models and approaches that you specialize and talk about
Speaker 2: in Yeah, a.
Speaker 4: Few times, but very lightly, I would say, and in
Speaker 4: a way that's like frustratingly selective. Also, so like he
Speaker 4: has a paper where he was he was criticizing Mike
Speaker 4: Ray's model of the Trinity, and he kind of draws
Speaker 4: on like one of Basil's epistles and kind of says it.
Speaker 4: You know, it looks like maybe Basil is talking about
Speaker 4: this kind of view and rejecting it. But then, of course,
Speaker 4: you know, if you point out that their church fathers
Speaker 4: that are rejecting his views, just like oh, well, you know,
Speaker 4: I'm a Protestant, I bring everything before the bar of scripture. Why, Yeah,
Speaker 4: it's just kind of odd. So yeah, I mean he
Speaker 4: kind of just vaguely, you know, he talks about how
Speaker 4: the Capit oceans were clear, that there's a distinction between
Speaker 4: the persons. Yeah, sometimes he kind of mentions them, but
Speaker 4: it doesn't really doesn't really make munchy.
Speaker 2: Now that book is you had sent me, I think
Speaker 2: an advanced version of that. I've got to read some
Speaker 2: of that, did you Is that out yet or is
Speaker 2: it still that out yet?
Speaker 4: No, it's I don't really know what's going on with it.
Speaker 4: It's still the publishers. We all we all spend it
Speaker 4: our final drafts like January first, like everything was was in.
Speaker 4: So it's been there since then. I got and every
Speaker 4: now and then I get an email from the editor
Speaker 4: and it's like, oh, they're trying to figure out you know,
Speaker 4: this is a typo or whatever. And so I'm not
Speaker 4: really sure what's delayed it.
Speaker 2: But and one more time. The title is four of
Speaker 2: yous on the Trinity, and that's what published.
Speaker 4: One god, three persons, four views. I think it's whipping stock.
Speaker 4: Chad McIntosh will be the editor, So we'll see when.
Speaker 3: It comes out. I'll sart, yeah, come.
Speaker 2: Back and we'll we'll get a deeper interview on that.
Speaker 2: Now moving on the next section. Is Mohammed a Job
Speaker 2: giving his opening statement. William Craig did end his opening
Speaker 2: statement with it which a good question, which is, you know,
Speaker 2: tal heat is not a unified position in Islam. Of
Speaker 2: course we brought this up a lot in the Muslim debates.
Speaker 2: I brought it up to the Muslim Muslim lantern not
Speaker 2: too long ago, and which is a fair question. And
Speaker 2: then of course they will say, well that and my
Speaker 2: edge up. So this is too quoquay. I don't. I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure it is too quoqua, because doing an
Speaker 2: internal critique isn't too quoquay. And I think in a
Speaker 2: debate it's a fair question to ask, Okay, I have
Speaker 2: a burden of proof if we're going to debate the trinity.
Speaker 2: But I don't think it's unfair to ask. You know,
Speaker 2: you have the same kind of issue of reconciling the
Speaker 2: one in the mini in God as well. It's not persons,
Speaker 2: but for you, the attributes of all law, the dependence
Speaker 2: relationship of the attributes. So I think that's a fair question.
Speaker 2: But Mohammed a Job tried to side step but by
Speaker 2: saying well, you don't disagree that there's one a law,
Speaker 2: but we just disagree on what that means. Well, that's
Speaker 2: the point. So just saying that you all believe in
Speaker 2: one a law is another word game.
Speaker 4: Really we say, yeah, we agree that there's one God,
Speaker 4: we disagree about you know what all that requires?
Speaker 2: And that led to deaths. Actually, this wasn't just a
Speaker 2: minor dispute. There were just in the early Islamic stages
Speaker 2: that were killing each other over this, so it's not
Speaker 2: some minor dispute.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I thought about that too.
Speaker 4: When he said, like, that's a two quotque, I was
Speaker 4: kind of like, well, like yeah, I mean, on the
Speaker 4: one hand, it doesn't show that the doctorate of the
Speaker 4: Trinity is right coherent, but it I think it There
Speaker 4: is a point to saying, like, you know, you're offering
Speaker 4: this argument against the Trinity, but you yourself don't believe
Speaker 4: one of the premises exactly, yeah you did, It would
Speaker 4: cause this other problem for your own view, So it
Speaker 4: seems a little disingenuous, right, So I think it was legitimate.
Speaker 4: I mean, maybe it wasn't right immediately obvious to muhammedan
Speaker 4: job like how it was relevant or something, but but
Speaker 4: I thought, yeah, it's relevant if like your own worldview
Speaker 4: can't sustain.
Speaker 3: That or whatever.
Speaker 2: And I think that the next question that Hajab asked
Speaker 2: what you brought up, which I think this was a
Speaker 2: fair question and I think we would agree with this,
Speaker 2: which is that William Lane Craig does not represent historic
Speaker 2: or mainstream Christianity.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 4: And so yeah, but one that's where I was like,
Speaker 4: I wish that Muhammed hi Jab would have just explained, like, what,
Speaker 4: what exactly is the conclusion that you were aiming at
Speaker 4: with that, because it's like, I mean, I'm listening to it,
Speaker 4: and I'm like, yeah, I wish that William Lane Craig
Speaker 4: would not be a trinitarian heretic. That'd be awesome, and
Speaker 4: I agree you shouldn't be. But uh, and it's sort
Speaker 4: of like vaguely embarrassing, like ahaha, you've got, you know,
Speaker 4: this kind of minority and basically heretical view. But it's like, okay,
Speaker 4: so but then where are you going with that?
Speaker 2: Well, the conclusion he tried to draws in non sequitor.
Speaker 2: The conclusion was because Weenland Craig's trinitarian doctrine is outside
Speaker 2: of the norm, outside the mainstream, that the trinity is
Speaker 2: not a clear, conspicuous uh doctrine doctrine and Christians disagree well,
Speaker 2: of course, but that wouldn't disprove the trinity.
Speaker 4: So I mean, that's that's I think that's part of
Speaker 4: what Craig is trying to do with this really broad
Speaker 4: definition of just like one God, three persons, that's the trinity.
Speaker 4: Is kind of like, well then anything that falls under
Speaker 4: that umbrella like count says.
Speaker 2: Which is interesting because Muhammed a Jab wanted a very
Speaker 2: broad umbrella for Muslims all believe God has won. So yeah,
Speaker 2: so if there was a fair standards here, yeah, he
Speaker 2: should have granted. I think this broad definition, even though
Speaker 2: I don't agree with that broad definition, but still from
Speaker 2: a debate perspective, it shows I think a double standard. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Weird thing too about that is, I mean, if you're saying,
Speaker 4: if you're gonna say, okay, William Lane, Craig's view doesn't
Speaker 4: really represent like historically the mainstream Orthodox view about the Trinity,
Speaker 4: then what that really does? That means you could demolish
Speaker 4: Craig's view and you haven't really addressed like, you know,
Speaker 4: the yeah, Orthodox view. So it was sort of like
Speaker 4: he just thought well, if William Lane Craig like grants
Speaker 4: that the standard view is incoherent or something, then at
Speaker 4: the very end of the debate too, I mean he
Speaker 4: even sort of he said this. He was just like, well,
Speaker 4: William Lane Craig and I have demolished the you know,
Speaker 4: traditional Orthodox view or whatever. His own view also has problems.
Speaker 4: It's like, you didn't demolish it. He just both agreed
Speaker 4: to not talk about it and sort of agreed to say.
Speaker 2: Well, this has to do. I think also with Muhammed
Speaker 2: a Jab intentionally choosing William Lane Craig as his opponent
Speaker 2: because it allows him to say, I'm debating the most
Speaker 2: quote eminent of the Christian apologists that are out there.
Speaker 2: Once I've done this, I don't really have to deal
Speaker 2: with anyone else because he's sort of the figurehead of it.
Speaker 2: But he's not really the figurehead if by all of
Speaker 2: the argumentation my job is making, he's the fringe outlier,
Speaker 2: so he's not so. But I think it was an
Speaker 2: intentional choice to debate when like Craig and to explicitly
Speaker 2: not choose to debate me and Sam or me or
Speaker 2: Sam or me and Sam and him and Jake, which
Speaker 2: he doesn't seem to want to do. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Right after that debate, Capturing Christianity did a review like
Speaker 4: a few hours later or whatever, and David Wood made
Speaker 4: some interesting observations about it. So one was that that
Speaker 4: he like maybe he was going to just try to
Speaker 4: from now on be like, well, I've already debated wien
Speaker 4: Link Craig, I don't need to you know, I don't
Speaker 4: have to debate anybody anymore, which is probably and that
Speaker 4: sounds plausible. But also he made an interesting point about
Speaker 4: who he thought the intended audience was, and he thought that,
Speaker 4: you know, this maybe wasn't really directed towards like trying
Speaker 4: to convince Christians that the doctrine of the Trinity is
Speaker 4: incoherent and they should become Muslims, or trying to convince
Speaker 4: people who are kind of on the fence or agnostic
Speaker 4: or whatever, but just trying to but that he's really
Speaker 4: is just kind of trying to keep Muslims from.
Speaker 2: No, it's their audience. In fact, I think the last
Speaker 2: several Multimum debates were really just done for Muscile audiences. Yeah,
Speaker 2: to find a kind of like well clip that clip
Speaker 2: that little thirty second there and make it look like
Speaker 2: Jay didn't know what he was saying or Sam didn't. No,
Speaker 2: that's exactly it. And to that to that first point, actually,
Speaker 2: Muhammed had Job today said that very thing. He said,
Speaker 2: I've debated William Lane Craig, I don't have to debate
Speaker 2: anybody else. Yes, he said that on Twitter today. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I think that David was correct there. But again I
Speaker 2: want to issue the challenge again to Mohamed d Job.
Speaker 2: I did talk to Myron today and Myron said that
Speaker 2: freshen Fit would host me and Sam shimun versus Mohammed
Speaker 2: a Job and Jake, because Mohammed a Jab was saying
Speaker 2: that Sam has to debate Jake first, then he would
Speaker 2: debate Mohammed a Job and then Sam's idea was, well,
Speaker 2: why don't we just do it two verses two? So
Speaker 2: that should solve everybody's complaints if we want to do that.
Speaker 2: But anyway, get it back to the debate. So it
Speaker 2: seemed like he was trying to sneak in a little
Speaker 2: bit of that logical problem of the trinity there, because
Speaker 2: he said, if Father is God, Son is God Spirit God,
Speaker 2: therefore Father is Spirit because all our God, this all
Speaker 2: relies on just sort of one usage or reference to
Speaker 2: the word God, as if God couldn't pick out different things,
Speaker 2: which again I think comes from Jake. Thank you, and
Speaker 2: we've covered that. I think you helped pointing to a
Speaker 2: lot of the literature and various papers that deal with
Speaker 2: different ways of counting anything you wanted to say, because
Speaker 2: they didn't really go into logical problem. The tourney just
Speaker 2: kind of just kind of mentioned in passing.
Speaker 3: Hey, I mean I took a bunch of notes.
Speaker 4: And then I was just thinking about that today. I
Speaker 4: was like, did I miss something or did he just
Speaker 4: never really it never came back. They claim that this
Speaker 4: is three gods, which is kind of surprising, like seems
Speaker 4: like that's the first thing a Muslim would want to do,
Speaker 4: would be.
Speaker 2: Say this is.
Speaker 4: I kind of thought about that. I'm like, if they
Speaker 4: just decided that that's kind of played out or well.
Speaker 2: And but to your point where this debate goes when
Speaker 2: it gets to inseparable operations, I mean, unless I misunderstood,
Speaker 2: you're saying that the model that this inverted Nissa model
Speaker 2: that Wimland Craig has it actually kind of does lead
Speaker 2: to tritheism, right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think I think so and it's one thing
Speaker 4: that that comes up. So see this is one of
Speaker 4: the So this is one of the things that was
Speaker 4: kind of disappointing. I guess maybe Muhammed Hi jab A
Speaker 4: k A. Jake would not have any way to to
Speaker 4: know all this maybe, But anyway, this that kind of
Speaker 4: comes out in the book that Craig has. This just
Speaker 4: is completely inconsistent about what he thinks about counting and such.
Speaker 4: So he'll when I talk a little bit about you
Speaker 4: know how in antiquity people would think of that counting
Speaker 4: works by your counting discrete, separate things, not overlapping your
Speaker 4: things or anything. So, uh, when I talk about that,
Speaker 4: he's like, that's crazy, that's that's nuts. The only the
Speaker 4: only way you can count is by identity.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 4: And he you know, cites this paper I think I
Speaker 4: think it was by Hughes or something. But anyway, he
Speaker 4: was just like, oh, this is crazy.
Speaker 2: It was just a nuts.
Speaker 4: But then he says, because I talk about inseparable operations, uh,
Speaker 4: and that the persons of the trinity have the same
Speaker 4: will and they're you know all this, so he says, well,
Speaker 4: that's really just one person. Then that's really hunitarianism. But
Speaker 4: notice that if you want to say that the Father
Speaker 4: Son and Holy Spirit are not identical, uh, but they
Speaker 4: are just one person, then you're saying that we don't
Speaker 4: count by identity. We don't we don't count persons by
Speaker 4: see I mean part in fact, the paper that he cites,
Speaker 4: like one of the main arguments in there about you know,
Speaker 4: let's forget about this weird you know, relative identity and
Speaker 4: counting all this stuff.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 4: One of the premises in that paper is like, if
Speaker 4: there are in number of f's, and all the f's
Speaker 4: are g's, then there have to be at least as
Speaker 4: many g's as there are f's. So it's like, well,
Speaker 4: if the Father Son and Holy Spirit are three anything,
Speaker 4: then by that reasoning, they if they're all persons, they
Speaker 4: had there at least three persons. Funny is he he
Speaker 4: adopts like Gregorednis's view basically for counting persons. Yeah, but uh,
Speaker 4: but not like beings or whatever. And I just point
Speaker 4: out that, well, but what Craig calls a person is
Speaker 4: what Gregor Nissa calls a god like a divine person
Speaker 4: is what he's and what Craig calls a being is
Speaker 4: a hyposthesis. So really, so I was like, really, there's
Speaker 4: not actually any philosophical disagreement here. It's just a terminological thing.
Speaker 4: Like what what Craig calls divine persons is what Gregory
Speaker 4: calls gods. And Craig admits that Gregory has just one
Speaker 4: of those. He just calls them persons instead of gods. Right,
Speaker 4: So he's basically admitting that gregor Danissa has just one
Speaker 4: god if they have in separable operations, which is the
Speaker 4: whole argument that I was making, is like in separable
Speaker 4: operations are key to, you know, defending the view that
Speaker 4: there's one God. So he's just kind of incoherent about that.
Speaker 4: And that was something that Muhammed a Job never really
Speaker 4: got into. Another thing he does that's really weird is
Speaker 4: he says that to me, like you have to count
Speaker 4: by identity, anything else is incoherent and crazy. But then
Speaker 4: when Craig is responding to Dale Tuggy, he says that
Speaker 4: people in antiquity didn't even have a concept of numerical
Speaker 4: identity like we understand it today, where you know, so
Speaker 4: you can't make these arguments about identity that Tuggy was making.
Speaker 4: And I actually asked if we were in a like
Speaker 4: a round table discussion sort of thing in November at
Speaker 4: this Evangelical Philosophical Society and Theological Society. We got a
Speaker 4: chance to kind of ask each other questions. And I
Speaker 4: asked him. I was like, so, you know, you say
Speaker 4: that this is how counting has to work, but people
Speaker 4: in antiquity didn't even have the concept of identity that
Speaker 4: would need in order to be able to count. So
Speaker 4: it was like, so, how were people in the ancient
Speaker 4: world able to count? And he was just kind of like, oh,
Speaker 4: that's a good question.
Speaker 3: The typically living that was his response, Just like and
Speaker 3: they're like, okay.
Speaker 2: Well maybe he could buy the bullet and say that
Speaker 2: they just didn't even count.
Speaker 4: There was no counting there, like how many dogs?
Speaker 3: So what his job?
Speaker 2: And that's that's good because a lot of people don't
Speaker 2: know this area of critique when it comes to the
Speaker 2: terminology confusion there. What do you think is the source
Speaker 2: of William Lane Craig's terminological confusion. Is it just lack
Speaker 2: of familiarity with the patristic ideas of nature, person and
Speaker 2: all this kind of stuff, or is he just sort
Speaker 2: of maybe obtuse about it because he's committed to his
Speaker 2: definitions or is it because he doesn't really care what
Speaker 2: the church fathers said because it's a biblical perspective. I
Speaker 2: mean it seems like, I mean, it's just it's just
Speaker 2: odd to not want to use the terminology that the
Speaker 2: church father is sort of adopted.
Speaker 4: Yeah, to be fair, I mean, I think that a
Speaker 4: lot of confusion has been generated by social trinitarians, Okay,
Speaker 4: and I don't you know, I mean, maybe some of
Speaker 4: that deliberately, maybe some of it not. So you know,
Speaker 4: he may just if you don't really dig into it,
Speaker 4: you know, maybe you would just sort of think, well,
Speaker 4: this is kind of and in fact, I mean Hasker
Speaker 4: even sort of made this point that it was just like,
Speaker 4: surely you know about all of this, you know, debate
Speaker 4: about what a person is and whatever. And I was
Speaker 4: kind of like, I know, the debate is just a
Speaker 4: dumb debate that like there's not that's really not that art.
Speaker 4: But but yeah, I mean, social trinitarians are so like
Speaker 4: it that social trinitarianism doesn't work if you have i mean,
Speaker 4: unless you have distinct minds and wills and whatever, it's
Speaker 4: not social trinitarianism anymore. Also, though, I think Craig i
Speaker 4: forgot when he did. Is his doctorate in theology?
Speaker 3: I forget who.
Speaker 4: But he might have studied under I know he had
Speaker 4: studied under Pannenberg, but he might have studied under someone
Speaker 4: else there too. That was like a big one of
Speaker 4: the big like early proponents of social trinity.
Speaker 2: H okay, his education.
Speaker 3: But so I don't know, but that's yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: That's that's an interesting point. I didn't know that. Now
Speaker 2: the next section, williamline Craig responds by saying, well, you
Speaker 2: have Koran or no? This is excuse me, this is
Speaker 2: a Job responding to I thought this was a really
Speaker 2: weak response. Williamline Craig said, you know, in Koran five
Speaker 2: sixteen you have this reference to a misunderstanding of the trinity,
Speaker 2: and Mohammed Job's response was pretty preposterous. It was like,
Speaker 2: the Trinity is not mentioned in that verse. Well, but
Speaker 2: the verse is about the relationship of Christ to the
Speaker 2: triad and whether he's divine or not, whether all has
Speaker 2: sons or not. So fact, the bay was not not
Speaker 2: about whether the word trinity do is Is this a
Speaker 2: reference to Trinitarian doctrines, namely the deity of the Sun,
Speaker 2: which is a Trinitarian doctrine so by extension. So I
Speaker 2: thought that was a really weak response and sort of
Speaker 2: trying to sidestep the fact that clearly, and this is
Speaker 2: a very powerful argument if you think about it, because remember,
Speaker 2: if the Quran is true, if Islam is true, we
Speaker 2: would at least expect them to get the basic doctrines
Speaker 2: of Christianity correct, even if they think it's false, it
Speaker 2: should at least have some basic presentation of well, these
Speaker 2: errant you know people of the book believe that you know,
Speaker 2: there's three persons and once you know one essence or something.
Speaker 2: But it never even states that correctly. In fact, I
Speaker 2: have iman to MEA's book over there. Even even to me,
Speaker 2: it doesn't state what the doctrine of the trinity is correctly.
Speaker 2: So that shows that the early generations of Muslims, namely
Speaker 2: even to me for example, very important to Jake and
Speaker 2: momented job and the authority Muslim school there, like even
Speaker 2: even to me, it repeats this misunderstanding, showing that the
Speaker 2: Quran actually does misunderstand the Trinity.
Speaker 3: Yeah I didn't.
Speaker 4: I mean, I'm not qualified to say a whole ton
Speaker 4: about the Quran, but yeah, I was kind of Yeah,
Speaker 4: it'd be nice to have more detail, Like it was
Speaker 4: just kind of like, well, yeah, that's not really what
Speaker 4: it means. It's like, well, I mean I thought that
Speaker 4: that passage was sort of about the Trinity like that.
Speaker 4: So I mean, if we're talking about the Trinity in general.
Speaker 3: Then anyway, another thing with.
Speaker 4: That, I mean it's I don't know that I don't
Speaker 4: know that Islam is committed to something like the clarity
Speaker 4: of scripture the way you know Protestants are, but.
Speaker 2: Get at least the traditional ones are.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, so I mean then it's kind of like, well,
Speaker 4: then you'd expect the Quran to.
Speaker 3: Be more the like.
Speaker 2: Well, in fact, the Koran says in multiple places that
Speaker 2: the Quran makes all things perfectly clear, and then nothing
Speaker 2: is unclear, although there is another verse which says some
Speaker 2: verses only all I knows the meaning, So I'm not
Speaker 2: sure how everything is clear. But then there's other verses
Speaker 2: that say that only all I knows the meaning of them.
Speaker 2: But anyway, that's a good one to bring up. Now
Speaker 2: we only Craig responds by saying, well, look, there's two
Speaker 2: broad schools of trinity. They're social and there's Latin. That's
Speaker 2: not true. But if you're in a modern I guess
Speaker 2: analytic product Protestant setting, you would only think that I'm
Speaker 2: surprised he didn't mention any other models. He didn't mention
Speaker 2: the monarchical trinitarian model. Yeah, yeah, it was kind of.
Speaker 4: I get maybe he just feels like he doesn't understand
Speaker 4: it or something like that. Yeah, and he mentioned Hasker
Speaker 4: because and this does I don't know, I kind of
Speaker 4: go back and forth on this. So in this book,
Speaker 4: Bill Hasker and William Lane Craig, I mean, they're both
Speaker 4: social trinitarians, and they I mean, according to them, they
Speaker 4: basically agree about everything except the eternal begetting right. So
Speaker 4: Hasker thinks that the eternal processions are really important to
Speaker 4: kind of secure monotheism, although when I talk about the
Speaker 4: monarchy of the Father, which is basically the same thing,
Speaker 4: and how that's important for monotheism, he seems to like
Speaker 4: want to resist it in weird ways that I don't
Speaker 4: really think he needs to. But and then yeah, and
Speaker 4: then Craig just thinks, now they have to all be
Speaker 4: absolutely I'll say whatever. So and I'm not really sure
Speaker 4: if they don't actually disagree more really under the surface.
Speaker 3: But they kind of present it that way. So, I
Speaker 3: mean that was kind of his his.
Speaker 4: I guess response to his job there was kind of like, well,
Speaker 4: if you want to talk about how the you know,
Speaker 4: the fact that he rejects eternal begetting, then just look
Speaker 4: at Bill Hasker's model and it's basically the same thing.
Speaker 4: But just and Craig, I mean, he is clear that
Speaker 4: his model of the trinity is supposed to be like
Speaker 4: neutral with respect to that question. So he's kind of like,
Speaker 4: he personally rejects eternal begetting and procession of the spirit.
Speaker 4: So but he's like, but if you want to believe
Speaker 4: in the eternal beginning of the sun and eternal procession
Speaker 4: of the spirit, you.
Speaker 3: Know, have ad it.
Speaker 2: Well that to that point, this was something that I
Speaker 2: thought Mohammed a Job could have hammered harder, which he
Speaker 2: didn't really he kind of touched sort of in passing
Speaker 2: mentioned it. But if social trinitarianism is what Leland Craig affirms,
Speaker 2: and his affirmation of that, as he says by his
Speaker 2: own admission, was because of sol Scriptura and the New
Speaker 2: Testament attacks, why was it that no one was a
Speaker 2: social trinitarian until the nineteen fifties. This was the clear
Speaker 2: New Testament teaching.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I guess it was Martin Luther and pastor Bob
Speaker 4: from the one hundred Luther.
Speaker 2: I mean, does he.
Speaker 4: People who like hit you know, the guy who like
Speaker 4: hid the King James Bible.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, Joseph Smith found it. That Joseph Smith
Speaker 2: found it and prayed over it, like you know.
Speaker 4: I don't know Moltman or someone who you know, I
Speaker 4: don't know, yeah, who knows? I mean maybe it's not
Speaker 4: And Craig that we really out the.
Speaker 2: Doctrine of the truth exactly. Now, hit Job said something
Speaker 2: I thought was odd, where he says and William and
Speaker 2: Craig returns to that point of there being many schools
Speaker 2: fighting over talheed, and the Job again says, yeah, but
Speaker 2: we all believe God's wont which is again a deflection
Speaker 2: from the actual criticism. And then a Job counters by saying,
Speaker 2: and I guess he got this from Jake because I've
Speaker 2: never heard anybody say this, which is I've never heard this.
Speaker 2: You could please correct us if this is false. I
Speaker 2: would assume it's false. He thinks that the Kappadocians teach
Speaker 2: a social trinitarianism. That's just simply not true. And is
Speaker 2: there somebody who argues this where with it come from?
Speaker 2: You said that Craig or the Job in passing said
Speaker 2: do you think that the Cappadocians teach social trinitarian He
Speaker 2: says something like that, affirming that the Cappadocians teach a
Speaker 2: social trinitarianism.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well so a lot of social trinitarians.
Speaker 2: Oh, I think a Job isn't familiar with these terms
Speaker 2: because he's sort of just repeating what Jake's told him,
Speaker 2: and so he would he was probably just assuming that
Speaker 2: this is some sort of ancient model, and that's why
Speaker 2: we Craig has it because he wanted to then say
Speaker 2: that if you believe the Cappadocian social trinitarianism, why do
Speaker 2: you reject eternal generation? Right?
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, yeah, well so a lot of social trinitarians
Speaker 4: have appealed to the Capitocian Okay, I see support for
Speaker 4: their model. So, especially early like in the eighties and stuff,
Speaker 4: you'll have people pointing to Gregorbanissa in particularly.
Speaker 2: That's where they're getting that then.
Speaker 4: And the reason is because I think it's just that
Speaker 4: the way at least people understood like Latin trinitarianism or
Speaker 4: kind of traditional Western view was kind of tantamount to modalism,
Speaker 4: if it wasn't just kind of a you know, kind
Speaker 4: of repackage modalism or something. But and it's just that
Speaker 4: the the capit Oceans are very clear about the distinction
Speaker 4: of the of the persons, and.
Speaker 3: They accept that.
Speaker 4: They'll they'll sort of run with the three man analogy,
Speaker 4: you know, like they're kind of you know that they're
Speaker 4: not going to say they're three gods. I mean, it's
Speaker 4: not totally analogous, but they'll they'll kind of run with
Speaker 4: that for a while. And so it's kind of clear that, okay,
Speaker 4: there's a distinction.
Speaker 3: And so social.
Speaker 4: Trinitarians would say like, look, that's you know, this Greek
Speaker 4: tradition and we need to kind of recover that. And
Speaker 4: it's there, you know, these kind of early social trinitarians
Speaker 4: or something, and I think, you know, once you get
Speaker 4: into the details of it.
Speaker 2: It's there.
Speaker 4: Not social critarians, but but a lot of social printarians,
Speaker 4: especially early on, kind of appealed to them.
Speaker 2: Next Wymlane Craig moves on. That was where he makes
Speaker 2: his statement that there is no New Testament teaching about
Speaker 2: the inner life of the Trinity. I thought that was odd.
Speaker 2: And then there's an argument from silence, which I thought
Speaker 2: was also not a very good argument, which wym lane
Speaker 2: Craig says, well, I don't believe in I assume you
Speaker 2: saw eternal generation there. I don't believe in eternal generation
Speaker 2: because it's not taught by the post Apostolic fathers. Well,
Speaker 2: that's an argument from silence. I mean, yeah, it might
Speaker 2: be the case that they don't mention it, but there's
Speaker 2: all kinds of things that the New Testament first century
Speaker 2: post Apastolic fathers don't talk about or teach that William
Speaker 2: lane Craig also holds to, for example, the New Testament
Speaker 2: post as the post Avastolic Church fathers don't list the
Speaker 2: canon of scripture that William lane Craig has. And so
Speaker 2: why would we think then that that it has to
Speaker 2: be an explicitly written affirmation to believe that this was
Speaker 2: something in the post Apostolic period. So a lot of
Speaker 2: Protestants do this, They'll say they'll have this sort of
Speaker 2: arbitrary standard of well, I don't have to accept something
Speaker 2: like eternal generation of the sun because it's not mentioned
Speaker 2: until whatever late person. I think it's mentioned by but
Speaker 2: that's really again, I don't think that's a very good
Speaker 2: reason too too. And there's all kinds of things to
Speaker 2: post as I've start. Fathers will talk about.
Speaker 4: That Protestants believe, yeah, and I mean the you know,
Speaker 4: the Canada Scripture is kind of the big like gotcha
Speaker 4: because it seems you know, obviously circular and self referentially
Speaker 4: and coherent if you But but yeah, there's a million
Speaker 4: other things. And this is another thing that's really frustrating
Speaker 4: is William Lane Craig also has this book where he's, uh,
Speaker 4: basically he's he's defending like nominalism because he doesn't want
Speaker 4: to say that there's like yeah, he wasn't doesn't want
Speaker 4: to be a platonist and say like there's all of
Speaker 4: these platonic forms or divine ideas or whatever that are
Speaker 4: also eternally existent and you know that God's like dependent
Speaker 4: on them for his properties or something like that. In
Speaker 4: that book he has a list of like early church
Speaker 4: fathers talking about how you know, God is the only
Speaker 4: thing that is ungenerated and say basically, so it's kind
Speaker 4: of like well, in that book he's going to appeal
Speaker 4: to these church fathers. Oh that you know, God is
Speaker 4: the only thing that's say or whatever. So you know,
Speaker 4: that's it's really it's authoritative.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 3: There, it's like, you know, and anyway, it's really you
Speaker 3: really should follow that.
Speaker 4: You know, it's at least at least has some kind
Speaker 4: of to it, right, But it's like, yeah, as soon
Speaker 4: as as soon as the church fathers go against you,
Speaker 4: it's you know, well, yeah, I'm a Protestant, right.
Speaker 2: And on that same point too, that's odd that he
Speaker 2: would defend a kind of nominalist position. Maybe he's just
Speaker 2: changed his position because I remember a talk maybe six
Speaker 2: seven years ago that I listened to where he was
Speaker 2: defending divine conceptualism and it was appealing to platonism and
Speaker 2: platonic arguments, which if you're a nominalist, that wouldn't work anymore.
Speaker 4: So in that book, I mean, he says that when
Speaker 4: he sort of started that research project out, he anticipated
Speaker 4: that he would end up being a conceptualist, but kind
Speaker 4: of as he went through everything more he eventually decided
Speaker 4: he's so he might have been a concept divine conceptualist
Speaker 4: or something earlier.
Speaker 2: On Okay, now, okay, next it begins to shift into
Speaker 2: Now this is the part where let's see somewhere. Yeah,
Speaker 2: William L. Craig thinks that there's not a specific reference
Speaker 2: for eternal generation the New Testament, and that the New
Speaker 2: Testament just simply teaches a very scaled down three persons,
Speaker 2: one God and that eternal generation. Will Lane cred didn't
Speaker 2: explicitly reply to this, but the accusation of his job
Speaker 2: is that Williamin Craig thinks the eternal generation necessitates subordinationism.
Speaker 2: Is that what Craig argues somewhere?
Speaker 4: Yeah, now they out of my head. I'm not sure
Speaker 4: if he does.
Speaker 2: He just think it's not a New Testament doctrine, or
Speaker 2: does he think that it mightn't well necessarily, I think.
Speaker 4: His main his main worry is with ausaity. He thinks
Speaker 4: that that to be fully divine you have to be
Speaker 4: absolutely aw same.
Speaker 2: Okay, So is that why Jake got that argument? He
Speaker 2: just cribbed it from probably from Willelan Craig.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, Craig and Ryan Mullins also makes the same argument,
Speaker 4: and Bill Hasker and Ryan Mullins have gone back and forth,
Speaker 4: like y various papers, sort of back and forth about
Speaker 4: whether you know a saity is required for divinity or whatever.
Speaker 4: But but Craig definitely that's that's I think his probably
Speaker 4: main motivation. I can't recall off the top of my
Speaker 4: head if he talks about subordinationism in some other respect,
Speaker 4: but a saiity certainly is the big issue for him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And this was the point where Muhammad a Jab
Speaker 2: says that if there's clear and ordinary language that teaches
Speaker 2: the Trinity, then why do you reject the traditional Christian
Speaker 2: teaching which wasn't word Well, but I think that's that's
Speaker 2: a fair question to ask William Lane craig.
Speaker 4: So what's the how would that argument go? Like, uh,
Speaker 4: just that it should be clear in the.
Speaker 2: New Well, William Lane Craig as a Protestants arguing, well, look,
Speaker 2: I'm just arguing the clear, scaled down New Testament doctrine
Speaker 2: of the Trinity. And then Muhammed Adjab is saying, but
Speaker 2: your social trinitarianism is against the you know, two thousand
Speaker 2: year clear tradition of what most Christians accept as orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: So more of an I guess a hermeneutical objection about
Speaker 2: clear and ordinary language. But I think the job is
Speaker 2: trying to score points with the just demonstrating that, look,
Speaker 2: the Trinity is not coherence because supposedly it's not clear.
Speaker 2: But that's actually a false equivalence, Right, something can be
Speaker 2: true and not necessarily simple, and so a lot of
Speaker 2: Muslims confuse simplicity with clarity or perspecuity, and those are
Speaker 2: not necessarily the same things. In fact, when I debated
Speaker 2: with Daniel in The Jaws, the first thing Daniel said was, look,
Speaker 2: Islam's true because it's simple, God's won. I was like, well,
Speaker 2: but that doesn't mean that it's true, because it does
Speaker 2: like a version of Rockham's razor fallacy.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Now that's one of the things that really.
Speaker 4: It's like a huge pet peeve of mind because I
Speaker 4: you know, I teach a class on like kind of
Speaker 4: critical thinking sort of, a little bit of logic, a
Speaker 4: little bit of just various sort of and that's like
Speaker 4: one of the big things that we talk about is
Speaker 4: like when so you know, for people who don't know, like,
Speaker 4: this is something that's gotten a lot of attention, just
Speaker 4: like from from psychologists doing like empirical research about how
Speaker 4: people reason and the accuracy of their reasoning and whatever.
Speaker 4: I mean, basically the consensus is like there's kind of
Speaker 4: two different systems going on in your brain at the
Speaker 4: same time. So there's what they'll sometimes just call system one.
Speaker 4: It's this like kind of intuitive, like fast, kind of
Speaker 4: gut reaction, knee jerk sort of reaction. And then system
Speaker 4: two is this like methodical, you know, conscious, deliberate going
Speaker 4: through following rules and whatever. And you know the big
Speaker 4: issue is just like the system one, like what intuitively
Speaker 4: seems simple and obvious to us, Like that system is
Speaker 4: it's it's very quick and accurate in certain contexts, and
Speaker 4: then it just gives you the completely wrong answer.
Speaker 2: Yes, certain others.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and there's no way to know ahead of time,
Speaker 4: like whether it's gonna be the accurate one or not.
Speaker 4: Like it's just sort of like it gives you the
Speaker 4: right results ninety nine percent of the time in cases
Speaker 4: where it kind of is important to make snap judgments forever.
Speaker 4: But so it's like it's one of the like this
Speaker 4: is something I would I try to spend a whole
Speaker 4: semester like telling students to not do this, Like just
Speaker 4: because something seems intuitively obvious to you has not necessarily
Speaker 4: like any relation to whether it is true or even coherent.
Speaker 2: Yes. This is a key point too, because I've had
Speaker 2: a lot of discussions with Thomas lately and with Muslims,
Speaker 2: and I've noticed a parallel between the discussion with certain
Speaker 2: Thomas and with Muslims, and the pattern is that both
Speaker 2: seem to assume that, well, look, everybody knows what monotheism
Speaker 2: is and what divine simplicity is, and that a self
Speaker 2: evident simple being has to be this, this, this, and this,
Speaker 2: and then that being would also be perfect and we
Speaker 2: all know that perfection includes this, this, this, and this,
Speaker 2: So it's like all this metaphysical baggage that well, wait
Speaker 2: a minute, how do I know that's the right content
Speaker 2: for what you mean by one God? It's just all assumed.
Speaker 2: We don't know that that's the case, And then if
Speaker 2: you start asking them epistemic questions, it's like, well but yeah,
Speaker 2: but we all know that. So it's like basically just
Speaker 2: built on appeals to like peel to masses, fallacy, or
Speaker 2: appeal to simplicity or something like that, none of which
Speaker 2: necessarily tells us that that's the case or how we're
Speaker 2: supposed to interpret what it means to be one God.
Speaker 2: It's just assumed, but that brings us to the next point,
Speaker 2: where William Craig says, well this the whole debate then
Speaker 2: shifts about halfway through to Muhammed Jabs saying, well, you
Speaker 2: believe in three wills in God? This necessitates conflict. Now
Speaker 2: this was a I think this is a silly way
Speaker 2: to go about the debate, because there's not necessarily anything
Speaker 2: about multiple wills that necessitates opposition. He should have he
Speaker 2: should have gone the route of what you say, of
Speaker 2: saying that, well, look, will has to be some kind
Speaker 2: of property of an existing nature or being, and that
Speaker 2: would necessitate three gods. But he doesn't go in that direction.
Speaker 2: He tries to argue that somehow having three wills necessitates
Speaker 2: partition in what the beings do, and it necessitates some
Speaker 2: form of opposition as a potentiality, which not necessarily I
Speaker 2: don't think.
Speaker 4: Any referenced Scott Williams paper. So Scott's a good friend
Speaker 4: of mine and he so I don't know. Maybe maybe
Speaker 4: Muhammed a job didn't do a good job like articulating
Speaker 4: the argument. But what Scott's argument is is if you
Speaker 4: have three wills, you know, like social trinitarians want. I mean,
Speaker 4: it seems like if you don't say anything else, then
Speaker 4: it seems like at least there are possible worlds where
Speaker 4: these three wills disagree, and you need to say something
Speaker 4: about like why there wouldn't be right because you don't,
Speaker 4: I mean, you know you can. It's fine to say
Speaker 4: like the persons of the Trinity don't disagree and they
Speaker 4: always cooperate, but but it seems weird to say they
Speaker 4: could and they you know, they would get into a war.
Speaker 2: Right. But this is where William Lane Craig appeals to
Speaker 2: this metaphysics of perfection, which I thought was odd because
Speaker 2: it's very similar to them to the Muslim appeal to perfection,
Speaker 2: which shows the presubpositions of metaphysical baggage that people have, because,
Speaker 2: for example, Muslim thinks that well, to be the more
Speaker 2: perfect being means in some cases that Allah is only
Speaker 2: strictly just one, because to have real multiplicity would mean
Speaker 2: some kind of diminution or some kind of imperfection, because
Speaker 2: we all know that multiplelicity means a perfect unity, or
Speaker 2: excuse me, perfection truly means a perfect unity without distinction.
Speaker 2: So that's a metaphysical assumption about perfection. But in other cases,
Speaker 2: right even to me. It says, well, we'd all wouldn't
Speaker 2: We all know that to be a more perfect being,
Speaker 2: Allah has to laugh versus not laughing, because laughing is
Speaker 2: more perfect than not laughing. So there's this weird metaphysical
Speaker 2: assumption about perfection. Wim Lane Craig then says, well, look,
Speaker 2: there are three perfect beings, so I can appeal to
Speaker 2: perfection of the beings, and therefore they would never be
Speaker 2: out of a court in terms of three different wills.
Speaker 2: I just thought the whole course of the debate at
Speaker 2: this point gets into two bad arguments here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's.
Speaker 4: So Richard Swinburne has this kind of view that although
Speaker 4: he swinburn believes in the processions too, so he kind
Speaker 4: of has a natural way for the father to kind
Speaker 4: of have some I don't know priority in some sense,
Speaker 4: but anyway. One, yeah, one way social trinitarians will respond
Speaker 4: to this argument is to say, well, the.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're perfect.
Speaker 4: So if they're all omniscient and they all are omni benevolent,
Speaker 4: like they all know what's good and they all want
Speaker 4: what's good, so they'll all kind of so number one,
Speaker 4: they'll all just naturally want the good anyway, and then
Speaker 4: they know, it's not good to fight and whatever, so
Speaker 4: they would all want to agree and whatever. I hi
Speaker 4: Jab brought up a kind of good point, but there's
Speaker 4: you can go a little further with it. So he
Speaker 4: just pointed out that God there are some things that
Speaker 4: God wills that are He didn't really put it in
Speaker 4: terms of like morally neutral, but that I think that's
Speaker 4: the idea, Like they're morally neutral and they're contingent. So
Speaker 4: just something like, you know, suppose there's a possible world
Speaker 4: where the Father wants the sky to be blue, but
Speaker 4: the sun thinks it'd be better if it was green,
Speaker 4: and the Holy Spirit sort of likes red, and you
Speaker 4: know they want they you know, they can't agree on
Speaker 4: the colors, and they and they all have three different things,
Speaker 4: so they're all kind of voting on different things. They
Speaker 4: can't do you know, by democratically or something. And uh,
Speaker 4: Swinburne's argument is kind of like, well, they would all
Speaker 4: as perfect and good beings, you know, they would all
Speaker 4: like want to resolve that disagreement peacefully, and you know
Speaker 4: they'd be willing to kind of you know, defer to
Speaker 4: the Father or something like that. But one one thing
Speaker 4: that they didn't get into in this debate. And I've
Speaker 4: heard people get talks about this and they kind of
Speaker 4: it's kind of overlooked sometimes. I like this phrase something
Speaker 4: people call it a Canadian standoff, as opposed to like
Speaker 4: the Mexican standoff or who's gonna shoot first? But the
Speaker 4: Canadian standoff quote unquote is like, you know, suppose you're
Speaker 4: at the door and one person is like, oh you
Speaker 4: you go first?
Speaker 2: Oh no, no, no, it would right, it would be
Speaker 2: an internal stem up.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So it's like you can be perfectly like a good
Speaker 4: will and you don't want to get in a fight,
Speaker 4: you know, and you're and that's not necessarily enough to
Speaker 4: resolve the decision problem, like just having good will, because
Speaker 4: you can be. In some cases good will can lead
Speaker 4: to the standoff, right, that can't be resolved. Like if
Speaker 4: one person would just be like, yeah, okay, man, I'll
Speaker 4: go through, then that would resolve the issue. But but yeah,
Speaker 4: it could be just precisely, maybe the father wants red,
Speaker 4: the son wants green, the Holy Spirit wants blue. But
Speaker 4: then everyone's like, oh, well then we need to do
Speaker 4: what you want. Oh no, no, we can do we
Speaker 4: can do what you want to do. Oh no, well,
Speaker 4: let's do what he wants to do. Well, I want
Speaker 4: to do just whatever you guys want to you know,
Speaker 4: So I think I think it is a problem that, like,
Speaker 4: if you're gonna say there's three distinct wills, it's just
Speaker 4: not clear how how it could be not possible for
Speaker 4: them to like disagree and not be able to resolve
Speaker 4: that disagreement. And maybe I mean, you know, I guess
Speaker 4: you could just say, like, well, luckily it turned out
Speaker 4: that they didn't disagree or something, But that's kind of
Speaker 4: a disappointing, unsatisfying, you know response.
Speaker 2: Well, the next part waynmline Craig says that modal collapse
Speaker 2: sort of makes an appearance, and williamline Craig says, yeah, well,
Speaker 2: God does have I believe, contingent properties, which is odd,
Speaker 2: odd language and terminology. Of course, I think he means
Speaker 2: the essence entergy distinction and how we believe that, you know,
Speaker 2: God has, you know, different possibilities of what he can
Speaker 2: will to create or not to create, or that God
Speaker 2: does different actions. But but that's odd, Yeah, odd terminology
Speaker 2: is that maybe an I've never heard contingent properties.
Speaker 4: Anyway, Yeah, I would just take that as he probably
Speaker 4: is just thinking of proper but.
Speaker 2: He says the power of creating, like to create is
Speaker 2: not something that he had to do.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the property of creating being a thing that has created.
Speaker 3: I mean, usually, like you know.
Speaker 4: Philosophers today, we'll just use the word property in a
Speaker 4: very broad you know, just.
Speaker 3: Cover true about something. So I think that's how he's
Speaker 3: using that.
Speaker 2: And then it gets into an issue. But what I'm
Speaker 2: saying is that again, you know, because there's not an
Speaker 2: essenceentrity distinction there. Even though will Lane Craig seems to
Speaker 2: be aware of the motial collapse issue. Rather than using
Speaker 2: and going to orthodox theology which resolves this question, it's
Speaker 2: just another situation where well, I've got to invent sort
Speaker 2: of my own you know, system or baggage or whatever.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's the New Testament and the Old Testament.
Speaker 2: I think, as doctor Bradshaw has shown in multiple papers,
Speaker 2: that teaches the Essen Sentarti stinction. I mean, it's a
Speaker 2: biblical doctrine, which so if you want to be biblicaal
Speaker 2: Paul's teaching the you know, Essen Sceentnerti distinction of multiple
Speaker 2: passages in the New Testament, where he talks about the
Speaker 2: inner Geia working in him, uh to work with grot
Speaker 2: with Christ and so forth, the power of God in
Speaker 2: him doing a miss et cetera. That's all New Testament.
Speaker 2: But why wouldn't we use that if we want to
Speaker 2: resolve this issue of this specific point. I mean, and
Speaker 2: Palomas does this, He says, you know, if you want
Speaker 2: to notice the difference between essence and energy, says, look
Speaker 2: to God creating and then ceasing from creating. That is
Speaker 2: an example of this.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I mean I think he have that apparatus, right,
Speaker 4: So it's just kind of like, well, I don't know,
Speaker 4: God has some necessary properties and some contingent properties.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: But one thing that's this is another thing where I
Speaker 4: get kind of confused. I mean, it's hard for you
Speaker 4: to understand what his view actually is because if I mean,
Speaker 4: if you're going to be anomalist, I mean, I guess
Speaker 4: maybe he would just say, maybe we just have to
Speaker 4: translate all of this talk about properties into talk about
Speaker 4: predicates that are true about God or something, because I mean, there's.
Speaker 3: Not really any properties if you're a nominalist.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, that's a great point. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Which also, this is another thing that that muhammeda job
Speaker 4: never brought up, which I wish that he had. So
Speaker 4: Number one, I mean, even if you are a realist,
Speaker 4: it's kind of a I always have this question, like
Speaker 4: you've got this one soul that has three sets of
Speaker 4: cognitive faculties, Like what exactly individuates the cognitive faculties?
Speaker 3: Like how do you get three of them? It's not the.
Speaker 4: Subject because there's only one subject, only one soul, So
Speaker 4: that's not making them three. They're not like in three
Speaker 4: different places spatially or something, because it's God and you
Speaker 4: reject eternal relate the you know, relations of generation and processions,
Speaker 4: so there's no like asymmetric relations to individuations, Like how
Speaker 4: exactly do you get?
Speaker 2: Yeah, what individuates? What would he say?
Speaker 3: Graduays yeah, and there's no and and all.
Speaker 4: I mean if you just said something like they're just
Speaker 4: primitively like they just they just come from the factory
Speaker 4: that way, or you know, like it's like why couldn't
Speaker 4: there be more? And if there and if it's possible
Speaker 4: for there to have been a fourth person of the
Speaker 4: trinity and divine persons are necessary beings, then it's necessary
Speaker 4: that there's four. You know what I mean, so it's
Speaker 4: like if you just sort of say they're primitively individuated,
Speaker 4: it's like, well, why aren't there infinitely many persons?
Speaker 5: Then?
Speaker 4: And I don't, I don't have any idea, And he
Speaker 4: never as far as I know, he's never addressed that.
Speaker 4: And then and then if you add on top of that,
Speaker 4: like he wants to be as hardcore nominalists, So like
Speaker 4: I would think that that what nominalists would say. You know,
Speaker 4: if you're talking about a cognitive faculty or a power
Speaker 4: of thinking and willing, you just translate that, Well, it's
Speaker 4: just a way of saying that this soul can make
Speaker 4: decisions and have thoughts. So what does it mean to
Speaker 4: have three that? I mean, if you if there's no
Speaker 4: there's no such thing as powers. It's just kind of
Speaker 4: a metaphorical way of talking about, you know, this this
Speaker 4: thing can talk or think and will, Like, what does
Speaker 4: it mean you can think and you can think three
Speaker 4: things or will three things? I mean, I can will
Speaker 4: three different things or two different things. I can have
Speaker 4: a conflicted will or something. But I'm not I don't
Speaker 4: have two different faculties of willing.
Speaker 3: So I don't.
Speaker 4: I don't know, you know, It's like, I don't even
Speaker 4: really know what the model actually is. So I wish
Speaker 4: that Muhammed a Job had brought that up at some point,
Speaker 4: but oh well.
Speaker 2: The argument then seems to shift into parts whole situations
Speaker 2: in regard to the product of three will three beings,
Speaker 2: with three wills creating the world, what does one of
Speaker 2: them do that the other two do not? And William
Speaker 2: and Craig responds with saying, you are misunderstanding causal overdetermination.
Speaker 2: I could have three matches that light at the same
Speaker 2: time and there's not you know, one match that's doing
Speaker 2: all the work and the other ones are doing half
Speaker 2: the work or the third of the work or whatever.
Speaker 2: That seemed to be a good response. Although I don't
Speaker 2: believe in three wills or three independent beings, but that
Speaker 2: would still seem to be a response that our trinitarian
Speaker 2: model would use as well. What do you think about that?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, William and Craig even at that point said,
Speaker 4: I mean he actually used the phrase inseparable operations or
Speaker 4: the operations you know, odd extra are inseparable, and basically
Speaker 4: he just said, you know, he rejects like inseparable operations
Speaker 4: as a general claim. But he's like, I do believe
Speaker 4: in some inseparable operations, so like, I think creation is
Speaker 4: an inseparable operation. So I mean I thought, I mean,
Speaker 4: it's you know, I think it's a weird view to take,
Speaker 4: but yeah, I mean I think it pretty much responded
Speaker 4: to his to his jobs.
Speaker 2: Argument there.
Speaker 4: I mean, I I get I get into that in
Speaker 4: separable operations more in my in the book in response
Speaker 4: to Bill Hasker, because Hasker believes in the divine processions
Speaker 4: but doesn't like inseparable operations. So I don't really I'm
Speaker 4: not sure what kind of metaphysics you have to have
Speaker 4: to get sometimes in separable operations like you're muted, I think,
Speaker 4: or at least for me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was gonna say, like, well, what what what
Speaker 2: are the one of the times that we haven't when
Speaker 2: one of the times that we don't like what determines
Speaker 2: the right, Well, it determines when it's uh inseparable versus separable.
Speaker 2: I mean it's odd.
Speaker 4: But yeah, and that and that actually comes up in
Speaker 4: the thing with with Hascar and I is that's it's
Speaker 4: like yeah, when, yeah, when when would you have them?
Speaker 2: When would you not?
Speaker 3: My I mean, anyway, I.
Speaker 4: Just argue that that causal powers are rooted in an individual,
Speaker 4: you know, instance of a nature, not the hypostas, And
Speaker 4: that may be kind of hard to see for people
Speaker 4: at first, but I think it.
Speaker 2: I think, well, and that's that's that's ironically the traditional
Speaker 2: Orthodox and even the Western position in the first thousand years,
Speaker 2: we agree that this is why there's two wills in Christ.
Speaker 2: There's two natures in Christ, there's two two operations, because
Speaker 2: operations or energies signify the nature from which they proceed,
Speaker 2: and so that's why there's one will in the trinity,
Speaker 2: not three wills in the trinity.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, which is that's I mean, that's the thing.
Speaker 4: So that, yeah, if you if you just think that
Speaker 4: causal powers inhere in the nature primarily, then yeah, you
Speaker 4: have to have inseparable operations in the trinity, and you
Speaker 4: have to have two nature's and two wills and two
Speaker 4: energies in the incarnation. So yeah, I think it's a
Speaker 4: weird I mean, and the other I mean, your other alternative.
Speaker 4: It seems like the most straightforward. If you're going to
Speaker 4: reject that, you would think that you would say, okay,
Speaker 4: powers just kind of directly attached to a hyposthesis then,
Speaker 4: But in that case you would always have three actions.
Speaker 2: I mean, there would there would always be the same.
Speaker 4: Physics you have where you kind of sometimes have in
Speaker 4: separable operations sometimes don't. But I think he might also
Speaker 4: just kind of misunderstand how inseparable operations are supposed to work.
Speaker 4: I mean, the cause a little a determination thing I
Speaker 4: think works as a move in the debate for for
Speaker 4: Craig to kind of defend himself, But I don't think
Speaker 4: that's exactly probably the best way to think about.
Speaker 2: Does this I mean you may not feel this way,
Speaker 2: but I mean, does this go back to the a
Speaker 2: pollinarian mistake? Because pollinarianism is basically taking a feature of
Speaker 2: a property of nature, in human nature, and saying that
Speaker 2: that's what the subject of the person is. It's identifying
Speaker 2: the human subject with the rational soul. And so for
Speaker 2: Willen Lane Craig to think in his model of what
Speaker 2: a person is, at least what I've undertoo him in
Speaker 2: the past, I think a person is for him that's
Speaker 2: just an individual with the body and a soul. There's
Speaker 2: no notion of a subject that's more than just the
Speaker 2: properties of the nature. But that would be consistent with
Speaker 2: the nominalism to have that reductionist model. So maybe the
Speaker 2: nominalism and the reductionist model and the pollinarianism are all
Speaker 2: linked here.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, that's actually I think that's probably right. I mean,
Speaker 4: certainly it's pretty clear that there's this widespread kind of
Speaker 4: assumption among a lot of philosophers and maybe evangelical theologians
Speaker 4: or something.
Speaker 3: But uh that that, yeah, the.
Speaker 4: Cognitive faculties and wills and powers and whatever kind of
Speaker 4: our hypostatic instead of natural. Right, And if that's the
Speaker 4: view that you take, then yeah, you get three wills
Speaker 4: in the Trinity and one will in Christ. And they
Speaker 4: seem to not understand or they just don't like the
Speaker 4: idea that the will is natural instead of hypostatic. So
Speaker 4: and I think that's definitely what's going on with with
Speaker 4: Craig and they, you know, they'll sort of associate the
Speaker 4: number of wills and cognitive faculties with like that's what
Speaker 4: a person is, because they they think of persons like
Speaker 4: you know what we mean by a person, like a human, like.
Speaker 2: A modern human individual person modern modern.
Speaker 4: And they just don't yet or they or just don't care,
Speaker 4: you know that that you know, hypostas is just anything concrete.
Speaker 4: I mean I brought this up at one point, like,
Speaker 4: you know, the Church Fathers will use it. We'll give
Speaker 4: examples of hypostases besides.
Speaker 3: The persons of the Trinity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, don Damascus does that in Fount of Knowledge.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he'll I mean they'll give like a horse or.
Speaker 4: Or you know, a knife, pieces of charcoal, like like
Speaker 4: you know, all of those things are hypostases. They're just individual,
Speaker 4: concrete things. And I so that's one reason why. Yeah,
Speaker 4: I mean, like I realized there's this big debate, you know,
Speaker 4: in theological what are persons? Is it person in the
Speaker 4: modern sense? But it's like, I have no idea how
Speaker 4: anyone familiar at all with the primary sources could ever
Speaker 4: think that the Church Fathers are talking about person in
Speaker 4: like a Cartesian sense or something like, I don't think
Speaker 4: the gold coin is a person in the modern sense
Speaker 4: of the term.
Speaker 2: Like that's just nuts, now, doctor Calil. I know he
Speaker 2: wanted to call in and he had some comments on
Speaker 2: the hit Job and Craig debate. Doctor Calile, do you
Speaker 2: want to did you want to say anything?
Speaker 5: Yeah, Hi, yeah, thanks for having me on. I just
Speaker 5: I was teaching, so I just.
Speaker 2: Log in now.
Speaker 5: So I don't know what you guys already covered, but
Speaker 5: just to what you are saying now, maybe.
Speaker 7: Something that's a question for both but also yourself. So
Speaker 7: I made some comments in a preview video about Craig
Speaker 7: and hit Job. So one thing is, in my view,
Speaker 7: if Craig is a nominalist, which.
Speaker 2: He is, right, yeah, we just we just yeah, that's
Speaker 2: exactly what we were covering up.
Speaker 7: So then how can he affirm that Christ like has
Speaker 7: a human nature of any kind? Like there's no such
Speaker 7: thing as human nature under that view, Like, I don't
Speaker 7: know how he can he can ascribe human nature to
Speaker 7: anything right, Like for him, I don't see how his
Speaker 7: incarnate Christ is genuinely human like in any meaningful sense.
Speaker 7: And then I don't how can he even talk about
Speaker 7: homousio homosios? Like how can you say the Father and
Speaker 7: the Son are homosios if you don't like, like the
Speaker 7: three divine persons, they're all bear particulars in Craig's view, right,
Speaker 7: they can't as far as I'm concerned, And I haven't
Speaker 7: seen anyone make this argument against him, but to me,
Speaker 7: that the three divine persons are bear particulars, they can't
Speaker 7: share anything. They're like, they're basically three gods. So I
Speaker 7: don't know what you guys.
Speaker 2: That's that's exactly where the critique was going. I'll let
Speaker 2: doctor will respond, but I mean that's exactly where the
Speaker 2: critique was going, was that this would lead to trotheism
Speaker 2: and that the nominalism would seem to be another big stickler,
Speaker 2: a big roadblock here.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So I think what Craig I think would do is
Speaker 4: he would just say, Okay, well, when we talk about
Speaker 4: you know, so and so has this nature or that nature,
Speaker 4: like we just have to He's just going to kind
Speaker 4: of translate that into this, X, Y and Z are
Speaker 4: true about this subject. So like if this subject has
Speaker 4: such and such DNA and he's like this tall and
Speaker 4: this wide and ways that, you know, like all of
Speaker 4: that stuff is true. However that works, but anyway, it's true.
Speaker 4: So if it's just true, if all these predicates are
Speaker 4: true about you, then then the predicate is human is
Speaker 4: also true about you. Right, So it's just going to
Speaker 4: kind of say, like for him and nature I think
Speaker 4: is just kind of a definition. Right, So if X, Y,
Speaker 4: Z predicates are true, then like when he.
Speaker 7: Says the father is God or the Son is God.
Speaker 7: It just means the Father is a part of an
Speaker 7: entity called God. Like that's it, that's his, that's total.
Speaker 4: I think he would want to say, like X is
Speaker 4: God means like something like X is all powerful, and
Speaker 4: X is omni benevolent.
Speaker 2: And and and and. But but didn't you just say
Speaker 2: you had said a minute ago that when he talks
Speaker 2: about God possessing attributes or contingent properties, if he's anomalist,
Speaker 2: that would be a problem.
Speaker 8: So well, if if you have Craig's view is ex
Speaker 8: as God means exit ex as omnipotent and whatever, that
Speaker 8: would still imply under normalism that the Father's omnipotence is
Speaker 8: still different from the sons, because like there can't be
Speaker 8: like truly shared properties, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean he might just they.
Speaker 4: That's kind of a pseudo question, assuming that there's such
Speaker 4: a thing as that bothered omnisis or whatever and there
Speaker 4: and there really is no such thing. That's a good question.
Speaker 3: But I think it's a problem.
Speaker 2: There's an echo.
Speaker 4: But but anyway, I do think it's a problem because
Speaker 4: you do want to say things like there's one nature
Speaker 4: between the person of the Trinity or Christ has two natures.
Speaker 4: I guess I guess what he would say to get
Speaker 4: to get two natures. He would just say, Jesus satisfies
Speaker 4: all of the predicates that are required to call him human,
Speaker 4: and then he satisfies all the predicates.
Speaker 2: Well, I might have I might have not had the
Speaker 2: unmute because I'm trying to I have to unmute if
Speaker 2: he's talking, and then I have to mute when you're talking.
Speaker 2: But what doctor Calil said was, wouldn't if you're a nominalist,
Speaker 2: how could you have a shared after between father and
Speaker 2: son as a nominalist?
Speaker 7: Like?
Speaker 2: How could it? Because it seems like there's obviously gotta
Speaker 2: be some kind of metaphysical shared reality there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think, well, so two things. One is.
Speaker 4: And it's kind of confusing because he'll go if he's
Speaker 4: talking about a nature, he's gonna be talking about generic
Speaker 4: nature in a generic sense, like just you generically, you satisfy.
Speaker 3: These predicates or whatever.
Speaker 4: But he goes back forth because when he talks about
Speaker 4: three persons in one being, like we were saying earlier,
Speaker 4: what really his view amounts to is that there's one
Speaker 4: hypostasis that has three minds.
Speaker 3: But he kind of.
Speaker 4: He just uses terminology in a weird way, so he
Speaker 4: calls that one being. So it's sort of like sometimes
Speaker 4: that usia is really the hyposthesis for him, and kind
Speaker 4: of everything kind of gets backwards. So really, if you're
Speaker 4: if you were going to accuse him of tritheism, I
Speaker 4: think what he would really do is I mean, he'd
Speaker 4: he'd be like, hey, my model says there's one soul,
Speaker 4: so that's the one and the one concrete. I mean really,
Speaker 4: I think it really boils down to like there's one
Speaker 4: concrete particular, one bear particular. The real mystery of what
Speaker 4: Jay and I were talking about just a few minutes
Speaker 4: before you got on Khalil was the big mystery is
Speaker 4: like what individuates these cognitive faculties if you're a nominalist, right,
Speaker 4: because they're not real things. They're just like the fact
Speaker 4: that you can think, right, or the fact that you
Speaker 4: can will. So if there's just this one soul, and
Speaker 4: if having a will just means it's like true that
Speaker 4: you can will things, it's not really clear what it
Speaker 4: could mean to say that there's three wills or three
Speaker 4: cognitive facts.
Speaker 2: In other words, just ambiguity about what individuates but is
Speaker 2: there any route because I thought earlier when you and
Speaker 2: I were to me and you doctor, but you were
Speaker 2: talking about problems in nominalism for viewing God, is there
Speaker 2: is there no element of critique for Wayne Lane Craig's
Speaker 2: because to me, it seems like it would undercut Christology.
Speaker 2: It would undercut the trinity too, if you're a hardcore
Speaker 2: I didn't realize it was a hardcore nonmalist.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's that's the I don't think. I mean, so
Speaker 4: certainly you the the traditional view about the doctrine of
Speaker 4: the Trinity. Absolutely, you know, presupposes some metaphysical machine nature
Speaker 4: and there's some you know, you have to be some
Speaker 4: kind of realists about you know, property or if not
Speaker 4: universals and tropes or something. But you have to have
Speaker 4: that distinction there. So it's certainly not going to be
Speaker 4: the orthodox view. And I really don't see how you
Speaker 4: could actually have a coherent view about the Trinity if
Speaker 4: you're a nominalist.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't.
Speaker 4: I mean, maybe someone will come up with something, but
Speaker 4: it's it's hard for me to see to see how.
Speaker 2: Now Doctor coils or any other Uh, we we have
Speaker 2: progressed in the debate to the point where really they
Speaker 2: were just getting into almost what's that.
Speaker 4: I was just saying, we're almost to their closing statements
Speaker 4: from what we were doing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we had got up to the point of the
Speaker 2: closing statements where I just want.
Speaker 7: So in my opinion, you know, I've studied a lot
Speaker 7: of the anti Trinitarian arguments that are on offer in
Speaker 7: literature from major authors. I thought his job's attack was
Speaker 7: very underwhelming, Like, of all the arguments he could have
Speaker 7: brought against Craig or the Trinity in.
Speaker 5: General, I have found he just picked the weakest ones.
Speaker 7: And then I actually and you know a lot of
Speaker 7: people online like Muslim sort of cheerleaders, and I understand
Speaker 7: why they cheerlead.
Speaker 5: They're like, oh, no, like this was so good and
Speaker 5: blah blah blah.
Speaker 7: But then I actually talked to three Muslim philosophers and
Speaker 7: religion I'm not going to say who, and I was like, guys,
Speaker 7: am I the only one who thought this was underwhelming,
Speaker 7: And they're like, no, it was underwhelming.
Speaker 5: So what did you think of the hit jobs like
Speaker 5: attack arguments?
Speaker 2: Well, before you got here, we had basically agreed that
Speaker 2: there were several places where he could have brought really
Speaker 2: stronger points. He hit on a couple strong points and
Speaker 2: then kind of blew past them, so he really didn't
Speaker 2: Both sides were kind of underwhelming, was my assessment.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's exactly what I's what I had thought.
Speaker 3: And yeah, agreed like I thought.
Speaker 4: I mean, I was really excited for it because I
Speaker 4: was like, I mean, there's a million criticisms that I
Speaker 4: would like to make about William and Craig's views on
Speaker 4: the Trinity. And I was just like, oh, this will
Speaker 4: be pretty exciting because he's this fantastic debater and he's
Speaker 4: a really smart guy, but this is like, I think,
Speaker 4: his weakest subject. And I was really, I mean interested
Speaker 4: to just see, like, well, how's this going to go?
Speaker 4: And yeah, there were so many things I thought, you
Speaker 4: so many places Muhammedi job could have taken it that
Speaker 4: he just didn't. And one of them was this issue
Speaker 4: like how do you individuate these cognitive faculties?
Speaker 3: Like what how do you even get those? And he
Speaker 3: never raised that.
Speaker 4: He didn't he didn't even really, I mean, Jaye and
Speaker 4: I were talking about like, I don't think he really
Speaker 4: even I guess a couple of times he mentioned tri theism,
Speaker 4: but like I would have thought that would have been
Speaker 4: that would.
Speaker 2: Have been really if he had hammered whining Craig on
Speaker 2: tri theism, that would have been really yeah, hardcore, But.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I thought there was a lot of stuff he
Speaker 4: could have said that he didn't. And also one thing
Speaker 4: I Khalil before you got on here, that I was
Speaker 4: saying to Jay was like I just felt like in
Speaker 4: a lot of the arguments that Muhammed a Jab did give,
Speaker 4: like he never really fully articulated like where he's trying
Speaker 4: to go with that argument, Like he spent a whole
Speaker 4: bunch of time talking about how Craig is a heretic
Speaker 4: and his views not really mainstream. But it's like, okay,
Speaker 4: but tell me where that's how that's pertinent, Like I
Speaker 4: just make it explicit, like what do you you know?
Speaker 4: Why is that showing that the doctor the Trinity is incoherent?
Speaker 4: And he didn't really kind of connect the dots on
Speaker 4: a lot of the a lot of his arguments.
Speaker 2: Any thoughts on thoughts on the closing statement or anything
Speaker 2: else that comes to mind.
Speaker 3: Did Khilie already get offer?
Speaker 2: Are you still there? Did you want to talk to
Speaker 2: doctor Blow?
Speaker 3: Maybe not?
Speaker 7: Maybe he's gone the sort of autopositions that Craig have
Speaker 7: that doesn't contribute towards the thesis that the Trinity is incoherent.
Speaker 5: It doesn't.
Speaker 7: However, I'll tell you why he did it. So he
Speaker 7: did it as a showman.
Speaker 5: He he did that. He started with that. Again.
Speaker 7: I don't think it's a smart thing, but like he
Speaker 7: did it for showmanship, because he wanted to get the
Speaker 7: audience on his side, right.
Speaker 5: He wanted all of you guys watching.
Speaker 7: To be like wow, like why we shouldn't support this guy?
Speaker 7: And then what he wanted is he wanted some clippable
Speaker 7: moment moments.
Speaker 5: Jake clipped it up. He clipped it up.
Speaker 1: So this is just this.
Speaker 5: I mean, you know, they do this to everybody.
Speaker 7: They tried to do it to you.
Speaker 5: They try to do it to everyone. They don't usually
Speaker 5: succeed when they do it. But that's all it was.
Speaker 7: But I do think I would be interested personally. I
Speaker 7: have not actually seen a good debate between a Muslim
Speaker 7: and a Christian where they act where there's like a
Speaker 7: proper sort of more traditional Trinity on offer and they
Speaker 7: actually get into the metaphysics of this stuff. I have
Speaker 7: not seen a debate usually they're just arguing about scriptures
Speaker 7: or this, that and the other.
Speaker 4: Yeah, which that's like I was hoping that this would
Speaker 4: get into that because you know, you would expect that
Speaker 4: it it could have.
Speaker 2: Now anything on the closing statements. Uh, we've come up
Speaker 2: to that point there. Overall, everybody seems to be on
Speaker 2: the same page. It was a pretty underwhelming discussion. It's
Speaker 2: kind of short. Yeah, it was a little too short too.
Speaker 2: It was only one hour. But yeah, final thoughts on
Speaker 2: the debate.
Speaker 4: So yeah, at the very end, Craig, I guess, you know,
Speaker 4: I guess he did go full preacher.
Speaker 2: Mode at the I was, I was like an alter
Speaker 2: call at the end there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Muhammed a job kind of you know, criticize him for.
Speaker 4: But and at first, I mean I was kind of like, ah, dude,
Speaker 4: you know this.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I mean, I was a little bit like, come on,
Speaker 4: I give a real closing statement. I was kind of like, well, okay, whatever,
Speaker 4: that's what he's gonna do. But then I had thought
Speaker 4: about it, and I was like, you know, actually I
Speaker 4: kind of respect William Lane Craig for.
Speaker 3: For doing that, Like you know what I mean, Like,
Speaker 3: it's that's that he you know, he's.
Speaker 4: A philosopher, but I mean everything he's done, he kind
Speaker 4: of sees is like a ministry and whatever. I was like,
Speaker 4: that's that's actually kind of cool. And I was actually
Speaker 4: and then I thought about it, and I was like,
Speaker 4: you know, I sort of felt like Muhammed hi Job
Speaker 4: actually was sort of in preacher mode through the entire thing,
Speaker 4: you know what I mean, like like because a lot
Speaker 4: of it was him just like being really boisterous and like,
Speaker 4: oh this is I will show you this is this
Speaker 4: is incoherence. Yeah, right, irrefutable evidence, and like I mean,
Speaker 4: he was sort of being like Southern Baptist preacher slash
Speaker 4: Islamic and.
Speaker 3: Mom like the whole way through.
Speaker 4: And I was like, ah, why are you criticizing him
Speaker 4: for I don't know, I was just a little I
Speaker 4: found it a little off putting. But and yeah, his
Speaker 4: jobs like last yeah, his his final statement was just
Speaker 4: I mean just not he just said a bunch of
Speaker 4: stuff was just not the case. Like you know, Craig
Speaker 4: is retreated from the debate. Uh, you know, we're talking
Speaker 4: about the resurrection and blah blah blah, it's not relevant.
Speaker 3: They we've both you.
Speaker 4: Know, dismantled a quinas together and you know, blah blah blah,
Speaker 4: and it I mean, all that stuff is like, I mean,
Speaker 4: they didn't dismantle anything, they just agreed not to talk
Speaker 4: about it because they just kind of agreed that that
Speaker 4: they didn't.
Speaker 3: Think that was true.
Speaker 4: I mean, it would sort of be like if you know,
Speaker 4: if I debated a Protestant or something and we were like, well,
Speaker 4: let's just let's just agree at the outset that Islam
Speaker 4: is false and then we'll go on and have our
Speaker 4: little Christian debate or so, and it's like, well, we
Speaker 4: just demolished is like, no, you didn't you just agree
Speaker 4: talk about that because we both I mean, that's you know,
Speaker 4: it's just so ridiculous. But and yeah, I mean, and
Speaker 4: I mean they didn't really establish anything. And then he
Speaker 4: ended with another one of these like the Trinity is
Speaker 4: complicated things and that's.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that just drives me nuts.
Speaker 4: So like earlier I was saying, I don't know if
Speaker 4: Khalil's still but anyway to you J I was saying, like,
Speaker 4: you know, that's this thing I teach people in critical
Speaker 4: thinking classes, like just because something seems simple and intuitive
Speaker 4: and obvious, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's going.
Speaker 3: To be true.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: The other thing that I really dislike about that, actually,
Speaker 4: if Khalil is on, maybe maybe he can respond to this,
Speaker 4: because I think that is a horrible long term strategy
Speaker 4: for Muslim apologists because what it what it comes across
Speaker 4: as it comes across as these guys saying you should
Speaker 4: be Muslim because it's easier to be dumb if you're Muslim,
Speaker 4: which is not a good look for Islam number one
Speaker 4: and number two, Like in the long run, because I've
Speaker 4: said this about you, I shouldn't say, but I've said
Speaker 4: this about Protestanism for a long but like evangelical kind
Speaker 4: of fundamentalist Protestantism for a long time, is like it
Speaker 4: leads this it's a problem if you have some approach
Speaker 4: that leads to brain drain. And what happens is like
Speaker 4: if you've got this approach like here, I'm gonna attack
Speaker 4: the Trinity with arguments that are not that great, and
Speaker 4: so smart people are gonna look at it and be
Speaker 4: like nah, right, and dumb people are gonna look at
Speaker 4: it and be like, oh man, this guy seems really
Speaker 4: confident and whatever. Right, So like it's the approach they're
Speaker 4: taking does nothing to attract or retain intelligent people, and
Speaker 4: it only functions to retain and maybe attract dumb people basically.
Speaker 4: And what's and what that means is like over time,
Speaker 4: you're going to have brain drain, like all the smart
Speaker 4: people are going to go somewhere else, all the dumb
Speaker 4: people come into your camp. And then that's just like
Speaker 4: this that just feeds into so then you then your
Speaker 4: next generation of apologists are all morons. You're gonna being
Speaker 4: unwittingly right like, and it's it's, yeah, just a really
Speaker 4: bad approach.
Speaker 2: Doctor Cali, anything you want to sound out.
Speaker 7: Yeah, but come on, bow, Islam is so simple.
Speaker 5: There's only one God. And you know, you guys have
Speaker 5: a hyposthesis and Usia all this stuff.
Speaker 7: I was a common man on the supposed.
Speaker 5: To worship Usia.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 7: You're right, Yeah, just sign to sign up here, give
Speaker 7: me your email address. Please make a donation at Sapiens Institute.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, the the Mormons say that if I pray,
Speaker 2: I'll feel a burning bosom and burning my bosom, so
Speaker 2: that that seems pretty simple to me. So I guess
Speaker 2: Mormonism is true. But thank you for that. Uh uh,
Speaker 2: we got some super chat. Somebody wants to ask that
Speaker 2: Doctor Bow will have to go soon. Uh, thank you
Speaker 2: for joining us, Doctor Coalili. You're welcome to stay if
Speaker 2: you want. If anybody wants to call in and ask
Speaker 2: a couple of questions, you can. We have a few minutes.
Speaker 2: I don't want to stop doctor Bow from any other comments.
Speaker 2: Some of the debate if the only thing.
Speaker 4: Is another thing that I found kind of just obnoxious.
Speaker 4: Was after that, after the closing statements, Cameron Bertuzzi was like,
Speaker 4: you know, let's end with you know, I want to
Speaker 4: end by you know, why don't you say one thing
Speaker 4: that you like about the other person's view, you know,
Speaker 4: And like Craig was genuine about it. He's like, you know,
Speaker 4: I like monotheism and the denial of divine simplicity that
Speaker 4: you had. You know, like there's lots of stuff about
Speaker 4: Islam that you know, Christians agree with and like, and
Speaker 4: so he was kind of a genuine, you know response,
Speaker 4: and then Muhammed a job just like took it as
Speaker 4: an opportunity to take another dig.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 4: It was just kind of like, well, you know, he's like,
Speaker 4: I like Craig William Lane Craig personally, and he's just like,
Speaker 4: I like his bravery in denying the eternal generation, and
Speaker 4: you know, like it's kind of like, dude, come on,
Speaker 4: like just just you know, say something nice.
Speaker 3: That was the one that anyway, I'm.
Speaker 7: Just curious who's the first Christian to deny the generation.
Speaker 5: Of the sun?
Speaker 4: As well, as far as I know, it is from
Speaker 4: an Alexander role in sixteen eighty nine, which actually.
Speaker 2: You're cutting out, doctor bo. Could you say that again? Oh?
Speaker 4: Sorry, So Muhammada job actually mentioned in the debate Hermann
Speaker 4: Alexander role in sixteen eighty nine. As far as I know,
Speaker 4: that is the first person to like explicitly reject it.
Speaker 4: And I'm pretty sure that he got that from Jake,
Speaker 4: and Jake got that from me, because.
Speaker 3: I don't know anyone else who you know, is made
Speaker 3: much out of that.
Speaker 2: So are you saying, second, he said, are you saying
Speaker 2: that you prepared Muhammed a job for this debate? Yeah? Yeah, I.
Speaker 4: Mean I guess it indirectly by just saying stuff and
Speaker 4: Jake sort of copies and tape indirectly, I did.
Speaker 2: Lily Secure says for three dollars, how would you respond?
Speaker 2: To the powerful chronic argument against the Trinity that Jesus
Speaker 2: and Mary eight food. Don't you see the signs are clear? Well, yeah,
Speaker 2: that's a joke, super Chad, I think that's a bad argument. Anonymous,
Speaker 2: ten dollars, God plus the One Holy Catholic Orthodox Church,
Speaker 2: thank you for your content and thank you for no
Speaker 2: compromise on orthodoxy. A milion assentic ten dollars. Thank you
Speaker 2: Jay and doctor Bo for this theological discussion of guidance.
Speaker 2: Emilion again for ten dollars. Can you politely ask doctor
Speaker 2: bolt Bo, when are you going to create a YouTube
Speaker 2: channel and allow us to follow your work?
Speaker 4: Well, you can follow my work. I have most I
Speaker 4: think I have everything that I've published except for this
Speaker 4: book on my website and most or all of my
Speaker 4: YouTube appearances and stuff on it.
Speaker 3: I mean, I've thought about doing.
Speaker 4: Some kind of YouTube like interview kind of series or something,
Speaker 4: but I would almost have to have someone else who
Speaker 4: would manage all the technical stuff, because.
Speaker 2: It's yeah, it's it's its own it's a hassle, it's
Speaker 2: its own job, for sure. Anonymous, five dollars. Holly Orthodoxy
Speaker 2: is true? You think, Anonymous, anybody else want to call
Speaker 2: in or any other comments, doctor Kalil, anything else. I
Speaker 2: don't see anybody who wants to If you want to
Speaker 2: request to speak, just hit the request to speak button
Speaker 2: and I'll bring you up. Nobody else. All right, Well,
Speaker 2: we will look for that book when it's out, doctor Bou.
Speaker 2: Appreciate you coming back on and thank you for doing
Speaker 2: the debate review. Yeah, let's when the book comes out.
Speaker 2: Come back and we'll hear somebody wants to ask a question,
Speaker 2: So let's see what MKG has a question.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, man, yes, hi, thanks ring me out.
Speaker 6: Last second, I had a question regarding the last thing
Speaker 6: he gets touched on. Regarding the fact that Islam's claim
Speaker 6: of simplicity and trinity being complex and you guys saying
Speaker 6: that it attracts dumb people and all that, I think
Speaker 6: that's a still important issue of the average person. I
Speaker 6: know Khalio kind of threw it as like a throwaway comment,
Speaker 6: but the fact that Islam attracts common people with that phrase,
Speaker 6: people like Sneako and stuff like that. I'm wondering what
Speaker 6: you think the best, because I do agree from like
Speaker 6: the smart people perspective, that's where it kind of falls short.
Speaker 6: But from the average side of like if we were
Speaker 6: to see chiosks of religion basically Christianity and Islam, and
Speaker 6: then the common man would go and ask each person
Speaker 6: why this is a good thing or why this is
Speaker 6: the religion of truth? Basically the one phrase that each
Speaker 6: one would use like a their thesis statement. I think
Speaker 6: Islam's case to the common person might be more appealing.
Speaker 6: I'm just wondering, even though I agree with the monarchical trinity,
Speaker 6: I'm wondering, what do you think the counter would be
Speaker 6: from an orthodox Christian?
Speaker 2: What would Yeah, what would you say to somebody who says, well,
Speaker 2: why wouldn't we think that you know it's true because
Speaker 2: you know it's simple. How do you convey that to
Speaker 2: somebody who's sort of the common man or whatever?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think the conclusion point of like why would
Speaker 6: God make the religion for all people complicated?
Speaker 5: I think that's something that a Muslim would.
Speaker 4: Say, Yeah, well, I mean to that, I would just say,
Speaker 4: it's not like God is making I mean, it's not
Speaker 4: like a religion is God just like makes up right,
Speaker 4: It's it's whatever's actually true, So it's not a God
Speaker 4: could just sort of well, I'm going to make reality
Speaker 4: you know, different or something like that. But I do
Speaker 4: think that you raise it an interesting point because this
Speaker 4: is something that I realized when I was doing my
Speaker 4: dissertation and going through Gregory of Nissa's Letter to a
Speaker 4: Blabyous and realizing like the way people have had it
Speaker 4: such a hard time kind of reading and interpreting that
Speaker 4: text because they didn't realize that the way Gregory of
Speaker 4: Nissa himself is thinking about it is he's thinking, who
Speaker 4: are the different audiences that we are talking to, and
Speaker 4: how do we give a response to each of these
Speaker 4: audiences that will satisfy each one. And he gives this
Speaker 4: first argument or this response where he says, well, if
Speaker 4: you're talking to simple minded people who are just kind
Speaker 4: of straightforward and you're just speaking offhand or whatever he says,
Speaker 4: you know, I would just say, well, you know, our
Speaker 4: religion is it's not like polytheistic like the pagan Greeks,
Speaker 4: but it's not this like unitarian view like the Jews,
Speaker 4: and we have this like middle way between, you know,
Speaker 4: between the two. And then he just immediately is like,
Speaker 4: of course that doesn't really answer the question, Like that
Speaker 4: doesn't solve anything. And so people have looked at that
Speaker 4: and like, well, why does he even say that, you know,
Speaker 4: what's he what's doing? And what I realized is he
Speaker 4: what he really is thinking is he's he's actually got
Speaker 4: three audiences in mind, and he's he's really giving a
Speaker 4: response to a bishop, and he's thinking, like, well, in
Speaker 4: a pastoral sort of way, what do we say? And
Speaker 4: so he does acknowledge, like, yeah, you've got to You've
Speaker 4: got to have a response for the common man. It's
Speaker 4: just that the response to the common man needs to
Speaker 4: be something simple, and it might not really solve, you know,
Speaker 4: fully really solve the issue.
Speaker 2: But we lost him for a second. He'll be back
Speaker 2: just one second. We lost you for a second. But
Speaker 2: we lost you for a second. There you were saying,
Speaker 2: the last thing you said was about the common man,
Speaker 2: and then you do need to give this response.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, okay, well yeah, just that that, you know,
Speaker 4: Gregory is thinking, you do need to kind of think
Speaker 4: pastorally and and so have a response for the common
Speaker 4: man and have responses for educated people. So I do
Speaker 4: think it's important, and yeah, I mean I don't know.
Speaker 4: I think I think it's a good point. Like you know,
Speaker 4: I guess rhetorically, you do want to have you know, good.
Speaker 2: Well, but I think every every religious position kind of
Speaker 2: has this issue. Any any major world religion, it's gonna
Speaker 2: it's gonna you're gonna have people saying, well, look it's
Speaker 2: really simple, our position is true, and then any of
Speaker 2: the ones that you get into, even Islam, you're gonna
Speaker 2: find out, well, there's a lot more complexity here than
Speaker 2: was maybe on the surface. So you know, there's not
Speaker 2: any like silver bullet way to avoid the possibility of
Speaker 2: you know, thinking that the system is on the surface
Speaker 2: just really simple and scale down. Then you get into it,
Speaker 2: you find out there's a lot more complexity involved. And
Speaker 2: that's going to be true for any position.
Speaker 7: And as a Muslim, I will say, Islam is complex.
Speaker 7: Islam is not simplistic. In all throughout Islamic civilization, both
Speaker 7: Sunnis and Shia have always distinguished between the common people
Speaker 7: known as the Alam and the intellectual elite known as
Speaker 7: the kas. So this is a very common distinction. So
Speaker 7: there's always been an internally complex Islamic discourse that is
Speaker 7: for the elite that they don't actually share with the
Speaker 7: common people, like they purposely.
Speaker 4: Don't do it.
Speaker 7: They're like very specific protocol than every religious science of Islam.
Speaker 7: And if you read their writings, they're always distinguishing between
Speaker 7: the commoners and the elite, and they're like, oh, we're
Speaker 7: writing for the elite, So this is it's really false advertising.
Speaker 7: When people come and say, oh, Islam is so simple,
Speaker 7: I mean it's really not. Historically, it's not Islam like Christianity,
Speaker 7: is a combination of scripture, tradition, and interpretation. Like those
Speaker 7: three things. There's not one Islamic you know, sect or
Speaker 7: denomination that is free of scripture, tradition, and interpretation. Islamic
Speaker 7: law is one of the most complicated things. Like ever,
Speaker 7: it's very complicated, right, Islamic theology is like even need
Speaker 7: to say, it's more esoteric than Islamic law. And the
Speaker 7: thing is to be a Muslim, whether Shia or Sundi,
Speaker 7: you are required before you understand the way to live,
Speaker 7: you are required to affirm an Islamic creed, a set
Speaker 7: of beliefs, and you're required to understand what you affirm,
Speaker 7: just like you guys have a nice in creed and
Speaker 7: these creeds, I assume a Christian has to know the
Speaker 7: creed that they affirm, right, they can't affirm it blindly,
Speaker 7: so a Muslim has to affirm a creed out of conviction.
Speaker 5: And you cannot affirm a.
Speaker 7: Creed if you haven't studied some degree of Islamic theology.
Speaker 7: And guess what that's full of terms like substance and
Speaker 7: accidents and necessary and contingent. So this is just a
Speaker 7: mirage that, oh, Islam is simple, and you know, all
Speaker 7: the other religions are complicated. Actually, as a religion professor,
Speaker 7: I'll say all religions have varying degrees of complexity. There
Speaker 7: is a simplistic version of Christianity. God became man, so
Speaker 7: man might become God. There very simple like that will
Speaker 7: appeal some level of Christians that will satisfy them, and some.
Speaker 4: Level of Muslims.
Speaker 7: The Shahada alone will satisfy them.
Speaker 5: They won't go deeper, and that's fine.
Speaker 7: That's the beauty of religion that all religions contain layers
Speaker 7: of complexity and simplicity, and every human can sort of
Speaker 7: engage with the level of depth in their religion that
Speaker 7: they have the capacity to bear.
Speaker 5: That That's how I feel.
Speaker 3: I agree, And also i'll this too.
Speaker 4: I mean, I ever since I was a kid, I mean,
Speaker 4: I've always been interested in just religion in general. I
Speaker 4: like to study ancient mythologies and like I like to
Speaker 4: learn about Buddhism and Hinduism and this stuff. And and
Speaker 4: the way that Islam was always presented to me, I
Speaker 4: always felt like, this is the most boring religion that
Speaker 4: I don't really like, I'm not really that interested in
Speaker 4: it is it just seems so like because it always
Speaker 4: was presented when I was a kid or just you know,
Speaker 4: reading about stuff on my own, like it's just like, well,
Speaker 4: it's just this book and you have there's a few
Speaker 4: rules and whatever, and there you go.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 4: And I was just like that's it, Like that's this
Speaker 4: is you know. And and it's only in the last
Speaker 4: several years that i've kind of you know, really well.
Speaker 4: I mean, I guess when I went to grad school,
Speaker 4: I kind of started learning something about Islamic philosophy and
Speaker 4: I was like, oh, that's interesting. They actually have this
Speaker 4: whole you know, history of philosophical debate and whatever. It's like, oh,
Speaker 4: there's actually a whole yeah, Like I mean to me,
Speaker 4: that makes it more much more interesting. Like now I
Speaker 4: kind of am like, oh, I'd like to know more
Speaker 4: about all of this. So I think Yeah, it's it's
Speaker 4: not a it's not a good way to present.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the attempt at selling point of oh this is
Speaker 2: like the super easy thing. It might cut both cut
Speaker 2: both ways.
Speaker 3: Like yeah, uh Joe, but it's going to turn off
Speaker 3: some people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly exactly, Jordain. You have a question, Well, it's it's.
Speaker 9: Pretty much on the topic that you've had this whole
Speaker 9: week about paid these factories and what doctor cooleg just said.
Speaker 9: Why even though like over the last like fifty years,
Speaker 9: everyone is every church, Protestant church in mainstream like dummed
Speaker 9: out Islam, why is it continued?
Speaker 5: Like why is this process.
Speaker 9: Continued of abandoning like any higher intellect within within religion.
Speaker 9: Why is it persistent even though the long term it
Speaker 9: always ends in liberalism, in atheism?
Speaker 5: Why is it persisted? Do you guys think?
Speaker 2: I think there's multiple reasons. I think there's a there's
Speaker 2: a cultural trend. It's can you it's it's really loud
Speaker 2: in the background, so let me so. I think there's
Speaker 2: a cultural trend in general of people leaving theism, leaving
Speaker 2: the church, leaving Christianity because the culture is so toxic.
Speaker 2: So it's constantly pumped at them to engage in degeneracy,
Speaker 2: to accept degeneracy. The education system, the government from a
Speaker 2: top down is pushing it. There are wealthy people who
Speaker 2: influence religions and they donate to religious institutions, to seminaries
Speaker 2: to make them into atheism factories. So all of those
Speaker 2: things play a role. That's that's my take on that.
Speaker 2: Why do you think there's a can constant push, doctor Branson?
Speaker 4: I mean, I'd agree with all that, but I'd also
Speaker 4: say to me, I think there's this kind of like
Speaker 4: business model for churches that I mean, especially in America,
Speaker 4: Like it's it's become a thing at some point to
Speaker 4: kind of like treat it like a business. Like you're
Speaker 4: thinking about marketing and getting you know, your people are
Speaker 4: like customers that are going to come in and and
Speaker 4: I mean like if you want to be marketable to
Speaker 4: the widest audience, like you want.
Speaker 2: To be the lowest common nominator.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean really Like I mean, how could you
Speaker 4: get like a huge megachurch, you know, if you're taking
Speaker 4: really really specific views on a lot of issues and whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah exactly. Yeah, I mean if you, yeah, your anti schedules,
Speaker 2: anti this and that, like that's going to cut down
Speaker 2: on the you know, offering plate so exactly that there
Speaker 2: might be a you know, it might might hurt the
Speaker 2: bottom line. So business church, which I did. I did
Speaker 2: a livestream make it coat like if on a business
Speaker 2: church a few years ago. So a lot of you
Speaker 2: have probably seen that. I don't see any more. Super chats,
Speaker 2: Doctor both, thank you for joining me, Doctor Calill, thank
Speaker 2: you for joining me as well. Any any final thoughts,
Speaker 2: anything else to debate? What have you thought of the
Speaker 2: recent Muslim debate. I don't know if you've seen the
Speaker 2: other ones, the ones that we did with Daniel and
Speaker 2: Muslim Lantern.
Speaker 3: No I heard about that.
Speaker 4: I just now watched the first I don't know, maybe
Speaker 4: half hour something, but it was a pretty long one,
Speaker 4: so I've gotta gotta go through more.
Speaker 3: But I did.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I notice the opening like this is simple and you.
Speaker 2: Know, and again I want to remind people. Muhammed a
Speaker 2: job as well. Like Sam and I Fresh and Fits agreed,
Speaker 2: we're happy to do two on two. So Mohammed a job,
Speaker 2: doesn't want to debate Sam. Shemoon directly wants Sam to
Speaker 2: debate Jake. Easy solution, Jake, Muhammed a job debate me
Speaker 2: and Sam on Fresh and Fit. Myron said he's happy
Speaker 2: to do that, so I'll issue that challenge and thank
Speaker 2: you for joining me. Doctor Bow and everybody can check
Speaker 2: out his website. He's linked if you want to go
Speaker 2: see his lectures and his media appearances. I highly recommend
Speaker 2: this series on monarchical trinitarianism that's over at his website.
Speaker 2: You can also find his uploaded videos at Orthodox Rahta.
Speaker 2: Doctor Klill is also on YouTube as well under his name.
Speaker 2: So thank you guys and appreciate you coming on