Podcasts about Hypostatic union

Matt Slick Live (Live Broadcast of 10/02/2025) is a production of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM). Matt answers questions on topics such as: The Bible, Apologetics, Theology, World Religions, Atheism, and other issues! You can also email questions to Matt using: info@carm.org, Put "Radio Show Question" in the Subject line! Answers will be discussed in a future show. Topics Include: Matt Announces Plans for the Upcoming "Matt Slick Live" Anniversary/ How Should the Church Handle the Spread of Islam in America/ A Caller Recognizes Failure towards a Friend/ "Turning Point" Members as Unbelievers. Is This Being "Unequally Yoked?"/ EO and Penal Substitutionary Atonement/Matt Explains the Necessity of the Hypostatic Union in reference to Christ's Nature/ Understanding a Word's "Semantic Domain"/"Asteroid" talk?/ October 2, 2025

In this interview with Dr. James Renihan, we continue to explore the offices of Christ in Article XIX of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith. 

In this solo episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal tackles the concerning theological trend of "Divine Council Theology" and its recent resurgence within Reformed circles. He offers a critical analysis of Michael Heiser's influential work and its problematic popularization by Reformed figures like Doug Van Dorn and John Moffitt. Tony demonstrates how redefining the biblical term "Elohim" to include both God and created spiritual beings in the same ontological category fundamentally undermines the creator-creature distinction essential to Christian orthodoxy. Through careful examination of systematic theological categories, communicable and incommunicable attributes, and implications for Christology, he reveals why this seemingly academic redefinition poses serious threats to biblical monotheism and classical Reformed theology. Key Takeaways Divine Council Theology, popularized by Michael Heiser and now being promoted within Reformed circles, attempts to redefine "Elohim" as a functional category that includes both God and created spiritual beings. This theological trend commits an etymological fallacy by redefining the predominant usage of "Elohim" (which refers to the God of Israel in ~2,300 of 2,600 occurrences) based on minority usages. The approach dangerously blurs the fundamental creator-creature distinction that is essential to Christian monotheism and orthodox theology. Proponents incorrectly classify divine power as a communicable attribute rather than recognizing omnipotence as an incommunicable attribute that cannot be shared with creatures. The theological system makes problematic analogies to the incarnation, showing a confused understanding of the hypostatic union and potentially opening the door to Arian implications. This theology represents a concerning return to concepts the early church fathers fought against when confronting pagan Greek thought, rather than a retrieval of biblical teaching. Departing from the "pattern of sound words" handed down through church history in favor of novel interpretations should raise significant warning flags. Key Concepts The Creator-Creature Distinction The most fundamental division in Christian theology is not between spiritual and material beings, but between the uncreated Creator and everything else that exists. Divine Council Theology dangerously undermines this distinction by placing God and created spiritual beings in the same category of "Elohim." While proponents acknowledge God as the uncreated Creator, they nevertheless insist on categorizing Him alongside angels, demons, and other spiritual entities based on shared attributes of power or function. This categorization system parallels pagan worldviews more than biblical theology, where God exists in a class of one. By defining "Elohim" as a functional category related to spiritual power rather than an ontological one, this approach inadvertently returns to a hierarchical view of spiritual beings with God merely at the "top of the totem pole" rather than in an entirely separate and unique category of existence. This framework subtly but significantly undermines biblical monotheism by suggesting God shares a fundamental nature with His creatures. Communicable vs. Incommunicable Attributes Divine Council Theology mishandles the traditional theological distinction between God's communicable and incommunicable attributes. In classical Reformed theology, communicable attributes (like love or wisdom) can be shared with creatures in a limited, analogical way, while incommunicable attributes (like omnipotence, eternality, or divine simplicity) belong exclusively to God and cannot be shared without making the creature into God. Proponents of Divine Council Theology erroneously suggest that the power denoted by "Elohim" is a communicable attribute that God shares with spiritual beings, rather than recognizing omnipotence as properly incommunicable. This misclassification creates theological incoherence: if God could truly share His omnipotence with creatures, those creatures would effectively become equal to God in power, creating the logical impossibility of multiple omnipotent beings. This confusion of categories demonstrates how this theological system fails to maintain proper distinctions that are essential for preserving the uniqueness and transcendence of God in Christian theology. Memorable Quotes "Christianity and biblical Judaism—the primary distinction is not between spiritual and matter... The primary distinction when we're talking about the most absolute line is the distinction between the uncreated creator and his creation." "Rather than rely on the safe time-tested words and concepts that have been proven and validated, and attacked and defended and have been victorious for hundreds and thousands of years... Moffitt and Van Dorn think it is smarter and safer to depart from the pattern of sound words rather than to keep the pattern of sound words because they think that they are able to look at the Bible the way basically no one ever has in the 2000 years of the church and find something they haven't." "These teachings are pagan. This is talking about returning to a world populated by spiritual beings, and God is kind of just on the highest part of the totem pole... We're just returning to something that the early church fought hard to get rid of when they came out of their pagan culture." Resources Mentioned Reformed Arsenal article series on Divine Council Theology Full Transcript [00:00:24] Introduction and Episode Setup Tony Arsenal: Welcome to episode 461 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I am Tony, and today it's just me. Hey, brothers and sisters. We had a little bit of a scheduling conflict this week, so Jesse is taking the week off and uh, it gives me an opportunity to talk about something that I've been doing a little bit of research on. [00:00:47] Affirmations and Denials Tony Arsenal: Hopefully the listener has noticed that Jesse and I have been trying to keep our affirmations and denials a little bit tighter so we can get into the meat of the episode a little bit quicker. But occasionally we do run into a denial, usually a denial, but we run into a denial that, uh, we often say this could be an episode of its own. And so today is one of those episodes. So I'm not gonna give you my normal affirmation or denial. I'm just gonna jump into it. Now this is gonna be a little bit off the cuff. I've been doing some research, so I may not have as much of the receipts as the kids say, um, as I normally would. But I am writing a series of articles on this issue over@reformedarsenal.com. I'll make sure to put the link to the first article in the show notes. All of the receipts are there, all of the timestamps for the podcast episodes that I'll be. Discussing your critiquing. Are there citations for research work that I'm doing? All that stuff is there. So if you're interested in digging into the meet and you're the kind of guy who, or girl who likes to nerd out in the footnotes, then head over to uh reformed arsenal.com. You'll find the series pretty quick. [00:01:56] Introduction to Divine Counsel Theology Tony Arsenal: What I wanted to talk about today, and I'm glad we have kind of a whole episode, uh, to talk about it, is a movement, uh, that has some foothold in reformed theology. Uh, it's not new, uh, it didn't start in reformed theology, but for some reason, uh, those who are within our orbits tend to be a little bit enamored by this kind of theology. I'm not exactly sure why. [00:02:19] Michael Heiser's Influence Tony Arsenal: This theology is often called Divine Counsel Theology, and it was really, um, you know, it's not entirely new even with, with this figure, but it was really made popular and sort of, um, spread about and made accessible by the late Michael Heiser. Um, part of this is because he was just a very winsome, uh, guy. He took. Sort of highfalutin academic concepts and was able to bring them down to, uh, to an understandable level, including things like ancient near Eastern context, biblical, you know, ex of Jesus Hebrew language, other ancient near Eastern languages, which of course, that's that kind of stuff is what this podcast is all about, taking difficult, sometimes technical concepts. Talking about them, translating them into kind of the language that everybody else speaks. So that project was fine. The issue is the direction that he goes with a lot of the theology. So Michael Heiser writes a book called Unseen Realms, which is seen as kind of a retrieval of the supernatural mindset and worldview of the Bible. Uh, there's a lot to be commended about that, uh, enterprise, about that intention. I do agree with part of what he has to say when he says that we've lost a lot of the supernatural context of the Bible. Um, but I think where he goes with it is a direction that we really ought not go and we'll dig into it. [00:03:43] Critique of Reformed Fringe Podcast Tony Arsenal: The reason this is coming up now is because recently there's been a series of articles and podcasts put out by a show called The Reformed Fringe. Uh, some if you're in the Telegram chat, which you can join at, uh, t Me slash Reformed Brotherhood. You've already seen some of this stuff. We've already talked about it a little bit. But the Reformed Fringe is a podcast that sort of tries to fill a space that's something like Haunted Cosmos, which we've talked about before. Um, fills sort of looking at the weird fringe kind of things in the world. Ghosts, paranormal activity, trying to explain it through a biblical, uh, lens or worldview. Again, that's a commendable. Effort. There are strange things that happen in our world that are not easily explainable or at all explainable by natural, uh, naturalistic means. And so coming to those things with the Bible as our, uh, rubric to instruct us on how the world works is a commendable thing. But again, this project, which is by and large, um, and we'll get into maybe, but by and large is just an extension of, um, Heiser's project really goes in directions that cause all sorts of problems down the road. So the podcast is, uh, run by a guy named Doug Van Dorn, who most of the audience probably hasn't heard of. I have had run-ins with Doug over the years. Um, the last time I ran into him actually was revolving around similar kinds of issues that I'm gonna be calling out today. Um, and it, it ended up with him kind of having to depart from the reform pub, uh, maybe to put it a little bit politely and, um. You know, he has, he has taken, he's theology, which was not explicitly reformed. Heiser was not a reformed guy. He had no claims to be a Calvinist in many ways. Uh, he was sort of anticon confessional in, in that he opposed not the idea of a faith statement, but he sort of purported to come to the Bible with no biases, with no tradition. He wanted to approach what he called the Naked Bible. That was actually the name of his podcast before he died a few years ago. And so what Doug Van Dorn is, has done who, uh, Doug is a claims to be a 1689 Reformed Baptist. He's a pastor in Colorado, I believe. Um, he has tried to take this divine counsel theology and bring it into the reformed world. So he comes at it with a, a slightly different angle, but for the most part, his conclusions are the same. And in many cases he just straight up steals ER's work and doesn't cite it, doesn't do much to, uh, articulate that this is not his original research. Um, so he's taken that and he's trying to bring it into the reformed world. And Heiser himself was actually quite influential when I was a, an admin in the reform pub. We would run into lots of, lots of young reformed guys. Who were really enamored with this and they really saw, he's project as sort of a return to a pure form of exo Jesus that really got at what the Hebrew was saying. And it tickled, I think, kind of an intellectual, uh, an intellectual itch that a lot of those guys had combined with sort of this desire for the new and novel, um, which is in itself can be pretty dangerous. To sort of make things a little bit more pressing, Heiser has teamed up with John Moffitt, who many of our listeners may know. Uh, he's one of the co-hosts and founders of the podcast, Theo Cast, uh, which otherwise is a perfectly fine podcast. Um, he's also a 1680 or claims to be a 1689 Reform Baptist. He's a pastor. Um, their podcast is sort of what you would get if you had, uh, and I don't mean this to be pejorative, although maybe it is a little pejorative. Theo cast is what you would get if you took r Scott Clark. Uh, you made it much less intellectual and careful, and then made it Baptist. And what I mean by that is Scott's whole project. In large part is to recover and to emphasize the law gospel distinction. Theo cast has taken that and sort of cranked it up to 11. Uh, and they have um, they have sort of moved away from a lot of the classical reform distinctions of the law itself, so they don't full on deny the third use of the law. But in practice they would say that, um, good works is no kind of evidence whatsoever for your, um, for your faith. It's no kind of evidence of your, your salvation, which of course are confessions themselves. Um, say that there is a kind of evidential value to assessing our good works within certain reason and con. So the show is otherwise orthodox. You know, I I, I recall hearing episodes where they were refuting things like EFS, um, but because of that, Moffitt brings with him sort of an air of credibility and an error in orthodoxy that, um, the show itself probably hasn't merited. If Doug just recorded, pushed, play and put it on the. I don't think there would've been too much, uh, too much of a following. He would've probably, you know, grabbed a couple people who heard it and thought it was interesting. But because Moffitt has such a following on Theo cast, he brings with him a large audience, and that makes it particularly dangerous because his name attached to it makes it more widespread. It makes it feel like it's safer. And so I think a lot of people, uh, assume that what he's saying is orthodox and good. And I think what we'll find out is, is that it's not. So I think that's enough ProGo. [00:09:10] Elohim and Its Implications Tony Arsenal: I'm gonna go ahead and, and jump into explaining kind of what the theology that we're talking about is and, and what the problems are. So this all started kicked off, uh, with a series of podcast episodes and the first episode, and again, I don't have the specific titles here. I'll put a bibliography in the show notes on this one just so you have links to all the relevant episodes. Um, this all kind of kicked off with a podcast episode called something like The History of the Word God, or something like that. And, um, basically what Moffitt and Van Dorn want to do is they wanna look at the word Elohim in the Bible, which of course is a plural noun. Uh, in Hebrew, the, the suffix, just like in English, we might add an S or an ES, um, to a word to make it plural. Or in Greek, it's usually, if it's a masculine, uh, noun, it's, it's an oi or an omicron iota that sort of always sound at the end. Um, or when we, we talk about Latin, you have, you have like, um, you add the I at the end, so we say octopi instead of octopuses or something like that. Cacti instead of cactus. Although both of those are kind of pig Latins, um, in, in Hebrew for, uh, for masculine nouns. The suffix that you add to make it plural, is that eam sound. It's a, it's an Im if you transliterate in English. So the word Elohim is a plural of the original noun El which is a proper name for a eury deity. But it came to just be the singular word for, for God. Um, and, and in non-biblical language, we would say in a God. Um, and we do see in English, there are in, in Hebrew, in the Bible, there are places where we see the singular of this. It's kind of an older form, so it doesn't show up as much. Um, but by and large when we see the word Elohim in the Bible. Something like, uh, outta 2,600 references or more than 2,600 references in the Bible. Um, the word Elohim is associated with a single, a singular noun, and it only refers to the God of Israel. What Moffitt and Van Dorn want to do is they want to take this word and they wanna define it based on the abnormal. Uh, use of it. So the vast minority, minority of cases in the Old Testament, the word Elohim refers to the gods or to a non, like what we might say is lower G God, either like the God, Baal, or some sort of collective reference to the gods, the gods of the nation, or something like that. They wanna take the fact that there is this variation in the way the word is used and sort of radically redefine how the Bible uses it. And this, this is what I call and what a lot of people would call an etymological fallacy. So what they're doing is, instead of, uh, looking at the word and defining it based on how it's used in an, in an overwhelming fashion, they're looking at sort of the etymology of the word. And then they're using the fact that there are, uh, some pretty Dr. Dramatically minority cases where the word is used in a different way and they wanna redefine it and say, in, in all or most cases in the Bible actually. This is what the word means. So they look at the word L, which from its root has something to do probably with the, with the word for power or something like that. Um, they wanna look at it. And, you know, if you read someone like Vos in Reformed dogmatics in his volume one, he talks about how when we see the name Elohim for God, it denotes or, or refers to his sort of power, his omnipotence, which is all good and fine, just like we would say Yahweh. Uh, as a proper name refers to God sort of in his covenant role. It's his covenant name, his, his intimate, familial name that he shares, uh, with his people or he reveals to his people. Elohim is a more abstract name and it refers to God's power. Usually we see it in relation to his cre creation. So in Genesis one, um, when it's God created, it's Elohim created, which is also important and relevant for, for later. So what they wanna do is they want to say that Elohim actually. What Act Elohim actually means is it's a reference to a class of beings, spiritual beings, and that that it means sort of any spiritual being that has some type of supernatural power or enhanced power, some sort of spiritual power. They do this by saying that the noun is not an ontological noun, it's actually like a noun of function. Um, so like we would say a, a good example in English would be a painter that's a noun of function. It's a title of function. It any person could be called a painter if they engage in the verbal action of painting. And so what they're saying is that any being that engages in the action of having power. Is, uh, is an Elohim. And so that would include, in narrating at least, it would include angels, demons. Uh, I, you know, I don't know that they've said this explicitly, but I, I think Heiser would've included things like ghosts, disembodied spirits, um, humans in sort of the intermediary state might be considered Elohim humans in the, in the, um, this. Life are called Elohim, uh, in some instances. So, so this is where the Divine Council theology comes from, and that comes from Psalm 82, I think, where there's this council of Elohim that, that Yahweh seems to be speaking to and deliberating with. Or you look at Joe, where the sons of God come and they sort of pulled court in God's heavenly presence. So he would say those are examples where the, the collected Elohim. God being one of the Elohim are somehow gathered in this heavenly divine counsel. Now what this does is just devastating to Christian theology is it takes God who exists in a class of one. The, the, the God of the universe is, is the only uncreated entity in all of of the world. And so when we start to talk, and this is ironic, when we start to talk about the ways to divide up the world, the ancient world, the, the pagan world tended to divide the world between, um. Between spiritual and material. So think of g Gnostics where matter was bad and spirit was good. Or even think of something like, um, the Greek pantheons, the Greek, um, Greek religion, like ancient Greek mythology. You have sort of the spirits and the spiritual world and the gods inhabit a spiritual, have a spiritual existence for the most part. And then you have the physical world where kind of people live, uh, at least while they're alive. Christianity and, and Judaism, at least Biblical Judaism. On the other hand, the, the primary distinction is not between spiritual and matter. There is of course that distinction. There are humans, which are spiritual and material. There are animals which are entirely material, and then there are angels which are entirely spiritual. And so we would say that God is spiritual. So that is a distinction in the world. But the primary distinction when we're talking about the most absolute line is the distinction between the, the uncreated creator and his creation. So what Moffitt, Moffitt and Van Dorn do is instead of observing that biblical distinction, which really all of Christian theology and Christian monotheism rests on, they wanna say that instead, the distinction is between the. Um, is between the Elohim as the sort of spiritual beings and then sort of everything else of the created world, and so they wouldn't deny that God, that Yahweh is. The uncreated creator of all things, but they would say he's an uncreated Elohim and that there is a class of created Elohim. So I don't, I don't think you have to go too far down this road to see what this does. It puts God on the same level as his creatures in at least one way. Um, and I think we'll find out later, uh, as we talk through this, actually it does it in a couple ways that are really, uh, really can be problematic as we go. And so, uh, just let me be clear if all that, if all that Moffitt and Van Dorn were saying, if, if all they said was, um, we can use the word Elohim to describe any creature. Or God that doesn't have a body. Elohim is a synonym for the word spirit. Um, that wouldn't be the wisest way to speak, I don't think. It wouldn't be the, the most, um, felicitous or safe way to talk about the distinction. But it wouldn't be controversial. There'd be nothing wrong with that. It'd just be using a different word. It'd be like if I said, well, instead of the word spirit, I'm gonna use the word bibly bop, you know? So we have. We have God who is bibly bop, and we have the angels who is bibly bop, and humans are biblio bop. And also material, again, not the safest way to talk. There's no reason to use that alternative language when the Bible gives us perfectly legitimate language. Um, but it wouldn't be a problem. But Moffit and Van Dorn go. Way past this and maybe they don't realize it. I've asked them on Twitter, I asked them to clarify. I didn't get a response. So if they are hearing this, which maybe they will, maybe they won't. If they're hearing this, I would really love to get some clarification on some of these questions because I would love nothing more than to be able to say that this was all a big misunderstanding and that actually all they're saying is that there is this spiritual existence. That, um, we can put all things that are spirit without a body or spirit with a body. We can put all those in the same category and call that category Elohim. Again, I don't think that's safe, but if that's all they were doing, that would be fine. But we see in their episodes, and I'm gonna try to grab some quotes, um, from, from some of the articles I've written. But again, go read the articles because this goes way more in depth. It's got timestamps of it. It's got links to their episodes. Don't take my word for it. Go listen to their. Words and, and check, you know, check my math on this. But what they do is they actually start to, in, in an attempt to justify why it's okay to put God in the same category as his creatures. Um, and in at least one way, they start to make some weird statements that have a lot of systematic theology, um, implications that are, are just really, really risky. So, for example, one of the ways that they try to kind of explain this, I'm gonna pull, pull the article that I wrote up here. So, great podcasting. [00:19:34] Communicable vs. Incommunicable Attributes Tony Arsenal: Um, one of the ways they start to try to do this is again, they, they wanna say they use this distinction between incommunicable and communicable attributes, right? So in, in Christian theology, classically speaking, a communicable attribute of God is an attribute that he shares or could share with. A creature and primarily we're talking, you know, we're talking about attributes that he shares with his image bearers. So something like, um, love. Love is a communicable attribute. Our love is different than God's love, but when we say love, we're talking about the same basic category of things God loves differently than we do. But love and in a human sense, and love in a, in a divine sense, are still talking about the same thing. There's a point of contact there. Um, an incommunicable attribute would be something like, um, something like eternity. Right. Eternity is not just an extended infinite sequence of time. If it was, he could share that with us. Um, but eternity or infinity is an entirely different way of existing than a creature could ever, could ever exist in divine Simplicity is another example. Um, God could not make humans simple because simplicity entails all sorts of things like infinity. Um, eternality. Um, you know, omnipresence, omni, potent, all of these things are entailed by simplicity. So God could not make a creature infinite because in order for it to be infinite, it would have to be God. Uh, God could not make a creature simple, uh, in the, in the sense of no composition of parts. Uh, because that would mean that that creature is actually God and has no composer. So, so those would be the classic, uh, incommunicable attributes and omnipotence. Is considered, although it's a little bit weird, it sort of crosses the line in some ways. But omnipotence is considered. An incommunicable attribute. God cannot share his omnipotence with a creature because you can't have two omnipotence. Um, if you have two omnipotence, then those two omnipotence cancel each other out in some sense. If God, and, and, and he has a will, God wills one thing, and then I as a creature, if he shared his omnipotence with me, somehow willed a different thing, then we would no longer be, neither of us would be omnipotent. Where this goes sideways with Moffitt and Vandorn is rather than respect omnipotence as a an incommunicable attribute, they say that the attribute or the word Elohim denotes power or might, and that is a communicable attribute. So God does give us a certain level of power. He allows us a certain level of agency. He grants that to us. Again, I'm not even sure that we would call that an an. A communicable attribute. Um, but in a sense, I guess it is. And so they say here, um, Elohim does not mean omnipotent. It means power. It's not an incommunicable attribute. It's a communicable attribute that all kinds of entities could possess. So they're saying that the word, um, the word Elohim, uh, in the Bible denotes that a. A, an entity possesses a certain kind of power or acts in a certain role of executing a certain kind of power. And that doesn't mean omnipotence. It means it means potence. It means some sort of power. And so that that wielding power attribute that. Uh, being a, being that wields power, that attribute, whatever we want to call it, however we want to phrase it, that is a communicable attribute that God shares. He communicates that attribute to all other beings in the class of Elohim. Now, let's just back that up for a second. Um, this still would mean that God has to be the creator and they don't deny that, but it would still mean that God, prior to creation. Was an Elohim in a category of one, and then somehow he created a class and because he's extended. This attribute of wielding power, say power wielder, to try to make it actually more of an attribute. He's extended this attribute of power wielder to uncreate or to created angels, demons, human spirits, whatever other spiritual entities there might be. They would bring in things like principalities, powers, they have a whole, in other, other contexts, they'll talk about this whole different bifurcation of types of spiritual beings that I think is a little speculative, but not a big deal. He extends this power wielder attribute to these created categories. And instead of this now creating a separate category of power wields who are not God, it now is uh, he expands this category of one to now include all sorts of other things, which again, as you can, you can imagine, just runs into problems. And so the, again, this, this word Elohim appears over 2,600 times, and of these instances, 230 of them refer to the God of Israel. So the idea that that. This word is not used specifically as a reference to the God of Israel, or should not be thought of as uniquely titling or almost exclusively titling God. The God of Israel just doesn't really match the data, but it's also just really poor Exogenic method. So rather than take the predominant usage and look at the context. Understanding that the predominant usage is the predominant usage. Instead, we're gonna go back and say, well, these, these minority, these 300 or so cases outside, and not even all 300 of them are used the same way, but these 300 or so cases of them not referring to the God of Israel, we're gonna use that to redefine the word. Its entirety. It's just poor. It's just poor scholarship. It's overly speculative. Um, I haven't read much of. He's work on this in the primary sources. Um, I, I would venture a guess that Heiser makes a much more robust argument than this. And this is part of the problem. When you take an already speculative, already dangerous theology and you try to pop popularize it when you just don't have the same chops that he did, uh, you end up really making some crass, simplistic arguments that just make you look a little silly. To think we can take 200 or 2,600 instances and redefine 2 20, 300 of them. By the way, it's used 300 of the times Just doesn't make any sense. So it again, if, if all we are saying is that God is spiritual and angels are spiritual and so there is some point of affinity between the two, then that would be okay. That wouldn't be a problem. Again, there's some risk in using the word Elohim in that. Sort of placeholder, but, um, that would be a semantic discussion. What they're doing is far, far deeper and far more problematic than that. [00:26:30] Systematic Theology Concerns Tony Arsenal: And so the, the other thing they do, um, that I think is really dangerous, and I don't have all of the, I haven't finished this article yet, so I don't have all of the timestamps in front of me to, to, to get there, is in attempting to justify this Moffitt, uh, in, in one of the other episodes, he turns to the incarnation as a sort of model. And so he'll say that, you know, the son of God is divine, but he's also human. And the fact that he's human, uh, doesn't therefore mean he's not also uniquely the uncreated creator. I would assume everyone hearing this who listens to this show, uh, which has done many, many episodes on Christology, it's one of our pet projects, is just throwing their listening device across the room because what Moffitt seems to miss entirely is that Christ is not, the sun is not in the category of human. Uh, sort of in a simple sense, Christ is in the category of human because he assumes to himself a second created nature. So what, what the, the analogy he's trying to draw is if the sun can be human without ceasing to be the unique one, uncreated God, then so also can, the whole trinity, I guess, can also be Elohim without ceasing to be the one uncreated God. He even goes so far as to say that there is Uncreated Elohim, and then there is created Elohim, and they're all in the category of Elohim, but because there's this commonality, we should still consider that class. And he draws that distinction or he draws the implication that. Um, there's somehow uncreated humanity in Christ, which is a whole different ball of worms that we won't get into. But in, in drawing this analogy, he sort of shows that he really doesn't understand the hypostatic union. He doesn't understand the incarnation, or if he does, he's really making a poor comparison because in the hypostatic union it's not as though the son, uh, as divinity, the son, as the one uncreated. God simply adds to himself in a raw sense and merges. Uh, he doesn't become part of the category of human without taking on a second nature. And then now we are even getting into some inconsistencies. Is human an ontological category or is that a category of function? Are there other categories of function, uh, other creatures in existence that the category of function human might fit? So I think you can see that this just is not a self consistent. Um, a self-consistent system and it leads to all these weird implications. Um, you know, and then they'll even go on to talk about how the Son is the angel of the Lord. I'm not gonna get into a lot of it here, and I agree with that thesis that the, when we see the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament, in the vast majority of cases, we're probably seeing a pre-incarnate appearance of, um, of the second person of the Trinity. They go so far as to say that this is actually a sort of. Incarnation or a sort of hypostatic union of the Elohim nature. So they, they, they draw this distinction, or they draw this parallel between created Elohim and Uncreated Elohim, and they, they argue again, I think implicitly, but in some instances it's almost, it's almost explicit that the son in, in being the angel of the Lord, takes on the uncreated or takes on the created Elohim nature. It's, it's really, um, it's really problematic. So now we have the son who is, uh, sort of hypostatic united to the unc, to the created Elohim nature, and then also is hypostatic united to the human nature. Um, it, it really just gets messy and it confuses categories in a way that is not helpful. And if I'm just being frank, a lot of the younger reformed guys. And when I say younger, I'm talking, maybe I'm projecting back to when I was a younger reform guy, um, I'm talking about people in their mid twenties to maybe early thirties, right? The, the people who were maybe the second or third generation of the young restless reform guys, they didn't necessarily learn, uh, ref young restless reform theology directly from RC Sproul. You know, they weren't the first generation. Um, and, and maybe their pastors weren't the first generation, but, but maybe their pastors were the second generation and now they're learning it from their pastors. So you might think of 'em as like the third generation, to be frank, they don't usually have a great grasp on some of these systematic theology categories as part of why. Jesse and I do this podcast, and part of why we cover the same topic over and over again, part of why we're gonna go through this parable series. But when we're done, we're probably gonna go back and start over with systematic theology. We're gonna go back, we're gonna go through another confession. That's why we spent, we spent like six years going through systematic theology. And almost immediately went back to the Scott's confession and did most of it all over again because these truths need to be taught again and again and again. This is part of what Jude is talking about when he says, we have to contend for the faith. It's not just fighting with people online. It's not just polemics or apologetics. It is reteaching and handing down the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Again, and this is perhaps, and this is the last point I'll make. This is perhaps the most. Telling a reason we should be weary and suspicious of this theology. Paul, in, uh, one of the letters to Timothy, second Timothy, maybe he says, follow the pattern of the sound words that you heard from me. He's not talking about the scriptures. He doesn't say follow the sound words that I'm writing to you. He's referring to a body of doctrine sometimes. The Bible calls it the faith, right? Jude says to contend for the faith. There's this body of doctrine that is the teaching of the apostles, and it is encapsulated in this sort of set pattern of words. Erin A is called it the rule of faith or the regular fide, right? This is where we get things like the Nicean Creed or the Hanian Creed. Why we have creeds and confessions is because we don't need to reinvent the wheel and rather than rely on the safe time-tested words and concepts that have been proven and validated, and attacked and defended and, and um, have been victorious for hundreds and thousands of years, rather than rely on those. Moffitt and Van Doran think it is smarter and safer to depart from the pattern of sound words rather than to keep the pattern of sound words because they think that they are able to look at the Bible the way basically no one ever has in the 2000 years of the church and find something they haven't. I don't wanna be too bombastic. Um, I don't, I don't know either of them. Well, um, from what I can tell, what I've heard of their professions of faith, uh, they're, they're Christian believers. They love the Lord and are very confused. But these teachings are pagan. This is, we're talking about returning to a world of, of populated by spiritual beings. And God is kind of just on the highest part of the totem pole, and maybe there's a firm line between his place on the totem pole and the, the next level down. Maybe there is, um, gets a little bit less firm of a line when we're talking about Jesus, right? So there's some potential Arian implications there that the son, uh, is not the highest deity he is. He's like the father in some ways, but he, you know, in his sort of original form is like creatures in other ways. Um, we're just returning to something that the early church fought hard to get rid of when they came out of their pagan culture. When we started to see Greeks convert to Christianity, they had to figure out how do we come out of our polytheistic culture, and this is where we get the best defenses of monotheism. Jewish Christians didn't have to argue for monotheism because all the Jewish Christians already were monotheists in a biblical sense. The Greek Christians had to fight this stuff. Justin Martyr had to fight this stuff. Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers had to fight this stuff constantly pushing back against the background Greek culture. And Moffitt and Van Dorn wanna point to that and say, see, really, they're just Greeks in disguise and in the reality is Athanasius and the cap oceans, were fighting against the theology that is making a resurgence in this divine council theory. [00:34:55] Conclusion and Call to Action Tony Arsenal: So I think that's enough for now. Please. Again, I'm writing a long series on this. I don't know how long it's gonna take. I think it's gonna be probably 10 or 13, 10 to 13 articles. It's, it's gonna be a pretty extensive project. But go read them. Go look at them, listen to their episodes, read their articles, and then you compare that to the word of God, has what I said made more sense or does what they make more sense. So I'll leave you with that. The dog is losing her mind. And uh, with that honor, everyone love the brotherhood.

In this class, we focus on the person and work of Jesus Christ, emphasizing His dual nature as fully God and fully man, known as the Hypostatic Union. We explore the necessity of Jesus as the Kinsman Redeemer and the Last Adam to pay the debt for humanity's sin, highlighting that salvation is ultimately achieved through His perfect works rather than human merit. We review biblical prophecies concerning His heritage, birth, ministry, and ultimate death, presenting the Incarnation (God becoming flesh) and subsequent crucifixion as the pivotal events for fulfilling the biblical covenants and enacting the New Covenant. Finally, we contrast Jesus' joyful, authentic life with legalism and self-righteousness, and are encouraged to reflect His character and understand the profound, transformative nature of His sacrifice.

In this interview with Dr. James Renihan we continue to discuss the doctrine of Christ found in  the First London Baptist Confession of Faith.

“How Can Jesus be both God and Son?” This episode explores the complex doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, while also addressing varied questions such as the identity of the Black Hebrew Israelites, the significance of Godparents, and the role of the two witnesses in Revelation. Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: Click Here Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit Catholicanswersspeakers.com Questions Covered: 02:20 – Are the Black Hebrew Israelites the Real Jews? 13:59 – Who are the two witnesses at the end time in Revelation 11? 19:11 – What are some tips on selecting God Parents? 29:10 – If Jesus is the most high God, how can He have a Father? 39:07 – Can you clarify the Hypostatic union? 49:11 – Can a Roman Catholic appreciate St. Gregory Palamas's energy essence distinction? 52:31 – How are Catholics to understand Ephesians 2 considering the contradiction in James ?

Matt Slick Live (Live Broadcast of 08/06/2025) is a production of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM). Matt answers questions on topics such as: The Bible, Apologetics, Theology, World Religions, Atheism, and other issues! You can also email questions to Matt using: info@carm.org, Put "Radio Show Question" in the Subject line! Answers will be discussed in a future show. Topics Include:(Intro Blank on some Podcast Outlets--Scroll to 10:30 Mark.)What is The Hypostatic Union & The Communicatio Idiomatica?/ A Revisit About The Authority of Paul/ What About The Hypostatic Union; Did Jesus Have a Human Spirit?/ John 14:15, How is This Interpreted?/Is The Law Separate From Jesus' Commandments?/Salvation and Works?/ August 6, 2025

Matt Slick Live (Live Broadcast of 08/06/2025) is a production of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM). Matt answers questions on topics such as: The Bible, Apologetics, Theology, World Religions, Atheism, and other issues! You can also email questions to Matt using: info@carm.org, Put "Radio Show Question" in the Subject line! Answers will be discussed in a future show. Topics Include: (Intro Blank on some Podcast Outlets--Scroll to 10:30 Mark.) What is The Hypostatic Union & The Communicatio Idiomatum?/ A Revisit About The Authority of Paul/ What About The Hypostatic Union; Did Jesus Have a Human Spirit?/ John 14:15, How is This Interpreted?/Is The Law Separate From Jesus' Commandments?/Salvation and Works?/ August 6, 2025

Matt Slick Live (Live Broadcast of 08/06/2025) is a production of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM). Matt answers questions on topics such as: The Bible, Apologetics, Theology, World Religions, Atheism, and other issues! You can also email questions to Matt using: info@carm.org, Put "Radio Show Question" in the Subject line! Answers will be discussed in a future show. Topics Include:(Intro Blank on some Podcast Outlets--Scroll to 10:30 Mark.)What is The Hypostatic Union & The Communicatio Idiomatica?/ A Revisit About The Authority of Paul/ What About The Hypostatic Union; Did Jesus Have a Human Spirit?/ John 14:15, How is This Interpreted?/Is The Law Separate From Jesus' Commandments?/Salvation and Works?/ August 6, 2025

Speaker: Marc Bercier

In John 8:58, Jesus boldly declared: “Truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I AM!” What did He mean? The Jews immediately understood Him—and tried to kill Him! Rodgers Atwebembeire explains the awesome truth behind Jesus' statement. Originally aired on Rite TV Uganda

Northwest Bible Church – April 20, 2025 – Resurrection Day – Alan Conner Luke 24:13-35 The Nature of Christ's Resurrection Body Intro A.  CHRIST'S APPEARANCE IS DISGUISED. 1. How was this accomplished?    2. Mk. 16:12  - “He appeared in a different form”  3. Jn. 20:15 - Mary thought the risen Jesus was a gardener. B. WHY DID CHRIST APPEAR THIS WAY? 1. The resurrection body is a mystery. a. Like the Trinity, Hypostatic union of Christ b.  1 Cor. 15:44 – a spiritual body? c.  1 Cor. 2:9   2. Christ can be near but hidden to us in times of distress.   a. for our testing -  (1) They were foolish men (Luke 24:25) (2) They were slow to believe the prophets (Luke 24:25). b. for our sanctification (1) Illumination.  Luke 24:27     (2) Revelation, Luke 24:30-31.        c. the means of grace, Luke 24:28-31.    Conclusion

We look at a number of apparent theological paradoxes that are resolved in the same way, according to the principle that: “the entirety of Your WORD is TRUTH” (Ps 119:160). In each case, there are a set of Scriptures that emphasise one truth and another set of Scriptures that emphasise a different truth, but it can seem hard to see how to hold both truths together as they don't seem to fit. Some examples are: (1) the Prophecies of the Sufferings and Glory of Christ (Luke 24:25), (2) the Goodness and Severity of God, (3) God's Sovereignty and man's free-will, (4) the fact that Christ is both God and man (the hypostatic union), (5) the Tri-unity of God, and (6) how we can be forgiven in Christ (as far as our relationship is concerned), and yet still need forgiveness (as far as our fellowship with God is concerned). In each of these cases, people can easily go into a ditch on either side of the road of truth by choosing the set of Scriptures they like, and then ignoring or explaining away the Scriptures on the other side. The answer is found in realising that both sets of Scriptures are fully true, because there are 2 distinct (but related) realms of truth (if you can try to reconcile the 2 truths by mixing them together, you end up compromising and destroying them both - for example, by saying Christ is a semi-god and a semi-man, whereas the truth is that He is fully God and fully man). On the basis that all Scripture is true, we should embrace both revelations of truth, then seek God for a deeper understanding of how both sides can be fully true. When we do this, we will be rewarded with a fuller revelation of God's truth.

We look at a number of apparent theological paradoxes that are resolved in the same way, according to the principle that: “the entirety of Your WORD is TRUTH” (Ps 119:160). In each case, there are a set of Scriptures that emphasise one truth and another set of Scriptures that emphasise a different truth, but it can seem hard to see how to hold both truths together as they don't seem to fit. Some examples are: (1) the Prophecies of the Sufferings and Glory of Christ (Luke 24:25), (2) the Goodness and Severity of God, (3) God's Sovereignty and man's free-will, (4) the fact that Christ is both God and man (the hypostatic union), (5) the Tri-unity of God, and (6) how we can be forgiven in Christ (as far as our relationship is concerned), and yet still need forgiveness (as far as our fellowship with God is concerned). In each of these cases, people can easily go into a ditch on either side of the road of truth by choosing the set of Scriptures they like, and then ignoring or explaining away the Scriptures on the other side. The answer is found in realising that both sets of Scriptures are fully true, because there are 2 distinct (but related) realms of truth (if you can try to reconcile the 2 truths by mixing them together, you end up compromising and destroying them both - for example, by saying Christ is a semi-god and a semi-man, whereas the truth is that He is fully God and fully man). On the basis that all Scripture is true, we should embrace both revelations of truth, then seek God for a deeper understanding of how both sides can be fully true. When we do this, we will be rewarded with a fuller revelation of God's truth.

Ezekiel 34:1-16 John 1:1-4 John 10:30 John 8 Romans 9:5 Luke 2:9-11 John 14:9 I John 4:2 Phillippians 2 Hebrews 4:15

In these next two words from the cross, we see Jesus's care for His mother as well as His humanity. Listen in to hear what that has to say to us today.

Jesus was, from birth, fully God, fully man (the theological term of the phenomenon is a fancy-sounding term, Hypostatic Union, meaning in simple English, two natures, one person). As an 8-day-old boychild, he was circumcised. As an adult male, he was baptized. As a man, he fasted and was tempted in the wilderness. As a man, with a nothing-out-of-the-ordinary man's voice, he asked twelve men to follow him as apprentices. It was as his mother's son and friend of the bridal couple he attended a wedding celebration in the nearby village of Cana. John 2:1-11 1. vv. 1-3 – too early _____________________________________________________ 2. vv. 4,5 – too early ____________________________________________________ 3. vv. 6-10 – right time__________________________________________________ 4. v. 11 – right time _____________________________________________________

Send us a textJesus was one man but He had two natures. He was fully man yet fully God. He wasn't half man and half God but fully man and fully God. This is called the Hypostatic Union in theology.This is a basic doctrine that all believers should understand. Listen carefully and see Jesus in a way you may have never seen Him before.

Christian presuppositionalism meets atheist apologetics, as Joel Settecase (The Think Institute) and Danny (PhilTalk) debate whether Christianity, particularly the doctrine of the Trinity, can ground transcendentals like logic and mathematics. The conversation includes a critique from an atheist perspective and a defense from a Christian worldview, highlighting key theological concepts and the inconsistencies perceived by the critic. Men, get real accountability and knowledge to help you become the worldview leader your family and church need. Try out the Hammer & Anvil Society FREE for 90 days. Learn more ➡️ https://hammerandanvil.circle.so/c/join/join-the-hammer-anvil-society ---- Check out our FREE CLASS on 3 Steps for Unleashing the POWER of Presuppositional Apologetics

This Advent we're conducting a Christmas Scene Investigation to sleuth out the differences between our magical, mythical conceptions of Christmas differ from the Biblical reality of Christmas. Title: The ChildScripture Reading: Luke 1:31-35 NIV (1984)Today we investigate the C of CSI as we investigate the Child. Our investigation concludes that Jesus is both divine and human at the same time. However, our magical mythical conceptions of Christmas can easily emphasize Jesus' divinity at the expense of His humanity. What does Jesus' humanity mean for us? 

Catalyst Church NWA Pastor Nate Sweeney (Lead Pastor)

Send us a textSunday, Sept. 15, message Support the show

The heart of the Gospel, is Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Without His mercy, we would still be dead in our sins. “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭8‬ ‭ESV‬‬) In today's episode, we reflect on what Jesus has accomplished on our behalf. May you be blessed by this reminder. -Garrett & Bobby Scripture: Colossians 2:8-10, Hebrews 7:18-25, John 4:6, John 19:28, John 11:43, Matthew 14:18-21, Philippians 2:7, Ecclesiastes 1:9, Titus 3:9-11, 2 Peter 2:1-3, Acts 4:11-12 Additional References: The Second London Baptist Confession (1689): ⁠https://founders.org/library-book/1689-confession/⁠ ⁠https://www.the1689confession.com/⁠ Baptist Faith and Message 2000: ⁠https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/⁠ Monergism's Definition: ⁠https://www.monergism.com/topics/five-solas/solus-christus⁠ GotQuestion's Hypostatic Union: ⁠https://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html⁠ David Shrock's Review of 'When Heaven Invades Earth': ⁠https://www.9marks.org/review/book-review-when-heaven-invades-earth-by-bill-johnson/⁠ Social Media: YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@StayReformed⁠ Twitter/X: ⁠https://twitter.com/stayreformed⁠ Instagram: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/stayreformed/⁠ Facebook: ⁠https://www.facebook.com/stayreformedpodcast⁠/ Website: ⁠https://www.stayreformed.com/⁠ Email: ⁠contact@stayreformed.com⁠

Throughout history there have been many people and groups who have sought to challenge and subvert the Orthodox beliefs of the church about the Deity of Christ. Oftentimes, these people will point to specific verses in the Bible that they believe prove that Jesus is not truly God. In this episode, I examine a number of those arguments and seek to show how a proper understanding of the Hypostatic Union can answer all of the objections. Below I have listed the arguments that I address in this episode. 1. Christians say that Jesus and the Father are equal, but in John 14:28, Jesus says "the Father is greater than I." How can this be?2. God is omniscient but in Matthew 24:36 Jesus said he didn't know the day or hour he would come back. How can this be?3. James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted with evil, but Hebrews 4:13 says that "in every respect, (Jesus) has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." How can this be?4. The last thing I discuss in this episode is not necessarily an objection but a question. Was it possible for Jesus to sin?

Can God create Himself? Was Jesus created? When we go to heaven, does our knowledge of God continue to grow or does it stay the same? How do we reconcile free will and concupiscence? and more on today's Open Line with Fr. John Trigilio.

Can God create Himself? Was Jesus created? When we go to heaven, does our knowledge of God continue to grow or does it stay the same? How do we reconcile free will and concupiscence? and more on today's Open Line with Fr. John Trigilio.

In this episode, James Kaczor and I continue discussing the Doctrine of God and the Person of Christ. Here we aim not only to show that the Bible teaches the true humanity of Jesus (that he is "Like us in all respects, apart from sin") but we also aim to draw out some of the theological and practical significance of this reality. Jeremiah 9:23-2423 Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”

In this episode, James Kaczor and I continue our discussion of the Doctrine of God by focusing on the Divine nature of Jesus. The New Testament presents Jesus as not just a man but as God incarnate. And it does this in a great variety of ways. Some of these ways are simple and obvious and some of these ways are more subtle. Our goal in this episode is to present these many different ways and especially to focus on those that are more subtle. Our hope for those who listen to this is two-fold:That you would be overwhelmed by the tidal wave of evidence that Jesus is God and that you would worship him as such.That you would grow in your ability to read the New Testament, and especially the Gospels, in a way that uncovers the glorious identity of Jesus Christ more clearly. We aim to show the powerful truths that the gospel writers are teaching about Jesus when we approach the gospels with what we call an "Old Testament Mind." Jeremiah 9:23-24 (ESV) 23 Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”

Divine Election Dr. Steven R. Cook (https://thinkingonscripture.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Divine-Election.pdf) Introduction      Election is a biblical teaching that every serious student of the Bible must consider at some point. It addresses issues related to God's sovereignty and human volition, sin and salvation, justice and mercy, love and faith. Given that election touches upon the infinite and eternal nature of God, it's not surprising that certain aspects of this doctrine transcend human understanding, similar to the biblical doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union.[1] God's revelation must be our guide. Though we reason through Scripture, our reasoning ability is limited, and we must learn to live with certain unresolvable theological tensions. According to Norman Geisler, “The mystery of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will has challenged the greatest Christian thinkers down through the centuries.”[2] Lewis Chafer states, “The doctrine of Election is a cardinal teaching of the Scriptures. Doubtless, it is attended with difficulties which are a burden upon all systems of theology alike.”[3] Warren Wiersbe states, “The mystery of divine sovereignty and human responsibility will never be solved in this life. Both are taught in the Bible (John 6:37). Both are true, and both are essential.”[4] Charles Ryrie adds, “No human mind will ever harmonize sovereignty and free will, but ignoring or downplaying one or the other in the interests of a supposed harmony will solve nothing.”[5] When discussing election with others, it's always best to maintain an attitude of love and grace, as this will generate more light than heat. Major Views on Election      Regarding election and salvation, there are varying perspectives on the roles of divine intervention and human responsibility in the process of being saved. The major views are as follows: Strict Calvinism adheres closely to the five points of Calvinism summarized by the acronym TULIP. Total depravity means people are completely unable to save themselves or even to seek God on their own due to their sinful nature. Unconditional election refers to God's choice of certain individuals for salvation, not based on any foreseen merit or action on their part but purely on His sovereign will. Limited atonement means Christ's death was intended to save only the elect, not all of humanity. Irresistible grace means that when God calls the elect to salvation, they cannot resist His will. Perseverance of the saints means that those whom God has elected and saved will persevere in faith and will not ultimately fall away. Moderate Calvinism adheres to the basic tenets of Calvinism but with some modifications or a softer interpretation. These often hold to a form of unlimited atonement that suggests Christ's atonement is sufficient for all but effective only for the elect. They're also more open to dialogue with other theological perspectives, and tend to avoid the more deterministic implications of strict Calvinism. Calminianism blends elements of Calvinism and Arminianism, seeking a middle ground concerning God's sovereignty and human volition. Calminians tend to lean toward unlimited atonement, resistible grace, God's election based on foreknowledge of who would believe, and the belief that saints can turn to a prolonged sinful lifestyle without losing their salvation. Arminianism is a theological system that emphasizes God's conditional election based on foreknowledge. Arminians see people as corrupted by sin, but able to respond to God's call to salvation. They also adhere to unlimited atonement, resistible grace, and believe Christians are able to forfeit their salvation, which means good works are necessary to retain salvation. Catholicism teaches that salvation is open to all and involves both God's grace and human cooperation. In the Catholic view, both faith and works are essential for salvation. Faith is the foundational response to God's grace, but it must be accompanied by works of love and obedience. In Catholicism, the sacraments are seen as vital means of grace. For instance, baptism is considered necessary for salvation as it washes away original sin and incorporates a person into the body of Christ. The Eucharist, penance, and other sacraments further sustain and deepen a believer's relationship with God. Pelagianism is a theological perspective considered heretical by most Christian traditions. It emphasizes human free will and denies original sin, teaching people are born morally neutral, and each person can choose to do good or evil without the necessity of divine grace. Pelagians emphasize that salvation can be achieved through human effort and moral striving, and they see God's grace is seen as helpful but not necessary for living a righteous life or achieving salvation.      The above categories are simplified presentations with detailed nuances others might seek to expand and clarify. My purpose in presenting them is to provide a basic construct of the major views. What follows is my understanding of the doctrine of election as it is taught in the Word of God. God is Sovereign      The Bible reveals God is sovereign over His creation, declaring “The LORD is King forever and ever” (Psa 10:16), and “Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps” (Psa 135:6), and “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?'” (Dan 4:35). God Himself declares, “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isa 46:10b; cf. Psa 33:11), and this because He is the “only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim 6:15), Who “works all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph 1:11b). All this is true; however, the Bible also reveals God sovereignly created both angels and people with intellect and volition, and has granted them a modicum of freedom to act as free moral agents. According to McChesney, God's sovereignty “is not to be viewed in any such way as to abridge the reality of the moral freedom of God's responsible creatures or to make men anything else than the arbiters of their own eternal destinies. God has seen fit to create beings with the power of choice between good and evil. He rules over them in justice and wisdom and grace.”[6]      At all times, and without external restraint, God remains in constant sovereign control, guiding His creation through history. He interferes in the affairs of mankind, and His unseen hand works behind all their activities, controlling and directing history as He wills. We know from Scripture that God possesses certain immutable attributes and that He never acts inconsistently with His nature. For example, because God is righteous, all His actions and commands are just. Because God is immutable, His moral perfections never change. Because God is eternal, He is righteous forever. Because God is omniscient, His righteous acts are always predicated on perfect knowledge. Because God is omnipotent, He is always able to execute His righteous will. And because God is love, His judgments can be merciful toward the undeserving and humble. The Bible Affirms God's Sovereignty and Human Volition      Shortly after God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), He sovereignly chose to create mankind in His image (Gen 1:26) as finite analogues to Himself, endowed with intellectual and volitional capabilities. God's intention was that they would function as theocratic administrators to “rule” over His creation (Gen 1:26-28). When God made His decision to create people in His image, He willingly limited Himself to allow them the freedom to operate as responsible moral creatures and not mere automatons. This self-imposed restraint by God is not unusual, for He has restrained Himself in other ways. For example, every time God made a promise or covenant, He bound Himself to His Word such that He cannot do otherwise. Scripture reveals that “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Num 23:19). This is why, even though “we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim 2:13), and “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18; cf., Tit 1:2).      God has given people volition and freedom to act, and He holds them accountable for their actions. As the Sovereign of the universe, God will judge everyone fairly, for “there is no partiality with God” (Rom 2:11). Peter said, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:34-35). And Paul wrote, “For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality” (Col 3:25).      Though all mankind is fallen, being corrupted because of their sinful flesh (Rom 5:12, 6:6; 7:19-23; Gal 5:17, 19; Col 3:9), they still retain the image of God and the ability to function intellectually and volitionally (Gen 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7; Jam 3:9). This means that mankind is able, in a limited way, to understand God's general and special revelation, and to respond volitionally if they choose (Psa 19:1-2; Rom 1:18-32). Dr. Steven R. Cook   [1] For example, the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union teaches that God the Son added to Himself humanity, forever uniting His divine nature with a perfect sinless human nature, becoming the God-Man (John 1:1, 14, 18; 20:28; Col 2:9; Heb 1:8). He is eternal God (Isa 9:6; John 8:56-58; 17:5), yet He was born of a woman in time and space (Isa 7:14; Luke 1:30-35; Gal 4:4). As God, He is omniscient (Psa 139:1-6), but as a boy, He grew in knowledge (Luke 2:52). As God, He created the universe (Gen 1:1; John 1:3; Col 1:15-16), but as man, He was subject to weakness (Matt 4:2; John 4:6; 19:28). God is immortal and cannot die (1 Tim 1:17; 6:16), but as a human, Jesus could die (Matt 16:21; Rom 5:8). There were times that Jesus operated from His divine nature (Mark 2:5-12; John 8:56-58; 10:30-33), and other times from His human nature (Matt 4:2; Luke 8:22-23; John 19:28). These two natures seem incompatible, yet they cohere within Jesus. [2] Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Three: Sin, Salvation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2004), 137. [3] Lewis S. Chafer, “Biblical Theism Divine Decrees” Bibliotheca Sacra, 96 (1939): 268. [4] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 11. [5] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 359. [6] E. McChesney, “Sovereignty of God,” ed. Merrill F. Unger and R.K. Harrison, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988).

Bryson Thomas, pastor of Del Ray Baptist Church Christology : Lesson 6. Taught May 19, 2024.

Bryson Thomas, pastor of Del Ray Baptist Church Christology : Lesson 5. Taught May 12, 2024.

Was Jesus part God and part man? Did he become God at some point in His life? Was Jesus just appearing in human form? These are some of the questions that have caused divisions in the Church throughout the centuries. In continuation of our series on the Nature of God, Justin Hibbard explores the Church's emphatic and repeated declaration that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Subscribe to Why Catholic? wherever you get your podcasts.Check out the Why Catholic Etsy shop (all proceeds support this podcast).Become a free subscriber or a patron of Why Catholic? and get the next episode and a discount code to the Why Catholic Etsy shop in your email inbox.Follow Why Catholic on Instagram.Subscribe to Why Catholic on YouTubeSHOW NOTES:* Day 66: True God and True Man — The Catechism in a Year (with Fr. Mike Schmitz) Get full access to Why Catholic? at whycatholic.substack.com/subscribe

In Mark 8:27-38, Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, however also rebukes Jesus when he predicts his own suffering and death. It seems that Peter knew who the Christ was, but not what he was sent to do. In this episode, we answer what it means to be The Christ, and discuss how Peter's confusion is a mirror of modern day misconceptions about Jesus's identity.

Today Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Matt consider the incarnation of Jesus and the ramifications regarding Original Sin. We want to give a Shout out to Warren McGrew of Idol Killer and Will and Brian of The Church Split for their series' on Original sin and for helping us articulate some of the content in this episode. • The immaculate conception of Mary is a late dogma created to prop up original sin. But not only this a “preservative redemption” is also needed for Mary to remain sinless • The Virgin birth in both Protestant and Catholic circles is used incorrectly to promote the doctrine of Original Sin. o For Catholics it deals with the issue of concupiscence o For Protestants it actually does nothing as Mary was born of human parents and still would transmit Original Sin o We affirm the virgin birth but in Isaiah 7 it is called a sign pointing to the miracle of the messiah and has nothing to do with original sin. • The way Protestants try to get around this is the hypostatic union, which we also affirm, but Protestants use it incorrectly to support this Doctrine. • 3 points of the incarnation: o Jesus came in flesh- he was fully human like us (yet fully God). He experienced what we do. o Jesus had no sin in him (he wasn't born with it) o And Jesus never sinned • Thus, no Original sin if Jesus assumed exactly what we are and partook of the same nature yet did not sin. • If Original Sin is true and Jesus was spared it through the immaculate conception then Jesus was not like us in every way and cannot sympathize with our weaknesses and Hebrews 4:15 is a lie and Jesus is an unfit High Priest. o This is what the Doctrine of Original Sin gets us into. Conclusion/ The Better Way Jesus was fully God and Fully Man. He assumed all that we are so that he could make us all that he is and heal us. The Incarnation o We saw that Jesus came in the flesh just like us (but also fully God) o We saw that there was no sin in Jesus (no original sin) o We saw that Jesus did not sin We also looked at Mary and all the gymnastics that needed to happen with her to hold up this unbiblical doctrine. We looked at how Calvinists have no foundation to stand on with Original sin in the Virgin Birth (we affirm it!), the Hypostatic Union (in which they downplay Jesus' humanity), and they come dangerously close to many Gnostic heresies. The Better Way As humans it is comforting to know that Jesus went through all that we did and was still sinless. He has redeemed us and comes beside us to conform us into his image. So rather than focusing on the negative theology of Augustinianism and Calvinism look at the beauty that is in Jesus becoming just like us in every way to heal us and make us whole! _________ Visit www.expedition44.com for posted articles and more. If you have comments or questions please email us at: ryan@expedition44.com, matt@expedition44.com --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/expedition44/support

Shepherd's Community Church - 12/17/2023 - The Hypostatic Union This sermon will seek to explain the meaning and importance of the doctrine of the hypostatic union, showing the glory of Jesus and what makes him such a capable and sufficient Savior.

Last week, we talked about the 5% and the 95% and were challenged by Mary's story to live in the 95% realm of believing in a supernatural God who does supernatural things. This week, we will explore one of the most powerful proofs of his miracle-working power — the union of God and man in the life of Jesus. Brothers and sisters, this is good theology! He who was fully God became fully human — two distinct natures in one Person. He had both the power of his divinity and the experience of his humanity, and only Jesus was able to reconcile those two natures inside one personality. The nature of Jesus is a miracle and THE great mystery of his existence. He IS God, and yet he has lived my life and yours. Why does that matter, and why does it give such hope? Come on Sunday and let's dive in.

Systematic Theology deals with the study of Biblical teachings or “doctrines” in a systematic way. Our faith is rooted in the veracity of God's revelation of Himself to us and therefore, we must know, define and defend the doctrines presented thereby. This class covered the subject of Christology, specifically examining: Christophanies/Theophanies; "Types" of Christ; The Offices of Christ; The Kenosis and Hypostatic Union. In Pneumatology we discussed: The Importance of God the Holy Spirit; The Personality of God the Holy Spirit; The Deity of God the Holy Spirit; and The Work of the Spirit Through ScriptureFor more information or to obtain a copy of the slides, please visit www.greaterworksdiscipleship.com

Support us on Patreon:Apply for Saint Paul's House of FormationEmail usMusic by Richard Proulx and the Cathedral Singers from Sublime Chant. Copyright GIA Publications

#islam #trinity #debate Today we will have open forum chat with those who take issue with my argumentation or topics. If you are a Roman Catholic and have issues, an Orthodox who disagrees, an evangelical or even an atheist: topics include: Rome & the papacy, TAG, presuppositional argumentation, natural law & natural theology, metaphysics & epistemology, logos / logoi, Islam & the Quran, atheism and materialism, Calvinism & its errors & More! Send Superchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip The New Philosophy Course is here: https://marketplace.autonomyagora.com/philosophy101 Orders for the Red Book are here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/the-red-book-essays-on-theology-philosophy-new-jay-dyer-book/ Orders for new book here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/meta-narratives-essays-on-philosophy-symbolism-new-jay-dyer-book-pre-orders/ Subscribe to my site here: https://jaysanalysis.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ Follow me on R0kfin here: https://rokfin.com/jaydyer Use JAY50 promo code here https://choq.com for huge discounts - 50% off! Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY53LIFE for 53% off now

The Matt Slick Live daily radio show broadcast is a production of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry -CARM-. During the show, Matt answers questions on the air, and offers insight on topics like The Bible, Apologetics, Theology, World Religions, Atheism, and other issues-- The show airs live on the Truth Network, Monday through Friday, 6-7 PM, EST -3-4 PM, PST--You can also email questions to Matt using- info-carm.org, Please put -Radio Show Question- in the Subject line--You can also watch a live stream during the live show on RUMBLE---Time stamps are approximate due to commercials being removed for PODCAST.--Topics include---05- Trinity, Hypostatic Union.-11-- John 10-26, Regeneration precedes faith.-26- What attributes of Jesus drew men to Him---34- Jehovah Witnesses.-38- The Command to repent, How can we stop sinning---58- 2 Corinthians 10-5, Taking thoughts captive.

The Matt Slick Live daily radio show broadcast is a production of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry -CARM-. During the show, Matt answers questions on the air, and offers insight on topics like The Bible, Apologetics, Theology, World Religions, Atheism, and other issues-- The show airs live on the Truth Network, Monday through Friday, 6-7 PM, EST -3-4 PM, PST--You can also email questions to Matt using- info-carm.org, Please put -Radio Show Question- in the Subject line--You can also watch a live stream during the live show on RUMBLE---Time stamps are approximate due to commercials being removed for PODCAST.--Topics include---04- Amillennialism, Revelation- 20- 1-3.-16- Assembly Of God Church, The AOG.-18- Is there a literal 1000 year Millennial reign.-24- Nazarene Church issues.-27- The Assyrian Church of the East, Nestorianism, Hypostatic Union.-35- Phylogeny.

In today's episode, Stephen Wellum walks through the complex doctrine of the hypostatic union sharing wisdom and bringing clarity to the church. Stephen J. Wellum is a professor of Christian theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and the author of 'The Person of Christ: An Introduction'. Read the full transcript of this episode. If you enjoyed this episode be sure to leave us a review, which helps us spread the word about the show! Complete this survey for a free audiobook by Kevin DeYoung!