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