Early Church and Trinity: Father and Son

[rev.j.rogerallen]

Just another great lecture by Dr. Reeves. I do love getting this free Seminary education. I had to pay for the last one I got. Thanks again. Fr. Allen+

[longhaulconvert]

I'm sure you know how picky Orthodox Christians can be about Church History, and you do a pretty fine job (as one former Protestant to a current one).For Orthodox Christians, it's the Baptism of Christ that we hold to as the central statement of the revelation of the Trinity.

[Monkofmagnesia]

Second video of your I have seen and now I am a subscriber.

[taylorw]

So well stated at about 8:30 that the time between St. Paul and Luther are shared roots for all Christians, not to be dismissed as a kind of 1500-year aberration, or worse. A testimony to Dr. Reeves generous spirit and objectivity.

[reneoslizlok]

Hi Ryan, I think your biblical reference re: "Therefore go & make ... baptizing ... in the name of the Father & the Son & the Holy Spirit" is Mathew 28:19 not Mathew 16:15 which is also relevant but when Christ asks "Who therefore do you say I am?"

[jeffgjere]

I enjoyed watching this video and found it to be quite good. Yet I wanted to comment on a matter of language that I think is very important in discussing the Trinity.

I find that the word "separate" is inappropriate in discussing the persons of the Godhead. In preference to this I use the word "distinct." Now, surely in some contexts these words can be used pretty much interchangeably; I don't think this is one of them. I have in mind the time when Jesus said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." The word "separate" just doesn't fit with this, while the word "distinct" works just fine.

I hope I don't come across as being harsh or anything of the sort. My intent is to give a suggestion which I hope can be received.

[MrFuzzyssquirrel]

4th scripture reference is Matthew 28:19, not 16:15

[andrzejgieralt]

Professor, I really enjoy these lectures, going far more into affirming the truth than my extremely irritating leftist modernist relativist classes that don't understand that people thought differently in the past. I highly appreciate your consistent debunking of such ideologies and, as you politely put it, cynics. Thank you again.

[paulder]

Matthew 16:15 say this!
He saith unto them,  But whom say ye that I am?

Whats going on here

[jenna]

Proofreading catch: at 2:49 it should be Matthew 28:19. 

[certaindisciple]

I'm enjoying all of your videos. I'm a man who wished he payed attention in my history class. This is so simple Jesus Christ is not God. He is the Son of God and alive in heaven. The fullness of God in him is very easy, meaning that Jesus Christ did the father's will he put that 'word' that came from God in his mind by study and revelation and the only man that did and could apply that perfectly being born with perfect soul. God is the father. You know like we are son because we had a father that fathered us. The only other man that was perfect for a little while was Adam who did eventually mess up thus Christ is called the second Adam. It is amazing that this is been going on for so many years. Holy Spirit is simple God's being or sometimes called The light. So Yes God is A father because he has a begotten Son (now born again sons), Look by God's foreknowledge and God supplying seed for JC THEN god has sent Jesus Christ or you can say sent his (the) word in the flesh. People just don't understand God know's he can beat the Devil, the contest is that God wants mankind to beat the Devil by obeying him. God provided us his instructions on how to do that in two ways in book form and in Person. written word or in the Flesh. JC the teacher the man in person who could show us practically.

[thapack]

Isn't it true that the Holy Spirit is not worshiped from the beginning though? Like now we say things very explicit such as "Praise Father, Son & Holy Ghost." But they don't really say things like that about the Holy Spirit early on in the New Testament or shortly thereafter do they?

[laurenholladay]

Dear Dr. Reeves. I am really enjoying your teachings, but I have a question. I study church history with other historians and as a Reformed believer in Christ, I've never heard anyone refer to a "Pope" in the 200's. I don't see a Pope in the Scriptures and I've never heard of the office of the Pope being "official" until 606 AD (or right around that). I know men were called Popes earlier than 600 AD, but I've been learning that the Church doesn't actually "acknowledge" -- universally-- a Pope until about 600 AD. So, when you mention that there is a Pope in the 200's, that seems strange to me because some of these men are only 100 years post the Apostle John.... did a false doctrine of a Papacy develop within 100 years? I'd love to hear your explanation on this as I'm very confused. I didn't think the Church lost it within 100 years. And I don't believe they did, as you mention. I'm just concerned that giving too much credit to Romanism is dangerous. They are a false church, teach a different Gospel and this teaching here is the first time in years that I've heard a Church Historian teach that there was actually a Pope in the 200's ADThank  you sir. I appreciate it. God bless you.

[stevencarrier]

I think TRI-UNITY would be best described as Unity
The distinctions have more to do with our perceptions of GOD.

[lizicadumitru]

Hello Dr Reeves I was wondering if you would answer my question here. You mention John 1:1 and it brought up something someone said which struck me as odd.

This person mentioned that the Logos (word) was not Jesus before the incarnation but just the spoken speech of the Father. He spoke it into flesh as in "the word became flesh." Have you ever encountered this argument? Thank you again for your time and your series here.

[roxykattx]

I love this stuff. Have you ever done anything on universalism?

[nomikosmikel]

I honestly love reading or watching Christians argue with one another about doctrine and dogma. It's extraordinary how well Christianity has performed as a faith considering the lack of coherence amongst members. I'm not a Christian, though an avid enthusiast of the minutiae of history and NOTHING is as focussed on minutiae like Christian history.

[WendellBreretonbbmg]

Dr Ryan I love your videos but I have to disagree with you on this video. The apostolic church in the lifetime of the Apostles clearly never baptized in any trinitarian formula. Matthew 28:19 says Baptise in the name, not the names. Also the Apostles as mentioned baptized specifically in Jesus name. You clearly mention in other videos that the original 325 Nicean creed never puts Jesus as a second person of a Trinity or a 3rd holy person as the Spirit. You know Athanasian would never have permitted this philosophical concept. The bible clearly refers to The Oneness of God. You know that immutibilty is one of the immovable natures of the God of the bible. So then who is the Son. Sonship is only relevant in the Humanity of Jesus. It has nothing to do with His divinity. In Divinity He is the Word. John 1:1. 1 John 5:7 says There are 3 that bear record in heaven. The Son is not mentioned. Why? Because Sonship is to clearify paternity not divinity. Homoousis is a concrete doctrine that Nicea 1 got 100% right. Western Latin and I dare say European mentalities have morphed the Shema to a trinitarian mentality. The trinity as you know doctor was an evolution of thought not the original language of the church. It has become an orthodox of thinking but in many cases has arianist leanings or polytheistic modern explanations. You start this video being an apologist for the trinity unlike most of your videos you state the historic process and allow the history to tell the story. Bless you and again I am very thankful for your ministry. You are doing and excellent job.

[andthensome]

I'm really enjoying learning from your lectures. Thank you for posting these.

[fredjones]

How is the ice, liquid, and vapor analogy Modalism...?