Is the Hypostatic Union Coherent? w/ Eli Ayala & Jeremiah Short #theology #apologetics #jesus

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and we're back with another show now

I've had a short little break. I've been there have been some gaps between Shows and so I think it's been a little while.

So this week we have three shows one tonight with Jeremiah the black doctor and tomorrow

I have dr. James White coming on to talk about Mormonism His schedule is a little busy

So if any last -minute changes happen, I'll let you guys know and that'll have to be rescheduled But as of now, we're good to go for tomorrow.

And then on Thursday, I'm gonna have the other Paul on Paul Facey to talk about the presuppositions of history

What are the things that are presupposed when we're doing historical study? And how does that relate to? Presuppositional ism and things like that.

So I'm really excited about These upcoming shows and super excited about this show tonight

So I want to open up with some statements here that kind of inspired my desire to do this with Jeremy and If you haven't seen it

Jeremy has Jeremy Jeremy or Jeremiah, how do you like to be called? I mean either either one's fine.

I prefer Jeremiah, but either one's Just like being acknowledged

Well, I'm not sure if folks know but Jeremiah had a debate a while back with a Muslim And these issues came up the deity of Christ and whether the idea that you know

Jesus Christ being the God -man makes sense And I think Jeremiah did an excellent job

So maybe he can share a little bit about that in a few moments, but I want to open up with some a post that was put out by Tyler Vela who is a friend of mine and many who are gonna be watching will be aware that he

Renounced the faith and Is still out and about talking about theology and things like that and philosophy

And so he sometimes posts things, you know about Christian theology. I think are interesting and of course coming from his perspective

He's got a strong background and a lot of this stuff. And so I thought this would be a great opportunity to address

Some of the comments he made in a poster So I'm gonna read the post and that'll be kind of our introduction and then we'll veer off into talking about the hypostatic union

Which is the main topic and then kind of backpedal into answering the question as we get into some objections to the hypostatic union

All right, so I'm gonna start the post here. Here's from from Tyler Vela He says could the Sun have sinned prior to the incarnation the church has historically said no that the

Sun has absolute Impeccability that's a big fancy word Which means that he's unable to sin the

Sun cannot sin because God cannot sin Could Jesus have sinned in the flesh the church has historically said contingently

Yes that Jesus had the faculty to sin but would not sin in the flesh if both that answer if both those answers are true a hypostatic union becomes incoherent

Because it means that the Sun both could and could not attain unrighteous guilt To avoid that you'd have to say that if Jesus sinned in the flesh the guilt wouldn't be the

Sun's But then you'd have two persons in the second person of the Godhead So that's the post there and we'll try to address that as we talk about the hypostatic union in general, which is a very very

Important topic. I was just sharing with Jeremiah before we went live that I have been having some conversations with Jehovah's Witness and this really was a huge sticking point as we were discussing the deity of Christ and whether that makes sense and so I had to Do my best to defend that with respect to my knowledge of the topic

There's definitely room for improvement, but the conversation very very well, but it reminded me the importance of this topic so before we jump in to the hypostatic

Union and then kind of back into that this this kind of a post by Tyler Why don't you tell folks a little bit about yourself and kind of tell us a little bit about some debates you've done

Maybe people might want to watch that you can point them in the direction as to where they can find those Sure sure for those who know me and those who don't my name is

Jeremiah short also known as the black doctor I am a seminarian. I attend Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham I'm also a an aspiring churchman

I am the pastoral intern and interim youth director at a Presbyterian Church in my town

And I'm also a budding apologist. I do apologetics work on tik -tok

YouTube clubhouse and so I I do things towards Christian apologetics

Talking with you know, those within the fold like Roman Catholics and he's an orthodoxy advocating for the

Protestant faith But I also do debates against heretics debating oneness

Pentecostals Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims the most recent debate that I did was on the gospel truth

With a Muslim named Mansour Farzan and the question was is Jesus the Almighty God or does the

Bible portray Jesus as the Almighty God and there we actually really unintentionally in in my

In my estimation we went towards the relationship between the hypostatic union and the relationship between the two natures of Christ which of course

Mansour has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, which was Pretty entertaining for all the other

Christians. It was very evident Please please check out that one. That one was fun Hmm and Marlon Wilson has a great channel over there where there's some pretty solid debates good

Good resource for people to kind of see how these ideas kind of flesh out within the context of conflict And they're typically done really well.

So I think Marlon's got a good thing going over there. So But thank you for that. Thank you for sharing that. Let's kind of jump right into our topic here we're gonna return to that Tyler Vela post and give you an opportunity to Respond to that, but let's define our terms here.

So so what is the hypostatic union? Historically, I mean how important has this doctrine been to Christianity?

once you flesh that out for us and then we'll kind of talk a little bit about the historical context as to how it was Developed and codified in the various creeds

Right. So the the hypostatic union is really something that is crucial to the Christian faith

It symbolizes the person and work of Jesus Christ The hypostatic union quickly stated is that in Christ there are two natures two distinct natures one divine one human

United in the one person of Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean that two natures are two persons or that one nature is one person

But the two distinct natures are united within one person the law boss or Jesus Christ Hmm so we would say that that Jesus so he said so we say like the

Trinity is one being who exists as three persons and The hypostatic union is in reference to Jesus being one person with two natures human and divine, right?

Yes Simply simply stated or I guess in lower terms God the

Trinity is one what with three who's and the hypostatic union is that one of those who's

Takes on another what so Jesus and the incarnation is one who with two what's

I like that? Okay, very good So now so how is this defined historically is this?

Explained to us in detail and fleshed out in like creedal formulations. What what creed captures the essence of this doctrine?

and What was the context for? Developing this kind of creed to express these truths concerning the two natures of Christ Yeah, this is this is this really spans about a hundred years of debate

And it's codified and what we call the Chalcedonian definition found that the Council of Cosson Chalcedon, but before we get to the

Chalcedonian definition I want to take us pretty much back to the Council of Constantinople Okay, which is after after the the doctrine of the

Trinity has been you know stamped out for everyone to see And everybody's arguing against Arianism Arianism is pretty much dealt with in relation to inside the church

And so we're trying to figure out how to you know, fully portray fully portray

Christ You get Apollinarius who tries to argue that in the incarnation

The Logos God Christ merely takes on you know Some parts of Christ's human nature and it wasn't really his he he the

Logos was simply taken up by the By the divine mind, you know Christ is is

Sort of a sort of human The Jesus doesn't really have a human soul really doesn't have a human mind

That was refuted. But as you go on and trying to refute Apollinarianism You really get one person or particularly two people who become pretty much the fear spearheads of this new controversy

The first one is a man called Theodore of Mopsa Westia He proposes to define the incarnation as God in a man

Because he's trying to figure out how to properly articulate the Nicene Creed all of us all the those who believe in I see

I believe that Christ is God come down But they don't really have the right words to say how sure so so Theodore basically proposes the idea of God in a man and He's not necessarily

Condemned in his life in his lifetime, but his followers are condemned

And one of his most prominent followers is a man that we all know as Nestorius now

Nestorius really does come to the forefront in relation to this controversy because he gets really upset

What this one phrase and I mean people still get upset with it today It's the the it's the phrase or the word that Mary is

Feotokos, which means that Mary is the God -bearer and You know

Nestorius said well, you know God is everywhere How can God be in the womb of the

Virgin Mary that doesn't that doesn't make any sense to him? So he says that that Mary is

Christotokos that she is the Christ -bearer But unfortunately that statement that line of work that line of words

Presupposes that the incarnation did not happen within the womb the womb of Mary But afterwards after the human nature of Jesus was born

What you're doing is that you're actually separating Christ and the human nature into two persons

You're actually going back to an ancient heresy called adoptionism where the adoptionists like the

Not that not the Eutychians we'll get to them the Ebionites specifically the Ebionites believed that Jesus in his human nature was like a regular human a

Person actually born from the union between Joseph and Mary. So Jesus was a virgin born but at his baptism

The Holy Spirit came upon him and he was elevated to the status of Godhood. Okay, so Nestorius would say that Jesus is two persons

Who have distinct and different wills different persons who are different from one another but they are united in their

Worship, they're united in their will in order to do what God wants to do so basically instead of having a

Union between the you between the human and the divine you have sort of a working together that the the that the divine nature of Jesus has just simply come alongside

Another human and then the question was well if that's the case What's the difference between the incarnation of Jesus and anybody else who is filled with the

Holy Spirit after the incarnation? Hmm There really is none Now that's interesting because in my discussion with the

Jehovah's Witness that I was speaking to he he mentioned This idea now not adoptionism, but it's definitely an argument that adoptionist would make when the scripture says that Authority was given to Christ if Christ is

God, how can authority be given to God? How do we understand that given the hypostatic

Union there Jesus is one person two natures both human and divine if he's divine Then it seems that he has he has all authority.

How can authority be given to someone who already has authority? How would we interact with that idea? Well, it's it's the simple reality of the incarnation that as we'll we'll get to when we go through the biblical basis

God who Christ who is in the very nature God takes on the form of a servant He veils his glory takes on a human flesh and that that human flesh

Submits itself to the will of the Father and therefore God grants it a grants of authority

Because of the work that he's done So and and and secondly in the flesh

Yes, the flow as as somebody worked it with so so and in his divine nature

He already has authority but in the incarnation Galatians 4 for He's born born of a virgin born under the law and so that requires him to obey

God's law and as a man He is given a third the man Christ is given an authority So that people know that the father has his stamp of approval upon the son who's living amongst us

Living a perfect life dying a perfect death and being raised to life So it's not correct the case that God is giving authority to God the son but he's giving authority to the incarnated son who was functioning within a

Submissive status for a little while. He's made lower than the angels. Have I got it? Yes. Yes Okay And I also want to point out here in relation to like the divinity of Christ One thing that Christians always believe is that is that the the son is

God But he is God because he is the son of the father Everything that God does is from the father through the son by the

Holy Spirit Hmm, and so Jesus says in John chapter 16 all that the father has is mine.

It's already mine But it is it's from the father Sure As we as we say it in the

Nicene Creed Christ is God from God light from light very God of very God of one substance with the father that Receiving that is constant between the father and son actually demonstrates their union in their equality because Jesus in John chapter 5 says just as the father has life in it of himself life in himself

He also gives authority to the son to have life in himself There is always an eternal relationship of a seity between the father and the son it it begins in the father

Flows through the son also in the Holy Spirit. Yeah, I was so beautiful about this is is not only is the hypostatic union

Such a profound concept, but it's almost impossible to talk about it independent of the interrelations of the

Trinitarian of the Trinity Everything links back to the triune nature of God and what the second person of the

Trinity has has done in In his humiliation so to speak kind of a taking on human flesh and living amongst us amazing

It's a there's actually a beautiful consistency to it more I see the consistency in it and when people say this it doesn't make sense

I'm like actually I can't explain it perfectly but as God has revealed it makes perfect sense great and especially when you deal with the purposes of the father and how the son accomplishes those purposes and the role that the spirit plays and Theology we call this the economic

Trinity, you know how they function within Within their their interrelations, I think it's a very profound and Practical thing to know as a

Christian. So thank you for that so now would you say Jeremiah that the hypostatic union was formulated within a context of responding to error and that required us to speak more sharply and Sustainedly and distinctly of how we are to understand this because because we think of hypostatic union and hypos basis and all these kinds

Of like words that we throw around Someone could point out very easily. Wait a minute. This is not in the

Bible. These words aren't in the Bible How would you kind of address that someone says these words aren't in the Bible you guys are doing philosophy

You're adding kind of Greek concepts on to scripture. How do we how are we to understand?

theological and philosophical Terminology that is used to kind of describe these things that we think are in Scripture.

Yeah Yeah, I mean first and foremost most of these controversies happened in the Greek language So you can't you can't really avoid using

Greek when everybody else spoke Greek the Bible was written in Greek So you're gonna have to define it by Greek terms. So so the question would be why are we using extra biblical language?

We're using extra biblical language in order to formulate the biblical text in such a way that it is understood in the way the church always has

But in such a way that a heretic cannot use it Like for example some like Arius could believe that Jesus was

God that's what he said But he did not believe that he was of the same essence as the father.

He was a created God So the Nicene Creed used the term homoousios in order to demonstrate that The son is the same

God the exact same God as the father. He wasn't created He was begotten not made as the

Creed says so here when when when the Council of Chalcedon Convenes it's actually arguing against two heresies

One is Nestorianism, which we already covered and the other is Eutychianism Which basically is is trying to argue that when

Christ when when the Logos came down when God came down He tried to you know, take on human flesh

But the the human the divine nature is so powerful it it absorbed the divine the human nature

His statement was like a drop of water into the sea the divine nature It it subsumes the human nature.

So basically Christ becomes a sort of tertium quid in Latin a third thing so the what the church did and especially

I want to turn to one of the most one of the most beautiful texts that Is actually read at the at the

Council of Constantinople or at the Council of Chalcedon is something called Leo's Tome Okay.

Now now Leo's Tome is a it's a small letter, but it's a really beautiful letter and theologically powerful letter

Because this was given to address Well, this was written by Pope Leo to the patriarch of Constantinople Flavian in order to argue against Eutychius and get it and give advice and this is what he says

Here in in chapter 3 without detriment therefore the properties of either nature of The human end of the vine which then came together in one person

Majesty took on humility strength took on weakness eternity mortality and for the paying off of the debt belonging to our condition and Viable nature was united with possible nature

So that as suited the needs of our case One and the same mediator between God and man the man

Christ Jesus could both die with one nature and not die with the other

Thus in the whole a perfect nature of true man was true

God born Complete in what was his own complete and what was ours and by ours?

We mean what the Creator formed in us from the beginning and what he undertook to repair so here he's specifically saying that He's arguing against Eutychius.

And what he's saying is that these two natures are distinct But in the incarnation they are united in one person.

Hmm. So what we can say about the one nature Can be attributed to the other by reason that they are united in the one person who has both of them

But they are mysteriously united such that they do not intermix Exactly.

So there's these unique natures that in some mysterious metaphysical fashion

Coexists within the one person but are not tainted by one another so that you have both the infinite and the finite cohabitating without intermingling and Infringing upon the divine nature such that the divine nature changes

Which we don't believe actually happens because we don't think that the hypostatic Union that the reality of the hypostatic

Union Causes mutability within the divine nature. So God is still immutable unchangeable

So it's important that we understand those natures being not intermingled Although they cohabitate within the one person.

Have I got it? Yep. You're exactly right. Okay interesting stuff so so these kinds of Formulations the words that we use are meant to combat heresy and that is their historical context the creeds are

Formulated in such a way as to respond to you know, false teachings and things like that I think would be a mistake to not read the the

Chalcedonian Creed. I have it here I'd like to read it real quick if that's okay, please do you know getting all church history ish now, by the way before we do

That let's address this Wait, Jesus was not God. I have no idea how someone

Concluded that from anything that was that was said Right, I think it might have been he he popped in mid mid conversation.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think honestly it's because of what one thing that we do need to point out is that the reason why these controversies started and was because We already knew that Jesus was

God and we wanted to protect the divinity as we explained how God came down So everybody already knows everybody already understands

That Jesus is God come down But the question is how like even like even the story is and you take in euteches

They constantly said when they were examined. I affirmed the Nicene Creed and It was exactly true.

It was true But the question is how did they explain how the God proclaimed the

Nicene Creed comes down to save us? That was the problem. Hmm. Okay. All right good.

So so the deity of Christ wasn't invented at the Council of Nicaea. I thought that's Every time when

I was talking that to Jehovah's Witness he goes well when they formulated the doctrine at the Council of and I was Like, okay timeout

Timeout, let's talk about this. It's interesting how people use that still it's still a still a thing in common

Repeat a lie long enough. It'll stick. Yeah, that's right. So I'm gonna read the Chalcedonian Creed here.

This is from Monarchism, it's got the Creed here summarized here So we then following the Holy Fathers all with one consent teach men to confess one and the same son

Our Lord Jesus Christ the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood truly

God and truly man of a reasonable rational soul and body co -substantial with the Father according to the

Godhead and constant Consubstantial with us according to the manhood in all things like unto us without sin begotten before all ages of the

Father according to the Godhead and In these latter days for us and for our salvation born of the

Virgin Mary the mother of God According to the manhood one and the same Christ Son Lord only begotten to be acknowledged in two natures inconfusably unchangeably

Indivisibly inseparably the distinction of nature's being by no means taken away by the Union But rather the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person and in one subsistence

Not parted or divided into two persons But one and the same Son and only begotten

God the Word the Lord Jesus Christ as the prophets from the beginning have declared Concerning him and the

Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us and the creed of the Holy Fathers has handed down to us and of course that reference to The Virgin Mary being the mother of God it says here and I think this is relevant the mother of God According to the manhood.

So it's attributing Mary being The human nature the human aspect obviously She's not literally the mother of God and in in the sense that would be impossible as a creative being

All right, um, here's a question though, so Unless you are part of a church that is in contact and in touch in its daily workings with church history

What are the dangers of Christians not being aware and familiar with some of these historical creeds?

We would readily grant Jeremiah that it's not they're not the scriptures, right, but they're vitally important What is the danger you think in our modern context for Christians a large portion of the evangelical world that has the concert worship services

And the pragmatic messages you they're not reading the Chalcedonian Creed and the Nicene Creed What's the danger of not being familiar with these things in your opinion?

the the danger primarily is Being out of touch being out of touch with Christendom we all know the statement that those who fail to learn their history are doomed to repeat it and many many of our evangelical brothers and sisters

Unfortunately our closet historians. They really are in their confession, even though they might

Even though they might deny it like like for example when when many hear the term

Theotokos Mary the mother of God They automatically recoil because they don't know what it means.

Hmm. In fact many of them presuppose Oh, well, that's just papist writing or just papist language and it's not it's not it's it's

Catholic writing Universal writing universal words because we all confess that in the incarnation

Christ who is very nature God took on flesh from Mary and was born of her

What we're saying is that the person within Mary's womb who came out to us through the human process called birth was truly

God What we do when we use the Catholic creeds is that we root ourselves into the language of the church.

We aren't Reinventors of the wheel we aren't we come with a heritage we belong to a family of brothers and sisters who have walked this way before us and who have done these things in order to protect us from heresies

What they do is that they point us to the scriptures and say these are what the scriptures have taught us

For the past 2 ,000 years and if we ignore them We will so we will leave ourselves susceptible to every heresy imaginable and we will twist ourselves

Into into you know Trying to walk in their footsteps and failing because we did not have the same foundation that they did.

Hmm Now when we talk about the Trinity One God there's one being who is

God and three persons who share the same being father son and Holy Spirit. They are co -eternal Co -substantial all these sorts of things and when someone says well, can you explain the

Trinity to us and we always get the famous? Well, it's like water ice and gas Okay, it's that Gas on the water and it's a difference.

Then of course many people will put forth the ancient heresy known as modalism That's modalism

Patrick. Where's Donald? Molinism which Molinism is another thing entirely the heresy of another sort and I'm just I have some

I'm kidding. I'm kidding. All right, I think William Lane Craig just But We can have often inappropriate analogies to explain the

Trinity and of course there are common ones right like the three -leaf clover and You know different different things that people say what are some common, you know

Bad analogies that are often used to explain the hypostatic Union and and and why should we avoid?

Analogies and what are the good uses of analogies in your opinion? Yeah Sort of sort of them sort of the same thing in relation to the doctrine of the

Trinity It's best not to use analogies because most of them really fail

It's only if you're describing a specific aspect or a specific point in relation to like the hypostatic

Union or the doctrine of the Trinity But if you're trying to bring the entire concept down to an analogy

It's always going to fail because God is completely unique and what God has done in This mystery of the

Incarnation is going to be completely unique It's weird because some people some people use analogies some don't so you don't hear many analogies for the hypostatic

Union But the one that I often like to use and make fun of is like playing John Malkovich Where where Jesus basically comes and puts on a meat suit or stands inside like another another

Completely human being and just walks and moves within it and that shows that Christ isn't really true

Humanity like the divinity is taking up something that rightly belongs to the human nature

And if that's if that's the case Then Christ is no longer truly human and therefore he cannot truly redeem us.

It's just as Gregory of nonscience said when he was when he was arguing against something similar to this and Cyril of Jerusalem said this when he was arguing against Nestorius that which he has not assumed

He has not healed But that which is taken on by God is saved and that's why

That's why there is no gospel for the angels no atonement for the angels Because he did not take the form of an angel

He took the form of a man and as being a representative of man representing man. Those are the ones he redeems

Right. The book of Hebrews says he does not help angels But he helps the children of Abraham because he takes on the flesh of the children of Abraham And if he takes on their flesh, he is able to be an appropriate high priest

He is able to stand up in heaven before the father and intercede for them on their behalf because he is offered up their selfsame blood

So that they might be saved Only a man can substitute for human lives, but only

God can give an eternal life and survive. Yeah my friend

Matt slick of karm Often calm org. Most people know who he is here.

He often gave an analogy of someone inviting you into Their house and they have kind of this room filled with like these priceless items and you're invited to look but but don't touch

And so the person walks out of the room and you touch it and you break it and he comes back. He's like What have you done? Don't worry.

I forgive you, but you're gonna have to be my slave and pay back every penny. Is that true forgiveness? Well, no same scenario rewound rewound rewound again

That the items broke he says don't worry I forgive you, but your mother is gonna be my slave until you pay it all off.

That's not true forgiveness So the scenario is that rewound again you break the item the owner the master forgives you and says don't worry

I will pay for it Now if you put that analogy in terms of God, the problem is that the wages of sin is death

How will God who offers to pay the debt actually pay the debt since God cannot die?

The answer is in the incarnation, right? The divine God takes on human flesh so that he can pay for the broken

The broken vase or vase, however you say it, right? I think that's a great analogy to show like what

God has done to to genuinely extend forgiveness towards us in Christ So these are really profound and beautiful truths that can often be mistaken for abstract theology

But in fact, there are huge practical implications of everything that we're that we're saying here.

So Right. I'm super important. Yeah Add to that because like we

Leo speaks about this a lot as well I mean, this is this is the entirety of why he wrote his tone.

Mm -hmm He he says he says this concerning the twofold nate divinity and nature of Christ He says in order to you know, why did he do this?

Why did God become man and it's order to destroy the power of death. That is the devil he says

And this nativity which he took which took place in time took nothing from and adding nothing to That divine and eternal birth but expended itself wholly on the restoration of man who had been deceived

So the entire point of the incarnation is to restore man In order that he might both vanquish death and overthrow by his strength the devil who possessed the power of death

So it's to restore man grace restores nature Number two Christ defeats the devil

Christus Victor We should not now we should for we should not now be able to all

Overcome the author of sin and death unless he took our nature on him and made it his own

Whom neither sin could pollute or death remain doubtless then he was conceived of the

Holy Spirit within the womb of his virgin Virgin mother who brought him forth without the loss of her virginity

Even as she conceived him without its loss. So here he has come in order to restore man

Defeat the power of sin and death in the devil and bring us to our proper state. Hmm.

That's awesome. That's beautiful Thank you for that. I'm speaking with Jeremiah the black doctor about the hypostatic

Union. We've been talking about the Definition of it and of course We just got into so the purpose of why

God took on human flesh and the implications of all of that If you are enjoying or being benefited or edified by this discussion

I'd really appreciate if you like the video and share it and I'm head over to tick tock or are you on Instagram as well?

Jeremiah, yeah. Yeah, I run a run a profile on Instagram and that's where you guys can most likely find me

You know talking with other people answering questions things like that. Do you have a YouTube channel? Yes, I do

It's it's youtube .com At black at the black doctor 21.

I'm pretty much revamping my entire pretty much my entire brand this week So it's you're gonna you're gonna expect a lot of changes in this in these coming weeks

So it's gonna be awesome because I love I love to hear you talk you talk with such passion and it obviously you

Love the Lord and you are very passionate about this And so I really appreciate how you kind of unpack things and and go into the detail.

So I do appreciate that But um, let's move on to some of the biblical data

So, I mean we can use philosophical and theological terminology, but the real issue is is it biblical? And so maybe you could on you can kind of unpack for us the biblical foundation for the hypothetic

Union and then we'll jump into Some objections beginning with Tyler Vela's comments that I read at the beginning of this live stream.

Yeah, sure The first one the first passage that I think we should easily go to easily go to It's just at the beginning of the

Bible Genesis chapter 3 beginning at verse beginning at verse 15. Let me let me let me see if I can

Yeah, cuz cuz I always I always like to do this I hope I like to help people see this Did you want me to share it on the screen?

Yes, I got it. We have the technology Greek and fancy with it makes us look more scholarly.

It's like I can't read that but I mean Let me see if I let me see. It's been a while. So it's it's in first Peter.

Is it that first word there? Is that I see us? I? Bethunia Bethunia's.

Yes, kata pro kata pro No scene. Yeah, I'm not seeing they you

Patras and Aghias mo Yeah, so so what you just so what you just read is we've been chosen in him according to the foreknowledge of God the

Father In the sanctification of the Spirit Okay.

So there you go. There you go. Look at that. I wasn't speaking in tongues I was just trying to pronounce my my one year of Greek tools.

That's what I I didn't take the actual Greek cards It's a Greek tool. So I at least know how to pronounce some of the words.

So there you go Hey, I mean trying to pronouncing it is half the battle then it's all vocab and and then you're stuck.

That's right. That's right Here Yes, Genesis 315 here.

God condemns the serpent and what he does is that he makes a promise I will put an enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring so here we see that There is going to be enmity.

There's going to be war with The serpent and the woman and specifically their seed and women don't generally have seed

So so this is going to be a very Like she's a generally because there's an exception

There's one exception so it's it's actually referring referring to the virgin birth and He this person shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel

This is this is why we call Jesus the head crusher We see this in relation to like first and second

Samuel with David You know taking the reins of the head crusher and and cutting off Goliath's head.

He's fulfilling that prophecy Being a type Will a shadow for that type?

But we see that this person is going to be who's going to come He's going to crush the head of the serpent and he's going to have a unnatural birth

We also see this in Isaiah chapter Let's see Isaiah chapter 7.

I believe hmm. I used to use the olive tree. I should probably still use it

It's pretty cool, isn't it? Oh, yeah It's absolutely it's absolutely beautiful in my in my opinion

What did I say? I hear 714 here

God is speaking to Ahaz. He's speaking to King Ahaz and Ahaz. He doesn't want to hear from the

Lord But but God nevertheless prophesies to Israel He says and he said in verse 13 here then

Oh house of David Is it too little for you to weary men that you weary my

God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign Behold the

Virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name

Emmanuel we see this passage reference in Matthew because the Virgin born

The the virgin birth has happened in the first century and Matthew says this is to fulfill

What is the word spoken of by the Prophet behold the Virgin the Alma shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name

Emmanuel meaning God with us Here in the incarnation

God is with us And then we can go just two chapters later two chapters later

Isaiah chapter 9 and this is a Absolutely. I wish

I could spend an entire an entire session just on this one. He says

Specifically here in verse 6 verse 6 and 7 For unto us a child is born you lad, which means it's it's literally physically born

But it's also a son is given and in the in the

Greek. It's paradeo It's it's given to us. Hmm, and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called here

It's it's funny because when you look into the Greek Not that not the Greek the Hebrew and Jewish tradition in relation to names is not just what they're called physically

But what they're characterized to be. Hmm. So here his name shall be called wonderful This is the same word used to describe

God God is wonderful And when the angel of the Lord appears to the prophets or or or appears to Abraham Isaac and Jacob and they ask him his name

He says why do you ask my name? Seeing that it is wonderful. Hmm Then we see he's called

Counselor in Greek. It's perically Jesus says he already says that he is a counselor or a comforter

But he says I will give you another Comforter the Holy Spirit Then we see he's called the

Avi. Ah, he's called the El Gabor the mighty God This phrase is only used of God himself.

The mighty God will go forth Then he's called the everlasting father aviad

I love dealing with oneness folks on this issue Because the term aviad does not mean that he is the father the person of the father

But that he is father of eternity. He is the one who walks in eternity

He's the ancient one just like the ancient of days. What about Jeremiah? I apologize

So I again said this I'm thinking about this because I had my conversation with the Jehovah's Witness So they would affirm that Jesus is a mighty

God, but that nowhere in Scripture is he is he called the Almighty God? So they make a distinction between the mighty

God and the Almighty God Is there anyone in anywhere in Scripture where Jesus is called the Almighty or he's equated with the

Almighty with that phraseology? Revelation 1 8 Okay.

Yeah, cuz cuz like if you if you look at Revelation 1 8 and also just for a for a slight plug if you if You want to see my debate.

I also referenced that as well as my opening statement The the immediate context in Revelation chapter 1 is is particularly

Jesus as we see in relation to Revelation chapter 1 verses 7 and 8

I'm the Here in the image that was the Lord God who is and who was and who is to come the

Almighty So he's the one who's speaking here because in verse 7 it's specifically referencing the

Sun behold he is coming in the clouds He's the cloud writer and that that title is only reference for God Then every eye will see him even those who pierced him

Harking back to to Zechariah 12 10 They will look upon me on him whom they have pierced and all the tribes of the earth will wail on account of him

Even so amen. Hmm So he's the one who is speaking Okay, that's good

Yeah, and then we see that he is the he is the Prince of Peace Sar Shalom Jesus says my peace.

I leave with you my peace. I give to you not as the world gives He then says of the increase of his government and of peace

There shall be no end on the throne of David and over his kingdom to establish it and uphold it with justice and with righteousness

From this time forth and forevermore the zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. So he says that this son is the mighty

God and He will sit upon the throne of his father David and the increase of his government.

There will be no end The increase of the the only one whose whose increase will never end is

God's his reign is forever So here it says that this son this human man will rule over everything and Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end hashtag that post mill

You post milk yes me too me too I grew up I grew up dispensational pre -millennial and Dropped that one like a bad habit.

Sorry guys, whoever Get over that that those stinking time text, bro

You hold these things up but soon take place well, it actually means quickly when these events happen, it'll it'll occur quick I'm like that's not what it seems to be.

I get all sorts interesting interpretations there Anyway, we don't want to get too off on eschatology.

But uh, yeah well, I mean once you once we get you on a once we get you on infant baptism, you'll truly be based but That's besides the point

One of the one onto one of the most beautiful passages, of course, I could stay on this one, too But it's it's

John 1 1 it's the prologue of John Of course in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was

God the word was asked to his Nature deity he's eternal and he's personally distinct from the father here

We have a quick definition of the doctrine of the Trinity from John Then we see a literal contrast if you're looking in the

Greek Anything else that comes into existence and is not eternal gets the word again a toe which means to come into being

But anything that is before creation Uses the word ain here, which is the imperfect form of I mean so the word ain is always used of the

Sun and again a toe is not used of the Sun of the word until verse 14

Kai halagos sarks again a toe and the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only

Son from the father full of grace and truth. So here we see that the word who is as to his nature deity

Enters into human flesh comes into human flesh at a point in time Hmm and notice here that he becomes sarks not just the the when when the church fathers

Were we're looking at the early creeds Early formulations for what the Nicene Creed should be they saw the term sarks there and just simply translated it as flesh

Then when the church fathers came back, they said wait a minute This this word has a lot deeper meaning to it.

It just doesn't mean flesh like just simply having skin and bones but it means becoming man as it says in the

Nicene Creed that he took on human flesh from the Virgin Mary and became man true man

You see if we just read the Nicene Creed then these these particular problems most likely wouldn't have happened

But by God's providence we did and we are all the better for it. Hmm Now not only that we can look at the writings of the

Apostle Paul we can look at the other Gospels But quickly I want to look at like two more passages just to hear you good

And then we'll get we'll get the Tyler's objection since we're at the top of the hour But don't feel like you have to rush just you know, if you want to go through these two passages go for it

Sure So so here I want to look at I want to look at one of the most beautiful passages and the ones that I always go to Philippians chapter 2

Because this is one of the most Some and of course like James White does

He believes that this is one of the earliest Christian hymns one of the early hymns of the church Carmen Christi Yes, the

Carmen Christi. Um, I actually place it in agreeing with dr. James White Say that this was one of the songs most likely referenced by Pliny the

Younger in his letter to the Emperor Trajan where he says

Christians go they meet up early Sunday morning before sunrise and they sing hymns to Christ as to God Believe that this is one of the songs.

I wonder what it sounded like It sound like probably if I'm like Coldplay song like Activate smoke smoke machines

Well, I don't think they had electric guitars Drums maybe that's true.

That's true. I'm Puerto Rico. You have the thing where you use the little fork thing The Gospel came to Puerto Rico then and then we had that coming up.

Never mind. Go ahead. I'm sorry It's late. I don't know Philippians 2 verse 5 says this have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus Who although he was in the form of God more faith a you?

Which means that he was in he was a very nature God as many other translations render it which is correct

He is in the very nature God He does not count equality with God a thing to be grasped or to be held on to at all costs but he emptied himself now the term the term here is is

It's never used it's never used literally by the Apostle Paul like kenosis

It's never used literally by the Apostle Paul. And as we see here, he empties himself by taking on something

He becomes what he wasn't while never ceasing to be what he was So he takes on the form of a servant

Being born in the likeness of men and being found in human form He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death even death on a cross.

So here God becomes man He takes on the form of a servant and he submits himself to the point of death even death on a cross

Therefore because of all this this is why the therefore is therefore it's all of it is referencing this

Therefore God has highly exalted him and has bestowed upon him a name that is above every name

So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue

Confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. This is actually a reference back to Isaiah Where God says come to me all the ends of the earth

Come to me and be saved Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess allegiance to me

So here in in the Old Testament Yahweh is saying every tongue shall confess to me

Now in the Apostle Paul, he says that that's referring to Jesus This this man who has become obedient to the point of death and death on a cross hmm

That's amazing. And then one other passage and it's it's it's a real short one Sure, but it's

Colossians 2 Colossians chapter 2 verse 9 and There's so much packed in here

Because like in considering the considering the context Paul was speaking against the proto

Gnostics who are who are docetists They believe that you know the spirit the spirit world is all that is good and the physical world is evil because they believe in a in a in a

Playroma of different gods like the true God is called the play Roma and there are multiple different aeons

And and at the bottom is the Demiurge, which is the one that created the world. And so Paul is basically

Because it's it's prevalent in Colossi. The Apostle Paul is pretty much in this letter You know putting nails to a chalkboard to the proto

Gnostic belief because he's saying that everything in the universe Was created by Jesus Everything so if you think that Jesus is simply one of the aeons you're mistaken.

He's good. Yes. He's God Yes, but he's the one that created the earth. So your your theology of a

Demiurge gone, right? And so now he says here in verse 8

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit According to human tradition according to the elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ.

Why? For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily

Bodily, he uses the term play Roma. They are taste some other coast

Play Roma. They ought to tell some other coast If you want to say that that all of the spiritual world is the fullness that God is the fullness all of that dwells bodily

Mmm, it's in flesh and the amazing thing is Jeremiah that this is early

This is this is like at the beginning you have Jews who believe in Christ saying literally what would be

Unimaginable for a Jew to say unless they were completely and utterly convinced that Jesus was unique in this way. Yep It's it's like it's like what what what

Paul says in a in another passage. I believe in I believe in first First Timothy such as the mystery of godliness.

Mm -hmm. God was manifest in the flesh It's It's amazing because Paul says in another passage, you know, um, if yeah, it's first Timothy 316

He says if the rulers of this world had known it they would not have crucified the

Lord of Glory. Mm -hmm Imagine making that statement. Yeah, the Lord of Glory Crucified None of that makes any sense without the incarnation the

Lord of Glory is God. That's right. God cannot be crucified Unless he takes on flesh.

That's right. Wow Excellent, man. This is I mean, I love theology dude. This is so awesome I got to go back and listen to this because this is some good stuff

Let let's now that we're at the top of the hour. Let's kind of move because I we can talk about this forever I mean, there's just so much there and you just used a couple of passages.

I mean, it's all over scripture Let's kind of move into The objection that Tyler brought up or I wouldn't say objection,

I guess he's just kind of Expressing his thoughts here and thinking maybe this is not a coherent concept for the reasons.

He he suggested. Let's take a look At at his comments here. Let me just pull it up on my phone

All right, so I'm gonna read it again and then let's spend the last moments here Interacting with it

I would say so so Tyler Vela posted on on his Facebook the freed thinker podcast page

He says could the Sun have sinned prior to the incarnation? The church has historically said no that the

Sun has absolute impeccability The Sun cannot sin because God cannot sin could Jesus have sinned in the flesh

The church has historically said contingently Yes that Jesus had the faculty to sin but would not sin in the flesh if both those answers are true

The hypothetic Union becomes incoherent because it means that the Sun both could and could not attain unrighteous guilt

To avoid that you've to avoid that you'd have to say that if Jesus sinned in the flesh the guilt wouldn't be the

Sun's But then you'd have two persons in the second person of the Godhead. So could the Sun have sinned prior to the incarnation?

What do you say and then we'll deal with the second question? Yeah. No, he could not He is he is of course the divine

Logos and God cannot deny himself. He could not sin sin is violation of God's law Okay, and could

Jesus have sinned in the flesh also? No, also, no because like what what one thing

I was looking at in relation to Tyler Vela's, you know comments. He says that the church has historically said yes, he could during the incarnation

That's not true. Mm -hmm. That's not that's just not true So he's like right here

So his statement here could Jesus have sinned in the flesh the church and he says the church has historically said contingently.

Yes Does Does he mean? That there's nothing restraining the physical ability to do something contrary to God, but that he just never would

Like is he using it along those lines, I guess like Jesus could have You know

Did something feel like there wasn't anything preventing him from moving his body to do something? He wasn't supposed to do but he just doesn't do it because he's the

Sun is that do you think that's what he means? Contingently, I mean it's it's unclear It's really unclear and and besides like the the church has actually spoken on this

The church has spoken about the in impeccability of Christ in the incarnation. Mm -hmm

Like like for example considering consider this this is the this is some some of the canons

From the the second council of Constantinople the fifth ecumenical council most of the churches

Most even Protestant churches, they mainly promote the four ecumenical councils, but they do affirm the

Christological definitions of the fifth sixth and most and possibly the seventh the seventh in relation to icons is very very iffy

Especially in relation to its reception in the Western Church So that's that's besides the point but here in the fifth ecumenical sin on there is a letter called the decreed epistle

Decretal epistle of Pope Vigilius in confirmation of the fifth ecumenical council

So a Pope is writing on the issue of the fifth ecumenical council And so he says this in relation to Christ impeccability or or specifically responding to you know

Heretics you guys remember I mentioned earlier Theodore of Mopsa Westia He says this as a result of this investigation

It became evident that in the sayings of Theodore of Mopsa Westia, which are spoken against on all hands there are contained very many things contrary to the right faith and to the teachings of the

Holy Fathers and For this reason these same Holy Fathers have left for the instruction of the church

Treatises which they had written against him So this is after Theodore's death, but the church but the father's after Theodore hear about what he was saying and then condemn him

He says this for among other blasphemies of his we find that he openly said that God the

Word was one person and Christ another Historianism vexed with the passions of the soul and with the desires of the flesh and that he little by little advanced from a lower to a higher stage of excellence by the improvement of his works and he became irreprehensible in his manner of life

And he further taught that as a mere man who was baptized in the name of the Father and of the

Son and of the Holy Ghost and that he received through his baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit and merited his adoption and therefore that Christ could be venerated in the same way that the image of the

Emperor is venerated as Being the person of God the Word and he also taught that only after his resurrection

He became immutable in his thoughts and altogether impeccable hmm, so Theodore is saying that Well, the error of Theodore of Mopsa Westia is basically saying that in the

Incarnation Jesus was not impeccable Until the resurrection therefore he worked up to impeccability

That's a heresy. The church has always recognized that in the

Incarnation Christ was impeccable Hmm and so how do how do we explain the

Incarnation of Jesus Christ? So so here this is this is what um, this is what reformed writer

GT shed says about this Particularly in his dogmatic theology volume 2 chapter 5 on Christology All right.

He says the last Adam differs from the first Adam by reason of his impeccability He was characterized not only by the

Latin phrase posse non peccare Being able to not sin So he's able to not sin, but also by the non posse peccare not being able to sin

He was not only able to overcome Temptation, but he was unable to be overcome by it hmm as impeccable will an impeccable will is one that is so mighty in itself determination to good that it cannot be

Conquered by any temptation to evil however powerful that might be

The angels who fell could have repelled temptation with that degree of power given to them by creation and so could

Adam But in either case was it infallibly certain that they would repel it

So he then goes on to explain how in Scripture Christ is impeccable in the

Incarnation He says if the God -man like Adam had a holiness that was mutable and might be lost it would be improper from Hebrews 13 8 as as Hebrews 13 8 does to speak of him in terms that are applicable only to the

Unchangeable holiness of God. He would not be holy Harmless undefiled yesterday today and forever the possibility to overcome temptation is

Inconsistent or or the impossibility of being overcome by temptation is inconsistent with the omnipotence of Christ So here we're just simply saying that The entire church recognized that Christ was impeccable.

Why? Because the human nature is united to a divine person

He says this specifically Christ person is constituted of two natures one divine and the other human the divine nature is is both

Intentable and impeccable. God cannot be tempted with evil and it is impossible for God to lie

Human nature generally considered on the contrary is both temptable and peccable when these two natures are united in the one

Theanthropic person the God -man as they are in the incarnation the divine Determines and controls the human not the human the divine

The amount of energy therefore which the total complex person possesses to resist temptation

Must be measured not by the human nature But by the divine and the amount of energy to resist temptation determines the peccability or impeccability of the person

His strength to prevent a failure from holiness is to be estimated by his divinity and not his humanity

Because the former and not the latter is the base of his personality and dominates the whole complex person

So what we're saying is The person who takes on flesh is Divine.

He is the logos So when he takes on flesh The domain denominating nature is not human but divine

So it's the divine nature the divine person who is moving within the human

So when the human nature comes up against temptation from the outside He is protected by the human nature from falling into sin.

So now Question then though Interrupting there, but you're fine

The question then is then in what sense is Jesus truly tempted if Jesus could never have sinned in what sense?

Is it really a temptation? How would we interact with questions like that that really challenged whether the very concept of the hypostatic

Union? Especially with respect to the reality of Jesus temptation. How is this even a coherent concept? How can we say he's tempted if he is impeccable?

Yeah, because temptation isn't sin God is tempted in The Old Testament, but does that mean that God was able to sin?

Right? No, God is God is tested and And men test

God, but that doesn't mean that God is able to sin All right, see if just because he's tested doesn't mean it's possible if possible for him to fail the test

Exactly and it's actually because of his impact it's actually because of the temptations that come to him that demonstrate that he is

God overall because You know men fall to temptations both outside and inside But but God is impeccable.

He is unable to be affected by temptation You see Satan thought that he could trip

Christ by trying to tempt his humanity But what does Christ say when he was tempted by the devil?

You shall not tempt the Lord by God So in trying to tempt his humanity

Christ responded with his divinity. Mm -hmm Excellent. Very good.

That's good stuff, man. I really that's good. I got to listen to this again. This is super helpful And again this bait this is as complicated as this might sound to some people.

This is actually basic Christian theology It's something we should all be Familiar with so I really do appreciate you be able to kind of unpack that and I hope this is a useful for for folks

Let me ask a quest some interesting comments. I'm looking at the comment section here Juan is going off today.

Well, what was that? I said Juan is going off today There was a question here you can grab a question before we're done here

There was a good good question here. So this is a question from Ed Romine, I think yeah is

Jesus's glorified human body impassable I've been thinking on this question.

So why don't you define what the impassability of God is and Differentiate that from the impeccability.

They're not the same. So why don't you Delineate those for us. Yeah, the term passable primarily means to be able to to suffer so so here

The human nature the human nature of Christ was able to suffer for a time

Because I mean, he's he's a true. He's a true human nature He is able to to to be injured.

He's able to to suffer and to to die but as we see in the resurrection, you know

Christ is Christ is alive never to die again We see this in Romans Romans chapter 6 death has no dominion over him and then in Revelation chapter 1

He has the keys to death in Hades. He says I am the first and the last I Am the living one.

I died and behold am alive forevermore and I have the keys of death in Hades So he is he's not able to die

There is also let's see Let me let me look this up really quick This is this is from Irenaeus In his in one of his writings, he says, you know, there is one physician of flesh and of spirit

He says he is subject to possibility but then impassable here here he says

Here it is In his letter to the Ephesians chapter 7 section 2

He says there is only one physician who is both flesh and spirit born and unborn

God and man True life in death both for Mary and from God for subject to possibility and then beyond it

Jesus Christ our Lord, so he was able to he was able to suffer his human nature was first passable

But now it is impassable Hmm that's good stuff man.

Here's another question here Which view do you hold about Jesus not knowing the day nor the hour was he limited by his human nature or was that only?

for the father to proclaim Both are Both I believe are avid or or I think applicable

Applicable Explanations for That that particular passage, but I prefer the term

I mean to use the to use the proclaim argument because it it doesn't even have us getting into the relationship between the divine and human

Because we have you know We have scriptural understanding the term or day is used in And in first Corinthians 2 where he says where Paul says, you know,

I seek to know nothing among you except Christ and him crucified and then I I could point out that Jesus even though he says it is not upon it's not upon him to proclaim that day

We already know that he's been describing what happened So he obviously knows the exact time and day but he is not able he is not

He does not have the prerogative to declare it. But even then he notes himself in relation to rank

He says no man declares it not man nor the angels nor the son, but the father only so here

He relegates himself above the angels. So who's above the angels? Who's the only one above the angels

Oh God Exactly, that's right so when people use this argument to go against the deity of Christ when you actually read it and Recognize what

Jesus is saying. It actually promotes his divinity instead of diminishing it. Mm -hmm. That's good stuff, man

That was super helpful. I hope that was That was helpful for the person who asked the question

Khan in Christ, I guess canon Christ Sorry, it's green names. I have trouble

Reading them out sometimes but this is super super important topic I would highly recommend people study the

Chalcedonian Creed in the history behind the development of this doctrine I don't mind calling it a developmental doctrine

It is not made whole cloth and at a particular point in history after you know

The time of the New Testament it is derived from the New Testament and we formulate more Technical language to describe the doctrine so as to protect it from heretical views which

Jeremiah Explained for us at the beginning. So again, we simply scratch the surface but hopefully this has been a good summary and kind of a just a brief interaction with Some possible objections to the coherency of the concept and I hope this proves helpful for people

Um before we kind of wrap things up here. Are there any is there any last things you'd like to say to?

To the audience here in terms of you know, how does this relate to the gospel? How is this practical for us to really kind of just take this and see well

You know tomorrow when I go to work and I reflect upon the truths of God How is this beneficial and practical for me?

Yeah, the first thing I want to do is of course recommend a few books In relation to this, of course read the

Council of Chalcedon also recommend that you read Leo's tome It's actually a pretty easy read pretty short read also,

I Mean if you want if you want to spend a little bit of money Look up reform submit reform systematic theology

Volume 2 by Joel Beakey and Paul Smalley recommend that the the systematic theology over say like a

I know Wayne Grudem's a Baptist And he's charismatic, but just generally speaking. Do you recommend?

Is that your what? What would you recommend as the kind of the better systematic theology generally speaking

Yeah, those are any it's there's about three that I recommend that one by Joel Beakey There's also

Louie Burkoff's that you can get for free. It's on PDF. His systematic theology is absolutely brilliant But the other one

I think you should get I haven't finished reading all of it, but it's still really really solid in my opinion

Gerhardt is bosses reform dogmatics His set is really good. You can get you can get either the the five the five edition set or the one one volume set and So Gerhardt is losses.

Absolutely. It's absolutely brilliant in in a lot of these things. So he's he's really good And then of course,

I mean you can look at a lot of the the reform scholastics Most of them are found on the the

David Institute. I've been plowing through the David Institute in their books. It's absolutely great

But yeah, yes speaking of speaking of in relation to it's New systematic theology of the

Christian faith by Robert Raymond. Yes. Raymond is great I mean like I read his book on baptism

Very good. Okay So like like how does how does this relate to our daily lives

It relates to how we think about ourselves What does it truly mean to be human? Hmm we live in a day and age where people think that just because of their feelings they can define human nature

They believe that a man because he feels like it can become a woman or a woman who feels like it become a man or Are neither?

So we live in an identity crisis. We don't know what it means to be human anymore But the incarnation speaks into that it speaks into the value of human life

God made man in his image and he entered into human flesh to give us our value He shows us our value

So much so it shows us the value of even a child in the womb to where in the incarnation

God rests within the womb and when Elizabeth meets

Mary John the Baptist leaps within Elizabeth's womb just by the sound of the mother of God It's amazing to show the value of human life and In like like Irenaeus in his entire doctrine of recapitulation in relation to the two natures of Christ God became man in order to restore every single every single facet of human life

Your life has value God has defined it and he has entered into it.

He knows your struggles. He knows your pain He knows the sufferings of human life

He suffered the tragedy of misery of living here on a fallen world

Hmm, and even though and even in that he takes our infirmities he is able to bear them and pin them to a wrecked cross and Because of his death and resurrection he offers you life

He offers you the restoration of your nature. He offers you the restoration of your personality

He offers you the restoration of how you view yourself and Then at the end of the day, you will look just like him

You will take on his glorious face hmm, I Have been talking with Jeremiah short the black doctor who closes our show out with an awesome application of this

Important doctrine of the hypostatic Union. I would just like to encourage people know your theology know your history

Know the tradition that has led up to Christianity today and do not commit the error of Detaching your

Christian faith from the long rich history that That preceded it and don't allow

Roman Catholics in Eastern Orthodoxy to steal that history and claim it for themselves Yeah, that's not necessarily the case too if you're interested we've had

I've had some episodes on Eastern Orthodoxy and and maybe some Roman Roman Catholicism there if you guys are interested in there, but as someone was asking is this a

Protestant Channel? Bet your pajamas it is not just generically a hardcore

Protestant Channel proud of it proud Protestant so and and not just any Protestant the dirty kind the

Calvinist. I'm a Calvinist There was a Jeremiah, so there you go you can put that in your pipe and smoke it

So Jeremiah, I'd like to thank you so much. I appreciate your friendship I appreciate your knowledge and your love for the

Lord and it has been a blessing to have you on. Thank you so much It's it's an absolute honor.

Absolutely. I Appreciate it and everyone else in the comments. Thank you so much for listening in and Commenting if you really like the channel and it's been beneficial to you, please subscribe if you haven't subscribed hit the like button all those things are super helpful and of course

All of these shows are transferred on to iTunes in my podcast revealed apologetic So if you write a good review, that's super helpful for me as well

So if you do that, I would totally appreciate it and check out Jeremiah short the black doctors content on his

YouTube channel on Tick -tock and Instagram, so that's it for this episode guys

Until tomorrow, which I'll be joined by. Dr. James White to talk about some Mormonism. I'll see you guys then