That is something i wanted to see so badly! Dr. MCclellan and Dr. Sijuwade discussing the Trinity! I have not watched the whole thing yet, but it gotta be interesting no?!. Give it a watch and let's discuss about it. https://youtube.com/watch?v=WLauwRcfgbY&si=PqZEAnz0hp4VFRBg

You already know what time it is 💯 I’m thrilled to announce that tonight we have none other than the jubilant Dr. Ryan Mullins joining us to lecture. This will be in the same format as our last session with Dr. Sijuwade. Expect dynamic conversation and a live Q&A. So come ready to: Learn Think deeply Ask your questions Engage and participate Ryan will be diving into topics surrounding the nature of God, time, and much more. You won’t want to miss it. See you all tonight🔥

Looks like all of you are being taught by the worst internet apologist 🤣💀 But in all seriousness, this is a really REALLY bad take from someone who is a scholar. My take is entirely informed by the theistic heavy weights such as Joshua Rasmussen and Trent Dougherty. Remember this one for the rest of your lives: 1️⃣Logically, the argument with the weakest premise is the strongest argument. 2️⃣The perception of morality is obviously a weaker premise than the objectivity of morality. This is not hard.

STEP 1: Download the Skool App and turn on notifications. STEP 2: Comment below on this post with the following: - Who are you, and where are you from? - What is your current role or interest in apologetics? - What do you hope to achieve as a member of this community? STEP 3: Attend the weekly live mentorship calls hosted by me or a scholar/specialist! Check the calendar for the call schedule. During these calls, you can ask questions to support your journey in building a strong and confident worldview. Missed a live session? No worries—recordings will be available within 48 hours! Please remember to follow the community rules and guidelines to keep this space positive and productive. Violators will be removed. If you have any questions, feel free to DM me.

Let’s say a Muslim asks “how many gods died on the cross?” It seems like every obvious answer seems to land you in heresy: Say “one” and it sounds like you’re either claiming the Father suffered (patripassianism) or that there are multiple gods and one of them died (tritheism). Say “zero” and you’ve denied that God truly died for humanity. Say “the Trinity died” and you’ve collapsed the distinction between the persons. The model of Conciliar Trinitarianism dissolves the puzzle through a careful equivocation on the word “God.” Predicatively, “God” works like a descriptor, it applies to anything that exemplifies the divine nature. In this sense, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are each “God,” because each exemplifies the one divinity-attribute. Nominally, “God” works as a proper name, and it refers to one entity alone: the Father, who is the unsourced source of the Son and the Spirit. There is exactly one “God” in this sense. With this distinction in hand, the crucifixion question splits in two: Nominally: zero gods died. The one God, the Father, did not suffer or die. Patripassianism is avoided. Predicatively: one entity that is “God” died. The Son, who genuinely exemplifies divinity, truly died on the cross. The reality of the incarnation and atonement is preserved. Without the equivocation, you’re trapped. Univocal use of “God” forces you to either deny the Son’s death, implicate the Father in suffering, or count multiple gods. The two-sense distinction lets you affirm what orthodoxy requires: the one God (the Father) did not die, and God (the Son, predicatively) genuinely did. This way, monotheism stays intact and the persons stay distinct. Thus, the Christian is not forced to take on unwanted consequences.