In Biblical Unitarianism what is the relationship between the divine and the human? 

This conversation might be one of the most clear presentation of the Unitarian faith I have ever heard. I was listening to Dustin Smith speak the other day about the need to offer up something in place of what is being attempted to deconstruct. This is that something. Thank you brother Sam for sharing your heart and being a vessel for God to share what I believe to be an amazing and wonderful biblical truth.

Thanks for the shout out.

Great talk together. Thank You 😊💗

Thanks again, Sam, for the wonderful conversation! 🙂

Got it, thanks Sam

Hi Sam, you might find the following lecture series by David Bentley Hart interesting. Check out the pod "Leaves in the wind" with the Mt.Tabor reference in the title.

I always find your discussions super interesting. Basically representing the logical end point of Protestant epistemology. Here's to hoping you and Dr. Ortlund can eventually sit down and chat. I've been repping your channel on his videos, and he replied to one of my comments, so maybe some day! I enjoyed listening to this one, especially since the incarnational nature of the Trinity is traditionally viewed as a fundamental aspect of salvation in Christianity. Even though I land on the other side of this spectrum, but it was still interesting listening to the reasoning for this.

I momentarily thought you were talking with Michael Bird again! That accent...

21:50 Sinning in the name of tradition is a topic discussed in the Bible (Matthew 15:6). The importance of letting go of any idols in our lives is also emphasized, including strongly held traditions that obstruct the truth and lead to sin. I don't think any Biblical Unitarian would disagree that the trinity doctrine can be viewed as the greatest idol (false doctrine) that the mainline Christian institution has ever conceived, hence our laser focus on Christology. It's my firm belief that a Christian who is able to sufficiently articulate the trinitarian doctrine and willingly embrace it is plainly violating the first commandment of God, regardless of their awareness of this transgression. So I believe that as Unitarians, we have the responsibility of helping our fellow Christians steer clear of sin with the knowledge that has been entrusted to us, and vice versa. Our trinitarian friends and even non Christian friends may provide us with mutually beneficial corrections in other areas. Jacob, a non-Christian Jew, and Anselman, a trinitarian, for example, can give you a hand with your cosmology. I'm biased, of course, lol :-) Knowing about your personal experiences of being expelled from several trinitarian congregations due to your convictions (I can relate), it's obvious to me that you sympathize with the marginalized and strive to prevent others from enduring the same suffering that you've experienced, but I also get the sense that your more inclusivist mindset is coming from personal desires for validation and a stable fellowship, perhaps as much, if not more, than it is about the truth. For me, drawing hard doctrinal lines doesn't mean isolating myself from other Christians, but it does mean maintaining boundaries and making them clearly known. There's no doubt in my mind that a Christian who participates in a trinitarian fellowship can experience a closer connection with God compared to a Christian involved in a unitarian fellowship. It's a case-by-case basis; therefore, I acknowledge that doctrinal correctness is not the sole determining factor of one's standing with God. However, if an individual possesses the ability to comprehend theological concepts, I do believe they will be held responsible for their beliefs (Luke 12:48), and as such, they are also subject to the respectful correction of those that do possess an accurate biblical understanding of Christ's nature. Lack of growth in Christians' grasp of Christ, given their potential for understanding, for me, most likely points to a moral impediment in their spiritual development. I don't think it's wise to judge our closeness to God by the closeness we have with Christians of differing backgrounds, because you can make human interconnection (Luke 6:32) as much of an idol as you can with human propositions (Matt 15:9). Holiness should be the metric by which we judge our relationship to God and then with each other, and as Christians that have sufficient intellectual capacity, a part of that is propositional correctness. The growth of our closeness to God, to community, and to creedal accuracy should all be concurrent and, most importantly, rooted in direct revelation and vetted by scripture. Any misalignment indicates the presence of an idol, whether that's firmly supporting a false doctrine, which consequently has led to countless divisions and denominations, or whether it's maintaining a strong, flourishing, and unified community at the expense of doctrinal accuracy (as is typical with cult groups). They are just two sides of the same coin, and both lack that emanational aspect, in my view. I propose that if you desire to have a thriving Christian fellowship alongside trinitarian Christians, neither traditions nor communal desires should take the highest place, but a desire for what is true, no matter the cost, even if the cost ends up being a long-held tradition or community ideal itself. I'd also argue this applies to TLC as well.

Excellent conversation, especially venturing into realms of Human/Divine interaction. Like you Sam, I am a Unitarian. And like you I arrive at that conclusion through Scripture. However, I see no need for virgin birth, Incarnation. Doesn’t that concept make Jesus other than human? I regard the Bible seriously but not literally, seeing Incarnation as mythological. One line of your discussion about Panentheism piqued my interest. I’m with Luke on this one. Here’s why: I don’t believe in Original Sin, neither did Pelagius. I think Augustine misunderstood the scripture and went overboard on human depravity. Like Matthew Fox , I think Original Blessing makes much more sense. I think Judaism affirms this as well. In this sense, God’s connection to us is and always has been ongoing. Otherwise, how could Jesus , a human, respond to and fully embrace God’s presence? How could all the other great prophets and Avatars of history function as they did? All over the world. If you drop OSin, you don’t need atonement, which is archaic in my mind. Instead you have in Jesus the way, showing the world the way. Another benefit of my theology is that with Panentheism built in to Evolution you can see the world in progress towards the kind of Transfiguration you hope to see happen. This also means that it is our privilege and responsibility to help that happen. Pray: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.”. Occams Razor. No need for old and new creations etc.

The Biblical Unitarian Jesus did not sin; which could be viewed by some as "unrelatable".

Sam the problem is I have a hard time grasping what people mean when they say that prophets and messengers are sinless. From your explaination all prophets before Jesus were tempted and they fell in sin. Some prophets died as sinners, such as Solomon. According to you Jesus was also tempted like prophets before him but he did not sin and hence he broke a trend that had lasted for 200000 years and a trend of sinning that continued after Jesus’s death and ressurection. In the Quran Jesus does not seem to sin because he has grasped the Torah and the Gospel litteraly directly after his delivery(3:46). However Jesus Will be questioned on whether he asked the people to worship God alone or if he asked the people to worship him and his Mother beside God.(5:116)

Do you know who first used the term "Biblical Unitarianism"?

Unitarianism sure makes more sense than trinitarians, but isn't there a problem with God demanding a human sacrifice? Jesus as god has the advantage that god didn't do anything evil since he sacrificed himself to himself, like Odin. A compromise between the two could be to have there just be one god who incarnated as Jesus somehow. God the father on the cross. Of course I have no idea what the point of the sacrifice actually was for such an omnipotent being, but it seems to make sense to Christians.

I just find it amazing that not one mention is made of the Cappadocian Church Fathers and their writings on the Trinity that were the foundation of the Nicene Creed. Unitarianism is a Protestant heresy. You won't know that unless you know how these issues were dealt with during the first thousand years of Christianity. The early church believed in the Monarchy of the Father. The eternal generation of the Son. And the eternal procession of the Spirit. The Father being the source and fount of the Godhead. That is why the Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one God the Father". The Father is God. The Trinity is rooted in the philosophy of hierarchy not Unitarianism. Unitarianism is a product of absolute divine simplicity and the inconsistency that is produced from pagan philosophy. All forms of Protestantism are gnostic and neo-platonic. The only Christian tradition that teaches historic Trinitarianism is the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholics and Protestants are heterodox for that reason.

54:00 In terms of ascending and descending, Sam, the text does not indicate that Jesus ascended first from a subcelestial position into heaven and then descended as implied in a supposed spiritual experience. It just says that he descended. I interpret this as a reference to John 1:13, which suggests that an individual cannot ascend into heaven unless they have received a new name from above through spiritual rebirth. However, Jesus did not need to be reborn through the sanctification of God's word, as his identity originated from God's word. In this sense, Jesus (his identity) descended from heaven.