This is the transcript of Restitutio episode 540: Dustin Smith's Thoughts on the Tuggy-White Debate This transcript was auto-generated and only approximates the contents of this episode. Sean Finnegan: Hey there, I'm Sean Finnegan. And you are listening to Restitutio podcast that seeks to recover authentic Christianity and live it out today. As the dust continues to settle from last week's debate between Dale Tuggy and James White, reviewers are coalescing on a rather exciting conclusion Tuggy handedly won the debate. Rumor has it that James White has even requested a rematch. We'll have to wait and see if anything happens on that. Front, but requesting A rematch is not something the winner typically does. In today's episode, I'll bring on Doctor Dustin Smith of the Biblical Unitarian podcast to respond to James White's arguments not only in his opening but also in his rebuttal, cross examination, time and conclusion. Yes, he introduced new arguments in every single phase of the debate. One wonders why he didn't respond to any of Dale Tuggy's arguments. Let's see what Dustin Smith has to say here. Now is Episode 540 Dustin Smith's take on the tuggy white debate. Hello, I'm Sean Finnegan. And you're listening to restitutio, a podcast that seeks to restore authentic Christianity and live it out today. Today, my guest is Doctor Dustin Smith, who is a New Testament scholar at Spartanburg Methodist College in Spartanburg, SC. He's participated in debates on Unitarian theology, and he's the weekly host of the Biblical Unitarian podcast, which comes out every week. And he defended the view that Jesus is the human Messiah in a co-authored book called the Son of God, 3 Views on the identity of Jesus, and he has a forthcoming. Book on Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John coming out this spring. Welcome to restitutio Dustin Smith. Dustin Smith: Hey, I finally made it on the Restitutio podcast. I can now go to sleep and. Rest though well, thanks for having me. Appreciate it. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, we can. We can update your bio next time and say. And he's also been. On the rest now. Just kidding. Dustin Smith: That's right. My fix my CD right now. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, there it. Is I'm glad to have you on. Of course. Dustin and I have known each other for a long time. Have, you know, served together in some ways in different places and times over the years. And today we're talking about the James White Dale Tuggy debates is Jesus Yahweh. What I'm hoping to do if I am able to pull this off correctly, is to play out some clips from the the video and then respond to them. So Are you ready? Dustin Smith: Let's go. Let's do. It. Sean Finnegan: All right. He looks like he's ready. So let me go ahead and see if I can find this and we'll we'll get it going. Here's the first clip. James White: Is Jesus, Yahweh and so it is going to be a biblical presentation. My thesis statement is that the New Testament writers specifically identified Jesus as the son as Yahoo. Play this is a divine truth. It is revealed in Scripture. It is not the result of philosophical speculation. Creedal formulation over centuries, so on, and so forth. It is a divinely revealed truth found in the pages of the Bible. As such, the only meaningful question this evening is do the authors of the New Testament purposefully intend. To identify the son as a person distinguished from the father and the spirit as Yahweh. That is the question that we will be examining this evening. Whether someone's philosophical system is full enough, big enough. To deal with such a divine revelation is not our subject this evening, but I can assure you it will come up and my assertion is, if your philosophical system is not big enough to deal with what Scripture itself reveals, then you need a new philosophical system. Sean Finnegan: All right, let me just stop it right there. So I found this statement to be so fascinating. His big question is, do the authors of the New Testament purposefully intend to identify the? Son, as a person distinguished from the father and the spirit as Yahweh, and I'll stick to myself. I don't know if you would agree or not on this Dustin, but I'll stick to myself. What a what? A floppy question like he really needs to hone that down and and and work on that language because it's like, what are you even saying here? He believes that the son is a person. Distinguish from the father and spirit comma as Yahweh. So is is he saying that the son is Yahweh but not the father? In the spirit? No, I don't think he is, but that's the way the the question is worded. Do you have any comments on that before we get to the biblical stuff? Dustin Smith: Well, I think that if that was the premise of the debate, I don't think that he succeeded at demonstrating that. And it was very interesting because in a lot of his argumentation throughout the debate, and especially in his rebuttal and his closing, it almost seems like he forgot that that's what he was trying to do. He would jump off to the church fathers, which have no relevancy to what the New Testament authors were trying to say. And you know, I feel like the burden is actually on him to demonstrate all of these points, to actually demonstrate that there are three distinct persons that are defined as Yahweh. Way and that that's the best reading of what the New Testament authors purposefully intend for us to understand. And so I think it's that's wow, that's if that's the mountain you want to climb. That's great. But he didn't come anywhere close to demonstrating that. I think if you are careful to listen, there's a lot of proof texting. That goes on and there's a lot of yelling. Trying to suggest that his. Yeah, there's there's a lot of suggestion. Like his particular way of reading these passages is the only way you could read them. And if you don't read them, perhaps you're not saved. But I don't think that actually proves the point that he's trying to do. And actually, if if you're going to be on the affirmative and you can't prove you're affirmative. Sean Finnegan: Motion. Yeah. Dustin Smith: Then the person who denies that automatically wins. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, this idea, and I'd love to dig into this further at some point, but this idea that a person as distinct from. I'm pretty sure I saw in a dictionary somewhere that this was a concept invented to describe the Trinity in the 4th century, and he's using it as the premise he's trying to prove. And you know, I I just wanna. I just wanna like shout foul from, like, the first. The first statement here and say, look, you're trying to prove an anachronism. It's never gonna work. You're never gonna prove the apostles all drove a Honda. Because they're all at 1 accord, you know, like that's just it's never going to be true. Yeah, anachronisms are just always wrong. So I I don't know. I'd have to look into that more to be able to prove that. But it just seemed like he wasn't really trying to build the Trinity or even defend the Trinity. But he's using Trinitarian language that's necessary. Without proving that that language was or even ideas were available in the 1st century, which if you do second Temple literature like you, you just don't find people talking about it that way. At least not that I'm aware of. Dustin Smith: Yeah. One of the things that I think he's trying to do is he's trying to be consistent with his definition of the Trinity, but I really pointed out that he was very inconsistent when it comes to actually describing God because James White will describe God with singular references and singular pronouns many times. Sean Finnegan: Yes. Dustin Smith: In this debate, and I don't think that he's aware that he is really defeating his own argument. He's kind of. He's in a hole trying to, like, dig himself out of it, and he's not actually making any ground with the whole thing. And so if we come across those clips and be sure to point those out because those are the things that demonstrate that he has an incoherent view and he can't even describe God without describing God in a Unitarian way when trying to argue for the Trinity. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, very good. All right, here is our next clip. It's going to be on Hebrews 1. 10. James White: Because you may know the right of the Hebrews quotes directly from the Septuagint of Psalm 1/02/25 through 27 in Hebrews chapter one, verses 10 through 12, and he applies these inspired words about Yahweh to the Sun. In particular, note in verse 6 the writer differentiates between the first born and all angels by quoting Psalm 97.7. Let all the angels of God worship. Him in verse 7, the writer shows the Angels are created beings, but in verse eight he begins. But to the son. Then, in contrast to the created angels, and so now he switches and he's now applying what he's quoting to the Sun, in contrast to the created angels. In verse 8, the writer identifies the son as God and he continues his demonstration of the superiority of the sun to the angelic creatures. Verse 10 begins simply with Chai and continuing the introduction of verse 8 to the son. He says so without question Verses 10 through 12 are purposefully applied to the Sun directly from Psalm. 102 only Yahweh is. Suitable only Yahweh is unchanging and eternal, as described in Psalm 102. Yet here, in a text clearly discussing the father and the son, these divine attributes are purposefully ascribed to the sun as the sun. This is the intention of the writer's special pleading response that is often. Given to this text, one attempt has been to say that the SEPTAGON has God speaking to another Lord, and that the new creation, this other Lord Jesus, rules over, is found in Chapter 2 and is solely soteriological in. Picture the problem is that every reference to Lord in the Greek 7 of Psalm 102, Psalm 101 in the weekend is in reference to Yahweh, not some lesser divine being, versus 10 through 12. In Hebrews one follow in perfect context with what came before, beginning with verse 3. This special pleading fails. Sean Finnegan: All right, thoughts on Hebrews 110? Dustin Smith: Well, I had a lot of thoughts on because I was. Sean Finnegan: You did a whole video. Not ready. Dustin Smith: Yeah, I did a whole video on that and people very quickly pointed out that, hey, you have a different view than what Dale has now, I didn't know. Sean Finnegan: It's not funny. He took a totally different position. Dustin Smith: And and for the for the audience to kind of understand that I actually prepared my video on response to Hebrews 110 before Dale actually did the debate. So I had no idea what he was going to say. And he's familiar with my view, and we talked about it actually on the phone yesterday. Sean Finnegan: Well, he's the one that switched views. I think he used to hold your something that interpreted in light of the son and then switched to the father after reading Phillip Capustan's book. Dustin Smith: But something that. Sean Finnegan: What? What did you think about his? His take on it? You think it's viable or interesting or worthy of further research or what? What? Dustin Smith: Do you think the function of versus 10 through 12 is to describe the nature of the father? I'm not sure how that actually contributes to the argument of Hebrews chapter one, but one of the things that I would. I have pressed doctor White. On is this the reference to you, you, O Lord, in the beginning founded the heavens and the Earth, that sort of thing. You know, he says this is in reference to Yahweh in Psalm 102. OK, but you see, you notice there he actually doesn't define who Yahweh is there. OK, who is that singular pronoun? Who is that singular. Reference regarding because everyone in the Old Testament, every single Jew would say that is in reference to the father. Yeah. What he's actually doing here is if in his argumentation is he is taking a father tax. And applying it to the sun, and that actually defeats what he's actually trying to do with the Trinity, because he's trying to go out of his way to say that the father and the son are distinct persons and that we shouldn't confuse and collapse it to so he's actually begging the question and he actually has to make that particular point. So he he's trying to say this is the straightforward reading, but it's actually not. It's actually. Sean Finnegan: Oh my goodness. Yeah. Dustin Smith: Really a little bit more difficult than he wants to admit, and I think we have to look back at chapter one, verse 2 where it says the God made the worlds or made the ages through the sun. So there's there's something that's going on there, but clearly the sun is distinct from the God. And I think that if my reading is correct, then I could be wrong. I could be wrong on this. That you know the the contrast that's actually going on. Is that the? Angels, they're kind of their spirits and their fire. They're they're kind of like fleeting. They're not, per. In it, they're not something that's going to last, it seems, but the rule of the sun, at least in chapter one, verse 8, you know, you're thrown is stripper, doesn't say the sun is forever. It says you're thrown a service. His rule is forever because he's the resurrected Davidic king, just like the original reference there. Whether it's Solomon or Hezekiah or whatever. And then the. The second quotation is. Talking about how you know the heavens are going to be rolled up and they're going to perish, but you are going to remain and you're going to remain the same. So there's a sense to it. It's it's contrasting kind of the tangible, not permanent nature of what the angels represent with the permanent rule of the resurrected and exalted son who is sitting at God's right hand. I would have questions for both of the guys, I would say. But what White was trying to do with this, I don't think actually supports this. Argument. It actually undercuts his main argument, and that's my main point. Sean Finnegan: Yeah. And if people want to know more about your position, they can see. Your video, I think you make a really good point about white proving modalism to be the case, which seems to be what he's trying to do throughout the debate without realizing it. Obviously, he doesn't intend to do that. When I asked Dale his thoughts on how the debate went, he started off by saying the difference between James White. And a modalist is that James White says he's not a modal. In other words, he. Just is when we say a modalist, we mean somebody that believes that Jesus is the father and you know, maybe they operate in different modes, or maybe they're different personalities of the one self, the one being that is God and that seems to be what Whitey's doing with this whole. Jesus is Yahweh. It is not traditional. Orthodox language at all. And so for that reason I think it is kind of fascinating. That I don't know if he feels like he needs to retreat into Jesus Yahweh language because it's what more biblical, or if he's just like trying out a new strategy because like other strategies haven't worked in debates in the past, I don't know. But it definitely was a little weird. And I'm not convinced. That he was able to defend the Trinity from that view. But let's let's move on to John 12, see what he says there. James White: And it is here, right after quoting from Isaiah's Temple vision that John writes these words. These things Isaiah said, because he saw his glory. And he spoke concerning him. The him in question is easily determined. The text continues. Nevertheless, many even the rulers believed in him, but because of the Pharisees, they were not confessing him verse 42. So when did Isaiah see Jesus's glory and speak about him well? The default answer is that the closest reference, that being the citation of Isaiah 6, is the source. Hence we look back at Isaiah 6, see that Isaiah saw Yahweh in his heavenly vision and was sent by Yahweh to deliver a message of judgment upon. Israel Isaiah sees the glory of Yahweh even in the midst of judgment, just as Jesus is being glorified by the father, and that in the midst of judgment this is even more strongly substantiated by the textual variant in the Greek Septuagint, from which John is quoting for an Isaiah 6/1, it reads, and the house was full of his glory. So we have the same verb idon with the same subject. The glory in the Greek Septuagint and in John 12. One so the most straightforward reading the text would have us asking Isaiah, whose glory did you see, and he would respond. Yahweh is, and asking John, whose glory did Isaiah see? And he responds Jesus's if Isaiah saw Jesus in the Heavenly Temple seated upon the throne, well, the debate is over. But of course Unitarians must try to find another reading. One that has been offered is at the glory scene is the entire ministry and work of Christ seen more in Isaiah 53 than in Isaiah 6 since the Septuagint uses glory a great deal in Isaiah, it is argued that we should not take the literal meaning of Isaiah. 61 is determinative, but should instead focus on Isaiah 53. The problem here is that this requires us to take the far referent over against the near to disconnect the theme of judgment, to adopt A highly questionable definition of glory based upon a strained reading of Isaiah 53 in a translation, all to come to a nebulous conclusion that disconnects 1241 from the rest of the discourse. When we read John's gospel, we find him identifying Jesus as God. In John 11 and John 2028, the great I am and John 824-858-1319 and 18 five through 6. So seeing him say Isaiah saw Jesus as Yahweh and Isaiah 6. One is consistent with John's gospel as a whole. Sean Finnegan: OK. Thoughts on John 1241? Dustin Smith: Yeah, I don't think that he gives enough weight to the suggestion that the reference to seeing Jesus glory is in reference to the Isaiah 53 one passage, because that context, I think actually has far more references. To the glory of the lamb, who is rejected, and the judgment that comes on people, and the fact that cause in the Gospel, John, the lifting up of Jesus is, you know, you think lifting up is kind of an exaltation thing, but it's this double language is. Sort of pun because it works in the sense that Jesus also lifted up on the cross in the gospel when he's actually killed. He's actually crucified. That's when he's actually exalted. And when you actually look at, I say, 53 in the context there. And it's not just 53, you know, one through 12, it's also the the verses that go right before that. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, from 52. Dustin Smith: But I think I'm reading here like, yeah, in 5213 it says behold, my servant will prosper. He will be high and he will be lifted up and greatly. Salted and the the Septuagint uses bokso, the verb to glorify actually there like it actually indicates that he will be glorified. It's actually there. The noun glory appears in 53 verse two, and then there's other references there. So you can't just look for the noun and you also have to look for the verb, but there's a lot of references. To the rejected sun, to the lamb that's actually being killed, and being exalted because of that. That's all over Isaiah 5253 in that 4th servant Psalm. And that's a major emphasis in the Gospel, John, is that Jesus is the Lamb of God. People don't realize that's not in Matthew, Mark and Luke. That's a Johanna and. This. So that's a major thing there. And I just think that's a much more likely reading than to say that well. And Isaiah chapter 6, they saw Yahweh, who, by the way, later in the debate, James White actually says that that is a reference to the father. He actually has a he actually says that's a reference to the father. And then so. He's actually, again, he's making the argument that a father. Text is now a reference to the sun, and we know this because Isaiah himself, or at least the Book of Isaiah, defines Yahweh as the father, and Isaiah 63, verse 16. So yeah, he's got his own reading, and yeah, he's he's basically saying, look at, it's the closest reference. The closest reference was not the Isaiah 53. Dustin Smith: Quotation it's the Isaiah 6 quotation, but just because it's the nearest reference doesn't mean that it's the most likely one I'm trying to make the argument that the Isaiah 53 referent is a far more likely and more persuasive thing that I think the narrator is trying to demonstrate for the readers. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, it seems like he's talking about rejection. And that is certainly the theme of 5253 of Isaiah and the part in Isaiah 6 that he quotes. He doesn't quote the throne room scene. He doesn't quote it at all. He doesn't say. And he saw him high and lifted up in his train, filling the temple with glory. He doesn't. He doesn't quote any of that. He quotes the commissioning and specifically the part of the commissioning where he says he's going to be rejected. So you have to be careful. You can't always bring in the whole context of an Old Testament quotation. Into the New Testament. That they're allowed to use the Bible in different ways, and we have to extend that kind of freedom to the New Testament authors. And, you know, I think if you read John 12 as a whole, Christology is not really what he's doing here. What he's talking about is yet judgment but also rejection. And this idea of be like you said, of being lifted up and glory. Wide in a very Joe and nine sense, which fits well with Isaiah's themes of the suffering servant. So yeah, I think you're I think you're right about that. Any any comments on this whole bit he went on with John 824, eight, 5813 and then 18 where he's saying, Oh well, one of John's themes because he brings this up later. Dustin Smith: Oh yeah. Sean Finnegan: Is to identify Jesus as quote the great. I am. So any thoughts on that? Dustin Smith: One yeah, I have. I have lots of thoughts on this. Let's let's let's make this point very, very clear. OK. So in Hebrew, the phrase I am is Ani, who it's just I he and the the verb to be is supplied and and Sean knows all this stuff right here so. Whenever Yahweh is saying I am he, there's not just I am. You have to supply the predicate there. I am he. Those are references indicating that the speaker is a single person. I is a first person singular pronoun. He is a third person singular pronoun every single time that y'all always says I am he or. I am. He is saying that he is not triune. He's saying that I am one single person. I one person. Am he a single person? If James White wants to say that Jesus is claiming to be that, then he's claiming that Jesus is the father and that God is only one person. Both those things defeat his own argument and what Dale had tried to demonstrate is it in the context. It's much more likely that I am. He is a reference to the Messiah and actually better fits into the passages that we actually have there. It doesn't seem like Jesus is claiming I am. No way. That doesn't seem to work there. And again, just it just doesn't make sense and we actually have lots of evidence. We have evidence from the New Testament and actually from the Jewish period around the time of the writing of the New Testament where a variety of Jews were actually saying I am or I am he in a way that wasn't recognized by anyone else as they're claiming to be Yahweh. Claiming divine prerogatives, no one was picking up stones. When these rabbis were saying I am he, and they would actually say it in Hebrew and in Aramaic. So I got a variety of podcasts going through. Like all of these references here. So. This whole Jesus claiming to be the great I am from the Old Testament. That argument needs to go. That doesn't work and it, like any third grader, knows that grammar. Sean Finnegan: Uh-huh. And what about this incident in John 18, where all the soldiers fall back and Jesus says I am he? And or I am or I am he and they all fall down. He makes it kind of a big point on. That one. Dustin Smith: Yeah, there's nothing wrong with the words of Jesus being powerful. I mean, if Jesus in the Gospel of John is the embodiment of God's word, the very word that brought creation into existence that brought light and brought life, and we also know that that light, it shines in the darkness, and the darkness can't overcome it. So what happens when? Jesus is speaking light and life as the embodiment of God's words. Darkness falls over wow, and there's very likely an allusion to. One of the Psalms I don't have the text in front of me. One of the Psalms talks about how the Messianic king he speaks and his enemies fall over. Sean Finnegan: Yeah. Very cool. The way white put it is that Jesus was taking these divine prerogatives unto himself. But the way you're reading it and explaining it based on John 114, as the word made flesh, is that he's embodying God's word as God's agent. And I was thinking. This whole concept of agent did not come up in this debate, and that is a little surprising to me since. The way that we Unitarians understand Yahweh, techs applied to Jesus because there are actually Yahweh techs applied to, not the ones that he went to, but take like Romans 10/13, right when the Yahweh, Texas, applied to Jesus. What is that that. Is as God's representative as his servant, as his agent, his messenger, his authorized anointed one. He is bearing God's name and doing God's work. You know that makes a lot of sense why his words would have so much power, because, like these really are God's words that he's speaking. So I really appreciate that. Explanation why do you think agency didn't come up more? Dustin Smith: Yeah, I don't know why Dale wouldn't bring it up. I think he made a couple of comments here and there, but for James White Agency, just you know his whole floor drops out from under him. You know it it gives away the entire thing. It's just that we have things that are said about Yahweh. That are now being said about Jesus, the one whom Yahweh has empowered and authorized and sent and commissioned as not only the Prophet Durham 18, but as his own son, and that principal agency was just all over the Jewish world there. That's putting it into its context. That's how they would have understood it, especially in the Gospel John, to wear the God of the gospel. Anon is regularly described as the one who sent Jesus. He's the sender. He's the one who authorized and commissioned. I mean, you can't describe God without describing the fact that he is the one who is investing his. Name and his privileges and his prerogatives into this unique son, Jesus Christ. Sean Finnegan: I think we have over 40 times Jesus has sent in the Gospel of John or said to have been sent. All right, let's go on to the next one, which is going to be Philippians chapter 2, verses 6 through 11. James White: To Christ as to God found in Philippians chapter 2 verses 5 through 11 time precludes a full reading. But Please note that the song begins with the assertion the son eternally existed in equality with the father, but did not regard that equality as something to be grasped and held on to but instead humbled himself by taking on human nature and going to the cross. Therefore, God also highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, so at the name of Jesus every knee will bow of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father. Now compare Isaiah 4522 through 25 turn to me and be saved all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by myself the word has gone forth from my mouth in righteousness and will not turn back that to me, every knee will bow. Every tongue will swear allegiance. They will say of me only in yacht way our righteousness and strength. Now. Before we go on to Peter, let me just make sure we saw that the citation from Isaiah is specifically about Yahweh and it is applied to Jesus in the Carmen Christie. Yes. Notice what it says? Every knee will bow. Every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord. The term judios, which is what is used in the Greek Septuagint as the transliteration, not really transliteration. It's sort of hiding. The divine name. That is being used of Jesus in the Carmen Christie in Philippians Chapter 2, but we sometimes hear people say yes, but it's the glory of God the father. Exactly why shouldn't it be? That's what the Doctor of the Trinity is all about. You're not setting up one God in contrast to another one God, to detract glory from the other. The early church sang a song that took the words about Yahweh, Yahweh. Speaking and every knee will bow to him and applied it to Jesus in recognition of Father, son and Holy Spirit. Sean Finnegan: All right. Thoughts on Philippians 2? Dustin Smith: One of the things that White did, which you know, I think it was kind of interesting, he said. You know, time precludes us from reading the entire passage. So he just kind of free quotes it and he. Says, you know, Jesus said equality with the father. That's not actually what chapter 2, verse six says. It says Jesus said equality with God. OK, which is interesting. OK, I guess if you're going to define God as the father alone, that's fine. But notice that very God also is the one that highly exalted Jesus. But at the end of Philippians 2, it's like versus 10 and 11. Jesus is exalted to a place that's much higher than where he was before. He's highly exalted and God shares with Jesus his own name. This is where I do think that a Yahweh passage is applied to Jesus. But what's interesting is that when he goes and he quotes that he. And he actually put up all of Isaiah 45. It's interesting, it would say, by the way, look at how Yahweh defines himself in this passage. And Isaiah 4522 through 25 turn to me singular reference. I am God. Singular references I have. Born, the word will go forth from my mouth. Turn to me. I mean, look at all these times that we have God as a single person, as only one person whom white actually describes as the father. And now he takes that name and he shares it with Jesus as the exalted Lord, the one who is obedient. To God, the one who actually died, something that God can't do. And he's not giving Jesus something that he already had. You know, Jesus didn't empty himself of the name of Yahweh. Again, this is only something that happens to the exalted Jesus. That's this for interesting is that most of the controversial crystallographically passages in the New Testament that say the most exalted things about Jesus notice they're all after Jesus resurrection. Hmm, that's very interesting is because when Jesus was highly exalted, he says, in Matthew 2018 all authority in heaven and on Earth has been given to me. He admits that he acknowledges that and we have to take that seriously, that a human being is a number two person in the universe. Now. Sean Finnegan: Yeah. One of the points that White likes to make and he makes it several times in the debate, is that the language of verse 6 implies he would say it explicitly states that Jesus was eternally existent with the father. He was Co equal and Co eternal to use Trinitarian lingo. He doesn't even make an argument for that. He just he just states it as if that's. Those are the words that verse 6. Uses how? How do you read verse 6? Dustin Smith: Yeah, well, verse six is continuing the sentence from verse 5, where the subject is Christ Jesus Christ. Cheese of course means King Jesus. So we're already thinking about the Ministry of Jesus. We're thinking about Jesus as the Messiah. And then it says existing. There's a present participle that's there, like being or existing. In the form of God, I'm not quite to the place to where Perryman is at. I'll just admit that I don't know if that makes me a heretic. Among unitarians? But does I do? Go ahead. You know that's OK. That's all right. This is why it hasn't been settled yet. That's the point is that there has not been a consensus view on Philippians 2, even though it's one of the most disputed passages in New Testament scholarship. But Jesus, he has something that he empties himself of and he actually. Takes upon that same whatever you want to describe. The Morphy of a servant OK and there, by the way. I do think that he's actually citing Isaiah 53. OK, he takes and I guess I don't think he has just any sort of servant of mine. I actually think that Jesus took upon himself the role of the asianic suffering servant because we actually have taking the role of the servant, pouring himself out unto death. God highly exalting him. Those are three references there to the Isaiah 5253 passage there. OK, so again, in that passage, we know who Yahweh is. Yahweh is the father. He's distinct from the son. Even James White himself admitted that in his opening statement. So there's the thing at the end of verse six about whether whatever this sort of equality with God, a functional equality, is something that he had and he didn't exploit, or something that he didn't have. And he tried to grasp at, I mean, James, what doesn't even acknowledge that there is a serious debate on that particular issue, right. And it's demonstrated in. Like the new Vice standard version, the Christian Standard Bible, like modern translations, are translating in a way very different than and Jesus doesn't take on human nature. That's not what the text says, you know. So he's assuming a lot. Sean Finnegan: Yeah. Why do you think? He says eternally existed. For a park home there, you know the word just means existing, like there is no. It's almost like we join in the middle of a sentence and we we don't really have the frame, the setting and it's just like who existing in the form of God did not consider equality with God. Something to be grasped or exploited depending on. If you are a. Move right. But So what? What do you think about a parkrun? Do you? Do you think it's implies you turn out? I don't. I don't even get where he's getting that from. Dustin Smith: Yeah, that's not the meaning of of the verb. It just means to kind of to, to be or or just he's he's talking about kind of a sphere of of living in which the subject is finding his own actions. Sean Finnegan: Right, so he has to read that in based on his theology to get Co eternality there and preexistence yeah. Dustin Smith: Yeah. Sean Finnegan: Something Perriman says which which is the point you just made that when it comes to especially the polling epistles, pre existence really refers to the life of Christ before he was in heaven. Because the way they all knew Jesus, at least in like Paul's churches, was the Heavenly Jesus on the right hand of God. That's the current existing Jesus. So the pre existent Jesus is the Jesus that was on Earth. Which I thought that was like a really interesting corrective to the the terminology. Of course we know what we mean when we say it. Are we cool to move on to the next one or do you want to say anything else about flippers too? Like I don't. Know about verse 11 maybe? Yeah. In Philippi, which of course. Dustin Smith: Was the. Roman colony? Yes, several things that are being said there in the Christ him prior to the conversion of the. Of the readers, they would have been very comfortable saying similar things about the Roman emperor and at the time of the writing of Philippians we would have had Nero on the throne. But the the confessing of someone as Lord, that's what you do to Caesar. The bowing of the knee. That's what you do to Caesar. What this is doing is it's taking things that are said about Caesar and they're now applying them to Jesus in a way to kind of turn them away from living their life out in citizenship to to Rome, which Philip has their own call. And he would do. And they're actually now living it out. In light of their citizenship, which is in heaven, out of which a savior is going to come, who's the true Lord according to the three verse 2? So James White seems to be unaware at least unwilling to mention any of the Caesar references there, but I think that also has some bearing on the confession of Jesus as Lord. It's taken a Caesar title and applying it to Jesus, and that I think has to be part of the conversation. Sean Finnegan: Yeah. Yeah, very good. All right, moving on to first, Peter 315, let's see what he. James White: Says we are pressed for time, but we cannot skip over Peter's willingness to command all Christians to set Christ as Yahweh apart in our hearts, not fill you with that, and familiar with that phraseology, I'll be asking later this evening. How does how does everyone in this room fulfill the command that Peter gives us in first Peter Chapter 3 verses 14 through 15? Let's look at it. But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed and do not fear their fear. Neither be troubled, but Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you. You give a reason for the hope that is within you. Well, now we all recognize that we're all familiar with this particular text. That's what all apologists are referring to all the time as where we get the very phraseology of apologetics. But it's interesting to note that most of the time, people don't recognize Isaiah is being quoted right before that text and in. Fact. The quotation continues into verse 15. So let me show you what this looks like. So here is the reference. Please note I'm trying to use some color there to make this visible to you, but even if you should suffer the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. Do not fear their fear, neither be troubled, but Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, the, the, the, the material that is in italics and in color is the citation that Peter is using. From Isaiah. Sean Finnegan: I think that's enough to get the. Most of it thoughts on first Peter 315 is Peter the Apostle trying to teach the people who would be reading and listening to this letter. Read that we are to sanctify Christ as Yahweh. What do you think? Dustin Smith: Absolutely not. No, that's that's not. That's that's not what's what's taking place there. Sean Finnegan: It would certainly be a bold move if that's what he was. Doing. Dustin Smith: Yeah, the critical editions of the Greek New Testament, they also don't think that there's an actual quotation. It's actually taking place there. In first Peter 315. What's interesting is that at the end of that. Message at the very end of Chapter 3. A few verses later, it indicates that Jesus has been exalted to God's right hand, and whenever you have Jesus exalted to God's right hand, that language is drawing on some 110 verse one. OK, someone 10 verse one has y'all away telling another person to sit at my right hand. Yahweh, in saying that is describing himself with singular references, sit at my right hand. Of course, the verb to speak is also there in the singular, but that second figure is described as the Lord, as a title. But the Lord, for Yahweh, of course, is just his own personal name. So if we're going to use a passage that says we're to sanctify Christ as Lord, and we're going to end it with the context of a reference summoned in one, we know that Lord is an exalted title of someone who is distinguished from the one person who is Yahweh. And if we actually want to go through and. Look a little bit closer at his own quotation there from Isaiah Chapter 8. Assuming that's right there, it actually has the Lord with the the third person singular pronoun and and. And you know that from Greek is that the Lord himself? The Lord himself, if that's a reference to Yahweh, means that he's only one person. You can only say the Lord himself. If that Lord is a single person, it doesn't work. If it's two or three persons, the intensive use of the third person pronoun is there in the Septuagint, but that gives away that he's not citing the reference of a triune God and now applying it to Jesus so. How much street is he really telling us here? Does he really know this? I don't know. I'd have. To ask him that question. Yeah, yeah. Sean Finnegan: You have to allow New Testament authors to do new things with the Old Testament quotes that they make, and this is a point that Beal and Carson make in the New Testaments of the Old Testament, which is a nice fat. Look, I did find a quote. I forget who it was from a, you know, mainstream commentary. They said that this is a mid rash that Peters mid rashing on Isaiah as opposed to like, just slavishly quoting it and like doing this like one for one equivalents that white is is saying here which you you have to let Jewish people interpret. Jewishly and not force on them. Western categories and strictness of like a lawyer, which is kind of how white is using the text is to to build a case like a law. Here. All right, here we go for another little statement. It's not really about a text, but it's worth commenting on. Here we go. James White: So what do we have? We have. The biblical doctrine of the Trinity. And we have the identification of Jesus and these are not the only places. There's there's many, many other places. But I I don't necessarily multiply the places because some of them are places where, like, well God is light and Jesus is light. Well, OK, I I I. I get it, but these are the texts that specifically identify Jesus as Yahweh in a unique way that could not be applied to someone else. So their passages that say that God is Yahweh is king and Jesus is king, and therefore Jesus, Yahweh, well, there been lots of things that's not a unique thing, but these are passages that are unique. We are only to. Set apart Yahweh and treat him as holy in our experience. It was only Yahweh that was seen upon the throne in Isaiah. 6. It is only Yahweh who is unchangeable and immutable in Psalm 102, and so all of these things are brought together in these particular texts. There are others we could look at. The identification of Jesus as Yahweh is a reality of revelation. It is not derived from, nor can it be limited to philosophical argumentation or speculation. All right. Sean Finnegan: So I thought that was really fascinating how he made he essentially said, look, there are a lot more texts in the Bible. We could look at how Jesus did X God does X. Therefore Jesus is God and then he grants the Unitarian rebuttal to that, which is. That doesn't really mean anything. That's very weak case because we can also show, you know, if you want to say, OK, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. So Jesus raises the dead. God is the author of life, therefore. Just as God. Well, we could do the same thing with Peter, who raises the dead or Elisha who raises the dead right? So those arguments don't. Work. And then he comes back and he's like, you know what? These four are the big ones. These are the strong ones. These are the clearer ones. And I thought that was so telling because it's like here we have like the heavyweight world champion of debating the Trinity from a biblical point of view at least. And he's he's telling us. Like these are the four big ones and you and I are sitting here and Dale was likewise sitting there saying, I know you think these are like, really, really strong arguments. But, you know, a couple of them are just, like, confusing and a couple of them are just like. Really. Controversial in scholarship among Trinitarian scholars, not among Unitarian scholars. So I I don't know if you wanted to comment on any of. That as well. Dustin Smith: Yeah, he's got these four texts and I think honestly, really, really flipping's to is is the one that I'm gonna grant that. Yes, the Yahweh passage is being applied to Jesus. The other ones, I think, you know, we can have a. A different conversation about that. But it's interesting because in it he puts up there. He's like the biblical doctrine of the. Trinity, you, you. Haven't argued for that, you haven't proven. Sean Finnegan: That you're the presupposition. Dustin Smith: Just stating it and asserting it. And you're. Yeah, you're presupposing it, and you're you're trying to build this argument on. And if Dale doesn't interpret the text in light of that, you're just going to kind of criticize him for that sort of thing. But. You know, he said in in his own opening. And let me make sure I get get the wording here, do the New Testament authors purposely intend to depict the son? As distinct from the father and the Holy Spirit as Yahweh, that's what he set out to do. He hasn't done it yet, but he's gonna presuppose it now, and he's gonna start to build some arguments. And if he had put some more effort into it, I think we can have us a conversation. But even this, we're just an opening statement. We're not in, in rebuttals or cross examination. We're not even at the closing. OK. But he contradicted himself multiple times with references by talking about. The way he has to use singular language over and over and over to do that because he's trying to quote the scriptures and the Scripture uses over 20,000 singular references to describe Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible, and he doesn't know that that's hurting his ability to say that God is 3 persons, so you know. Sean Finnegan: Yeah. Dustin Smith: Again, I just, I'm not convinced that this is a really, really good attempt at at making this particular argument. I just don't think it's very strong. I think it's very persuasive and I'm trying to be charitable here. I'm trying to be fair. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, here's the thing about James W. He is a master debater, over 190 debates, public, moderated debates, not just, you know, arguing with his friend or something like that. We're talking about somebody who is one of the most experienced people at this kind of speech. On the planet, you know, like in the top, whatever percentage of people that do this sort of thing and this is the strongest case he can make and. I don't think there's anything by accident with somebody of his level of experience when it comes to crafting an opening statement. I think everything was thought through. Everything was done the way. In other words, I'm not comfortable saying ohh James White is just incompetent because he had four debates lined up and he didn't really prepare. I think if it was anybody else, sure. But like this guy is this is what he does. This is literally what he does and he's done it for decades and we're catching him. He's still. I don't know if he's at his prime or not, but like he still seems like he's really, you know, competent and really, you know, he just debated latent flowers right before this. Latent flowers is a is a a big name as well. I take a lot of comfort. This is a really weird weird way to say it but I take a lot of comfort just like seeing his case and being like OK so this is the best you got. Dustin Smith: Hmm. Sean Finnegan: All right, cool. Good to know. Let's move on to a point he makes in his rebuttal, which I think is worth taking a look at here. James White: It is very difficult to do a rebuttal when none of your presentation was addressed. None of the key texts that specifically identified you as Yahweh were addressed, refuted, dealt with, even mentioned. I'd like to point out Doctor Tuggy had my book. There's an entire chapter, every breeze, every text that I presented is in the book. So now he's only got 10 minutes. In his rebuttal to actually engage Exegetically. With these texts, unless we just heard how that's gonna be dealt with, and that is well, there are difficult texts to understand. You know, maybe you just go with the majority of you. No, we need to know why the apostles specifically and purposefully identify Jesus as Yahweh in the highest possible. Words and now he's only got 10 minutes to do it in instead of the. 25 that he had. Alright. So what did you think about? Dustin Smith: That did you catch that when you watched it? He criticizes the opening statement of Dale for not responding to his own opening statement, which he's a debater. He knows that you don't do that. That's not how it works. And. And and here's the other thing. He was like Dale. Only got 10 minutes to deal with my opening. But James White doesn't take his 10 minutes to deal with Dale's opening. He criticizes Tuggy for not doing the thing that he himself doesn't do, the things it actually buggy does do it he does, and he actually he he does the best that he could with 10 minutes. And The thing is, if I was organizing this debate, I would say that the structure is not really helpful. Tuggy does 25 minutes for an opening statement that you only have 10 minutes to respond to. That's nearly impossible. That's not a good setup or standard, I must say, but Dale did the best that he could with 10 minutes to respond to 25 minutes. He did the best. You could. But James White, he didn't acknowledge any of the nine points. He had no answer for them, and I think he just kind of felt like I don't have to respond to this. But the whole point of a debate again, it's not like a presidential debate where you're kind of seeing who's gonna get the the witty little comment, you know, what is Vivek Ramaswamy going to say today? It's not that sort of thing. It's it's about you. What arguments are actually interacted with? Which ones did they not have an answer for and he lost a lot of points right there at it, and it it actually, I think, and this is this is kind of frustrating I think for Unitarians because you know a lot of effort and and time and energy and money went into getting this debate set up is that it actually takes away from the value of the debate. When one partner doesn't take his debate partner seriously and and I I wish that James White would have taken this time to actually rebut and deal with the arguments that actually made in the open statement and he had. They'll tug his opening statement for what, like a month ahead of time? Yep, he had the time to prepare for it. There's no excuse for this. Yeah. No excuse at all. And that's that's what makes it all. Sean Finnegan: The more frustrating yeah. When I saw him make this move, I was like ohh you. Like for a newbie to say that it's fine cause like a newbie doesn't have the experience, doesn't know the rules but like. This is James White. You know, we're talking almost 200 debates. I think he knows the rules and here he is saying ohh he didn't reply to my opening statement in his opening statement. What? So the guy who goes first gets to set the whole debate for the whole night, and then the guy who goes second has to just respond, respond, respond. Never gets to make his case. Come on, that's ridiculous. When I saw that I was like, you know, this is weird. This is, you know, this is unexpected at this level. I mean sure. Like maybe like, a a YouTube debate, a couple of college kids going at it. You see this kind of move being made like, but not not at this level. So let's move on to the next point. He makes a point about church history that I wanted to just touch on briefly. James White: I want to mention to you and I think it's very important, it was just said, well, you know those early those early centuries, there was no God, man. Idea. Let me give you 2 examples. Sean Finnegan: Alright, hold on. Hold on. I I gotta comment on this even before he gives it 2 examples, he said. Dale said there was no God, man idea in the 1st 2:00. Countries. I'm not going to go try to find where Dale spoke last, but I just have watched it very recently. Dale did not say that Dale said that there were Unitarians, there were biblical Unitarians called Dynamic Monarchianism all way back in the 2nd century and arguably in the 1st century, because that's what we think the New Testament authors. But in the in the 2nd century on, arguably there were dynamic monarchianism. Eusebius writes about them. We have a number of. Of personalities that mention them and they did not believe Jesus preexisted and they did believe that he was the Messiah and they accepted Scripture. So for James White to say that Dale says there were no people that believed in a God, man is just that's a false statement. Like Dale never said that. He just said his own people were there. He wasn't saying James White people weren't also there. Then he he cites Ignatius of Antioch and Melito of Sardis to the effect that they believe that Jesus is God in some sense. But you know, I I did a whole paper on this at the UCLA conference this past year on this whole idea of deity from a Greco-roman perspective. And you know, that's that's kind of like a report that's not really. Made its way into the debate circle at this point from the point of view of Hellenism. Like a God can be a lot of different things. Just calling Jesus theos. It doesn't necessarily mean God in a Trinitarian sense. OK probably doesn't mean that, because that idea wasn't invented for a couple more centuries. So and the other thing that we were talking about before that we hit record is that. Ignatius of Antioch is a very contested corpus of literature and the the manuscripts are kind of a mess and that we know for sure that in the 4th century debates between the Nice scenes and the Aryan. That both sides quoted from Ignatius and corrupted Ignatius. So the only question is like, is there any uncorrupted version of Ignatius that survived? And I'm honestly very uncertain about that, so I would not. Again, this is like one of these things. Like if you don't know too much about the topic, you'd be like, oh, wow. Ignatius of Antioch, 108. Oh, this is this is so early. Me. But if you know about the topic you're like you're gonna use Ignatius like you don't have anybody solid. You don't have anyone who doesn't have, like, serious manuscript issues. You. You sure you wanna use Ignatius? So I thought that was pretty interesting. And then the the quote from Melito of Sardis just says that Jesus is God and man. Again, I I would refer people to my paper on that about the different options for what it means to call a human being a God in their world, in their understanding, by their. The stories I don't know if you wanted to say anything on that one, I just figured I'd throw it out there. Dustin Smith: Since I was here, yeah. The only thing that I thought was frustrating was that he spent time in his rebuttal talking about 2nd century church fathers when he himself said we're going to talk about what the New Testament authors were trying to say. So he's saying stuff that's really irrelevant. To the conversation and the debate when he should be using his time interacting with Dale, which I think would have made a much more. Meaningful debate, so. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, because this is from his rebuttal. He should be citing different arguments that Dale made and responding, and he doesn't do that even once. What does that tell? Dustin Smith: You. Well, if I had to be shareable, I would say that he just thinks that there's not worth responding to or that he thought that his opening statement is just going to kind of fly and that that's all that he has to do. And he just kind of pillows. Around with revelation 4:00 and 5:00 and we might talk about that here. Sean Finnegan: A little in a little bit. Yeah. So it seems like in his rebuttal, he adds new arguments. Dustin Smith: Which you're not supposed. Sean Finnegan: To do. Yeah. Again, this is like a debater 101 thing. Like, that's. Not what the rebuttal is for. And you know, so I don't know. I'm. I'm just genuinely confused with what is going on with James White in this in this debate. Maybe it was just an off night. Who knows? But it it wasn't like the performance I was expecting at all. Here's the next one from Revelation 4 and. James White: Five. God upon his throne revelation, chapter four with the Lamb and Revelation, chapter 5. Turn with me. Revelation, chapters 4:00 and 5:00. In your Bible, I want you to look at these things because I was astonished when I saw. Think about what we have revelation Chapter 4 does show God the Father upon his throne, and it's specifically meant to parallel what we saw in Isaiah Chapter 6. But remember something John tells us that the one who is seen in Isaiah Chapter 6 is Jesus sitting upon the throne as Yahweh, the being worshipped by angels. There is no higher form of worship. That, my friends, that is not some secondary thing. But now in Revelation 4 and five now we've had the. The nation now we've had the Ministry of Jesus and so in Chapter 4 this looks like Isaiah Chapter 6. Then something happens. We have the scroll. No one's found worthy. John is weeping. And stop weeping. The lion and the lamb. The lions. Private Judah, who is a lamb. It's meant to be. It's meant to be something to make us go. What is happening here? He has overcome and John looks. And he sees this lamb standing as if. Slain. So here's the resurrected Jesus. He has accomplished his salvific work, and he is now there, standing before the throne verse 8. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the lamb, each one having a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers. The Saints. They sang a new song worthy of you to take the scroll and to open it seals because you were slain and purchased for God. With your blood, people from every tribe and tongue and nation, and you made them to be a king and priest to our God, and they will reign upon the earth. He has accomplished his. Work. Then I looked and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and living creatures, and the elders. These are the highest creatures God has made. OK, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands saying with a loud voice. Worthy is the land that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and blessing. The exact same things that were ascribed to God. Invert chapter 4. And now they're being assigned to the lamb standing, as if slain. Look at verse 13. And every created thing which is in heaven and on the Earth and under the earth and on the sea and all things in them, I heard saying to him, who sits on the throne and what's the next phrase and to the lamb. Every created thing which is in heaven on on our on on Earth. What does that tell you? The lamb is not a created thing. He's the object of the worship of all created things. Ohh, but he's distinguished from the father. Yes, he is. That's what the Trinity is all about. It was the son that became flesh, not the father. So you have it right there to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever. And I ask any Unitarian do you worship Jesus the way he will be worshipped in heaven itself as a mere man, as a mere creature? Because God tells you to? Or does this tell us that every created thing? Jesus is excluded from that category. Sean Finnegan: All right. Great. That's a juicy one, huh? Dustin Smith: He's uh fired up for sure. Sean Finnegan: You're the revelation expert, right? Is that was that your dissertation? Dustin Smith: Yeah, yeah, I I know a thing or. Two about it. Sean Finnegan: You, you know, a couple of things about maybe Revelation chapter four or five. So I'm not gonna ask you to say everything you know about this subject, but. Essentially, the case he makes is that all the same things that are said in Chapter 4 of God are said of Jesus in Chapter 5. How would you respond to that? Dustin Smith: Also, in chapter five we have like 7 things that are said about Jesus, which is probably not an accident. By the way. I do think that's significant. OK, seven types of worship does mean that it is a a very highly significant worship. OK, but when you look at the worship that's used in reference to the one who's on the throne, and by the way, let's make it clear that is the one who's on the throne. Sean Finnegan: Did you say the? Three in one on the throne. Dustin Smith: No, it says the one who's on the throne and he is described with. It's just one. Yeah. Sean Finnegan: It just says one. OK, interesting. Dustin Smith: Worthy. Are you our Lord and our God to receive glory and honor and power? This is Revelation 411, glory and honor and power. Only three things. Jesus gets far more because you have to make the case this exalted human being is worthy of worship. And of course, in revelation you're having to make that case that Jesus should be worthy of worship. That. Instead of the recipients worshipping Caesar or Zeus or Aphrodite or whatever it may be. But again, in Revelation 411 it's because you created all things with. By the way, the second person singular pronoun, which is actually in the emphatic position you yourself, you created all. Things indicates the creator is only one person, and by the way we we need to make this point cause the word creator. If it's a noun, it refers to one person, but typically creator in Hebrew and in Greek within the biblical text, it's a verb, and it means the one who creates the one person. The word creator implies only one person is doing it. You can't sit there and say that the one who's on the throne is the creator, and then also someone else to the creator that makes 2 creators. It doesn't work that way and I don't know if you caught this, but he actually said that Revelation 4 is in reference to the father and it's meant to parallel Isaiah Chapter 6. There is where he admits that Isaiah Chapter 6 is a father reference. Yes, he said that there. So again there there's several things here that he claims that Revelation 5 has given the very same worship. Sean Finnegan: Ah, yes, yeah. You mentioned that before. Dustin Smith: That's given to the one on the throne. That's just not true. OK. The one on the throne, he admits that the father which destroys his. John Chapter 12, Isaiah Chapter 6, argument and the one on the throne is worship, because he's the creator of all things, the one in Chapter 5 Jesus worshipped because he died not only because he died. You were slain and you purchased for God someone other than yourself, someone distinct from himself. One who slain is not God. He purchased people for God because he died, and God of course can't die. And is the interesting thing is that he wants to make this big argument about the Trinity. We get chapter 4 about the Father, Chapter 5, about the son. Where is the spirit, the recipient of any of this worship. The spirit is never. Worship is not the recipient of any sort of songs. It's not the recipient of any sort of prayer. It's not the recipient of any sort of hymns. It's not the recipient of any sort of sacrifices or sacrificial language. He keeps saying that there's this Trinitarian worship in the Bible. It's not there. Where is it? The spirit is. Not, it's just. Not doing that. So he gets to be worked up. Sean Finnegan: I get to be worked up to and yeah. Can you comment on his point about since all created things worshipped the lamb therefore? The lamb is not created. Dustin Smith: Yeah, Dale made a point about this in his closing and I think that that was fine. But I think what revelation is trying to do is it's trying to say, look, if this is actually the sort of worship that's going on in this heavenly vision, how should the readers respond? How should creation respond? How should everywhere else respond? Because it's remember. God. His Kingdom is supposed to come and his rule is supposed to come. His will supposed to be done on Earth as it is in heaven, and this is what's going on in heaven. How should we respond? I think that's the way to read this sort of language. Like, yeah, all creation should be honoring the lamb as the one who's been crucified and raised. But remember, the lamb is the the Senate of David. And he's also the lion from the tribe of Judah. This is a human descendant from Judah and from David. He is a created being. He is a human being that is a Jew. That's from those important lines. OK, you don't say that about Yahweh. Yahweh's not the the son of any. 2/1. At all. Yeah. That's what makes him God. Sean Finnegan: What about that text? What is that Galatians 4/4? Do you think of that one where you have, you know, Manon there, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his son born of a woman born under the law. Do you see that as a creation or beginning or coming into existence text? Because it is yellow, may it's not. You're not. Ohh. Dustin Smith: I do actually. I actually see that born of a woman is a very common phrase, you know, Jesus says that John the Baptist has been born of a woman. OK, there's no question as to what that means in in Galatians for for the, the sinning is further unpacked by the being born of a woman being born under the law. And I do think that's a reference to the birth of Jesus that Paul actually gives. Some people think that Paul never talks about that. But I think it indicates that there is an actual sending that takes place at his birth, and since even in Galatians. Self Paul actually identifies his own sending in light of Jeremiah's commissioning where Jeremiah was sent from his birth. I think he's actually quite familiar with that sort of understanding. So that's my take on it. Sean Finnegan: If I say all The Smiths came to your house to celebrate Dustin's birthday. Does that in any way imply that Dustin himself is not a Smith? You know what I mean? Like, just because I say all of a category doesn't mean that the other person isn't also of that category. I I don't know. Like Dale made this whole point about Biden's and it, you know, it's just a weird point to make. And it got, like, kind of political, but I guess he was in Texas, he might have felt a little more free to do that. Dustin Smith: Obviously not, yeah. Yeah, and. And The thing is, we have a passage like this in First Corinthians 15 where it talks about how everything is going to be put under Jesus's feet. And then Paul's like, by the way, when I say that that that excludes the one who is subjecting all these things to. Jesus. Sean Finnegan: Yes. Oh, that's a good one, yeah. Dustin Smith: That's right. So that God can be All in all. And it's like we read that and we're like, yeah, obviously. Like, he doesn't have to say that, but he he goes out of his way to. Say that. To really make that point, yeah. So but not in normal conversation. We don't have to do that. Sean Finnegan: That's a great parallel. Let's look at another one. James White: Here we just refused to believe that God has the power to glorify himself by taking on a human nature and dying in the place of his people. We just won't believe that you know who else doesn't believe that all the Muslims in the world? And so if you'd like to hear over and over again the exact same arguments being presented by Muslims around the world, go look at my YouTube page and listen to the debates I've done with them all around the world. It's the exact same argument. They just simply don't believe that God can do what the scriptures say he did. And so we need to hear in the next 10 minutes. About Philippians 2 about John 12, about first Peter 3:15 we need to hear exegetical refutation. It can't be possible. Not because, well, because I don't look like what that means. It can't be possible because the exegesis of the text contradicts it. That's what we need in the next 10 minutes. Thank you for your attention. Sean Finnegan: All right. You're welcome. Anyhow, what do you think about that? Because that's exactly what Dale went on to do was the very challenge he just laid down. Dustin Smith: He has this fiery rhetoric and he's trying to indicate that this is a biblical argument, but what he says is. We refuse to believe that God has the power to glorify himself by taking on human nature. He right there to describe God as God himself. Well, God is one person, OK, that that pronoun indicates he can't even describe the Trinity without cutting off the branch that he's he's standing on and describing God as a singular person, like he's trying to say he's like, ohh you guys can't do this, but he can't even explain his own position when doing that. And it's just frustrating. That that this is kind of what what has come down to like. He is convinced that he's right. He doesn't hear what he's actually saying. I I keep thinking of that the scene and The Princess Bride. He's like, you know, you keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. That's what I keep thinking every time I say this time and time again he says things that like biblical Unitarians say God himself he himself. He did this. You know, I, me, myself describe God. And we're like, yes, pay attention. And that's the that's the biblical argument that we want to take into. But you know, and I think kind of saying well. Well, you know, the Muslims don't believe this. Let's just kind of like lump, they'll tuggy and the Muslims altogether, like, that's just a dirty move. Like you don't do that. Like, that's they're not the one that has come up here and and prepared an argument and is trying to debate you. You know, Dale is here and so, but he wants to talk about the arguments of of the Muslims, but he doesn't spend his rebuttal. That's still the rebuttal period. By the way, answering any of Dale's on arguments and like you're just, you're running from it. You're you're not even dealing with it. Sean Finnegan: Yeah. Yeah, I thought the Muslim thing was a little weird. Yeah, he's right. Muslims don't believe in the incarnation of a God as a human. Jews don't believe in the incarnation of a God as a human. Hindus. Believe that. And and just believe in incarnated gods. No problem. But you know, like, what's the point in saying that, you know who? Who cares if a Muslim believes that or doesn't believe that? It it has no bearing. It's not like Dale grew up in a in a Muslim home and converted to Christianity. Dale grew up. As in, This is why his conclusion. Was so powerful. He grew up as an evangelical in Texas. He went to Biola. Bible Institute of Los Angeles, like this is a Golden Boy from your own tribe. Man, he's he. You know, I don't I I just don't even get like the Muslim thing and like. The moment you start to go into like comparative religion mode. I just wouldn't want to be having Dale Tuggy as my opponent. He's literally an expert at comparative religions like has literally been to India on school trips with when he was a professor, you know, really knows his stuff. So. Yeah, I I I found overall whites rebuttal to be. Just really confusing like it it sounds impressive because you did get emotional at that one point. He's like, ohh you Unitarians. Are you gonna worship like they do in revelation chapter 5? You know, it's like, oh, man, I better do that. But but like, wait a second. Wasn't this all about the arguments, like, why didn't you answer even one of his arguments? So yeah, I I I'm. I'm with you. I I was a little bit left. Like, what is going on here? All right, let's do. One more, unless you had did you want to come back on that at all? Dustin Smith: No, I think that's fine. Sean Finnegan: OK, so let's do first Corinthians 8/6 and take a look at that and what he says. This is during the cross examination. James White: You seem to indicate that videos is just a a term for Jesus. Could you explain how it is that the apostle Paul in first Corinthians Chapter 8 takes the schema, the confession of the faith of the people of Israel and expands it out to include? Jesus as cautions. Dale Tuggy: Yeah, this this is an idea that was concocted, I want to say around 1980, no ancient source says this. No medieval source says it. No early modern source says it this, inserting Jesus into the shamaa business. It it doesn't make any sense. The one Lord and the one God and the Shama are supposed to be one and the same. In the lexicon, you can just see that one use of curiosity. The New Testament is a substitute for the divine name, and there's another use. For Jesus. And so interpreters see curious and they say who is this God or Jesus? And a few times it's unclear, but usually it's made clear by the context. As you know, the general rule is if it's an Old Testament quotation, you assume it's your way new with outside of an Old Testament quotation you assume. James White: So. Dale Tuggy: It's Jesus, but there are exceptions. James White: So in verse six it says, but to US heist theos hotspots hair does the term heist Theos appear in the Greek substituent of the schema itself? Dale Tuggy: Yes, I think. It. James White: Does and from whom are all things, and we unto him. And then Kai Historias, Asus Christos and one Lord Jesus Christ, does studios appear in the Greek Septuagint of. The small yeah. And what is that representing in the in the Hebrew? Dale Tuggy: I don't I I believe I don't know, Hebrew, Yahweh. James White: Yeah, yes, yeah. What would be the yeah. Would be the term. So. Though all the terminology is right there in the Greek section, you don't believe that Paul is actually that this is something that was concocted 40 years ago. Dale Tuggy: It's remarkable that one of the Unitarians, absolute famous passages, now we take out our secret decoder ring and find that somehow he's inserted Jesus into the shaman, whatever that means. The New Testament confession is there is a unique God and a unique Lord. You see this in several places, including Ephesians 4, and you see it here. He just said the one God is the father. He's literally identifying them. And also in addition to that guy, there's one Lord. James White: So, so the one God is not the one Lord then. Because in in the Greek Septuagint, Coleos was about Yahweh. So you're distinguishing the Kodiaks usage here from its its origination in the schema. Dale Tuggy: Paul does not tell anybody here that he's going to insert Jesus into the Shema, so I don't know why we should accept that kind of spin on this passage. He's talking about food sacrificed to idols and saying, well, for us, for the pagans, they believe in many gods and many Lords. Presumably a God is like a high top tier deity because pagans usually have tears of deity, and the Lord be like a second tier guy. But for us there's one God, the father. That's Yahweh. And one Lord, that's the man. Jesus. Like you see in first Corinthians 15. James White: So even though the terms come straight from the Greek Septuagint and are applied by Paul using the term that was used for Yahweh, you will simply distinguish between two of them. Turned this into a man, even though it says through whom are all things and we through. Dale Tuggy: Yeah, what he means by through whom are all things, right, the all things is to Ponta and Paul that can be people. It could be all the things in heaven and earth. It could be a mix of people and not people. It could be just all of us like we all he could be talking about the blessings of the new covenant in that passage. It's all from God and and we all exist through Christ we all. James White: You don't think that you don't think that EXO, top top, top in regards to the father is limited, but it's it is limited through because of when it's used for Jesus. Dale Tuggy: What I'm saying is to Punta all things is extremely context dependence and it's extremely flexible and it's not terribly clear what Paul here means by it. Let's suppose he means all the things in the heavens and the earth. Then he would be saying that the father is the creator. James White: So if this is. So if this is, if this is a confession, many people believe that it is. It's even set apart as poetry. If this is an early creedal statement of confession, then this would be from whom all things, and we for him, and through whom all things we for him would be all creation, would it not? Dale Tuggy: It depends if the things are Christians or all the things that were made. There's different ways to take it. James White: OK. Sean Finnegan: What I found amazing about that is that was literally half of his cross examination time. It was about 5 minutes and it was almost half the he only had 10 minutes of cross acts and he just camped out on 1st Corinthians 8/6. And tried to make the case a new case that he has not made anywhere else in this debate that Paul is taking Deuteronomy 6 for the Shema hero Israel. The Lord our God The Lord is 1 and expanding it to include Christ in a way that makes Christ Yahweh. So what's your take on that? Dustin Smith: Wow, I don't think people realize, like, how powerful. Or how different that would have been if Paul was to make that move. But the interesting thing is that you don't see that in Paul's other letters. So like Paul can say that God is one in Galatians and in Romans, you know, it's just a normal thing that he could say, you know, Paul continues to be a unitary monotheist even after he becomes a Christian. So what I actually think is going on 1st. 786 which I think is really good and we need to take seriously a lot of these points out there, this many gods and as many Lords, you know, Paul kind of grants that in a Pagan world he goes. But for us, for us Christians, there's one God, the father OK now. If Paul was a Trinitarian, he would have said there is one God, the father, son and spirit, but he doesn't. He doesn't do that. Paul acknowledges that there's one God, the father, full stop and not. Not just that, but out of whom are all things OK? So the father is the creator of all things. OK, now they would just commonly just, you know. Right, the shamal, you know, and the Jews, they wouldn't be citing the shamal and Greek. OK, they'd be citing it in Hebrew. And just say, you know, there's one God, just even when you say those one God, you're automatically thinking about the shamal. If you're a second temple to you, that's what you do at that point. OK. And I do think that the creation there is just God as the Creator and just God functioning as the creator. But what I actually think happens in in this passage is actually I think that we have an exalted Lord Jesus who is now risen up beside the one God. He's not included into the one God, OK, which by the way, would actually make. Paul contradict the shamal. It would actually prove that the shamal in the Old Testament is not Trinitarian. OK, I wonder if that's actually what what James White actually, if pressed, would actually admit. But what we have here is we have a law that's. Now set alongside the one God, and guess what is the major passage quoted in the New Testament that actually does that Psalm one and 10 verse one, which Paul is going to use quite extensively when he gets to chapter 15. But I I have a slightly different take than what Dale does here in regard to Jesus, because I think in the Old Testament, if you were to say, let's look for passages to where we have the one God being the creator but creating through something else, you're going to find passages about God creating through his word and you're going to find passages about God creating through his wisdom. And since we already have evidence in first. Ends especially like chapter one, like Jesus is the wisdom from God for the 1.4 descriptions. Yeah. And and even in in Chapter 10 to where we have typologically speaking the rock that followed them was Christ, and things that were said about wisdom are now being applied to Jesus typologically. I actually think that's what's going on here. I actually think that the early Christians have a book that's coming out about this, which is why I'm so fired up about it. Speaker 1 Explicit ingredients. Dustin Smith: The early Christians would see the roles and the characteristics and the traits of God's personified wisdom, and they would apply them to the risen Jesus in a way that I think would be understood by us as a typological interpretation. And so we have the one God who is the father, which means that God is only one person, the father alone, not eternity. Arian, God being the creator of all things. And we have the risen Lord Jesus, who is now taking over the role of everything, that wisdom personified. Wisdom was doing back in the Old Testament, actually, that I think that's what's what's going on there. But. It's not Jesus being included in the Shema, we have the one God and Jesus being risen up and set alongside the one God, the. Mother of the Shema. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, you don't see the language of the Shema there. Enough to think that was in Paul's mind. Dustin Smith: I I don't think that Paul is deliberately quoting from the Septuagint in order to define these two figures, because what actually defines the the God and the Lord is the context from the previous two verses, not. From Deuteronomy 6, right? Sean Finnegan: Yeah, by the way, Dustin and I are just using the accent that Greek people use to speak our Greek as opposed to the accent that an ancient Dutchman invented. That's why it sounds different. We say kyrios instead of kurios and or kurios, whatever they say. Anyhow, the quoting of the word Lord, the quoting of the word. One and according of the word God is not sufficient to establish that this is actually. Alluding to or expanding upon the schema of Durand, me 6th floor. I agree with you. I don't think there's enough words there. If they had the word here or listen up if they had the word Israel or he substituted Christians or brothers and sisters instead of Christians. Whatever, we just would need more to establish that. And that's why Dale pointed this out. Which was hysterical. It was such a it was such a powerful statement, and White had nothing on it, he said. This argument, so far as I could tell, was never made before the 1980s and why it had like no comeback. Yeah, if an argument is so subtle. That it needs to take 19150 years before anyone comes up with it. Guess what? It's probably not there. It's probably your decoder ring. You know, squinting at the back of the cereal box, moving it away, moving it back. And you're like, oh, I see the I see the hidden image. Maybe there's not a hidden image there. We're dealing with fishermen and tax collectors and normal farmers. I'm not saying there can't be anything sophisticated in the Bible, but if the like, the main point of the Bible that Jesus is Yahweh, is this hidden. You might have a legitimate complaint against against the author of the Scriptures, so or authors. So let's did you want to come back on that or can? Dustin Smith: We go on to the next one. Yeah, just one quick thing. I think one of the things that's being raised in, in this particular debate is the level of attention that we need to give to the various ways in which the New Testament. Authors are going to quote the old test. And we have to even ask questions. You know what actually would constitute a quote, you know, cause James White is arguing a couple of times that there are deliberate quotes when many people would say, I don't see that there. How in the world are you seeing it just because they're quoting it doesn't mean that the same reference from the Old Testament is being carried over into the New Testament. There are several examples. To where that just is not the case. The New Testament authors were doing several different types of exegesis and hermeneutics that didn't just have one, and you can compare Paul to Matthew to revelation. You're going to get three different ways in which New Testament authors. Are using the Old Testament for their own purposes, and so we have to be a lot more careful about that. And I think that's one of the the takeaways that people should have from this particular debate is a need to give attention to those details because they're important. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, very good. This will be our last one where James White. I'm just going to play out the very end of his conclusion and he talks about soteriology, which always seems to be like the silver bullet that they reached for, and he saved us for the very end. And here's what he says. James White: Let me say. Something to you? A non divine Jesus will never say. It's the God, man who gave himself for us. It's the God, man, to whom the elect of God are joined. And if your Jesus is merely a man, all an exalted man, a highly exalted man, but he's a creature, I guess he's worshipping himself in Revelation Chapter 5, but if he's a creature, then he cannot give himself in your place the way that the Jesus of Scripture does. That's why. This subject is so very important, I exhort you. Look carefully at what both of us said. Do your homework and you will find Jesus is truly Yahweh. Thank you for your time. Sean Finnegan: I think he got a standing ovation at that point. What do you think about this argument that a non divine Jesus will never save you? Dustin Smith: A divine Jesus who shares all the characteristics of Yahweh can't die, so a non divine Jesus can't die for you, so you know only someone who is mortal can actually die for you. That's the point, and that, you know, we just have this issue to where it's like, OK, if if he's God, does he give up his ability to? Die then God actually died for you. Is it just the man part that died? Which I think is what whites position is just the humanity that died. But actually that the God part didn't die then you know, it's like, OK, you're you're still saying that just a human being. The death of a of the human part is sufficient to to cover the sins of the world. You're saying the same thing that we are you just want to kind of latch on this this divine. Thing, but there's no God, man. Language in the New Testament, there's no God, man, language in the Hebrew Bible. So it's not the God man of the New Testament. It's just not there. It's just not there at all. OK, if it was there. We would be having a different conversation. I'd be happy to accept it. I'm interested in what it says there, but he's assuming a lot of things and he's kind of threatening people with this prophetic rhetoric that if you don't believe it, then you're not going to be saved. Like, well, you didn't demonstrate it, so I can't believe it. Yeah, so. And. And you set out that you at the beginning of the debate that you were gonna do that and you didn't do it. You wasted your time. You you spoiled it. You you talked about other things. You didn't interact with Dale on his own argue. And you know, then you're frustrated that that, that Dale hasn't come around to your point of view, make a better argument if people aren't following what you're doing, maybe assume that your argument is not as persuasive as you think it is and make a. Sean Finnegan: Better argument. Yeah. When I think of Atonement, I think of Christ. I don't think of Christ in the category of a mere man. I think of him. As the quintessential man, the second Adam who is the head of the human race, who because he didn't sin because he persevered in obedience even though he could have sinned. I think if he's a God man, he cannot sin. He's impeccable by definition. And so his sinlessness is is literally no effort at all because he can't not send because sin cannot tempt him because God cannot be tempted with sin, as James says. So I think we have a real man, a real human being, who is our leader, our representative of all humanity. And as such is clean. And not offending God enough because he hasn't said that he could play that role as the sacrificial offering. The pure and unspotted lamb without sin. And there doesn't have to be a calculus when it comes to atonement. I know for 1000 years, ever since Anselm of Canterbury. Wrote his book about the atonement. Like from then on, like everyone's just like, no, there has to be a calculus, it has to work out. Exactly. You know, we, you know, the sins of humanity are infinite. They're infinitely offensive. So you need an infinite. The Bible just never says any of that. So what? When I think of, like, well, what makes a sacrifice efficacious, it's really that the offended party accepts it. That's about it. You know, I don't know if this is a direct analogy or not, but, you know, I've got teenagers. And when they disobey and go Rory of my. God-given authority to be the, to be the father of the household, who makes the house rules. My wife and I together. But I'm I'm. The one that you know has the last say and when when they go against me, I I do require of them a sacrifice, not a human sacrifice or an animal sacrifice, but a phone sacrifice. And I I received that phone from them and then I'm appeased and but then I, you know, I eventually I give it back to them after a set time. So I don't know if that's a direct analogy, but like I'm the one that sets it. I could I could set that it would be something different. It didn't have to be the phone, you know, could have been something else. Could have been money. Right. But it's the offended party who gets to set what the what the requirement is to make restitution and and restoration. I I don't know if you have any further thoughts on. Atonement with respect to this. Dustin Smith: Yeah. Well, I mean, we could talk about atonement for a long time. You pointed out, rightly, that, you know, we've had this popular argument for, like, the last thousand years for anyone that even follows it to that sort of detail. Paul is really kind of the biggest person in the New Testament that really struggles to work this out and to explain it. And I always wonder, like, how in the world did he come up with this? And you know, a lot of people to say, well, he was just inspired and he came up with it that way. There might be something else that goes into it there because I think what Paul does is whenever he wants to talk about it, it's not just Jesus, it's Christ, it's the king. It's the Jewish king. And in Jewish theology, the king was the person who always represented his people. When David sinned, it was the people who suffered. When the people were dividing, they were saying, you know, we no longer have an inheritance. In David with the preposition Bah there and. And they would just use it, kind of like in the sense of. Here's a sphere of influence that the king is, is there to represent. And we are the going to identify in the sphere of that influence. Ohh or not. And so This is why I think Paul talks about being in Christ to sort of the in Christo, this being in the sphere of the king and what the king has done because the king is the one Jewish. Representative who can represent all of the people, and so I I think that's kind of how Paul works it out in his mind and in that sense it's actually very Jewish. It's not something that came up a long, long time ago. It's something that we can actually see in Samuel and Kings. Sean Finnegan: Yeah, very good. It was an interesting debate. I'm glad it happened. I know it was kind of a long time in coming. Dale had originally challenged White 2017, so I think that's 77 years in the making. I had done a post on the rest of studio blog. About, you know, will James White take up Dale Tuggy's challenge? You know, that sort of thing. And I if you search James White and Dale Tuckey that that post will show up and it was from like 2017. So for a long time, I think James White was unwilling to do. That and something I guess changed. Maybe it was because the pastor of the host church really wanted to see this happen and we already had. James went in town. Maybe it was the sponsorship of the UCA. I don't know. I'm glad it happened. I think it really kind of showed some things that maybe we wouldn't have seen otherwise, especially when it comes to the weakness of the the case. The Trinitarian case that Jesus is Yahweh like I I can't even really get those words out of my mouth without like, cringing internally, because I really want to say the modalist case that Jesus is Yahweh cause it's like, OK, well, at least I know what I'm talking about now, but I'm glad it happened. I tell you, I would love to see the next one with Dale to be William Lane, Craig versus Doctor Tuggy. Doctor Craig. Dr. tuggy. Let's do it. I don't know. Have you ever thought about debating James? I'm sure you have. Would you ever do it? You think or because I think you'd be a better opponent in the sense of like, your Greek skills. And your exegetical skills. But I I don't know if you. If you want to talk any trash right now, feel free. I'm just. Kidding, if you. Dustin Smith: Had asked me before I watched this debate. I would have been much more inclined to, but if this is how he is going to respond to Unitarians like, why would I waste my time with that? Let me actually find someone that I think is going to make some good arguments. That's not going to ignore me during rebuttals. It's not going to straw man me. That's not going to talk about Muslims and Church fathers and stuff like that, like someone who's actually going engage me for every single point of it to make it a good debate because it's the only way that we get better. At at our theology is that when we are really cross examined and really having to decide like, hey is is what I'm actually saying making sense and maybe I have to revise something. Maybe I have to change something may have to go back and rethink it or maybe it stands the test of. Fire and it turns out to be actually true. Yeah. I just don't think that that he's the best person to do that. And I think that's actually the function of a debate. The debate is not to be. Who's gonna be the best preacher. Sean Finnegan: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I a secondary function or in my mind, even a more primary function is the exposure. And this has been a problem for us for a long time. We've been persecuted for not believing in the Trinity. And now in this age, we're less persecuted. We're less restricted. We're still restricted. I know of at least two or three people. Dustin Smith: So. Sean Finnegan: Who either have not received degrees at university at the masters level because of their beliefs, religiously persecuted by evangelical. Schools or are in danger of that? Well, I know of at least two off the top of my head, but yeah, the exposure is phenomenal. Within two days there were 23,000 views on this on on YouTube. So like I I would encourage you, Dustin, that if you could find it in your heart to debate James. But at some point in the future that even if he just does what he did here. I still think it would be worth it because of the exposure. People like James White people would would learn who Dustin Smith is, and I think that's a win for Unitarianism in in general, but only the Lord knows what what could happen in the future. Maybe you could just talk a little bit, just as we're concluding here, just mention what your. The podcast is all about it's called the Biblical Unitarian podcast. But what do you do on there and also talk to us about this wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John? Why is that significant? What what will that help us understand? Dustin Smith: Sure. So my podcast hasn't been out as long as the rest of studio, but I'm catching up even though I don't think you've missed the week yet, so I'm waiting. Get to mess up. I just focused really on 2 topics on God's oneness and the humanity of Jesus. And I just tried to explore it in as many different ways as possible and you would think after 320 episodes that I would run out of stuff to say. But I've got a whole lot of stuff like still on the back burner of like episodes that I want to do and it's been really, really good. It really forces me to engage with this topic every single week and I I read a lot and I share a lot of scholarship. I've got some really good stuff coming out this week of an article that was published just this year in an academic journal on the humanity of Jesus in the Book of Hebrew. So you could look out for that. It actually will come out. I think our podcasts come out on the same day on Thursdays. Yeah. So if you're interested in that YouTube, iTunes, pretty much anywhere you get it. But it's it's just on Unitarian monotheism and the humanity of Jesus. That's all. That's all I know how to do. It's the only topic I'm interested in. And my book. The interesting thing about wisdom, Christology and the gospel. And honest that I think most people would say I have no idea how to define with some Christology and whether there would even be with some Christology in the gospel. On, however, scholars for last 100 years have said over and over that there's wisdom, Christology and the Gospel, John, but that hasn't really trickled down from the ivory tower of of academia to the average people in the church. And so I'm trying to take this and make it accessible and to make it something that we can understand and so that we can use and really to appreciate the fact that. Despite the fact that the Gospel John never uses the noun Sophia. It actually will depict Jesus by taking characteristics and terms and the roles of God's personified wisdom and apply them to Jesus. In all 21 of the chapters in the Gospel of John. If that sounds intriguing, intriguing to you, you know, please pick up the book whenever it comes out. I'm really excited to share what I think is going to. Be really, really helpful at giving people back the Gospel, John, that they might have never known that they had. Sean Finnegan: And are you looking at that coming out? This month or next month, or maybe a little while. What do you think? Dustin Smith: Yeah, I just, I just had the e-mail from the typesetter going through his suggested changes and his questions and stuff like that. You you went through this process a little bit not too long ago. So yeah, I responded back to him in 12 hours. So I don't know. Soon. Ish. I it's it's in a queue. I guess that's what I'm told. Sean Finnegan: All right. Well, very good. Thanks for talking with me today. And uh, people, do you have a website or anything or is it just mostly YouTube? Is that just biblical Unitarian or how do they? Find you. Yeah, you could. Dustin Smith: Just type in the book Unitarian podcasts and you'll find you all over the place. Or you could type in Dustin Smith, the local Unitarian. You know I'm there. Sean Finnegan: And you're on. You're on a 2K as well. Allegiance to the king you have. Dustin Smith: You know, for better, for worse. Some. Yeah. Yeah, I, before, before we moved to South Carolina, I I taught for leads to the king for six years. And so I have a bunch of videos there. I talked through revelation. I talked to Daniel Romans, Galatians. So. Stuff. OK. If you're into that stuff, it's there for you. So list to the king on YouTube. There you go. Sean Finnegan: Alright. Well, thanks for talking with me today. I appreciate it. Dustin Smith: Yeah. Thanks for having me. Sean Finnegan: Well, that brings this interview to an end. What did you think? Come on over to restitutio.org and find Episode 540 Dustin Smith's take on the tuggy white debate and leave your feedback. Mayor. As I mentioned in the conversation, I have links to the four video responses by Dustin Smith, myself, Jerry Wherwell, and William Barlow on the four texts that James White brought up. He still doesn't seem to be recognizing the lack of engagement that he had in this debate. I just checked out his. Own channel called the dividing Line and he's just sort of stuck on repeating his interpretation of Hebrews 110 through 12. Which you know, it's one interpretation. There are what, 7 different views of Hebrews, 110 through 12. And obviously he thinks that his is the best. But that doesn't make it so. And it's impossible to build a case for the Trinity on Hebrews 110 through 12. The the most you can get out of it is that Jesus is the creator of the heavens and the earth. Which a lot of Unitarians believe, by the way, just to throw a bone to my. Pre existence believing brothers and sisters out there, there are tons of Unitarians. Millions in fact, in the. World who do? Believe that there's only one true God, the father who is the highest and supreme God, and that Jesus is a lower created being who did pre exist and through whom God did create the universe. So you can even still be a Unitarian. And take Hebrews 110 through 12 in a James White interpretation. So really it's doing nothing to just stick on that text. What he needs to do, and we've repeated this. But what what he needs to do is engage with tuggie's. Case he has laid out the various points on who Jesus is in the New Testament. I think it was 9 points and then a number of contradictions. If Jesus is both God and human at the same time, that's where the debate needs to be. Focusing on Hebrews 110. I know this is sort of like always been James Whites go to. Text. But it's just not going to get him anywhere, even if he succeeds, which I don't think he does for the record, because I think tuggie's explanation and Jerry werewolves explanation in a previous episode of Restitutio laid out his case, it was actually a UCLA presentation that I played out, episode 449. It's called intertextuality. An interpretation of Hebrews, one which I then followed up with two full length interviews with Doctor where well, Episode 450 with 7 interpretive options for Hebrews 110 through 12. And then episode 451 was Wisdom Christology in Hebrews 110 through 12. So again that is not really an issue. We've circled around and around and around it because that's what James White wants to talk about. But it's time to move on. Doctor White, it's time to move on to the arguments. Putting the Scriptures together does require. Argumentation and logic, and this is the enterprise known as theology, and that is in fact what the discussion is on. It's not just exegesis, obviously exigen. This is the foundation of theology, but theology is the building that is constructed upon the stones of exit Jesus. And really, we're talking about all of it all the time. So we can't just fixate on the foundation stones. We got to take a look at the whole building. Well, that's going to be it for this week. Next week, we will return to our Bible. Yes, won't that be great and we will focus on the Psalms. What are the Psalms? How do you read the Psalms? How can you make sense of them? What are the different kinds of psalms? All those kinds of questions in our class? How to read the Bible for yourself? So come back next week for that. Thanks for listening to the end here. If you'd like to support restitutio, you can do that at our website, restitutio.org. We'll see you next week. And remember the truth. Has nothing to fear.