Home

Arrogant Muslim apologist SYFEtalk makes a pathetic response to GodLogic in terms of trying to attack the Bible and the Church Fathers. I will not be discussing Islam in this post because I am not educated on the topic. However SYFEtalk brought some interesting objections that I would like to respond to.

#1) Ignatius of Antioch does not believe in the Trinity.

SYFETalk starts of by quoting Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Trallians, quoting these excerpt “Ignatius Theophorus to the holy Church which is in Tralles in Asia. Beloved as you are by God, the Father of Jesus Christ, elect and worth of God, outwardly and inwardly at peace through the passion of Jesus Christ, in whom we have hope through the passion of Jesus Christ, in whom we have hope through our resurrection unto Him, I salute you in the fullness of God, as the Apostles used to do, and I wish you every joy. By the will of God and of Jesus Christ your bishop, Polybius, has visited me here in Smyrna (italicized parts were not quoted in the video).”

SYFETalks responds after by saying “Ignatius clearly distinguished between the Will of God and the will of Jesus.”

This is not an argument because if SYFETalk actually understood the Trinity, he would understand that this is not a problem. The actions of the Father and The Son are distinct as so far as in their Personhood (ex. the Father or Spirit did not become incarnate). This still does not prove what SYFETalk is trying to prove, which is that the Father is somehow greater in essence than the Son.

He also misses that within the SAME LETTER he quotes, St. Ignatius affirms Jesus’ divinity. St. Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians, Chapter 7 – “Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles.” Thus showing that SYFETalk is a dishonest person and does not actually read the texts but parrots bad arguments.

The fool proceeds to refute himself by quoting more of Ignatius which will further bury his lies. “Just as the Lord, being one with the Father, did nother, either in His own person or through the Apostles, without the Father, so you should do nothing with the bishop and the council of of priests. Nor should you try to make a thing out to be reasonable, merely because it seems so to you personally; but let there be in common a single prayer, one petition, one mind, one hope, in love, in the unmixed joy which is Jesus Christ who is the best of all. Hasten all of you together as to one temple of God, to one altar to Jesus Christ alone, who came forth from one Father in whom He is and to whom He has returned.“

SYFETalk responds saying Ignatius believed that Jesus was inferior to the Father in essence as he scoffs and says “Jesus is submitted to the Father, which means He is subordinate to Him.” It is true that Jesus in function was subordinate to the Father in function (energia), thus affirming the true Sonship of Jesus. But this function does not make Jesus less in essence or created, which is what SYFETalk is trying to say Ignatius taught.

If he had enough dignity to read the whole passage he is citing, he would have stumbled upon Ignatius saying that Jesus “came forth from the one Father.” It is clearly evident that Ignatius taught an early form of Trinitarianism, called Logos theology. There is no contradiction between Trinitarianism and Logos Theology, because Logos Theology (the view of Justin Martyr and Tertullian) still affirms that the Son is Eternal. They just believe that the positions/status of Father and Son were given when God brought forth from Himself the Logos at Creation (the beginning of time). However, before Creation God still resided with his Word, thus affirming the Eternal Essence that the Logos shares with the Father and Spirit. Here is an example of Tertullian proporting the same idea.

We affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself — but not eternally so the Lord. Because the condition of the one is not the same as that of the other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity; but Lord is (the name) not of substance, but of power. I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof.

(Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3)

Tertullian is explaining how the Titles of Lord are given to God within the scope of action in time. This does not mean that God was not God (in essence) before these actions of time. Rather these titles (being subject to time) are distinct from the essence of God (timeless).

Thus this claim has been refuted because Ignatius believed Logos theology which is in harmony with what is later formulated as Trinitarianism. Ignatius affirms the Eternal essence of the Son, however he disagrees just like Tertullian that the title Son/Lord is eternal. This is because he, like Tertullian, believes that the Titles Father and Son are subject to the event in time and space in which God brought forth His speech. This theory still does not denote the fact that God and His Speech are eternal and have eternally resided in God.

John 17:3

A very clever argument is proposed that John 17:3 proves Jesus isn’t God. However the assumption/implication of SYFETalk is that the essence of God can only be attributed to One person (his presupposition in Islam). Taking the context of the whole Bible, we know that this is not true. With passages such as Hebrews 1:6, displaying that all creatures worship Jesus in like manner as the Father, Mark 2:1-12, displaying Jesus having the ability to forgive sins just like the Father and Jesus pouring out the Spirit in Acts 2 in fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2, which is attributed to YHWH. Thus affirming that the Essence of God is attributed to many Persons. This can be complicated because Humans can never exists as two Persons. For example, John can not exist as John and Mark because in creation, a multiplicity in personhood necessitates a multiplicity in being. But in God, a multiplicity in personhood DOES NOT necessitate a multiplicity in being. Thus retaining the Oneness of God’s Essence.

The New Testament contradicts the Old Testament

SYFETalk claims that the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament because in Hebrews 9:22 (New Testament), the shedding of blood is required for the forgiveness of sins and in Ezekiel 18:21 (Old Testament), if a person turns away from sins and “keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right” they can receive forgiveness of sins.

Apparently this is a contradiction, but SYFETalk shows his true colours when the context of Hebrews 9 is shown. From verses 16-22 of Hebrews 9, Paul explains how that the first covenant (the Old/Mosaic Covenant) was inaugurated with blood. Verse 22 concludes and says “And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.” Is SYFETalk aware that “the law” is synonymous with the Old Testament? Or in other words, Paul is affirming that according to the Old Testament included the shedding of blood in the form of Animal Sacrifices as typological to the Ultimate Sacrifice in Christ. No contradiction sir, Paul is affirming the continuity of the Old Testament with it’s animal sacrifices in contrast to the New Testament and the Sacrifice of Christ. Even Ezekiel affirms that the sacrifices as spoken of in Hebrews 9 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. (Ezekiel 18:21 NKJV)” What are God’s statutes?

Leviticus 26:46
“These are the statutes and judgments and laws which the LORD made between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.“

Ezekiel 20:18
“But I said to their children in the wilderness, ‘Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, nor observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols.

Ezekiel 20:21
“Notwithstanding, the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, and were not careful to observe My judgments, ‘which, if a man does, he shall live by them’;but they profaned My Sabbaths. Then I said I would pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the wilderness.”

The overarching context behind the Statutes commanded to be kept in Ezekiel 18:21 are the Law of Moses, or in other words the OLD TESTAMENT which will include the SACRIFICES! This guy is a joke.

Who incited David to take a census of Israel?

SYFETalk claims that there is a contradiction as to who incites David to take a census in Israel because 1 Chronicles 21:1 claims that Satan is the one that rose up and incited David and in 2 Samuel 24:1 says that the anger of Jehovah rose up and incited David against Israel. SYFETalk shows that he is ignorant of Biblical theology and God’s judgment. Every time Satan is at work in the word, it is always due to the providence of God. So in one case, someone could say that Satan did x, but the reason that Satan is able to do anything is because of the providence of God. Does SYFETalk really think that Satan can go against the Will of God?

In order to support the idea of the Providence of God in the workings of Satan. I will use the Book of Job. In Job 1:12, God gives Satan the power to afflict Job however later in Job 2:3 God speaks as though He is the one afflicting Job. Is SYFE this ignorant in Biblical Theology to understand that the working hand of Satan is always subject to the Will of Jehovah. Such that in one sense Satan is at work, however the One giving Satan the ability to work is God and His providence over all things in the Universe (Colossians 1:15-17)?

Conclusion

This guy is a joke and has no clue what he is talking to, may he repent and turn to Jesus Jehovah. His GOD and JUDGE.