(Full Disclosure: This post is from the Unitarian perspective)

Prefacing note: He never really addressed a Unitarian argument. From the time he started his argument to the closing remarks, it was directed completely against modalism. His concluding remarks at 1:07 confirmed this.

----------------------------------------------

It is a rather interesting thing that he denied Unitarians were followers in Christ. As a bible believer I would ask him to show me his basis for that.

He did pretty well describe "Biblical Unitarians". I can't speak for his accuracy on the JWs but I will note that he JWs might be comfortable with a lot of his exposition (i.e. Jesus is the angel of the LORD).

He made a point that there are differing beliefs in Unitarianism, which is true. But this failed to acknowledge that Trinitarians are all over the map also  (if you think Trinitarians aren't, then you are living in a bubble).

----------------------------------------------

He spoke about modalist (i.e. Sabellianism, oneness Pentecostals) and defined them pretty well. He put modalists in the Unitarian camp which isn't right. They are in the "trinitarian error" camp.

Trinitarians typically view modalism as "error" rather than "heresy" and accept modalists. He and I agree and have common experiences that a great many trinitarians that don't really understand their doctrines are effectively modalists. They usually aren't aware of it until a unitarian points it out to them.

Even learned trintiarians will flip/flop between modalism and trinitarianism. An example of a trinitarian flip/flopping is the recent debate between Michael Brown and Dale Tuggy. Michael Brown (the trinitarian) half of the time argued that God is a "three self" god (i.e. trinity) and half of the time argued that God is a "one self" god (i.e. modalist)  leaving Tuggy (the Unitarian) confused as to what Michael Brown was actually arguing.

https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-249-tuggy-vs-brown-debate-the-god-of-the-bible-is-the-father-alone/

(Full disclosure: the "trinities" site is Tuggy's site, there are plenty of other mediums to listen to the debate if you want to)

----------------------------------------------

He goes off preaching from 2 Cor 11, but from my perspective he is absolutely insane in how he applies 2 Cor 11. He uses it to justify being a jackass and casting off the fruits of the spirit (Forbearance, Kindness, Goodness, Gentleness, Self-Control, etc... ) and he specifically uses 2 Cor 11 to act like a jackass to a person displaying the fruits of the spirit (as he actually does this to somebody in the video). He stops at verse 15 of the passage, but Paul's conclusion on the particular topic is completely different than his exposition. Paul's conclusion is: "For when I am weak, then I am strong".

He challenges a oneness questioner to show where somebody was baptized in the name of Jesus in Acts. I'm not a oneness, but here goes:

• And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ  - Acts 2:38
• And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. - Acts 10:48
• And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. -Acts 19:5
• And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. - Acts 22:16

----------------------------------------------

Note: Around the 29 minute mark he is going off on the modalists, and cites the passage where Jesus calls the Father the one true God (John 17:3), and then starts talking about how oneness aren't worshipping the God that exists. I'm not sure what his point is. He inadvertently affirmed the biblical Unitarian stance, i.e. the Father is the one true god.

----------------------------------------------

He cites Gen 19:24 to refute modalism. I don't see how his exposition proves anything.  He says there are two "LORD"s in the passage saying one is on earth and another in heaven. However, there is a time delay between when the "LORD" was seen on earth, and the "LORD" send fire out of heaven. The simple answer is that the "LORD" went up to heaven and rained fire down. That is why he isn't seen again on the earth in the passage.

This is a case of wishing doctrine into scripture and substituting volume for critical thinking.

----------------------------------------------

Around the 43 minute mark he addresses Acts 2:38 (which I cited) per his challenge to the oneness crowd. But in that he once again affirms the Unitarian stance by noting that God made Jesus Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).

He goes off on how this didn't meet his requested criteria. If it didn't meet his criteria, I don't know what his criteria is.

----------------------------------------------

Around 45 minutes Malachi 3:1 is introduced. He wants the word "messenger" when it refers to the work of John the Baptist to not carry any special meaning, but when it refers to the work of Jesus, i.e. "messenger of the covenant" to mean that Jesus is some sort of divine being rather than being similar to John the Baptist and being a messenger.  

As a Unitarian, Jesus was God's covenant sacrifice ratifying the new covenant (Gal 3).  This particular passage doesn’t pose any major difficulty.

His point here is lost with wanting multiple meanings of the word "messenger" within one sentence.

----------------------------------------------

He links Malachi 3:1 to Judges 2:1-5. He claims that the angel of the Lord standing before Joshua is the one that made the covenant and therefore the angel is God. And that this angel is the "messenger of the covenant" in Malachi 3:1

As a bible student, this is simply an angel. The Mosaic covenant was given by angels and not Jesus, as proclaimed by people who knew the difference between God, Christ, and Angels. For example:

• Acts 7:53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.”
• Galatians 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
• Acts 7:38 This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you.
• Hebrews 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,

His point is lost when one realizes that there are two covenants at play. There is the covenant of the law, which was given by angels and mediated by the priests, and the new covenant that is mediated by the man Jesus Christ.

He may have a good point here, but he appears to be confusing the covenants and it makes him look like he doesn't know what he is talking about.

----------------------------------------------

He introduces Judges 13:17 to 18 (Manoah and Samson). Manoah and his unnamed wife ask the angel his name and the angel responds. The expositor wants to redefine the question to be "what is your nature, etc..." not just what is your name. And then he wants to make a big deal out of the angel's response (i.e. "wonderful" or "beyond understanding"). He wants to make a big deal about the profession of Manoah that they will surely die because they have seen God (v 22).  

This bible student notes: they didn't die.  The argument that they saw God fails.

----------------------------------------------

He does make one interesting observation, that there could be a link between the angel in Judges 13 and the child born in Isaiah 9 with the word "wonderful". That bears thought.

----------------------------------------------

At 1:07 he gives his summary, and his summary statements are only with regard to modalism.

----------------------------------------------

At 1:10 I do like his exposition of the word "Father" in Isaiah 9:6.

----------------------------------------------



In summary, as a Unitarian, the only point that is potentially interesting for a Unitarian is the point Isaiah 9 and the word "wonderful".