@@Mygoalwogel why couldnt they say that? For, as in, because of the forgiveness of sins. Cornelius and the thief on the cross had forgiveness of sins, and wouldnt they also have a baptism for the forgiveness of sins?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 My "Yikes..." was drawing a possible conclusion from the OP quote. While it bothers me that I've read outright rejections of this creedal sentence from baptists, ultimately "He (not I) will come to judge the living and the dead."
@@Mygoalwogel David Wright penned an essay in Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective which is an interesting excavation of "one baptism for the remission of sins". He attempts to appropriate it as essentially a credobaptist statement.
This is extremely helpful in : nuanced, balanced and non-polemical approach to some urgent apologetic issues. Like Dr.TRUEMAN you are giving us some helpful guidance on having a classical lens.
Thank you for this. Please do more. It was one of the best discussions on the topic i have heard, and as a confessional baptist I have actually been greatly concerned to see this kind of error cropping up in our circles. I am starting to think there needs to be some kind of reform within the baptist tradition to to ensure that those within-in hold to Nicene orthodoxy and don't so readily depart.
@@Mygoalwogel Yes they can affirm that. See Jordan Cooper discussion with Gavin Outland. That statement doesn’t contradict anything I’ve ever read in Baptist confessions of faith.
@@dylanwagoner9768 Dr. Ortlund plainly said of the Supper, "It depends what 'is' means." His explanation of how exactly baptism connects to salvation, was as nearly as I could tell, also symbolic. I looked at several Southern Baptist sites. Sure enough, "for the remission" means "representing the remission." Dr. Ortlund is kind and well spoken. But the Baptist religion seems to be all "represent" and no substance anywhere.
Not quite. Arianism says Jesus isn't God, isn't eternal, is in fact a created man only who functions as a kind of avatar... if that even. Subordinationism typically stull says Jesus is God, but is begotten status and obedience isnt related to his incarnation, but is an eternal part of his personhood as The Word. This can logically still imply things that arent quite right, and frankly, the doctrine isn't even defended organically from scripture or logical systematics on its own merits 9 times out of 10... its just a polotical weapon against egalitarians. And that's pretty much the only reason anyone talks about it. Which is stupid and intellectually lacks integrity. Tertulian, who coined the term Trinity almost 100 years before Nicea, still viewed Jesus as subordinate. Not being too keen on greek metaphysics, he clearly didn't mean Jesus was in any sense LESS than the Father, merely obedient in his role and in pretty much all revelation revealed to man in scripture about himself. There's never a point we're shown where he's NOT subordinate to The Father, but again this isn't necessarily a reflection of ontology... and subordinationism believes this subordination is un some sense an ontological thing, at least that's what its come to mean. It's not 100% clear that if Tertulian was alive today he would agree to that. The trinitarian concept wasnt very well developed yet, and he was more of a sassy rhetoritician who groped for truth to defeat lies, and was pretty brilliant, more so than a systematic theologian or philosopher.
As an aside, I hope you do a whole episode on the Filioque. I really need more education on the Western view. I’m a Lutheran, but I want more understanding to refute the polemics of the Eastern Orthodox.
There’s nothing to refute. Scripture itself says the Spirit proceeds from the Father from a sola scriptura perspective. The traditional argument is just as iron clad.
The Filioque is the true doctrine. If God is one substance made of three persons(Father, Son, Holy Ghost), and if Christ the Son is seated at the right hand if the Father(symbolically giving us their role), it is only logical to conclude that the Holy Spirit springs forth from the Son and Father.
@@sandromnator It not only doesn’t follow logically but it doesn’t follow scripture. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. He does not proceed from both.
Guys, perhaps in your zeal you missed the obvious fact that I was asking Dr. Cooper to do a video on the Filioque. I was not asking for your opinions. Besides, this video isn’t even on that topic. There are plenty of responsible Orthodox sources where I can get their view on the Filioque. I was just requesting Dr. Cooper to consider the topic.
This concept of God’s infinity (as Gerhard explains it at 43:20) as a foundational concept for understanding and defending the Trinity from Scripture is developed by Luther in his doctrinal disputations from the 1540s, particularly the Major disputation. Also, his Last Words of David. Both these disputations and the Last Words are cited favorably by Chemnitz and Pieper for defending and understanding the Trinity, as well as Article 8 of Formula of Concord.
I’m so glad you’ve mentioned the reduction of the whole counsel of God’s Word by implementing Law and Gospel to the hurt. I am a one year old LCMS member and I truly have to visit a Reformed Church once a month to hear about the pursuit of holiness! I’m praying we can move to AALC and hopefully hear more of the whole picture. God bless!
Thank you for this video! It was really helpful and helps me take seriously theology proper and the catholicity of the church and what doctrines are truly catholic.
It is crazy to think this came out of a defence against feminists, trying to show "subjection isn't bad, because look! Jesus!", without having done prior work on the Trinity. That Grudem has stuck to his guns all these years is even crazier.
At 36:00 to roughly 39:00 Dr.Cooper is voicing the exact same concern as Pieper on page 401 paragraph 2 of his Christian dogmatics. 100 years and we are still fighting the same battle, only many don’t realize it.
I loved this video! One thing I have noticed about the EFS position is that it doesn’t fly at all with our Article VIII on the person of Christ. They NEVER understand the Incarnation the way the Incarnation is understood in our confessions.
@@chrismatthews1762 I have listened to that debate many times. Grudem and Ware have little to no understanding of how the Church has understood the Incarnation. They never observe for instance, that whatever the Son receives in time, he receives according his humanity that which he already had as God. That is an interpretive rule that Athanasius, Ambrose, and the Cappadocians all observed. At the deposition of Arius, one of the charges is that he severed the Godhead and made the Son mutable. EFS is arian. Also, in that debate Bruce Ware cites PT Forsyth as a quotable theologian. Forsyth, in the same work Ware likes to quote from, puts the Son as no higher than Satan, but unlike Satan, the Son keeps his estate by his obedience. This is one of Ware’s favorite people to quote. Obviously Ware doesn’t seem to care that Forsyth doesn’t even come close to affirming the Trinity.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness I appreciate you listening multiple times so as to give a fair hearing. Seems very strange to respond to the mountain of exegesis by referring to incarnational scope when the thrust of Grudem’s point is that the Bible not only states the Son’s submission in the incarnation but also before and after the incarnation. I suggest going back through that section. The debate isn’t about the Son’s submission during the incarnation, everyone agrees on that.
Great video. Recently, I had the misfortune of stumbling across a paper by William Lane Craig where he denies that the Son is eternally begotten ("Is God the Son Begotten in His Divine Nature?" 2018). He explicitly denies the Nicene Creed, so he should also be considered a heretic. Unfortunately, I wasn't surprised that someone who calls himself an Apollinarian would profess heretical views on the Trinity and put himself outside the Christian church. Hopefully he comes to repentance.
The problem with WLC is that he shares his heretical opinion of the denying of the eternal generation of the son in the whole protestant movement and that he meets with approval of many evangelicals.
Thanks for the video! That really clarified a number of things for me. I do have one question still, and I may not have been paying good enough attention, but what is your take on this sentence from the Athanasian Creed about the Son: "Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood."? Does this mean that the Son according to his human nature is subordinate to the Father, but only through his divine nature equal to the Father? And if so, how does that align with Luther's expression: "Wherever this person is, it it is the single, indivisible person, and if you can say, ‘Here is God’, then you must also say, ‘Christ the man is present too’"?
Hey Jordan Cooper, are there classical alternatives to the Thomistic tradition? Is there a systematic non-Thomist theology in classical/medieval tradition (by non-Thomist, I mean non-Aristotelian and more Platonic). Great video!
This was great! I'm keen to hear an exegetical overview. Also am I wrong in thinking our understanding of Christ's two natures affects this debate as well?
Absolutely correct intuition, just reading Article 8 from the Formula of Concord and also the Catalog (which is patristic exegetical citations to back up article 8) definitely clears up the EFS errors
@@AnUnhappyBusiness Article 8 of the SD or the Epitome? I know they should deal with the same topic but it is still useful to clarify to which of them you mean.
@@benmizrahi2889 the solid declaration. It is the in depth explanations that I find most helpful for these questions. That’s no diss to the epitome though.
Agreed. And the problem with traditions that make tradition equal to scripture is chronic inability to repent. The Orthodox, for example, have such strong liturgical tradition, that Nikon I finally had to declare his liturgical reformation "necessary for salvation" to get people to accept it. He asked the Russian government to arrest and put Old Believers to death. Similarly, the Greeks and the Old Calendarists.
Awesome video, but I have a question concerning the Lutheran view of the Trinity: Growing up in a Restorationist Stone-Campbell Church I was always taught that Jesus was separated from the Father on the cross. The justification for this belief was that 1) God cannot be in the presence of sin 2) Jesus became sin for us 3) therefore Jesus was separated from the Father, which is why he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”. They taught me that this was the first time in all of eternity that the Son experienced separation from the Father, and this was the climax of Christ's suffering. But now, after studying Church History, Lutheranism, and Classical Theism, this seems to be terribly unorthodox. How can the Logos, who is a necessary hypostasis, be separated from the Father when they share one undivided and immutable essence? This seems to imply that a hypostasis can subsist apart from a nature which seems utterly absurd. What is the Lutheran view on this?
I had the same thoughts why the opinion is problematic. Surely with the two-nature-docrine and the hypostatic union you can dig deeper in the matter. But the point is that the suffering and the separation aren't referred to the divine nature of the son.
I wish I had just one topic I was already familiar with on all your videos. Your content and teachings are always years beyond me, but I still enjoy them. Anyone that can recommend a good seminary school? Or can I actually find a way to study the Bible well from the resources from the internet?
Wayne Grudem has endorsed eternal subordination of the Son. . . And Liam Goligher at 10 th Presbyterian in Philadelphia ( who is himself Scottish) that has led tge charge to address this heresy within my denomination the PCA. So thankful for this.
This is somewhat tangential, but related to the topic of classic theism. I have recently heard some critiques of Dane Ortlund's "Gentle and Lowly", which is wildly popular in reformed circles right now. Namely, the critique has been made that 1) Ortlund's language seems to reject the notion of Divine Simplicity (i.e. God with parts or passions) and thus 2) pits God's essential mercy against his essential holiness. Jeremiah Johnson of Grace to You (i.e. John MacArthur) appears to be one source of this critique, although its been picked up by others in fundamentalist Baptist circles. Before seeing these critiques, I had read several detailed positive reviews of Ortlund's book and accordingly recommended it to several folks, however, I have not read the book myself. As an Anglican, I've been deeply interested in becoming more fluent in the doctrines connected with classical theism such as Divine Simplicity, since they are confessed in our formularies and by our divines. I also know you've done a good bit of work in this area. Consequently, I was curious as your take on the issue of Divine Simplicity in Ortlund's book.
Grudem denies the Son predestines and cites Ephesians 1 and Romans 8, making a distinction between God and Christ as Father and Son. Augustine explains how to attribute the golden chain in Romans 8 to the Son in his work on the Trinity. Chrysostom explains how the Son is not excluded from the act predestinating of God in Ephesians 1.
35:00 He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to say that the Son derives His essence from the Father (which is why He's the Son) without having the logical relational consequence of being Father and Son. The fact that my child derives his essence (humanity) from me makes him my ontological equal but also functionally subordinate to me. You logically can't have ontological generation without functional submission, even though the generation of the Son within the Trinity is eternal. Eternal generation logically results in eternal submission.
In light of Classical Theism.. How do we deal with the idea that only the Father knows the time of Christ's Return, "the angels don't know, not even THE SON." (Mk 13:32)? This was in the 3-year lectionary (year B) for yesterday.
Christ knew the time of his return IN his humanity(the source being from the divine nature shared with the other persons of the Trinity) ; but not FROM (as the source) His humanity. A classic patristic understanding of what he meant.
@@toddvoss52 yes, and this explanation of that text is found in Basil’s letter 236, and also Gregory the Great’s letter 39 from collection 10. Incidentally the explanation given by Gregory is affirmed in Article 8 of the Formula of Concord
One interesting thing I have read, in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Is that some of the ancient manuscripts do not contain the idea that the Son does not know the hour of his return.
Adam and Eve are spoken of as being ‘one’ yet they were obviously separate individuals. So biblically it is affirmed that separate wills and minds can be understood as both ‘one’ in a spiritual sense and separate in a normal sense. There is no contradiction if the Biblical precedent for the definition of one-ness is used
8:30 He said evangelical Baptist churches in America are not rooted in historical Trinitarian theology. I beg to differ with these very historical quotes: Hilary of Poitiers (291-371), On the Trinity, book 3, paragraph 12, “Who, indeed, would deny that the Father is the greater, that the Unbegotten is greater than the Begotten, that the Father is greater than the Son, that the Sender is greater than the Sent, and that He who wills is greater than He who obeys? He Himself shall be His own witness, ‘The Father is greater than I.’ It is a fact that we must recognize, but we must take heed lest with unskilled thinkers the majesty of the Father should obscure the glory of the Son. Such obscuration is forbidden by the same glory which the Son prays.” Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390), Oration 40, paragraph 43, “I should like to call the Father the greater because from Him flows both the Equality and the Being of the Equals. This will be granted on all hands, but I am afraid to use the word ‘Origin,’ lest I should make Him the Origin of Inferiors and thus insult Him by precedencies of honor, for the lowering of those who are from Him is no glory to the Source. Moreover, I look with suspicion at your insatiate desire, for fear you should take hold of this word ‘Greater’ and divide the nature, using the word ‘greater’ in all senses, whereas it does not apply to the Nature, but only to Origination, for in the consubstantial persons, there is nothing greater or less in point of substance.” This isn't even addressing Augustine's interpretation of John 5:26 being a description of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son in his book on the Trinity. EFS was present in history right before and after the drafting of the Nicene Creed by some of the most influential theologians, yet somehow we're ignoring history?
Heard Ware speak ~2010 (attended SBC church then). What I heard was we shouldn't pray to Jesus but only the Father, since that's how Jesus taught us to pray. Left pretty confused until I was taught the Kyrie.
Do you affirm classical theism, divine simplicity? I feel that “the doctrine of God” that the Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist have a presuppositional understanding of God attributes influence by Greek Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. I also agree that Jesus Christ is Not eternally subordinate to the Father but my view is little different then yours.
39:10 You're absolutely right, and you deserve to be critiqued. You won't find Strachan, Piper, Grudem, or Ware *ever* say the Father, Son, and Spirit are "separate beings." That is one of the worst straw man accusations I've ever heard, and it came from a supposed "scholar."
I've been discussing that with a few Lutherans and non-Lutherans under this video. The non-Lutherans I've talked to agree with Dr. Ortlund that there's some kinda relationship between baptism and the remission of sins. Just as the Supper apparently depends on the meaning of "is," so the Creed depends on the meaning of "for." So for baptists, any word can mean "represents" when they need it to. That last sentence was a strawman. I should be ashamed of my self.
My wife made a brilliant point, in Heaven men and women will be totally equal in every way, so the rules that apply to temporal human relationships won't apply then. Are we to say that Jesus will be submitting to the Father long after wives have ceased needing to submit to their husbands and husbands to their bosses and church leaders etc?
@@thursdaythursday5884 Thanks for that. Interesting that they basically say all philosophy should concern itself with is empiricism. I suppose we just stop at Locke and Decartes? Norm Macdonald once asked why scientists don’t try to verify the supernatural. That’s a very good question.
24:00 He's acting like EFS is trying to deny the Nicene Creed. No, we're not, and that's very uncharitable. We're explaining what it means to be "eternally begotten" or "eternally generated" in the framework of homoousios in the Nicene Creed. The eternal generation of the Son touches on the functional relationship of the Father and the Son.
I don't follow Grudem and Ware so I'm not sure all they say. My questions aren't related to gender issues. My question is regarding the Son and Father's relationship to the one will of God. It seems to me those relationships have to be different. If the Son was sent into the world from His eternal state, wouldn't that have some impact on the relationship of the eternal Son to the will of God? I'm not saying the Son had a different will, but a will can come in different forms? As the Father was the generator, I assume the will came from Him as the source and the Son received that one will as part of His own essence, but nonetheless He received it. I think eternal generation leads us towards some kind of differences. What those differences are is the question. Not enough discussion on this aspect.
16:10, "The Father's essence as Father is that He has authority over the Son, and the Son's very essence as Son is that He is obedient to the Father. So, what is the essence of the Father? Authority. What is the essence of the Son? Submission." Show me one quote from Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, John Piper, or Owen Strachan where they use the word "essence" to differentiate the Father and Son. You can't, because we who affirm EFS don't do that. We say the Father and Son (and the Spirit) have the same essence/ontology/being/nature as divine persons. That's why it's called "eternal *FUNCTIONAL* subordination." It's not an ontological submission, because the Son is ontologically equal with the Father. They both participate in the divine essence and have the same divine attributes that are divinity. Therefore, no, we don't teach the Father's essence is authority. We say the Father's role is authority. Unless you can provide a reputable quote to the contrary, this is a straw man.
It concerns whether said layman is actually a Christian or not. The belief in the Trinity and all the other articles of the Nicene Creed is what defines one as a Christian and, if you deviate from Nicene Christianity, then you are no longer Christian in any meaningful sense.
You might notice in another comment that sometimes people with a defective view of the Trinity teach things like praying only to the Father, and not the Son. Knowing how to pray, and that we can certainly pray to the Son, is very practical
It sounds as if the ESS advocates have made some serious missteps wrt creedal orthodoxy. Any concept of "submission" that requires a distinct divine will in the Son must be rejected, as must any theory that suggests the Father could work salvation (or exercise any kind of Providence) by Himself, apart from the Son and the Spirit. However, I suspect some of the ESS position can be salvaged by beginning with the observation that the One Divine Will, shared perfectly by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is originally the _Father's_ will, just as the Divine _ousia_ is originally the Father's _ousia_ ("origin" being understood atemporally, of course). The Son is the Word of the Father, and not the other way around. The Father begets the Son, and not the other way around. it's not a coincidence that the Son _is sent_ to become a Man, and the Father _sends_; the roles could hardly be reversed.
I love the intellect you bring to the conversation. I wouldnt agree with all Grudems expressions but I don’t see how someone can get around the different actions preformed by the Members of the Trinity yet still having the same Will other than being able to differentiate between fuction and essence. The Son incarnated, the Father and Spirit did not. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit all agreed, without friction. The Father sent the Son and the Spirit powered His work. Yes the Son was incarnated at this point, but all of this was decided before the foundation of the world. The Father sent the Son and by being sent and listening to His Father, the Son functionally is submitting. Their Will is to send a savior, how the Trinitarian God brings that about is expressed specifically by the fuction of the Persons. I don’t have the intellect you do but I can’t understand how someone can hold to God having one Will yet have three Persons without making a functional distinction. The distinction can only be observed in submission in how the Persons take up the roles of completing the one Will
St Basil the Great's "On the Holy Spirit" addresses some of these questions in Scripture. It's not too long (especially compared to other patristic works)
43:00, "This is problem with social Trinitarianism. It divides that essence." No. It. Does. Not. If you tried to substantiate that claim, you would crumble like a house of cards, because submission =/= different essence. He presupposes eternal relationships of submission and authority demands ontological differences, but it doesn't.
Lindsay has parroted Zizek's Trinitarian theology in the past for for shock value; which likely is a materialist appropriation of Hegel's trinity. His recent statement, unless I missed what you are actually talking about, was that the second person of the Trinity was meaning itself and claims that Christians don't understand the real Trinity like Lindsay does.
Since Lindsay is an atheist, he is probably trying to say that the second person is 'other' to the Father, probably for shock value. He might even be implying Christianity is responsible for modern leftism and Marxism because of Hegel's theology and maybe even German idealism in general.
Notice: there wasn't a single text exegeted in this video. Just "classical" this and "classical" that. If the Holy Spirit submits to the Son and the Father, then EFS is true. After all, if the Spirit submits, then there is submission relationally in the Godhead. You can't use the incarnation as a copout with His submission. Does the Spirit submit to the Father and Son? Yes. John 16:13-14, "When the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak. He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you." That is submission on display. The Spirit doesn't speak on His authority. He speaks on the Son's authority. The Spirit doesn't speak what He determines He should say. He speaks what the Son tells Him to say. That'd submission, plain and simple. Likewise, there's the issue of the verb "pempō." Without exception, in the New Testament, when the subject of "pempō" is a person, and the object of "pempō" is a person, the subject is always in authority over the object. Jesus says multiple times in John 14-16 that He and the Father send the Spirit. Therefore, the Father and the Son have authority over the Spirit relationally. Saying there is authority and submission in the Trinity isn't heresy. If it is, then Jesus is a heretic for claiming to have authority over the Spirit. The Spirit submits to the Father and Son, and He doesn't have a human nature to which to appeal.
Lutheran commentaries tend to explain that Christ remains in the resurrected flesh fully our brother, and yet fully God. Co-equal in power, majesty, and all with the Father and the Spirit forever.
How do we understand the single will in light of Luke 22:42 - “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”
@@Mygoalwogel around 4:30, he quotes Grudem saying that the Trinity has "One will by which they wish." What is happening in Gethsemane when Christ seems to have a will separate from the Father?
@@jmr10276 In Christ, the human flesh's will that only cares about its own survival and pleasure is submitted to the Father. Christ can recognize and suffer the weakness of the flesh without sin or disobedience to the Father. Therefore he is able to redeem people of faith (who say, "Thy will be done.')
7:30 You don't think Reformed Baptist churches are creedal? Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem and John Piper's churches/seminaries all affirm the Apostolic, Nicene, Athabaskan, and Chalcedonian creeds, so how can they not be creedal? Because they don't popishly recite them every Sunday? Especially us 1689 Baptists are creedal.
I dont think GrudeM is an enemy of liberalism. He is of the progressive strain, but anyone rejecting the tradition likely is coming from a liberal stance by necessity, as modernity is thoroughly infested with liberalism.
I used to hold a less Nicene orthodox view of the persons, partially influenced (as you said) how many say that "monogenes" has been mistranslated and should be translated as "Only", as in "Only Son". Mormons (who I witness to often, since I'm an ex-Mormon and a Christian apologist now) will say, "You don't even think the Son is an actual Son of the Father." It really bothered me, because yeah, I thought the Father/Son relationship was more about love and intimacy (which is true). But now having a Nicene orthodox view of the Trinity, we can say that, *yes,* the Son *is* a Son to the Father because his nature is communicated to him by eternal generation. So they are a true Father and Son, but their paternity/filiation relationship is an eternal and internal one, whereas creatures have a temporal and external begetting of their children. There are other differences, obviously, but these are two big ones between how the Father begets the Son and a human father begets a human son. Without that Nicene orthodox understanding, yes, "Father" and "Son" could easily be replaced by "Friend" and "Friend" or "Master" and "Protege" or something like that if all it is meant to evoke is intimacy, closeness, one representing the other, etc. But they are called Father and Son because that divine nature is communicated from the Father to the Son eternally.
That's beautiful. God bless your witness with patience and fruit in time. When LDS approach me I usually say something I think is clever and snarky but is really just awkward. I'll occasionally show them a video about Joe and Brig's horrible racism, but that doesn't seem to phase them.
@@Mygoalwogel Yeah, it can be hard to try to get through to them. The biggest thing is the vocabulary barrier. They use the same words with totally different meanings. I am one of the co-hosts of "The Outer Brightness Podcast" and we seek to dialogue with LDS while also still being bold in witnessing the gospel and Christ to them. People who have never been LDS or who witness to LDS say they find the podcast helpful. We are both ex-LDS and talk about what it's like to be LDS, to question, and to leave the church. I recommend checking it out and maybe it can help if you bump into a Mormon missionary again someday. May the Lord bless you on your journey.
@@Mygoalwogel Thank you, you're awesome. :) We are on podcasts as well as on TH-cam (although I've been finishing my PhD so I'm a bit behind on uploading every episode to TH-cam XD)
The number one problem is not actually that Grudem is not Nicene. The number one problem is that he claims to be. One can simply read the creed of 325 and see the anathemas and realize he is not. But he knows this and still says he is. To sell books and keep influence. Otherwise, why would he bother lying about it?
45:45 He is expanding the truth of the singular will of God far beyond its intended meaning. The singular will of God pertains to the Trinity's absolute unity in purpose and intention. There are no competing desires or intentions in the Trinity, and thus there is one will. The perichoresis explains how this is possible. What the Father thinks, the Son and Spirit also agree on. What the Father feels, the Son and the Spirit also desire. What the Father wills, the Son and the Spirit also purpose to accomplish. Yes, there is one will of God. However, if taken to the degree that this speaker takes it, he would have to be a modalist. When proving personhood, what must you establish a person is and possesses? A spiritual person with a heart, mind, and will. The Spirit has a will that determines what gifts people receive (1 Corinthians 12:8-10). The Son has a will that determined equality with the Father was not something you be grasped and chose to be incarnate (Philippians 2:6-10). The Father has a will that predestined everything that would take place in time, including the actions of the Son and the Spirit (Ephesians 1:11). The Son did not predestine. The Spirit did not incarnate. The Father does not bestow spiritual gifts. This simple truth requires that while they are perfectly unified in the singular will of God, each person has a distinct (not separate) will as a person. To say otherwise is to say the Father, Son, and Spirit are not three distinct persons. They would fail the personality test.
At 47:00 mins Jesus raises his hand and says, “I know who I have chosen, John 13:18. If Jesus chooses, then Jesus predestines. Grudem likes to ignore this verse, along with Paul and James, “if the Lord wills.”
I am going to make one silly quibble. You said the generation of the Son is an essential generation. I can tell from your context you are using essential as synonymous with necessary. However, technically, the generation of the Son is a necessary hypostatic attribute of the Father, not an essential attribute. If we were to make generation an essential attribute, then who does the Son generate, given he has the same essence of the Father?
Great explanation, but you haven't convinced me. It seems to me that you collapse divine personhood into the divine essence. A couple examples of the distinction of persons: 1) at min. 55 you read from Gerhard that the Son to the incarnation. Does not the consent of the Son imply a distinction of will between the Father and the Son? 2) How can you affirm that the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, without distinction of wills, or perhaps I should say a distinction of loves? Finally, the position you describe on the immanent Trinity seems incompatible with the economic Trinity, where the distinction among persons is clearly evident. It seems to me that the God of the philosophers you have describe is a different being from the God described in Scripture. Thanks for your all your work.
When you reread your Bible using the interpretative method of the Nicene Orthodoxy (what the Son receives in time, he receives in his humanity what he possesses already as God) it clears a lot of this up. Regarding the specific distinction you are asking about, Luther’s late disputations from 1540s actually go deep in these things. Luther at that point in his life was teaching his students to defend the Trinity via disputations from Scripture, in response to people like Eck who were saying the Trinity could only be defended by the authority of the Church. But specifically you mentioned immanent Trinity. Luther deals with this in the “Major” disputation where he says it is an undisputed fact that God is the sole creator of all things outside of Himself, and the theses that follow. Each person is the entire divine essence-Chemnitz, the Two Natures
Ah yes, the gospel - "Repent and believe the creeds and you will be saved." If only history and scripture had some examples of how man can put God in a box and care more about tradition than truth.
Just admit you do not worship the Trinity of Father, Son and Comforter, but the trinity of three co-eternal bros who is actually a "he" with three multiple personalities
21:30, "We can go to the fathers, you can go to medieval sources, you can go to the Reformers, the church historically has not held to this subordination idea." Really? On top of Hilary and Gregory, whom I cited in another reply, these quotes sure seem to affirm EFS. John Calvin (1509-1564), Institutes of the Christian Religion, volume 1, chapter 13, section 18, “It is not fitting to suppress the distinction that we observe to be expressed in Scripture. It is this: to the Father is attributed the beginning of activity and the fountain and wellspring of all things. To the Son is wisdom, counsel, and the ordered disposition of all things, but to the Spirit is assigned the power and efficacy of that activity. The observance of an order is not meaningless nor superfluous, when the Father is thought of first, then from Him the Son, and finally from both the Spirit.” John Owen (1616-1683) - “John Owen and the Question of the Eternal Submission of the Son within the Ontological Trinity,” Westminster Theological Journal, volume 8, issue number 2, Fall 2018, page 301 John Gill's (1697-1771) commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), “Economy of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption,” from The Miscellanies, pages 833-1152, “That there is a subordination of the persons of the Trinity in their actings with respect to the creature [ad extra], that one acts from another and under another and with a dependence on another in their actings and particularly in what they act in the affairs of man’s redemption. So that the Father in that affair acts as the Head of the Trinity, and the Son under Him, and the Holy Spirit under them both. Tis very manifest that the persons of the Trinity are not inferior to one another in glory and excellency of nature. ... Though a subordination of the persons of the Trinity in their actings be not from any proper natural subjection one to another, and so must be conceived of as in some respect established by mutual free agreement, yet this agreement establishing this economy is not to be looked upon as merely arbitrary. Rather, there is a natural decency or fitness in that order and economy that is established. Tis fit that the order of acting of the persons of the Trinity should be agreeable to the order of subsisting, that as the Father is the first in the order of subsisting, so He should be first in the order of acting. Therefore, the persons of the Trinity all consent to this order and establish it by agreement, as they all naturally delight in what is in itself fit, suitable, and beautiful. Therefore, this order of economy of the Trinity with respect tot heir actions ad extra is to be conceived of as prior to the covenant of redemption. That the economy of the persons of the Trinity, establishing that order of their acting that is agreeable to the order of subsisting, is entlhihiirely diverse from the covenant of redemption and prior to it, not only appears from the nature of things, but appears evidently from Scripture.” Charles Hodge (1797-1878), Systematic Theology, pages 460-462 “The Nicene doctrine includes the principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, but this subordination does not imply inferiority. The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation. The creeds are nothing more than well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit and their consequential perfect equality, and the subordination of the Son to the Father and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son as the mode of subsistence and operation. These are Scriptural facts to which the creeds in question add nothing, and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church universal.” A. H. Strong (1836-1921), Systematic Theology, page 342, “The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office, and operation. The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority. The possibility of an order, which yet involves no inequality, may be illustrated by the relation between man and woman. In office, man is first and woman is second, but woman’s soul is worth as much as man’s. See 1 Corinthians 11:3).” Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), Reformed Dogmatics, volume 1, page 43 “Although these three persons possess one and the same divine substance, Scripture nevertheless teaches that, concerning their personal existence, the Father is the first, the Son is the second, and the Holy Spirit is the third. There is, therefore, subordination as to personal manner of existence and manner of working, but no subordination regarding possession of the one divine substance.” Louis Berkhof (1873-1957), Systematic Theology, pages 88-89, “The only subordination of which we can speak is a subordination in respect to order and relationship. Generation and procession take place within the divine being and imply a certain subordination as to the manner of personal subsistence, but not subordination as far as the possession of the divine essence is concerned. This ontological Trinity and its inherent order is the metaphysical basis of the economical Trinity.” Carl Henry (1913-2003), God, Revelation, and Authority, volume 5, page 205, “The creeds speak of the subordination, distinction, and union of the three persons without implying inferiority of any. Since all three persons have a common divine essence, they affirm the Son’s subordination to the Father and the Spirit’s subordination to the Father and the Son. This subordination pertains to mode of subsistence and to mode of operations.”
Philosophy is worthless. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1Co 1:20-25 NKJ)
Let's face it! The Trinity doctrine since its inception into Christianity, is not void of multiple problems. Why? It is an invention, created by Greek philosophy and the Catholic Fathers.
False, the doctrine is taught in the New Testament and has held by all Christians for 2000 years. Who is the first teacher of the 'anti Trinity' sect you belong to? Who baptized him? And who baptized him? Who can you trace your baptisms to, historically?
If you want to understand its Jewish roots you should read Angelmorphic Christology by Charles Gieschen. Beckwith and Heiser talk a fair bit about this but Heiser has said at one time that Gieschen’s work is about the best on this
I'm hearing a whole lot of "muh creeds!" in this response, but not a lot of dealing with the Biblical text. This is just a long-winded non-argument. Prove your view of the Trinity using the Biblical text and stop using tactics of social shame and labelling.
John 5, the Father works and the Son works The Son does all things the Father does, and in the same way The Son always does the will of the Father, and yet also gives life to whom he wills. This is unity of essence power will and operation. John 13:18 I know whom I have chosen, the Son predestines. John 16:15 all that the Father has are mine The glory I had with you John 17 and yet Isaiah “my glory I do not share with another” Grudem denies predestination and providence to the Son but James 5 says “as the Lord wills” and Grudem uses Lord and God to drive a wedge between Father (God) and Son (Lord) therefore according to his own reasoning this passage in James is a proof text against his position. That’s all just for starters. The problem isn’t just that Grudem has a different view of the Trinity, the problem is that Grudem says his own view is Nicene. That is simply not true. He may have a type of Trinity in his view, and he might use the Bible to defend it, but what he is defending is not the same view as the authors of the Nicene Creed. The original Creed had a clause the anathematized anyone who said the Son was mutable. Grudem’s position requires the mutability of the Son. Therefore his position was anathematized at Nicea. That is a simple fact.
He subjects himself according to His humanity, for when did He become obedient? The Apostle tells us, phil 2, when He came to us. Keeping in mind as well, that all things the Son receives in time He receives as man what He already possessed as God. This is a foundational interpretative rule of the Church Fathers. In Daniel 7, the Son is given a kingdom. Throughout the passage, there is one kingdom, and sometimes the Son is mentioned as ruling, and also so it the Father. In 1 Timothy 6, God is referred to as the only potentate, the only King. Yet the Son is called King of kings and Lord of lords. There is one King, one monarchy, and that is the Trinity. Because of these two passages, Church Fathers refer to the Timothy passage as referring to the entire Godhead, the Father yes, but not to the exclusion of the Son or Spirit. Otherwise the Son could not be King of kings. Every Church Father I have read interprets 1Cor15 and referring to the Son according to His humanity. If someone wants to debate that point fine but then they shouldn’t call themselves Nicene when this is how the Nicene Fathers interpreted the text. But Grudem wants to call himself Nicene, because he knows if he can’t claim that his book sales and influence will disappear overnight. So now he tries to deceive people into thinking he is actually Nicene. This is the problem
"If you cannot confess the Nicene Creed, you are not a Christian."
Nailed it.
Yikes, I guess Baptists aren't Christians. "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
@@Mygoalwogel That's what I was thinking but I think their position maybe referred to as heterodox, I could be wrong.
@@Mygoalwogel why couldnt they say that? For, as in, because of the forgiveness of sins. Cornelius and the thief on the cross had forgiveness of sins, and wouldnt they also have a baptism for the forgiveness of sins?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 My "Yikes..." was drawing a possible conclusion from the OP quote. While it bothers me that I've read outright rejections of this creedal sentence from baptists, ultimately "He (not I) will come to judge the living and the dead."
@@Mygoalwogel David Wright penned an essay in Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective which is an interesting excavation of "one baptism for the remission of sins". He attempts to appropriate it as essentially a credobaptist statement.
Yes the textual proof texts and translation issues they use would be great to address
This is extremely helpful in : nuanced, balanced and non-polemical approach to some urgent apologetic issues. Like Dr.TRUEMAN you are giving us some helpful guidance on having a classical lens.
This video is amazing. One of your best Dr. Cooper. I learned so much. From a Baptist
Thank you for this. Please do more. It was one of the best discussions on the topic i have heard, and as a confessional baptist I have actually been greatly concerned to see this kind of error cropping up in our circles. I am starting to think there needs to be some kind of reform within the baptist tradition to to ensure that those within-in hold to Nicene orthodoxy and don't so readily depart.
They can't insist on the Nicene Creed because they'd have to affirm, "We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."
@@Mygoalwogel Yes they can affirm that. See Jordan Cooper discussion with Gavin Outland. That statement doesn’t contradict anything I’ve ever read in Baptist confessions of faith.
@@dylanwagoner9768 So it depends what the meaning of "for" is, now.
@@Mygoalwogel Not sure what you mean, feel free to explain.
@@dylanwagoner9768 Dr. Ortlund plainly said of the Supper, "It depends what 'is' means." His explanation of how exactly baptism connects to salvation, was as nearly as I could tell, also symbolic. I looked at several Southern Baptist sites. Sure enough, "for the remission" means "representing the remission."
Dr. Ortlund is kind and well spoken. But the Baptist religion seems to be all "represent" and no substance anywhere.
Seems almost like a shade of Arianism. Sort of a newfangled high semi-Arianism.
Not quite. Arianism says Jesus isn't God, isn't eternal, is in fact a created man only who functions as a kind of avatar... if that even. Subordinationism typically stull says Jesus is God, but is begotten status and obedience isnt related to his incarnation, but is an eternal part of his personhood as The Word.
This can logically still imply things that arent quite right, and frankly, the doctrine isn't even defended organically from scripture or logical systematics on its own merits 9 times out of 10... its just a polotical weapon against egalitarians. And that's pretty much the only reason anyone talks about it.
Which is stupid and intellectually lacks integrity.
Tertulian, who coined the term Trinity almost 100 years before Nicea, still viewed Jesus as subordinate. Not being too keen on greek metaphysics, he clearly didn't mean Jesus was in any sense LESS than the Father, merely obedient in his role and in pretty much all revelation revealed to man in scripture about himself. There's never a point we're shown where he's NOT subordinate to The Father, but again this isn't necessarily a reflection of ontology... and subordinationism believes this subordination is un some sense an ontological thing, at least that's what its come to mean. It's not 100% clear that if Tertulian was alive today he would agree to that. The trinitarian concept wasnt very well developed yet, and he was more of a sassy rhetoritician who groped for truth to defeat lies, and was pretty brilliant, more so than a systematic theologian or philosopher.
Very good video and apparently very much needed. Excellent work.
As an aside, I hope you do a whole episode on the Filioque. I really need more education on the Western view. I’m a Lutheran, but I want more understanding to refute the polemics of the Eastern Orthodox.
There’s nothing to refute. Scripture itself says the Spirit proceeds from the Father from a sola scriptura perspective. The traditional argument is just as iron clad.
@@joshf2218 - Perhaps refute is the wrong word. Understand might be the better choice.
The Filioque is the true doctrine. If God is one substance made of three persons(Father, Son, Holy Ghost), and if Christ the Son is seated at the right hand if the Father(symbolically giving us their role), it is only logical to conclude that the Holy Spirit springs forth from the Son and Father.
@@sandromnator It not only doesn’t follow logically but it doesn’t follow scripture. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. He does not proceed from both.
Guys, perhaps in your zeal you missed the obvious fact that I was asking Dr. Cooper to do a video on the Filioque. I was not asking for your opinions. Besides, this video isn’t even on that topic. There are plenty of responsible Orthodox sources where I can get their view on the Filioque. I was just requesting Dr. Cooper to consider the topic.
Great explanation! I also really appreciate Matthew Barrett’s book.
This concept of God’s infinity (as Gerhard explains it at 43:20) as a foundational concept for understanding and defending the Trinity from Scripture is developed by Luther in his doctrinal disputations from the 1540s, particularly the Major disputation. Also, his Last Words of David. Both these disputations and the Last Words are cited favorably by Chemnitz and Pieper for defending and understanding the Trinity, as well as Article 8 of Formula of Concord.
I’m so glad you’ve mentioned the reduction of the whole counsel of God’s Word by implementing Law and Gospel to the hurt. I am a one year old LCMS member and I truly have to visit a Reformed Church once a month to hear about the pursuit of holiness! I’m praying we can move to AALC and hopefully hear more of the whole picture. God bless!
I'm not a Lutheran but in a short time you might persuade me to be one.
Yes, please. I would love to hear more about this.
Please continue with the topic :)
Awesome video, I didn't know what the implications of this are but I fully reject it now. Thanks for explaining!
Dude yes! Awesome explanation
Thank you for this video! It was really helpful and helps me take seriously theology proper and the catholicity of the church and what doctrines are truly catholic.
Please continue!!!!!!! I'd love to hear the relevant scripture.
It is crazy to think this came out of a defence against feminists, trying to show "subjection isn't bad, because look! Jesus!", without having done prior work on the Trinity. That Grudem has stuck to his guns all these years is even crazier.
At 36:00 to roughly 39:00 Dr.Cooper is voicing the exact same concern as Pieper on page 401 paragraph 2 of his Christian dogmatics. 100 years and we are still fighting the same battle, only many don’t realize it.
I loved this video! One thing I have noticed about the EFS position is that it doesn’t fly at all with our Article VIII on the person of Christ. They NEVER understand the Incarnation the way the Incarnation is understood in our confessions.
The EFS arguments I’ve heard are purely Biblical arguments. You might need to update your confession
th-cam.com/video/ySFrG3mOp5o/w-d-xo.html
@@chrismatthews1762 You got anything shorter than a 2 hour+ video to make your case?
@@chrismatthews1762 I have listened to that debate many times. Grudem and Ware have little to no understanding of how the Church has understood the Incarnation. They never observe for instance, that whatever the Son receives in time, he receives according his humanity that which he already had as God. That is an interpretive rule that Athanasius, Ambrose, and the Cappadocians all observed. At the deposition of Arius, one of the charges is that he severed the Godhead and made the Son mutable. EFS is arian. Also, in that debate Bruce Ware cites PT Forsyth as a quotable theologian. Forsyth, in the same work Ware likes to quote from, puts the Son as no higher than Satan, but unlike Satan, the Son keeps his estate by his obedience. This is one of Ware’s favorite people to quote. Obviously Ware doesn’t seem to care that Forsyth doesn’t even come close to affirming the Trinity.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness I appreciate you listening multiple times so as to give a fair hearing. Seems very strange to respond to the mountain of exegesis by referring to incarnational scope when the thrust of Grudem’s point is that the Bible not only states the Son’s submission in the incarnation but also before and after the incarnation. I suggest going back through that section. The debate isn’t about the Son’s submission during the incarnation, everyone agrees on that.
Great video--thank you! I would love to hear more about this.
have you done a video with Jonathan Pageau? I would love to see you guys tackle the filioque and the schism.
I haven't. Sounds like it could be fun!
Please do more episodes on this
Great video. Recently, I had the misfortune of stumbling across a paper by William Lane Craig where he denies that the Son is eternally begotten ("Is God the Son Begotten in His Divine Nature?" 2018). He explicitly denies the Nicene Creed, so he should also be considered a heretic. Unfortunately, I wasn't surprised that someone who calls himself an Apollinarian would profess heretical views on the Trinity and put himself outside the Christian church. Hopefully he comes to repentance.
The problem with WLC is that he shares his heretical opinion of the denying of the eternal generation of the son in the whole protestant movement and that he meets with approval of many evangelicals.
Thank you for explaining what it is and why it is wrong according to scriptural doctrine.
Thanks for the video! That really clarified a number of things for me. I do have one question still, and I may not have been paying good enough attention, but what is your take on this sentence from the Athanasian Creed about the Son: "Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood."? Does this mean that the Son according to his human nature is subordinate to the Father, but only through his divine nature equal to the Father? And if so, how does that align with Luther's expression: "Wherever this person is, it it is the single, indivisible person, and if you can say, ‘Here is God’, then you must also say, ‘Christ the man is present too’"?
Hey Jordan Cooper, are there classical alternatives to the Thomistic tradition? Is there a systematic non-Thomist theology in classical/medieval tradition (by non-Thomist, I mean non-Aristotelian and more Platonic). Great video!
You can't get any better than John of Damascus for that.
I love you Dr. Cooper, but how do you reconcile John 8:42, John 7:28, & Luke 22:41-42 if there is no Eternal Subordination? Please assist.
Athanasian Creed line 33
Thank you for this. I'm glad that some people are talking more about classical nicene orthodoxy.
This was great! I'm keen to hear an exegetical overview. Also am I wrong in thinking our understanding of Christ's two natures affects this debate as well?
Absolutely correct intuition, just reading Article 8 from the Formula of Concord and also the Catalog (which is patristic exegetical citations to back up article 8) definitely clears up the EFS errors
@@AnUnhappyBusiness Article 8 of the SD or the Epitome? I know they should deal with the same topic but it is still useful to clarify to which of them you mean.
@@benmizrahi2889 the solid declaration. It is the in depth explanations that I find most helpful for these questions. That’s no diss to the epitome though.
The problem with traditions that reject tradition is that they are a tradition unto themselves.
Agreed. And the problem with traditions that make tradition equal to scripture is chronic inability to repent.
The Orthodox, for example, have such strong liturgical tradition, that Nikon I finally had to declare his liturgical reformation "necessary for salvation" to get people to accept it. He asked the Russian government to arrest and put Old Believers to death. Similarly, the Greeks and the Old Calendarists.
I just got an ad in the middle of this video for the UMC.
Awesome video, but I have a question concerning the Lutheran view of the Trinity:
Growing up in a Restorationist Stone-Campbell Church I was always taught that Jesus was separated from the Father on the cross. The justification for this belief was that 1) God cannot be in the presence of sin 2) Jesus became sin for us 3) therefore Jesus was separated from the Father, which is why he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”. They taught me that this was the first time in all of eternity that the Son experienced separation from the Father, and this was the climax of Christ's suffering.
But now, after studying Church History, Lutheranism, and Classical Theism, this seems to be terribly unorthodox. How can the Logos, who is a necessary hypostasis, be separated from the Father when they share one undivided and immutable essence? This seems to imply that a hypostasis can subsist apart from a nature which seems utterly absurd. What is the Lutheran view on this?
I think that view comes from some older Reformed theology (not surprising since Stone and Campbell were both previously Presbyterian).
I had the same thoughts why the opinion is problematic.
Surely with the two-nature-docrine and the hypostatic union you can dig deeper in the matter. But the point is that the suffering and the separation aren't referred to the divine nature of the son.
This was fantastic. Please do part 2 with the exegetical work. It's time for the Protestant church catholic to fight this monstrous doctrine.
I wish I had just one topic I was already familiar with on all your videos. Your content and teachings are always years beyond me, but I still enjoy them. Anyone that can recommend a good seminary school? Or can I actually find a way to study the Bible well from the resources from the internet?
I'm the president of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary. Check us out! ALTS.edu
Wayne Grudem has endorsed eternal subordination of the Son. . . And Liam Goligher at 10 th Presbyterian in Philadelphia ( who is himself Scottish) that has led tge charge to address this heresy within my denomination the PCA. So thankful for this.
This is somewhat tangential, but related to the topic of classic theism. I have recently heard some critiques of Dane Ortlund's "Gentle and Lowly", which is wildly popular in reformed circles right now. Namely, the critique has been made that 1) Ortlund's language seems to reject the notion of Divine Simplicity (i.e. God with parts or passions) and thus 2) pits God's essential mercy against his essential holiness. Jeremiah Johnson of Grace to You (i.e. John MacArthur) appears to be one source of this critique, although its been picked up by others in fundamentalist Baptist circles. Before seeing these critiques, I had read several detailed positive reviews of Ortlund's book and accordingly recommended it to several folks, however, I have not read the book myself. As an Anglican, I've been deeply interested in becoming more fluent in the doctrines connected with classical theism such as Divine Simplicity, since they are confessed in our formularies and by our divines. I also know you've done a good bit of work in this area. Consequently, I was curious as your take on the issue of Divine Simplicity in Ortlund's book.
Grudem denies the Son predestines and cites Ephesians 1 and Romans 8, making a distinction between God and Christ as Father and Son. Augustine explains how to attribute the golden chain in Romans 8 to the Son in his work on the Trinity. Chrysostom explains how the Son is not excluded from the act predestinating of God in Ephesians 1.
Fantastic, important. (More would be great)
35:00
He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to say that the Son derives His essence from the Father (which is why He's the Son) without having the logical relational consequence of being Father and Son. The fact that my child derives his essence (humanity) from me makes him my ontological equal but also functionally subordinate to me. You logically can't have ontological generation without functional submission, even though the generation of the Son within the Trinity is eternal. Eternal generation logically results in eternal submission.
Wrong
In light of Classical Theism.. How do we deal with the idea that only the Father knows the time of Christ's Return, "the angels don't know, not even THE SON." (Mk 13:32)? This was in the 3-year lectionary (year B) for yesterday.
Christ knew the time of his return IN his humanity(the source being from the divine nature shared with the other persons of the Trinity) ; but not FROM (as the source) His humanity. A classic patristic understanding of what he meant.
@@toddvoss52 yes, and this explanation of that text is found in Basil’s letter 236, and also Gregory the Great’s letter 39 from collection 10. Incidentally the explanation given by Gregory is affirmed in Article 8 of the Formula of Concord
@@AnUnhappyBusiness Excellent.
One interesting thing I have read, in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Is that some of the ancient manuscripts do not contain the idea that the Son does not know the hour of his return.
Have you done a program talking about the textual issues? This has been extremely helpful to me. I’d love to watch it if you have.
Adam and Eve are spoken of as being ‘one’ yet they were obviously separate individuals. So biblically it is affirmed that separate wills and minds can be understood as both ‘one’ in a spiritual sense and separate in a normal sense. There is no contradiction if the Biblical precedent for the definition of one-ness is used
8:30
He said evangelical Baptist churches in America are not rooted in historical Trinitarian theology. I beg to differ with these very historical quotes:
Hilary of Poitiers (291-371), On the Trinity, book 3, paragraph 12, “Who, indeed, would deny that the Father is the greater, that the Unbegotten is greater than the Begotten, that the Father is greater than the Son, that the Sender is greater than the Sent, and that He who wills is greater than He who obeys? He Himself shall be His own witness, ‘The Father is greater than I.’ It is a fact that we must recognize, but we must take heed lest with unskilled thinkers the majesty of the Father should obscure the glory of the Son. Such obscuration is forbidden by the same glory which the Son prays.”
Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390), Oration 40, paragraph 43, “I should like to call the Father the greater because from Him flows both the Equality and the Being of the Equals. This will be granted on all hands, but I am afraid to use the word ‘Origin,’ lest I should make Him the Origin of Inferiors and thus insult Him by precedencies of honor, for the lowering of those who are from Him is no glory to the Source. Moreover, I look with suspicion at your insatiate desire, for fear you should take hold of this word ‘Greater’ and divide the nature, using the word ‘greater’ in all senses, whereas it does not apply to the Nature, but only to Origination, for in the consubstantial persons, there is nothing greater or less in point of substance.”
This isn't even addressing Augustine's interpretation of John 5:26 being a description of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son in his book on the Trinity. EFS was present in history right before and after the drafting of the Nicene Creed by some of the most influential theologians, yet somehow we're ignoring history?
To much background information, that blurred the topic.
So basically EFS posits that the Father is an eternal dictator and the Son is an eternal slave?
Is there a link between 'incarnational sonship' and Efs?
Heard Ware speak ~2010 (attended SBC church then). What I heard was we shouldn't pray to Jesus but only the Father, since that's how Jesus taught us to pray. Left pretty confused until I was taught the Kyrie.
Stephen prayed to Jesus in Acts.
@@Mygoalwogel Excellent point!
Do you affirm classical theism, divine simplicity? I feel that “the doctrine of God” that the Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist have a presuppositional understanding of God attributes influence by Greek Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle.
I also agree that Jesus Christ is Not eternally subordinate to the Father but my view is little different then yours.
6:48 Haha they are not particular baptists, but they are specific ones! 😂
39:10
You're absolutely right, and you deserve to be critiqued. You won't find Strachan, Piper, Grudem, or Ware *ever* say the Father, Son, and Spirit are "separate beings." That is one of the worst straw man accusations I've ever heard, and it came from a supposed "scholar."
Are people who deny that baptism is for the remission of sins outside the Christian church? What is the historic Lutheran view on that question?
I've been discussing that with a few Lutherans and non-Lutherans under this video. The non-Lutherans I've talked to agree with Dr. Ortlund that there's some kinda relationship between baptism and the remission of sins. Just as the Supper apparently depends on the meaning of "is," so the Creed depends on the meaning of "for." So for baptists, any word can mean "represents" when they need it to. That last sentence was a strawman. I should be ashamed of my self.
The short answer? Yes because they deny the Nicene creed, which is our basic standard in determining who is a Christian and who is not.
My wife made a brilliant point, in Heaven men and women will be totally equal in every way, so the rules that apply to temporal human relationships won't apply then. Are we to say that Jesus will be submitting to the Father long after wives have ceased needing to submit to their husbands and husbands to their bosses and church leaders etc?
There is a podcast Lindsay did with Peter Boghossian and Coleman Hughes where they were all very dismissive of metaphysics.
There is a clip called Objections to Ontology & Metaphysics.
@@thursdaythursday5884 Thanks for that. Interesting that they basically say all philosophy should concern itself with is empiricism. I suppose we just stop at Locke and Decartes? Norm Macdonald once asked why scientists don’t try to verify the supernatural. That’s a very good question.
24:00
He's acting like EFS is trying to deny the Nicene Creed. No, we're not, and that's very uncharitable. We're explaining what it means to be "eternally begotten" or "eternally generated" in the framework of homoousios in the Nicene Creed. The eternal generation of the Son touches on the functional relationship of the Father and the Son.
I don't follow Grudem and Ware so I'm not sure all they say. My questions aren't related to gender issues.
My question is regarding the Son and Father's relationship to the one will of God. It seems to me those relationships have to be different. If the Son was sent into the world from His eternal state, wouldn't that have some impact on the relationship of the eternal Son to the will of God? I'm not saying the Son had a different will, but a will can come in different forms? As the Father was the generator, I assume the will came from Him as the source and the Son received that one will as part of His own essence, but nonetheless He received it. I think eternal generation leads us towards some kind of differences. What those differences are is the question. Not enough discussion on this aspect.
16:10, "The Father's essence as Father is that He has authority over the Son, and the Son's very essence as Son is that He is obedient to the Father. So, what is the essence of the Father? Authority. What is the essence of the Son? Submission."
Show me one quote from Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, John Piper, or Owen Strachan where they use the word "essence" to differentiate the Father and Son. You can't, because we who affirm EFS don't do that. We say the Father and Son (and the Spirit) have the same essence/ontology/being/nature as divine persons. That's why it's called "eternal *FUNCTIONAL* subordination." It's not an ontological submission, because the Son is ontologically equal with the Father. They both participate in the divine essence and have the same divine attributes that are divinity. Therefore, no, we don't teach the Father's essence is authority. We say the Father's role is authority. Unless you can provide a reputable quote to the contrary, this is a straw man.
I suppose that, my question would be, how does this discussion concerning the Trinity impact the practical layman Christian life?
It concerns whether said layman is actually a Christian or not. The belief in the Trinity and all the other articles of the Nicene Creed is what defines one as a Christian and, if you deviate from Nicene Christianity, then you are no longer Christian in any meaningful sense.
You might notice in another comment that sometimes people with a defective view of the Trinity teach things like praying only to the Father, and not the Son. Knowing how to pray, and that we can certainly pray to the Son, is very practical
It sounds as if the ESS advocates have made some serious missteps wrt creedal orthodoxy. Any concept of "submission" that requires a distinct divine will in the Son must be rejected, as must any theory that suggests the Father could work salvation (or exercise any kind of Providence) by Himself, apart from the Son and the Spirit.
However, I suspect some of the ESS position can be salvaged by beginning with the observation that the One Divine Will, shared perfectly by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is originally the _Father's_ will, just as the Divine _ousia_ is originally the Father's _ousia_ ("origin" being understood atemporally, of course). The Son is the Word of the Father, and not the other way around. The Father begets the Son, and not the other way around. it's not a coincidence that the Son _is sent_ to become a Man, and the Father _sends_; the roles could hardly be reversed.
I love the intellect you bring to the conversation. I wouldnt agree with all Grudems expressions but I don’t see how someone can get around the different actions preformed by the Members of the Trinity yet still having the same Will other than being able to differentiate between fuction and essence. The Son incarnated, the Father and Spirit did not. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit all agreed, without friction. The Father sent the Son and the Spirit powered His work. Yes the Son was incarnated at this point, but all of this was decided before the foundation of the world. The Father sent the Son and by being sent and listening to His Father, the Son functionally is submitting. Their Will is to send a savior, how the Trinitarian God brings that about is expressed specifically by the fuction of the Persons. I don’t have the intellect you do but I can’t understand how someone can hold to God having one Will yet have three Persons without making a functional distinction. The distinction can only be observed in submission in how the Persons take up the roles of completing the one Will
St Basil the Great's "On the Holy Spirit" addresses some of these questions in Scripture. It's not too long (especially compared to other patristic works)
43:00, "This is problem with social Trinitarianism. It divides that essence."
No. It. Does. Not. If you tried to substantiate that claim, you would crumble like a house of cards, because submission =/= different essence. He presupposes eternal relationships of submission and authority demands ontological differences, but it doesn't.
Lindsay has parroted Zizek's Trinitarian theology in the past for for shock value; which likely is a materialist appropriation of Hegel's trinity. His recent statement, unless I missed what you are actually talking about, was that the second person of the Trinity was meaning itself and claims that Christians don't understand the real Trinity like Lindsay does.
Since Lindsay is an atheist, he is probably trying to say that the second person is 'other' to the Father, probably for shock value. He might even be implying Christianity is responsible for modern leftism and Marxism because of Hegel's theology and maybe even German idealism in general.
Notice: there wasn't a single text exegeted in this video. Just "classical" this and "classical" that. If the Holy Spirit submits to the Son and the Father, then EFS is true. After all, if the Spirit submits, then there is submission relationally in the Godhead. You can't use the incarnation as a copout with His submission. Does the Spirit submit to the Father and Son? Yes.
John 16:13-14, "When the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak. He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you."
That is submission on display. The Spirit doesn't speak on His authority. He speaks on the Son's authority. The Spirit doesn't speak what He determines He should say. He speaks what the Son tells Him to say. That'd submission, plain and simple.
Likewise, there's the issue of the verb "pempō." Without exception, in the New Testament, when the subject of "pempō" is a person, and the object of "pempō" is a person, the subject is always in authority over the object. Jesus says multiple times in John 14-16 that He and the Father send the Spirit. Therefore, the Father and the Son have authority over the Spirit relationally. Saying there is authority and submission in the Trinity isn't heresy. If it is, then Jesus is a heretic for claiming to have authority over the Spirit. The Spirit submits to the Father and Son, and He doesn't have a human nature to which to appeal.
Can anyone who's watched this please let me know if Dr Cooper comments on 1 Corinthians 15:28 in this video? Thanks!
Lutheran commentaries tend to explain that Christ remains in the resurrected flesh fully our brother, and yet fully God. Co-equal in power, majesty, and all with the Father and the Spirit forever.
Haha they are not particular baptists, but they are specific ones! 😂 6:48
How do we understand the single will in light of Luke 22:42 - “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”
Does your "single will" mean the Son wills what the Father wills, or Christ has one will?
@@Mygoalwogel around 4:30, he quotes Grudem saying that the Trinity has "One will by which they wish." What is happening in Gethsemane when Christ seems to have a will separate from the Father?
@@jmr10276 In Christ, the human flesh's will that only cares about its own survival and pleasure is submitted to the Father. Christ can recognize and suffer the weakness of the flesh without sin or disobedience to the Father. Therefore he is able to redeem people of faith (who say, "Thy will be done.')
Idk who Paulson is but how does he mess up the doctrine of God?
I'd like to know, too. I did hear a podcast episode of his recently that sounded possibly panentheistic.
@@ChericeGraham EO are panentheistic but still I think they’re in orthodoxy.
7:30
You don't think Reformed Baptist churches are creedal? Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem and John Piper's churches/seminaries all affirm the Apostolic, Nicene, Athabaskan, and Chalcedonian creeds, so how can they not be creedal? Because they don't popishly recite them every Sunday? Especially us 1689 Baptists are creedal.
I dont think GrudeM is an enemy of liberalism. He is of the progressive strain, but anyone rejecting the tradition likely is coming from a liberal stance by necessity, as modernity is thoroughly infested with liberalism.
I used to hold a less Nicene orthodox view of the persons, partially influenced (as you said) how many say that "monogenes" has been mistranslated and should be translated as "Only", as in "Only Son".
Mormons (who I witness to often, since I'm an ex-Mormon and a Christian apologist now) will say, "You don't even think the Son is an actual Son of the Father." It really bothered me, because yeah, I thought the Father/Son relationship was more about love and intimacy (which is true). But now having a Nicene orthodox view of the Trinity, we can say that, *yes,* the Son *is* a Son to the Father because his nature is communicated to him by eternal generation. So they are a true Father and Son, but their paternity/filiation relationship is an eternal and internal one, whereas creatures have a temporal and external begetting of their children. There are other differences, obviously, but these are two big ones between how the Father begets the Son and a human father begets a human son.
Without that Nicene orthodox understanding, yes, "Father" and "Son" could easily be replaced by "Friend" and "Friend" or "Master" and "Protege" or something like that if all it is meant to evoke is intimacy, closeness, one representing the other, etc. But they are called Father and Son because that divine nature is communicated from the Father to the Son eternally.
That's beautiful. God bless your witness with patience and fruit in time.
When LDS approach me I usually say something I think is clever and snarky but is really just awkward. I'll occasionally show them a video about Joe and Brig's horrible racism, but that doesn't seem to phase them.
@@Mygoalwogel
Yeah, it can be hard to try to get through to them. The biggest thing is the vocabulary barrier. They use the same words with totally different meanings.
I am one of the co-hosts of "The Outer Brightness Podcast" and we seek to dialogue with LDS while also still being bold in witnessing the gospel and Christ to them. People who have never been LDS or who witness to LDS say they find the podcast helpful. We are both ex-LDS and talk about what it's like to be LDS, to question, and to leave the church. I recommend checking it out and maybe it can help if you bump into a Mormon missionary again someday.
May the Lord bless you on your journey.
@@daric_ Deal! You've got a new listener. I'll start at lunch break today.
@@Mygoalwogel
Thank you, you're awesome. :) We are on podcasts as well as on TH-cam (although I've been finishing my PhD so I'm a bit behind on uploading every episode to TH-cam XD)
The line for heresy is not found in any creed. You are a learned man, but in this, you greatly err.
The number one problem is not actually that Grudem is not Nicene. The number one problem is that he claims to be. One can simply read the creed of 325 and see the anathemas and realize he is not. But he knows this and still says he is. To sell books and keep influence. Otherwise, why would he bother lying about it?
45:45
He is expanding the truth of the singular will of God far beyond its intended meaning. The singular will of God pertains to the Trinity's absolute unity in purpose and intention. There are no competing desires or intentions in the Trinity, and thus there is one will. The perichoresis explains how this is possible. What the Father thinks, the Son and Spirit also agree on. What the Father feels, the Son and the Spirit also desire. What the Father wills, the Son and the Spirit also purpose to accomplish. Yes, there is one will of God.
However, if taken to the degree that this speaker takes it, he would have to be a modalist. When proving personhood, what must you establish a person is and possesses? A spiritual person with a heart, mind, and will. The Spirit has a will that determines what gifts people receive (1 Corinthians 12:8-10). The Son has a will that determined equality with the Father was not something you be grasped and chose to be incarnate (Philippians 2:6-10). The Father has a will that predestined everything that would take place in time, including the actions of the Son and the Spirit (Ephesians 1:11). The Son did not predestine. The Spirit did not incarnate. The Father does not bestow spiritual gifts. This simple truth requires that while they are perfectly unified in the singular will of God, each person has a distinct (not separate) will as a person. To say otherwise is to say the Father, Son, and Spirit are not three distinct persons. They would fail the personality test.
10:30
Did he really just equate being a continuationist with being a Pentecostal? Yikes.
At 47:00 mins Jesus raises his hand and says, “I know who I have chosen, John 13:18. If Jesus chooses, then Jesus predestines. Grudem likes to ignore this verse, along with Paul and James, “if the Lord wills.”
Jesus also told the disciples ''I chose you, you didn't choose me''.
I am going to make one silly quibble. You said the generation of the Son is an essential generation. I can tell from your context you are using essential as synonymous with necessary. However, technically, the generation of the Son is a necessary hypostatic attribute of the Father, not an essential attribute. If we were to make generation an essential attribute, then who does the Son generate, given he has the same essence of the Father?
Great explanation, but you haven't convinced me. It seems to me that you collapse divine personhood into the divine essence. A couple examples of the distinction of persons: 1) at min. 55 you read from Gerhard that the Son to the incarnation. Does not the consent of the Son imply a distinction of will between the Father and the Son? 2) How can you affirm that the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, without distinction of wills, or perhaps I should say a distinction of loves?
Finally, the position you describe on the immanent Trinity seems incompatible with the economic Trinity, where the distinction among persons is clearly evident. It seems to me that the God of the philosophers you have describe is a different being from the God described in Scripture. Thanks for your all your work.
When you reread your Bible using the interpretative method of the Nicene Orthodoxy (what the Son receives in time, he receives in his humanity what he possesses already as God) it clears a lot of this up. Regarding the specific distinction you are asking about, Luther’s late disputations from 1540s actually go deep in these things. Luther at that point in his life was teaching his students to defend the Trinity via disputations from Scripture, in response to people like Eck who were saying the Trinity could only be defended by the authority of the Church. But specifically you mentioned immanent Trinity. Luther deals with this in the “Major” disputation where he says it is an undisputed fact that God is the sole creator of all things outside of Himself, and the theses that follow. Each person is the entire divine essence-Chemnitz, the Two Natures
Ah yes, the gospel - "Repent and believe the creeds and you will be saved."
If only history and scripture had some examples of how man can put God in a box and care more about tradition than truth.
Just admit you do not worship the Trinity of Father, Son and Comforter, but the trinity of three co-eternal bros who is actually a "he" with three multiple personalities
21:30, "We can go to the fathers, you can go to medieval sources, you can go to the Reformers, the church historically has not held to this subordination idea."
Really? On top of Hilary and Gregory, whom I cited in another reply, these quotes sure seem to affirm EFS.
John Calvin (1509-1564), Institutes of the Christian Religion, volume 1, chapter 13, section 18, “It is not fitting to suppress the distinction that we observe to be expressed in Scripture. It is this: to the Father is attributed the beginning of activity and the fountain and wellspring of all things. To the Son is wisdom, counsel, and the ordered disposition of all things, but to the Spirit is assigned the power and efficacy of that activity. The observance of an order is not meaningless nor superfluous, when the Father is thought of first, then from Him the Son, and finally from both the Spirit.”
John Owen (1616-1683) - “John Owen and the Question of the Eternal Submission of the Son within the Ontological Trinity,” Westminster Theological Journal, volume 8, issue number 2, Fall 2018, page 301
John Gill's (1697-1771) commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3.
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), “Economy of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption,” from The Miscellanies, pages 833-1152, “That there is a subordination of the persons of the Trinity in their actings with respect to the creature [ad extra], that one acts from another and under another and with a dependence on another in their actings and particularly in what they act in the affairs of man’s redemption. So that the Father in that affair acts as the Head of the Trinity, and the Son under Him, and the Holy Spirit under them both. Tis very manifest that the persons of the Trinity are not inferior to one another in glory and excellency of nature. ... Though a subordination of the persons of the Trinity in their actings be not from any proper natural subjection one to another, and so must be conceived of as in some respect established by mutual free agreement, yet this agreement establishing this economy is not to be looked upon as merely arbitrary. Rather, there is a natural decency or fitness in that order and economy that is established. Tis fit that the order of acting of the persons of the Trinity should be agreeable to the order of subsisting, that as the Father is the first in the order of subsisting, so He should be first in the order of acting. Therefore, the persons of the Trinity all consent to this order and establish it by agreement, as they all naturally delight in what is in itself fit, suitable, and beautiful. Therefore, this order of economy of the Trinity with respect tot heir actions ad extra is to be conceived of as prior to the covenant of redemption. That the economy of the persons of the Trinity, establishing that order of their acting that is agreeable to the order of subsisting, is entlhihiirely diverse from the covenant of redemption and prior to it, not only appears from the nature of things, but appears evidently from Scripture.”
Charles Hodge (1797-1878), Systematic Theology, pages 460-462 “The Nicene doctrine includes the principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, but this subordination does not imply inferiority. The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation. The creeds are nothing more than well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit and their consequential perfect equality, and the subordination of the Son to the Father and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son as the mode of subsistence and operation. These are Scriptural facts to which the creeds in question add nothing, and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church universal.”
A. H. Strong (1836-1921), Systematic Theology, page 342, “The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office, and operation. The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority. The possibility of an order, which yet involves no inequality, may be illustrated by the relation between man and woman. In office, man is first and woman is second, but woman’s soul is worth as much as man’s. See 1 Corinthians 11:3).”
Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), Reformed Dogmatics, volume 1, page 43 “Although these three persons possess one and the same divine substance, Scripture nevertheless teaches that, concerning their personal existence, the Father is the first, the Son is the second, and the Holy Spirit is the third. There is, therefore, subordination as to personal manner of existence and manner of working, but no subordination regarding possession of the one divine substance.”
Louis Berkhof (1873-1957), Systematic Theology, pages 88-89, “The only subordination of which we can speak is a subordination in respect to order and relationship. Generation and procession take place within the divine being and imply a certain subordination as to the manner of personal subsistence, but not subordination as far as the possession of the divine essence is concerned. This ontological Trinity and its inherent order is the metaphysical basis of the economical Trinity.”
Carl Henry (1913-2003), God, Revelation, and Authority, volume 5, page 205, “The creeds speak of the subordination, distinction, and union of the three persons without implying inferiority of any. Since all three persons have a common divine essence, they affirm the Son’s subordination to the Father and the Spirit’s subordination to the Father and the Son. This subordination pertains to mode of subsistence and to mode of operations.”
Philosophy is worthless.
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(1Co 1:20-25 NKJ)
incarnatinal s0nship is heresy th0ugh
Is that a double negative? Ha ha ha
Let's face it! The Trinity doctrine since its inception into Christianity, is not void of multiple problems. Why? It is an invention, created by Greek philosophy and the Catholic Fathers.
Fake news
False, the doctrine is taught in the New Testament and has held by all Christians for 2000 years. Who is the first teacher of the 'anti Trinity' sect you belong to? Who baptized him? And who baptized him? Who can you trace your baptisms to, historically?
It's grounded in the Old Testament. Even Orthodox Jewish schoolers admit this
If you want to understand its Jewish roots you should read Angelmorphic Christology by Charles Gieschen. Beckwith and Heiser talk a fair bit about this but Heiser has said at one time that Gieschen’s work is about the best on this
I'm hearing a whole lot of "muh creeds!" in this response, but not a lot of dealing with the Biblical text. This is just a long-winded non-argument. Prove your view of the Trinity using the Biblical text and stop using tactics of social shame and labelling.
John 5, the Father works and the Son works
The Son does all things the Father does, and in the same way
The Son always does the will of the Father, and yet also gives life to whom he wills. This is unity of essence power will and operation. John 13:18 I know whom I have chosen, the Son predestines.
John 16:15 all that the Father has are mine
The glory I had with you John 17 and yet Isaiah “my glory I do not share with another”
Grudem denies predestination and providence to the Son but James 5 says “as the Lord wills” and Grudem uses Lord and God to drive a wedge between Father (God) and Son (Lord) therefore according to his own reasoning this passage in James is a proof text against his position. That’s all just for starters. The problem isn’t just that Grudem has a different view of the Trinity, the problem is that Grudem says his own view is Nicene. That is simply not true. He may have a type of Trinity in his view, and he might use the Bible to defend it, but what he is defending is not the same view as the authors of the Nicene Creed. The original Creed had a clause the anathematized anyone who said the Son was mutable. Grudem’s position requires the mutability of the Son. Therefore his position was anathematized at Nicea. That is a simple fact.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness Nicely put!
Nope. 1 Cor 15....Christ by His volution will subject Himself to the Father.
He subjects himself according to His humanity, for when did He become obedient? The Apostle tells us, phil 2, when He came to us. Keeping in mind as well, that all things the Son receives in time He receives as man what He already possessed as God. This is a foundational interpretative rule of the Church Fathers. In Daniel 7, the Son is given a kingdom. Throughout the passage, there is one kingdom, and sometimes the Son is mentioned as ruling, and also so it the Father. In 1 Timothy 6, God is referred to as the only potentate, the only King. Yet the Son is called King of kings and Lord of lords. There is one King, one monarchy, and that is the Trinity. Because of these two passages, Church Fathers refer to the Timothy passage as referring to the entire Godhead, the Father yes, but not to the exclusion of the Son or Spirit. Otherwise the Son could not be King of kings. Every Church Father I have read interprets 1Cor15 and referring to the Son according to His humanity. If someone wants to debate that point fine but then they shouldn’t call themselves Nicene when this is how the Nicene Fathers interpreted the text. But Grudem wants to call himself Nicene, because he knows if he can’t claim that his book sales and influence will disappear overnight. So now he tries to deceive people into thinking he is actually Nicene. This is the problem
EFS proponents need to catch up with the fourth century, we had these conversations 1700 years ago 🥱