I've found that very few people are familiar with inseparable operations and the idea of appropriation. I think most people (wrongly) interpret the Apostles Creed to teach that the Father alone is the creator, the Son alone is the redeemer, and the Spirit alone is the sanctifier. You are doing excellent work in teaching about this key doctrine.
I’ve really enjoyed the series. I think it would be beneficial to do a video responding to common claims by modern Unitarians like Dale Tuggy since it seems that movement has been growing.
Hey Dr. Cooper, love this series. I’m pretty much caught up on your Trinity series but I still have a few questions. Would you be able to respond via email?
Would you consider doing a short review of Gerrard Forde's book, Theology is for Proclamation. The reason I ask is thats its an assigned book at Concordia Seminary for first year students.
Of course it is not a objection to Christianity. It utterly destroys Augustinian Trinity theory which Dr. Cooper peddles. The idea that the Trinity is the One God is not what any Christian believed for the first 300 years. The One God is the Father, and His Son and Holy Spirit are each “God” in the sense of divine. Read any ante-nicene Christian like Irenaeus (Proof of Apostolic Preaching prs 4-7 and 47) and we get a totally logical and biblical model of the Trinity. Also read Dr. Beau Branson’s dissertation on how monarchical Trinitarianism solves the logical problem of the Trinity.
I heard in a video of yours (I don't remember which) that historically, the church has been neither dispensational nor covenant theology. That caught me by surprise since I thought we believed covenant theology of an old and new covenant? I'm guessing we do, but that's not all covenant theology entails, so what's the alternative to the other 2 that the church has historically believed?
So weird, I was just listening to a talk about Irenaeus and Tertullian last night, and the speaker talked about the economy of God and the relationship of the Trinity.
I believe in the Holy Trinity, but if the 3 persons have the same nature and all action are through one another, I don't understand what's the point of the Trinity.
Check out “monarchical trinitarianism” as described by Dr. Beau Branson. That is essentially what all Ante-Nicene Christians believed (see Irenaeus Proof of Apostolic Preaching Pts 4-7 and 47). There is no conflation of persons and the Father, Son, and Spirit are unique. It’s more biblical than this supposed “classical trinitarianism” which is not apostolic amd is actually a 4th century accretion.
@colinhamilton7365 False. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, 1 Timothy 2:5, and Ephesians 4:5-6 all unanimously refer to the Father as the One God. There is no reference to the Trinity, Christ, or the Holy Spirit as the One God among any Christian until the 4th Century. The “shema” spin you put on 1 Cor. has been refuted a dozen times since the Father is also called Lord, but Christ is never called the One God. And Genesis 19:24 proves there are two LORD’s, just as St. Justin Martyr taught in Dialogue with Trypho. So Jesus being YHWH does not make him the One God, it just means He bears His Father’s name as John 17 says.
@colinhamilton7365 I’m not any of those slanderous things. You are a Calvinist, aren’t you? Calvin sinners don’t get to pass judgment, they just need to repent. I already told you I believe the monarchical trinity model of the early church Dr. Beau Branson If you are right and the Trinity itself, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the One God in the Nicene Creed, then name one Christian up to 325 who said so. Or if they unanimously say the One God is the Father alone, will you change your mind?
Take my question with a grain of salt since I don't study these things: If God is omnipresent, and each person in the trinity never acts alone (undivided), then when Jesus was on earth, was the Father and the Spirit always with him in that physical space? Could they do something some other place, or not since Jesus was in a physical location?
ALL the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ (Colossians 2:9). The Godhead is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus says in John 14:10 that the Father dwelt in him and was the one doing his works. We also know Jesus cast out demons by the Holy Ghost (Matt 12:28) and that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him (Luke 4:18). So, while Jesus was specifically the Word incarnate (John 1:14), he was indeed the fulness of God bodily. People don't like to talk about this for some reason. As for your other question, Jesus enjoyed omnipresence in the incarnation according to John 3:13, where he says "the Son of Man which IS in heaven" (this statement is removed from modern Bibles but is found in the KJV). I came to the truth of the trinity years ago quite thankfully, but I'm sometimes vexed by the non-Biblical terms people use to describe it because it just brings up so much confusion (and maybe even a stumblingblock) to people. When someone hears "three persons", they think of three completely separate individuals with their own wills and personalities. This explicity IS NOT what the "three persons" of the trinity are. So why do we insist on using this language? I wish we could come up with something better to refer to the distinctions within the Godhead.
When you say that the Spirit doesn't send the Son, I don't think that is accurate. Augustine says: "Moreover, He could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit, not only because the Father, when He sent Him, that is, when He made Him of a woman, is certainly understood not to have so made Him without His own Spirit; but also because it is most plainly and expressly said in the Gospel in answer to the Virgin Mary, when she asked of the angel, 'How shall this be?' 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you.' ... In like manner, then, let him understand the incarnation and nativity of the Virgin, wherein the Son is understood as sent, to have been wrought by one and the same operation of the Father and of the Son indivisibly; the Holy Spirit certainly not being thence excluded" (De Trinitate, II, 5). Aquinas: "Thus if the sender be designated as the principle of the person sent, in this sense not each person sends, but that person only Who is the principle of that person who is sent; and thus the Son is sent only by the Father; and the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son. If, however, the person sending is understood as the principle of the effect implied in the mission, in that sense the whole Trinity sends the person sent." (Summa Theologica, I, q43, 8) I think it is more complicated than you made it sound.
Where I don’t think it is proper to use creator, redeemer, sustainer is when it is a substitute for father, son and Holy Spirit in the effort to get away from masculine language. My previous church wanted to do that, and I strongly objected.
Jesus and the Father were one in the same sense that the disciples were also 'one' in John 17:11, as in one mind. This does not infer that Jesus was of the same substance as God.
It's all wrong. The trinity doctrine is just a nonsensical invention nowhere suggested in the scriptures. Jesus Himself had NO IDEA of what a triune God is supposed to be because NO such triune God exists. Four gospels long Jesus crystal clear REITERATED to be with the FATHER ONLY: FATHER AND SON. Period. NOWHERE is Jesus with TWO other alleged persons. The trinity comes from a BLUNDER: since Jesus stated that the Holy Spirit is more important than Himself (see the two blasphemies) it was thought that the Holy Spirit be a THIRD divine person. But this is IMPOSSIBLE because Jesus is ONLY with the Father!!! Thus, a clever guy could figure out that the Holy Spirit MUST absolutely correspond to the Father once again ! Indeed "Holy Spirit" is just the name given by Jesus to the the Father WHO IS A SPIRIT. "Holy Father" (Spirit) or "Holy Spirit" are just EQUIVALENT names. In fact "God [the Father] is a spirit" (Jn. 4:23,24). Only that one SPIRIT exists, NOT TWO divine Spirits ! "Yet, I am not ALONE because the Father is with me". I.e. Jesus is only with that ONE Spirit, i.e. NO TRIUNE GOD exists. In other words you can identify the "SPIRIT OF GOD" - who is with Jesus - with GOD WHO IS A SPIRIT, no further divine person exists. This all means that ONLY TWO blasphemies can exist - as correctly stated by Jesus - not three!
@@paulvoit5610 Jesus had NO IDEA of what a trinity is supposed to be. I think Jesus is an important Witness, He should be part of that alleged (invented) trinity.
I've found that very few people are familiar with inseparable operations and the idea of appropriation. I think most people (wrongly) interpret the Apostles Creed to teach that the Father alone is the creator, the Son alone is the redeemer, and the Spirit alone is the sanctifier. You are doing excellent work in teaching about this key doctrine.
Just what I needed on this fine Saturday
I’ve really enjoyed the series. I think it would be beneficial to do a video responding to common claims by modern Unitarians like Dale Tuggy since it seems that movement has been growing.
What's a channel equivalent to yours but reformed?
Hey Dr. Cooper, love this series. I’m pretty much caught up on your Trinity series but I still have a few questions. Would you be able to respond via email?
I can only hear "economy" in Bill Weinrich's voice.
Have you read the book Perichoretic Salvation by James Gifford?
How is the idea that the Father cuts off the son or forsakes him during the cross consistent with Perichoresis?
Would you consider doing a short review of Gerrard Forde's book, Theology is for Proclamation. The reason I ask is thats its an assigned book at Concordia Seminary for first year students.
What are your thoughts on the so called "logical problem of the Trinity"? Do you think it's a good objection to Christianity?
Of course it is not a objection to Christianity. It utterly destroys Augustinian Trinity theory which Dr. Cooper peddles. The idea that the Trinity is the One God is not what any Christian believed for the first 300 years. The One God is the Father, and His Son and Holy Spirit are each “God” in the sense of divine. Read any ante-nicene Christian like Irenaeus (Proof of Apostolic Preaching prs 4-7 and 47) and we get a totally logical and biblical model of the Trinity. Also read Dr. Beau Branson’s dissertation on how monarchical Trinitarianism solves the logical problem of the Trinity.
I heard in a video of yours (I don't remember which) that historically, the church has been neither dispensational nor covenant theology. That caught me by surprise since I thought we believed covenant theology of an old and new covenant? I'm guessing we do, but that's not all covenant theology entails, so what's the alternative to the other 2 that the church has historically believed?
So weird, I was just listening to a talk about Irenaeus and Tertullian last night, and the speaker talked about the economy of God and the relationship of the Trinity.
Could you do a video on the alt right
I believe in the Holy Trinity, but if the 3 persons have the same nature and all action are through one another, I don't understand what's the point of the Trinity.
Check out “monarchical trinitarianism” as described by Dr. Beau Branson. That is essentially what all Ante-Nicene Christians believed (see Irenaeus Proof of Apostolic Preaching Pts 4-7 and 47). There is no conflation of persons and the Father, Son, and Spirit are unique. It’s more biblical than this supposed “classical trinitarianism” which is not apostolic amd is actually a 4th century accretion.
@colinhamilton7365
Do you look down on 325 Nicene Creed, which says the One God is the Father?
@colinhamilton7365
False. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, 1 Timothy 2:5, and Ephesians 4:5-6 all unanimously refer to the Father as the One God. There is no reference to the Trinity, Christ, or the Holy Spirit as the One God among any Christian until the 4th Century. The “shema” spin you put on 1 Cor. has been refuted a dozen times since the Father is also called Lord, but Christ is never called the One God. And Genesis 19:24 proves there are two LORD’s, just as St. Justin Martyr taught in Dialogue with Trypho. So Jesus being YHWH does not make him the One God, it just means He bears His Father’s name as John 17 says.
@colinhamilton7365
I’m not any of those slanderous things. You are a Calvinist, aren’t you? Calvin sinners don’t get to pass judgment, they just need to repent. I already told you I believe the monarchical trinity model of the early church Dr. Beau Branson If you are right and the Trinity itself, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the One God in the Nicene Creed, then name one Christian up to 325 who said so. Or if they unanimously say the One God is the Father alone, will you change your mind?
Take my question with a grain of salt since I don't study these things:
If God is omnipresent, and each person in the trinity never acts alone (undivided), then when Jesus was on earth, was the Father and the Spirit always with him in that physical space? Could they do something some other place, or not since Jesus was in a physical location?
ALL the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ (Colossians 2:9). The Godhead is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus says in John 14:10 that the Father dwelt in him and was the one doing his works. We also know Jesus cast out demons by the Holy Ghost (Matt 12:28) and that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him (Luke 4:18).
So, while Jesus was specifically the Word incarnate (John 1:14), he was indeed the fulness of God bodily. People don't like to talk about this for some reason. As for your other question, Jesus enjoyed omnipresence in the incarnation according to John 3:13, where he says "the Son of Man which IS in heaven" (this statement is removed from modern Bibles but is found in the KJV).
I came to the truth of the trinity years ago quite thankfully, but I'm sometimes vexed by the non-Biblical terms people use to describe it because it just brings up so much confusion (and maybe even a stumblingblock) to people. When someone hears "three persons", they think of three completely separate individuals with their own wills and personalities. This explicity IS NOT what the "three persons" of the trinity are. So why do we insist on using this language? I wish we could come up with something better to refer to the distinctions within the Godhead.
My doctor said I won’t need antibiotic for my perichoresis
When you say that the Spirit doesn't send the Son, I don't think that is accurate. Augustine says:
"Moreover, He could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit, not only because the Father, when He sent Him, that is, when He made Him of a woman, is certainly understood not to have so made Him without His own Spirit; but also because it is most plainly and expressly said in the Gospel in answer to the Virgin Mary, when she asked of the angel, 'How shall this be?' 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you.' ... In like manner, then, let him understand the incarnation and nativity of the Virgin, wherein the Son is understood as sent, to have been wrought by one and the same operation of the Father and of the Son indivisibly; the Holy Spirit certainly not being thence excluded" (De Trinitate, II, 5).
Aquinas: "Thus if the sender be designated as the principle of the person sent, in this sense not each person sends, but that person only Who is the principle of that person who is sent; and thus the Son is sent only by the Father; and the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son. If, however, the person sending is understood as the principle of the effect implied in the mission, in that sense the whole Trinity sends the person sent." (Summa Theologica, I, q43, 8)
I think it is more complicated than you made it sound.
Where I don’t think it is proper to use creator, redeemer, sustainer is when it is a substitute for father, son and Holy Spirit in the effort to get away from masculine language. My previous church wanted to do that, and I strongly objected.
Jesus and the Father were one in the same sense that the disciples were also 'one' in John 17:11, as in one mind. This does not infer that Jesus was of the same substance as God.
Most American preachers say the economy of God is unrestrained capitalism.
If the goal of a theologian is to draw from and clarify Scripture, Karl Barth was a miserable failure.
You clearly saw my video from yesterday and plagiarized
Wow, he's got a quick turn around doesn't he?
Sorry, Jesus isn’t God, nor equal to God. He called our God and Father his God and Father at John 20:17.
Paul gives Jesus the name, Yahweh, in Philippians.
It's all wrong. The trinity doctrine is just a nonsensical invention nowhere suggested in the scriptures. Jesus Himself had NO IDEA of what a triune God is supposed to be because NO such triune God exists. Four gospels long Jesus crystal clear REITERATED to be with the FATHER ONLY: FATHER AND SON. Period. NOWHERE is Jesus with TWO other alleged persons. The trinity comes from a BLUNDER: since Jesus stated that the Holy Spirit is more important than Himself (see the two blasphemies) it was thought that the Holy Spirit be a THIRD divine person. But this is IMPOSSIBLE because Jesus is ONLY with the Father!!! Thus, a clever guy could figure out that the Holy Spirit MUST absolutely correspond to the Father once again ! Indeed "Holy Spirit" is just the name given by Jesus to the the Father WHO IS A SPIRIT. "Holy Father" (Spirit) or "Holy Spirit" are just EQUIVALENT names. In fact "God [the Father] is a spirit" (Jn. 4:23,24). Only that one SPIRIT exists, NOT TWO divine Spirits !
"Yet, I am not ALONE because the Father is with me". I.e. Jesus is only with that ONE Spirit, i.e. NO TRIUNE GOD exists. In other words you can identify the "SPIRIT OF GOD" - who is with Jesus - with GOD WHO IS A SPIRIT, no further divine person exists. This all means that ONLY TWO blasphemies can exist - as correctly stated by Jesus - not three!
Yet the first video in the series definitively refuted your claims.
@@paulvoit5610
Jesus had NO IDEA of what a trinity is supposed to be. I think Jesus is an important Witness, He should be part of that alleged (invented) trinity.