This was a dynamite theological conversation about some core issues. Very fascinating and well worth the listen. Thanks to Credo Mag and the professors for putting this together.
Fantastic discussion by two of the clearest, most orthodox theologians of our day. This is a paramount topic and these two are excellent, insightful guides. I hope not only more of the Church at large comes to understand their message but also the influential Evangelical theologians of our time would, as well.
I truly appreciated this video-podcast on critiquing the social trinitarian model. I went to seminary (1999-2002) and was taught this construal of theology. It has taken me nearly a decade to see the weaknesses in the view. The last twenty minutes of the video was on point with regards to affirming the ontological equality of the Father, Son and Spirit. I truly enjoyed discussion about the need for us to retain the category of "mystery" in our worship and method of doing theology. Great video!
Good conversation, thanks. British Baptist theologian Dr Stephen R. Holmes has done some good work challenging the social trinitarian tendency which he had been taught.
This was the most helpful theological video I have heard on the topic of the Trinity! I keep hearing many things that I think just aren't right. Now, I know it is the Social Trinitarianism that is influencing much of modern evangelicalism and their approach to marriage, relationships, etc. We need to be Bereans! Also, great to put some faces with the names! I was thinking about purchasing both of their books. Now, I definitely am!
My sister recently read Moltmann and has taken it in full. She is attracted to the idea of the Father suffering, because otherwise to send the Son to suffer is divine child abuse, according to her. She has at the same time rejected any idea of the divine attributes as being mere abstractions.
I have two thoughts on the idea of the social Trinity. I read somewhere that personalism is the idea that personhood is the highest way of being. Add to that the recent trend of seeing the will as the most determinative aspect of personhood. For social trinitarians, then, the classical view that the divine persons have one will, makes them “less personal.” I do not think it does, but it may be one element in their view. The other is that those who think that classical theism makes God less approachable, need to consider Aquinas’s insistence that creation is not something that only happened in the past, but is here and now. We are constantly held in being by the creator God, and therefore He is always close to us and knows us intimately.
I have a question :) God is self-sufficient, not dependent on anything and anyone. How can we then say Jesus is God if he derived his essence from the father in eternity past? I know otherwise we would have three gods but I'm struggling to understand how I can say Jesus is God but his essence is dependent on the derivation from the father. I really appreciate any help!
really late response but typically the way that I have seen this type of question responded to is that although the Father is communicating the essence to the Son (and Spirit) this communication happens necessarily, meaning that the 3 in 1 existence is not from the Father's will and Him deciding to exist in Trinity but a necessity. Another helpful thing is that the Father's personal property is also inter-dependent upon communication to the other two members. because without communication he would not be the unbegotten begotter. Thus, although this explains the eternal relations of origin, the necessity of God existing in Trinity should safeguard the us from acting like any person of the Trinity does not fully possess the divine essence.
There are several assumptions here that are troubling: 1) Nicaea was the definitive statement on the nature of God for all times; 2) Theology on the whole is static. Augustine, the Cappadocians, the Victorines, Barth, etc, had nothing to say that added anything meaningful to theological thought; 3) Historic orthodoxy is understood exclusively as Nicaean thought? 4) I have yet to hear a definition of social trinitarianism. Carter and Barrett are simply continuing the devisive polemic of the far right. Barrett and Carter's arguments relating to their understanding of the liberal nature of speculative social Trinitarianism. I'm not sure that either of them understand the roots and nature of the very concept of social Trinitarianism, going back to the Augustine, the Cappadocians, John of Damascus, etc. They are using terms such as 'speculative', 'metaphysics', etc as negatives. Barrett even says metaphysics has no place in Trinitarian thinking. That is naive. I would assume then that he sees Athansius, Augustine, the Cappadocians as heretics?
This was a dynamite theological conversation about some core issues. Very fascinating and well worth the listen. Thanks to Credo Mag and the professors for putting this together.
Probably one of the most important theological discussion, I have heard in a very long time. Please make more videos together.
Fantastic discussion by two of the clearest, most orthodox theologians of our day. This is a paramount topic and these two are excellent, insightful guides. I hope not only more of the Church at large comes to understand their message but also the influential Evangelical theologians of our time would, as well.
I truly appreciated this video-podcast on critiquing the social trinitarian model. I went to seminary (1999-2002) and was taught this construal of theology. It has taken me nearly a decade to see the weaknesses in the view. The last twenty minutes of the video was on point with regards to affirming the ontological equality of the Father, Son and Spirit. I truly enjoyed discussion about the need for us to retain the category of "mystery" in our worship and method of doing theology. Great video!
Good conversation, thanks. British Baptist theologian Dr Stephen R. Holmes has done some good work challenging the social trinitarian tendency which he had been taught.
Very helpful and enlightenment.
This was the most helpful theological video I have heard on the topic of the Trinity! I keep hearing many things that I think just aren't right. Now, I know it is the Social Trinitarianism that is influencing much of modern evangelicalism and their approach to marriage, relationships, etc. We need to be Bereans!
Also, great to put some faces with the names! I was thinking about purchasing both of their books. Now, I definitely am!
My sister recently read Moltmann and has taken it in full. She is attracted to the idea of the Father suffering, because otherwise to send the Son to suffer is divine child abuse, according to her. She has at the same time rejected any idea of the divine attributes as being mere abstractions.
I have two thoughts on the idea of the social Trinity. I read somewhere that personalism is the idea that personhood is the highest way of being. Add to that the recent trend of seeing the will as the most determinative aspect of personhood. For social trinitarians, then, the classical view that the divine persons have one will, makes them “less personal.” I do not think it does, but it may be one element in their view. The other is that those who think that classical theism makes God less approachable, need to consider Aquinas’s insistence that creation is not something that only happened in the past, but is here and now. We are constantly held in being by the creator God, and therefore He is always close to us and knows us intimately.
Is Joel Beeke solid in this area of the Trinity? I just received his systematic theology
Really good discussion, look forward to more. Hoping I win the twitter book give-away ;)
I have a question :)
God is self-sufficient, not dependent on anything and anyone. How can we then say Jesus is God if he derived his essence from the father in eternity past? I know otherwise we would have three gods but I'm struggling to understand how I can say Jesus is God but his essence is dependent on the derivation from the father.
I really appreciate any help!
really late response but typically the way that I have seen this type of question responded to is that although the Father is communicating the essence to the Son (and Spirit) this communication happens necessarily, meaning that the 3 in 1 existence is not from the Father's will and Him deciding to exist in Trinity but a necessity. Another helpful thing is that the Father's personal property is also inter-dependent upon communication to the other two members. because without communication he would not be the unbegotten begotter. Thus, although this explains the eternal relations of origin, the necessity of God existing in Trinity should safeguard the us from acting like any person of the Trinity does not fully possess the divine essence.
Michael Horton or Herman Bavinck are great STs to read if my explanation is convoluted.
@@dmac1075 That was helpful!
Thank you a lot
@@mikeschmoll7762 thank you for your kind words. I am happy to have been able to help. I wondered the same thing not long ago.
Jesus is The Father.
What if Matthew Barrett hasn’t gone nearly far enough and is himself not yet authentically representing the Nicene Trinity?
To Craig Carter… Barth?! Seriously?
You can’t earn a PhD if you don’t read and interact with Barth. Barth has gone into the heads of many “Evangelical” scholars and academics.
There are several assumptions here that are troubling: 1) Nicaea was the definitive statement on the nature of God for all times; 2) Theology on the whole is static. Augustine, the Cappadocians, the Victorines, Barth, etc, had nothing to say that added anything meaningful to theological thought; 3) Historic orthodoxy is understood exclusively as Nicaean thought? 4) I have yet to hear a definition of social trinitarianism. Carter and Barrett are simply continuing the devisive polemic of the far right. Barrett and Carter's arguments relating to their understanding of the liberal nature of speculative social Trinitarianism. I'm not sure that either of them understand the roots and nature of the very concept of social Trinitarianism, going back to the Augustine, the Cappadocians, John of Damascus, etc. They are using terms such as 'speculative', 'metaphysics', etc as negatives. Barrett even says metaphysics has no place in Trinitarian thinking. That is naive. I would assume then that he sees Athansius, Augustine, the Cappadocians as heretics?