Yeah if I had to guesstimate exactly how much I understand what’s going on, and how much I feel like Dr. Cooper is speaking an entirely different language and I’m entirely lost…. It’s definitely me being lost 90% of the time. I need to up my studying!
Listening to theology while doing physics homework is multitasking at it’s absolutely finest. All jokes aside, this is very edifying. May God bless you for all that you do.
Inseparable operations follows from divine simplicity. Each person of the trinity is identical with the one divine act; there is no way to distinguish the (ad extra) act of the Father from the act of the Son or the act of the Spirit. The persons can only be distinguished by being on opposite ends of relations produced by the one divine act (begettor/begotten, source of procession/one who proceeds). But when it comes to something like "being the creator of the universe", there is no way to distinguish the divine persons.
Yeah def, but even those who don’t hold to a super strong view of divine simplicity should absolutely not deny the inseparable operations. To deny it, is to be a polytheist. Three separate actors = three beings = three gods
St. Ignatius of Loyola spoke of seeing a vision of the trinity in the form of "three keys on a keyboard", that being when "played" together they form chords or overtones in the world of events. I think is a really interesting way to seeing the trinity.
@@gunnerkobra if you have 3 keys, then you have 3 parts of God that are different from one another. Divine simplicity is the doctrine that says God is not made up of parts. The essence of God is 1 part. I hope that helps.
Fred Sanders has a great book called Fountain of Salvation: Trinity and Soteriology that dives into how the Father, Son, and Spirit all act in the divine economy with regards to soteriology. It's very helpful and has a lot of connections to inseparable operations.
Those who say that Calvin either denied or modified the doctrine of eternal generation are misreading him. If one reads his chapter on the Trinity in the Institutes straight through, it becomes clear that he did hold the historical, orthodox view of eternal generation. Now, there certainly have been reformed theologians who have not.
I'm a 1677/1689 confessional Baptist that has been appreciating the more recent retrieval of classical theism from church history among fellow confessional Baptists. But there's also been pushback from many other fellow confessional Baptists...and most of the arguments boil down to, "Aquinas was Catholic, why should we study him?" But many Reformed (and Baptists) taught this stuff, so I don't get why they're pushing back. I think they're terrified of a slippery slope to Rome...but it's an unreasonable fear.
It is not that unreasonable fear once a person realizes that many of the Baptist distinctive (especially their views on the sacraments) are unprecedented through church history. At this point, many skip to Rome or to the East due to a lack of familiarity with the confessional protestant traditions (both confessional Reformed, Baptists excluded, and especially confessional Lutheranism)
I am aware of the debate. But, I am still trying to discern the boundaries and players. It is very difficult to understand who is defending what. That said, I thought that classical theism was not identical with Thomistic theology. Did I miss something? Help, anyone?
I’m all for this, but just to make sure I understand… The Son died for our sins, not the Father or Holy Spirit. Could we say that they have distinct roles, while operating together in unity? Any help would be appreciated.
Great question. I'd like to hear the answer to this. In one of his previous videos he says something like, "whatever you do with the incarnation, the father cannot be incarnated or you become a modalist". So the father and the spirit were not incarnated, which means they didn't die for our sins. Atleast this is my understanding of the position. But I'd like to hear this explained in detail... Also keep in mind God never died, just the humanity of Christ died. But I get the question none the less...
@@honey2badger Precisely! Good point about the incarnation; that’s my line of thought as well. And yes, God can’t be killed. It was the human nature of Jesus who died. Jesus is fully God, fully man.
@zekdom Wait in another video, Dr. Cooper explained that it wasn't just the humanity of Christ that died, but his divinity in a mysterious sense as well. They "crucified the Lord of Glory"
They don’t have distinctive roles in the external operations. So it wasn’t only the Father talking when Jesus was baptized , but it was appropriated to the Father. Just like for instance the Father is said to be in heaven a lot of times in the new testament but that doesn’t mean that the Son isn’t in heaven during his incarnation, nor does it mean the Father was ONLY in heaven, God is omnipresent after all
Aseity via eternal generation, which Jesus claimed for Himself in John 5:26, and which although a mystery which finite minds cannot fully probe, is not a contradiction
@@victorbennett5414 My comment was not meant to deny His humanity in any way or the fact that He raises the dead as a man. However, He was saying more than just that in verse 26. I'd recommend reading Augustine on that passage.
@@victorbennett5414 Again, I agree that we need to know that He is God incarnate. The doctrine of eternal generation affirms that He has no beginning in His divinity. In fact, it protects that idea from heresies like Arianism.
@@victorbennett5414 It's analogy derived from Scripture, not univocal language. I think you'd benefit from reading the book Simply Trinity. If you want to say that the Word is eternal without being eternally generated, you're basically left with polytheism (although there can't be more than 1 Eternal, so really you'd have to say that the Father is not God and that the Spirit is not God).
32:14, "In some sense, every action of Jesus is an action of the Father." Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Patripassianism. Jesus voluntarily suffered. Apparently every action of Jesus is an action of the Father. Therefore, apparently the Father voluntarily suffered. That's Patripassianism folks. Reject this hyper-application and hyper-interpretation of inseparable operations.
@@victorbennett5414, Did the Father incarnate? Does the Son regenerate? Did the Holy Spirit predestine? You can say they exist simultaneously all you want, but if your answer to these questions is "Yes," "Yes," and, "Yes," then you're a modalist for all intents and purposes.
@@victorbennett5414, I'm asking about the persons. Saying, "God became man," is woefully insufficient if you're attempting to answer my questions. There is only one person who is truly God who also added a truly human nature. Did the person of the Father become incarnate? Does the person of the Son regenerate? Does the person of the Spirit predestine? No, no, and no. The Son alone incarnated. The Spirit alone regenerates. The Father alone predestined. There is no friction between them as they fulfill their roles, but there is no bleeding of one person to another in their roles. Otherwise, we turn into functional modalists.
30:15 Ironically, if Cooper was consistent with his interpretation of John 5:19, then he would have to say that Jesus died on the cross because the Father died on the cross. Clearly, Jesus isn't saying that He does what the Father does. Jesus does lots of things the Father doesn't do, including the incarnation and propitiation. Consequently, we must conclude that in John 5:19, Jesus has the Father's predestination in mind. This fits the context. The Father predestined and is providentially carrying out the predestined course of time in creation. The Son does what the Father predestined and providentially oversees, including the acts of the Son. That's what He means there. The Son can do nothing unless He sees the Father's predestined plan and providential outpouring of His will, including the Son's actions. It's the only way to avoid Patripassianism.
23:45, "Where one is, there the other two persons also are." If that's true, then what Jesus said in John 16:7 is absolutely backwards. "It is good that I go away, for if I do not go away, then the Helper will not come to you. However, if I go, then I will send Him to you." Perichoresis is true on a relational level, not on an experiential level. Jesus experientially left the disciples, and the Spirit experientially came to the disciples. Cooper is waaaay over-applying the perichoresis of the Trinity. That's not even delving into the fact that the Son sends the Spirit, which means the Son has authority over the Spirit, but let's deal with one error at a time.
Are not the other two Persons present in a very real and experiential way and not just in memory or influence? Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." John 14:23 "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." Because there is only one power and will in the ontological Trinity there can be no gradation of authority. It is better to use the language of "order of operations" rather than that of authority when speaking of the ontological Trinity.
@@304MTodd63, Of course they are present in a very real and experiential way since God is omnipresent. That's why Jesus can say "I am with you to the end of the age." But, we must say that there is a unique way in which only the Holy Spirit is present in us that does not apply to Father or Son. Otherwise, Jesus can't say, "It's good for Me to go away, for if I do not go away, then the Helper will not come to you. However, if I go, then I will send Him to you." This text is also relevant because the Son sends the Spirit (along with the Father). That verb "pempo" always denotes fucntion authority and submission in the New Testament when both the subject and the object are persons. No exceptions. The sender has authority over the sent. The Father sends the Son and the Spirit. Therefore, He has functional authority over both. The Father and the Son send the Spirit. Therefore, both have functional authority over Him. This is a fundamental argument to the position of eternal relationships of authority and submission (ERAS). I'd be curious to see how you would respond to this biblical argument.
@@joshpeterson2451 I have only a passing familiarity with biblical Greek but it seems that your definition of "pempo" is too narrow. In English we might say that Jack's friends sent him to the store to get more snacks before the big game. This does not indicate authority. So too in Luke 7:6 "Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent [pempo] friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof." Can we then not say that the Son sends the Spirit in a way somewhat similar to that in which the centurion sent his friends to Jesus?
@@304MTodd63, A simple word study would yield these results. 1. King Herod the Great sent the wise men (Matthew 2:8) 2. John the Baptist sent his disciples (Matthew 11:2; Luke 7:19) 3. King Herod Antipas sent his guards (Matthew 14:10) 4. A king sent his soldiers (Matthew 22:7) 5. Jesus sent demons into pigs (Mark 5:12) 6. God sent Elijah (Luke 4:26) 7. A centurion sent his friends (Luke 7:6, 10) 8. A master sent his slave to feed pigs (Luke 15:15) 9. Abraham was asked to send Lazarus to give the rich man water (Luke 16:24) 10. Abraham was asked to send Lazarus to the rich man's brothers (Luke 16:27) 11. The master sent his slaves and his son to the wicked tenants (Luke 20:11-13) 12. Priests and Levites were sent by the chief priests (John 1:22) 13. God sent John the Baptist (John 1:33) 14. God the Father sent Jesus (John 4:34; 5:23-24, 30, 37; 6:38-39, 44; 7:16, 18, 28, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29; 9:4; 12:44-45, 49; 13:16, 20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; Romans 8:3) 15. God the Father sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26) 16. God the Son sent the Holy Spirit (John 15:26; 16:7) 17. Jesus sent the Apostles (John 20:21) 18. Cornelius sent his men to Joppa (Acts 10:5, 32-33) 19. The Jerusalem Council sent Paul and Barnabas and other men to relay their canons (Acts 15:22, 25) 20. The Asiarchs sent messengers to Paul (Acts 19:31) 21. Paul sent a messenger to Ephesus for the elders to gather (Acts 20:17) 22. Claudius sent Paul to Felix (Acts 23:30) 23. Festus and Agrippa sent Paul to Rome (Acts 25:25, 27) 24. Paul sent Timothy (1 Corinthians 4:17) 25. Paul sent men to Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 9:3) 26. Paul sent Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21-22; Colossians 4:7-8) 27. Paul sent Timothy (Philippians 2:19, 23; 1 Thessalonians 3:2, 5) 28. Paul sent Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25; 28) 29. Paul sent Artemas (Titus 3:12) 30. The Caesar sent governors (1 Peter 2:14) 31. Jesus sent His angel (Revelation 22:16) Do you notice a trend? Without exception, in all the instances where "pempo" is used and when the subject and the object are both persons, the "sender" has authority over the "sent." Therefore, since the Father sent the Son, and since the Father and the Son sent the Spirit, we can deduce that there is a functional hierarchy in the Trinity. The Father has authority over the Son and the Spirit relationally, and the Son has authority over the Spirit relationally. How would you respond to this assertion?
The context of 1John 5:7 has been manipulated or inserted by translators trying to impose trinitarian doctrine onto those within the church. Prior and following verses are discussing Spirit, water and blood.
9:38 - "The Father did not become incarnate. The Spirit did not become incarnate. The _Son_ became incarnate."
When Jesus "came down from heaven," he either: -- literally and completely vacated heaven, or -- remained omnipotent in heaven while simultaneously dwelling on earth as "the man Christ Jesus."
If the former is true (which it's not), then Jesus temporarily ceased being "God." If the latter is true (which it is), then there's no need whatsoever for another redundantly omnipotent "God person" (let alone _two_ redundantly omnipotent God persons).
Jesus' Father isn't a different person than Jesus. Jesus' Father IS Jesus himself, in a different level of existence.
*Error:* Jesus Christ the Son of God was a genuine flesh-and-blood human within whom the invisible Father dwelt. *Truth:* Jesus Christ the Son of God _IS_ the invisible Father who - without leaving heaven - "came down from heaven" and manifested himself as a genuine flesh-and-blood human.
Trinitarian theologians stumble in there doctrine by attempting to comprehend something they also describe as incomprehensible and in doing so they cause others to stumble. God is outside of space and time, simultaneously entering into His creation in the form of the son. Ezekiel 36: 24-28 describes His spirit. There is no need for the hundreds of philosophical books trying to wrap their mind around the trinity. They are for those whose hunger is not filled by the word.
Yeah, the Holy Spirit is nowhere to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:45 and following. That interpretation was somewhere between piss and poor. The contrast is between the physical and the spiritual. There is nothing Trinitarian in this text.
The trinity is just a CONVENTIONAL DOCTRINE, invented in the fourth century, Jesus Himself had no idea of what a trinity is supposed to be! The doctrine is EXCEEDINGLY nonsensical and is nowhere in the bible (Jesus is NEVER with Father and Holy Spirit). For example here "NO MAN KNOWS, no, not the angels in heaven or THE SON, BUT THE FATHER ONLY knows." you can see that - contrary to the doctrine - neither the Son nor the alleged (non-existing) third person of the trinity IS ALMIGHTY. That doctrine is thus FALSE. The Truth simply is that JESUS IS ONLY WITH THE FATHER, WHO IS A SPIRIT ("God [the Father] is a spirit"). He is called "the Holy Spirit" (or "Holy Father") by Jesus. He is a kind of "REFLECTION" of the "normal" Father who is ABSENT: "No man has seen God at any time" "the world has not known you". Only Jesus DID it (only in the past). A "Reflection" means that NOBODY is actually here or in heaven, this is why Jesus is the ONLY KING OF HEAVEN. Thus, the Son does NOT sit next to God; He sits next to the "Power of God" because He hasn't got any OWN power.
Trinitarians really do not know what we modalist believe. They constantly misrepresent us. Dr Cooper are you interested in having a dialogue with a Modalist? These Trinitarians tend to selectively quote Church History and leave out lots of details.
If you don’t believe the entire Bible such as the KJV Bible as divine truth and you reject the Holy Trinity and baptism with the word and justification by faith alone then you will likely see Satan and Hades forever upon your death. You have been warned.
@@edwardluth7740 I believe the Bible that is why I reject the Trinity. No OT prophet taught it. Jesus and his Apostles did not teach it. The Trinity was only codified in the 4th Century. The 2nd Century Church was largely Monarchian in their theology. Read Tertullian. The Trinity of Tertullian is significantly differently from what is popular today because he had a significantly subordinated Son. Justin Martyr was SemiArian. He spoke about the Logos being a second God. What is the One verse that summarizes the doctrine of the Trinity especially the Western form? The eastern Trinity, in some sense keeps the scriptural focus of the One God being the Father. That I agree with.
@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts For now I am independent. I am pioneering a church in Beavercreek Ohio. I have Pentecostal roots. I was in an African Sister denomination to the US Assemblies of God.
Seminary-level discussion, online. We are blessed.
Yeah if I had to guesstimate exactly how much I understand what’s going on, and how much I feel like Dr. Cooper is speaking an entirely different language and I’m entirely lost…. It’s definitely me being lost 90% of the time. I need to up my studying!
Listening to theology while doing physics homework is multitasking at it’s absolutely finest.
All jokes aside, this is very edifying. May God bless you for all that you do.
I'm the same, brother! Just with Computer Science homework 🤣 and listening simultaneously.
I love how rewatchable Dr. Cooper’s content is, I can watch them over and over again years after they’ve come out and still get something out of it.
The intro music is so heartwarming
why is there no jacket, and where’s the real Jordan Cooper?!
I'm sorry to inform you that I do indeed have forearms.
@@DrJordanBCooper Noooo
😆 😆🤣😂😆😂😆😂
Inseparable operations follows from divine simplicity. Each person of the trinity is identical with the one divine act; there is no way to distinguish the (ad extra) act of the Father from the act of the Son or the act of the Spirit. The persons can only be distinguished by being on opposite ends of relations produced by the one divine act (begettor/begotten, source of procession/one who proceeds). But when it comes to something like "being the creator of the universe", there is no way to distinguish the divine persons.
Well-said!
Yeah def, but even those who don’t hold to a super strong view of divine simplicity should absolutely not deny the inseparable operations. To deny it, is to be a polytheist. Three separate actors = three beings = three gods
St. Ignatius of Loyola spoke of seeing a vision of the trinity in the form of "three keys on a keyboard", that being when "played" together they form chords or overtones in the world of events. I think is a really interesting way to seeing the trinity.
God is not made up of parts. Divine Simplicity.
@@honey2badger what
@@gunnerkobra if you have 3 keys, then you have 3 parts of God that are different from one another. Divine simplicity is the doctrine that says God is not made up of parts. The essence of God is 1 part. I hope that helps.
@@gunnerkobra but I do get what you analogy is supposed to mean. There just isn't a good analogy to explain God.
As usual for analogies for the Trinity, this analogy also mistakenly portrays the heresy of Tritheism rather than the actual trinity),
“ before Abraham was…I AM” too much for the human mind to comprehend.
Thank you very much. God bless you richly as He's always done.
Good discussion. Thank you for addressing the modalism point; it’s a significant part of the discussion
Fred Sanders has a great book called Fountain of Salvation: Trinity and Soteriology that dives into how the Father, Son, and Spirit all act in the divine economy with regards to soteriology. It's very helpful and has a lot of connections to inseparable operations.
The lack of jacket is really quite disturbing
It is a rarity, but there are days in the Summer when I don't where a jacket.
Good discussion. Thank you Dr. Cooper.
Excellent commentary on this topic. Thank you.
You perfectly answered my questions from your last video. Thanks so much!! Also, completely off topic: do you smoke (cigars/pipes)?
I don't. No nicotine or alcohol of any kind (Holy Communion being the exception).
@@DrJordanBCooper Totally respect that. Thanks for the response!
@@DrJordanBCooper a Lutheran that doesn't drink beer!?!?
Those who say that Calvin either denied or modified the doctrine of eternal generation are misreading him. If one reads his chapter on the Trinity in the Institutes straight through, it becomes clear that he did hold the historical, orthodox view of eternal generation. Now, there certainly have been reformed theologians who have not.
Then why is he attacking Lombard on the eternal generation of the Son at the end of his chapter about the Trinity in book 1 of the institutes?
Serious question as I try to understand this: How can the Son possess something that the Father and Spirit do not possess: namely, a human nature?
I'm a 1677/1689 confessional Baptist that has been appreciating the more recent retrieval of classical theism from church history among fellow confessional Baptists. But there's also been pushback from many other fellow confessional Baptists...and most of the arguments boil down to, "Aquinas was Catholic, why should we study him?" But many Reformed (and Baptists) taught this stuff, so I don't get why they're pushing back. I think they're terrified of a slippery slope to Rome...but it's an unreasonable fear.
It is not that unreasonable fear once a person realizes that many of the Baptist distinctive (especially their views on the sacraments) are unprecedented through church history.
At this point, many skip to Rome or to the East due to a lack of familiarity with the confessional protestant traditions (both confessional Reformed, Baptists excluded, and especially confessional Lutheranism)
I am aware of the debate. But, I am still trying to discern the boundaries and players. It is very difficult to understand who is defending what.
That said, I thought that classical theism was not identical with Thomistic theology. Did I miss something? Help, anyone?
Can you do a video on Calvin's view of eternal generation and whether or not it's heretical? Thanks
How does differ from reformed theology slogan opera trinitatis indivisa sunt aka the works of the Trinity are indivisible?
It doesn't, as it's an Augustinian principle rather than a strictly Reformed one.
I’m all for this, but just to make sure I understand… The Son died for our sins, not the Father or Holy Spirit.
Could we say that they have distinct roles, while operating together in unity?
Any help would be appreciated.
Great question. I'd like to hear the answer to this.
In one of his previous videos he says something like, "whatever you do with the incarnation, the father cannot be incarnated or you become a modalist".
So the father and the spirit were not incarnated, which means they didn't die for our sins. Atleast this is my understanding of the position. But I'd like to hear this explained in detail...
Also keep in mind God never died, just the humanity of Christ died. But I get the question none the less...
@@honey2badger Precisely! Good point about the incarnation; that’s my line of thought as well.
And yes, God can’t be killed. It was the human nature of Jesus who died. Jesus is fully God, fully man.
@zekdom Wait in another video, Dr. Cooper explained that it wasn't just the humanity of Christ that died, but his divinity in a mysterious sense as well. They "crucified the Lord of Glory"
They don’t have distinctive roles in the external operations. So it wasn’t only the Father talking when Jesus was baptized , but it was appropriated to the Father. Just like for instance the Father is said to be in heaven a lot of times in the new testament but that doesn’t mean that the Son isn’t in heaven during his incarnation, nor does it mean the Father was ONLY in heaven, God is omnipresent after all
Great video. Keep up the good work
What exactly is derivative aseity?
Aseity via eternal generation, which Jesus claimed for Himself in John 5:26, and which although a mystery which finite minds cannot fully probe, is not a contradiction
@@victorbennett5414 My comment was not meant to deny His humanity in any way or the fact that He raises the dead as a man. However, He was saying more than just that in verse 26. I'd recommend reading Augustine on that passage.
@@victorbennett5414 Again, I agree that we need to know that He is God incarnate. The doctrine of eternal generation affirms that He has no beginning in His divinity. In fact, it protects that idea from heresies like Arianism.
@@victorbennett5414 It's analogy derived from Scripture, not univocal language. I think you'd benefit from reading the book Simply Trinity. If you want to say that the Word is eternal without being eternally generated, you're basically left with polytheism (although there can't be more than 1 Eternal, so really you'd have to say that the Father is not God and that the Spirit is not God).
@@victorbennett5414 It sounds like you believe something very close to eternal generation. I think it may be only the language that's tripping you up.
Opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa, scilicet servata cuiusque personae proprietate.
Christ is the Father. Christ is not the Father. Both statements are true.
Is God a self contradiction?
Jesus himself said that the Father is greater than he is, thus Christ is not the Father.
Why is RUclips showing me this stuff? I'm an atheist and had points of contention most all this video through. Thanks RUclips for that...
Well, thanks for watching anyway!
Do you agree with the execution of those who believe in "modalism"?
32:14, "In some sense, every action of Jesus is an action of the Father."
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Patripassianism. Jesus voluntarily suffered. Apparently every action of Jesus is an action of the Father. Therefore, apparently the Father voluntarily suffered. That's Patripassianism folks. Reject this hyper-application and hyper-interpretation of inseparable operations.
@@victorbennett5414, I see modalism is alive and well to this day, unfortunately.
@@victorbennett5414,
Did the Father incarnate?
Does the Son regenerate?
Did the Holy Spirit predestine?
You can say they exist simultaneously all you want, but if your answer to these questions is "Yes," "Yes," and, "Yes," then you're a modalist for all intents and purposes.
@@victorbennett5414,
I'm asking about the persons. Saying, "God became man," is woefully insufficient if you're attempting to answer my questions. There is only one person who is truly God who also added a truly human nature. Did the person of the Father become incarnate? Does the person of the Son regenerate? Does the person of the Spirit predestine? No, no, and no. The Son alone incarnated. The Spirit alone regenerates. The Father alone predestined. There is no friction between them as they fulfill their roles, but there is no bleeding of one person to another in their roles. Otherwise, we turn into functional modalists.
30:15
Ironically, if Cooper was consistent with his interpretation of John 5:19, then he would have to say that Jesus died on the cross because the Father died on the cross. Clearly, Jesus isn't saying that He does what the Father does. Jesus does lots of things the Father doesn't do, including the incarnation and propitiation. Consequently, we must conclude that in John 5:19, Jesus has the Father's predestination in mind. This fits the context. The Father predestined and is providentially carrying out the predestined course of time in creation. The Son does what the Father predestined and providentially oversees, including the acts of the Son. That's what He means there. The Son can do nothing unless He sees the Father's predestined plan and providential outpouring of His will, including the Son's actions. It's the only way to avoid Patripassianism.
23:45, "Where one is, there the other two persons also are."
If that's true, then what Jesus said in John 16:7 is absolutely backwards. "It is good that I go away, for if I do not go away, then the Helper will not come to you. However, if I go, then I will send Him to you." Perichoresis is true on a relational level, not on an experiential level. Jesus experientially left the disciples, and the Spirit experientially came to the disciples. Cooper is waaaay over-applying the perichoresis of the Trinity.
That's not even delving into the fact that the Son sends the Spirit, which means the Son has authority over the Spirit, but let's deal with one error at a time.
Are not the other two Persons present in a very real and experiential way and not just in memory or influence?
Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
John 14:23 "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
Because there is only one power and will in the ontological Trinity there can be no gradation of authority. It is better to use the language of "order of operations" rather than that of authority when speaking of the ontological Trinity.
@@304MTodd63,
Of course they are present in a very real and experiential way since God is omnipresent. That's why Jesus can say "I am with you to the end of the age." But, we must say that there is a unique way in which only the Holy Spirit is present in us that does not apply to Father or Son. Otherwise, Jesus can't say, "It's good for Me to go away, for if I do not go away, then the Helper will not come to you. However, if I go, then I will send Him to you."
This text is also relevant because the Son sends the Spirit (along with the Father). That verb "pempo" always denotes fucntion authority and submission in the New Testament when both the subject and the object are persons. No exceptions. The sender has authority over the sent. The Father sends the Son and the Spirit. Therefore, He has functional authority over both. The Father and the Son send the Spirit. Therefore, both have functional authority over Him. This is a fundamental argument to the position of eternal relationships of authority and submission (ERAS). I'd be curious to see how you would respond to this biblical argument.
@@joshpeterson2451 I have only a passing familiarity with biblical Greek but it seems that your definition of "pempo" is too narrow. In English we might say that Jack's friends sent him to the store to get more snacks before the big game. This does not indicate authority. So too in Luke 7:6 "Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent [pempo] friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof." Can we then not say that the Son sends the Spirit in a way somewhat similar to that in which the centurion sent his friends to Jesus?
@@304MTodd63,
A simple word study would yield these results.
1. King Herod the Great sent the wise men (Matthew 2:8)
2. John the Baptist sent his disciples (Matthew 11:2; Luke 7:19)
3. King Herod Antipas sent his guards (Matthew 14:10)
4. A king sent his soldiers (Matthew 22:7)
5. Jesus sent demons into pigs (Mark 5:12)
6. God sent Elijah (Luke 4:26)
7. A centurion sent his friends (Luke 7:6, 10)
8. A master sent his slave to feed pigs (Luke 15:15)
9. Abraham was asked to send Lazarus to give the rich man water (Luke 16:24)
10. Abraham was asked to send Lazarus to the rich man's brothers (Luke 16:27)
11. The master sent his slaves and his son to the wicked tenants (Luke 20:11-13)
12. Priests and Levites were sent by the chief priests (John 1:22)
13. God sent John the Baptist (John 1:33)
14. God the Father sent Jesus (John 4:34; 5:23-24, 30, 37; 6:38-39, 44; 7:16, 18, 28, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29; 9:4; 12:44-45, 49; 13:16, 20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; Romans 8:3)
15. God the Father sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26)
16. God the Son sent the Holy Spirit (John 15:26; 16:7)
17. Jesus sent the Apostles (John 20:21)
18. Cornelius sent his men to Joppa (Acts 10:5, 32-33)
19. The Jerusalem Council sent Paul and Barnabas and other men to relay their canons (Acts 15:22, 25)
20. The Asiarchs sent messengers to Paul (Acts 19:31)
21. Paul sent a messenger to Ephesus for the elders to gather (Acts 20:17)
22. Claudius sent Paul to Felix (Acts 23:30)
23. Festus and Agrippa sent Paul to Rome (Acts 25:25, 27)
24. Paul sent Timothy (1 Corinthians 4:17)
25. Paul sent men to Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 9:3)
26. Paul sent Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21-22; Colossians 4:7-8)
27. Paul sent Timothy (Philippians 2:19, 23; 1 Thessalonians 3:2, 5)
28. Paul sent Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25; 28)
29. Paul sent Artemas (Titus 3:12)
30. The Caesar sent governors (1 Peter 2:14)
31. Jesus sent His angel (Revelation 22:16)
Do you notice a trend? Without exception, in all the instances where "pempo" is used and when the subject and the object are both persons, the "sender" has authority over the "sent." Therefore, since the Father sent the Son, and since the Father and the Son sent the Spirit, we can deduce that there is a functional hierarchy in the Trinity. The Father has authority over the Son and the Spirit relationally, and the Son has authority over the Spirit relationally. How would you respond to this assertion?
Can you show in scripture where it says it is a Christological heresy to say the Father became incarnate?
The context of 1John 5:7 has been manipulated or inserted by translators trying to impose trinitarian doctrine onto those within the church. Prior and following verses are discussing Spirit, water and blood.
9:38 - "The Father did not become incarnate. The Spirit did not become incarnate. The _Son_ became incarnate."
When Jesus "came down from heaven," he either:
-- literally and completely vacated heaven, or
-- remained omnipotent in heaven while simultaneously dwelling on earth as "the man Christ Jesus."
If the former is true (which it's not), then Jesus temporarily ceased being "God." If the latter is true (which it is), then there's no need whatsoever for another redundantly omnipotent "God person" (let alone _two_ redundantly omnipotent God persons).
Jesus' Father isn't a different person than Jesus. Jesus' Father IS Jesus himself, in a different level of existence.
*Error:* Jesus Christ the Son of God was a genuine flesh-and-blood human within whom the invisible Father dwelt.
*Truth:* Jesus Christ the Son of God _IS_ the invisible Father who - without leaving heaven - "came down from heaven" and manifested himself as a genuine flesh-and-blood human.
The Son is not the Father.
The resurrection of Christ is attributed to Him being without sin so death could not hold Him.
Trinitarian theologians stumble in there doctrine by attempting to comprehend something they also describe as incomprehensible and in doing so they cause others to stumble. God is outside of space and time, simultaneously entering into His creation in the form of the son. Ezekiel 36: 24-28 describes His spirit. There is no need for the hundreds of philosophical books trying to wrap their mind around the trinity. They are for those whose hunger is not filled by the word.
Yeah, the Holy Spirit is nowhere to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:45 and following. That interpretation was somewhere between piss and poor. The contrast is between the physical and the spiritual. There is nothing Trinitarian in this text.
The trinity is just a CONVENTIONAL DOCTRINE, invented in the fourth century, Jesus Himself had no idea of what a trinity is supposed to be! The doctrine is EXCEEDINGLY nonsensical and is nowhere in the bible (Jesus is NEVER with Father and Holy Spirit). For example here "NO MAN KNOWS, no, not the angels in heaven or THE SON, BUT THE FATHER ONLY knows." you can see that - contrary to the doctrine - neither the Son nor the alleged (non-existing) third person of the trinity IS ALMIGHTY. That doctrine is thus FALSE. The Truth simply is that JESUS IS ONLY WITH THE FATHER, WHO IS A SPIRIT ("God [the Father] is a spirit"). He is called "the Holy Spirit" (or "Holy Father") by Jesus. He is a kind of "REFLECTION" of the "normal" Father who is ABSENT: "No man has seen God at any time" "the world has not known you". Only Jesus DID it (only in the past). A "Reflection" means that NOBODY is actually here or in heaven, this is why Jesus is the ONLY KING OF HEAVEN. Thus, the Son does NOT sit next to God; He sits next to the "Power of God" because He hasn't got any OWN power.
Trinitarians really do not know what we modalist believe. They constantly misrepresent us. Dr Cooper are you interested in having a dialogue with a Modalist? These Trinitarians tend to selectively quote Church History and leave out lots of details.
If you don’t believe the entire Bible such as the KJV Bible as divine truth and you reject the Holy Trinity and baptism with the word and justification by faith alone then you will likely see Satan and Hades forever upon your death. You have been warned.
@@edwardluth7740 I believe the Bible that is why I reject the Trinity. No OT prophet taught it. Jesus and his Apostles did not teach it. The Trinity was only codified in the 4th Century. The 2nd Century Church was largely Monarchian in their theology. Read Tertullian. The Trinity of Tertullian is significantly differently from what is popular today because he had a significantly subordinated Son. Justin Martyr was SemiArian. He spoke about the Logos being a second God. What is the One verse that summarizes the doctrine of the Trinity especially the Western form? The eastern Trinity, in some sense keeps the scriptural focus of the One God being the Father. That I agree with.
@@samuellundin5328 You are a confused mess. Totally. Not worth arguing truth. Hell awaits.
@@samuellundin5328 Hi!
May I ask, what denomination do you belong to?
Thanks.
@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts For now I am independent. I am pioneering a church in Beavercreek Ohio. I have Pentecostal roots. I was in an African Sister denomination to the US Assemblies of God.