Pastor Cooper, I think it would be super helpful to do a “James White” style debate review of the Grudem and Ware debate on ESS. Play their presentations and then pause and interact. It’s a very fair and easy to follow format for those studying this issue
Loved the episode, but gotta say that my favorite part is the theological rabbit hole. I'd love to see more of those in the future, if that's possible. There's just something fun and engaging about watching someone become intrigued by a topic, and then discovering a whole new set of interesting stuff from it. Love the work!
Thank you for your commitment to studying to show yourself approved. Thank you for the gentleness and humility that you show. It’s a good example and an inspiration.
I know this is a bit off topic, but I would love for you to get in on the Church Fathers debate regarding Albrect and Horn vs Ortlund and Rogers regarding Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Purgatory, and icons.
One of the things I appreciate about the early church fathers is the caution they exercise when talking about the internal relations of the Trinity. About all they really say has to do with relations of origin. I think we run into trouble when we try to speculate about what goes on within the Trinity.
Yes -- I think part of the problem is that people see a tension between co-eternality on the one hand and procession on the other and decide that logically, there must be some form of "lesserness" in the Son if the Father is His fountain and source. But to do so breaks co-majesty and co-eternality, in the process.
@@vngelicath1580 Apart from my objection to Nikonite liturgical idolatry, you've highlighted a more pressing theological reason I can't consider Palamism as a whole. To have mixed feelings about the non-ecumenical nature of the filioque is one thing. I also agree with Pr. Will Weedon that "double-procession" is not part of the revelation. But when I bring up the fact that Luther and Lutherans have always stressed that the Holy Spirit proceeds *To Us* from the Son,* they even often object to that! *See _Luther's Two Catechisms Explained by Himself,_ John Nicholas Lenker
Ok cool. I listened to this whole thing and did not understand what His argument was while still catching the details. The fact he liked this comments tells me this was indeed his argument which now the details make sense!
Then why does Scripture use the verb "pempō" (a verb that always denotes authority and submission when the subject and object of the verb are persons) to describe the Father sending the Son and the Father and Son sending the Spirit? Why does Jesus say in John 16:13-14 that the Spirit will not speak on His own authority, but will only reveal what the Son tells Him to reveal? How is that not submission within the Trinity? Your tradition is talking.
Dr Cooper- the ess group cites Hilary in their favor, and Luther has a specific exegetical critique of those Hillary quotes, for that very reason, cited by Pieper, on page 392-393. I have seen Grudem, Ware and Strachan all throw up that Hilary quote. Amusingly enough, in his own time, the work they are quoting from (meant as a conciliatory statement) was rejected by both sides in its own time.
Dr. Cooper- Luther dealt with this actually! To look at his work Last Words of David, when he is interpreting “The God of Israel has talked to me, the Rock of Israel has spoken; He who rules justly over men” Also his George Major disputation and his Faber disputation deal with this to a fair degree as well. Luther in these disputations grounds God’s ad extra works here in His infinity and eternity. Also, his explanation for the one kingdom in the Last Words of David is the same explanation Ambrose gives in De Fide, book 3, I believe paragraph 30.
@@DrJordanBCooper just read Athanasius’s short treatment of Luke 10:22/Matthew 11:27, very relevant to this conversation. Sorry, not trying to bug you just happened to read it today and thought of this
Excellent vid. I have been following this issue for a number of years due to the whole biblical manhood proponents in our church who use this idea as a main support for male headship. Putting that issue aside, I worry about where this is leading ultimately. As you said for the church‘s view of the doctrine of God, but also what follows particularly in the area of relationships between men and women. I can accept complimentarianism even though on balance I favour egalitarianism ( based on my reading of the scriptures). However complimentarianism coupled with ESS leads to a different place.
very interesting. 1 Cor 15 isn't even about ESS. its fundamentally about the resurrection. the bit about authority is just for Paul to arrive at the final point that, "the final enemy is death." curious that some aside or meta-detail has spilled out into an entire discussion
All modern Trinitarian problems come from either: 1) Not having a proper conception of divine simplicity 2) Not recognizing that "homoousios" predication means there is numerically one divine essence When people treat the divine essence as a generic universal with 3 instances, you get all of these problems. Social "Trinitarians" don't understand the inseparable ad-extra operations because actions follow from will and will is grounded in nature. But if you have three instances of a common nature, then there will be the possibility of three wills - which is why they are in their current situation. I recommend anyone reading this to read Sacrae Theologiae Summa, the Catholic dogmatic manuals by Jesuit Thomists on the Trinity specifically, but on any topic regarding to theology.
The Son does the will of the Father simply to show that He has hypostatic origin from the Father. The Holy Spirit does the will of both the Father and the Son simply to show He has hypostatic origin from both. There is no greater or lesser in the Trinity.
We know that the Trinity has a single will (monothelitism) but we also know Christ has 2 wills (dyothelitism). Does anyone talk about how these can both be true?
I don't think it's so complicated. The Trinity has the unified will of God, and the person of Christ has that will. According to the human nature of Christ, the person of Christ also has a human will. The human nature is not confounded with the divine nature, so their respective wills are left unconfounded, thus the human will of Christ should not pose a problem for the unity of the divine will
Tertullian had some messed up view too, but he gave us the terminology and first defense of the Divine Trinity. We all have to approach the Scriptures with fear and trembling and pray for God’s wisdom.
49:30 He says "all" the Reformed Christians in the post-Reformation era rejected EFS theology. Really? On whose authority? What if I can provide exceptions? 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 to their 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 entirely 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.” This man pretend to be a scholar on this subject, but is not.
56:00 If it's impossible for there to submission within the Trinity because it would necessitate multiple wills, then there cannot be love within the Trinity, because it would necessitate multiple wills and hearts as well. How can the Father love the Son if the Father and Son share the same heart and will? This man would have to conclude that the persons of the Trinity do not love one another if he was consistent, but of course, that's absurd.
God is love, His essence is infinite, eternal. God’s knowledge of Himself is exhaustive, infinite, eternal. His “conception” or Word, of Himself, is perfect, and fully exhaustive, and more simply, so perfect, that His Word, is the essence, thus, God loves His essence, for it is most perfect. However, none of this language really cuts it, for God is most simple. But, Gods love is not defined by our experience of it. Rather, we only experience love, insomuch as we participate in God. Stop reading human categories into the being of God. That’s how all heretics are born.
Oh look, this video was supposedly going to address the biblical texts pertaining to EFS, and all we got was 5 minutes of interpreting 1 Corinthians 15:28, him ignoring the plain statement that the Son will be hupatassō to the Father for all eternity in His exaltation, a bunch of commentary reading (akin to throwing crap at the wall and hoping something sticks), and a bunch of philosophical rambling and factually incorrect statements. If this is the best the other side has to offer, then there isn't even a debate.
That is not at all the clear meaning of the text, unless your okay with the Logos as an ontologically inferior being. Which no Orthodox Christian has ever been okay with.
51:45 This man is doing nothing more than poisoning the well at this point. He's ignoring the many Calvinists (like Owen and Edwards) who taught EFS, and then has the audacity to say that if you affirm EFS, then you're an Arminian. Even worse, this intellectual suicide of a tirade took place in a video that supposedly was going to deal with biblical texts on the subject. What a shame.
@@rprestarri, Let's start with Jonathan Edwards. "Economy of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption," from "The Miscellanies," pages 833 and 1152, "That there is a subordination in the persons of the Trinity in their actings with respect to creatures, 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 excellence 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 to their 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 entirely diverse from the covenant of redemption and prior to it, not only appears from the nature of things, but appears evidently from Scripture."
This is an outrageous claim. If you read Matthew Barrett's book, he uses Owen scores of times as a source in arguing AGAINST EFS. John Owen most certainly did not believe it.
The garbled SDA nonsense of five generations is gradually washing out particularly with your words on the finished mediatorial work of Christ. I need to listen to this session again and again just to make sure.
Is there a limit to your view that someone can hold beliefs inconsistent with the Nicene Creed but still be a Christian because he doesn't realize he holds beliefs inconsistent with the Nicene Creed? Is anyone who sincerely claims to accept the Nicene Creed a Christian no matter how heretical his beliefs are in reality?
Good question. I'm not a called or ordained servant of the word, and I don't bring this up with sacrament-Arian family members because I'm a coward. But with people I don't love as well as I should, the conversation usually goes something like this. Q: Do you acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins? A: Yeah, I believe baptism represents the forgiveness of sins. Q: "Represents" is not from the Bible. Nor is it what the Creed says. Paul teaches, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of water with the word." Do you believe this? A: I already told you, Baptism represents the forgiveness of sins. Q: And Paul already told you, Baptism is the washing of water with the word. Christ cleanses you with his word. The word of Baptism is with the water. This is not symbolic or representational language. Why don't you believe what he said? A: I believe what he said, I just interpret it differently from you. Q: I do not interpret it at all. Paul speaks for himself. Why don't you believe what he said at face value? The conversation breaks down from here if it hasn't already. Therefore, I can't know if sacrament-Arians are Christian or not. I never get either affirmation or denial of the word of God from them. But I think we can't trust their confession of faith sufficiently to fellowship with them.
Obviously none of the proponents believe they are in any way opposing Nicene. The claim is that if the Son has a distinct will then He can not be of the same nature as the Father which EFS would obviously wonder what makes a person if not having a distinct will. Simply because the Son has a distinct will which makes Him a distinct person, it does not assume the wills of the Father and Son are different which no one is saying they are
@@chrismatthews1762 I respectfully disagree. I've seen church-body-wide doctrinal statement saying they do not necessarily affirm the historic creeds. Two "Christian" schools I interviewed at point blank asked me: "What's this about baptism in your faith statement?" "Well, I wouldn't insist on teaching the fullness of my Lutheran faith in Bible classes. I'd stick to simply what the Bible and the Creeds teach unequivocally." "The Apostles' Creed doesn't say anything about baptism." "I meant the Nicene Creed." "We don't use the cathlik creed." "Oh."
@@Mygoalwogel fair enough but what my point was that the EFS proponents don’t oppose even Nicea, they just oppose this pastor’s assumptions of what all Nicea entails
18:45 My goodness, this man is not an expositor. All he does is appeal to authority. He can't even interpret a text without first reading commentaries. Tell me you don't know what you're doing with the text without telling me you don't know what you're doing with the text.
@@j.harris83 As you know, I am Anglo-Catholic, but I find much agreement with, and much that is helpful in this Lutheran channel, as it is in line with Nicene Orthodoxy. I also appreciate the Trinitarian teaching of Reformed Forum, which features Orthodox Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. James Dolezal I think is a Reformed Baptist and good on divine simplicity.
That's ridiculous. The Son is begotten by the Father without being Subordinated to the Father. The reason He is "seated at the right hand of the Father" is not because He occupies a physical location that is "lower" than the Father, but indicates His status as eternally begotten "from" the Father whereas the Father is not begotten from the Son. No need for your apology.
@@radarashwood5397 Psalm 110:1 refers to Messiah which pertains to the incarnation of the Son who is fully sovereign and thus by joining his humanity to his divinity the Messiah ascends to reign on par (fully equal) with the Father since the Son is just as much Yahweh as the Father.
Lol okay so there is only one Kingdom and one Throne and one God. Nevermind what does it mean right hand when God is Spirit? Consider that. But Jesus is God Incarnate man at the right hand of God. He is our humanity lifted up on high, far above every other name that is named, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. But you want to say he’s only sorta king. Go you. That is not what the text is telling you.
Pastor Cooper, I think it would be super helpful to do a “James White” style debate review of the Grudem and Ware debate on ESS. Play their presentations and then pause and interact.
It’s a very fair and easy to follow format for those studying this issue
Loved the episode, but gotta say that my favorite part is the theological rabbit hole. I'd love to see more of those in the future, if that's possible. There's just something fun and engaging about watching someone become intrigued by a topic, and then discovering a whole new set of interesting stuff from it. Love the work!
Awesome! Merry Christmas and God's peace be with you.
Very interesting. Details and nuance concerning this subject is always appreciated.
Thank you for your commitment to studying to show yourself approved. Thank you for the gentleness and humility that you show. It’s a good example and an inspiration.
I know this is a bit off topic, but I would love for you to get in on the Church Fathers debate regarding Albrect and Horn vs Ortlund and Rogers regarding Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Purgatory, and icons.
One of the things I appreciate about the early church fathers is the caution they exercise when talking about the internal relations of the Trinity. About all they really say has to do with relations of origin. I think we run into trouble when we try to speculate about what goes on within the Trinity.
Please detail the biblical argument for divine simplicity! That would be massively helpful.
only according to the human nature of the Son is he subordinate to the father
Yes -- I think part of the problem is that people see a tension between co-eternality on the one hand and procession on the other and decide that logically, there must be some form of "lesserness" in the Son if the Father is His fountain and source.
But to do so breaks co-majesty and co-eternality, in the process.
@@vngelicath1580 Apart from my objection to Nikonite liturgical idolatry, you've highlighted a more pressing theological reason I can't consider Palamism as a whole. To have mixed feelings about the non-ecumenical nature of the filioque is one thing. I also agree with Pr. Will Weedon that "double-procession" is not part of the revelation. But when I bring up the fact that Luther and Lutherans have always stressed that the Holy Spirit proceeds *To Us* from the Son,* they even often object to that!
*See _Luther's Two Catechisms Explained by Himself,_ John Nicholas Lenker
Ok cool. I listened to this whole thing and did not understand what His argument was while still catching the details. The fact he liked this comments tells me this was indeed his argument which now the details make sense!
@@memesofconcord1 Of course he liked it. Your comment is precisely Line 33 of the Athanasian Creed.
Then why does Scripture use the verb "pempō" (a verb that always denotes authority and submission when the subject and object of the verb are persons) to describe the Father sending the Son and the Father and Son sending the Spirit? Why does Jesus say in John 16:13-14 that the Spirit will not speak on His own authority, but will only reveal what the Son tells Him to reveal? How is that not submission within the Trinity? Your tradition is talking.
Dr Cooper- the ess group cites Hilary in their favor, and Luther has a specific exegetical critique of those Hillary quotes, for that very reason, cited by Pieper, on page 392-393. I have seen Grudem, Ware and Strachan all throw up that Hilary quote. Amusingly enough, in his own time, the work they are quoting from (meant as a conciliatory statement) was rejected by both sides in its own time.
Dr. Cooper- Luther dealt with this actually! To look at his work Last Words of David, when he is interpreting “The God of Israel has talked to me, the Rock of Israel has spoken; He who rules justly over men”
Also his George Major disputation and his Faber disputation deal with this to a fair degree as well. Luther in these disputations grounds God’s ad extra works here in His infinity and eternity. Also, his explanation for the one kingdom in the Last Words of David is the same explanation Ambrose gives in De Fide, book 3, I believe paragraph 30.
Oh thanks! I'll give that a read.
@@DrJordanBCooper just read Athanasius’s short treatment of Luke 10:22/Matthew 11:27, very relevant to this conversation. Sorry, not trying to bug you just happened to read it today and thought of this
Excellent vid. I have been following this issue for a number of years due to the whole biblical manhood proponents in our church who use this idea as a main support for male headship. Putting that issue aside, I worry about where this is leading ultimately. As you said for the church‘s view of the doctrine of God, but also what follows particularly in the area of relationships between men and women. I can accept complimentarianism even though on balance I favour egalitarianism ( based on my reading of the scriptures). However complimentarianism coupled with ESS leads to a different place.
very interesting.
1 Cor 15 isn't even about ESS. its fundamentally about the resurrection. the bit about authority is just for Paul to arrive at the final point that, "the final enemy is death." curious that some aside or meta-detail has spilled out into an entire discussion
Are you sure this is not completely ignoring what is actually plainly stated by Paul with an appeal to “a greater context”?
The Son being hupatassō to the Father for all eternity in His exaltation is very much related to ESS.
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.
We'll never know, because he's incapable of interpreting texts without rambling about church history and philosophy.
All modern Trinitarian problems come from either:
1) Not having a proper conception of divine simplicity
2) Not recognizing that "homoousios" predication means there is numerically one divine essence
When people treat the divine essence as a generic universal with 3 instances, you get all of these problems. Social "Trinitarians" don't understand the inseparable ad-extra operations because actions follow from will and will is grounded in nature. But if you have three instances of a common nature, then there will be the possibility of three wills - which is why they are in their current situation. I recommend anyone reading this to read Sacrae Theologiae Summa, the Catholic dogmatic manuals by Jesuit Thomists on the Trinity specifically, but on any topic regarding to theology.
@Dustin Neely You are wrong
The communication of will and authority in the economy reflects the immanent eternal communication of the numerically one divine essence.
The Son does the will of the Father simply to show that He has hypostatic origin from the Father. The Holy Spirit does the will of both the Father and the Son simply to show He has hypostatic origin from both. There is no greater or lesser in the Trinity.
Great video! Could you make a video on Jesus in the Old Testament and who the Son is?
We know that the Trinity has a single will (monothelitism) but we also know Christ has 2 wills (dyothelitism). Does anyone talk about how these can both be true?
I don't think it's so complicated. The Trinity has the unified will of God, and the person of Christ has that will. According to the human nature of Christ, the person of Christ also has a human will. The human nature is not confounded with the divine nature, so their respective wills are left unconfounded, thus the human will of Christ should not pose a problem for the unity of the divine will
Tertullian had some messed up view too, but he gave us the terminology and first defense of the Divine Trinity. We all have to approach the Scriptures with fear and trembling and pray for God’s wisdom.
49:30
He says "all" the Reformed Christians in the post-Reformation era rejected EFS theology. Really? On whose authority? What if I can provide exceptions?
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 to their 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 entirely 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.”
This man pretend to be a scholar on this subject, but is not.
Clear misunderstanding of “Ad extra” “Ad intra” distinctions, as well as the economic operation of the Trinity and the ontological Trinity.
56:00
If it's impossible for there to submission within the Trinity because it would necessitate multiple wills, then there cannot be love within the Trinity, because it would necessitate multiple wills and hearts as well. How can the Father love the Son if the Father and Son share the same heart and will? This man would have to conclude that the persons of the Trinity do not love one another if he was consistent, but of course, that's absurd.
That does not follow. Why would we define love based off how we experience it, then read our nature back into God’s?
God is love, His essence is infinite, eternal. God’s knowledge of Himself is exhaustive, infinite, eternal. His “conception” or Word, of Himself, is perfect, and fully exhaustive, and more simply, so perfect, that His Word, is the essence, thus, God loves His essence, for it is most perfect.
However, none of this language really cuts it, for God is most simple.
But, Gods love is not defined by our experience of it. Rather, we only experience love, insomuch as we participate in God.
Stop reading human categories into the being of God. That’s how all heretics are born.
This sounds like a basic confusion between the economic Trinity and the eternal Trinity. And it’s based on a bizarre way of reading 1 Corinthians 15.
Oh look, this video was supposedly going to address the biblical texts pertaining to EFS, and all we got was 5 minutes of interpreting 1 Corinthians 15:28, him ignoring the plain statement that the Son will be hupatassō to the Father for all eternity in His exaltation, a bunch of commentary reading (akin to throwing crap at the wall and hoping something sticks), and a bunch of philosophical rambling and factually incorrect statements. If this is the best the other side has to offer, then there isn't even a debate.
That is not at all the clear meaning of the text, unless your okay with the Logos as an ontologically inferior being. Which no Orthodox Christian has ever been okay with.
@@rprestarri y0u assume t0 submit s0me0ne must be inferi0r and 0r that 'Christin His humanity must submit
@@villain2374 Your point is confusing? Could you express it in another way to help me understand what your saying?
What did you think of Mark Jones devotional God Is (if you read it)
Sorry, I haven't read it.
Wow! ESS germinates from Arminianism. Interesting. A complex lecture, but I did listen to it all the way through.
Except for Owen, Edwards, Hodge, Strong, Vos, and even Calvin himself 🤷♂️
💗💗💗
You need to link some good books on the topic.
Detailing, or... Derailing? ;)
A real Ecclesiastes 1:18 situation here
Strachan is a Scottish name and the ch is pronounced as in loch.
The Remonstrants aren't really a good example of Arminianism since they went into heterodoxy right after Arminius.
51:45
This man is doing nothing more than poisoning the well at this point. He's ignoring the many Calvinists (like Owen and Edwards) who taught EFS, and then has the audacity to say that if you affirm EFS, then you're an Arminian. Even worse, this intellectual suicide of a tirade took place in a video that supposedly was going to deal with biblical texts on the subject. What a shame.
Owen and Edwards did not teach EFS.
That’s a crazy assertion. Provide proof for this claim sir.
@@rprestarri,
Let's start with Jonathan Edwards. "Economy of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption," from "The Miscellanies," pages 833 and 1152, "That there is a subordination in the persons of the Trinity in their actings with respect to creatures, 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 excellence 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 to their 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 entirely diverse from the covenant of redemption and prior to it, not only appears from the nature of things, but appears evidently from Scripture."
This is an outrageous claim. If you read Matthew Barrett's book, he uses Owen scores of times as a source in arguing AGAINST EFS. John Owen most certainly did not believe it.
The garbled SDA nonsense of five generations is gradually washing out particularly with your words on the finished mediatorial work of Christ. I need to listen to this session again and again just to make sure.
Is there a limit to your view that someone can hold beliefs inconsistent with the Nicene Creed but still be a Christian because he doesn't realize he holds beliefs inconsistent with the Nicene Creed? Is anyone who sincerely claims to accept the Nicene Creed a Christian no matter how heretical his beliefs are in reality?
Good question. I'm not a called or ordained servant of the word, and I don't bring this up with sacrament-Arian family members because I'm a coward. But with people I don't love as well as I should, the conversation usually goes something like this.
Q: Do you acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins?
A: Yeah, I believe baptism represents the forgiveness of sins.
Q: "Represents" is not from the Bible. Nor is it what the Creed says. Paul teaches, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of water with the word." Do you believe this?
A: I already told you, Baptism represents the forgiveness of sins.
Q: And Paul already told you, Baptism is the washing of water with the word. Christ cleanses you with his word. The word of Baptism is with the water. This is not symbolic or representational language. Why don't you believe what he said?
A: I believe what he said, I just interpret it differently from you.
Q: I do not interpret it at all. Paul speaks for himself. Why don't you believe what he said at face value?
The conversation breaks down from here if it hasn't already. Therefore, I can't know if sacrament-Arians are Christian or not. I never get either affirmation or denial of the word of God from them. But I think we can't trust their confession of faith sufficiently to fellowship with them.
Obviously none of the proponents believe they are in any way opposing Nicene. The claim is that if the Son has a distinct will then He can not be of the same nature as the Father which EFS would obviously wonder what makes a person if not having a distinct will. Simply because the Son has a distinct will which makes Him a distinct person, it does not assume the wills of the Father and Son are different which no one is saying they are
@@chrismatthews1762 I respectfully disagree. I've seen church-body-wide doctrinal statement saying they do not necessarily affirm the historic creeds. Two "Christian" schools I interviewed at point blank asked me:
"What's this about baptism in your faith statement?"
"Well, I wouldn't insist on teaching the fullness of my Lutheran faith in Bible classes. I'd stick to simply what the Bible and the Creeds teach unequivocally."
"The Apostles' Creed doesn't say anything about baptism."
"I meant the Nicene Creed."
"We don't use the cathlik creed."
"Oh."
@@Mygoalwogel fair enough but what my point was that the EFS proponents don’t oppose even Nicea, they just oppose this pastor’s assumptions of what all Nicea entails
More specifically, Nicea doesn’t say anything about whether the persons of the Trinity have distinct wills or not
18:45
My goodness, this man is not an expositor. All he does is appeal to authority. He can't even interpret a text without first reading commentaries. Tell me you don't know what you're doing with the text without telling me you don't know what you're doing with the text.
It’s you and your Bible under the tree then. I think we have found the problem in your Theology.
Discussions like this always leave me wondering if my lack of smartness and cleverness are a defense against inadvertently drifting into Heresy.😳🤔
First
Hi Jacob!
@@anselman3156 Hi… what are you doing here?
@@j.harris83 I come here often, though I don't often comment. Dr Cooper is very impressive. Good to see you're benefitting from him.
I was raised Lutheran… sadly it was ELCA, and the only people trying to answer my questions as a young man was the reformed Baptists.
@@j.harris83 As you know, I am Anglo-Catholic, but I find much agreement with, and much that is helpful in this Lutheran channel, as it is in line with Nicene Orthodoxy. I also appreciate the Trinitarian teaching of Reformed Forum, which features Orthodox Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. James Dolezal I think is a Reformed Baptist and good on divine simplicity.
I'm sorry, the Son is seated at the right hand of the Father. No other way to look at this without conceding to a form of Subordination.
That's ridiculous. The Son is begotten by the Father without being Subordinated to the Father. The reason He is "seated at the right hand of the Father" is not because He occupies a physical location that is "lower" than the Father, but indicates His status as eternally begotten "from" the Father whereas the Father is not begotten from the Son. No need for your apology.
@sando The expression “at the right hand” is in biblical terms a symbol of co-regency, not subordination.
@@markolivero3901 No, it’s not not just that. There is clearly an element of subordination.
Psalm 110:1 and Mark 10:37
@@radarashwood5397 Psalm 110:1 refers to Messiah which pertains to the incarnation of the Son who is fully sovereign and thus by joining his humanity to his divinity the Messiah ascends to reign on par (fully equal) with the Father since the Son is just as much Yahweh as the Father.
Lol okay so there is only one Kingdom and one Throne and one God. Nevermind what does it mean right hand when God is Spirit? Consider that.
But Jesus is God Incarnate man at the right hand of God. He is our humanity lifted up on high, far above every other name that is named, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
But you want to say he’s only sorta king. Go you. That is not what the text is telling you.