Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 4,516
Joined: April 2001
|
|
|
Forums30
Topics7,781
Posts54,881
Members974
|
Most Online732 Jan 15th, 2023
|
|
|
#52242
Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:39 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13
Needs to get a Life
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13 |
I hope this thread goes better than my last one on the Open Forum. I recently came across an article about a subject that to be honest I don't know a whole lot about. But recently found that I need to understand the matter better (long story). I would like to get some feedback from the following link, that I came across while researching the topic. Please try to refrain from commenting about the person who wrote the article, please. I am interested in the topic in question. http://www.dennyburk.com/a-brief-response-to-trueman-and-goligher/Tom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 485 Likes: 2
Addict
|
Addict
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 485 Likes: 2 |
This one is a bit over my head but if I reading it right it may be an overreaction by Trueman & ultimately much ado bout nothing. This is definitely Pilgrim territory in terms of clarification however.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13
Needs to get a Life
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13 |
This one is a bit over my head but if I reading it right it may be an overreaction by Trueman & ultimately much ado bout nothing. This is definitely Pilgrim territory in terms of clarification however. That is my take on it as well, hence why I thought I would give this one over to others who are a little more knowledgeable than I am. If this matter had not become personal (long story), I might be inclined not to put much effort into this one. I did find out that some claim the Eternal Subordination of the Son, was not held by the Reformers (egalitarians among this group). Yet those who believe in this teaching, say it was held by the Reformers. I have not had time to check into these claims however. Tom
Last edited by Tom; Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:12 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 485 Likes: 2
Addict
|
Addict
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 485 Likes: 2 |
Interesting, usually the concern is about the motivations of the perspective more than just the legitimacy of it.... but I'm still not sure I get it in this case....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Old Hand
|
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060 |
Good morning, Tom!
I'd love to read Truman and Goligher's stance on the Trinity that sparked this whole controversy. Can you direct me to the source of all this?
Thanks, Kim
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
Since God does not change, i.e., neither in His dealings with men nor and especially in His nature/essense, then it cannot be postulated that the Son was at one time not subordinate to the Father. EVERYTHING about God exists eternally, including His decrees.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
Hiya Kim!! Ditto on your question. It would be very interesting to actually read their argument for their position.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13
Needs to get a Life
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13 |
Good morning, Tom!
I'd love to read Truman and Goligher's stance on the Trinity that sparked this whole controversy. Can you direct me to the source of all this?
Thanks, Kim Kim In the opening sentence of the article I provided, if you click on the name Truman, I think you will find what you are looking for. But I have taken the liberty to copy the link for you. Would love some feedback on the article itself. http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/fahrenheit-381#.V137YLsrLIUTom
Last edited by Tom; Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,865
Permanent Resident
|
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,865 |
John Chaney
"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
John, Thanks for the link. I read through Trueman's article and found it quite good but wanting more. So, I found another article by Carl Trueman here: Continuing Down this Path, Complementarians Lose. This one really turns the lights on and explains in much better ways, IMO, than the first article what the issue is. I can summarize it simply, and I hope not too much so: 1. Historic creedal Christianity: God is one and three persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are eternally equal in essence, power and authority. This is a statement concerning the ontological/immanent Trinity, i.e., what is God in His very being. 2. Historic creedal Christianity also affirms that there is a "functional subordination" within the three equal persons. This statement concerns the "Economic Trinity", i.e., how God functions and the relationship between the three persons of the Godhead. Now, this new teaching, to which Trueman is criticizing, seems at best to be confusing the ontological Trinity; God as He is with the economic Trinity, and in the end destroys the very essense of God's essense. Again to put the matter as simply as I can, eternally God is one consisting of three persons who are eternally and infinitely equal in ALL things. There is NO subordination BY NATURE in the Trinity. This is what the Nicene, Anathanasian, and Chaldeconian creeds affirm and to which I personally embrace wholly. This other group is at least in danger of denying this truth and in doing so, whether they intend to or not, introduce inferiority/non-equality, within the Godhead. I suspect that those whom Trueman is taking to task would categorically deny this charge. But the issue is not their intention but the result of their teaching.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13
Needs to get a Life
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13 |
Pilgrim I am confused, are you saying you are agreeing or disagreeing with Trueman? Your next post seems to indicate you disagree with Trueman? Tom
Last edited by Tom; Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
Pilgrim I am confused, are you saying you are agreeing or disagreeing with Trueman? Your next post seems to indicate you disagree with Trueman? Tom I thought I wrote that I was in 100% agreement with Trueman regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, which as he wrote is found in the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds. I do not agree with the ontological subordination view, i.e., I disagree with the view that says there is a subordination of the Son to the Father inherent to His nature (ontological). But there is "functional subordination" by mutual agreement within the Godhead. Are you clear on that now?
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13
Needs to get a Life
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13 |
Pilgrim I am confused, are you saying you are agreeing or disagreeing with Trueman? Your next post seems to indicate you disagree with Trueman? Tom I thought I wrote that I was in 100% agreement with Trueman regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, which as he wrote is found in the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds. I do not agree with the ontological subordination view, i.e., I disagree with the view that says there is a subordination of the Son to the Father inherent to His nature (ontological). But there is "functional subordination" by mutual agreement within the Godhead. Are you clear on that now? Pilgrim Ok thank you for clearing this up. As you put it, that is actually my view as well. However, I must have missed the point that issue was about ontological subordination view. Perhaps I did this because when reading these kind of things, it stretches the grey matter in my brain. Tom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Old Hand
|
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060 |
Thanks for the link, John!
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Old Hand
|
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060 |
Thanks for the link, Pilgrim!
I've read through the various links and found that this sums it up for me:
"there is considerable damage done both to our understanding of the Trinity and also to our understanding of men and women and how we relate to each other. ESS has a trickle down effect on doctrine in many areas. Despite its claims to the contrary, it makes the Son inferior to the Father and misinterprets aspects of the work of redemption."
I think this gets down to why this is not just a friendly, in-house debate. It is a grave matter and one worthy of a vigorous public challenge.
(Also, am I correct in assuming that Big Eva is a term coined by Trueman to represent the New Calvinist's evangelical presence on the web?)
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
93
guests, and
10
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|