Jimmy Clifton Gives Away Doctorates!

..............................

That's a good point.

if by biblical phrases we can include both what protestants call the Old testament and the New then we have some interesting phrases to deal with indeed.

For example, the Biblical record says there is only one God, none besides , whose personal , covenental name is Yahweh. It says that God is Creator , Savior, and Judge . It says this God is eternal and omnipotent. This is Hebrew thought. The first commandment is to worship only God.

But then the Biblical record ascribes also to Christ these same exact names, titles, attributes ,and works, and worship while coincidently establishing a relationship between the Son and the Father. The Spirit is treated similarily. Three called God but only one God to some effect trinal doctrine.

Of course these Persons are furthermore connected in various Biblical phrasings as " baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19), or "the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."(2 Corinthians 13:14)

I would suppose that were Christ not as well God then the Biblical phrases would not speak of baptizing in His name or refer to Him as the author of grace! Sounds funny to say "baptize in the Father and Moses' name" or grace from an angel!

Were Christ not to be taken as God the I wonder how John , the Jewish apostle would record such words as "my Lord and my God" being addressed to Christ (John 20:28) or say the Word who became flesh (1:14) was, indeed, God (1:1).

In Isaiah chapters 44 - 47 we read "I am the Lord, there is no other, apart from me there is no God...I am God, there is no other, I am God, there is none like me..Israel's King, Israel's savior, Creator of Heaven and earth, there is none besides me!" In 42:8 God says, 'I will not give my glory to another." But clearly the NT gives exceedingly divine glory to Christ!! Bill, reading in Hebrews one and Colossians one, it is the Son who"is God and Lord and in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the work of his hands..all things were created by Him and for Him and He is before all things and He 'holds all things together' and saves by his blood." This is ascribing God's glory, which He says will not by him be done, to the Son.

Such data as these lead Conservatives to the doctrine that as to essence God is one but as to subsistences God is three. He is three in a different way than he is one...a tri unity.

This is my opinion, but of course those who disagree as Unitarians (eg I've read Channing) or Mormons, or Jehovah witnesses have their own reasons for their interpretations and have the right to these.

 

Bill,

You did not come off as combative at all.

Now to your statements/questions.

Your post indicated that your opinion was that Grudem supported *ontological subordination*. He actually does not. He calls *ontological subordination* an erroneous teaching. Grudem believes in *ontological equality* but *economic subordination*. Equal in being but subordinate in roles (without it there would be inherent problems with the Trinity and the way the persons relate). This perspective has the Father/Son/Spirit as equal in deity, personhood and importance (but role subordination). Ontological equality but economic subordination is supported in the Nicene Creed of AD 325.

As to the issue of scholarship & monogenes.....unfortunately Grudem just asserts "But linguistic study in the twentieth century has shown that the second half of the word is actually related to the word genos, meaning class or kind. Thus the word means one of a kind or unique son (see Heb 11:17, where Isaac is Abraham's mongenes even though he is not an only child)". No ref is given for the 20th Century linguistic study (would be helpful).

North

 

Hi North

Thanks. I don't think you understand me, my fault.

Bill

 

Maybe I do not.

Here is your statement:

***Bill: "In my opinion such as Shedd, Grudem, Arminius, Berkoff, and Strong, and, of course all systems which require the Father to be source or monarchy of the Trinity ,as Tertullian's, advocate ontological subordination. "

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

My reply:

"Your post indicated that your opinion was that Grudem supported *ontological subordination*. He actually does not. He calls *ontological subordination* an erroneous teaching. Grudem believes in *ontological equality* but *economic subordination*. Equal in being but subordinate in roles (without it there would be inherent problems with the Trinity and the way the persons relate). This perspective has the Father/Son/Spirit as equal in deity, personhood and importance (but role subordination). Ontological equality but economic subordination is supported in the Nicene Creed of AD 325."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

***Bill:

"What 20th century scholarship?

What discovery of the 20th century was this , what new evidence occasioned it, and where is the evidence described?"

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

My rather inadequate reply based on no source by Grudem:

"As to the issue of scholarship & monogenes.....unfortunately Grudem just asserts "But linguistic study in the twentieth century has shown that the second half of the word is actually related to the word genos, meaning class or kind. Thus the word means one of a kind or unique son (see Heb 11:17, where Isaac is Abraham's mongenes even though he is not an only child)". No ref is given for the 20th Century linguistic study (would be helpful)."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

North

 

Bill said: Here is a portion of my theologizing: I am arguing that "ontological" refers to any condition within the being of God. That God is three ,as part of God's being, is ontological I would maintain. And, any trinal relationship , ie, between the Persons of the Trinity, which is essential and eternal to God's being, AS GRUDEM REQUIRES of the Son's subordination, is also ontological. THEREFORE, were the Son essentially and eternally inferior in rank then that is ontological!

North: What Grudem argues is that ontological means 'being' and economy means in its old sense 'ordering of activites'. Therefore there is not ontological subordination in terms of being but of roles or ordering of activities. Ontological equality - economic subordination. Equal in being, subordinate in roles.
What I see is a difference in use of the term ontological (your use vs Grudem).

Bill: Now, Biblically speaking show me ONE VERSE which says that from eternity as a relationshipnecessary to the Trinity, AS GRUDEM CLAIMS, the Son is relationally subordinate to the Father flittering around fulfilling the Father's behest before the beginning of creation.

North (quotes/paraphrasing from Grudem): Role of commanding, sending, directing is appropriate to the role of the Father after whom all human fatherhood is patterned. (Eph 3:14-15). Role of obeying, going as the father sends, and revealing God to us is apprporiate for the Son (John 1:1-5, 14, 18, 17:4; Phil 2:5-11). Ephesians 1:3-4. Initiatory act of choosing is attributed to God the Father. God the Father created throught the Son... not the Holy Spirit and Son through the Father (John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2). Implies Father as originator (Son as active agent before creation. God the Father planned redemption and sent the Son. Holy Spirit was sent by the Father (John 14:26) and the Son (John 16:7). God the Father spoke creative words and God the son carried out the creative decrees. Spirit active (Gen 1:2).

As God is unchangeable these relationships are eternal. The Nicene Creed according to Charles Hodge demonstrates 'the principle of subordination of the Son to the Father, and the Spirit to the Father and Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority....The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation.

Hence economic and not ontological subordination.

North

 

Systematic Theologians!

Bill & North:

You ACCS systematic theologians are a little too deep for this practical theology student. Why must you both debate the number of angels which could be placed on the tip of a trinitarian pin?

But since you are on the subject, consider the musings of Moltmann, whom I heard lecture recently (in person). Jurgen states,

"The unity of God is viewed as that which is ontologically the foundation of the sendings of the Son and Spirit, or even as the foundation of the Trinity itself."

 

Just a curiosity.....did anyone ever discover (or hear from Dr. Trudy herself) where the great Dr. Trudy earned (or perhaps obtained is a better word) all of her "doctor's degrees?"

 

Re: Systematic Theologians!

......................


Moltmann has some interesting points. Have you read "the Trinity and the Kingdom"?

But really, Russell, given your theological ancestry, I'd like your opinion on the opining of your pal Arminius who says, "The Father, of Himself, communicates His deity to the Son." ( So,Without this generosity of the Father , the Son would not be God?) (The Person of the Father and the Son,V,XVI,) Arminius also says that while we may call the Father "God of Himself" we may not correctly so refer to the Son (The Divinity of the Son, VIII)
(How can God be from another?)

What do you think Russell?

 

..................

michael

I believe the source of Dr( x5) Trudy's degrees remain one of the "Christian Mysteries."

It remains a mystery to me how one who claims to represent the God of Truth in that representation could be so deceitful.

 

Re: Re: Systematic Theologians!

I told you the subject matter is at a depth which non-ACCS systematic theologians have yet to fathom.

 

Re: Re: Re: Systematic Theologians!

.................

Soteriology, as Arminianism vs Calvinism, is not shallow either.

 

Bill and North:

Great job. This has been one of the best discussions I've read to date. I say that realizing it may be more suitable for another thread or in another section.

Bill: You are courageous in your pursuit. The position you now hold (or appear to hold) is what I believed for 20 years. Without reading any of the church fathers or contemporary theologians, I was convinced by Scripture that all of Christ's limitations, including his title as "Son," were temporal and only related to his incarnation.

Here was my dilemma: In every other context that I could think of, "Son of" was subordinate or less than. Yet, certain theologians, as you've pointed out, argue that in the framework of Scripture, it doesn't mean the same as in ordinary circumstances. In terms of Scripture or Theology, sonship is more about duties and not rank. OR they sayd, it's about position and not about essence.

Still, I found it hard to understand. Then I looked at C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, (a light weight by some standards) and his comments on "begetting." Again, I was not satisfied, no matter how much he and others said the "proceeding from the Father" did not make Christ "less than."

Within the last couple of years, my views on this have changed, to some degree. While I still wrestle with it, I'm not as vocal about it. Don't want to be called a heretic

In my recent studies on the topic (which is no where near the depth you're taking), I find many popular writers, especially the apologists, emphasizing the phrase, "Son of God" in John's Gospel. They maintain that to the Jews, the phrase meant more than what we think of today. For when Christ said he was the Son of God, the Jews did not see it as a subordinate expression. Rather, they took up stones to kill Him because "He made himself equal with God."

I would be interested in reading some Jewish literature to see exactly how they interpret such expression.

Your research should prove helpful and will undoubtedly be worther of publication. I hope I'm the first to purchase your book or the journal in which your work appears.


North: You're full of surprises. With your grasp of Theology, one wonders why you're pursuing degrees in counseling. You've done an excellent job here in articulating your position. And I'm sure our pal Bill is enjoying every bit of it

I thought you made a good point about God not changing. But like Bill, I too was thinking about the changes involved in the incarnation and especially the "Kenosis" or the "self emptying" mentioned by Paul.

Ryrie, popular writer/scholar, contends the emptying had only to do with his becoming a man. He stresses it had nothing to do with shedding or getting rid of his attributes.


Conservative scholars, I think, would argue that God's essential attributes are unchangeable. Thus, He can become a man without shedding his attributes. Since the incarntaion meant he was 100% man and 100% God at the same time, he actually was one person with two natures. While the human nature exhibited the weaknesses of the flesh (without sinning), the divine nature remained in tact with NO CHANGE.

In other words, the "kenosis" did not mean that God gave up his unchanging nature or attributes. Rather, he veiled them by becoming a man. So, even when he was a "helpless" baby, he was at the same time omnipotent. His divine nature never changed. It's just that he did not always draw on it while living in the flesh. For had he relied, at all times, on his divinity, there would have been no need for him to grow in wisdom and knowledge. Afterall, he knows all things.

Consider: One of God's essential attributes is that He is eternal and immortal. As such, he cannot die. In order to die, he had to become a man. In that way, he could do the "impossible" without changing his natural attributes.


Bill: If Christ was not the Son throughout eternity, what name or title do you suppose he had before the beginning of time.

That's a question I still wonder about, since the Scripture seem to imply, rather than directly state, he held such a position before the incarnation.

Roscoe

 

My edit didn't take

My apologies for the typos, spelling and gram. errors in the previous post. I tried to go back and clean it up but for some reason, the changes were not saved.

Guess the post was like God: It changes not

Roscoe

 

........................


Thankyou Roscoe. North is kind to spar a bit with me.

But Roscoe I did not say that Christ, and by that term I mean the second " Person " incarnate, was not eternally Son in His divine nature. It is possible to accept eternal Sonship but reject eternal generation and eternal relational subordination (eg Buswell, Christian Theology). Or consider BB Warfield who says that the term has nothing to do with filiation or subordination , but rather simply means that Christ is equal to God (Person and Work of Christ, 77 also see The Biblical Doc of the trinity).

On the otherhand, were you to study the Biblical contexts of the title "Son of God" then you might agree that this phrase frequently connects to historical occasions and seems to be synonymous with "messiah." Where does Scripture say that while the second Person is eternal He was eternally Son prior to the kenosis and that 'Son' rather is not given Him when he "became flesh"? (This is not my claim).

This is why some who espouse the deity of Christ nevertheless take that title "Son of God" to refer to only the incarnate second "Person" and prefer "Word" to the preincarnate. EG ,: Bruggen, Prof of NT at the Theological University in Kampen, the Netherlands writes, " The term 'Son of God' does not explicity refer to the reality before the incarnation."(Jesus The Son of God, 146). This was also the position of Alexander Campbell (The Christian System). It also, as I recall, the position of Dunn in Christology in the Making.

As to your desire to see noncanonical literature, for intertestamental Jewish literature on this, you may wish to consider the witness of the dead Sea Scrolls which speak of God begetting the Messiah among them(IQSa 2:11f) ; this seems to connect (from the Christian perspective now were such applicable to Jesus) with such as 2 Sam 7:11-14 and Ps 2:2. Of course on coins and so forth the Roman emperors were called sons of god (note the centurian's statement at the cross).

I am not saying this is my position that "Son of God" has only the temporal Christ as referent! To learn my view on that, you must buy the book when it appears in around,...... oh,....... 12 years or so!

 

Bill's statement:
Would ontology not also refer to the nature of being as in attributes or qualities? If you will look at Hodge whom you quote below, you will see that attributes are inseparable from essence or being) (1:367).

If you read more in Hodge (1:440) you will see it stated that God is sovereign which means "He doeth according to His will." Not according to the will of another! Two difficulties arise from this observation:
(syllogisms based on Hodge's statement)

(1)
PREMISE: For One (the Son) to submit to the Other (the Father) would require twowills.

PREMISE: But God has only one will, Scripture uses only the singular noun(will) of Him.

CONCLUSION: THerefore, the Son cannot as God submit to the Father as the Son has no separate will. {please answer this}

North’s answer: I don’t know that what we have here is a false dichotomy. We can understand that Christ is not homoiousios (similar nature) but homoousios (same nature) as affirmed in Nicene creed of 325 (John 10:30, etc.). We know that
each person of the Trinity relates to the others as a person (I, he, you). We know about God the Father & Son, but the Holy Spirit is also referred to as ekeinos (he) in connection with the Grk pneuma (spirit) which is neuter, etc, etc. Yet, we know God
is one (Deut 6:4-5; 1 Tim 1:2-5, etc) but the deity of all members of the Trinity is also affirmed (too much to go into here). This is the paradox of the Trinity. In Hebrews (10:9), John (6:38), etc we see that Jesus came to do the will of God the Father. That is explicit in scripture. Yet we know that Jesus is God.

Bill said:

Creation ,sending, salvation, revealing etc are all economic functions. (How possibly could the Son "serve" the Father when ONLY God existed? What would the Son "then" do??) That is, they relate to things outside of God not to relations inside of
God. Why would creating through the Son prove eternal submission of the Son?{please answer this}

North responds (quotes/paraphrasing from Grudem): Role of commanding, sending, directing is appropriate to the role of the Father after whom all human fatherhood is patterned. (Eph 3:14-15). Role of obeying, going as the father sends, and revealing God to us is appropriate for the Son (John 1:1-5, 14, 18, 17:4; Phil
2:5-11). Ephesians 1:3-4. Initiatory act of choosing is attributed to God the Father. God the Father created through the Son... not the Holy Spirit and Son through the Father (John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2). Implies Father as originator (Son as active agent before creation. God the Father planned redemption and sent the Son. Holy Spirit was sent by the Father (John 14:26) and the Son (John 16:7). God the Father spoke creative words and God the son carried out the creative decrees. Spirit active (Gen 1:2).
I think clearly whether or not we agree or disagree scripture clearly affirms the relationship as Grudem notes. Scripture clearly affirms that members of the Trinity differ in their relationship to creation and are equal in deity but subordinate in their
roles. In the above scripture economic subordination (as opposed to ontological) is affirmed. If the Father is originator and the Son the active agent (creation through) then we have a pre incarnation economically subordinate role. You seem to be
looking at this externally in an anthropomorphic sense but I don’t know if that is really necessary. Remember the Trinity itself is a paradox in which we can have equality in deity, unity, etc:

i) God is Three Persons

ii) Each Person is fully God

iii) There is one God.

Clearly in scripture we have role subordination, yet clearly we have no examples of the Holy Spirit or Jesus circumventing the will of the Father. Jesus said He always kept Father’s commands (John 15:10) & always does what is pleasing to Him (John
8:29) (economic subordination).

Bill's said:

North, re the Nicene Creed, Hodge says this in reference to eternal generation which you deny by your definition of monogenes. So how does Hodge here support you?
{please answer this}

North replies: It certainly does not. If monogenes means one of a kind or unique it means simply that Jesus is not begotten in the sense of being created (Nicene Creed ‘begotten not made’). It affirms Grudem’s support of monogenes (as I should note
does scripture in terms of its use of the term in relation to Isaac even though he is not the only child of Abraham yet is Abraham’s monogenes). Hodge is saying that this is therefore not a case of ontological subordination which would be the case if monogenes were not interpreted as unique or one of a kind. This is also what the Nicene Creed is saying. The subordination according to Hodge is one of mode of subsistence and operation. This is consistent with Grudem who affirms subordination of roles (ordering of activities). This is consistent with the Nicene Creed (issues of procession and role).

Bill wrote: You argue that the Son's submission to the Father must be eternal as we see that submission temporally demonstrated and God CANNOT CHANGE. So:

(syllogism based on North's statement)

PREMISE: God cannot change.

PREMISE: But Scripture speaks much of the Son changing. He became flesh (Jo 1:14). He who was rich became poor(2 Cor 8:9), He choose not to utilize His equality but rather emptied Himself (phil 2:6).

CONCLUSION: As God cannot change, but the Son did change, therefore the Son cannot be God! RIGHT???[please answer}


North Replies: False dichotomy. Bible clearly affirms that God does not change(Mal 3:6). However, we can only affirm (understand) God’s changelessness in ways
that scripture affirms (attributes, purposes, etc). Clearly scripture affirms that this is not to be interpreted as ‘impassability’ (Isa 62:5, Eph 4:30, Exod 32:10) and that God is capable of responding to a changed situation (Jon 3:4, 10).

This has been interesting Bill but I am going to have to begin soon on another round of courses. If you wish to read more about the Reformed position (Grudem) then you may wish to purchase his 1264 page Systematic Theology.

How are your two doctoral programs coming?

North

 

--------------------- ==========
Bill's reply: * Thanks for the discussion. Distance Ed often lacks such opportunities. As for Grudem, of course I have the book and have read him. This was the theology text for, you guessed it, TRINITY SEMINARY! As you know Grudem uses his view on the Son's role subordination to the Father to "prove" that there are subordinate gender roles required in familial and ministerial contexts as well. If he gives up his eternal relational subordination of the Son doctrine then he must find other proof for his subordination of females to males! Systematic Theology is the synthesis od doctrines, their relatedness, that's why I connected my views with such as God's attributes and will.

My work is going OK I think, thanks again for the chat,

 

outside scripture