Surprised that some famous Theologians Agreed with Dr Grudem on the ESS

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's interesting that this topic keeps arising and shows the damage that bad ideas (e.g. Grudem and Ware) have on the Church. Both (almost 2 years ago at a conference, recanted of certain views that were in direct conflict with Nicene orthodoxy while they continued to maintain other errant ideas.

Just to be clear, it isn't enough to hand-wave that you believe in one God in three Persons if you start ascribing things to the Persons that make them three Gods. Using the excuse that you're only talking about the economic Trinity doesn't resolve an issue if you start ascriving to will something that essential to God. It's akin to saying: "I only believe in 3 Gods economically but not essentially." It makes no sense.

I can't remember who first wrote it but he said he was Christian, Protestant, Reformed, and Presbtyerian and he dare not reverse that order. Each one of those distinctions is a further refinement of a branch of Christianity.

When we're talking about the nature of the Trinity we are dealing with the very first tier: if you monkey with the Trinity then whatever else you say you affirm about being Protestant, Reformed and Presbyterian (of Baptist) is quite immaterial because your doctrine of God may not even be CHRISTIAN!

The stakes are high, ladies and gentlemen. We're accustomed to kind and respectful things being said of theologians for all the "good work" that they do but if they are fundamentally contradicting what every branch of Christianity has affirmed for 1800 years then it needs to be roundly condemned.

Now, I realize that many people are not sure of all the details. It is admittedly difficult to understand the disntinctions between essence and person. The Church, when it took up the battle for the Divinity of Christ in the 4th Century did so because they were under the conviction that this was a received truth - not only handed down in Scripture (which they exegeted) but so clearly believed by the Church that this was inviolate.

At issue was the very nature of the Son as God (also the Spirit but that came as well once you got the first established). They understood, even back then, that our Mediator needed to be fully God and fully Man.

They considered it something to be adored more than articulated but they, in a sense, took up language with fear and trembling in a way to make sure that those who denied the Divinity of the Son (and would not be corrected) would be put outside the Christian faith.

They painstakingly crafted language that they knew someone who denied Christ's Divinity could not confess. They understood the distinction between the Divinity and the humanity of the Son of God and they were insistent on the former to ensure that they clearly articulated things that the Son of God was of the same essence as the Father. God from God. Light from Light. They said no more about the nature of this intra-Trinitarian life and distinction of the Persons than what Scripture revealed to mankind. They were earnest to not make the mistake that the intra-Trinitarian relationships were to be understood on the basis of human relationships or reason but upon what had been Divinely revealed.

So, yes, the stakes are high. Don't let the modern culture of treating these divisions as so much: "I've got your conviction and you've got yours."

That it is only these modern times when theologians like Grudem, Ware, or Frame (whose writings contradict Simplicity) feel free to ignore the very foundations of Christianity for 1800 years. To be frank, I don't care a bit about whatever pedigree they have or whatever perceived good they have done. I'm even thankful for some of it but, on the nature of the Godhead, they are treading on very dangerous ground and I, for one, do not advise anyone to take this issue lightly. You're better off adoring the Trinity and staying out of the fray if you're struggling to understand these things rather than promoting error on this topic.
 
Excellent points that you present here regarding this discussion on the Trinity. Much of the problem on this issue would be that we have given to the Dr Grudems of the Church free hand in their theology, as we do recognize that God has gifted them to be theologians, and the church does a bad job in getting these thorny issues to the flock. I do not know how many sermons or Sunday school teachings ever really broke down the Trinity this deeply.
 
David,

It's not that I disagree we could always have more instruction in such matters but some of these issues require years of study to get to the substance of the issues and why the Church used the language it did and why it has stood for centuries. There are at least two faults:

1. Drs. Grudem, Ware, and Frame in making sure they properly study historical theology and why certain truths have stood the test of time. The former two were in the embarassing position of having to be "schooled" on this topic after basing many teachings and arguing for months against those who had studied it. Dr. Frame is still kicking against the goads with respect to Divine Simplicity. You can't afford to be lazy on this topic if you're going to be a teacher. If you're not going to do the work then don't try writing a Systematic Theology or present a new theological idea if you're going to get the Trinity wrong.

2. The modern Church is far too forgiving on this issue. Carl Trueman pointed out that the "Evangelical Conference" scene has been providing a big tent for anyone who seems to get the message of the Gospel right while caring little about whether they are getting the Doctrine of God wrong. Mark Driscoll is a case in point. We're a bunch of pragmatists and, as long as it seems people are "getting the Gospel", we're mostly soft on getting the nature of God right. Our forebears would not understand this schizophrenia for the sake of pragmatism.
 
It gets very hard to know who is right and wrong on this issue though, as the fine points on this discussion are frankly beyond the reach of many Christians, so we have to accept the so called Theology experts that we have accorded the reputation to knowing of what they write and speak on concerning doctrines of the faith.
 
We need to get Richard Muller's volumes 3 and 4 released as individual volumes on the doctrine of God. I don't buy the line that "Baker is just about to release a new series" (5 years running).
 
It gets very hard to know who is right and wrong on this issue though, as the fine points on this discussion are frankly beyond the reach of many Christians, so we have to accept the so called Theology experts that we have accorded the reputation to knowing of what they write and speak on concerning doctrines of the faith.
I didn't say that we all have to accept them. You don't have to accept the opinion of a radiologist who tells you that an MRI indicates cancer in your body. Yet, before you dismiss him, you can seek another opinion of one trained in anatomy, cancerous diseases, imagery, etc. or you can spend the years of in-depth research needed.

Jacob has no PhD but he spent far more time than many PhD's reading theological sources.

The point is that the history of the doctinre matters. The words selected matter. The metaphysical language matters. The exegesis matters. The nermeneutics matter.

It took me a few years to learn Greek and I'm at a point where I can understand what a scholar means by certain arguments made appealing to syntax but I'm not an expert and I would not hazard to produce an exegetical commentary. That's just one discipline.

So, you can be arrogant out of ignorance and assume that you have enough information to make up your own mind about what is plain from the text without any schooling. You'd fit in with many cultists and other errantists who have taken that path.

Or, you can recognize that the Church collectively works together, each one contirbubing its part ans skill to help one another. I seem to recall a Body analogy somewhere in the New Testament....
 
Jacob has no PhD but he spent far more time than many PhD's reading theological sources.

You're too kind. I learned the brutally hard way by trying to debate EO and Rad Trads online. I then learned that I had to read the sources and all of the best scholarly literature. It has taken about 12 years so far.

While I disagree with Perry Robinson on many points, his "recommended reading list" forced me to work through the tough issues of Trinity and Christology. I am even working on my own list.
https://cocceius.wordpress.com/philosophical-analysis-of-reformation-sources-a-bibliography/
 
I don't mean to resurrect the discussion, but I came across this passage in John Brown of Haddington in his Systematic Theology in my morning reading which seemed apropos:

It being plainly evident from God's own word, that each of these three persons is equally the Most High and the only true God, no term or phrase must be admitted, in the explication of their personal properties, which can in the least interfere with the divine equality or absolute independence of any one of them.--Subordinate Godhead is no Godhead at all, nor anything but a mere chimera in men's brain. By calling the Father the fountain of Deity or of the Trinity, by saying that the divine essence is communicated,--or that the Son and Spirit are produced,--or that they have a personal though not an essential dependence on the father, learned men have inadvertently hurt this mystery [i.e. the Trinity], and given occasion for its enemies to blaspheme.

While it seems that he has Origen, at least in part, in his crosshairs here, his warning should apply to the modern debate too, no matter how useful such schemes may be in other areas of theology.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top