The Same God Who Works All Things: Inseparable Operations in Trinitarian Theology

[Rom]

Has anyone read this? If so, any feedback? @RamistThomist , I will tag you as you are often "in the know" when it comes to works on Trinitarian Theology.
This is a subject that I have wanted to do more study on and it was interesting to see a work devoted to it.

Amazon.com

Also, moderators, if this should be moved elsewhere please move wherever makes sense.

 

[RamistThomist]

Has anyone read this? If so, any feedback? @RamistThomist , I will tag you as you are often "in the know" when it comes to works on Trinitarian Theology.
This is a subject that I have wanted to do more study on and it was interesting to see a work devoted to it.

Amazon.com

Also, moderators, if this should be moved elsewhere please move wherever makes sense.

I haven't read it yet, but I am familiar with it and I recommend it.

 

[TheInquirer]

The book description lists the same questions that have been running through my mind. Looks promising. Its a bit out of ”impulse buy“ pricing for me at the moment but it is tempting.

 

[alexanderjames]

I spotted this from a few individuals I follow on Goodreads and it is rated highly by them. So it is on my wish list.

 

[Rom]

I haven't read it yet, but I am familiar with it and I recommend it.

Thank you!

 

[RamistThomist]

Given what we believe about divine simplicity and conciliar Christology, what does that mean in our reflections about God? We chant Chalcedon all the time, and think we are Nicene because Athanasius was brave and we like to think we are brave so that means we must be Nicene too, but we don't normally work through it.

For example, for Cyril (and the Council of Ephesus), there is one nature of the enfleshed Logos. While that doesn't contradict the 6th Council's dyotheletism, one wouldn't have naturally derived dyotheletism from Cyril's statement. That led one group of Christians to write off Chalcedon (I know I am mixing up the timeline here), but the point stands. The relevance is that we lost about 60% of Christendom in that move.

Or to move the discussion to some of Vidu's claims: we say that the divine nature is impassible, yet Christ suffered and died. So what suffered and died? Not the divine nature, of course, so it must be the human nature. That seems right, but then we say the divine person suffered and died, so how does the divine nature fit in such a way that we don't lose impassibility? (The answer is something like the divine nature upholds the human during the suffering). The human nature is acting like a metaphysical placeholder.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

This is interesting as I've been dwelling some on Christ walking and talking in the Garden, and other OT Christophanies if proper to call them that. Does this idea of inseparable operations fit in with these instances?

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is the simple answer: there is one will in the Trinity (since there is one nature); as all persons have this same will, all are involved in the same action, but not in the same way.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Here is the simple answer: there is one will in the Trinity (since there is one nature); as all persons have this same will, all are involved in the same action, but not in the same way.

That's a very succinct way of putting it. Makes sense to me.

 

[RamistThomist]

That's a very succinct way of putting it. Makes sense to me.

It's easy in the broad sphere. It gets tricky when you apply it to things like the Covenant of Redemption. It is wrong to reject inseparable operations, but I understand why people have some difficulties with it.

 

[Polanus1561]

It's easy in the broad sphere. It gets tricky when you apply it to things like the Covenant of Redemption. It is wrong to reject inseparable operations, but I understand why people have some difficulties with it.

Quick question. Do you hold that the Son being sent as the Redeemer (not the Father or Spirit) was a necessity due to the incommunicable property of being the begotten one / or is it deemed a mystery and it is what it is?

 

[RamistThomist]

Quick question. Do you hold that the Son being sent as the Redeemer (not the Father or Spirit) was a necessity due to the incommunicable property of being the begotten one / or is it deemed a mystery and it is what it is?

Oh....boy. I am going to go with mystery. That question raises questions about supralapsarianism. I'm hesitant to say "necessity" because that implies things that go on in the Godhead.

 

[Polanus1561]

Oh....boy. I am going to go with mystery. That question raises questions about supralapsarianism. I'm hesitant to say "necessity" because that implies things that go on in the Godhead.

Hah. I too don't want to stake my life on this question. But from my initial study: processions > missions seems to solve some problems: i.e it helps frame the Cov. of Redemption not in 3 distinct wills debating which person should be incarnated... but then the 'necessity' opens to door to accusations of subordination.

Thus, the mystery option is definitely viable and no one can fault that.

 

[TheInquirer]

After reading the review on Reformation 21, I’ve decided this is a must have as it addresses quite a few holes in my thinking. Here is the review for any interested - https://www.reformation21.org/blog/the-same-god-who-works-all-things

Thanks for posting this work and bringing it to our attention.

 

[chuckd]

Here is the simple answer: there is one will in the Trinity (since there is one nature); as all persons have this same will, all are involved in the same action, but not in the same way.

terminus operationis?

1. That all divine operations are usually ascribed unto God absolutely. So it is said God made all things; and so of all other works, whether in nature or in grace. And the reason hereof is, because the several persons are undivided in their operations, acting all by the same will, the same wisdom, the same power. Every person, therefore, is the author of every work of God, because each person is God, and the divine nature is the same undivided principle of all divine operations; and this ariseth from the unity of the persons in the same essence. But as to the manner of subsistence therein, there is distinction, relation, and order between and among them; and hence there is no divine work but is distinctly assigned unto each person, and eminently unto one. So is it in the works of the old creation, and so in the new, and in all particulars of them. Thus, the creation of the world is distinctly ascribed to the Father as his work, Acts 4:24; and to the Son as his, John 1:3; and also to the Holy Spirit, Job 33:4; but by the way of eminence to the Father, and absolutely to God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The reason, therefore, why the works of God are thus distinctly ascribed unto each person is because, in the undivided operation of the divine nature, each person doth the same work in the order of their subsistence; not one as the instrument of the other, or merely employed by the other, but as one common principle of authority, wisdom, love, and power. How come they, then, eminently to be assigned one to one person, another to another? as unto the Father are assigned opera naturae, the works of nature, or the old creation; to the Son, opera gratiae procuratae, all divine operations that belong unto the recovery of mankind by grace; and unto the Spirit, opera gratiae applicatcae, the works of God whereby grace is made effectual unto us.

-John Owen, Pneumatologia, Chapter 4

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jacob @RamistThomist , which would you say is the best, Barrett, or Vidu? If one had to read only one, which should it be? And why?

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob @RamistThomist , which would you say is the best, Barrett, or Vidu? If one had to read only one, which should it be? And why?

Barrett is easier to read and written for a general audience. Vidu is an academic text.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks, Jacob!

 

[CathH]

I got hold of it as soon as it was available and was very appreciative of its careful and detailed and reverent handling of the subject. Not that at this distance in time I can remember much in detail but it filled things out for me very helpfully.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Excellent book. Highly recommended. Google his name; there are some interviews where he unpacks the book.

 

[RamistThomist]

With Athansius, Cyril of Alexandria says “I think it is perfectly clear to everyone that the Son is the Word, counsel, will and power of the Father” (Comm on John, 4:34). Athanasius had also said the Son was the Will of the Father. Cyril clarifies: “Since he is of the same substance, he will also will the same things, or rather since he himself is the living will and power of the Father, he works all in all with the Father” (Comm. 5:17).