Heidelcast 123: I Am That I Am (1)—The Categorical Distinction

Heidelcast

on February 13, 2017 | 4 Comments

This is the 1st episode of our series on the doctrine of God, ““I AM That I AM.” In older histories of theology it used to be said of the Reformed that they started with the divine decree and deduced (i.e., drew . . . Continue reading →

Ursinus On The Persons, Works, And Unity Of The Trinity

R. Scott Clark

on February 12, 2017

Question 24. How are these articles divided? Answer. Into three parts: the first is of God the Father, and our creation; the second of God the Son, and our redemption; the third of God the Holy Spirit, and our sanctification. Exposition There . . . Continue reading →

We Are Not Merely Discussing Economic Subordination

R. Scott Clark

on September 8, 2016 | 9 Comments

So Burk argues that Christ’s not grasping for equality with God belongs not only to the economic but to the ontological Trinity. That is an extraordinary claim! He is asserting far more than a simple acknowledgement that the Father and Son are . . . Continue reading →

Biblical, Ecumenical Christian Doctrines Are Not Adiaphora

R. Scott Clark

on July 15, 2016 | 3 Comments

Rachel Miller writes: “I hope that those who have read and recommend Dr. Grudem’s Systematic Theology will go back and reconsider what is being taught.” Continue reading →

Maybe It Comes Down To Method?

R. Scott Clark

on July 9, 2016 | 3 Comments

We understand that some strands of Baptist and evangelical life have not typically learned the habit of creedal thinking but have tended to emphasize independent Biblicism and personal exegesis. Perhaps that lies at the root of much of this dispute. But this . . . Continue reading →

Function And Subsistence Are Distinct Categories

R. Scott Clark

on July 9, 2016

Both the unity of the divine essence and the distinction of the persons within that essence are matters of ontology, of the divine being. Some, like Wollebius, define the divine persons as “the essence of God, with a certain manner of subsisting” . . . Continue reading →

What Heresy Is, Who Gets To Say, And Why?

R. Scott Clark

on July 4, 2016

Part of the problem has been that in using the word ‘heresy’ (which I didn’t but do now) we have been talking past each other. Heresy is not a word to be used carelessly and hurled indiscriminately at anyone who dares to . . . Continue reading →

A Response To Grudem’s Appeal To Hodge On Eternal Subordination

Harrison Perkins

on June 23, 2016 | 7 Comments

Hodge actually makes this restricted application explicit, “The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation, implied in the Scriptural facts that the Son is of the Father, and the Spirit is of the Father and Son, and that the Father operates through the Son, and the Father and the Son through the Spirit.” (Systematic Theology I:461) The point he is making is that there is subordination in “the mode of subsistence and operation” only in the sense that one cannot reverse the orders of relation. They are not said to be subordinate in any sense of eternal submission, but are subordinate relationships in the fact that one relationship leads to the next and we cannot flip those. The Son is Son of the Father and so his Sonship depends on the Father being the Father. Nothing more is entailed or permitted. According to Hodge, the Son is Son in a subordinate way only in the sense that a Son has to have a Father, and that is the mode of subsistence and operation. Continue reading →

Truly Audacious Proposals

R. Scott Clark

on June 22, 2016 | 5 Comments

Let us all reflect for a moment on the dramatic significance of Grudem’s claim about eternal generation. What he is saying is that the church catholic has for over 1600 years been affirming theologically and liturgically, as the key ecumenical summary of . . . Continue reading →

Athanasius On Eternal Generation

R. Scott Clark

on June 18, 2016 | 1 Comment

As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever; God is not as . . . Continue reading →

The Roof Was Not Strong Enough

R. Scott Clark

on June 15, 2016 | 5 Comments

My basic point remains: if you argue for EFS and/or reject (or even regard as negotiable) eternal generation, then you stand outside the bounds of the historic Nicene Christian faith as set forth at Constantinople in 381 and held thereafter by the . . . Continue reading →

Clarity On The Trinity

R. Scott Clark

on June 14, 2016 | 1 Comment

This God taught Israel to say ‘The Lord our God is One.’ There are distinctions of course. The NT writers, and Christ Himself, noted that OT prophets like David and Isaiah, when ‘in the Spirit,’ were party to conversations within the Godhead . . . Continue reading →

Muller: The Reformed Affirmed Eternal Generation Against The Socinians

R. Scott Clark

on June 10, 2016 | 1 Comment

The orthodox theologians consistently, therefore, offer arguments for the unique personality or personhood of the divine Son and his eternal generation from the Father—whether against the classical heresies and their more recent representatives or, in the high and late orthodox eras, specifically . . . Continue reading →

Thomas Ridgley On The Eternal Generation Of The Son

R. Scott Clark

on June 10, 2016 | 2 Comments

As to the eternal generation of the Son, it is generally explained in this manner. The Father is called by some, ‘the fountain of the Godhead,’ an expression taken from some of the fathers who defended the Nicene faith. But others, of . . . Continue reading →

Notable Interpretations Of 1 Corinthians 11:3

R. Scott Clark

on June 10, 2016 | 3 Comments

In light of the current discussions about the ontological and economic Trinity, subordination, and complementarianism, here are some quotations I posted yesterday on Twitter. This is his account of the reason of the thing, and he states it to make the weaker . . . Continue reading →

Berkhof On The Eternal Generation Of The Son

R. Scott Clark

on June 10, 2016 | 2 Comments

c. The eternal generation of the Son. The personal property of the Son is that He is eternally begotten of the Father (briefly called “filiation”), and shares with the Father in the spiration of the Spirit. The doctrine of the generation of . . . Continue reading →

Trueman: What Is The Status Of Nicene Orthodoxy In Modern Calvinistic Evangelicalism?

R. Scott Clark

on June 9, 2016 | 10 Comments

…The point at issue is that of the nature of the relations. In his writings, Professor Ware explicitly rejects the Nicene notion of eternal generation while asserting that of eternal functional submission. That is in fact a very radical move to make, . . . Continue reading →

In This Trinity None Is Afore

R. Scott Clark

on June 6, 2016 | 3 Comments

The church long ago rejected any form of primacy of the Father within the eternal Trinity, though there were some among the fathers who wanted to assert primacy to justify bishops in the church, just as there are some among evangelicals who . . . Continue reading →

How To Be Complementarian Without Becoming A Heretic

R. Scott Clark

on June 3, 2016 | 5 Comments

Is the Trinity no more than a social program for the world and the church? Is the eternal life of the Trinity hierarchical or egalitarian? Are there three minds, three wills, and three powers within the Godhead? Are the current Trinitarian views . . . Continue reading →

Hegel Is One Thing. Christianity Is Another

R. Scott Clark

on January 20, 2015 | 7 Comments

It became evident (to me at least) that Moltmann’s way of going about things is thoroughly [H]egelianised. He is not an anthropomorphite simply because he is sentimental about God, wanting a God near to him, nor because of jejune bible study. His . . . Continue reading →