Heidelcast 127: I Am That I Am (5)—The Trinity

Heidelcast

There strong indications in the Hebrew Scriptures that the God of the Bible is not only personal, but that he is multi-personal. In Genesis 1:1, Scripture says that Elohim (God) created the heavens and the earth. In the very next verse, however, . . . Continue reading →

Heidelcast 126: I Am That I Am (4)—The Trinity

Heidelcast

Traditionally, at this place in theology, we should address the divine attributes in relation to the divine being/essence. Otto Weber (1902–66) challenged this approach by arguing that because Scripture reveals God first of all as Triune and his attributes in the light . . . Continue reading →

Heidelcast 124: I Am That I Am (2)—The Categorical Distinction

Heidelcast

The Creator/creature distinction is fundamental to Christian theology. The Ancient Christian church defended it against the pagan doctrine of the eternality of matter. Scripture is very clear: “In the beginning God…”. On this point, the classical, confessional Reformed theologians built their distinction . . . Continue reading →

We Are Not Merely Discussing Economic Subordination

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 →

Bavinck On Divine Simplicity

Now Christian theology has always been more or less conscious of this calling. On the whole, its teaching has been that God is “simple,” that is, sublimely free from all composition, and that therefore one cannot make any real [i.e., ontological] distinction . . . Continue reading →

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

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 →