Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Posts: 97
Joined: April 2013
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,297
Posts53,252
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,045
Tom 4,047
chestnutmare 3,086
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,818
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 24
Tom 12
Robin 5
Johan 3
Readin 2
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
NeoCalvinism
by Pilgrim - Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:26 PM
The Nick-name Calvinism
by Pilgrim - Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:06 PM
Natural Theology
by Anthony C. - Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:47 AM
Wilderness Wealth
by NetChaplain - Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:57 AM
Your opinion please
by Johan - Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:03 AM
True of False
by NetChaplain - Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:26 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#52242 Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:39 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
I hope this thread goes better than my last one on the Open Forum. giggle
I recently came across an article about a subject that to be honest I don't know a whole lot about. But recently found that I need to understand the matter better (long story).

I would like to get some feedback from the following link, that I came across while researching the topic.
Please try to refrain from commenting about the person who wrote the article, please. I am interested in the topic in question.
http://www.dennyburk.com/a-brief-response-to-trueman-and-goligher/

Tom

Tom #52243 Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:05 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 268
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 268
This one is a bit over my head but if I reading it right it may be an overreaction by Trueman & ultimately much ado bout nothing. This is definitely Pilgrim territory in terms of clarification however.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by AJ Castellitto
This one is a bit over my head but if I reading it right it may be an overreaction by Trueman & ultimately much ado bout nothing. This is definitely Pilgrim territory in terms of clarification however.

BigThumbUp That is my take on it as well, hence why I thought I would give this one over to others who are a little more knowledgeable than I am.
If this matter had not become personal (long story), I might be inclined not to put much effort into this one.

I did find out that some claim the Eternal Subordination of the Son, was not held by the Reformers (egalitarians among this group). Yet those who believe in this teaching, say it was held by the Reformers.
I have not had time to check into these claims however.

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:12 AM.
Tom #52248 Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:40 AM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 268
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 268
Interesting, usually the concern is about the motivations of the perspective more than just the legitimacy of it.... but I'm still not sure I get it in this case.... confused

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Good morning, Tom!

I'd love to read Truman and Goligher's stance on the Trinity that sparked this whole controversy. Can you direct me to the source of all this?

Thanks,
Kim


Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine
Hiraeth
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Since God does not change, i.e., neither in His dealings with men nor and especially in His nature/essense, then it cannot be postulated that the Son was at one time not subordinate to the Father. EVERYTHING about God exists eternally, including His decrees.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Hiya Kim!! thewave

Ditto on your question. It would be very interesting to actually read their argument for their position. BigThumbUp


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by gotribe
Good morning, Tom!

I'd love to read Truman and Goligher's stance on the Trinity that sparked this whole controversy. Can you direct me to the source of all this?

Thanks,
Kim

Kim

In the opening sentence of the article I provided, if you click on the name Truman, I think you will find what you are looking for.
But I have taken the liberty to copy the link for you.
Would love some feedback on the article itself.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/fahrenheit-381#.V137YLsrLIU

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:27 PM.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,818
Permanent Resident
Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,818


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
John,

Thanks for the link. I read through Trueman's article and found it quite good but wanting more. So, I found another article by Carl Trueman here: Continuing Down this Path, Complementarians Lose. This one really turns the lights on and explains in much better ways, IMO, than the first article what the issue is. I can summarize it simply, and I hope not too much so:

1. Historic creedal Christianity: God is one and three persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are eternally equal in essence, power and authority. This is a statement concerning the ontological/immanent Trinity, i.e., what is God in His very being.

2. Historic creedal Christianity also affirms that there is a "functional subordination" within the three equal persons. This statement concerns the "Economic Trinity", i.e., how God functions and the relationship between the three persons of the Godhead.

Now, this new teaching, to which Trueman is criticizing, seems at best to be confusing the ontological Trinity; God as He is with the economic Trinity, and in the end destroys the very essense of God's essense. grin Again to put the matter as simply as I can, eternally God is one consisting of three persons who are eternally and infinitely equal in ALL things. There is NO subordination BY NATURE in the Trinity. This is what the Nicene, Anathanasian, and Chaldeconian creeds affirm and to which I personally embrace wholly. This other group is at least in danger of denying this truth and in doing so, whether they intend to or not, introduce inferiority/non-equality, within the Godhead. I suspect that those whom Trueman is taking to task would categorically deny this charge. But the issue is not their intention but the result of their teaching.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Pilgrim
I am confused, are you saying you are agreeing or disagreeing with Trueman?
Your next post seems to indicate you disagree with Trueman?
Tom

Last edited by Tom; Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:46 PM.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,046
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Tom
Pilgrim
I am confused, are you saying you are agreeing or disagreeing with Trueman?
Your next post seems to indicate you disagree with Trueman?
Tom
I thought I wrote that I was in 100% agreement with Trueman regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, which as he wrote is found in the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds. I do not agree with the ontological subordination view, i.e., I disagree with the view that says there is a subordination of the Son to the Father inherent to His nature (ontological). But there is "functional subordination" by mutual agreement within the Godhead.

Are you clear on that now? grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by Tom
Pilgrim
I am confused, are you saying you are agreeing or disagreeing with Trueman?
Your next post seems to indicate you disagree with Trueman?
Tom
I thought I wrote that I was in 100% agreement with Trueman regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, which as he wrote is found in the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds. I do not agree with the ontological subordination view, i.e., I disagree with the view that says there is a subordination of the Son to the Father inherent to His nature (ontological). But there is "functional subordination" by mutual agreement within the Godhead.

Are you clear on that now? grin

Pilgrim
Ok thank you for clearing this up. As you put it, that is actually my view as well. However, I must have missed the point that issue was about ontological subordination view. Perhaps I did this because when reading these kind of things, it stretches the grey matter in my brain. giggle


Tom

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Thanks for the link, John!


Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine
Hiraeth
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Thanks for the link, Pilgrim!

I've read through the various links and found that this sums it up for me:

"there is considerable damage done both to our understanding of the Trinity and also to our understanding of men and women and how we relate to each other. ESS has a trickle down effect on doctrine in many areas. Despite its claims to the contrary, it makes the Son inferior to the Father and misinterprets aspects of the work of redemption."

I think this gets down to why this is not just a friendly, in-house debate. It is a grave matter and one worthy of a vigorous public challenge.

(Also, am I correct in assuming that Big Eva is a term coined by Trueman to represent the New Calvinist's evangelical presence on the web?)



Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine
Hiraeth
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 111 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
October
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,294,203 Gospel truth