# Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (2nd ed.): Initial Thoughts



## Taylor (Dec 13, 2020)

(I posted this in "General Discussions" because it is not a full book review, nor is it a theological discussion or question.)

Dr. Wayne Grudem's second edition of his famous and widely-acclaimed _Systematic Theology_ was released December 8, 2020. I pre-ordered the volume in Logos, looking greatly forward to it. His was the first systematic theology I ever read (though not all of it). Even though I ended up a "cessationist" Presbyterian, I have such fond memories reading Grudem. Despite his flaws, what he did for me was make me excited about understanding the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. In fact, Grudem may be one of the main reasons I am pursuing ministry even now. I wanted to post my initial thoughts of the second edition of this work for those who might be interested. Like me, I imagine many of you are wondering what has been changed, added, or taken away.

Grudem marks in the preface to this edition exactly what is different in the main:

The changes in this edition mainly consist of additional material:​
1. completely updated bibliographies​2. all Scripture quotations changed from RSV to ESV​3. new sections on the differences between evangelical Protestant theology and Protestant theological liberalism (additional note to chapter 4), Mormonism (additional note to chapter 14), and Roman Catholicism (additional note to chapter 45, with extensive quotations from the 1997 edition of Catechism of the Catholic Church)​4. additional discussion of specific “problem verses” for biblical inerrancy (chapter 5)​5. a completely revised, stronger chapter on the clarity of Scripture (chapter 6)​6. updated sections on God’s atemporal eternity (chapter 11), the relationship of the Son to the Father in the Trinity (chapter 14), seeker-sensitive churches (chapter 44), the role of women in the church (chapter 47), contemporary worship music (chapter 51), and miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (chapters 52 and 53)​7. a more extensive critique of open theism (chapter 12)​8. a completely revised, stronger chapter on creation and evolution, including recent evidence for intelligent design, a longer critique of theistic evolution, and a summary of recent evidence regarding the age of the earth (chapter 15)​9. a new discussion and critique of middle knowledge (or Molinism) (chapter 16)​10. a reply to recent criticisms of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement (chapter 27)​11. an extensive discussion of “Free Grace” theology (chapter 35)​12. a critique of the “new perspective on Paul” and its view of justification (chapter 36)​13. a critique of the preterist view that Christ has already returned in AD 70 (chapter 54)​14. a contemporary worship song added at the end of each chapter (while retaining the traditional hymns as well)​15. indexing of topics covered in twenty-one new systematic theology texts (including new translations of older texts by Turretin and Vos) that have been published since 1993​16. numerous smaller modifications that have been prompted by letters and emails from people around the world and by interaction with the many wonderful, insightful students as I have taught through this material over the last twenty-six years both at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and at Phoenix Seminary...​​—Wayne Grudem, _Systematic Theology_, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020), xv-xvi.​
Later in the preface, he notes some places where his thinking has changed:

“Did you change your mind about anything?” is the question people often ask me about this second edition.​​The short answer is, “Very little,” but there are a few changes: (1) I now affirm the doctrine of God’s impassibility in the sense of “incapable of suffering harm,” a meaning that I had mistakenly failed to consider in the first edition (chapter 11). (2) Because of substantial new evidence about the meaning of the Greek word monogenēs, I now think that this word should be translated as “only begotten” rather than simply “only” in John 3:16 (and elsewhere), and I now endorse the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son by the Father (chapter 14). (3) I now think that the scientific evidence in favor of an old earth (4.5 billion years) and an old universe (13.8 billion years) has become overwhelming, with the result that I now advocate an old earth position, though I still believe that both old earth and young earth viewpoints are valid for Christian leaders to hold today (chapter 15).​​—_ibid._, xvi.​
While his changes in his view of divine impassability and eternal generation are welcome, his view of the age of the earth might bother many here. Regarding his discussion of eternal generation, he affirms the doctrine, but he refrains from making any sort of conclusion as to what eternal generation means or refers to—whether it is (a) the Father's communicating the essence or (b) the Father's being the source of the Person of the Son:

I am not convinced that God has revealed enough information in Scripture for us to affirm or deny either option (a) or (b) with confidence. The actual meaning of the eternal generation of the Son might in fact be option (c), an explanation that we do not now understand or even know about. What we do have is five verses that say that Christ is the “only begotten” Son of the Father, and we have other verses that teach that God is eternal. Therefore, we can affirm with confidence the eternal generation of the Son. But we are dealing here with a topic of great mystery,50 and it seems wise to admit that much of this topic remains among the “secret things” that “belong to the Lord our God” (Deut. 29:29).​​—_ibid._, 298.​
Grudem does take some time in this second edition to address the heated controversy over the eternal subordination of the Son:

In the first edition of _Systematic Theology_, as well as in this second edition, and in subsequent writings on the doctrine of the Trinity, I have repeatedly and explicitly affirmed that the Son and Father are of the _same _essence or _same _being (_homoousios_), that the Son is fully God, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share in ontological equality...I did not affirm but rejected “the heresy of subordinationism, which holds that the Son is inferior in being to the Father.” (In these sentences, I used the word _being _as a synonym for _essence_.) I also repeatedly denied inferiority or subordination in essence (though I more often used the word being) in _Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth_.​​—_ibid._, 306; italics original.​​Regarding the question as to the relationship between this subordination to the essential being of God, he says:

Is this authority/submission relationship between Father and Son only found in the works of God outside of himself (such as creation and redemption), the works that theologians have called the opera ad extra (“works to the outside”)? Or does this relationship also belong to the necessary activity of God within the Trinity, what theologians have called the opera ad intra (“works to the inside”)? We must be cautious here because the eternal relationships among the three members of the Trinity are largely a matter of mystery, with little explicit testimony from Scripture.​​I think we can say at least that (1) the names Father and Son (and Spirit) are eternal names and suggest some kind of priority for the Father in the relationship; (2) all of God’s works outside himself (his opera ad extra) are voluntary, not necessary (see the discussion of God’s free will in chapter 13, p. 254), and therefore all the works of God in creation and redemption that show a pattern of the Son’s submission to the Father were entirely voluntary, not necessary; (3) what Scripture reveals to us about God’s works in creation and redemption is the primary way we have of knowing what God is like in himself (that is, the economic Trinity reflects the ontological Trinity); (4) the eternal generation of the Son is necessary to the very nature of God and this suggests the p 318 appropriateness of some kind of internal ordering of the relationship; and (5) many of those who deny an eternal relationship of authority and submission end up supporting a kind of egalitarian relationship among the members of the Trinity for which there is no explicit support in Scripture while also claiming that everything revealed in Scripture about the Father-Son relationship does not really tell us who God is in himself.​​—_ibid._, 317-318.​
Beyond all this, Grudem has a lengthy discussion of the "New Perspective on Paul" that I think will be helpful.

I think this is still a valuable contribution to introductory systematic theologies. It is easy to read, staunchly Calvinistic in its soteriology, strongly complementarian, and very devotional. Of course, I would not hand this to a new believer for them to read unguided on their own; I would want to direct their thoughts to better things in some areas. But even then, Grudem seems sober even in those areas where I disagree with him (e.g., spiritual gifts). In other words, he is not wild-eyed when it comes to matters where he strays. I would say that this is an excellent volume to read, refresh a certain area of doctrine, or to reference.

Reactions: Informative 13


----------



## Taylor (Dec 13, 2020)

Here also is an interview I just found from Dr. Grudem concerning the second edition of his _Systematic Theology_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2020)

It does seem like a marked improvement on the first edition in several respects, though his position on OEC is a bit disappointing. From what you have presented to us regarding the subordination of the Son, he does not seem to have considered the category of mediatorial subordination.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 13, 2020)

Taylor it sounds like you and I had the exact same experience with the 1st edition. His book was a gateway for my journey.

My favorite chapter is the one on eschatology because of his ability to explain complicated matters very simply and the helpful graphic.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 13, 2020)

The update on Mormonism et al should be good, since that is a lacuna in modern Reformed apologetics.

I hope he corrects his errant views on ESS.


----------



## Minh (Dec 13, 2020)

Thank you for your review. I may consider buying it as a gift for myself this Christmas.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 13, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I hope he corrects his errant views on ESS.


The last chunk I quoted in the OP addresses that. Any thoughts?


----------



## Jack K (Dec 13, 2020)

That's a useful report, since I probably won't want to invest in the updated edition but am curious about it. I too find Grudem helpful. His clarity and the way he presents biblical evidence make him a valuable resource.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Dec 13, 2020)

I read the first edition when it was published in 1994. I'll think about giving the second edition a try. Seeing as it's 326 pages longer than the first edition, it seems as if he's made some major revisions to it, as well as tinkering with it here and there.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> (I posted this in "General Discussions" because it is not a full book review, nor is it a theological discussion or question.)


Moved to Literacy forum. It is the forum for the Discussion of good and bad reading material. If you want to get more precise it can be moved to Recent Acquisitions forum


----------



## Taylor (Dec 14, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Moved to Literacy forum. It is the forum for the Discussion of good and bad reading material. If you want to get more precise it can be moved to Recent Acquisitions forum


Thank you! I honestly wrestled with where to put this. lol

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The last chunk I quoted in the OP addresses that. Any thoughts?



His comment on voluntary vs necessity is contradictory. That which falls within the eternal being of God is necessary, which would imply among other things, the eternal generation of the Son. On the other hand, he models the divine being after creation patterns, which is voluntary. So which is it?

It's what the early church in their Nicene ontology called paganism and mythology. He is reading creation back into the godhead, instead of the other way around.

He almost gets it right in the first sentence. There is a priority in the Father, but it is an epistemological one. It is a grammar. We know the Father through the Son in the Spirit. That is the Nicene grammar. It isn't an ontological priority.

Both sides of the debate what to focus on the immanent/ad extra distinctions. That's not necessary. If you have the Trinitarian taxis you don't need Rahner's Rule.


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The last chunk I quoted in the OP addresses that. Any thoughts?



Taylor, I’m not sure he has made a clean break of things.

“...many of those who deny an eternal relationship of authority and submission end up supporting a kind of egalitarian relationship among the members of the Trinity for which there is no explicit support in Scripture while also claiming that everything revealed in Scripture about the Father-Son relationship does not really tell us who God is in himself.“

From this I would infer that Grudem still distinguishes Persons by roles and eternal relations - i.e. authority and submission, as opposed to distinguishing the three hypostases by their respective personal properties of paternity, filiation and spiration. So, although he now acknowledges the eternal generation of the Son, I don’t see that he has abandoned ESS. He appears now to be in the “camp” of those who hold to eternal generation and ESS. I hope I’m wrong.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 14, 2020)

I am glad that this was posted. I had read various critiques of Grudem that caused me to shy away from him. Watching the video and then going to youtube and watching a couple more convinced me that this is a worthwhile acquisition. Particularly when I found that, contra Piper, Grudem is/was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump. Here is another vid where he explains that support;


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 14, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> His comment on voluntary vs necessity is contradictory. That which falls within the eternal being of God is necessary, which would imply among other things, the eternal generation of the Son. On the other hand, he models the divine being after creation patterns, which is voluntary. So which is it?
> 
> It's what the early church in their Nicene ontology called paganism and mythology. He is reading creation back into the godhead, instead of the other way around.
> 
> ...



I think that’s correct. If we limit RR to _corroborating_ what is appropriate or fitting for (or consistent with) the revealed distinctions of eternal Persons, then there’s at best minimal value. As I see it, the problem with RR is the strict identity between the economic and ontological that doesn’t take into account the incarnation and humanity of the Son.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2020)

JimmyH said:


> I am glad that this was posted. I had read various critiques of Grudem that caused me to shy away from him. Watching the video and then going to youtube and watching a couple more convinced me that this is a worthwhile acquisition. Particularly when I found that, contra Piper, Grudem is/was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump. Here is another vid where he explains that support;



Not to derail the thread, but that is one area where Grudem is right and Piper wrong. Piper's ethics is an incoherent disaster. There are legitimate criticisms of Trump, but Piper literally has no clue what he is talking about.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 14, 2020)

A great read.​


https://scriptoriumdaily.com/adding-eternal-generation/


Adding Eternal Generation​by Fred Sanders on December 13, 2020






The publication of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Second Edition presents an opportunity to consider the difference the doctrine of eternal generation can make in trinitarian theology. The opportunity arises from the fact that Grudem denied eternal generation in the first edition, but affirms it in the second. That’s a big change. 

The widely used first edition of Grudem’s Systematic Theology (sales of over 750,000) taught the doctrine of the Trinity with real warmth, both in the chapter devoted to the subject, and at a few other key points. I know one person who previously denied the triunity of God, but was convinced by studying Grudem’s book to reject unitarian theology and confess the Trinity. I know dozens of Christian people (especially college students and church members without advanced theological training) who, after studying Grudem’s Trinity chapter, came away more confident that the doctrine was biblical and coherent. Grudem’s Trinity chapter put the disparate pieces of the doctrine together for them. The first edition, I’m saying, effectively taught the doctrine of the Trinity. It got the job done (in truly simple language, ×750,000). And peculiarly, in my view, it did so without making adequate use of the doctrine of eternal generation.

In the intervening years, Wayne Grudem has changed his mind about eternal generation, and now argues that it is a doctrine clearly taught by Scripture. Trinitarian teaching that foregrounds eternal generation is a lot more solid and robust than trinitarian teaching that marginalizes, omits, or denies it. This is why I claim that comparing the first and second editions of Grudem’s Systematic Theologygive us a chance to see the difference eternal generation can make for trinitarian theology.

To bring out the comparison with adequate detail, let’s review how Grudem structures his teaching on the Trinity. This outline is the same in both editions; Grudem’s revisions in this chapter consist of a few small changes in isolated terminology,1 and the insertion of blocks of new material into the structure.

First, Grudem provides a section on the Trinity’s mode of revelation:


A. It is Progressively Revealed
1. Partial in the Old Testament
2. More completely in the New Testament

Next, the core of Grudem’s presentation of the doctrine, summarized in three claims which he proves from Scripture (plus two explanatory elaborations):


B. Three Statements Summarize the Biblical Teaching
1. God is Three Persons
2. Each Person is Fully God 
3. There is One God
4. Analogies fall short
5. God eternally and necessarily exists as Trinity

These three summary statements, developed over the course of about eight pages with exegetical footnotes, are the most valuable element of Grudem’s teaching on the Trinity. And we would expect them to be: his approach to systematic theology treats it as a discipline that summarizes and synthesizes Bible teaching. Here he applies that method to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the result is a parade of biblical truth. This method is what I have called “the piecemeal proof” of the doctrine of the Trinity because of the way it isolates individual propositions and then proves them one at a time from Scripture. It works. It’s an especially good framework for organizing a lot of material. If you think about it in creedal terms, this method follows the structure of the Athanasian Creed rather than the Nicene Creed. Like the Athanasian Creed, it focuses attention on the three-one dynamic more than on the relations and distinctions of the persons from each other, which is why Grudem goes on to add a long section about those relations. First he gives a section refuting standard heresies:


C. Errors
1. Modalism
2. Arianism
3. Tritheism

and then he moves into the important section on the trinitarian distinctions. This is the part of the second edition into which Grudem drops the two largest blocks of new material (on Eternal Generation and, don’t panic yet, on Eternal Functional Subordination). He has also reorganized the older material a bit. In the first edition, Grudem covered in a few pages the arguments that the persons of the Trinity are distinct because:


1. The Persons of the Trinity Have Different Primary Functions in Relating to the World.
2. The Persons of the Trinity Eternally Existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That is a peculiar order: Surely it would be best to establish first that the persons are distinct in their eternal existence, and then move on to their relations to the world.2 For whatever reasons, though, Grudem follows the order of first explaining their relations to the world (in creation and redemption) and then moving backward, as it were, to their eternal distinctions. He moves back from time to eternity by asking, rhetorically, “But why do the persons of the Trinity take these different roles in relating to creation? Was it accidental or arbitrary?” (first edition, 249). It was not: in the next two pages, Grudem argues that the distinctive roles the persons of the Trinity play in creation and redemption are accurate expressions of their eternal relations to each other. I think it’s fair to say that these two pages in the first edition bristled with implications, and have raised the most questions for interpreters. Grudem is eager to affirm that the Father is really the Father, the Son is really the Son, and the Spirit really the Spirit. This seems to him to be in possible tension with the equality of the persons, so he summarizes their relation with the formula that the Son is “equal in being but subordinate in role” to the Father. He concludes with a statement that is tersely stated but portentous: “This is why the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the church’s doctrine of the Trinity since it was first affirmed in the Nicene Creed…” (first edition, 251).

This is where the major blocks of new material appear in Systematic Theology, Second Edition. Grudem is revising and extending his remarks about the distinction of the persons. Here is the structure of this section in the second edition: 


D. What are the Distinctions Between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
1. The Persons of the Trinity Have Different Primary Functions in Relating to the World
2. The Meaning of Monogenes: Is Jesus God’s “Only Begotten” Son?
3. The Meaning of The Eternal Generation of the Son
4. The Different Functions (or Roles) of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit Are Appropriate to Their Distinct Identities (this is the section previously entitled “The Person of the Trinity Eternally Existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”)

Grudem has inserted the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son into the awkward gap that previously existed in his trinitarianism between the Trinity’s work in the world and the Trinity’s eternal existence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I won’t rehearse his whole argument about eternal generation, but it is a fine “why my mind has changed” moment that hinges on reading a colleague’s persuasive argument about the interpretation of a key word: 



> The evidence and arguments produced by Irons have convinced me that monogenēs when used of God the Son in the New Testament means “only begotten.” As a result, I have removed appendix 6 (where I had argued against “only begotten”) from this edition of Systematic Theology. In addition, I am now willing to affirm the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (also called the eternal begetting of the Son).


I admit that in years past, when I’ve taught theology classes using Grudem’s first edition, I’ve been pretty tempted to take the removal of appendix 6 into my own hands. That single, rip-outable page has been a real obstacle to me in helping guide students to the proper understanding of an important doctrine. How I rejoice at its excision. O blessed appendectomy!

Reconsidering the accuracy and meaning of “only-begotten” was the occasion for Grudem’s change of mind on this doctrine, but I don’t think his decision is quite as punctiliar as that makes it sound. Grudem pictures the monogenes argument as something like the breaking of a logjam: once it was cleared, he was willing to affirm that the doctrine is also present in passages where the terminology of begetting is not used. Traditionally, of course, Christian theology has drawn the doctrine less from the five “only-begotten” passages and more from places like John 5, Hebrews 1, and others. Grudem also includes some reflections on the systematic value of the doctrine, and argues for its strategic place in summing up a series of crucial biblical doctrines: 



> Speaking positively, we can say that the eternal generation of the Son implies that (1) the Son is of the same nature as the Father (for a father begets a son like himself), (2) the Son is a distinct person from the Father (for the Son is begotten and the Father is unbegotten), and (3) there is a specific order in the relationship between Father and Son (the biblical pattern is always from the Father through the Son, as in 1 Cor. 8:6). But
> all three of these points can be established from the clear testimony of many passages of Scripture without any need for a doctrine of eternal generation (as is evident, for example, from the fact that I affirmed all three of these points in the first edition of this book while denying eternal generation). Still, the idea of the eternal generation of the Son implies all three of these points at once, while otherwise they would have to be established by a combination of the teachings of several different verses.


It’s a tidy argument, satisfying in itself and promising in that it shows Grudem’s quick recognition of eternal generation’s organic fit into Christian doctrine as a whole. Imagine theologizing without the benefits of this doctrine for years, and then suddenly laying hold of it! And the fact that Grudem inserts this new material on eternal generation into his existing structure at exactly the point where his trinitarian teaching was previously at its most brittle and ambiguous is also very promising. Eternal generation, after all, seems to be exactly what the first edition needed at this point. It is a venerable doctrine that states the eternal relation of Father and Son in a way that secures, recognizes, and explains their distinction from each other within the divine unity. Where previously Grudem could only assert that the triune God must be in eternity as he behaves in the world, he now has new (well, actually very old, but newly deployed here) resources for characterizing the distinct, hypostatic identities of the persons in relation to each other. With this doctrine in place, Grudem could dispense with the need to talk about the more abstract categories of equality and subordination.

Note this carefully: With eternal generation making a difference as a doctrine that really does some work, there would be no need to keep seeking other answers to the question about the distinction between the Father and the Son. That distinction is wrapped up in the Father’s standing in the relation of principle to his coeternal, coessential, coequal Son. It’s what most versions of the piecemeal proof (with its emphasis on the three-one dynamic) most conspicuously lack: a specified relation between the persons. Adding eternal generation to that kind of trinitarian teaching provides the foundation simultaneously for the identity of essence and the distinction of persons; this addition makes the whole doctrinal structure cohere; it can satisfy faith’s desire for understanding by leading on to the glory believers have beheld, “glory as of the only-begotten.”

But these promised benefits of adding eternal generation are not fully realized in this second edition. Grudem continues to find the actual distinction between Father and Son to be something still to be specified, and so he continues to pursue what he considers to be much greater elaboration and specificity. That elaboration is an eternal relation in which the Father has a role, or function, of commanding the Son, who has a role, or function, of obeying and submitting. We are back to “equal in being, but subordinate in role” again. The next sub-section is:


5. Does the Son Eternally Submit to the Authority of the Father?
Grudem’s answer is yes, with about a dozen subpoints in which he rehearses the arguments about eternal functional subordination; clarifies what he has meant by it; defends his previously published views against critics; and justifies extending the relation analogically to family authority structures. This series of arguments looms large in bulk (about nineteen pages), and will be the subject of much attention and much controversy. The short report is already abroad in early reviews that in his second edition, Grudem doubles down on EFS. I do think Grudem clarifies a few issues helpfully (he has more to say here about the one divine will and what he calls its “three expressions” than I have seen him offer before), but I think this entire stretch of pages belongs to the archive of a rather dreary controversy. There will be more and more to say about it in a smaller and smaller community of discourse. If it were in my power to divert attention and passion into the right channels, I would direct everybody to focus on the doctrine of eternal relations of origin in the triune God. 

Because that is where the doctrine of the Trinity has a fitting environment, in which it thrives and springs to life with its full biblical, systematic, and spiritual vigor. The doctrine of eternal relations of origin is so important that I can survey Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Second Edition, and say that of the two Trinitarian news stories –the addition of eternal generation and the double-down on eternal functional subordination– the former is by far the bigger story.3 I don’t expect many people to agree with me in that estimation, but through a number of conflicts and confusions in the past decade, the strategic task of retrieving eternal generation has been the main objective worth striving for. Let me put it this way: By faithfully equipping his readers with the doctrine of eternal generation in this second edition (and cutting appendix 6!), Grudem has given his students the orientation they need to take their trinitarian theology further into the satisfying resources of the great tradition than his first edition encouraged. Let eternal generation have its patient, perfect work, and obviating the felt need for EFS will be among its lesser accomplishments.

While envisioning a bright future for evangelical trinitarianism moving forward from here, I don’t want to give the impression that in this regard we have to make up some brand new, never-before-accomplished feats of insight and doctrinal construction. In most of the matters under discussion here, the way forward lies in achieving mastery of some very old and proven tools of theological thinking. From among a great wealth of possible illustrations, let me offer one good example of Protestant theology that makes full and proper use of eternal generation: Petrus van Mastricht. Here is the very different way he answers the same question, “in what do the three persons differ among themselves?” He gives three answers, closely related:


In the *hypostatic properties, or manner of subsisting*: one subsisting entirely from himself; one subsisting from a certain other one, and one subsisting from two. 
In the *order of subsisting*, in which the Father is the first person, since he subsists entirely from himself; the Son the second, inasmuch as he descended from the Father; the Holy Spirit the third, as he proceeds from two.
In the *mode of operating*, which imitates the manner of subsisting and of order, insofar as, outside himself, the Father works from himself, through the Son and the Holy Spirit; the Son from the Father, through the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, through himself. (Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology, Vol. 2: Faith in the Triune God, 504-505. I have paraphrased a bit for clarity.)
The sequence that Mastricht follows is significant: first the manner of subsisting, from which follows an order of subsisting, which together set the pattern for the mode of operating. The doctrine of eternal generation is, we might say, built in from the very beginning, and Mastricht’s doctrinal drive to distinguish the persons from each other is entirely satisfied by it. As he continues to trace the work of the Trinity outward to creatures, he is not seeking in that work to find fuller or better explanations of how they differ. To the contrary, Mastricht is bringing all these distinctions with him from the internal life of the Trinity into the external operations of God. The order of subsisting is reflected in the mode of operating. The primal perfection of the triune God’s life in himself is graciously made present to us in free fellowship of God with us. That’s the answer. To some readers, it sounds like an empty form of words, leaving the question unresolved. But if, after reflecting on it, you are able to see it as an answer that really answers, then you are ready to forge ahead into classical Trinitarian theology in the Nicene tradition, which throws a surprising light on the word of God. 

What real difference does it make whether an evangelical doctrine of the Trinity includes or omits the doctrine of eternal generation? It makes some difference; Grudem’s own trinitarianism is now in certain, specifiable ways stronger than in the first edition. But what makes even more of a difference is to add it in such a way that it fully integrated into the deep structures of our way of approaching the doctrine of God. Adding eternal generation matters quite a bit for this second edition; it can matter even more for trinitarian theology among evangelicals in coming years. 

_________________________________________

1The most significant such edit is to the passage on p. 251 of the first edition, which had said “if we do not have *economic subordination*, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity” (emphasis added; watch that phrase). This was indeed a very bad sentence, which could only with difficulty be interpreted in an orthodox sense. In the second edition, Grudem has changed this to “if we do not have *relational differences (historically called subordination in function)*, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another…” The sentence was a subject of dispute during a public debate between Grudem and Tom McCall (along with Bruce Ware and Keith Yandell), where Grudem admitted it was badly stated and needed to be corrected.

2There is a fundamental issue under the surface here that I am avoiding on purpose. I only mention it here for the benefit of those who have already noticed its absence. Readers well versed in recognizing trinitarian actions toward the created world as inseparable operations of the entire Trinity (even if they terminate on one hypostasis or are appropriated to one for our instruction) will notice the trickiness of simply working back from distinct works in the world to distinctions in God. It would be possible to analyze Wayne Grudem’s entire trinitarian theology by asking where it makes contact, or fails to do so, with the doctrine of inseparable operations of the Trinity ad extra. But I don’t think Grudem has publicly worked out his views on that, and the point of this blog post is to inquire into what can be learned from a subject on which he has in fact meditated, changed his mind, and published. In what I quote from Mastricht above, it is easy to see the difference the doctrine of inseparable operations makes for him and his method of argument.

3If you agree that there are two major news stories about the fortunes of trinitarian theology in Grudem’s second edition, you will probably also wonder about the relation between the two items. I do, too. Much depends on the reception the book gets from those who appreciatively use it as a teaching tool, and how they decide to handle the combination of eternal generation and eternal functional subordination for themselves and their students. I predict eternal generation will prove its vigor, and the persuasiveness of EFS will continue to fade.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> Note this carefully: With eternal generation making a difference as a doctrine that really does some work, there would be no need to keep seeking other answers to the question about the distinction between the Father and the Son



That's the heart of the matter. Grudem et al have wanted to say that the only way we can distingish the persons is by seeing how women submit to men, to put it crudely. The Trinitarian tradition, by contrast, distinguished them by the relations of origin.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## bookslover (Dec 15, 2020)

JimmyH said:


> I am glad that this was posted. I had read various critiques of Grudem that caused me to shy away from him. Watching the video and then going to youtube and watching a couple more convinced me that this is a worthwhile acquisition. Particularly when I found that, contra Piper, Grudem is/was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump. Here is another vid where he explains that support;



That's quite the non sequitur. What do Grudem's political views have to do with the validity or non-validity of his theology? The fact that he supports Trump is neither here nor there. Grudem's systematic theology is (usually) very helpful and is a delight to read. I couldn't care less about his politics.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 15, 2020)

bookslover said:


> That's quite the non sequitur. What do Grudem's political views have to do with the validity or non-validity of his theology? The fact that he supports Trump is neither here nor there. Grudem's systematic theology is (usually) very helpful and is a delight to read. I couldn't care less about his politics.



It’s not a total non sequitur. Jimmy’s reluctance to read Grudem seems to be due to negative press. No doubt the negative press was that he had departed from tradition. Well, being outspoken on Trump is a departure from tradition too. Not many theologians did that. If one believes Grudem was correct in his convictions and was willing to stand against the tide for truth in the political realm, that could excite some theological curiosity on what else he has to say to the church. I’m not defending such curiosity other than to say I don’t think it’s a non sequitur.

As for not caring less about his politics, I find _that_ to be a bit of a non sequitur. If I came across a theologian who was a Marxist or a political feminist, I don’t think I’d gravitate to her theological writings. Conservative politics isn’t a great telltale about religion but liberal politics can say much about whether one has a mature Christian worldview.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## B.L. (Dec 15, 2020)

I'll pick up this 2nd edition at some point and donate the 1st edition to a church library. First on my short-list of systematic theologies to buy though is the 2nd edition of Robert Reymond's work "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith". _(At the risk of hijacking this thread inadvertently the price on Amazon is a steal right now.)_


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 15, 2020)

bookslover said:


> That's quite the non sequitur. What do Grudem's political views have to do with the validity or non-validity of his theology? The fact that he supports Trump is neither here nor there. Grudem's systematic theology is (usually) very helpful and is a delight to read. I couldn't care less about his politics.


Watching the aforementioned video convinced me that I 'like' Wayne Grudem as a person. Perhaps that isn't something that would recommend someone's theological work to you, but it is to me. 

That he supported Donald Trump tells me that he is a good man with common sense. Another thing that recommends his theological work to me. 

Sort of a by their fruits you will know them conclusion on my part. For me a person who agrees with Trump's policies, while recognizing his faults, and discounting them, is a man I will listen to attentively. Y-M-M-V.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 15, 2020)

B.L. said:


> I'll pick up this 2nd edition at some point and donate the 1st edition to a church library. First on my short-list of systematic theologies to buy though is the 2nd edition of Robert Reymond's work "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith". _(At the risk of hijacking this thread inadvertently the price on Amazon is a steal right now.)_



I couldn't figure out what was different in the 2nd edition from the 1st. I looked closely, but there was no statement anywhere in the front matter that stated any differences. So, I passed on it and kept my 1st edition. (My copy of Grudem's 2nd edition arrives this Friday.)


----------



## B.L. (Dec 15, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I believe Richard was talking about Reymond's second edition of his _A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith_, not Grudem's _Systematic Theology_.



Yikes. You're right. I deleted my response.


----------



## Minh (Dec 15, 2020)

JimmyH said:


> Sort of a by their fruits you will know them conclusion on my part. For me a person who agrees with Trump's policies, while recognizing his faults, and discounting them, is a man I will listen to attentively.



I have been very disappointed with the recent election. Without Trump, China will be the most brutal and atrocious superpower we'll ever witness. I guess we should be ready to have our organ harvested.

And I have a hard time understand why the mainstream medias have such a strong hatred for the President.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 21, 2021)

Creation Ministries has posted a review on their website FYI.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 21, 2021)

I have mixed feelings about Grudem. He has made much good and some bad theology accessible for many.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 21, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Creation Ministries has posted a review on their website FYI.


I _strongly_ disagree with Grudem in the area of the days of creation upon exegetical grounds. However, I was disturbed by this article's constant contrasting Grudem with "creationists." It's just sloppy. Grudem _is_ a creationist, unless of course they are defining "creationist" differently than everyone else I've ever read. This is the kind of manipulation of language that we see in, and are rightly angered by, the discourse of liberals.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 21, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I _strongly_ disagree with Grudem in the area of the days of creation upon exegetical grounds. However, I was disturbed by this article's constant contrasting Grudem with "creationists." It's just sloppy. Grudem _is_ a creationist, unless of course they are defining "creationist" differently than everyone else I've ever read. This is the kind of manipulation of language that we see in, and are rightly angered by, the discourse of liberals.



This sort of thing gets on my goat as well. The insinuation to the effect that anyone who is not a strict 6/24 proponent is an evolutionist is intellectually dishonest and only harms the cause of 6/24.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 21, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I _strongly_ disagree with Grudem in the area of the days of creation upon exegetical grounds. However, I was disturbed by this article's constant contrasting Grudem with "creationists." It's just sloppy. Grudem _is_ a creationist, unless of course they are defining "creationist" differently than everyone else I've ever read. This is the kind of manipulation of language that we see in, and are rightly angered by, the discourse of liberals.


Remember that Creation Ministries (CMI), like AIG, is a strict 6 day creationist ministry. They see anything that deviates from that as a 'slippery slope' towards evolution. You noted your disagreement with Grudem on days of creation. CMI argue that the only safe way to be a consistent creationist is to exegete the text and thus be a 6 day creationist. They are saying Grudem puts science before exegesis. To put science first opens problematic doors.

By the way I do note that Creation Ministries have odd inconsistencies. Eg they want to protect the authority of scripture by advocating a young earth creation position yet many of their supporters are Charismatics who believe that "God spoke to me" is on a par with scripture.

I do agree that being too rigid on this creates unnecessary barriers. A young earth creationist friend (a scientist) told me that John Lennox's book "God's undertaker" is a very good book for Christians to think through issues of the Bible and science. Lennox is not a young earth creationist, thus the young earth Creation Ministries do not recommend his book. Unfortunately this means they are discouraging Christians from a book that would help them think through key issues as I noted above. 

There are dangers in being too rigid. 


Reformed Covenanter said:


> This sort of thing gets on my goat as well. The insinuation to the effect that anyone who is not a strict 6/24 proponent is an evolutionist is intellectually dishonest and only harms the cause of 6/24.


I think they refer to Grudem as a compromised creationist, not an evolutionist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Jan 21, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I _strongly_ disagree with Grudem in the area of the days of creation upon exegetical grounds. However, I was disturbed by this article's constant contrasting Grudem with "creationists." It's just sloppy. Grudem _is_ a creationist, unless of course they are defining "creationist" differently than everyone else I've ever read. This is the kind of manipulation of language that we see in, and are rightly angered by, the discourse of liberals.





Reformed Covenanter said:


> This sort of thing gets on my goat as well. The insinuation to the effect that anyone who is not a strict 6/24 proponent is an evolutionist is intellectually dishonest and only harms the cause of 6/24.


So he believes the earth is old, but that there has not been biological evolution?


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 21, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> So he believes the earth is old, but that there has not been biological evolution?


Yes. Depends on how you define 'evolution.' 
Its an Old Earth Creationism probably like Hugh Ross.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 21, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I think they refer to Grudem as a compromised creationist, not an evolutionist.



Thanks for that clarification, Stephen. I was not referring to CMI specifically but to the indiscreet zeal of some 6/24 advocates.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

