CREC and ESS

Status
Not open for further replies.
ESS explicity denies ontological subordination, does it not? It seems unfair to just label Grudem et al as Arian heretics when they explicitly affirm homoousia. You could argue that logically you end up with two wills and tend toward Arianism, but you can’t just say Nicea already dealt with this. It seems they didn’t, at least not in the way Grudem frames the issue. Grudem affirms Nicea. The confusion to me seems to come with the terms eternal paired with functional, and the debate seems blurred by various (mis)understandings of where the concept of ontology ends and economy begins.
 
@Eyedoc84, it's semi-Arianism stemming from misguided biblicism and a bad habit of seeing God through human eyes - i.e., not grasping that our knowledge of God is analogical.
 
ESS explicity denies ontological subordination, does it not? It seems unfair to just label Grudem et al as Arian heretics when they explicitly affirm homoousia. You could argue that logically you end up with two wills and tend toward Arianism, but you can’t just say Nicea already dealt with this. It seems they didn’t, at least not in the way Grudem frames the issue. Grudem affirms Nicea. The confusion to me seems to come with the terms eternal paired with functional, and the debate seems blurred by various (mis)understandings of where the concept of ontology ends and economy begins.

Two wills is tritheism, which is polytheism. They have this problem because they don't understand how eternal generation works. Matthew Barrett wrote the finest modern book on the Trinity and he does a good job on this problem.
 
Two wills is tritheism, which is polytheism.
Of course. But doesn’t Grudem et al affirm one will? Just because you think his view logically leads to Arianism, and you can certainly argue for that, that’s not the same as him being Arian. I think ESS unnecessarily introduces ideas and language that produce more confusion than clarity, which can certainly lead one down heretical paths.
 
Of course. But doesn’t Grudem et al affirm one will? Just because you think his view logically leads to Arianism, and you can certainly argue for that, that’s not the same as him being Arian. I think ESS unnecessarily introduces ideas and language that produce more confusion than clarity, which can certainly lead one down heretical paths.

I think he does affirm one will. He updated his ST to include eternal generation, but he refuses to let that correct his theology. I don't think Grudem is an Arian. I don't think he is consistent, either.
 
Matthew Barrett wrote the finest modern book on the Trinity and he does a good job on this problem.

I found a new youtube channel this week that has a lot of interesting content. Anyway he has an episode with Dr. Barrett and starting at 39:51 he discusses eternal generation and EFS.

 
I found a new youtube channel this week that has a lot of interesting content. Anyway he has an episode with Dr. Barrett and starting at 39:51 he discusses eternal generation and EFS.


Yeah, that's very good. You can't lose sight of the characteristics of the persons: paternity, filiation, and spiration. That's how you distinguish the persons and that is what Ware has specifically rejected.
 
Yeah, that's very good. You can't lose sight of the characteristics of the persons: paternity, filiation, and spiration. That's how you distinguish the persons and that is what Ware has specifically rejected.
@BayouHuguenot, enlighten me here - but do I recall correctly that Ware has gone much farther and doubled down much more insistently on this error than Grudem?
 
@BayouHuguenot, enlighten me here - but do I recall correctly that Ware has gone much farther and doubled down much more insistently on this error than Grudem?

That sounds correct, but I haven't seen any statements from Ware in the last few years. Grudem was willing to be corrected on eternal generation, at least on the surface. There was a pretty big debate at the Henry Center at Trinity where Ware debated some other guy on ESS and in that debate Ware rejected the classical view that we identify the persons by their modes of origination.
 
There was a pretty big debate at the Henry Center at Trinity where Ware debated some other guy on ESS…
Unless I am mistaken, one of the “other guys” was Tom McCall. I wish I could have been there for that. He was one of my favorite professors, even if he is an Arminian.
 
I know that after nearly 20 years of no orthodox theologian saying anything (a fact I absolutely refuse to let slip by), Aimee Byrd cited a bunch of egalitarians and liberals to defend her feminist friendly position and in a rush to defend their friend a couple podcasters waged a war against Grudem and co., and I know that in the aftermath it’s become the en Vogue thing to be against “ESS”… all that aside… aside from the pronouncement of individuals, out of curiosity: Has an actual court of any church judged the position of D James Kennedy, Grudem, et al, to be a heresy? That’s the question I want answered.
I think that URC NA had written an official refusal of federal vision it's about a 7 page document on their denomination website, and and I think they may have done one for ESS.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top