CREC and ESS

[LaurenC]

I have read things on these boards about Doug Wilson and federal vision so I think from certain angles I have heard why CREC is not good, But I'd like to know if anyone has found good articles on how CREC churches believe in eternal subordination (submission?) of the son (ESS)

I have searched online and here, and I'm not coming up with much( nothing really) but I did bump into this discussion board, for all the same key words, I bet.

I'm looking for this right now because a friend has begun to go to A CREC church and has not heard that this has been taught there, but I just warned him generally, and I'd like to know if it is just hit-or-miss if some CREc's do not believe in ESS...

Thanks [emoji120][emoji259]

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[greenbaggins]

I would be surprised if CREC churches believed in ESS. That's more of a general evangelical heresy, with people like Grudem advocating it. I have certainly not heard of any CREC minister holding to ESS.

 

[RamistThomist]

Wilson holds to it. He and Bayly got in a spat over who was better on it.

Triune Botherations | Blog & Mablog

Sharing Options Contents Introduction Maybe Not Quite Not at All Arbitrary Caution . . . Postscript Introduction: I feel like the guy right before Pickett’s charge who thought he could make peace by walking between the armies in a gray coat and blue trousers. So wish me luck everybody. As many...

dougwils.com

***I agree that true and ultimate authority/submission must be grounded within the Godhead. I agree with Grudem there. ****

As to other CREC churches, it just depends. Those closer to the power structures in Moscow probably hold to it, as they will soon jockey for control once Wilson fades from the scene.

Wilson's really heretical statements are when he says Fatherhood is ad intra and that the Son's existence is obedience. I'm working on a somewhat Thomist rebuttal to that that will show, if successful, that he is an Arian.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

Now someone will point out that they don’t see how it is possible to have “authority and submission within the Godhead coupled with complete ontological equality” without that position logically entailing three wills, which would then be heterodox. I frankly confess that it would be heterodox, and that I don’t know how there can be anything resembling authority and submission with only one will. I get the problem. But I also don’t see, and on exactly the same grounds, how there can be anything like a Father and a Son with only one will.

One paragraph later:

And I say all this while embracing the classic Nicene understanding of Trinitarian orthodoxy — one divine will, divine simplicity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, world without end, amen.

This is so glaring that it's hard to believe it's not satire. I say 2+2 =5 while embracing the classic traditional understanding that 2+2 =4. It's the same mistake... "I don't see..." Of course you don't, Mr. Wilson. Look at things through the lens of your own mental vocabulary, and you're not likely to see much of God. If only there was some quote about the ability of temporal beings to comprehend a transcendent God.

 

[RamistThomist]

Now someone will point out that they don’t see how it is possible to have “authority and submission within the Godhead coupled with complete ontological equality” without that position logically entailing three wills, which would then be heterodox. I frankly confess that it would be heterodox, and that I don’t know how there can be anything resembling authority and submission with only one will. I get the problem. But I also don’t see, and on exactly the same grounds, how there can be anything like a Father and a Son with only one will.

One paragraph later:

And I say all this while embracing the classic Nicene understanding of Trinitarian orthodoxy — one divine will, divine simplicity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, world without end, amen.

This is so glaring that it's hard to believe it's not satire. I say 2+2 =5 while embracing the classic traditional understanding that 2+2 =4. It's the same mistake... "I don't see..." Of course you don't, Mr. Wilson. Look at things through the lens of your own mental vocabulary, and you're not likely to see much of God. If only there was some quote about the ability of temporal beings to comprehend a transcendent God.

You just summarized every Wilson blog post.

 

[RamistThomist]

But I also don’t see, and on exactly the same grounds, how there can be anything like a Father and a Son with only one will.

That's because classical theology saw the person as a mode of the essence. Full stop. Because the person is a tropos of the huparxis, the early Fathers (and Turretin and Shedd) didn't have to worry about whether this matches up with a Father having a distinct will and a Son having a distinct will. Wilson is reading human analogies of Father and Son into the godhead, and that's why he gets it wrong.

 

[Taylor]

Wilson is reading human analogies of Father and Son into the godhead...

In my estimation, this is where ESS begins. Am I right? It is a fundamental error in method.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

You just summarized every Wilson blog post.

I so badly want to do some kind of parody of this. I at least have a fair measure of respect for Grudem, who attempts to make a real case for his views and has shown at least some amenability to change and retraction. Even Wilson shows elsewhere that he is capable of better argumentation... but this particular post (which I hadn't seen prior to your link) is more ripe than a month-old banana.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Now someone will point out that they don’t see how it is possible to have “authority and submission within the Godhead coupled with complete ontological equality” without that position logically entailing three wills, which would then be heterodox. I frankly confess that it would be heterodox, and that I don’t know how there can be anything resembling authority and submission with only one will. I get the problem. But I also don’t see, and on exactly the same grounds, how there can be anything like a Father and a Son with only one will.

One paragraph later:

And I say all this while embracing the classic Nicene understanding of Trinitarian orthodoxy — one divine will, divine simplicity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, world without end, amen.

This is so glaring that it's hard to believe it's not satire. I say 2+2 =5 while embracing the classic traditional understanding that 2+2 =4. It's the same mistake... "I don't see..." Of course you don't, Mr. Wilson. Look at things through the lens of your own mental vocabulary, and you're not likely to see much of God. If only there was some quote about the ability of temporal beings to comprehend a transcendent God.

You have pinpointed the real problem with Doug Wilson: his use of paradox theology. It is the failure to understand this fundamental error in his theological method that has led astray many into thinking that he is orthodox (in a Reformed sense) just because he says orthodox things. Mr Wilson can say orthodox and heterodox things at the same time about the same subject on the basis that it is an irreconcilable paradox. So, when you point out his heterodoxy, his defenders will argue, "That is a straw man because Doug also said x." To paraphrase what David Lloyd George said about Eamon de Valera, trying to argue with Wilsonites is like trying to pick up mercury with a fork.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm no expert and frankly never want to be, but it seems that Wilson is smart, bold (he finds some way to double down rather than retreat from his view), read in things that interest him at least (I assume; I mean, how many puritans has he read; what is is preaching actually like? I honestly don't know). How much of this use of paradox is convenience because he doesn't know the acceptable boundaries of orthodoxy? I.e., winging it? Or if I can paraphrase what John Owen said to Richard Baxter which I read once but have not documented myself, "you need to go back to school. "

You have pinpointed the real problem with Doug Wilson: his use of paradox theology. It is the failure to understand this fundamental error in his theological method that has led astray many into thinking that he is orthodox (in a Reformed sense) just because he says orthodox things. Mr Wilson can say orthodox and heterodox things at the same time about the same subject on the basis that it is an irreconcilable paradox. So, when you point out his heterodoxy, his defenders will argue, "That is a straw man because Doug also said x." To paraphrase what David Lloyd George said about Eamon de Valera, trying to argue with Wilsonites is like trying to pick up mercury with a fork.

 

[RamistThomist]

"But he's such a great communicator!"

If one is always "constantly misunderstood," then perhaps he isn't that good a communicator. Just thought I would throw that out there.

 

[Eyedoc84]

"But he's such a great communicator!"

If one is always "constantly misunderstood," then perhaps he isn't that good a communicator. Just thought I would throw that out there.

He’s good with words...that doesn’t mean he’s clear

 

[ChristianLibertarian]

"But he's such a great communicator!"

If one is always "constantly misunderstood," then perhaps he isn't that good a communicator. Just thought I would throw that out there.

Hitler was a great communicator too. In fact, lots of people in error are great communicators. As for Wilson, he is more personality than communicator. You are right, a good communicator isn't misunderstood. Wilson is constantly misunderstood in his mind, which makes him not so great at communication.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Hitler was a great communicator too.

That is a bit harsh on Uncle Addie.

 

[ChristianLibertarian]

That is a bit harsh on Uncle Addie.

Too much? How about Jim Jones instead?

 

[SolaScriptura]

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.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

Aside from Nicea, I don't think a modern court has judged it such. First, someone has to bring formal charges. Grudem is a Baptist, so he's basically answerable only to his session. Kennedy is dead, so he probably won't face charges. The only paedobaptists I know of that hold to this heresy are Wilson and the Baylys, and they are more or less autonomous.

Those who are confessionally Reformed do not hold to semi-Arianism, so there is no reason for anyone to bring charges on this topic in a real Presbyterian system.

 

[A.Joseph]

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.

On the flip side, I check in with Byrd’s tweets and blog once in a while. She is flying away from sound teaching. She may have already checked out…
But Wilson is too far gone. He’s way past rebranding at this point.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

You have pinpointed the real problem with Doug Wilson: his use of paradox theology.

This is not what I consider "paradox theology", which I understand to be the deliberate and thoughtful use of tension and/or outright contradiction as an element of one's theology. What I see in posts like this is someone very intelligent but who has lost some of the humility and self-awareness that would cause him to think twice before hitting "post".

In other words, this is gross carelessness and hubris on his part. He's not saying two contradictory things as part of a consciously articulated theological approach; he's saying two contradictory things because he doesn't know what either thing really means and, as he is rather self-impressed at this point in his career, it hasn't occurred to him that he doesn't know what he's talking about and that posts like this are several standard deviations below his potential IQ. Lack of checks and balances.

And, just so that we're clear, for myself I would willingly assert that this post is patently and unequivocally heterodox in a way not at all changed by the presence of orthodox-sounding statements in there. I don't think he leaves any room for ambiguity on that point. I'm deliberately and knowingly declining to make any judgments beyond this specific post; the post itself puts forth a heretical proposition.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Aside from Nicea, I don't think a modern court has judged it such. First, someone has to bring formal charges. Grudem is a Baptist, so he's basically answerable only to his session. Kennedy is dead, so he probably won't face charges. The only paedobaptists I know of that hold to this heresy are Wilson and the Baylys, and they are more or less autonomous.

Those who are confessionally Reformed do not hold to semi-Arianism, so there is no reason for anyone to bring charges on this topic in a real Presbyterian system.

Given how remarkably influential Grudem’s work is, and given how long it has circulated without any real criticism, I think it would be wise for denominations to formally repudiate the position if not the man.

 

[RamistThomist]

Given how remarkably influential Grudem’s work is, and given how long it has circulated without any real criticism, I think it would be wise for denominations to formally repudiate the position if not the man.

Perhaps. Not much I can do on that front, as I am not very important.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

Given how remarkably influential Grudem’s work is, and given how long it has circulated without any real criticism, I think it would be wise for denominations to formally repudiate the position if not the man.

That process would start how? Presumably, a pastor in one of these denominations leading the charge?

 

[RamistThomist]

How many confessional theologians are quoting Grudem? If you are confessional, you are likely to be using Bavinck or Berkhof or Reymond (let's be honest: as a pastor you will likely be using whatever text used in seminary). Usually when Grudem's name is brought up people think, "That's the charismatic guy, right?"

 

[Deleted member 11889]

How many confessional theologians are quoting Grudem? If you are confessional, you are likely to be using Bavinck or Berkhof or Reymond (let's be honest: as a pastor you will likely be using whatever text used in seminary). Usually when Grudem's name is brought up people think, "That's the charismatic guy, right?"

I'm confessional and have no issue quoting Grudem where he gets something right. Some parts of his Systematic Theology are very lucidly explained. Maybe it's because I'm not a theologian... yes, that's it. Just confessional. If I got a seminary degree, I would probably need to stop quoting him.

But then I'm of the mindset that one should cast a somewhat wide net and draw it in discerningly. So I have no problem quoting Grudem, Keller, Lombard, Aquinas, the Catholic Catechism, Piper, Frame, TGC, where they get something right. Others, including many of my friends, are of the mindset that if the author is tainted you throw out his entire work. I guess I do that too past a certain point, as there are some writers I wouldn't quote on principle. And Grudem doesn't get as much airtime as Bavinck, Berkhof, or Calvin, to be sure.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm confessional and have no issue quoting Grudem where he gets something right. Some parts of his Systematic Theology are very lucidly explained. Maybe it's because I'm not a theologian... yes, that's it. Just confessional. If I got a seminary degree, I would probably need to stop quoting him.

But then I'm of the mindset that one should cast a somewhat wide net and draw it in discerningly. So I have no problem quoting Grudem, Keller, Lombard, Aquinas, the Catholic Catechism, Piper, Frame, TGC, where they get something right. Others, including many of my friends, are of the mindset that if the author is tainted you throw out his entire work. I guess I do that too past a certain point, as there are some writers I wouldn't quote on principle. And Grudem doesn't get as much airtime as Bavinck, Berkhof, or Calvin, to be sure.

Absolutely. I didn't mean never quote him. Much of the book is quite good.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

Absolutely. I didn't mean never quote him. Much of the book is quite good.

Agreed. I haven't read the whole book - but large chunks of it. And I enjoyed most of what I read. The section on prophesy though is just addle-brained.

 

[Pilgrim]

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 guess it depends on your definition of “orthodox,” but I think there had been opposition to the views of Grudem and Ware for just about as long as they’ve been in print. Millard Erickson comes to mind. There is a Southern Baptist pastor in my area who has been studying it since the 90s. The controversy was renewed and received a lot more publicity with the blogging of Byrd and Miller to be sure.

And as others noted, what court is going to convict Southern Baptists? Elevation Church (Stephen Furtick) is still in “friendly cooperation.” Enough said.

Whether or not ESS (or whatever today’s acronym for it is) is a heresy from a technical standpoint may be debatable. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t seriously false doctrine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RamistThomist]

As Chris noted, Millard Erickson was mightily raised up of God to smite the subordinationists long before Byrd entered the scene.

Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?

In responding to the subordinationist debate on the Trinity, Erickson gives us much more than a snapshot of the current battle. He gives us a model on how to do systematic (or missional, if you are…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

To be sure, Kevin Giles is an egalitarian, but he correctly notes that egalitarians never changed the Trinity in order to justify their view of male-female relationships. They believed they could make their case without altering Nicea.

Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity

Giles, Kevin. The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2017. This is a great snapshot of the Trinitarian debate of 2016. Kevin Giles gives …

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[Taylor]

...egalitarians never changed the Trinity...

This is what I don't understand about this whole issue. Was the sole impetus for ESS really gender roles? If so, this is exceedingly troublesome. Why must we go to such great lengths to establish what Scripture already clearly teaches? If all we want to do is set boundaries against women holding office, all we need is 1 Tim. 2:12-14.

 

[RamistThomist]

This is what I don't understand about this whole issue. Was the sole impetus for ESS really gender roles? If so, this is exceedingly troublesome. Why must we go to such great lengths to establish what Scripture already clearly teaches? If all we want to do is set boundaries against women holding office, all we need is 1 Tim. 2:12-14.

They will say it isn't the sole impetus, but the evidence says otherwise, starting with George Knight in 1977. I'm all for setting boundaries against women ruling in the church. Scriptures seems pretty clear on that point. I think everyone got caught up in the desire to make the Trinity the model for all of life. That's probably what did it.