JvMill
Puritan Board Sophomore
As I mentioned in another thread, I’ve been reading Matthew Barrett’s Simply Trinity. I cannot emphasize enough how helpful this book has been in clearing up some of my confusions regarding eternal relations of origin, especially what it means for the Son to be begotten of the Father and the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son.
That said, I want to mention something that I thought may be of interest to you all. One of the themes of Barrett’s book is how social trinitarians will manipulate the Trinity in order to fit their societal goals. For example, since the Trinity is equal, women should be equal.
One of the most influential books I’ve ever read is Classical Arminianism by Leroy Forlines. Also his larger work, Quest for Truth. It convinced me, for a time, of classical (as opposed to Wesleyan) Arminianism. One of the most convincing arguments, at the time, was his dichotomy between God acting towards us on an influence and response basis rather than cause and effect. He does this because we are people who think(mind), feel(heart), and act (will). To lack those things (mind, heart, and will) would make you a non-person. Made perfect sense.
Then I read his larger work, in which he expounds upon the Trinity. This was before any real study of the Trinity beyond ‘one being, three persons.’ He said all sorts of things which didn’t make any sense. Three wills in the Trinity (he defined will as the ability to say ‘I will do something’), denied eternal generation as some odd teaching of the past, and said that the names of the persons are because of their role in salvation (for example the Holy Spirit is so called because he is holy/makes people holy and is a spirit. I find this error to be the worst of all. It makes it so the Trinity is dependent on creation for its inner life). Forlines even says that the names existed in eternity because God was looking forward to the economy of redemption.
And this awful statement:
‘There is nothing distinctive in the ontological nature of the members of the Trinity that would make the names more appropriate for one than the other.’ Quest for Truth 92. Within the context of his denial of eternal generation, this is troubling.
And again:
‘The name Holy Spirit is fully consistent with the ontological nature of the Holy Spirirt, but the same could be said about the Father and the Son.’ 92. Basically the father and Son could be called Holy Spirit. This goes beyond EFS. This seems like Rahner’s rule (the ontological Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa) on steroids.
Once I begin to study the Trinity (starting with Letham’s The Holy Trinity, which was probably too advanced at the time, much of it went over my head), I realized there were some serious issues with Forlines’ Trinitarianism. Then reading Barrett’s book got me a thinkin’…
This is just another form of manipulation of the beloved Trinity. Forlines was willing to take the hit (and a big hit is was indeed) against his Christology (he basically said Christ has one will without outright saying it) and trinitarianism so that his high philosophy of personhood, which is so crucial to his Arminian soteriology, could coincide with the aforementioned doctrines. Once I began to see the issues, starting with my reading of Letham, I realized this manipulation and found Forlines’ soteriology to be much less convincing. Barrett simply gave me the proper vocabulary for what drove me away from Forlines. Soteriology has to mesh with the doctrine of God, or all is lost. I am looking forward to reading Sanders on the Trinity to see how his Wesleyan Arminianism affects his view of the Trinity.
Has anyone experienced this particular manipulation related to Arminianism. Or how have you interacted with this high view of personhood? Have you ever said a person is someone who thinks with their mind, feels with their heart, and acts with their will? How does that fit with Chalcedon Christology (two wills/natures, united in his one person)?
Sorry for the theological ramblings, these are topic I’ve been thinking about for some time. Interact as you see fit.
That said, I want to mention something that I thought may be of interest to you all. One of the themes of Barrett’s book is how social trinitarians will manipulate the Trinity in order to fit their societal goals. For example, since the Trinity is equal, women should be equal.
One of the most influential books I’ve ever read is Classical Arminianism by Leroy Forlines. Also his larger work, Quest for Truth. It convinced me, for a time, of classical (as opposed to Wesleyan) Arminianism. One of the most convincing arguments, at the time, was his dichotomy between God acting towards us on an influence and response basis rather than cause and effect. He does this because we are people who think(mind), feel(heart), and act (will). To lack those things (mind, heart, and will) would make you a non-person. Made perfect sense.
Then I read his larger work, in which he expounds upon the Trinity. This was before any real study of the Trinity beyond ‘one being, three persons.’ He said all sorts of things which didn’t make any sense. Three wills in the Trinity (he defined will as the ability to say ‘I will do something’), denied eternal generation as some odd teaching of the past, and said that the names of the persons are because of their role in salvation (for example the Holy Spirit is so called because he is holy/makes people holy and is a spirit. I find this error to be the worst of all. It makes it so the Trinity is dependent on creation for its inner life). Forlines even says that the names existed in eternity because God was looking forward to the economy of redemption.
And this awful statement:
‘There is nothing distinctive in the ontological nature of the members of the Trinity that would make the names more appropriate for one than the other.’ Quest for Truth 92. Within the context of his denial of eternal generation, this is troubling.
And again:
‘The name Holy Spirit is fully consistent with the ontological nature of the Holy Spirirt, but the same could be said about the Father and the Son.’ 92. Basically the father and Son could be called Holy Spirit. This goes beyond EFS. This seems like Rahner’s rule (the ontological Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa) on steroids.
Once I begin to study the Trinity (starting with Letham’s The Holy Trinity, which was probably too advanced at the time, much of it went over my head), I realized there were some serious issues with Forlines’ Trinitarianism. Then reading Barrett’s book got me a thinkin’…
This is just another form of manipulation of the beloved Trinity. Forlines was willing to take the hit (and a big hit is was indeed) against his Christology (he basically said Christ has one will without outright saying it) and trinitarianism so that his high philosophy of personhood, which is so crucial to his Arminian soteriology, could coincide with the aforementioned doctrines. Once I began to see the issues, starting with my reading of Letham, I realized this manipulation and found Forlines’ soteriology to be much less convincing. Barrett simply gave me the proper vocabulary for what drove me away from Forlines. Soteriology has to mesh with the doctrine of God, or all is lost. I am looking forward to reading Sanders on the Trinity to see how his Wesleyan Arminianism affects his view of the Trinity.
Has anyone experienced this particular manipulation related to Arminianism. Or how have you interacted with this high view of personhood? Have you ever said a person is someone who thinks with their mind, feels with their heart, and acts with their will? How does that fit with Chalcedon Christology (two wills/natures, united in his one person)?
Sorry for the theological ramblings, these are topic I’ve been thinking about for some time. Interact as you see fit.
