From what I have gathered of them, and from what I have rid of them, I do not believe it is too far a stretch to label them as heretics, since they seem to reject some very fundamental Christian doctrines.
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary’s 2021 Spring Theology Conference was on the Doctrine of the Trinity (some on classical theism) and their 2023 Spring Theology Conference will be on the Attributes of God, Lord willing. Dolezal and other great speakers will be discussing classical theism, it will be a great opportunity to hear solid teaching and fellowship with likeminded Christians seeking to worship God for his glory.
Thank you! This is really helpful and interesting. I am a novice in the history of philosophical thought but I knew enough to follow your description of the background for social trinitarianism. I found it interesting and I hope you do more "history of thought" things like that.
Please do continue with deep theological videos. We need profound discussions coming from our perspective. People don't go to Rome and the EO churches only for "smells and bells", but also for a richer and deeper faith and theology than the watered down baby formula of a sermon they've heard in their Protestant church for the last 12 years. Rome/EO does not have a monopoly on the Fathers, Trinitarian theology, the Eucharist, or any other deeper part of the faith, and we need to make that known by teaching such ourselves again. Simple example: stop mucking with the verbiage of the creeds in order to try to make them more plain. Don't dumb things down, rather teach your people to understand that, say, we do believe in the holy catholic, not "Christian", church, because "catholic" means "universal", not "Papist". Pet peeve, but a good example of the depths to which we've sunk. Words have meaning. The amount of changes that have been made to the creeds in our books and hymnals makes 1054 look quaint. Teach, don't accommodate.
Hi Dr. Jordan B. Cooper thank you for this thoughtful video. It has cleared up a major issue that I didn't know in the Theology I believed in. Inseparable Operations is indeed a very important, simple but yet infinitely complex function.
Absolutely love these deep theological videos man. If you love doing these kind of videos then keep doing them because I love them as well lol I have some friends of mine who also listen to these videos and love them too.
Professor Adonis Vidu is the best. I have had the privilege of taking a number of courses with him while a student at Gordon-Conwell. Glad to hear such good things about his latest work, hoping to pick that volume up soon.
Dear Dr. Cooper, I was not able to watch all of the presented video, but had a desire to thank you for your publishing of previous theological material! Also, if possible, could I ask for recommendation of book describing early patristics' view on ecclesiology? Thanks a lot!
Jordan, it would be great if you were also able to cover the modern version of Monarchical Trinitarianism that has arisen within Analytic Theology. I am thinking of the work of Dr. Beau Branson and Dr. Joshua Sijuwade and their debates with Dr. Dale Tuggy. This view is especially strong in modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Fr. John Behr writes “the Father alone is the one true God.” Fr. Thomas Hopko writes “Now in the Bible, in the creeds, and in the liturgy, it’s very important, really critically important, to note, and to affirm, and to remember, that the one God, in Whom we believe, strictly speaking, is not the Holy Trinity. The One God is God the Father. That in the Bible, the One God is the Father of Jesus Christ. He is God Who sends His only-begotten Son into the world. And Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And then, of course, in a parallel manner, the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.” The Holy Scriptures themselves seem to be strongly subordinationist as are the ante-Nicene Fathers. Examples: John 17:3; John 20:17; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Colossians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:16; 1 Peter 1:3. The language of Holy Scripture is probably most strong in John 17:3 where the Father is referred to as “the only true God”. Also in 1 Corinthians 8:6 “…for us there is one God, the Father,” It seems that in the Scriptures ‘God’ simply just is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
If you want the Lutheran answer on passages such as John 20:17, as you mentioned, I recommend reading article 8 of the solid declaration of the formula of concord, it covers passages such as this. Also, the catalog of testimonies, an appendix to the book of concord, based almost entirely on quotations of the church fathers. Other specific works on the Trinity from a Lutheran perspective with be Luther’s Last Words of David, as well as his 1540s disputation with Georg Major and Faber (he used this disputation to teach) and his disputation on “The Word Made Flesh.” One thing that comes up over and over again is his rejection of the 1215 fourth lateran council on the Trinity. He says the other side (Joachim) was wrong also, other side being a social trinitarian assertion in the 13th century. As far as EO and monarchy of the father, they tend to be careful and say, the father is the source of the son and spirit, which is true. But of course, the son is God from God, and so they aren’t denying the deity of the son either, just pointing out the son has his deity from the father
I know I'm watching this 2 years after you posted it, but I would love to see you elaborate on the differences between EO Trinitarianism and Social Trinitarianism.
This is so very helpful to me, especially in regard to Humanistic influences which cause people to reject God's Lordship over wills, so that they refuse to give God full credit is Creator and Savior, and they redefine Grace Alone to satisfy their Modernistic sense of self-identity (the very thing we are commanded to die to). I know this may not be your intended purpose here, and Lutheran and Reformed are not exactly identical, but that's how it is helpful specifically to me and my ministry. The clarity regarding the Trinity is also very helpful. I was unaware of what Social-"Trinitarianism" is rejecting. This I'm sure is the intended purpose of your video, and I have received it. Thank you, Jordan.
The more I study these matters, the more I think it is vital that our seminaries and pastors learn the metaphysics of the fathers. Our minds are polluted by the assumptions of Kant and the Enlightenment so that we are no longer capable of thinking rightly about God or the things of God or even of our own nature. There IS a divine metaphysics. Scripture HAS a metaphysical stance. We need both to understand it, and be able to communicate it clearly to our laity. And above all, we need to mold our thought and identities around it. When you undergo a shift in metaphysics back to the model of Scripture, it changes how you preach. It changes how you speak about nearly everything. About God's nature. About the Law. About sin, especially about original sin. About Christ. About Justification. About the Word and Sacraments. And of course, this means we need to hold our professors accountable to their existentialism, to re-teach them, and call them to repentance. But I'm afraid there is not is not going to happen and the problem is only going to grow worse.
52:25 This is why I love your videos even though you constantly roast Calvinists like me. You also really helped me make sense of things I've seen. I'm in a PCUSA Church, and they seem to kinda be social trinitarians, as they're on the neo-orthodox, rather than the radically liberal end of the PCUSA. I think social trinitarianism was my assumption without knowing what it was called until I studied historic creedal trinitarian theology. Now I can see the problems with it.
I'm reading about Coleridge currently, and what he says about distinguishing without dividing helps me sort of get a grip on some of what you are saying here. I guess it is our modern consciousness which makes us sort of stuck in this divide and conquer way of thinking, which is terribly useful for some things, but terribly dangerous and counter productive in other ways.
Dr Cooper, have you noticed Chemnitz utilizing the essence energy distinctions, particularly in the 23 chapter of the Two Natures, “The true mode of the communication of the Majesty?” I have been studying the essence energy distinctions and it seems to me that Luther and Chemnitz, while they might not have made the deal out of them the EO do, seemed to have picked up on the idea. It is dually interesting in relation to that, that Luther frequently condemns the 4th lateran council, and Lombard, as well as Fiore, for their errors. This is interesting because it is at the 4th lareran that the roman church dogmatized actus purus, and Luther seems to be deeply suspicious of the pronouncements of that council on the doctrine of God. Any thoughts?
Helpful video - thanks! I don’t think what you said about individuals and the will makes sense though. Identifying individuals as distinct centers of will and consciousness doesn’t entail the kind of atomistic individualism you say it does. It doesn’t follow from the proposition that what makes me an individual is that I have a distinct will that my good or my purpose is to be found by looking within my will rather than to the ends built into my humanity or to my roles in the family, community, etc. You conflate the descriptive (selves/individuals are distinct wills/minds) with the normative (the will is what determines the good for selves/individuals).
Dr. Cooper. I agree with so much of classical theology and the classical view of the doctrine of God. Imutability, Impassibility, simplicity (although I do not know if understand the ramifications of this one well), and the eternal begetting of the Son. I do however, lean towards a more experiential faith and experiential way to commune or live out our faith with the Trinity. I am still very orthodox. I am Reformed and believe all 5 Solas and the Bible is the supreme source for faith and life. Everything else is subservient to it. I do not believe in experience being above Scripture or theology. But there is a lived out experience of our theology in which I do not think one really believes in the classical doctrines of God unless there is an experience of God but that experience is defined by Scripture and doctrines such as the doctrine of God and experience does not define my doctrine of God . I also tend to think of the 3 persons before the unity. Maybe I think more about hte economic trinity than the immanent trinity. IDK. But I am somewhat drawn to a conservative type of social trinitarianism although when I read their works then I think their mistake is to leave out the classical doctrines. Usually they remove themselves from classical views of the economic trinity that would say that Salvation is from the Father through the Son and by the Spirit. Instead they go for something much more abstract and some kind of psychological or philosophical ramblings. Ibeliebe in a social trinity such they is played out in the economic trinity of From, through, and by. Can you help me with this? What is a person or subsistence? And what part does an economic trinity play instead of the immanent trinity especially since many theologians believe that at least part of hte economic trinity shows up in the immanent Trinity.
As an unconfirmed but baptized Lutheran, I want to understand more about almost everything you talk about on this channel. :) You mentioned, Gerhard. Is that the Jesuit priest, Johann Gerhard? If so, are there any of his works you would recommend for the intellectually curious?
Thank you for this, - have you considered the works of James Dolezal? God without parts All That is in God... Would love to hear your views on these books...
So much of this is a reaction to Modernity, but without returning to pre-modern philosophy. For example, the atomized autonomous self of Descarte is rejected in favor of communitarian (relational) ontology... but it's one modern extreme exchanged for another. Classical (participational) metaphysics account for the self and its participation in the rest of reality (the forms) -- it's simply a reinvention of the Pre-Socratic debate.
Hi Mr. EC. You seem like a very knowledgeable person, can I ask you what do you think about William Lane Craig's work on penal substitution (if you are familiar with it)? Is it compatible with Lutheran teaching? In particular, is his use of the concept of "legal fiction" appropriate in this context?
@@peccatorjustificatus777 I might not be the best person to ask because honestly, I don't think Penal Substitution is the teaching of Lutheranism in any sense. My perspective on the issue is that Vicarious Satisfaction (Anselm) is our traditional and confessional view and that P.S. is an import from the Reformed tradition. Christ paid the debt for our sin freeing us, but he was NOT punished in our place.
@@vngelicath1580 Ok...I saw a video of pastor Joshua Sullivan saying that P.S is a teaching of Lutheranism as well, I guess I should keep looking. Thanks for answering
@@peccatorjustificatus777 I don't hold to many of the views of ELDONA being LCMS but yes please so keep researching, don't let my opinions sway you in your truth-seeking brother! Blessings
@@peccatorjustificatus777 As far as I understand it the typical model used in the Lutheran tradition is Anselm but I've heard decent arguments that Luther himself had a Penal Substitution view. I have WLC book but I haven't had time to really read it (it's on my large list).
Years ago I read some of Tillich and he struck me as a man who wanted to believe but didn't. I don't think it is possible to reconcile Aristotle's theism with the the revelation of God in the Scriptures or in Christ. Paul clearly states that "the world through its wisdom did not come to know God." God cannot be known through senses nor reason but only by God's self-revelation. One of the promises of the New Covenant is that All His children shall know Him. We are made one spirit with Him, we are made partakers of the divine nature and we are begotten of God. And when Christ appears we shall see Him as He truly is. Classical theism cannot cope with God becoming Man. I remember a video with Van Til drawing a horizontal line on a chalk board and writing "GOD" above it and "Man" below it. Then expounding on the impassible chasm between GOD and MAN. I thought "but God made Man in His own image" and "what about Christ!" Then there are times when God doesn't seem to know the future exhaustively like when He brings the animals to Adam "to see what he would call them". (Gen 2:19) Man's theology can't deal fully with God as He reveals Himself. There is the danger of creating a golden calf and saying, "This is you god, O Israel." Lutheranism with its MYSTERY shines here. Sometimes a wise man says, "I don't know." We must always seek to ground what we teach firmly in Christ and the Scriptures.
The word person used to mean mask/face at the time when the doctrine of the trinity was worded, right? Now, I'm not trying to say that Jesus is just a mask, and not a separate person in the modern sense. My point is that our understanding has definitely changed as our language has developed, and perhaps some of that understanding is revelation and some of it is error, and we shouldn't just pretend that we should continue using the word person indiscriminately when talking of the trinity, but get a sense of the way our very way of thinking has changed, and our conception of what we are has changed, and just repeating the sounds from the past, won't let us understand what they were actually saying to each other.
The Trinity has a subjective element in the Christian experience. God indwells us by His Spirit, God the Father is our Father, Christ is our elder Brother.
A few semi-random passages from the eastern saints: “In delivering the formula of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, our Lord did not connect the gift with the number. He did not say, ‘into First, Second and Third,’ nor yet, ‘into one, two and three, but He gave us the boon of knowledge of the faith which leads to salvation, by means of holy names… Number has been devised as a symbol indicative of the quantity of objects… But these men, who bring ruin on themselves from every possible source, have turned even the capacity for counting against the faith… But O wisest sirs, let the unapproachable be altogether above and beyond number, as the ancient reference of the Hebrews wrote that unutterable name of God in peculiar character, this endeavoring to set forth its infinite excellence… Count, if you must; but you must not by counting do damage to the faith… We proclaim each of the hypostases singly and, when count we must, we do not let an ignorant arithmetic carry us away to the idea of a plurality of Gods. If we count, we do not add, increasing from one to many. We do not say, “one, two, three,” or “first, second, and third.” God says, “I am the first and I am the last.” We have never to this present day heard of a second God. We worship God from God, confessing the uniqueness of the persons, while maintaining the unity of the divine Monarchy. We do not divide divine knowledge and scatter the pieces to the winds; we behold one Form (so to speak) united by the invariableness of the Godhead, present in God the Father and God the Only-Begotten. The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; what the Father is, the Son is likewise and vice-versa-such is the unity.” - St. Basil the Great "God is always one. He is always called the one God. We name him as such in our hymns and doxologies: the eternal Father, the co-eternal Son of the Father, and the all-holy Spirit, co-eternal and co-essential with the Father and the Son... We know that whenever God the Son is wholly named then the Father is wholly present with the Spirit; that when God the Father is wholly praised the Son is wholly there through the Spirit; and that when the Father is wholly confessed and glorified with the Son, then there too is the whole Spirit... Yet there is one God whose name is Trinity, and since he is above every name that can be named and beyond all word or expression, he is transcendent; and since he is no [particularized] thing, he goes beyond the scope of all comprehension...” - St. Symeon the New Theologian "God is one, without first principle… God is not in Himself - inasmuch as is possible for us know - a first principle, nor an intermediate state, nor an end, nor any other of those concepts that are in nature observed in what is after Him, for He is indefinite, immobile and infinite, since He is infinitely beyond substance, potentiality, and actuality.” - St. Maximus the Confessor “God is one, because divinity is one: a unity without first principle, simple, and beyond substance, both inseparable and indivisible. The same is unity and Trinity: the same is whole unity and the same is whole Trinity, a whole unity in respect of substance, a whole Trinity in respect of persons. For the divinity is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the divinity is in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.” - St. Maximus the Confessor "There is one God because there is one Divinity, a Unity unoriginate, simple, beyond being, without parts and undivided. The same Unity is a Trinity, also unoriginate, simple and so on." - St. Maximus the Confessor "There is one energy of the three divine hypostases, not in the sense of similarity as in our case, but in the sense of truly one even in number.” - St. Gregory Palamas
Seems to me that Protestant liberalism inherently falls in line with descriptivism. Maybe this is why we see so much nominalism with post modernistic churches.
Great video. I’m still not clear of how a Social Trinitarian view of “Person” differs from a classical Trinitarian view of “Person”. It seems that both view the 3 persons of the Trinity as rational “selves” - that is, 3 thinking individuals who love each other, communicate with each other, etc. if this is the case, it seems almost disingenuous to say that each doesn’t possess a “Will” and somehow “will” is detached from the persons and found rather in the shared nature. I really don’t understand this. Please help!
I can't guarantee this will help, but the difference is in metaphysics. Social trinitarians believe the view you just expressed above, which I would agree ultimately leads to the 3 persons having distinct seperate wills and truly become persons in the common use of the word. The classical trinitarian would deny this and say their is 1 will, 1 nature, and would claim to what is called "divine simplicity". The difference then basically becomes metaphysical and very ambiguous IMO.
Interesting discussion, but I'm afraid I'm somewhat confused by the concept of "inseparable operations." You say, for example, that Redemption is the work of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and of course that's true, but each of them does different things. The Father--not the Son or the Spirit--determined in eternity past to glorify himself through the redemption of a particular people. The Son--not the Father or Spirit--took on flesh, lived a sinless life, died, rose, and ascended. The Spirit--not the Father or the Son--convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.
Dr. Cooper missed a key understanding of Barth's view of the real history of the resurrection. Barth absolutely believed that the tomb was empty. Where Barth complicates things (out of his Kantianism??? or by trying to be fully Biblical???), Barth states that the raising of the Son is not part of the regular order of things. It is not part of the process of regular means of history. The resurrection is completely supernatural and therefore cannot be part of mundane history.
You really didn't give any **biblical** defeater for social trinitarianism. There is no necessity for anyone to accept extra-biblical classical trinitarian assumptions about the nature of God as accurate and true concerning God. If God (Yahweh) is the title of the Community of the three equally omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Persons (Elohim), each possessing their own perfect divine attributes, and each **capable** of all divine functions, by reason of their perfect omniscience and by mutual agreement each is carrying out diverse functions in perfect unanimity and communion, how would that conflict with God's description of Himself in **scripture**?
MY ORIGINAL COMMENT. YES! please continue this series! Social trinitarianism is why I tell people im not a trinitarian. I don't want to people to get the notion there are 3 distinct PERSONS or WILLS that are just in unity. I really want to hear more of this study. SUMMATION OF BELOW DISCUSSION AND ACCUSATION... I would like to summarize this conversation about the trinity. God is 1 in being, essence, nature, will, etc etc. This has always been understood and continues to be understood. The issue has always been in what way is he 3. Social trinitarianism basically creates 3 seperate God's when their theology is taking to its conclusions. So classical trinitarians need to explain what is different in their theology from social trinitarianism without becoming medalists or any other "heresy". To do this they would need to explain how God is 3 in his ontology. Keeping in mind that we all agree he is 3 within his economy or the way he deals with his creation. We are really discussing trinity within the imminent trinity or the trinity in relation of himself and not in relation to his creation. This conversation is a perfect example of just how hard that is to explain without being in heresy. The reason is because of the word "person". God is 1 in one sense and 3 in another sense they can't be 1 and 3 in the same sense. So in what sense is God 3? The word person is used...now that the word person has changed its meaning over the years the question is what do you mean by person. The common use of the term person in today's culture cannot be what the classical trinitarians believe otherwise you turn into a social trinitarian. Person cannot be one who takes part in a nature because then you have 3 parts of a nature. This is the problem that this gentlemen has. After 20 or more messages he gave his definition of a person to be "partakes in a nature". After I correct him he then states he won't give a definition of a person because he doesn't want to become a modalist. So he attacks people who don't want to use the term 3 persons when talking about the God head and yet, he himself cannot define what a person is. This is sad. We shouldn't attack others when we ourselves don't know the doctrine we hold to. Simply saying the same words as orthodox teaches does not give us an understanding of truth. In addition, this person's blunt accusation of modalist is interesting in that many theologians who hold to divine simplicity were also accused of this. Take for example Karl Barth which was mentioned in this video as well. So yet again, these attacks against a person does not correct the thinking but instead tries to use ad hominem attacks to discredit their thoughts. The word person in its common form is not what a trinitarian means by it. So you must define that word in order to use it in another way besides its common understanding. So I open the floor to anyone who can give a definition of a PERSON within the context of the trinity that does not violate DIVINE SIMPLICITY. Any trinitarians want to give me their definition?
Then ur heretic! If u deny Trinity because Jordan does affirm the Trinity but the classical one which is in Athanasius creed Nicene creed. Which does include 3 distinct persons
@@romeostojka123 Quite literally the point of this video is to explain the difference between societal trinitarians and traditional trinitarians. Also, stop using the word heretic. It's inflammatory for no reason. But if you insist on it, then back it up and explain to me in what way is the trinity 3 distinct "persons".
@@honey2badger quite literary Jordan affirms traditional Trinity if u check his previous videos. What you mean believe. Arianism modalism or Trinity. Do believe the son the father and Holy Ghost are all one God?
@@romeostojka123 In my experience people think they know what the trinity is and then find out they actually believe in a societal trinity. Which is simply not true. So please explain how my first statement was heretical. You explain to me how God is ontologically 3 distinct seperate persons. What is a person in the sense of the trinity?
I heard a lot of talking about philosophy can i ask you at what point you're going to address what the Bible says? About what the first century Christians believed not 4th or19th century are we to believe that the God that hidden himself from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed himself to young children needs a 700 pages to explain his nature ? About there is no Trinity about one God the Father that reveals himself through his Son, Jesus is Lord to the Glory of his father there is no idolatry Jesus is representing his Father just like the Angels represent God in the O.T. Is so simple Trinitarians love to meke it impossible unbelievable.
Uhm no, even if you are a Unitarian the concept of God is very complex. Just because something is complex doesn’t make it untrue and yes the fundamental can be explained in a simple form. God is three who but one what. But the metaphysics underlying are complex
@@francisaltitude9763 Trinity is untrue no because is complex that was not my argument is untrue because nowhere in the Bible the concept is explained the way you or any Trinitarians puts it forward. You know what the Bible clearly explains, There is one God the Father that Jesus is the Father reflection a copy of his being Hebrew 1 the first born of creations and through him and for him everything came about. Trinitarians reject all of that all the sudden terms like father and son don't have the same meaning there is not temporal distinction Jesus has 2 nature a human nature and a spiritual nature that is 2 sets of consciousness first born dosen't mean that ether really if Jesus is not the real first born that who is ? Where is the glory of that being ? Do you understand the importance first born had in Bible time why are we not talking about that person? Trinitarians prefer the contributions of a pegan empor over clear articulated Bible truth why ? To show off there philosophy and completely ignore what the Bible acctualy teaches.
I'd really appreciate an overview of individual theologians like Barth, Moltmann, Tillich etc.
Me also. The modern theologians through post modern ones. Those seem more difficult to understand than the earlier ones.
From what I have gathered of them, and from what I have rid of them, I do not believe it is too far a stretch to label them as heretics, since they seem to reject some very fundamental Christian doctrines.
Yes!!! Stay on this course. There is so much to learn and you give so much I need and want to learn. Thanks 🙏
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary’s 2021 Spring Theology Conference was on the Doctrine of the Trinity (some on classical theism) and their 2023 Spring Theology Conference will be on the Attributes of God, Lord willing. Dolezal and other great speakers will be discussing classical theism, it will be a great opportunity to hear solid teaching and fellowship with likeminded Christians seeking to worship God for his glory.
This was really helpful, especially in the classical definition of terms, and I'm looking forward to hearing more on the subject.
Thank you Jordan. I appreciate your use of a broad theological context in which you set your argument. It really helps me narrow my thinking.
Thank you! This is really helpful and interesting. I am a novice in the history of philosophical thought but I knew enough to follow your description of the background for social trinitarianism. I found it interesting and I hope you do more "history of thought" things like that.
Please do continue with deep theological videos. We need profound discussions coming from our perspective. People don't go to Rome and the EO churches only for "smells and bells", but also for a richer and deeper faith and theology than the watered down baby formula of a sermon they've heard in their Protestant church for the last 12 years. Rome/EO does not have a monopoly on the Fathers, Trinitarian theology, the Eucharist, or any other deeper part of the faith, and we need to make that known by teaching such ourselves again.
Simple example: stop mucking with the verbiage of the creeds in order to try to make them more plain. Don't dumb things down, rather teach your people to understand that, say, we do believe in the holy catholic, not "Christian", church, because "catholic" means "universal", not "Papist". Pet peeve, but a good example of the depths to which we've sunk. Words have meaning. The amount of changes that have been made to the creeds in our books and hymnals makes 1054 look quaint. Teach, don't accommodate.
@Christos Kyrios haven't heard of him. Glad to hear it though. We need a lot more of that.
Hi Dr. Jordan B. Cooper thank you for this thoughtful video. It has cleared up a major issue that I didn't know in the Theology I believed in. Inseparable Operations is indeed a very important, simple but yet infinitely complex function.
This is so helpful, really important work, thanks Dr. Cooper!!
Pastor, this was so wonderful!! Thank you!! Thanks be to God!!!
I never realised how important this topic is. Thank you a lot for this program!
Absolutely love these deep theological videos man. If you love doing these kind of videos then keep doing them because I love them as well lol I have some friends of mine who also listen to these videos and love them too.
Thanks so much for putting this up. Much appreciated!
I'd love to hear more on trinitarian theology, and the proponents for and against.
Well its not found in the Bible sgk. The Lord our God is one. So if Jesus is God, no one else is.
Professor Adonis Vidu is the best. I have had the privilege of taking a number of courses with him while a student at Gordon-Conwell. Glad to hear such good things about his latest work, hoping to pick that volume up soon.
Definitely do the theologian profile videos! That would be very valuable to have an overview of each.
keep this video series coming!!
This is a great series. Keep it up 👍
Dear Dr. Cooper, I was not able to watch all of the presented video, but had a desire to thank you for your publishing of previous theological material! Also, if possible, could I ask for recommendation of book describing early patristics' view on ecclesiology? Thanks a lot!
Great clarity on the progression of ideas in the 19th and 20th century
Would love to hear more about the different theologians and the ins and outs of their thought.
Please keep making this stuff it's so good! Makes me a lot more careful about how I articulate my doctrine of God
This is all very helpful. I am all in for classical Trinitarian theology.
Jordan, it would be great if you were also able to cover the modern version of Monarchical Trinitarianism that has arisen within Analytic Theology. I am thinking of the work of Dr. Beau Branson and Dr. Joshua Sijuwade and their debates with Dr. Dale Tuggy. This view is especially strong in modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Fr. John Behr writes “the Father alone is the one true God.” Fr. Thomas Hopko writes “Now in the Bible, in the creeds, and in the liturgy, it’s very important, really critically important, to note, and to affirm, and to remember, that the one God, in Whom we believe, strictly speaking, is not the Holy Trinity. The One God is God the Father. That in the Bible, the One God is the Father of Jesus Christ. He is God Who sends His only-begotten Son into the world. And Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And then, of course, in a parallel manner, the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.”
The Holy Scriptures themselves seem to be strongly subordinationist as are the ante-Nicene Fathers. Examples:
John 17:3; John 20:17; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Colossians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:16; 1 Peter 1:3.
The language of Holy Scripture is probably most strong in John 17:3 where the Father is referred to as “the only true God”. Also in 1 Corinthians 8:6 “…for us there is one God, the Father,” It seems that in the Scriptures ‘God’ simply just is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
If you want the Lutheran answer on passages such as John 20:17, as you mentioned, I recommend reading article 8 of the solid declaration of the formula of concord, it covers passages such as this. Also, the catalog of testimonies, an appendix to the book of concord, based almost entirely on quotations of the church fathers. Other specific works on the Trinity from a Lutheran perspective with be Luther’s Last Words of David, as well as his 1540s disputation with Georg Major and Faber (he used this disputation to teach) and his disputation on “The Word Made Flesh.” One thing that comes up over and over again is his rejection of the 1215 fourth lateran council on the Trinity. He says the other side (Joachim) was wrong also, other side being a social trinitarian assertion in the 13th century. As far as EO and monarchy of the father, they tend to be careful and say, the father is the source of the son and spirit, which is true. But of course, the son is God from God, and so they aren’t denying the deity of the son either, just pointing out the son has his deity from the father
Great stuff, keep up the teaching.
I know I'm watching this 2 years after you posted it, but I would love to see you elaborate on the differences between EO Trinitarianism and Social Trinitarianism.
This is so very helpful to me, especially in regard to Humanistic influences which cause people to reject God's Lordship over wills, so that they refuse to give God full credit is Creator and Savior, and they redefine Grace Alone to satisfy their Modernistic sense of self-identity (the very thing we are commanded to die to). I know this may not be your intended purpose here, and Lutheran and Reformed are not exactly identical, but that's how it is helpful specifically to me and my ministry.
The clarity regarding the Trinity is also very helpful. I was unaware of what Social-"Trinitarianism" is rejecting. This I'm sure is the intended purpose of your video, and I have received it. Thank you, Jordan.
I'd be very interested in a "Who was ___?" Series featuring all the individuals you named and just anyone else you'd like to elucidate on. 😁
Great stuff Jordan.
I would certainly like a video about Pannenberg and/or Moltmann
The more I study these matters, the more I think it is vital that our seminaries and pastors learn the metaphysics of the fathers. Our minds are polluted by the assumptions of Kant and the Enlightenment so that we are no longer capable of thinking rightly about God or the things of God or even of our own nature. There IS a divine metaphysics. Scripture HAS a metaphysical stance. We need both to understand it, and be able to communicate it clearly to our laity. And above all, we need to mold our thought and identities around it. When you undergo a shift in metaphysics back to the model of Scripture, it changes how you preach. It changes how you speak about nearly everything. About God's nature. About the Law. About sin, especially about original sin. About Christ. About Justification. About the Word and Sacraments.
And of course, this means we need to hold our professors accountable to their existentialism, to re-teach them, and call them to repentance. But I'm afraid there is not is not going to happen and the problem is only going to grow worse.
An episode on Barth would be fantastic
Dr. Cooper, it would be great if you could do an episode on Christian Reconstructionism and Dominion Theology.
52:25 This is why I love your videos even though you constantly roast Calvinists like me. You also really helped me make sense of things I've seen. I'm in a PCUSA Church, and they seem to kinda be social trinitarians, as they're on the neo-orthodox, rather than the radically liberal end of the PCUSA. I think social trinitarianism was my assumption without knowing what it was called until I studied historic creedal trinitarian theology. Now I can see the problems with it.
I'm reading about Coleridge currently, and what he says about distinguishing without dividing helps me sort of get a grip on some of what you are saying here. I guess it is our modern consciousness which makes us sort of stuck in this divide and conquer way of thinking, which is terribly useful for some things, but terribly dangerous and counter productive in other ways.
Dr Cooper, have you noticed Chemnitz utilizing the essence energy distinctions, particularly in the 23 chapter of the Two Natures, “The true mode of the communication of the Majesty?” I have been studying the essence energy distinctions and it seems to me that Luther and Chemnitz, while they might not have made the deal out of them the EO do, seemed to have picked up on the idea. It is dually interesting in relation to that, that Luther frequently condemns the 4th lateran council, and Lombard, as well as Fiore, for their errors. This is interesting because it is at the 4th lareran that the roman church dogmatized actus purus, and Luther seems to be deeply suspicious of the pronouncements of that council on the doctrine of God. Any thoughts?
This is very helpful.
Are you planning on making Kretzmann available in electronic format that is compatible with Logos?
Are there any academic articles that Dr. Cooper has published (or recommends) against Social Trinitarianism?
Pastor. Do Lutherans believe penal substitutional atonement? What is different from Calvinist view on atonement?
Helpful video - thanks! I don’t think what you said about individuals and the will makes sense though. Identifying individuals as distinct centers of will and consciousness doesn’t entail the kind of atomistic individualism you say it does. It doesn’t follow from the proposition that what makes me an individual is that I have a distinct will that my good or my purpose is to be found by looking within my will rather than to the ends built into my humanity or to my roles in the family, community, etc. You conflate the descriptive (selves/individuals are distinct wills/minds) with the normative (the will is what determines the good for selves/individuals).
Dr. Cooper. I agree with so much of classical theology and the classical view of the doctrine of God. Imutability, Impassibility, simplicity (although I do not know if understand the ramifications of this one well), and the eternal begetting of the Son.
I do however, lean towards a more experiential faith and experiential way to commune or live out our faith with the Trinity. I am still very orthodox. I am Reformed and believe all 5 Solas and the Bible is the supreme source for faith and life. Everything else is subservient to it. I do not believe in experience being above Scripture or theology. But there is a lived out experience of our theology in which I do not think one really believes in the classical doctrines of God unless there is an experience of God but that experience is defined by Scripture and doctrines such as the doctrine of God and experience does not define my doctrine of God .
I also tend to think of the 3 persons before the unity. Maybe I think more about hte economic trinity than the immanent trinity. IDK. But I am somewhat drawn to a conservative type of social trinitarianism although when I read their works then I think their mistake is to leave out the classical doctrines. Usually they remove themselves from classical views of the economic trinity that would say that Salvation is from the Father through the Son and by the Spirit. Instead they go for something much more abstract and some kind of psychological or philosophical ramblings. Ibeliebe in a social trinity such they is played out in the economic trinity of From, through, and by.
Can you help me with this? What is a person or subsistence? And what part does an economic trinity play instead of the immanent trinity especially since many theologians believe that at least part of hte economic trinity shows up in the immanent Trinity.
Thoughts are also experiences.
As an unconfirmed but baptized Lutheran, I want to understand more about almost everything you talk about on this channel. :) You mentioned, Gerhard. Is that the Jesuit priest, Johann Gerhard? If so, are there any of his works you would recommend for the intellectually curious?
I think he means the Lutheran theologian, not the Jesuit.
so, do humans not have exactly distinct wills in classical theology? Or does this only apply to the Trinity?
Thank you
Thank you for this, - have you considered the works of James Dolezal?
God without parts
All That is in God...
Would love to hear your views on these books...
Good one
So much of this is a reaction to Modernity, but without returning to pre-modern philosophy. For example, the atomized autonomous self of Descarte is rejected in favor of communitarian (relational) ontology... but it's one modern extreme exchanged for another.
Classical (participational) metaphysics account for the self and its participation in the rest of reality (the forms) -- it's simply a reinvention of the Pre-Socratic debate.
Hi Mr. EC. You seem like a very knowledgeable person, can I ask you what do you think about William Lane Craig's work on penal substitution (if you are familiar with it)? Is it compatible with Lutheran teaching? In particular, is his use of the concept of "legal fiction" appropriate in this context?
@@peccatorjustificatus777 I might not be the best person to ask because honestly, I don't think Penal Substitution is the teaching of Lutheranism in any sense. My perspective on the issue is that Vicarious Satisfaction (Anselm) is our traditional and confessional view and that P.S. is an import from the Reformed tradition.
Christ paid the debt for our sin freeing us, but he was NOT punished in our place.
@@vngelicath1580 Ok...I saw a video of pastor Joshua Sullivan saying that P.S is a teaching of Lutheranism as well, I guess I should keep looking. Thanks for answering
@@peccatorjustificatus777 I don't hold to many of the views of ELDONA being LCMS but yes please so keep researching, don't let my opinions sway you in your truth-seeking brother! Blessings
@@peccatorjustificatus777
As far as I understand it the typical model used in the Lutheran tradition is Anselm but I've heard decent arguments that Luther himself had a Penal Substitution view. I have WLC book but I haven't had time to really read it (it's on my large list).
That's Social Trinitarianism Patrick!
😆🤣😂
Years ago I read some of Tillich and he struck me as a man who wanted to believe but didn't.
I don't think it is possible to reconcile Aristotle's theism with the the revelation of God in the Scriptures or in Christ. Paul clearly states that "the world through its wisdom did not come to know God." God cannot be known through senses nor reason but only by God's self-revelation. One of the promises of the New Covenant is that All His children shall know Him. We are made one spirit with Him, we are made partakers of the divine nature and we are begotten of God. And when Christ appears we shall see Him as He truly is. Classical theism cannot cope with God becoming Man. I remember a video with Van Til drawing a horizontal line on a chalk board and writing "GOD" above it and "Man" below it. Then expounding on the impassible chasm between GOD and MAN. I thought "but God made Man in His own image" and "what about Christ!"
Then there are times when God doesn't seem to know the future exhaustively like when He brings the animals to Adam "to see what he would call them". (Gen 2:19) Man's theology can't deal fully with God as He reveals Himself. There is the danger of creating a golden calf and saying, "This is you god, O Israel."
Lutheranism with its MYSTERY shines here. Sometimes a wise man says, "I don't know."
We must always seek to ground what we teach firmly in Christ and the Scriptures.
The word person used to mean mask/face at the time when the doctrine of the trinity was worded, right? Now, I'm not trying to say that Jesus is just a mask, and not a separate person in the modern sense. My point is that our understanding has definitely changed as our language has developed, and perhaps some of that understanding is revelation and some of it is error, and we shouldn't just pretend that we should continue using the word person indiscriminately when talking of the trinity, but get a sense of the way our very way of thinking has changed, and our conception of what we are has changed, and just repeating the sounds from the past, won't let us understand what they were actually saying to each other.
The Trinity has a subjective element in the Christian experience. God indwells us by His Spirit, God the Father is our Father, Christ is our elder Brother.
A few semi-random passages from the eastern saints:
“In delivering the formula of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, our Lord did not connect the gift with the number. He did not say, ‘into First, Second and Third,’ nor yet, ‘into one, two and three, but He gave us the boon of knowledge of the faith which leads to salvation, by means of holy names… Number has been devised as a symbol indicative of the quantity of objects… But these men, who bring ruin on themselves from every possible source, have turned even the capacity for counting against the faith… But O wisest sirs, let the unapproachable be altogether above and beyond number, as the ancient reference of the Hebrews wrote that unutterable name of God in peculiar character, this endeavoring to set forth its infinite excellence… Count, if you must; but you must not by counting do damage to the faith… We proclaim each of the hypostases singly and, when count we must, we do not let an ignorant arithmetic carry us away to the idea of a plurality of Gods. If we count, we do not add, increasing from one to many. We do not say, “one, two, three,” or “first, second, and third.” God says, “I am the first and I am the last.” We have never to this present day heard of a second God. We worship God from God, confessing the uniqueness of the persons, while maintaining the unity of the divine Monarchy. We do not divide divine knowledge and scatter the pieces to the winds; we behold one Form (so to speak) united by the invariableness of the Godhead, present in God the Father and God the Only-Begotten. The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; what the Father is, the Son is likewise and vice-versa-such is the unity.” - St. Basil the Great
"God is always one. He is always called the one God. We name him as such in our hymns and doxologies: the eternal Father, the co-eternal Son of the Father, and the all-holy Spirit, co-eternal and co-essential with the Father and the Son... We know that whenever God the Son is wholly named then the Father is wholly present with the Spirit; that when God the Father is wholly praised the Son is wholly there through the Spirit; and that when the Father is wholly confessed and glorified with the Son, then there too is the whole Spirit... Yet there is one God whose name is Trinity, and since he is above every name that can be named and beyond all word or expression, he is transcendent; and since he is no [particularized] thing, he goes beyond the scope of all comprehension...” - St. Symeon the New Theologian
"God is one, without first principle… God is not in Himself - inasmuch as is possible for us know - a first principle, nor an intermediate state, nor an end, nor any other of those concepts that are in nature observed in what is after Him, for He is indefinite, immobile and infinite, since He is infinitely beyond substance, potentiality, and actuality.” - St. Maximus the Confessor
“God is one, because divinity is one: a unity without first principle, simple, and beyond substance, both inseparable and indivisible. The same is unity and Trinity: the same is whole unity and the same is whole Trinity, a whole unity in respect of substance, a whole Trinity in respect of persons. For the divinity is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the divinity is in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.” - St. Maximus the Confessor
"There is one God because there is one Divinity, a Unity unoriginate, simple, beyond being, without parts and undivided. The same Unity is a Trinity, also unoriginate, simple and so on." - St. Maximus the Confessor
"There is one energy of the three divine hypostases, not in the sense of similarity as in our case, but in the sense of truly one even in number.” - St. Gregory Palamas
Anakin…
Seems to me that Protestant liberalism inherently falls in line with descriptivism. Maybe this is why we see so much nominalism with post modernistic churches.
Great video. I’m still not clear of how a Social Trinitarian view of “Person” differs from a classical Trinitarian view of “Person”. It seems that both view the 3 persons of the Trinity as rational “selves” - that is, 3 thinking individuals who love each other, communicate with each other, etc. if this is the case, it seems almost disingenuous to say that each doesn’t possess a “Will” and somehow “will” is detached from the persons and found rather in the shared nature. I really don’t understand this. Please help!
I can't guarantee this will help, but the difference is in metaphysics.
Social trinitarians believe the view you just expressed above, which I would agree ultimately leads to the 3 persons having distinct seperate wills and truly become persons in the common use of the word.
The classical trinitarian would deny this and say their is 1 will, 1 nature, and would claim to what is called "divine simplicity".
The difference then basically becomes metaphysical and very ambiguous IMO.
Interesting discussion, but I'm afraid I'm somewhat confused by the concept of "inseparable operations." You say, for example, that Redemption is the work of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and of course that's true, but each of them does different things. The Father--not the Son or the Spirit--determined in eternity past to glorify himself through the redemption of a particular people. The Son--not the Father or Spirit--took on flesh, lived a sinless life, died, rose, and ascended. The Spirit--not the Father or the Son--convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.
Dr. Cooper missed a key understanding of Barth's view of the real history of the resurrection. Barth absolutely believed that the tomb was empty. Where Barth complicates things (out of his Kantianism??? or by trying to be fully Biblical???), Barth states that the raising of the Son is not part of the regular order of things. It is not part of the process of regular means of history. The resurrection is completely supernatural and therefore cannot be part of mundane history.
Do not forget that Barth also believed in the Virgin Birth/Conception of Jesus.
You really didn't give any **biblical** defeater for social trinitarianism. There is no necessity for anyone to accept extra-biblical classical trinitarian assumptions about the nature of God as accurate and true concerning God.
If God (Yahweh) is the title of the Community of the three equally omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Persons (Elohim), each possessing their own perfect divine attributes, and each **capable** of all divine functions, by reason of their perfect omniscience and by mutual agreement each is carrying out diverse functions in perfect unanimity and communion, how would that conflict with God's description of Himself in **scripture**?
MY ORIGINAL COMMENT.
YES! please continue this series! Social trinitarianism is why I tell people im not a trinitarian. I don't want to people to get the notion there are 3 distinct PERSONS or WILLS that are just in unity. I really want to hear more of this study.
SUMMATION OF BELOW DISCUSSION AND ACCUSATION...
I would like to summarize this conversation about the trinity.
God is 1 in being, essence, nature, will, etc etc. This has always been understood and continues to be understood.
The issue has always been in what way is he 3. Social trinitarianism basically creates 3 seperate God's when their theology is taking to its conclusions.
So classical trinitarians need to explain what is different in their theology from social trinitarianism without becoming medalists or any other "heresy".
To do this they would need to explain how God is 3 in his ontology. Keeping in mind that we all agree he is 3 within his economy or the way he deals with his creation. We are really discussing trinity within the imminent trinity or the trinity in relation of himself and not in relation to his creation.
This conversation is a perfect example of just how hard that is to explain without being in heresy.
The reason is because of the word "person".
God is 1 in one sense and 3 in another sense they can't be 1 and 3 in the same sense.
So in what sense is God 3? The word person is used...now that the word person has changed its meaning over the years the question is what do you mean by person. The common use of the term person in today's culture cannot be what the classical trinitarians believe otherwise you turn into a social trinitarian.
Person cannot be one who takes part in a nature because then you have 3 parts of a nature. This is the problem that this gentlemen has. After 20 or more messages he gave his definition of a person to be "partakes in a nature". After I correct him he then states he won't give a definition of a person because he doesn't want to become a modalist. So he attacks people who don't want to use the term 3 persons when talking about the God head and yet, he himself cannot define what a person is. This is sad. We shouldn't attack others when we ourselves don't know the doctrine we hold to. Simply saying the same words as orthodox teaches does not give us an understanding of truth.
In addition, this person's blunt accusation of modalist is interesting in that many theologians who hold to divine simplicity were also accused of this. Take for example Karl Barth which was mentioned in this video as well. So yet again, these attacks against a person does not correct the thinking but instead tries to use ad hominem attacks to discredit their thoughts.
The word person in its common form is not what a trinitarian means by it. So you must define that word in order to use it in another way besides its common understanding.
So I open the floor to anyone who can give a definition of a PERSON within the context of the trinity that does not violate DIVINE SIMPLICITY.
Any trinitarians want to give me their definition?
Then ur heretic! If u deny Trinity because Jordan does affirm the Trinity but the classical one which is in Athanasius creed Nicene creed. Which does include 3 distinct persons
@@romeostojka123 Quite literally the point of this video is to explain the difference between societal trinitarians and traditional trinitarians. Also, stop using the word heretic. It's inflammatory for no reason. But if you insist on it, then back it up and explain to me in what way is the trinity 3 distinct "persons".
@@honey2badger quite literary Jordan affirms traditional Trinity if u check his previous videos.
What you mean believe. Arianism modalism or Trinity. Do believe the son the father and Holy Ghost are all one God?
@@romeostojka123 In my experience people think they know what the trinity is and then find out they actually believe in a societal trinity. Which is simply not true.
So please explain how my first statement was heretical. You explain to me how God is ontologically 3 distinct seperate persons.
What is a person in the sense of the trinity?
Can the Father, do anything without the Son?
I have absolutely no idea what you are saying when you say 'essence', 'begotten', 'proceeds' in this context.
Rahner and Barth were two of the most damaging forces in the modern Church.
I heard a lot of talking about philosophy can i ask you at what point you're going to address what the Bible says? About what the first century Christians believed not 4th or19th century are we to believe that the God that hidden himself from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed himself to young children needs a 700 pages to explain his nature ? About there is no Trinity about one God the Father that reveals himself through his Son, Jesus is Lord to the Glory of his father there is no idolatry Jesus is representing his Father just like the Angels represent God in the O.T. Is so simple Trinitarians love to meke it impossible unbelievable.
Uhm no, even if you are a Unitarian the concept of God is very complex. Just because something is complex doesn’t make it untrue and yes the fundamental can be explained in a simple form. God is three who but one what. But the metaphysics underlying are complex
@@francisaltitude9763 Trinity is untrue no because is complex that was not my argument is untrue because nowhere in the Bible the concept is explained the way you or any Trinitarians puts it forward. You know what the Bible clearly explains, There is one God the Father that Jesus is the Father reflection a copy of his being Hebrew 1 the first born of creations and through him and for him everything came about. Trinitarians reject all of that all the sudden terms like father and son don't have the same meaning there is not temporal distinction Jesus has 2 nature a human nature and a spiritual nature that is 2 sets of consciousness first born dosen't mean that ether really if Jesus is not the real first born that who is ? Where is the glory of that being ? Do you understand the importance first born had in Bible time why are we not talking about that person? Trinitarians prefer the contributions of a pegan empor over clear articulated Bible truth why ? To show off there philosophy and completely ignore what the Bible acctualy teaches.
Philosophy puts me to sleep quick.
To bad this isn’t just clearly thought in the Bible....