Skip to content
6 Comments leave one →
  1. Suzanne McCarthy permalink*
    December 29, 2013 11:21 am

    Okay, so Grudem is not a good way to celebrate the holidays, but Augustine is. I had some extra time available to read Augustine’s De Trinitate right through.

  2. December 29, 2013 2:08 pm

    The idea that the Son was not part of the work of being sent is abhorrent. It implies that the Son did not want to be sent, or did not want it to the same degree that the Father did. But to understand the Trinity as one God and not three, is to understand that the Father did not want to send the Son more than the Son wanted to go! Do we want a Savior who saves us only because He was commanded to? One Whose heart was not as wholly in the saving, as the heart of the Father’s was?

    Is this where Grudem would lead us– to an idea of the Son so subordinated to the Father as to no longer be of one substance with Him? If he so divides the substance, he is no longer a Trinitarian.

  3. December 29, 2013 2:21 pm

    Thanks for sharing Augustine. We might also hear from other church Fathers as well. Is Grudem’s thesis on the separate working of Father and Son also in opposition to Their thesis of their indivisible working?

    God is three dancing hypostases in one divine nature. The first person of the Trinity is more than Creator. All three persons of the Trinity create. “God” creates, the “Word” creates, and “the Spirit of God” creates. As the Greek Cappadocian early Christian writers Gregory of Nanzianzus (330-390) and Gregory of Nyssa (331/40 to about 395) claimed in their interpretation of scripture, all three persons of the Trinity have a common work. Yet, they are distinct. There are three persons or hypostases. Hypostasis is not a person in the static sense, but in the classical Eastern Christian understanding is a “mode of being,” dynamic and moving with the power of life. God is a relationship of three modes of being, in dynamic movement and activity, with a common work of love, creativity, justice, righteousness, goodness, and power. As Gregory of Nanzianzus puts it, “Father is a name neither of a substance, O most clever ones, nor of an action, but… the Father is the name of the relation in which the Father is to the Son or the Son to the Father.” Similarly, Gregory of Nyssa writes that “the divine nature itself is not noted by any of the names, but that something of its characteristics is made known through the statements.”

    just a bit from Dancing with God: The Trinity from a Womanist Perspective by Karen Baker-Fletcher

    (ht blogger, Hoodie_R)

  4. Suzanne McCarthy permalink*
    December 29, 2013 3:38 pm

    Great comments! I will respond in a post soon.

  5. tiro3 permalink
    December 31, 2013 12:55 pm

    Grudem does not appear to have good cognitive reading abilities. It seems that his foundation is built upon his perceptions of the superiority of the male. From there he reinterprets Scripture to support his foundation. This is troubling.

Trackbacks

  1. Wayne Grudem at the 2013 SBTS Theology Conference on the Trinity pt. 3 | BLT

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 323 other followers

%d bloggers like this: