Dr. Oliphint & The Son's Aseity

We had an “in house” discussion about the rise of a new Thomistic Orthodoxy in the Reformed Baptist movement. Tried to play a few clips to illustrate a few points and, well, my Mac went nuts and we sort of had to go with what I could manage to get played!
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio.com/solo/aomi... for more of A&O ministry's content.

[@InfinitelyManic]

Can someone confirm this Calvin quote? "The Son is of the substance of the Father, and is therefore coequal and coeternal with him. But the Son is also the Son of the Father, and is therefore subordinate to the Father in his hypostatic relation." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.13.23)

[@jasont5300]

This sounds like Lane Tipton.

[@themanincharge6418]

I agree

[@severalstories3420]

What kind of sweater is that? I want one!

[@douglasmcnay644]

Coogi. They can be a bit pricey.

[@amichiganblackman3200]

The Coogi of legend

[@jlandles]

@Original O.G. Troll Nothing in your post is wry, clever, or amusing.

[@Tex_155]

Biggie White

[@misse8787]

Tis why I am a Calvinist!

[@ProphetGreg94]

Calvinism is false though.

[@redgracemedia118]

Finally a conversation worth jumping into. Calvin is right, Tipton is right on Autotheon, the aseity of the Son is owing to his personal subsistence as the undivided essence of God, perfect perichoresis, exhaustive personal coinherence and infinite representation of the F and HS, thereby establishing the archetypal basis of His covenant condescension, Image-endowment and personal representation in the Adamic Covenant of Works. This formulation is the "Reformed Path" from Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, Hodge, Warfield, and Van Til and of course now, Tipton. This also eliminates all forms of subordination at the Ontic level, including ERAS or anything else so that the Father is never fully active and the Son fully passive in the "communication" of the essence, which the Son possesses from all eternity A SE. This ineffable vision of the numerical unity of the tri-personal God alone can safeguard the Church from all forms of mutualism, Modernism (Barth), Thomism, Subordinationism, Correlativism, Pantheism and Panentheism. Just saying...

[@pizzahypeftw9039]

that was beautifully stated. I absolutely love the trinity! the Deity of Christ! How glorious it is to look into these things.

[@IAmisMaster]

wow, total nonsense. Only the Father is auto theos, as that is what it means to be Father, unbegotten and unproceeded.

[@Parks179-h]

This is why Westminster got rid of Scott’s books regarding Christology.

[@walterrobertson3265]

It’s moving that direction. Trinitarians are exposing more and more that they have to default to an understanding of Tri-theism. The writing is on the wall.

[@douglasmcnay644]

Only because they don't understand the trinity properly. The truth will never die.

[@jameshayes211]

Wrong. God is one tripersonal being.

[@jameshayes211]

@@douglasmcnay644 There is much misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. I spend a lot of time with my students helping them to understand the fundamentals of the Bible's revelation of God's triunity.

[@walterrobertson3265]

@@jameshayes211 I understand where you’re coming from being that I was a trinitarian and taught it for 34 1/2 years teaching apologetics over at John MacArthur‘s church to his seminary students back in the late 80s and early 90s. So if there’s anybody that understands trinitarian doctrine it would be me. But of course you have to indoctrinate, repeat indoctrinate your new students to understanding this, not so simple way but the more complicated way as I was also. When people first come to know the Lord at the very beginning they don’t have any understanding of the Trinity. All they know is that Jesus is the one true God revealed in flesh. All of these other man-made doctrines should not be imposed upon others as to make them mandatory for salvation. These are just systems for coming to the conclusion that Jesus is God. Man-made constructs of trying to reason within our mind how Christ can be fully God and fully man. During the first and second centuries of the church they didn’t have a problem with such controversy this because they embraced each other as brothers whether or not they were Trinitarian or Modalistic or for that matter even Unitarians. It wasn’t until the third century that the controversy started to really rise to defend the deity of Christ and at that time both Modalistic Monarchian and Trinitarians (not to be confused with the modern day understanding of the Trinity doctrine) Allied to put together the Nicene creed of 325AD against the Arians. Then of course government took over and forced people under duress to accept the doctrine of the Trinity. It took hold especially after the Gregorys and gathered momentum to this very day. When you threatened to destroy the writings, The comfort of peoples lives and even their lives, many being put to death, of course the Trinitarian doctrine is going to take root within the Whore of Babylon. Think about what’s going on with Covid in the world. And those threats were a lot worse. During The Reformation we Didn’t go far enough. And for your information James, I am not a Oneness Pentecostal but I am my five point Calvinist and an amillennialist/partial preterist Who holds to the ancient view of Christ namely Modalistic Monarchianism. This according to Origin and Tertulian, the majority view during their time.

[@jameshayes211]

@@walterrobertson3265 I wouldn't assert that a person must apprehend God's triunity before crying out in sincere repentance and humble faith for salvation. But, God's triunity is explicitly revealed in Scripture. And, as an authentic disciple of the Lord earnestly seeks Him, he will come to an understanding of God's triunity, as an objective and inevitable reality. I reject, as historically untenable, your contention that recent articulations of the doctrine of the Trinity are inconsistent with the theology of the apostles and eminent Christian theologians of the early centuries of the church (e.g., Athanasius). And, I would contend that modalistic monarchianism is heretical and inconsistent with the witness of Scripture.

[@summertea4382]

James White lost big time to our brother Jake the Muslim Meta-physician and has to claim Jesus has aseity of his own accord - even council of Nicaea never said that. We know Trinity can never be defended, so James White has to change it! What kind of religion is this? 😂😂😁

[@douglasmcnay644]

Ummm....No.

[@summertea4382]

@@douglasmcnay644 What do you mean no? He literally said ''the son has aseity of his own accord and not derived from God''. The original Nicene creed state that both the son and Holy Spirit are generated from God - meaning they are not independently self-sufficient. In fact early Church fathers say only God has aseity. James White lost the debate and now has to invent that son has aseity of his own accord - look up his failed debate with Jake the Muslim metaphysician. He literally changes his creed based on his own wimps. To be clear - we consider Nicene creed as idolatrous, man-made fiction but James White literally believes in Three Gods from that standpoint. How can two gods with each aseity independent of each other be still one? From our standpoint - Nicenen creed is Three Gods theology but James White has gone even far into blindness with his new innovation - which is why Nicene Creed was false heresy from day one - result is James White. You can follow him into blindness with Three Gods that has aseity if you want but don't deny the facts -

[@jameshayes211]

Islam is founded upon the false prophetic authority of a murderous pedophile. The doctrine of the Trinity is revealed via the Incarnation of the Son of God. Muhammad will bow at the name of Jesus.

[@summertea4382]

@@jameshayes211 Trinity is revealed in the Incarnation? Show me any verse which says that from your book? Nicaea council 325 AD invented Trinity because it was man-made creed. Later Christians had to insert John 5:7 into a Trinity - which all scholars reject today. You may call Islam falsehood but we don't require 7 different councils 300-500 years later to invent creeds. Today - even James White is changing and say Jesus has aseity of his own. Even in Middle Ages - Catholics changed the original creed and added ''filioque'' - that is the Holy Spirit is generated by the son as well. Whereas Eastern Orthodox still holds to original wording that only God alone generates the Holy Spirit. Do you not see how full of shit this is? First they invent a creed and then changed it to whatever they like? This is what you sincerely believe? It is like me telling you stories and then next day changing it completely. This is the result of blind men in their ignorance and that's why every sect is too fast to change it into whatever they wish. Don't be blind to the most ridiculous absurdity ever invented by ignorant fools.

[@jameshayes211]

@@summertea4382 The Scriptures bear witness unmistakably to the truth that God is one (see Deuteronomy 6:4). We must remain uncompromisingly monotheistic in our theological understanding. Further, the Scriptures reveal that God is one tripersonal being. The Father is called God (see II Pet 1:17); the Son is called God (see Titus 2:13); and, the Spirit is called God (see Acts 5:3). And, the distinction of the three Persons is maintained consistently and explicitly throughout the apostolic revelation: for example, the distinction of the three Persons is quite conspicuously revealed at Christ's baptism (see Mark 1:10-11).