The Controversy over the Eternal Subordination of the Son

[@micahmatthew7104]

0:01 "The Eternal Subordination of the So-"

[@addisonbreton-df2fc]

JSJEJSJEU2728B THIS CRACKED ME UP

[@tomtemple69]

it was so disgusting he couldn't finish saying it 🤣

[@lutherserbe6435]

Love for the intro ❤️

[@RyanGill86]

As a Reformed Baptist myself, I do thank you for clarifying the views and the charity in the presentation.

[@seanchaney3086]

Sorry you are a Calvinist

[@RyanGill86]

@@seanchaney3086aweww. Don't feel bad. The gospel is glorious. 😎

[@jayceeregis]

@@seanchaney3086 Do better.

[@jayceeregis]

As a non-denominational Christian that doesn’t want to be pegged into one system, I find myself leaning Orthodox. Being grounded in the word is one thing, but adding in the traditional approach to scripture has revealed Christ and the gospel more clearly than ever before. Even the most well intentioned evangelicals often end up describing God in ways that leads to or is in fact deemed heretical. Good thing perfect theology isn’t a necessity for salvation.

[@pateunuchity884]

Currently binging on your KZbin page. The topic picks are on point! Thanks. The workability of this position can be a hard sell practically within marriage considering the “unity of wills”which will always be somewhat of a mystery. 😉

[@Truthsayer1979]

Where do we get the idea that will is connected with essence rather than personhood?

[@joshpeterson2451]

3:22, "[The Son's submission] is just in the very nature of things." No. It's. Not. You are very imprecise in how you represent the other side. It's not in "the nature" for the Son to submit to the Father, because the Son is not subordinate to the Father in His nature/ontology/essence/being. The Son submits functionally because that's the roles they assume with each other relationally. Thus, the Son's submission to the Father is the *function* of things. Very different. One is heresy. One is not.

[@fraserpearce4441]

Thanks for this, Dr Cooper. I was hoping that in the clip you'd make a reference to 1 Coritnhians 15:28. Have you dealt with this anywhere?

[@newwineskins5801]

I have never heard either, any critic addressing 1 cor 15:28 nor 1 cor 11:3 while dealing this issue.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

It's a key passage. Maybe he addresses it elsewhere.

[@SalzderErde]

Is a differentiating will needed to be able to submit? Can't it be the one will of both sides that one is leading and the other one is following - even if they are of one will regarding the direction they are heading?

[@Anna-mc3ll]

Thank you for sharing this comment.

[@Anna-mc3ll]

Could you please explain where exactly-i.e. in which verses and/or passages-it is said EXPLICITLY that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father the Son? I would honestly appreciate your response! Kind regards, A.

[@seanchaney3086]

John 15:26

[@Anna-mc3ll]

@@seanchaney3086 I’m quoting from the online version of the NIV. John 15:26: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me.“ Doesn’t this mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY FROM the Father, and NOT FROM the Son, even though the Son acts like a mediator, i.e. like a vessel through which the Holy Spirit is sent FROM THE FATHER THROUGH THE SON? PS: Thanks for indicating this verse.

[@seanchaney3086]

@Anna-mc3ll Christ Breathed The Holy Spirit onto the Disciples, so from The Father through The Son

[@Anna-mc3ll]

@@seanchaney3086 Exactly! But “from The Father through The Son” sounds like The Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY FROM The Father, whereas The Son acts more like a MEDIATOR THROUGH WHOM The Holy Spirit is sent.

[@ckyung1312]

If ESS is true, this doesn't just suggest tri or polytheism, but also that the Son's ontological essential being is lesser than the Father's, therefore, Jesus's propitiation would be insufficient and none of us are guaranteed salvation.

[@Mrm1985100]

Bingo.

[@AidenRKrone]

I don't know what marriage has to do with it, but I hold to the idea of the eternal functional subordination of the Son, rather than incarnational subordination. I don't see how it conflicts with dyothelitism and classical trinitarianism, although I do see how it conflicts with divine simplicity (but since I don't subscribe to that doctrine, this doesn't bother me). I think eternal subordination and incarnational subordination are both well within Christian orthodoxy, and a Christian can believe in either concept without comprising his salvation. Nor do I think a belief in eternal subordination would necessarily beget heresies.

[@flashhog01]

I checked Grudem's systematic theology, in the footnote he says concerning eternal subordinationism "...without this truth, we would lose the doctrine of the Trinity, for we would not have any eternal distinctions between the Father and the Son, and they would not eternally be Father and Son." Wrong but interesting.

[@bobpolo2964]

why wrong?

[@flashhog01]

@@bobpolo2964 Wrong for the reasons Dr. Cooper gave in his video above.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@flashhog01 such as...

[@flashhog01]

Such as what Dr. Cooper discussed in his video.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@flashhog01 He said a ton of things, friends. I was wondering what you disagreed with specifically. Just looking for brotherly chat, but you don't have to. Sorry to bother you. Take care

[@newrube77]

I agree the will is connected to essence and not connected to person in the Trinity ; How I apply that to my marriage is that I and my wife ( both non-deity) seek to align our individual wills to the will of Our Father (deity); if my wife and I have a different will concerning any topic, then we let the Spirit ( deity ) who lives in both our hearts break the stalemate. Stated another way, we reject the patriarchy model where the husband is called to break the stalemate as well as the feminist model where the wife breaks the stalemate. Sometimes the stalemate is broken quickly via the plain, main doctrines in Scripture. Sometimes the stalemate takes longer to break because the topic is extremely nuanced for our non - deity brains. Nothing causes the Spirit ( deity) to take pause so if my wife and I are not sure what direction to take, we wait until the Spirit provides direction via whatever secular or sacred revelation He chooses in order to guide us. Blessings

[@savedchristian4754]

If the Triune Persons possess identical choices of the will in their nature (essence), why does the Father eternally will to beget the Son while the Son does not will to beget the Father?

[@savedchristian4754]

Hebrews5:5: 'Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee'. Now, if will is not the property of the Father's Person as in the above verse, do you mean to say it was not the Father but the Eternal Spirit who beget the Eternal Son?

[@newrube77]

@@savedchristian4754For our discussion, I understand "begetting" as person B being revealed to the world with the understanding that person B came fourth from person A. So my daughter did not reveal me to the world, I revealed my daughter to the world. Yet even though my daughter came from me, I believe God has authorized me to only require my daughter to submit her will to my will until my daughter is 18. Then I transition from being her boss to being her ( I pray godly and competent) advisor. Steering back to the main question of the eternal submission of the Son debate, I believe this question is directly linked to the Complementarian/Egalitarian debate. If complementarianism is true, then eternal submission of the Son is true. If complementarianism is false, then eternal submission of the Son to the Father concept is also false. As alluded to in my previous response, my wife and I implement the "God is the tie breaker" model under Egalitarianism and we reject "Husband is the tie breaker" model under complementarianism. So my wife and adult children ( I emphasize "adult" children 🤗) all have equal authority by default as we are all non-deity. We non-deity do eternally submit to Deity as revealed to me in the Father through the Son by the Spirit ✝️❤️. Blessings

[@savedchristian4754]

@@newrube77 John3:16 says God sent His only begotten Son. It doesn't say the Eternal Son was begotten after God sent Him into time.

[@newrube77]

​@@ChristIsLord248 Since my last response a while back, I read and recommend "Simply Trinity" by Matthew Barrett ; I'm an egalitarian while the author Matthew is a complementarian but Matthew also subscribes to 1 will for 1 God ; Barrett's claim ( and I agree with) is that ascribing 3 wills according to personhood starts to dangerously drift to Tritheism ; I take the position that the Son submitting the His Will to the Father was temporary when The 2nd Person of the Trinity temporarily came to Earth to die for us.

[@chrisbennett3290]

Also is there explicit evidence in scripture that this view would even suggest a difference in wills? I thought this was about certains texts like Jesus saying the Father is greater than I am and only the Father knows the hour. Idk much about this, I'm just trying to learn to help with apologetics to muslims and JWs and to grow in my own understanding of the Trinity. God bless brother. Thanks for your perspective.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Yet not my will but Thy will be done.

[@Solideogloria00]

My pastor told me that the best for Trinity are the Orthodox. Can a person be Lutheran And reject the filioque?

[@ethanlafont5073]

Probably not, I would recommend reading Robert Letham’s book called “The Holy Trinity”, he addresses the filioque clause and makes a good case for the filioque clause.

[@Mygoalwogel]

There are historically two ways to understand the filioque. Orthodox reject double procession, but accept that Jesus sends the Spirit to us, according to the Gospel of John. In ALL of Lutheran catechetical works (Larger, Smaller, catechism hymns, the Greek Augsburg Confession) the focus is ENTIRELY on Christ giving us the Spirit. The first time it became an issue was in the exchange with Patriarch Jeremiah. The Lutherans actually couldn't make sense of his rejection of the filioque for that reason. They had, seemingly, no notion of the double procession Jeremiah feared. For Lutherans the Nicene "for us and for our salvation", "crucified for us" "for the remission of sins" is so precious. We spend all our energy on God's loving self-revelation and have little left for other speculation.

[@ChrisGodinezGoTinZi]

Awesome. Thanks for the video!

[@dimitri1225]

Non-Lutheran and Non-Anglican protestants ALWAYS commit Christological heresies. In every one of their ungodly assemblies one can easily find lay people and/or ''clergy'' who are in heresy against the Trinity and/or the incarnation.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Like when they say, "The flesh profits nothing" means "I didn't really mean what I said about my body and blood. I just meant you have to take me metaphorically." But somehow that doesn't include taking his birth, death, and resurrection in the flesh metaphorically. Just whenever he tries to reliably and visibly gift his death and resurrection to each of us. Those are just metaphors.

[@dimitri1225]

@@Mygoalwogel They are clear heretics.

[@shawnglass108]

@@Mygoalwogel, Because Jesus did mean it spiritually. That’s why he told them in John 6 that he who comes to me will never hunger and he who believes in me will never thirst. Because eating and drinking is coming and believing. Then, after they were grumbling over him saying “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood” he told them to stop grumbling and in John 6:63 he told them the words he was speaking to them were spiritual. So twice he told the that eating and drinking his blood was spiritual..and even still some don’t get it. Then at the last supper when he told them “do this in remembrance of me” nobody was upset about drinking human blood or eating human flesh, Even though a Jew would’ve been appalled by that, because they knew that Jesus was speaking spiritually. He even told them right after they drank it that he wouldn’t drink the fruit of the vine again with them again until they were in the Fathers house. Fruit of the vine? I thought it was his blood? It’s amazing to me that Jesus made it so completely clear that drinking his blood and eating his flesh was spiritual and yet some people still don’t get it. He literally, word for word, said that he was talking spiritually..I’ll believe the words of Jesus. Others can believe the words of men if they choose.

[@isaacneelam]

How would you interpret 1 Cor 15:24-28

[@kristinkellerhardi1203]

I have exact same question/verse in mind. I watched Pastor Paul Leboutillier’s teaching on this part of scripture and have been wondering ever since.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

It's important. Needs to be addressed.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

I understand your concern, but the NT implies in various places that there is, and will be, a subordination of the Son to the Father - 1 Cor 15:20-28 being one of the most well known passages. And isn't this the issue with the Filioque controversy? Because the West asserts that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the Orthodox Church believes this mitigates the divine reality of the Father in relation to the Son and the Spirit as their ultimate source, who "begets" the Son and "spirates" or breathes forth the Holy Spirit.

[@ClassicalProtestant]

Great job Doc

[@lc-mschristian5717]

Thank you Pastor a very interesting video. God's peace.

[@bigburkefamily7]

The one passage that I am struggling with in this context is I Corinthians 15:28

[@JamesMC04]

I struggled with that too 🤔🤭🤫😃 STM that the Davidic-Messianic Kingship of Christ is dependent on, secondary to, & a manifestation of, the Kingship of the Father. Jesus is the One through Whom the Father’s eternal Kingship is exercised on Earth. I think St Paul is uniting the Jewish idea of a long-lived but mortal Messiah-king with the Christian confession of the Universal Kingship of Christ.

[@fraserpearce4441]

It's me again, another couple of years later. I still would like to hear your understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:28. Have you dealt with this anywhere?

[@jamesbarksdale978]

It's a critical text, to be sure. Hope he's dealt with in another video.

[@thehumanjesus]

The “origin” (genesis, Mat 1.1,18) of the Son occurs when God “brought [him] into existence” (gennao, Heb 1:5) in the womb of Mary (Mat 1:20; Luke 1:35). Hence, Paul preached the Son was “made,” I.e., came into existence (genomenon, Gal 4:4) in Mary.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Jn 1:3 “Without him became *not one* that has become.” How many ‘things’ is Logos? One. How many things came to be without Logos? Zero. The Bible _does_ say Jesus is Uncreated Creator. Col 2:9 “For in him dwells all the fullness of The Deity bodily.” What aspect of The Deity does Jesus lack? None at all. Rom 9:5 “Christ according to the flesh being over all God.” What is Christ over? All. The Bible _does_ say Jesus is “My God” Jn 20:28, “God over all” Rom 9:5, “Our God and Savior” 2 Peter 1:1; 3:18, “the only-begotten God” Jn 1:18 The Bible _does_ say Jesus is “The God” Heb 1:8, “The Great God” Titus 2:13, “I AM” Jn 8:58, That we can pray to him Acts 7:59, and that God bought us with his own blood. Acts 20:28 Prototokos means preeminent: Ex 4:22; Jer 31:9 (LXX 38:9); Ps 89:27; 2 Sam 19:43; Heb 12:23

[@jamesbarksdale978]

No.

[@someperson9536]

If Jesus has been in submission to the Father for all of eternity, then does this mean that the Father has more authority than Jesus? If the Father has more authority than the Son, then does this mean that the Son has a divine attribute to a lesser degree than the Father?

[@daniele7989]

Thats why they are Father and Son, not Brother and Brother.

[@citoante]

Words like “God of God” are used, and it means just that. To me, that is stupid. Yet from Phil 2 we know that Jesus, when in form of God, was equal in authority to God, but he gave that up when he became a man.Father unbeggoten, Son begotten in eternity = lesser God.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

I'm not sure "authority" is the right word. I think Eastern Orthodoxy refers to the Father as the ultimate source. So, the Son and the Spirit wouldn't be any less divine/God than the Father.

[@jeremynethercutt206]

I think when you actually pick it apart and understand that it’s not out of anything but complete obedience and righteousness , it is God glorifying, and it shows us an absolute complete harmonization within The Trinity and personal operations - there is much biblical foundation and evidence for ES, the issue arises when it is handled incorrectly by cults and non-Trinitarian groups

[@chrisbennett3290]

Who says will is an aspect of essence instead of person? Is that biblical or philosophical? I wanna track with you on this man but I just don't wanna interpret the bible through philosophy or over what the bible says. Idk what I believe about this but whatever I believe, I want it to be based solely on the bible.

[@aservantofJEHOVAH7849]

The problem for those who wish to use the incarnation fudge, to explain away Christ worship of his God and Father (JEHOVAH) is that the post incarnate continues in subjection to his God and Father see revelation3:13 ,2Corinthians1:3

[@mikeschmoll7762]

How can we say, Jesus has two wills but is only one person? Does it not mean to be a person if you have a will?

[@Mygoalwogel]

"Yet not my will but thy will be done." Jesus did not want to suffer but he did want to save his bride and obey his Heavenly Father. Perfect Man, Perfect God. One Lord. Not identically, you still have powerful sinful desires, but the new creation wants so badly to be a useful child of God and brother to people who need you. Christ did not have sinful desire but he did have real humanity and frailty. He could suffer terror, suffer pain, bleed and die.

[@SOWWHATAPOLOGETICS]

why does eternal subordination of the son equal 3 wills? I don't follow the logic. why can't he be in a subordinate role and hold the same will as the father and son?

[@Anna-mc3ll]

How do you interpret the following verses? “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” (John 15:26) “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14) “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” (John 1:18) I would appreciate your comments!

[@vngelicath1580]

Gerhard seems to argue for Monothelitism. Which raises the issue of Nazianzus’ razor.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Where does he do that? I've never seen that in Gerhard.

[@vngelicath1580]

Dr. Jordan B Cooper sure thing, I’ll look for it. I don’t have the commonplaces on hand right now but I’ll look online. It could be very possible I misread it. I would be greatly relieved to know that he took the orthodox position.

[@villarrealmarta6103]

What’s important to keep in focus is that the triune God has been working from back in eternity to bring about our salvation. He has accomplished this through the second person of the God head Christ who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Who now sits at the right hand of the father and we are waiting for him to bring us home to be with him forever.

[@lalumierehuguenote]

Christ is no part of the Godhead for God does not have parts

[@villarrealmarta6103]

La Lumière Huguenote the term God head is to denote his Lordship over us who are his body, he is the head and we his church are his body. This is not my language it is God’s. I’m merely borrowing it.

[@villarrealmarta6103]

La Lumière Huguenote off topic but, are you claiming Jesus who is God does not have parts?

[@villarrealmarta6103]

La Lumière Huguenote Colossians 2:9, KJV: "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Here Paul uses it to denote Christ’s divine nature as part of the trinity.

[@lalumierehuguenote]

@@villarrealmarta6103 get :) what bugs me is your use of the word "parts" for the divine being. Yes the Gorman Jesus has parts since he is incarnate. But God in His being does not have parts. Google God without parts to know more. Goodness is not the word we use to refer to the relationship between the church and god, between the body and the head (Christ) who is our Lord. Goodness means the divine Being.

[@shawnglass108]

Here’s my question. I’m asking this looking for a genuine answer as I don’t want to have any heretical or problematic beliefs against orthodoxy. If Jesus is not eternally submissive then why does he refer to the Father as “My God” several times in revelation. After he has already been glorified. Why does glorified Jesus call the Father his God? Thank you to whoever takes their time to give me an answer.

[@juancarlospena6101]

Another thing ti be seen is in the same chapter 15 of 1Corinthians but in the verses 42 to 45. Paul was talking about the subject of the nature of the resurrection of the dead using a comparison of the glory of the natural things with the spiritual things. Using this context, he compared the first man ( Adam ) with the last ( eschato, Gr) which is Christ. He said that Adam was a living soul but Christ is a quickening ( zoopoieo Gr.) Spirit. In other words, Christ is a Spirit who gives life and resurrection. He us Eternal life-giving Spirit. He is the deity, he is God who is all and in all ( everybody).

[@joshpeterson2451]

9:00 There's a coined phrase that is more accurate: "There is one will per nature *per person*." Otherwise, the personhood of the Trinity is lost, and functional modalism is adopted. Did the Father incarnate? No, the Son did. Did the Spirit pour out wrath on the Son? No, the Father did. Does the Son regenerate people? No, the Spirit does. These are all indications of personal will. All three are perfectly unified in what they belief, what they desire, and what they plan to accomplish. They have a single divine will. But that cannot supersede the personhood of each individual member of the Trinity. They are three in one.

[@MikesBibleNotes]

Thanks for your teaching ministry. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, NOT "and the Son". Do you have a video sharing your views on the filioque?

[@Eloign]

I think the reconciled statement says "From the Father through the Son" so the source is the Father still but it takes into account the verses showing the Son also sends the Spirit.

[@Mygoalwogel]

There are historically two ways to understand the filioque. Orthodox reject double procession, but accept that Jesus sends the Spirit to us, according to the Gospel of John. In ALL of Lutheran catechetical works (Larger, Smaller, catechism hymns, the Greek Augsburg Confession) the focus is ENTIRELY on Christ giving us the Spirit. The first time it became an issue was in the exchange with Patriarch Jeremiah. The Lutherans actually couldn't make sense of his rejection of the filioque for that reason. They had, seemingly, no notion of the double procession Jeremiah feared. For Lutherans the Nicene "for us and for our salvation", "crucified for us" "for the remission of sins" is so precious. We spend all our energy on God's loving self-revelation and have little left for other speculation.

[@joshpeterson2451]

8:00, "Will is connected to essence, not person." This makes mishmash of the NT and logically demands modalism. How can God command every individual to love God with his heart, soul, mind, and will if the heart, soul, mind, and will are not connected to personhood? Furthermore, when the Spirit doesn't speak on His own authority, but reveals what Christ says to reveal to His people, how is that not submission? How can the Father and the Son send the Spirit if the Spirit doesn't submit to the Father and Son? Sending is an act of authority, and being sent is an act of submission in the NT. No exceptions. The Spirit submits, which undermines everything this guy is saying.

[@peterhopko8515]

Eastern Orthodox here, I think we see this debate a little bit differently. First, the Protestant Eternal Submission Folks who posit a division in the divine will are very wrong, and as you point out are tending towards polytheism. However, we believe, as confessed in the Nicene Creed, "In One God the Father Almighty", from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. The person of the father is the source of the divinity, which he shares perfectly with with the Son and the Spirit. Hence we confess the Monarchy of the Father within the Perfect Unity and Ontological Equality of the Trinity. I think this idea was obfuscated in the west with the addition of the Filioque in the Creed, which at the very least implies that the Father is not the unique source of divinity, and introduces an exaggerated egalitarianism into trinitarian theology, but I would have to think about this a lot more to prove that. www.beaubranson.com/monarchyofthefather/ The above link provides some interesting resources on this issue, which frankly I haven't had the time to examine in full yet.

[@bobpolo2964]

Reformed here. I agree; the Father is the fount of divinity in which the Son draws His life. Equal in substance, distinct in person

[@jamesbarksdale978]

Joining this conversation four years after the fact. But, better late than never! I'm not EO, but fully agree. Please see my comments in this thread. Thanks for your helpful remarks.

[@oaktree2406]

Filoque is more interesting and encapsulates this issue... Economy in the trinity is important.

[@fraserpearce4441]

It's me again. I really would like to hear your understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:28. Have you dealt with this anywhere?

[@Hbmd3E]

Somehow people are so hostile in Trinity consept conversation that there is not possiblity for the real talk. Its only against or pro and thats it. I want to say just this. Revelations makes it clear that Jesus says same things that God MostHigh says and who He is. Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. - Yeshua 1:4 from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead,1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him ... I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. 3 points: 1 He who is, and which was, and which is to come Is God Almighty, Jesus you can say was on the earth and also because he died. how can you otherwsay God was? HolySpirit is at the moment with us and God Mosthigh comes at the end. (21.2-3 ) 2. God has seven spirits, Also slain lamb ( Jesus ) has seven spirits ( eyes ) 3. ALmighty is beginning and ending, Jesus Is first and last Finally at this point: 22.12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. ( Jesus is one coming back according to many places in the bible and also Judge ) 22.13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. / Right next it reads that He is Apha and Omega that is at the beginning referred to Almighty. also first and last that Yeshua said he is. Then couple of verses later it reads 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Also in the Old Testament God is first and last : Is. 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last ; and beside me there is no God. *Then question is this: when we take all the scriptures from Bible concerning God and Trinity is there other interpetations than what church fathers have said about the matter?* I think someone said something like this: "these 3 are all equal and self existing" One scenario I pondered was this: God begot Jesus in Eternity and God begots perfect being ofcourse like Himself. When cat becots cat its same essense. Its different than creation.Then they would be perfectly one in Love. Then what Jesus says is same what Father says. this could give some room to other ways of seeing this. He also says He is First and last and Alfa and Omega. and he also says He has Life in Himself. So these are narrowing factors that you cant make Him too small either. Because in theory one could do and say all same things if he is perfectly attached to father without being able to do that separately. being same essence debunks this though thought came you can think cells splitting then he would be same and self existing. And not forgetting HolySpirit there are couple of verses where all 3 are put together. 2Cor. 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

[@Hbmd3E]

1 Corinthians 15:28 could that just mean Jesus in human body/ 1000y reign ? Because Jesus as in role as human ruling here on earth has spesific function, makes sense? ( if my grammar is not that terrible :)

[@savedchristian4754]

@@Hbmd3E Hebrews5:5: 'Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee'. Now, if will is not the property of the Father's Person as in the above verse, do you mean to say it was not the Father but the Eternal Spirit who beget the Eternal Son?

[@Hbmd3E]

@@savedchristian4754 he was eternally excisting before , he became in to flesh in spesific moment in time and place

[@savedchristian4754]

@@Hbmd3E John3:16 says God sent His only begotten Son. It doesn't say the Eternal Son was begotten after God sent Him into time.

[@petvifhoj]

I have a question regarding the differentiation between Christ's relationship to the father in his incarnate state as opposed to his eternal relationship. My impression is that Luther puts in a great effort to point out to people like Zwingli that where ever God is, Christ as man is also present. In other words, I get the impression that Luther doesn't want to make that hard distinction between the incarnate state of the son and his "eternal state" so to speak. Do you have any comments on this?

[@Magnulus76]

Christ took up human nature into his person, and this did not change after his ascension.

[@acaswell84]

Wilson and White are talking about the same subject, not sure if that is why you have done this now (I don’t think you have) or it is just part of your current series on the Doctrine if God.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I've had a few people ask me about this in the last week. The timing of the Wilson/White conversation just happened to overlap.

[@acaswell84]

I figured it did. Enjoyed the video none the less.

[@Bobbyhiddn]

Why is singular will == singular essence? Why can there not be three wills and one nature/being/essence?

[@Eloign]

When we say the Son is begotten of the Father does that mean the Sons existence is continually contingent on the Father? I'm just now getting into studying this stuff seriously so some help appreciated.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Do you believe in the Athanasian Creed?

[@pizzahypeftw9039]

No, the Son is God innen of Himself. He does not derive his Godness or his partisipation in the being of God from the Father. Also studying this atm, James white has some good comments on it here : kzbin.info/www/bejne/n4DFgKObf8eEeNk&ab_channel=DividingLineHighlights and abit here kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmnXkpp6lthojZI&ab_channel=DividingLineHighlights and very good book and discussion on this is also this reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc295/

[@savedchristian4754]

Only beings in time are contingent. Jesus is eternal Son.

[@StudioGalvan]

Thanks for the clarification ... BUT ...The arguments on both sides do seem to go beyond scripture (IMHO). 🤓 Long before I heard of this controversy, I assumed each of the "persons" of Yahweh had a will. Largely based on the "Not my will but thine be done" and "As the Father has sent me, I send the Holy Spirit" (paraphrases) scriptures. 1⃣ Concerning the 1st scripture and the Simplicity (was it) response, I cannot see how Jesus had 2 Wills within himself! All we, like Jesus, had a physical and a Spiritual nature but we don't have 2 wills. Or do we? Even if we have a conscience (or the HS) that speaks to us, guiding us, we don't think of it as two wills. 2⃣ If there were only 1 will amongst the Trinity, why would One of the persons need to SEND the other. With 1 will, it would just happen automatically. Just as I will to go eat something, I don't need to command or reason with my flesh to do it. It happens automatically. 🤔 Here's the 2nd BUT: However, to apply this Eternal Subordination to the marriage model also seems to go Beyond Scripture. If it was a good model, I'm sure that's what the HS would've used. Instead what we read in scripture is Christ is the Bridegroom and The Church is the Bride. The Biblical model has two distinctly different "entities" at play. Yes in a marriage, the two become one but obviously not in the same way that the Trinity is One.

[@yvonnegonzales2973]

There's a report of a ESS insertion in ESV translation

[@SyedMuhammadMoaz3634]

I deny subordination I believe in co-ordination. But I believe Eternal Generation and Eternal Spiration are true and biblical doctrines.

[@savedchristian4754]

Hebrews5:5: 'Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee'. Now, if will is not the property of the Father's Person as in the above verse, do you mean to say it was not the Father but the Eternal Spirit who beget the Eternal Son?

[@someperson9536]

What is meant by saying that Christ is begotten?

[@Mygoalwogel]

Children are born of their mothers and begotten of their fathers. The Son is begotten of the Father from eternity.

[@jfsmed]

thanks Jordan... helpful

[@collin501]

Didn't the Father create the world through the Son, his Word? (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16) Wouldn't that mean that the Father was still the possessor of the will or the source of the will? I don't think the Son was submissive in the sense of having a different will that he relented in order to submit to the Father's will. If there is submission in any sense, it would be that it was the Father's will that always filled him and that he always harmoniously carried out for all eternity. What about an unrealized eternal subordination? That is to say, because the Son was not the source, so in that sense the Father most be greater(at least in that category of things). But the Son was eternally equal because the Father eternally lifted up the Son and gave him glory, not by a choice in time, but springing from the Father's very nature eternally. The Son's divinity would be from the Father, whereas the Father's is from himself, and yet it the Son HAD to be, not by his own nature, but because of the nature of the Father. That would make the Son in some sense ontologically subordinate but in reality equal for all eternity. I would call this unrealized eternal subordination.

[@collin501]

@@victorbennett5414 I’ve thought about this. It is a good explanation for certain things. I have some questions though. Would you say the Word had personhood before the incarnation or just took on personhood through the human nature?

[@collin501]

@@victorbennett5414 thanks for that. I think that trying to understand the “trinity” or the “three” or however you want to refer to it, is basically defining, in what ways are they one and in what ways are they three? It’s as simple as that. In some ways one, and in other ways three. You have two hands, a mind, a heart, a voice, but one person. That’s what makes your view seem good to me. There are a couple things I don’t know. For one, in phil 2, the pre existent word of God “considered” or “thought”, and “made himself…” it says “let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” That seems to show some kind of separation in the mind of the word and God. Is the Word of God unique when it goes out from God, it is generated of God but acts separately to accomplish God’s intent? Just throwing out ideas. There has to be enough separation in “mind” to allow the Son to pray, for the Son to desire God’s will, even for the Word to become incarnate. But not so much separation that the Word has anything but what came from God when He spoke it. Before God spoke the word, when it was in Him, did the Word consider and reflect on God’s existence and His own existence? Why does John 1 refer to the Word as a “He”? I suspect because of oneness with God, and yet it has some separation possibly. When I think and speak, the words come from me, but develop uniquely because of the process of thinking and speaking. Maybe that’s a similarity.

[@juancarlospena6101]

There is no such thing as the eternal subordination of the Son of God. Paul the apostle said by inspiration of the Holly Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15:28 that the Son himself will be subordinated to the Father so that God ( the divinity) be all and in all ( everybody). Once this WAS fulfilled we all have God as Our God. It includes the Son who is the Verb of God. The only thing we have to understand is that at this historical part of the Son mission he was in the subordination part of his mission in relation with the redemption and the restoration of all the things. But today, after the consumation of all those matters, we have Christ ( God) who is all and in all (everybody).

[@savedchristian4754]

^ Hebrews5:5: 'Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee'. Now, if will is not the property of the Father's Person as in the above verse, do you mean to say it was not the Father but the Eternal Spirit who beget the Eternal Son?

[@matthewbachinski6753]

I used to be a staunch Church of Christ believer they are a proponent, of this error

[@savedchristian4754]

& If the Triune Persons possess identical choices of the will in their nature (essence), why does the Father eternally will to beget the Son while the Son does not will to beget the Father?

[@Magnulus76]

@@savedchristian4754 They have different relations, but that doesn't imply inferiority.

[@savedchristian4754]

@@Magnulus76 Are you denying the subordination of the Son to the Father?

[@Magnulus76]

@@savedchristian4754 Subordination isn't part of patristic/Nicene Christology. "God from God, Light from Light...".

[@savedchristian4754]

@@Magnulus76 John4:34: Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. Here Jesus speaks of His subordination to the Father. I would suggest you to follow Christ & not the patristic/nicenism.

[@keithwilson9172]

It would be better to make the argument based in scripture and not texts from man.

[@leepretorius4869]

What would be a good primer on classic trinitarian theism? I want to read all about dyothelitism, etc.

[@wesleyscottbiddy3360]

I’m not the person you asked, but I wrote my dissertation on the Trinity, and I’m happy to offer my unsolicited recommendations. (1) There are several chapters in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity that cover classical trinitarianism as it was developed by the fathers and refined in the Middle Ages. (2) William J. Hill covers the history somewhat briefly in the first part of his The Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation, and in the third part of the book, he puts forward a proposal for retrieving the classical approach in the present. (3) Thomas F. Torrance’s The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons is an excellent treatment of classical trinitarianism, although I have to give the caveat that it’s a very dense read - definitely a book written by a theologian for other theologians. If you’re interested in reading up on dyotheletism, I would suggest reaching for a primer on classical christology rather than one on the doctrine of the Trinity. You’re likely to find more details there because dyotheletism in the usual sense belongs to the attempt to understand the incarnation.

[@leepretorius4869]

@@wesleyscottbiddy3360 thanks so much for taking the time to write this. Would you have a Christology primer that you would recommend?

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@leepretorius4869 Athanasian Creed.

[@leepretorius4869]

@@Mygoalwogel do you know where I can find it in greek?

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@leepretorius4869 It was originally written in Latin and includes a filioque statement. The Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Genuine Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church, Russian Old-Orthodox Church, Pomeranian Old-Orthodox Church, Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia, Old Calendar Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Syrian Church of the East, Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East do not make use of it.

[@PaulMatthewMusic1]

4:00 amen to that!

[@aservantofJEHOVAH7849]

Numbers23:19KJV" God is not a man, that he should lie;neither the son of man, that he should repent.." Thus if ones God is now or was ever a man. He is not the GOD of the bible.

[@ecclesiaofthelogos1930]

Wonder if those people he mentioned realized that JWs are using their ideas to do exactly what you would expect them to

[@jamesbarksdale978]

The JWs are modern Arians. They believe the Son is a creature and the Spirit an impersonal force. No Trinity.

[@peterfloyd2326]

Very very Good!

[@berglen100]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE NEVILLE GODDARD AND THINK IT IS WRONG WHEN HE WAS TRUTH YOU CAN'T HANDLE NOW, NO CHURCH IS BETTER THAN NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. YOUR A SON OF GOD BEFORE COMING DOWN TO EARTH AS A SEPERATED MAN THATS MALE AND FEMALE BLINDED BY BEING SEPERATED THAT ALLEGORY JESUS WAS NOT MALE OR FEMALE BOTH WERE IN HIS SPIRIAL BODY, NOT JEW OR ANY ELSE THATS OUTSIDE IS STATES OF EVERT BELIEFS SEPERATE LIKE SAUL AND PAUL.

[@tieskedh]

If man and wife become one flesh, why can't Father, son and Holy Spirit be one God? The will of husband and wife will grow slowly together: the husband wants the best and please the wife. The wife wants the best and please the wife. Why can't God have one will, this way? ---------- Can a father give authority to the son, if they are equal? It seems like in the end it will be: World Father Therefor, the Father rules through the Son. And of course World God When God is equal as in a perfect marriage, then submitting is technically true, but God rules as one. ------ In John 17 Jesus prays that we (humans) become as Jesus and God are one. We will become like Jesus (1 John 3:2-3) and in the end, the church will marry Jesus. ---------- Am I missing something?

[@billaltier510]

The (trinity) is not only a vain, perverse, idle, corrupt, filthy word of confusion not found in the holy scriptures, it is a doctrine of devils and damnable heresy. These 3 names are the names of the Holy One: Jesus the Almighty everlasting Father: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Isaiah 45: [21] Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. [22] Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. [23] I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Job 13: [8] Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God? [9] Is it good that he should search you out? or as one man mocketh another, do ye so mock him? [10] He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons. John 14: [8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. [9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. John 8: [24] I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. [25] Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. [26] I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. [27] They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. John 20: [28] And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. [29] Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Revelation 1: [7] Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. [8] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty

[@Mygoalwogel]

What was Jesus doing in the garden of Gethsemane while his disciples dozed?

[@jamesbarksdale978]

So, you're a Modalist? That's a heresy condemned by the early Church.

[@mitchellc4]

Hello Jesus is the Messiah The Son of God The Son of David The Son of man The man God has chosen to be his anointed king The man God will judge the world through The man God raised from the dead Jesus has a God There is no triune god in scripture Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

Hmm. A very incomplete reading of Scripture, I would say. Also, no respect for the struggles the early Church went through to nail down the language to express it's belief in the triune God over against a multitude of other beliefs, like your own.

[@mitchellc4]

@@jamesbarksdale978 Hello A lot of those discussions and councils were hundreds of years later. You don’t see any of that in Acts (the early church). They are more concerned with if gentiles have to get circumcised then how many “persons” God is. If Christians were coming along saying something so radical as God is three persons there would’ve been huge pushback, not discussions about gentiles and the law of Moses. There was no debate. God is the Father, Jesus is the Messiah.

[@tonywolfemusic5920]

I can’t help but ponder over whether all of these discussions are a burden to Yahweh. I wonder if we weary Him with all of our words. So much talking and thinking and theorizing without any sense that we may be idolizing our own “intellects.” It seems most carnally minded people just want to argue. Myself included at times, but I do have a burning desire to be spiritually minded…I hope. I only trust in Yahweh. Let Yah be true and every man a liar.

[@ramonbeauchamp4975]

Hi. Subordination is actually a key word, combined with other phrases through which church leaders have their hands tied and are not free to denounce the enemy within. Examples: subordinate clause, subordinate conjunction, ect... Blessings ❤

[@jeremy144713]

I agree with you. Paul even says that Christian’s should avoid useless debates like this or pretrib/ post trib etc. it’s good to study but when we make it dividing lines, I think that’s what hurts the Lord

[@aservantofJEHOVAH7849]

Psalms83:18"That men may know that thou,whose name ALONE iis JEHOVAH,art the most high over all the earth." Note please that there is but one named JEHOVAH. Note also that this one is the MOST HIGH. Thus if ones God is associated with two equals (e.g the trinitarian Jesus). He is not JEHOVAH.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Amen! (and Im first ;)

[@Anna-mc3ll]

Could you please explain where exactly-i.e. in which verses and/or passages-it is said EXPLICITLY that the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father AND the Son? I would honestly appreciate your response! Kind regards, A.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

I don't believe there is one. We read in John, I think, that the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father, and is "sent" from the Son.

[@Anna-mc3ll]

@@jamesbarksdale978 Thank you. But doesn’t this mean that the concept of the Trinity explained by the Orthodox Church is more correct in a sense?