Do You Know What You Believe Part 4; What is God? Part B The Trump Argument for Scripturalism

[drakeshelton]

“We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father.”

He is confusing what eternal generation means. Eternal Generation is the generation of the HYPOSTASES of the Logos not the ESSENCE of the Logos. The nature is not generated in the eternal generation so it is pointless to affirm that it is of himself.

[drakeshelton]

“They falsely and calumniously ascribe to us the figment of their own brain, as if we virtually held that three persons emanate from one essence”

Ok so then on the doctrine of absolute divine simplicity can you say that “to be” is distinct from “being a person”? If not my objection remains.

[drakeshelton]

“The Scriptures teach that there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten; but inasmuch as the Father is first in order, and of himself begat his own Wisdom, he, as we lately observed, is justly regarded as the principle and fountain of all the Godhead.”

Great. Let’s see if he can really be consistent with this and develop an Orthodox construction.

[drakeshelton]

“25. The hallucination consists in dreaming of individuals, each of whom possesses a part of the essence.“

I don’t believe that. I don’t believe the West believes that. My complaint is, I don’t think the west can distinguish person from essence.

[TheHolyFaith]

The only options,imo, consistent with how God demands we worship Him are: 1)The functional modalism of the West, where the 3 persons are autotheos, and are thus God ontologically. Or 2) Though acknowledging the "divine nature" of the Spirit and Word, confining worship to the Father alone, who gave them divinity, and is God (ontologically). Otherwise the East is just idolatrous and notoriously antinomian; as it is they are in constant violation of the 1st and 2nd commandments.

[drakeshelton]

@TheHolyFaith "1)The functional modalism of the West, where the 3 persons are autotheos, and are thus God ontologically." I reject your prejudiced gloss as if you had a clue what you were talking about in saying that the Byzantine view rejects that all three persons as being God ontologically at the level of nature.

[drakeshelton]

The second is fine but again your use of ontological is confusing because that word can have two meanings in this context; hypostasis or nature.

[TheHolyFaith]

@drakeshelton Again, ontologically relates to divinity. If the Father is autotheos, and his word and spirit are not then the "fount of deity" lies with him, and the other two are dervied divinities. I understand that the east says that the word and spirit derive their hypostases...but along with that comes divinity, hence why they are not autotheos. This is also why they refer to Calvin's formulation as "tri theistic".

[drakeshelton]

"Or 2) Though acknowledging the "divine nature" of the Spirit and Word, confining worship to the Father alone"

To the Father through the Son in the Spirit.

[drakeshelton]

@drakeshelton Actually, this would be confined to prayer. Worship can be given to all three due to the divine nature and the perichoresis.

[drakeshelton]

@TheHolyFaith "The functional modalism of the West" So you admit that the West i modalist? OOO that's one refreshing drink of vindication.

[drakeshelton]

"What if someone objected that this would make the other Persons less than God, since their nature is derived?" Well their nature is not inferior to the Father's it is the same nature. It is their PERSONS that are inferior to the Father.

[TheHolyFaith]

@drakeshelton This is a wonderful discussion, but the whole point is that what makes the Word and Spirit "less than God", in Byzantine theology, is precisely because their divinity is derived! See Calvin indirectly addressing this issue in Book 1, Chapter 13 sections 23-27 of his Institutes, where, at the end of section 25 he says: "If God and Father were synonymous, the Father would be deifier...and the trinity would be nothing more than the union of one God with two creatures"

[drakeshelton]

@TheHolyFaith "the whole point is that what makes the Word and Spirit "less than God"" In essence nothing. The essence is not generated the persons are. In hypostases the dependency of the other two persons on the Father. "their divinity is derived" That is what the Bible says, Eph 3: 14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom [l]every family in heaven and on earth derives its name,

[drakeshelton]

That's the whole idea between the terms Father and Son. The Father is the Son's superioir and the fact is the Father gives commands to the Son that he obeys is all over the Bible.

[name1051]

At around 13:00, you said that the Trinity is not three Gods because the Father is the one God who communicates his nature to the other two persons. Could you elaborate on what you mean by the Father communicating his divine nature to the other Persons?

Do you mean that the Father is the source of the other Persons' natures? What if someone objected that this would make the other Persons less than God, since their nature is derived?

[drakeshelton]

@name1051 "Do you mean that the Father is the source of the other Persons' natures?" Yes and their personalities as well. Their personalities are distinct from the Father's but they have their source in Him. The West says that the hypostatic source of all three persons is the nature. I am making a final video right now on this issue. Give me an hour. BTW, Jesus clearly says that the Father is greater than he is. There is a subordinationism in the Bible.

[drakeshelton]

@name1051 The issue is that the Son is not auto-theos. The Father is auto-theos. The West will admit that the Son is generate from the Father and the Father not from the Son, but they refuse to connect the dots, and fail to see a scriptural subordination.

[TheHolyFaith]

@drakeshelton Objections to the Byzantine Trinity: It essentially violates the regulative principle of divine worship, for if the Father alone is God qua God (ontologically) then how can they give this worship to that which they admit is not God (in the strictest sense)? How do you avoid the charge of henotheism? The Byzantine view relies heavily on interpreting "Father" in the NT, such as in John 5:26, 14:28, 17:3 in a "personal" rather than an "essential" way, and in an acontextual manner.

[drakeshelton]

@TheHolyFaith “Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God.”

That is Arian. The Logos’ generation is eternal without beginning. Begotten not made!

[drakeshelton]

@TheHolyFaith “In short, if God and Father were synonymous terms, the Father would be deifier in a sense which would leave the Son nothing but a shadow; and the Trinity would be nothing more than the union of one God with two creatures.”

You are misunderstanding the context in which he says this. He is arguing against an objection that his view of the Trinity posits the essence and the Father synonymously. When he says “God and Father” here he means Divine Nature and Father.

[TheHolyFaith]

@drakeshelton I understand the original context, that's why I said "indirectly" when I quoted him. The issue is whether the Father "deifies" His word and spirit, that is: Do the latter two derive their divinity from him? I thought you agreed to this in your 1st response: ""their divinity is derived" That is what the Bible says, Eph 3: 14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom [l]every family in heaven and on earth derives its name," If not, then my apologies.

[drakeshelton]

@TheHolyFaith The context of the discussion was not Byzantine theology now was he arguing against someone who is saying that the person of the Father is the Source of divine hypostases. What are you talking about when you say indirectly? The context is completely different.

[drakeshelton]

"Do the latter two derive their divinity from him?" I have said this before and now I am having to repeat myself,. This is why I no longer attend Reformed Churches. You guys do not understand Orthodox Christian Doctrine. THE DIVINE NATURE IS NOT WHAT IS GENERATED IN EITHER THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON OR SPIRATION OF THE SPIRIT.

[TheHolyFaith]

@drakeshelton Ok so when I read in their writings that the Son and Spirit derive their divinity, what should I understand? I respect the fact that you are more educated than myself on these issues, but when I read their doctors, what I understand is that the Word is not God of himself, but rather has a "cause" for his divinity, in eternity. IOW, the trinity is God "qualitatively" and not "ontologically". I am sorry that i cannot express myself any better.

[drakeshelton]

I mean "derived" in the sense that they have their hypostatic source in the Father. You want "derived" to mean that the Logos and Holy Ghost have numerically different natures than the Father and these natures were generated along with their hypostasis. I reject it. The East rejects it and every reformed criticism I have received has been based on the same ignorance.

[drakeshelton]

@TheHolyFaith Basically he is rejecting the idea that the source of the Divine Persons is the Divine nature and affirming, correctly may I add, that the source of the divine persons is the Father when he said, “is justly regarded as the principle and fountain of all the Godhead”.

[TheHolyFaith]

@drakeshelton He is also rejecting the idea that the Word derives its divinity. Nevertheless, he is not exactly consistent on this issue. East and West tend to use the same language, with the latter tending to mean almost nothing thereby. Regarding the use of "ontologically": My understanding of byzantine theology is that the Father is autotheos, so his divinity is uncaused, he is God qua God. The word and spirit otoh, owe their divinity to him, in eternity. IOW there is some form of causality

[drakeshelton]

@TheHolyFaith "He is also rejecting the idea that the Word derives its divinity. " This could mean multiple things. It could mean that he is rejecting the idea that the Word has a numerically different nature than the Father, and this nature was generated along with his hypostasis. It could mean that he is rejecting the idea that the divine nature is the source of the hypostasis and the Word has come from the essence and not the Father. Which one do you mean? They may be more.

[drakeshelton]

"for if the Father alone is God qua God (ontologically)" I reject this. All three persons have the same divine nature. The issue is the Father is autotheos which means his person is not derived. The other two persons are generated: not their natures (ontologically) but their persons. All three persons are ontologicaly the same at the level of nature.

[drakeshelton]

"The Byzantine view relies heavily on interpreting "Father" in the NT, such as in John 5:26, 14:28, 17:3 in a "personal" rather than an "essential" way"

This is confusing and quote frankly vindicative of the Eastern criticisms. Just above Calvin is wrestling with an objection that the West makes essence and Father means the same thing. Here you are arguing against distiction between essence and Father. Out of your own mouth you are convicted of your Neoplatonism.

[TheHolyFaith]

@drakeshelton I don't believe the sections I quoted from Calvin are addressed to the west specifically, he never says as much afaik. It is the East that says the Father alone is God of himself, that is how he communicates divinity to the word and spirit. Your responses are confusing: Do you believe that the Word derives his divinity from the Father? If so, then that's all that mattered for Calvin. I was also pointing out that the East just acontextually prooftexts from these verses, that's all.

[drakeshelton]

@TheHolyFaith "I don't believe the sections I quoted from Calvin are addressed to the west specifically, he never says as much afaik." When did I say anything of the sort?

[drakeshelton]

"Do you believe that the Word derives his divinity from the Father?" I have addressed this many times already. If you mean derive in the sense that he has his own divinity that was generated by the Father NO. If you mean that the divine nature of the Logos is the Father's divine nature and this divine nature was communicated to the Logos as the HYPOSTASIS of the Logos was generated YES.