Tried With Fire

The Son Who Learned Obedience: A Theological Case Against the Eternal Submission of the Son by D. Glenn Butner, Jr., Pickwick Publications, 2018, 223 pages. While the Trinity Debate of 2016 may have cooled down, the question still remains, "Is the Son eternally submissive to the Father?" The short answer is, "No." But if one word will not suffice, read this book. The Son Who Learned Obedience makes a strong case against the eternal functional subordination of the Son (EFS) by addressing: - Why the Trinity falls under the category of systematic theology rather than simple proof-texting. - Pro-Nicene teaching on the Trinity vs. the pro-EFS position. - Inseparable operations. - Does Jesus have one will or two? - How does EFS impact and undermine the doctrine of substitutionary atonement? - What effect does EFS on the doctrine of God? - Is 1 Cor. 15:28 an air-tight case for EFS? As a lay person who followed the Trinity debate closely, I was already on ...

"The choice is clear. Either affirm the creedal and confessional heritage of the doctrine of the eternal processions or affirm ERAS (Eternal Relationship of Authority and Submission). To opt for ERAS, however, is to overhaul entirely the doctrine of the Trinity, both the unity and the distinction of the divine Persons. Tritheism in some form most be adopted, and coequality and consubstantiality must be rejected. This, however, is a rather grim prospect, one which has no biblical or historical or theological warrant."   Stefan Linblad Some Christians may be thinking enough of the Trinity debate already and that there are better things on which we could be spending our time. As far as the latter, there is no dichotomy between caring about a right doctrine of God and caring about people. You can't have one without the other, and the first should be the impetus for the second. As far as enough digital ink being spilled over the Trinity, how much leniency should be allo...

I posted this quote a year ago, but in the light of the Trinity debate, it's worth repeating. Many people do not like arguing. They picture an angry dispute between two individuals… It is usually characterized by negative emotions: we are upset, raise our voices, and maybe even stomp out of the room in frustration… Usually, if we are honest, the goal of this kind of arguments is to win… Another type of arguing features a dispute not between competing individuals but between competing ideas… Rather than emotional; it is rational. We are seeking reasons for why we think a belief is true. In arguing this way, we do not attack the other person, but we are both attacking an issue or problem. This is why philosophers often can hold opposite views on issues and yet be good friends.  The goal of this kind of arguing is not to win but to find the truth. In fact, if you can show me that a belief I had thought was true is actually false, I have not lost but have won, because, I do not ...