![]() ![]() The result is that it is very hard indeed to pull out isolated sound-bite quotations, slap them down on the page, and really have any idea what the authors are actually saying. Indeed, of all theological topics, the Trinity has involved the development of the most specialized and finely-tooled conceptual vocabulary over extended periods of time. ![]() Perhaps this is nowhere more true than in discussions of the Trinity. These should more than adequately compensate for this deficiency in the recent interventions of Goligher and myself on the matters of eternal generation, paternity and filiation.Īnd this brings me to a very basic but very important hermeneutical point which I emphasize to my students again and again: theological texts have contexts, synchronic and diachronic, and these contexts are critical to understanding their meaning. I refer the interested reader to the Cappadocians, the medieval scholastics, the Reformers, and the great theologians of the seventeenth century and also to the scholarly works of such as Lewis Ayres, Steve Holmes, Gilles Emery, and Richard Muller on the history of Trinitarianism, and Kevin Giles (as endorsed by Robert Letham, of whom Grudem approves) on eternal generation. Again, it is incumbent on a teacher in the church, if he chooses to reject church teaching, to do so from a position of knowledge. ![]() Grudem is confusing a relation for a cause.įurther, for Grudem to claim eternal generation is not defined requires him to ignore the history of the concept’s development in the third and fourth centuries and flies in the face of the testimony of the church and of the large literature on this topic since then. Nor by way of analogy is it true of the Father and Son in eternity. To say that my sons came from me by way of generation is not merely to say that I exist as their father and they exist as my sons it is to make a causal connection. Such a view of generation is not even true of the created order. Second, to take ‘eternal generation’ as meaning simply ‘existing as a father’ and ‘existing as a son’ would be an error. Bear in mind, however, that this is merely a distillation of the church’s teaching through the ages and no substitute for reading more deeply on the subject. The creedal tradition is of course corrigible in light of scripture but one must first understand that tradition in its fulness and its depth before one declares it to be inadequate or wrong or irrelevant or confusing.įirst, a good explanation in ‘ordinary English’ can be found in the translation of Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics II, pp. It is that which makes this comment of more moment and concern. But it is one thing as an ordinary Christian to have questions about this and quite another to redefine or reject it as someone who aspires to teach the church as whole on this point. It is technical and to understand it requires some technical knowledge. What can I say in response? Well, many Christians struggle with the idea. (If "eternal generation" simply means "an eternal Father-Son relationship," then I am happy to affirm it.)’ Quite honestly, I find it impossible to say whether or not I agree with "eternal generation" until someone explains, in ordinary English, what he means by it (not just what it does not mean). To substitute the words "paternity" and "filiation" provides some Latinized terminology but those terms simply mean "existing as a father" and "existing as a son," which tells us nothing more. ‘But just what is meant by "eternal generation"? In what they have written, I cannot discover what they mean. Grudem also makes a key statement about eternal generation which deserves attention: Now, given the fact one of Goligher’s charges is that Grudem and Ware are both wrong on the Trinity, then it is surely no cogent counter argument to claim that ‘No, we must be correct because we agree with each other.’ For example, Grudem quotes Bruce Ware in support of his position. But as I am named in his piece, some remarks are in order. His use of the sources is critiqued in detail elsewhere. I do not have the time to respond to all of Dr. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |