tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post6676022625550217540..comments2023-09-01T16:11:44.564+08:00Comments on Daniel's Place - (Reformata et semper reformanda): Turretin: Why was the Father not incarnatedDaniel Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-26622167501233401092017-10-21T12:03:51.401+08:002017-10-21T12:03:51.401+08:004. That is similar to my argument, except in rever...4. That is similar to my argument, except in reverse. Since I do not agree that the functions/ roles of each person is arbitrary, therefore I hold to an immutable ordering of the Persons within the Trinity, an ordering that is linked to "subsistence" and is thus not ontological.<br /><br />5. This is merely to say that the reason why any person of the Trinity does/ takes on the role Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-92027496741192172532017-10-21T11:57:16.697+08:002017-10-21T11:57:16.697+08:00Dear Ben,
I did not see it as quarreling; I thoug...Dear Ben,<br /><br />I did not see it as quarreling; I thought we were discussing, but I apologize if you thought otherwise.<br /><br />The issues concerning persons and being goes back to the patristic discussions concerning the Trinity. It is because they primarily thought in the area of ontology that the Trinitarian controversies happened. If "persons" is ontological, then does this Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-35642271271129210422017-10-21T02:12:38.575+08:002017-10-21T02:12:38.575+08:00Dear Daniel:
1. I have been thinking about some o...Dear Daniel:<br /><br />1. I have been thinking about some of the issues regarding the Trinity and that is the reason why I asked if you agree with Turretin.<br /><br />I have not read Francis Turretin's [Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols.] so I am not "quarreling" with either him or you.<br /><br />I find Turretin's claim itself very interesting.<br /><br />And thank you Benjamin Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15158087706682458142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-46569176866955382362017-10-14T18:14:39.378+08:002017-10-14T18:14:39.378+08:002. Gordon Clark's view of the Trinity focuses ...2. Gordon Clark's view of the Trinity focuses on attempting to propose a new solution to how God is both one and three. As far as I remember, Clark did not use traditional terminology and interact with them well. Clark's view of the Trinity therefore focuses on the self-conscious act of knowing and knowledge in general. So in my view, it has some utility but it does not help in settling Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-31415927004097084012017-10-14T18:04:25.339+08:002017-10-14T18:04:25.339+08:00Hi Ben,
1. Yes, I agree with Turretin.
That is n...Hi Ben,<br /><br />1. Yes, I agree with Turretin.<br /><br />That is not ontological subordinationism. Ordering does not imply anything about ontology, unless the person who is proposing the order <b>explicitly</b> applies it to ontology.<br /><br />"Fatherhood," "Sonship" and "Procession" are personal qualities. When applied to the persons ad intra, they are "Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19775846.post-86031313623367220832017-10-14T05:26:52.424+08:002017-10-14T05:26:52.424+08:00Dear Daniel:
1. Do you have an opinion on this qu...Dear Daniel:<br /><br />1. Do you have an opinion on this quotation of Francis Turretin?<br /><br />As you quoted Turretin, I do not find his reasoning convincing.<br /><br />Indeed, there is an ontological ordering in the Trinity "ad intra".<br /><br />But as Orthodox Nicene Trinitarians, we rejected any ontological subordination within the Trinity.<br /><br />If "Fatherhood"Benjamin Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15158087706682458142noreply@blogger.com