The will and personal identity, as pertaining to the philosophy behind classical theism

If will is a personal property, it folllows that personal identity is located in freely willed actions. It means that a person is most fully herself when freely exercising the prerogative to initiate actions and make decisions. (Adonis Vidu, The Same God who works all things, p. 111)

What is a person? What is a person's identity? For one, it can be "tall, smart, black hair, male, Chinese," and for another, "eloquest, short, female, American." Personal identities, subjectively speaking, are intensively personal and pick up the traits that a person portrays as well as other distinguishing things about them. Objectively speaking, personal identities can cover all of the traits of a person, to identify that person against another.

Personal properties are of course the properties of a person, and thus key to their personal identities. So, in humans, if will is a personal property, is will part of their personal identity? For humans, of course not, because all humans have wills. The exercise of that will in action can form part of a person's identity (e.g. successful businessman), but that has nothing to do with the will per se but the will as acted out in the business actions he takes. Will we say that in humans, a person's identity is located in freely willed actions? No, because it is what is willed and what is done that identifies a person.

How then should we respond to Vidu's strange comment on will being a personal property? Vidu I think fails to differentiate being something being present, and something acted out. If will is a personal property, it can be said that a personal identity is that a person is a moral agent. However, the exercise of that will is an act, which the person can and does exercise. Therefore, it is a non sequitur to claim that "will" being a personal property implies that the personal identity is located in freely willed actions. The will is after all distinct from the act, though not separate from it.

There are of course more nuances when it comes to God, but the problem here is how Vidu, as with many of his Roman Catholic ressourcement friends, seem to think that a rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and Aquinas is the cause of the problems with the world today (Modernism and Postmodernism). There are many problems with modernism and postmodernism, but making will a personal property has nothing to do with self-autonomy and the need for self-expression and self-actualization.

The corruption of Aristotelian metaphysics in classical theism: Exhibit B

Now, and this is the pivotal move in this argument, if the persons are identified with the relations, if these are relations that subsist in the unity of an intellectual substance, and if other relations, contingent and economic, were to obtain between the persons—where there would be a to and fro, a giving and a taking—then the very identity of the persons would also depend in some way upon these contingent and finite realities. (Adonis Vidu, The Same God who Works All Things, p. 100)

In hard classical theism, ressourcement classical theism, the persons are identified with the relations (paternity, begotten, proceeding). Note that we are not denying that the persons are relations in some sense. But in hard classical theism, the only distinction between the persons are the (eternal) relations. These relations are eternal, necessary and pertains to the very nature of the Godhead. To posit any other relation other than these is to make "the very identity of the person" to be dependent "in some way upon these contingent and finite realities."

The problem with this view is precisely at this fixation on "relations." Even if we were to hold to the identity thesis, who is to say that one kind of relations (the eternal kind) precludes other types of relations (the contingent kind)? Vidu is positing a univocity of the term "relation" in order to deny that God can form any type of non-ontic and/or non-eternal relations either within the Godhead or with anything in creation. It is the amphiboly fallacy. And why must a relation make "the very identity of the person" dependent on contingent and finity realities? All of us know that God is the Creator of the universe, so does this relation of "being a Creator" make God dependent upon the contingent and finite reality of the universe, or we are going to make inane arguments about what constitues a "real relation" or not?

While the doctrine of God is certainly hard and mysterious, as pertaining to the mysteries of the Almighty God, sometimes it seems that it is theologians who are busy making God more mysterious than He is. This is the kind of argument that creates all kinds of gnots for theologians to twist and turn in order to make themselves look smart and God more mysterious, as if God needs the help of Man to make Himmself beyond full comprehension! The persons of the Godhead are indeed defined by their personal relations (paternity, begotten, proceeding), but to therefore claim that they cannot have any other types of relations is an assertion not a proof.

The corruption of Aristotelian metaphysics in classical theism: Exhibit A

"A thing acts in so far as it is in act," Aquinas wrote. By no means an esoteric principle of the Common Doctor, this axiom merely expresses the simple idea that the activity of a particular thing is determined in its nature by the kind of thing it is. A rock can't speak, but it can break; water can flow, but it can't break; and so on. [Adonis Vidu, The Same God who works all things, 92]

The so-called "ressourcement" of classical theism has been treating Aristotelian metaphysics, as modified by Thomas Aquinas, as axiomatic. As I read through this book by Adonis Vidu, I would like to point out places where this has been done, to the detriment of common sense and biblical theism.

An action of a thing is determined by its nature? Now, if we are merely saying that actions cannot contradict the nature of a thing, then of course that is true. A human cannot naturally fly, because a human does not have the apparatus for flying (e.g. wings, hollow wing bones etc). But where Aristotle goes with it is a form of hard determinism, where a nature determines actions. Or, in the case of God, nature wills actions. "...the nature of the action is determined by the nature of the agent." (Ibid.) In other words, God Himself does not have libertarian free will. But this is nonsense. A human being can do good, but a good Calvinist will say that humans have a fallen nature incapable of doing good. A human being can and have invented lots of things, but is the nature of inventing an airplane (as opposed to being inventive) determined by the nature of human beings?

The natural sciences have in large part rejected this principle for the simple reason that it restricts scientific research. Science cannot be done if scientists are constantly being told what they can or cannot do according to metaphysical considerations. For Aristotle and Aquinas to say is before the scientific revolution is understandable. For people in the 21st century to say that is to be a Luddite.

A free being such as God can do anything not contrary to His nature. He is not restricted to what philosophers think He can or cannot do. Therefore, to claim something about the nature of God from His actions is not a good argument. Of course, God's actions may reflect on His nature, but that is an argument to be made, not assumed.

The problem with the new scholasticism - "Retrieval of classical theism"

According to the philosopher, the people on the first story have no visible stairway by which they may walk up to the second story and actually see the nature of who God is. They can look at pictures that God the owner has placed on the first story. Some of the pictures are very good and very beautiful. But it is still all the first story. The philosopher, however, is like the manager of the house. He knows about a secret, hidden back stairway, used only by the manager of the house.

He has been up the stairway, by means of reason and Aristotle’s categories. He has special qualifications. He can tell us what the actual situation is. The secret back stairway is an exciting discovery because of its intellectual power.

But does the secret back stairway actually exist? Or is the philosopher himself under an illusion? …

[Vern S. Poythress, The Mystery of the Trinity: A Trinitarian Approach to the Attributes of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2020), pp. 336-7]

There is concealed a pride, a self-satisfaction, and a knowing superiority to ordinary Christians who have not achieved such heights of reverence for the Almighty. (p. 460)

The fourth response, classical Christian theism, attempts mediation by prioritizing transcendence, that is, prioritizing the second story. But to do this prioritizing, we must first have adequate knowledge of the second story itself. And so the back stairway enters the picture. (p. 487)

In his book promoting a form of "classical Christian theism," a phrase which up till now seems amorphous, Vern Pothress cautioned against the over-use of philosophy in understanding the doctrine of God. Without pointing out anyone today in particular, Poythress points out the problems with utilizing Aristotelian categories to understand God. Of course, the rest of us can be less restrained, and point out the arrogance and superiority mindset that infects modern day neo-Thomists, who insist that anyone rejecting Thomas Aquinas's doctrine of God are heretics who should be de facto excommunicated from the Church.

The main problem with the new scholasticism promoted by Matthew Barrett, Carl Trueman, Craig Carter et al. is not so much whether they think that a Thomistic doctrine of God is good, but that that is the only way one must conceive of God. While claiming the Creator-creature distinction, and holding the distinction between archetypal/ ectypal theology, they undermine it with what Poythress call their "secret, hidden back stairway," where they can behold God as He truly is. They are the only ones who truly know God; the peons must just bow down to their superior intellect, and don't you dare question the Great Tradition™ !

God is God; he is beyond all human comprehension, and that applies to philosophers and theologians. Instead of thinking that we must have it correct, Christians especially should understand that the only reason why we can know God is that God reveals Himself to us. Instead of trying to recover "Natural Theology," wwith the idea that Man can somehow grasp a knowledge of God by His own intellect, we should understand that total depravity extends to the intellect. We are sinners, even in and especially when we think, and the idea that somehow we can climb a hidden back stairway to understand God is a mockery of the God who reveals Himself to us.

Therefore, we should be humble in our assertions of who and what God is. By all means hold to Thomstic views if that is what one is convicted of, but do so with humility. A little less pride and more humility, more teachability, will go a long way in preserving the peace and unity of the Church.

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col. 2:8)

Confessions of a former Strict Confessionalist (Part 4)

The failure of strict confessionalism: Theological lies and the failure to tell the truth

It is not a secret that the American Reformed churches are extremely divided. After studying Reformed theology, it is my opinion that many divisions are not warranted and driven more by ego and the need to “prove oneself.” For example, the whole republication (of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant) controversy, while interesting and worth of discussion, is in more opinion not worth the amount of heat and ink it generates. Readers can read the OPC report on this issue themselves and ask if the amount of sophistication is worth actual bickering and fighting over.

Now, it is true that some things are worth fighting over. John Gresham Machen was right to fight liberalism for example. But the amount of stuff American Reformed Christians fight over is shocking given the small proportion they have among professing believers.

This idea of fighting to establish themselves was brought to the fore in 2016, when first Todd Pruit and then Carl Trueman lobbed theological grenades accusing those who promote a doctrine called “Eternal Functional Subordination” (EFS) or “Eternal Submission of the Son” (ESS) of heresy. This set a firestorm that continues to have its embers even today. Now, charges of heresy are serious charges, and the first step of proving any doctrine is heretical is to actually represent it correctly. If one misrepresents what one is critiquing, then it does not matter how eloquent and how biblical one argues. One is engaging in a straw man and nobody should take what is said seriously.

The 2016 ESS controversy caused me to read up on the topics raised, and the more I read the more disturbed I feel. The initial feelings were one of astonishment and anger that these prominent pastors and theologians are hypocrites when they engage in the sort of slug fest that they deplore and attack in others. Evidently, when pastors and theologians told their congregants not to attack other Christians, or not to fight online, they mean only THEY can engage in attacking other Christians, and fight online. You see, only Reformed pastors and theologians can engage in the type of conduct other Christians should not engage in. For normal Christians to do so is sin I guess, but the clergy have privileges the laity do not!

As I read into the topic, I start to feel disturbed because what the critics are saying is not what the proponents of ESS are saying. Many critics are insisting that ESS necessarily imply this and that, which are heretical. But they do not prove this point, instead taking such implications as a given. This is just for the more honest critics. Then you have militant polemicists who just want to tar ESS any way possible, like Matthew Barrett who attacks ESS as tritheistic, Sabellian and Subordinationist. Barrett’s dishonesty is seen in his attacking ESS as both tritheistic and Sabellian. Just as something cannot be A and not A at the same time, something cannot be both tritheistic and Sabellian, given tritheism holds to three gods, while Sabellian holds so closely to the unity of the one God the persons are mere “appendages” or “manifestations” of the one unitary God.

Ironically, while it is among the hardcore anti-ESS “Reformed Confessionalists” that truth has gone missing and hatred festers, it is among the egalitarians that charity continues. Glen Butner, while a critic of ESS, is fair in his critique, and makes some points that ESS proponents should address. In my engagement with Butner on social media, I have found him charitable and willing to engage, while my engagement (where there is any) with Reformed Confessionalists has been either absent, or rude and condescending, just shy of hurling anathemas.

Just stand and ask yourself: From a human point of view, who would you be predisposed towards: a rude and condescending Reformed Confessionalist, or a supposed “biblicist”? I have interacted with Bruce Ware as well as Owen Strachan, and they have been extremely courteous. They have also consistently denied the positions attributed to them. Just on the issue of optics, which side is anyone more predisposed to think is in the right?

Of course, truth is one thing, and conduct another. This is where my reading comes in. In my own personal reading, while I do not think everything said under the banner of EFS is biblical, I find it to be not the monster, the heresy, that Reformed Confessionalists accuse it of being. Again, it means a big deal when these polemicists are busy burning straw men. Lying about one’s opponents, even after being called out on it, is a sure sign that one is probably in the wrong. The sheer venom that these Reformed men spit against “biblicists” and “Arians,” while lying over and over again about their opponents, does not endear me to them. But then, who cares perhaps, since I am a non-white and a non-American, so I am nobody to them?

James White DL: Response to Mike Riccardi and Derrick Brite

Christian apologist James White has recently done a Dividing Line podcast responding to Mike Riccardi's talk at the recent Shepherd Conference and the tweets of Derrick Brite.

On Theological Method: A Review and response to Matthew Emerson and Luke Stamps on "Trinitarian Theological Method"

In 2019, a book was written showcasing an in-house debate among Baptists on the doctrine of God. In that book, Matthew Emerson and Luke Stamps wrote a chapter on it promoting the concept of "trinitarian theological method."^[1] The reason for "departures from classical Christian doctrine," according to them, is due to faulty theological method.^[2] Fidelity to Scripture as sole and final authority alone is insufficient, unless paired with a theological method that they believe to be true. Those who do not accept the need of their theological method are "biblicists," defined as those who "seeks to interpret the biblical text, as far as is possible, without any outside any outside influence, particularly any undue creedal or confessional influence."^[3]

As someone troubled by this ressourcement happening within professing conservative Protestant circles, I read the chapter (and the book), and have written a review and response to Emerson's and Stamps' proposal. Briefly in response, I find their proposal vague and confusing, and liable to be interpreted either in an orthodox manner or a heterodox manner. Ultimately, I hold that Emerson's and Stamp's proposal is actually dangerous for Christians, as it opens them up to possible deception under the guise of theological retreival.

My review and response to Emerson's and Stamps' proposal can be found here. An exceprt:

Evangelicals are committed to Scripture as the sole and final authority. However, does this guarantee fidelity to biblical truth? Emerson and Stamps argue that it does not. Pointing to examples of what they see as departures from “classic Christian doctrine,” Emerson and Stamps assert that the reason for these departures is due to a difference in theological method. In other words, a commitment to Scripture as the sole and final authority is insufficient for any theology to be truly biblical unless it adopts a certain theological method which will ensure that it would be truly biblical.

[continued]

---

[1] Matthew Y. Emerson and Luke Stamps, “On Trinitarian Theological Method,” In Keith S. Whitfield, ed., Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019), 95-128

[2] Ibid., 97

[3] Ibid.

EFS, Metaphysics and Theology - A Second Response to Derrick Brite on EFS (Part 5 - Conclusion)

Conclusion

I have looked at the metaphysics of will and submission, then taken an excursus into the writings of Herman Witsius on the Pactum. I continued with discussing the metaphysics of attributes and act, and the metaphysics of necessity. All of such is done in an attempt to show that the difference between classical theism and my view, and perhaps the views of others who dissent from classical theism, is based on numerous philosophical differences. I have laid down my particular take on these issues, not in an attempt to place philosophy over theology, but to show that my dissent is based upon my disagreements over philosophical assumptions (not biblical assumptions) made by classical theists that, to my knowledge, have never been defended or addressed. The disagreement is not between Scripture and philosophy, but one philosophy against another philosophy.

In this light, I would like to make two pleas to my classical theist brethren in general (assuming they still think of me as a fellow believer), and Rev. Brite in particular. First, if you are genuinely interested in truth, and the truths of God, can you concede that the differences between classical theism and EFS views like mine are due to fundamental philosophical differences? Can you note those differences, and examine your own theology to see if you have smuggled these unexamined assumptions into your theology? Even if you remain a classical theist, could you be self-reflective and be conscious of your assumptions?

Secondly, since I reject your unexamined assumptions, perhaps you can see fit to actually examine these points. If you believe in the principle that act follows being and other such Aristotelian notions, please defend those notions instead of merely repeating them. Why must act follow being for example? Why must necessity be equivalent to the divine essence? How can God be truly free to save whom He wills if His immutable nature is His will? Please address these questions, if you believe classical theism to be the truth on the matter.

Lastly, I would like to add a personal address to all classical theists: Ever since 2016, I have truly wished that the temperature would lower and the demonization would stop. Is all this infighting worth it? You are not the Nicene fathers, you are not whichever theological hero you think you are. You are fighting to divide the Church upon the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, the Saint of the Roman Catholic Church. Is all this worth it? Ask yourself this in your heart as you come to personal prayer before our Lord, who will judge between us on the matter.

Maranatha. Amen.

EFS, Metaphysics and Theology - A Second Response to Derrick Brite on EFS (Part 4)

On the Metaphysics of Necessity

The final issue I would like to address is the issue of necessity. What does it mean for something to be necessary? According to Brite and the classical theists, if something is necessary, then it is essential and thus ontological. As I have said in my review of chapter 8 of Matthew Barrett’s book Simply Trinity, such argumentation depends on equivocation between two meanings of the word “essential.”^[14] Something is “essential” if it has to happen. Something is also “essential” if it pertains to the essence of a thing. The two meanings of the word “essential” are not the same. The two are the same only if one holds to Aristotelian philosophy, whereby a thing can be described by its four causes. If that is the case, if something has to happen (“essential” as being necessary), then the happening must be described by one of its four causes. Since God is pure act, any such cause would pertain to His being, and therefore anything divine that is necessary must pertain to the essence of the divine.

However, if we throw out Aristotelianism, this line of reasoning falls apart. If God’s will is free, His will must not be determined (deterministically) by His nature, otherwise an immutable nature implies a determined will and thus God is not free. If God is to be free, He is who He is, and He does what He does, and He is not what He does.

Necessity in this light is not about some mutability or immutability of the divine essence. Rather, necessity here has to do with the logical flow between cause and effect as it relates to possible worlds. X is “necessary” for Y if and only thing X is found in all possible worlds where Y is, and not found in all possible worlds where Y is not. To put it more systematically,

Thus, to state that it is necessary for the presence of the biblical God to lead to the Son submitting to the Father is equivalent to saying that the necessity of God leads to the necessity of the Son submitting to the Father. Therefore, it is not possible for God to not exist, and for the Son to not submit to the Father.

As it can be seen, this is an exercise in modal logic, and says nothing at all about the divine essence. What is required is just to note that the Scripture teaches that the Son submits to the Father, and that such submission is part of the eternal plan of God which is true in all possible worlds. The necessity of the Son’s submission to the Father is one of modal necessity, and has no relation to the divine essence at all.

This issue of necessity has come up before in the history of theology, albeit on different topics. The question has been asked whether it is necessary for Jesus to die on the Cross in atonement for sin. On the one hand, God’s plan is immutable, and Jesus is the eternal Savior who was slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8; alt rendering). But dying on the Cross happens in time, and it happens in a world of contingencies. Furthermore, God is free so He does not need to save sinners and therefore dying on the Cross is not necessary, is it? One can start to see the thorniness of such a question, and why questions on necessity are not as easy as the classical theists have made them out to be.

My question for Brite and the classical theists is this: Can you see there is a difference between modal necessity and essential necessity? Can you at least recognize the complexity of questions of what constitutes necessity as it relates to God, and stop pigeon-holing all ideas about necessity into questions on the divine being? Perhaps classical theists should actually engage the philosophical literature on this topic and others instead of insisting on reading everything through the lens of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

This brings us to Witsius and the Pactum. Here is what Witsius has said about the Pactum as it relates to necessity:

XXI. The third thing we promised to enquire into was this: “Could the Son refuse to undertake, or withdraw himself from this covenant?” To which question, we are again to answer distinctly. 1st. If the Son be considered as God, the whole of this covenant was of his own most free will and pleasure. There neither was, nor could be any necessity to bind the Son of God, as such, to this covenant. Here is nothing but mere good pleasure, philanthropy unmerited, and altogether lieral, pure, and unmixed grace. 2dly. If he be considered as man, though he indeed entered into this engagement of his own accord, without being constrained; yet he could not, without sin, from which he is at the greatest distance, withdraw from this agreement … ^[15]

XXIII. 2dly. The Son of God had from eternity engaged to satisfy this covenant, by assuming human nature, and obeying in it … If the human nature, personally united in him, could have withdrawn itself from, and renounced the covenant, it was possible that the Son of God himself might have violated his covenant engagements. And in that case Christ would not be either the true and faithful God, who cannot lie, or not be God omnipotent … ^[16]

XXIV. 3dly. God had by an eternal and irrevocable decree, appointed, promised, and confirmed by oath, the inheritance of all blessings in Christ, Heb. vi. 13-18. Luke i. 73. But if Christ could have withdrawn himself from the covenant, then the decree of God would have become void, his promises been deceitful, and his oath falsified; and therefore the whole counsel of God concerning the oeconomy of our salvation, so often inculcated in the prophetical writings, would have become of no effect; which is indeed blasphemy to imagine. … ^[17]

Witsius, in responding to the question whether the Pactum was necessary for the Son, retreated to the difference between the human and divine nature, focusing only on the fact that it was impossible for the human nature to retreat from the Pactum. The divine nature delights in the Pactum and thus no necessity bounds the Son as God to the covenant. And if one sees “bound” here as forcing the Son to go through the Pactum, that is true. But what Witsius glosses over is the fact that for the Son to choose to, in a sense, go against what he delights in, is an impossibility. The idea of modal necessity is present in Witsius’ thought, yet not emphasized.

The main point to drive here is that modal necessity is not new to the Reformed tradition. There is nothing wrong with insisting on the modal necessity of the submission of the Son in the Pactum. To those who insist that the Reformed Tradition does not historically speak using such language, are we more interested in policing speech or speaking truth?

[to be concluded]

---

[14] Daniel H. Chew, Contra Barrett on the Issue of EFS: A Critique of Chapter 8 of Simply Trinity, accessed Feb 15 2022 (https://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/theology/ContraBarrettEFS.pdf)

[15] Witsius, 1.3.21; This version, p. 184

[16] Ibid., 1.3.23; this version page 185

[17] Ibid., 1.3.24; this version page 186

EFS, Metaphysics and Theology - A Second Response to Derrick Brite on EFS (Part 3)

On the Metaphysics of Attributes and Act

Alongside this idea of will being a property of nature comes the classical theist view of attributes. For classical theism, “attributes” are substances or things. They exist really just like cars and wind, since for Aristotle, thought “in its actualized states is identical to the act in which it is thought,”^[11] and God is pure act. When classical theists claim that God is His attributes, they are asserting more than the view that God cannot be separated from His attributes (the biblical view). Rather, each “attribute” is a thing that really exists. In order for any attribute to not achieve autonomous existence, God must be them, so that there are no parts of “free moving” attributes attached to God as like a composite thing.

All of such ideas about attributes depend on Aristotelian metaphysics. For most of us, “attributes” at their core are descriptive terms. To say that William is a man is to merely state that “man” is a descriptor that fits him. Nobody believes that to call William a man is to assert that a reified attribute “being a man” is either William himself or is attached to him, sticking to him like magnets on a fridge. Of course, as composite creatures, we do have parts, and therefore our “parts” contribute to our attributes as well (e.g. “having two eyes,” “having two legs”). However, “parts” and “attributes” are not necessarily the same thing, as the attribute “being a man” shows. “Attribute” is first and foremost a descriptor term that can be used to describe parts of things.

When it comes to God, the simplicity of God is an attribute of God that asserts that God has no parts. If attributes are things, then any “part” of an attribute that is not identical with God would be outside of God’s simple being, and therefore simplicity is denied. The total identification of God’s attributes of God’s being is necessary for classical theism, or God would cease being God.

If however we take attributes as primarily descriptors, as I do, then the whole issue would be construed differently. The identification of God’s attributes with God’s being is merely to say that one cannot separate God from His attributes, as if God’s justice can be removed and God remains God. It is an “is” of union, not an “is” of absolute identity. To assert that God has attribute X is merely to say X is what God is like without any commitment to how that is or whether X is of the essence of God.

This is important as it goes to the core of why Brite and other classical theists continually assert that we hold to “ontological disparity” despite our repeated denials to the contrary. Brite points to one statement I had made, where I had said “For the Son to not submit to the Father is for God to be not God; an impossibility.” He then moves on to cite Strachan’s book The Grand Design, stating from there that EFS is committed to the idea that “a definitional aspect of the being of God is the relationship of authority and submission.” The problem is that neither Strachan nor I have mentioned anything about the “being of God.” In fact, I would object to the statement “a definitional aspect of the being of God is the relationship of authority and submission” as heretical. But why would Brite think that is what EFS teaches? The only way it seems that one can get from statements from Strachan and me to statements like Brite’s is to hold to attributes as things.

When I state that the Son must submit to the Father, that is not a statement of ontology. In my first response, I had made it clear that such submission is a submission in God’s energies not His essence. It is to state merely what it appears, what God does and has done. There are attributes of God that pertain to His being, for example simplicity. But attributes such as “the Son submits to the Father” is not a proper attribute but a descriptor. It is not an attribute of the Son in the divine essence.^[12] Therefore, although we say that the Son submits to the Father, we deny that submission of the Son is of the essence of the divine.

Brite brings further artillery onto the scene in the writings of Kevin Giles, where he remarks that subordination of being lies behind submission in act or function. That brings another plank of Aristotelian philosophy into the scene: that act follows being (agere sequitur esse). But this depends on Aristotelian fourfold causality, especially the idea of final causation, which I reject.^[13] While certainly nature influences act, I reject the view that nature or being fully directs act. After all, if God has the freedom to save one person or not to save the same person, that act must not come from His own immutable nature or He would not be free at all to choose whom He would save.

As someone who rejects Aristotle and holds to modern physics, I reject both the reification of attributes and Aristotelian four-fold causation. I do not hold them to be true of this world, and I do not see why they are needed for theology either. I would challenge Brite, and other classical theists like him, to prove these to be true and necessary for a biblical theology before proceeding further.

[To be continued]

---

[11] David Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 35

[12] I do not hold to such things as the “essence of the Son.” There is only one undivided essence: Father, Son and Spirit

[13] See Daniel H. Chew, “Why Act follows Being is unbiblical,” Daniel’s Place (blog), Dec 20 2021. Accessed Feb 14 2022 (https://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2021/12/why-act-follows-being-is-unbiblical.html)

EFS, Metaphysics and Theology - A Second Response to Derrick Brite on EFS (Part 2)

Witsius on Will and Submission in the Pactum Salutis

Along with Brite’s insistence that will is a property of nature is his citation of Herman Witsius to assert that there is absolutely no submission of the Son to the Father in the Pactum Salutis. Herman Witsius of course is the Dutch Reformed theologian who synthesized Cocceian and Voetian thought to create a mature 17th century covenant theology. His Economy of the Covenants is taken to be the pinnacle of Reformed thought on the covenants. If we want to know what Reformed scholasticism believes about the covenants of God, Witsius’ work would be the place to go to. Support from Witsius would not necessarily imply that one’s position is correct, but it would certainly imply that one’s view is supported by the Reformed Tradition. Is Brite therefore correct in marshaling Witsius as a witness for his view on the Pactum?

Before continuing, I would like to put up two quotes from Witsius’ Economy of the Covenants so we have a sense of what Witsius taught:

II. When I speak of the compact between the Father and the Son, I thereby understand the will of the Father, giving the Son to be the Head and Redeemer of the elect; and the will of the Son, presenting himself as a Sponsor of Surety of them; in all which the nature of a compact and agreement consists. ^[5]

IX. It is also proof of this, that Christ, often in the Psalms and elsewhere, calls God the Father his God. … in these things the whole nature and design of the covenant consists. As therefore Christ calls God the Father his God; and on the other hand, the Father calls Christ his servant, both of them do by that name indicate a compact of obedience and reward.^[6]

In the first quote, we notice that Witsius speaks of a distinct “will of the Father” and a distinct “will of the Son,” something which seems to put him outside the classical theist usage of “will” as a property of nature. In the second quote, we notice that the names of God have covenantal overtones indicating “a compact of obedience and reward,” and another word for “obedience” is “submission.” Witsius agrees that Christ is the servant in the covenant, and therefore there does not seem to be any reason to assert that Witsius does not teach submission within the Covenant. A voluntary submission to be true, but a submission nonetheless.

We now go to Brite’s citation of Witsius. For a time I could not find the exact quote, and the reason for that is because the actual sentences are on a different page. This does not bode well for Brite’s citation of Witsius, as getting page numbers wrong may very well indicate that one did not actually check the actual source material. Also, although I am citing a reprint edition, I have the original ones as well, and the page numberings of Witsius’ work is preserved from the original version cited by Brite to the Reformation Heritage edition.

Brite’s article places the Witsius’ quote at page 151 in Witsius’ Economy of the Covenants. The actual page number the quote is found is page 180 of Witsius’ work. I will now cite the passage and its immediate context.

.

V. The law, proposed to the Mediator, may be considered in a twofold view: 1st As the directory of his nature and office. 2dly. As the condition of the covenant. The Mediator himself may be considered these three ways. 1st As God. 2dly, As Man. 3dly, As Mediator God-man. We are distinctly to compare these things, together. ^[7]

VI. The Son, as precisely God, neither was, nor could be subject to any law, to any superior; that being contrary to the nature of Godhead, which we now suppose the Son to have in common with the Father. …^[8]

VII. Nor is it any objection against this, that the Son, from eternity, undertook for men, and thereby came under a certain peculiar relation to those that were to be saved. For, as that engagement was nothing but the most glorious act of the divine will of the Son, doing what one but God could do, it implies therefore no manner of subjection: it only imports, that there should be a time, when that divine person, on assuming flesh, would appear in the form of a servant. And by undertaking to perform this obedience, in the human nature, in its proper time, the Son, as God, did no more subject himself to the Father, than the Father with respect to the Son, to the owing that reward of debt, which he promised him a right to claim. All these things are to be conceived of in a manner becoming God. ^[9]

VIII. Nor ought it be urged, that the Son, even before His incarnation, was called the Angel, Gen. xlviii.16. Exod. xxiii. 20. For that signifies no inferiority of the Son, before the time appointed, for his incarnation; but only a form resembling the appearances of angels, and prefiguring his future mission into the world. ^[10]

As it can be seen, Witsius in context is discussing the status of the Mediator in relation to the law. He does this by looking at the Son firstly as God, secondly as Man, and thirdly as the God-Man. With regards to the law, the Son could not be subject to the Law as God, for He is God, as stated in section 6 above. Witsius continued this flow of thought in section 7 by stating that even the submission due to His incarnation and death did not make him inferior to the Father and thus “subject” to Him. Rather, as the Pactum binds the Son to submit, likewise the Father is bound to reward the Son for His submission (“the owing that reward of debt”), and therefore the Son is not inferior to the Father because of His earthly humiliation. Section 8 further continues the thought by stating that the pre-incarnate Son (i.e. before His humiliation) was not inferior despite being called “the angel.”

The context of Witsius’ quote therefore lies in exploring the implication of the Son’s submission to His ontology. First, Witsius states that the Son is co-equal to God and therefore is not inferior. Second, Witsius states that the Son’s humiliation does not make Him [ontologically] inferior because the Pactum is mutually binding. Thirdly, Witsius states that the Son’s pre-incarnate name of “the Angel” does not make Him inferior because the Angel is a prefigurement and only bears resemblance to actual angels.

How does that tie in with Brite’s citation? Brite’s citation fails because the verb “subject” as used by Witsius is ontological, whereas Brite is using it to argue that submission of any kind is not present in the Pactum. Brite also fails to notice that “the Father’s debt to the Son” is with regards to the owing of the reward the Father is bound to give the Son in the Pactum. “The Father’s debt to the Son” is not the submission of the Father to the Son. While Wistius is arguing that the submission of the Son does not imply inferiority (“subject to”) since both parties are bound to the conditions of the covenant, Brite uses the quote to argue that reading submission into the Pactum would imply mutual submission. But don’t just blindly agree with me. I would urge readers to read for themselves Witsius’ writings and decide who has adequately represented what Witsius says in that chapter in his book. Witsius has more to say about the Pactum, but I will look at those later when we deal with the issue of necessity.

[to be continued]

---

[5] Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenant between God and Man, 1.2.2. This version Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenant between God and Man (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010), 165

[6] Ibid., 1.2.9; This version, pages 170-1

[7] Ibid., 1.3.5. This version, page 179

[8] Ibid., 1.3.6; This version, pages 170-1

[9] Ibid., 1.3.7. This version, page 180. Bold added to highlight the cited portion.

[10] Ibid., 1.3.8. This version, page 180

EFS, Metaphysics and Theology - A second response to Derrick Brite on EFS (Part 1)

Back in December 2021, Rev. Derrick Brite wrote a response to Dr. Owen Strachan concerning his most recent defense of EFS (Eternal Function Submission or ESS - Eternal Submission of the Son).^[1] Despite the fact that I had expressed skepticism over his desire for conversation, Brite did seem sincere and I wrote a response to his article.^[2] One month went by, then two. My cynicism however was misplaced, as Derrick Brite pulled through with his commitment to a conversation on the topic of EFS, and wrote a response to my post.^[3] I would therefore like to respond to his article with the same care and kindness he has shown.

In this first response, Brite expressed dissatisfaction with my response. In his view, while he acknowledges that we (EFS and EFS-adjacent) overtly reject ontological subordination, our theologies would ultimately result in a belief in ontological subordination. In his view, “You can’t make the claim that EFS/ERAS isn’t about ontological subordination while continuing to make statements of ontological disparity.” In other words, according to Brite, any statement in line with EFS is a statement of ontological disparity. Therefore, even though we deny ontological subordination, our statements are making a case for ontological subordination despite our denials that we are doing so.

Since I as a Reformed Christian focus on the Pactum Salutis, it is fitting that Brite addressed that issue head-on. According to Brite, he believed that distinct wills are not required for a covenant, stating that such “would be news to many Reformed theologians” and that “submission is not a necessary ingredient for covenant.” Citing D. Glen Butner and Herman Witsius, Brite believed that my interpretation of the Pactum is in error. What is required for the covenant is merely agreement without the Son “subject[ing] … to the Father.”

Brite’s response is careful and nuanced. As someone who learns how to see things from different angles (i.e. different paradigms), I would certainly agree with him if I held to his philosophical presuppositions. But that is the crux of the issue: I don’t. With that, I will like to unpack what this means in the rest of this response.

.

On the Metaphysics of Will and Submission

What is “will”? What is “submission”? What do these words mean? Brite has not really explained them, but rather used them in a certain manner which I guess he thinks is self-evident. “Will” to Classical Theists is a theological term with a history going back to the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III - 680-1AD), where Monothelitism was rejected as heresy against the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church. In this early medieval setting, “will” was understood to be a property of nature. Since Jesus Christ has two natures (human and divine), a truth established at Chalcedon in 451 AD, he must have two wills as well (human and divine). From then on, theology done in line with that tradition ties “will” to “nature.” Shifting from Christology to Theology Proper, the fact that God has one nature must necessarily mean that God has one will as well. The link tying “nature” to “will” is taken to be an axiom in theological discourse, but for some strange reason was never questioned at all. Why should “will” be a property of “nature”?

We can see Brite taking this axiomatically when he asserts that “will is a natural property,” and therefore states that “to teach that the Son submits His will to the Father in eternity strikes at the heart of the doctrine of divine simplicity.” Lost in all this is the failure to question that key assertion. Lost in this as well is the failure to think critically about church history. We must remember that the Sixth Ecumenical Council was no ecumenical council at all, regardless of whether what they had pronounced was or was not true. Furthermore, as it emerged in a time when the light of the Gospel was rapidly fading leading to the relative darkness of the medieval period (thus necessitating the Reformation), questions should be raised as to the orthodoxy of that council. Ruminating on the progress of church history, we should realize that the same Eastern splinter of the Church Catholic directly contradicted Scripture in the “Seventh Ecumenical Council” of Nicaea II where it mandated the use of icons.

The axiom that “will” is a property of the nature and not of the person poses problems for one’s theological anthropology as well. The Eastern Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky asserts that in a human person, “the nature wills and acts, the person chooses, accepting or rejecting that which the nature wills.”^[4] In other words, in order to preserve Constantinople III’s assertion that will is a property of nature, Lossky states that the person does not will anything at all, but chooses after the will wills. Of course, that helps to preserve the Synergism in Eastern Orthodoxy, since the human nature is totally sinful yet Man is free to choose or not choose God. Regardless of that, the point to take note here is how unnatural such a definition of “will” is.

It is Brite and the Classical Theists’ prerogative to define “will” in that strange manner. For the rest of us however, “will” just means “will” - what a person does in choosing something or another thing; one action or another action. Therefore, because we do not define “will” in that strange, unnatural manner, Brite’s argument fails. We do not therefore see the submission of the will of the Son to the Father as undermining the doctrine of divine simplicity.

I have a few questions here for Brite and other Classical Theists: (1) Can you admit that we EFSers are running with a different definition for “will” here? (2) In light of Martin Luther arguing for the bondage of the will, do you agree that both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy would have no problem with Luther’s view on the will if a distinction is made, per Lossky, between “will” and “choosing”? (3) Therefore, do you think that the definition of “will” you are running with (Constantinople III’s definition) is truly the normal meaning of “will” and the prevalent one in the Reformed Tradition, and if so why?

On the meaning of the word “submission,” I must state again that in EFS, the word always indicates an action. The idea that “submission” necessarily implies ontological ordering, or any idea of superiority or inferiority, is a view we reject. Here again, I would like to ask Brite and the other classical theists: Can you agree that EFSers do not associate superiority or inferiority to the word “submission”? Therefore, would you be willing to not read tones of superiority and inferiority every time you see the word “submission”?

[to be continued]

---

[1] Derrick Brite, “A Response to Strachan,” Reformation 21 (blog), Dec 13 2021. Accessed Feb 14 2022 (https://www.reformation21.org/blog/a-response-to-strachan)

[2] Daniel H. Chew, “A Response to Derrick Brite on the Issue of EFS,” Daniel’s Place (blog), Dec 16 2021. Accessed Feb 14 2022 (https://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-response-to-derrick-brite-on-issue-of.html)

[3] Derrick Brite, “Covenant and Ontology: An EFS Rejoinder,” Reformation 21 (blog), Feb 10 2022. Accessed Feb 14 2022 (https://www.reformation21.org/blog/covenant-and-ontology-an-efs-rejoinder)

[4] Vladimir Lossksky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1957), 125

On Derrick Brite and ESS - 2 months on

Back in December 2021, Derrick Brite, a pastor in Alabama, posted an article on Reformation 21, the blog of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. That article was supposedly a response to Dr. Owen Strachan on the latter's defense of ESS (Eternal Submission of the Son). I asked Brite if he was genuine in his desire for conversation on the matter, and he replied that he was. Therefore, on December 16 2021, I posted a reply to Brite on the issue. Given the history of misrepresentation of ESS, and non-interactions with any serious response to the critics, I was not very optimistic for a reply but was willing to give Brite the benefit of the doubt.

After my post, Brite sent me a PM saying that he was busy but would get back to me in time, noting that the time between completion of the article and posting of that article on Ref21 was about a month. As I am not a modern American, waiting is fine with me. However, as I checked out Brite's profile, I noticed that the profile has mysteriously disappeared. Again, that could be due to a lot of reasons, one of which might be he running afoul of the Twitter overlords. That is unlikely the case however since his profile does not deal much with political issues.

Now, I am not saying that Brite has any ill motives, or that he deletes his profile for any nefarious reasons. I also do not exclude the possibility that a response could come later. However, I find it intesting that he had stated he was open to talk with anyone, that he was working on a response, and then suddently, everything went quiet. It is almost as if he either decided not to respond and didn't want the hassle of explaining it to me, or decided not to respond but didn't want me to notice and thus question him, or that someone told him to do so in order to remain in good company with the powers that be. I am not stating which is the most likely option but I have my suspicions. Nevetheless, unless something changes, the record of critics of ESS deciding not to respond when called out on the issue continues to be unbroken - a record of almost 6 years by now.

[Update: Rev. Brite has reached out to me (see comment section) and it seems everything is fine after all. My suspicions are laid to rest.]

A Response to Derrick Brite on the issue of EFS

No theater here, friend. I’ll speak with anyone.

— Derrick Brite (@DerrickBrite) December 15, 2021

Reformation 21 has posted an article by Derrick Brite, which is a response to Owen Strachan in his most recent defence of ERAS on his Substack and on his podcast. Initially, I was skeptical over his claim that he wants to "to open the door for Christian debate and dialogue," given my history of (non-) interaction with anti-EFS warriors. However, Brite responded to my skepticism with a tweet that seem to geniunely want dialogue, so I would like to respond and hope for the best.

First of all, while I am responding to Brite's article, I claim solidarity with EFS, not identity. I am not responding due to any full-throated embrace of everything related to EFS. My view, which has been mentioned over and over on my blog, has been that I embraced the view that the Son in eternity past submitted to the Father, as exemplified in the Pactum Salutis. This is the eternal submission that I have always held to, thus "Eternal Submission" "of the Son." Since the persons are immutable, I reject the view that the Spirit could ever be incarnate, or the Father could ever be sent by the Son on Pentecost. That is not an issue of a deficit in the persons, as if the Father does not have the power to be incarnate (He could IF He wanted to), but the persons immutably do what the persons would do. The Son submits to the Father because He voluntarily yet immutably does so, in all possible worlds. For the Son to not submit to the Father is for God to be not God; an impossibility.

With that out of the way, I will now engage Brite's article. Firstly, I am glad that he admits that Strachan is not an Arian. As I have been saying over and over, EFS is not Arianism or Semi-Arianism, and saying it is such is a violation of the ninth commandment. Stating that it logically leads to Arianism is a different argument, one that we can disagree over and debate on.

Brite's main argument is to look at Strachan's exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:28, asserting that Strachan's exegesis of the verse is in error. He then asserts that Strachan's exegeis, which is to read it as teaching "ontological authority and submission," "does do violence to the Son," "takes away the mediatorial glory that is due to the Son for a particular economic role he has undertaken," and "takes away the ontological equality of glory that he has with the Father." Thus, EFS (or ERAS) "collapses the immanent with the economic." He then asks what EFS proponents' views of the divine processions and of reciprocity are, stating that a "more robust doctrine of these two subjects would safeguard against such grave error."

How should we respond to this? I will go back to the Bible verse later. But for me, the first thing that stood out immediately was the argument that EFS/ ERAS is all about ontological authority and submission. That of course is not true. All EFS proponents reject ontological authority and submission, seeing authority and sumission as functional, not ontological. But perhaps Brite has in mind phrases such as the authorty and submission being more than just ad extra or that it pertains to the inner life of God. In a sense, such confusion over what EFS actually teaches is understandable. But here is where we need to understand one simple thing: Most EFS proponents (especially on the Baptist side) are biblicists. Biblicists focus on what they think is the "plain meaning of the text," and thus one negative aspect of biblicism is its failure to be rigorously systematic and to define its terms properly and consistently. While not excusing biblicism, what we must do is to always respect authorial intent. In other words, we must allow the authors to define how they use their terms, regardless of whether the terms have been historically or confessionally used in that manner. We MUST evaluate not by reading our own meanings into their words, but to understand what they mean and then translate ("contextualize") what they say with the concepts that we use. In other words, I see biblicism as producing its own theological language, one in which translation is necessary. Just like it requires translation to understand Aristotle and Thomas, for their thoughts are otherwise alien to the modern mind.

EFS rejects ontological authority and submission. At the same time, they think of ad extra as being limited to God's works in the world, and thus they do not believe that authority and submission happens only in the realm of creation. That is what some of them mean when they are discontent with limiting it to God ad extra. As a Reformed Christian, I do not limit the term ad extra to only the works of God, but to anything that is outside the being of God. But wait, isn't there just God and Creation? Surely there is not something that is not God and not Creation, is there?

This is where I will part ways with most EFS proponents, and this is also where perhaps my views are not typical. But before going into my view, I will say that from my perspective, it is very likely that EFS proponents get a glimpse of something true, but fail to understand it fully. This might be a reason why they just use the phrase "functional" without explicitly saying how does that reconcile with the biblical doctrine of God. I do see the problem if one starts with a mere bifurcation between God ad intra and the works of God ad extra, seeking to pigeon-hole everything concerning God into these two boxes, and then, looking at EFS, thinks that it must be predicated of God ad intra, therefore leading to ontological authority and submission. My point is that one must think more broadly, and realize that limiting ourselves to these two boxes are part of the problem.

When we read Scripture, we read of God in His inner counsel, we seee God engaging and commmunicating with His creation. In prayer, God hears us and responds to us. All of these seem to indicate a God that is more than the god of the philosophers; a God that is more than just pure act. And yet also, God is most certainly pure act, and one gets all the classical attributes of God from Scripture, not just in philosophy. How should we resolve this tension? One way to do so is deism. Anther way to do so is to call all interactions anthropomorphisms or anthropopathisms. There are of course other ways, but one way that is most promising, which I currently hold to, is to appropriate the Eastern Orthodox category of the divine energies, and use it in our doctrine of God. This category can be used in many ways, but in this particular case, to show how EFS makes perfect sense.

In Eastern Orthodoxy, there are three things: the divine being, the divine energies, and the divine works. The divine being is of course God ad intra, the divine works is normally understood in the West as God ad extra. But what are the divine energies? Briefly speaking, the divine energies are the outward manifestations of the Godhead. Just like the Sun and its rays, the Sun exists as the divine being exists, but the Sun necessarily sends forth its rays, just as the divine energies eternally proceed from the divine being. The category of the divine energies is more fully developed by the Eastern Orthodox father Greogory Palamas, an opponent of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. In the Triads, Palamas states that God's foreknowledge, will, providence, contemplation of Himself among others are part of the energies of God (Triads, III.ii.6). God's foreknowledge is contingent, based upon the possible world that God chooses to actualize. God's will is whatever God wants it to be, and anything He wills is not necessary but contingent. God's contemplation of Himself is logically posterior to Himself, because He has to exist in order to contemplate Himself. As it can be seen, the energies are "dynamic" in a way that God's being is not. God as pure act cannot change, but God's will can change in the sense that there is nothing He decides to do that is absolutely necessary. Just as the sun with its rays, the energies of God proceed out of the being of God, seen in its multiplicity and contingency.

If we believe God is truly personal, then we should expect dynamism within the Godhead, not in their being, but in their relations to each other. Thus, the Father delights in the Son, and this delight is of the divine energies. There is a true "inner life" of the Godhead from eternity. The persons of the Godhead are not an abstract concept, but of true persons loving and delighting in each other, yet without three centers of consiousness.

EFS makes sense here because the submission in the Pactum Salutis is eternal, yet contingent. It is contingent in that God can choose not to do so, but yet necessary insofar as God has ordained the Son to be the Savior of the World. In other words, the eternal submission of the Son is contingent upon the divine will, yet necessary in light of the Covenant of God. EFS therefore is not ontological and not strictly economic, belonging to God in His energies.

Brite therefore errs in his understanding of EFS. On the biblicist side, he could at best say that they are inconsistent, but one should never say that EFS is all about ontological authority and submission. One can of course argue that a biblicist version of EFS is contradictory since it denies ontological authority and submission yet it logically implies such. However, if one holds to the divine energies, then there is no issue with the claim that EFS is purely "functional." And since I have introduced the concept of the divine energies, it should go without saying that I do agree with most of classical theism on the other matters as it pertains to God's being. I hold to inseparable operations as well, and do not see it as in any way contradictory of EFS.

Finally, we return to 1 Corinthians 15:28. Here, I have no problems with both exegetes. I agree with Strachan's simply exegesis, and with Brite's redemptive historical exegesis. The thing is they are not mutually exclusive. When we read Scripture, we cannot say that just because the text has one meaning does not mean that it does not have a fuller meaning when read either systematically, doctrinally, or redemptive-historically. That is why I left the biblical text at the end, because I do not believe one interpretation necessarily excludes the other.

In conclusion, I do not agree with Brite that EFS is in heterodox in any way. There may be unorthodox versions of EFS, but then they are unorthodox versions of just about anything, including classical theism (e.g. deism). EFS teaches something true about God, which is that the Son submits to the Father from all eternity, for our salvation.

God: One in essence, yet ... ?

In the 2008 EFS debate between Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem versus Tom McCall and Keith Yandell, two interesting lines of thoughts emerged primarily from Yandell's presentations and rebuttals. One line of thought spells trouble for classical theism as currently presented, and the other is a trouble for Yandell's view.

The philosopher Wilhelm Gottfried Leibnitz in his Law of the Identity of Indiscernables assert that for two named objects X and Y, if both of them have the exact same properties, then they are one object (X = Y). Conversely, two objects can only be distinct if and only if they have at least one property different from the other. Intuitively, that seems correct. Identical spheres have different spatial properties therefore they are identical but not the same; they do not occupy the same space at the same time.

Keith Yandell asserted that the persons of the Trinity are essentially the same, and seem to reject any distinguishing marks between the persons. Upon Leibniz's law however, if the three persons of the Godhead are essentially the same with no different properties, then they are basically one thing — one thing that connsists of Person A, Person A, and Person A. That one is called 'Father,' another 'Son,' and another 'Spirit' is mere nominal unless there is something really different: some property that the Father has which the Son does not, and somme property the Son has that the Spirit does not, and so on. At the minimum, claiming that the persons of the Trinity have the same haecceity ("thisness") means that "Father," "Son," and "Spirit" are purely interchangeable, such that the fact that the Son was the one incarnating is purely accidental (i.e. it just happens to be the case that the person called "Son" is incarnated). But even if such were the case, the fact that the person named "Son" became incarnated means that this "Son" has gained the property "being incarnated," and therefore has at least one different property from the other two persons of the Trinity. Needless to say, it is clear that the Father, Son, and Spirit must have different personal properties from each other, even if we have only the incarnation in mind.

The second line of thought poses a problem for classical theism, or at least the Thomistic classical theism that is anti-EFS. As one of the audience questioned during the Questions and Answers section: If it is argued that anything that is necessary from eternity is necessary in all possible worlds and therefore essential (pertaining to the essence of a thing), then it seems that any mark that distinguishes the persons in eternity past would logically lead to ontological differences. For example, if the Father is necessarily unoriginate while the Son is necessarily begotten, then this must be true in all possible worlds. Thus, the Father is essentially unoriginate and the Son is essentially begotten, and therefore the Father is different in essence from the Son. Therefore the Father and the Son have different essences, which is the denial of the homoousious. That is the problem for anti-EFS classical theism in its attempt in eradicating "subordinationism." If any distinguishing mark of a person from eternity is necessary, then the creedal position of the Trinity is subordinationist in nature. The historical rejection of Arianism would be seen as being an affirmaton that Jesus is God, not a rejection of subordinationism per se.

How should we solve this problem? Again, the Scriptures made it clear that there is one God, and there are three distinct persons. Therefore, any personal property of a person even if necessary are not part of the divine essence. In order to remain orthodox, the premise that for a thing, what is necessary is essential, must be rejected. Only then can we not have subordinationism in our doctrine of God.

The EFS debate between Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware versus Tom McCall and Keith Yandell

In 2008 (before the 2016 fiasco), a debate was held at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School between EFS proponents Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware versus opponents Tom McCall and Keith Yandell. I finally found the video for the debate. Unfortunately, the video is disabled for watching off-site, so please click here for the Youtube link.

Owen Strachan and the Trinity on the Antithesis podcast

We evangelical theologians are being led today toward a Popeless and Trentless Catholicism: natural theology, natural law, Thomistic metaphysics & apologetics, methodological Traditionalism.

Brand-new podcast episode: "The Biblical Godhead."

Listen: https://t.co/Nt4htLBmLY pic.twitter.com/XE0tR9vlnf

— Owen Strachan (@ostrachan) November 12, 2021

Dr. Owen Strachan has just released an episode on his podcast The Antithesis (available on Spotify and iTunes and RedCircle which you can access through the tweet above or through searching on those platforms) on the topic of the Trinity, specifically on the issue of EFS (Eternal Functional Submission), or, as he prefers, ERAS (Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission).

I find the podcast informative, even though I do not agree with Strachan on everything. First, I am a confessionalist so I do treat the Creeds and Confessions as a secondary authority. Second, I hold to the Pactum Salutis, not just a plan of salvation.

Thirdly, I do not think we have the same definition of "economic." "Economic" has to do with what God does, so for me it encompasses more than just the Incarnation, but all extra-Trinitarian works in eternity as well. Strachan says that it is more than just economic, but his view of "economic" seems to be related to God in relation and act to creation. Strachan obviously does not mean God in his being, because he denies ontological inequality, and therefore he does not believe in subordination in the imminant (ontological) Trinity. If we are dealing with something that cannot be well fitted as God's works but neither is it of God's being, may I suggest exploring the categories of "energies," and the Eastern view of the Monarchy of the Father?

That said, I have been much edified, and reminded, of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scripture. It is very easy even for us who believe in the doctrine to not practice it when we deal with such high and lofty philosophical and theological concepts. There is a tendency for us, for me, to drift away from Sola Scriptura as we explore and think through different philosophies and different conceptual lenses to deal with objections on a topic where the use of philosophy is necessary. This is not to reject the use of those different philosophies and conceptual lenses, but rather, it is easy for us to not practice Sola Scriptura and become proud in our philosophical knowledge in service of theology and God—the bane of all theologians everywhere.

Own Strachan on the factious charge of semi-Arianism

In light of the resurrection of the EFS controversy on social media, Owen Strachan has published a response denying semi-Arianism on his substack here. Pertinent portions are as follows:

Some of these people agreed with my view, and some did not, but many have recognized—long ago—that this “debate” is more an attempted purge than a genuine conversation.

...

First, equating Arianism with ERAS is fundamentally unsound. There is much conversation around authority and submission, and there are born-again Christians on all sides of this issue. But in both biblical and historical terms this charge will not hold; ERAS is a viable view, even a well-supported one, against the stereotypes.

Second, equating Arianism with ERAS is a zero-sum game. Either ERAS-affirming theologians like me are heretics, or else the other side is leveling a slanderous and divisive charge, the most damning there is. These are the only options available; the accusers apparently wanted to play a game of chicken, and they got it.

Third, equating Arianism with ERAS means that numerous theologians must be seen as heretics. Packer, Hodge, Hilary, and others never have been treated as heretics, but now—if the accusers are correct—they must be (see 1 John 2:22-23). I am no one’s huckleberry, but I am eager to see that case be made in public: I. Packer, Heretic. Charles Hodge, Heretic. Hilary of Poitiers, Heretic.

Fourth, equating Arianism with ERAS means the preceding theologians are in hell. Heretics do not live eternally with God. They suffer God’s just wrath for all eternity. This means that Packer, Hodge, Hilary, and others are in hell. It also means that Wayne Grudem and John Frame are headed for hell. I can scarcely type such blasphemous and evil words, but this is what these charges entail. Of course, these charges also entail that I am right now, at this moment, a child of wrath surely bound for destruction (Ephesians 2:3).

Fifth, equating Arianism with ERAS shows just how off the rails a handful of anti-ERAS voices are. Praise God, the super-majority of evangelical pastors and theologians have not made the case sketched in this piece. They understand that ERAS has many trusted advocates; whether they hold this view or not, they understand—biblically and historically—that it is a viable view, one worthy of study and careful consideration. Perhaps some of this number end up disagreeing with ERAS, and yet they follow two millennia of Christian tradition in honoring brothers who hold this view and not anathematizing them.

I will add this: The anti-ERAS/ EFS/ ESS crowd are not truly interested in dialogue. So far, all I have seen are pontifications and denunciations, with no desire to actually engage their opponents. I challenge any of the anti-EFS crowd to do one simple thing: Actuallly engage one of us! You can try it with me anytime.

Eastern Orthodox view of the persons of the Trinity with regards to the monarchy of the Father

The Latins think of personality as a mode of nature; the Greeks think of nature as the content of the person. (Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Easatern Church, 58)

The Father—πηγαία θεότης, source of all divinity within the Trinity—brings forth the Son and the Holy Spirit in conferring upon them His nature, which remains one and indivisible, identical in itself in the Three. (Ibid., 59)

What does Eastern Orthodox believe concerning the monarchy of the Father? One way to think about it from a Western perspective is to believe that the Son and the Spirit have derivative being from the Father, a form of subordinationism. However, given that the East rejects subordinationism, that is obviously not the way they think of the Trinity, so how do they conceive of the Trinity?

To this, Eastern theologian Vladimir Lossky, when speaking of the Trinity, asserts that the monarchy of the Father teaches that the "source of all divinity within the Trinity" is the Father. But since nature is the content of the person, this merely asserts primacy of the Father within the Trinity, a "functional subordination" if you will speak anachronistically. The "being" in Western thought is untouched by this doctrine. The person can be said to consist of the content of the person (the "what") and alongside the person as hypostasis (the "who"). The conferrence of the nature of the Father deals with the content of the Son which derives from the Father.

If that is truly what the Eastern view of the Trinity is, as Lossky asserts and I make inferences based upon what is said, then it seems that the Eastern view of the Monarchy of the Father is way superior to any Western view of the Trinity.

Gregory Palamas versus followers of Thomas Aquinas

Hence the formulation of the doctrine as an antinomy: the energies express by their procession an ineffable distinction—they are not God in His essence—and yet, at the same time, being inseparable from His essence, they bear witness to the unity and simplicity of the being of God. The opponents of St. Gregory Palamas—eastern theologians who had been strongly influenced by Aristotelianism (in particular the Calabrian monk Barlaam who had received his theological training in Italy, and Akindynus, who quotes the Greek translation of the Summa theologica)—saw in the real distinction between the essence and the energies a derogation of the simplicity of God, and accused Palamas of ditheism and polytheism. Having become alienated from the apophatic and antinomical spirit of eastern theology, they set up against it a conception of God which saw Him, primarily at any rate, as a simple essence, in which even the hypostases assumed the character of relations within the essence. The philosophy of God as pure act cannot admit anything to be God that is not the very essence of God. From this point of view, God is, as it were, limited by His essence; that which is not essence does not belong to the divine being, is not God. Thus, according to Barlaam and Akindynus, the energies are either the essence itsself; that which is not essence does not belong to the divine being, is not God. Thus, according to to Barlaam and Akindynus, the energies are either the essence itself, understood as pure act, or are produced by the outward acts of the essence, that is to say, the created effects which have the essence for their cause—creatures, in other words. The adversaries of S. Gregory Palamas recognized the divine essence, they recognizes also its created effects; but they did not recognize the divine operations or energies. [Vladamir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Creswtood NY: St Vladamir's Seminary Press, 1957), 76-7]

In his time, Gregory Palamas was charged by followers of Thomas Aquinas to be a ditheist or polytheist due to his belief in the essence- energies distinction. In 2021, those who do not follow Thomas Aquinas are likewise charged by Matthew Barrett to deny the simplicity of God. Matthew Barrett is the modern day Barlaam and Akindynus, attacking Christians with charges and arguments based upon the faulty philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.