Putting the podcast and these clips together takes a ton of research and time. If you've benefited from the show, consider supporting on Patreon: patreon.com/parkers_pensees
Great vid. But I really don't like the move he makes at 3:35. Appealing to mystery in order to avoid a contradiction seems to be a bit lazy. According to the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity(DDS) YHWH is identical to each of His attributes. And it follows that each of His attributes are identical to each other. It seems to follow that YHWH is identical to His attribute of being Unbegotten, while at the same time He is identical to the attribute of being Begotten by the Father. Which seems to entail that the attributes of being Unbegotten and being Begotten of the Father are identical. To get around this line of reasoning by appealing to mystery seems to be a way to try to have your cake and eat it also. At 1:26 he says that there are three incommunicable personal properties(IPPs) in the Godhead. But again according to DDS YHWH is identical to His properties and His properties are identical to each other. Therefore it follows that these three IPPs are identical to each other. But three IPPs cannot be identical to each other. So we have a contradiction. Therefore it seems that DDS cannot be reconciled with the idea that there are three IPPs in YHWH. In my opinion one of these ideas have to go. At 2:26 he says that we cannot apply any of those three IPPs to the whole Godhead. But it seems to follow from that belief that none of the Divine Persons are identical to YHWH. What does he mean by "Godhead"? I can only assume that he thinks that the Godhead is YHWH. That is that the Godhead = YHWH. So that statement is saying that we cannot apply any of those three IPPs to the whole of YHWH. But what does he mean by "IPPs"? He has made it clear that these IPPs are the Divine Persons. So that statement is saying that we cannot apply any of the Divine Persons to the whole of YHWH. Which is just another way of saying that none of the Divine Persons are identical to YHWH. Now maybe when he says "Godhead" he means Divine Essence. But then he is just saying that none of the Divine Persons are identical to the Divine Essence. Either way it seems unbiblical. At 2:53 he says that the IPPs are also Modes of Relation to the Essence. In other words the Divine Persons are Modes of Relation to the Essence. This sounds like Modalism. Which is the belief that the Divine Persons are Modes of Subsisting of the Essence. According to Modalism the Mode of Subsistence that is the Father is not the Mode of Subsisting that is the Son. But both Modes of Subsisting are YHWH. This is why I think that Latin Trinitarianism is ultimately some kind of Modalism, even though Latin Trinitarians would deny that. When a Modalist/Latin Trinitarian says "the Father is YHWH" he is saying "the Father is the same Being as YHWH". When he says "the Son is YHWH" he is saying "the Son is the same Being as YHWH". When he says "the Father is the Son" he is saying "the Father is the same Being as the Son". And while it is shocking to some to hear the statement "the Father is the Son", it is communicating the completely Orthodox meaning that "the Father is the same Being as the Son". When a Modalist/Latin Trinitarian says "the father is not the Son" he is saying "the Father is not the same Mode of Subsisting as the Son". This view nicely explains Passages like Yeshayahu(Isaiah)9:6 which calls the Son "Father". But this position still seems to be incompatible with DDS. It seems that in order for DDS to be true we would need to say that the Divine Persons are merely perceived distinctions in YHWH from the creatures point of view. Much like how on DDS the Divine Attributes are merely perceived distinctions in YHWH from the creatures point of view. Perhaps appealing to opaque contexts could be used to defend such a position.
@@au8363 I didn't say that Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus God the Father, I said it calls the Son Father. Which it does. And a classical Latin view of the Trinity works well with that data.
Putting the podcast and these clips together takes a ton of research and time. If you've benefited from the show, consider supporting on Patreon: patreon.com/parkers_pensees
Great vid. But I really don't like the move he makes at 3:35. Appealing to mystery in order to avoid a contradiction seems to be a bit lazy. According to the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity(DDS) YHWH is identical to each of His attributes. And it follows that each of His attributes are identical to each other. It seems to follow that YHWH is identical to His attribute of being Unbegotten, while at the same time He is identical to the attribute of being Begotten by the Father. Which seems to entail that the attributes of being Unbegotten and being Begotten of the Father are identical. To get around this line of reasoning by appealing to mystery seems to be a way to try to have your cake and eat it also.
At 1:26 he says that there are three incommunicable personal properties(IPPs) in the Godhead. But again according to DDS YHWH is identical to His properties and His properties are identical to each other. Therefore it follows that these three IPPs are identical to each other. But three IPPs cannot be identical to each other. So we have a contradiction. Therefore it seems that DDS cannot be reconciled with the idea that there are three IPPs in YHWH. In my opinion one of these ideas have to go.
At 2:26 he says that we cannot apply any of those three IPPs to the whole Godhead. But it seems to follow from that belief that none of the Divine Persons are identical to YHWH. What does he mean by "Godhead"? I can only assume that he thinks that the Godhead is YHWH. That is that the Godhead = YHWH. So that statement is saying that we cannot apply any of those three IPPs to the whole of YHWH. But what does he mean by "IPPs"? He has made it clear that these IPPs are the Divine Persons. So that statement is saying that we cannot apply any of the Divine Persons to the whole of YHWH. Which is just another way of saying that none of the Divine Persons are identical to YHWH. Now maybe when he says "Godhead" he means Divine Essence. But then he is just saying that none of the Divine Persons are identical to the Divine Essence. Either way it seems unbiblical.
At 2:53 he says that the IPPs are also Modes of Relation to the Essence. In other words the Divine Persons are Modes of Relation to the Essence. This sounds like Modalism. Which is the belief that the Divine Persons are Modes of Subsisting of the Essence. According to Modalism the Mode of Subsistence that is the Father is not the Mode of Subsisting that is the Son. But both Modes of Subsisting are YHWH. This is why I think that Latin Trinitarianism is ultimately some kind of Modalism, even though Latin Trinitarians would deny that.
When a Modalist/Latin Trinitarian says "the Father is YHWH" he is saying "the Father is the same Being as YHWH". When he says "the Son is YHWH" he is saying "the Son is the same Being as YHWH". When he says "the Father is the Son" he is saying "the Father is the same Being as the Son". And while it is shocking to some to hear the statement "the Father is the Son", it is communicating the completely Orthodox meaning that "the Father is the same Being as the Son". When a Modalist/Latin Trinitarian says "the father is not the Son" he is saying "the Father is not the same Mode of Subsisting as the Son". This view nicely explains Passages like Yeshayahu(Isaiah)9:6 which calls the Son "Father". But this position still seems to be incompatible with DDS.
It seems that in order for DDS to be true we would need to say that the Divine Persons are merely perceived distinctions in YHWH from the creatures point of view. Much like how on DDS the Divine Attributes are merely perceived distinctions in YHWH from the creatures point of view. Perhaps appealing to opaque contexts could be used to defend such a position.
Yeah this is a real tough spot for DDS and the Latin model I'd say. I think you're putting your finger on it well
Isaiah 9:6 does not say Jesus is God The Father. Stop misrepresenting The Bible.
@@au8363 I didn't say that Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus God the Father, I said it calls the Son Father. Which it does. And a classical Latin view of the Trinity works well with that data.