When I first heard about this " Divine child abuse " stuff a couple of years ago, my immediate reaction was that the people who believed this stuff were screwy on the Trinity. Thanks for confirming that this amateur theologian was correct!
Thank you for this. I’m seriously considering Lutheranism. From my evangelical (restorationist) background I thought Catholicism/Orthodoxy were my only options.
I think Lutheranism is more balanced than the other two. I was a modern evangelical and I have found the Lutheran views most consistent with Scriptures and Church History, and most importantly Christ centered.
Magnificent lecture - Thanx for posting from a practicing Anglican Church NA member, but who's beliefs are confessional Lutheran. Love Augsburg Confession
Grew up Jack Mormon, my parents cared more about the universal body of Christ than Mormon exceptionalism. I'm leaning Lutheran, thanks to a local pastor hosting a comparative theological class and channels like yours and Lutheran satire
@@DrJordanBCooper I've "discovered" Lutheranism through Chris Rosebrough, and I really enjoy learning about its insights through your channel. I consider myself broadly Reformed.
thank you for this perspective. the atonement, the problem of penal substitution, and the problem of hell have all really shaken my boldness to share the gospel. i believe the gospel and know i am born again, but i can't say i truly understand it, like a child who knows his parents, knows he is their child, yet doesn't know how babies are made.
Given the classical trinitarian view, what sense does it make to use the term "person" to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If there aren't three distinct conscious subjects, then wouldn't another term like "hypostasis" make much more sense? There's a lot of baggage that comes with the term person, from two different angles. Firstly, the original / heretical meaning of person which roughly means "mask," and secondly, the modern sense of the term that denotes a conscious subject. Thoughts? I'm coming from an Orthodox background, and so we reject the classical western definition of simplicity (that God's will is identical to His essence, for example), yet we also deny social trinitarianism on the basis that it undermines the unity of the Trinity. Just trying to get my head around the different views so I can better understand my own. Thank you.
"But He was pierced for our offenses, He was crushed for our wrongdoings; The punishment for our well-being was laid upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed. All of us, like sheep, have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off from the land of the living For the wrongdoing of my people, to whom the blow was due? And His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. But the Lord desired To crush Him, causing Him grief; If He renders Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, For He will bear their wrongdoings." Isaiah 53:5-11 NASB2020
On the same grounds we admitted also the expression “begotten, not made”: “for made,” said they, “is a term applicable in common to all the creatures which were made by the Son, to whom the Son has no resemblance.
Dr. Cooper, I just read a book review for your “Prolegomena: A Defense of the Scholastic Method” in The Confessional Presbyterian Journal vol. 16 p. 233-236 (2020). As a Reformed Presbyterian who loves reading the Reformed (and when I can, Lutheran) scholastics, and listening to your content, I agree with your points and conclusions on how it is engaging in theology following a scholastic methodological approach that would greatly care for Christ’s sheep in a post-modern world. Preus and Muller have been huge impacts in both Lutheran and Reformed circles for the recovery of scholasticism. I am curious to know if you have read Reformed Baptist James Dolezal’s book “All That Is In God” in which he combats theistic mutualists in the Reformed camp who are not satisfied with the confessional and credal articulations of Theology Proper and are coming up with either heterodox or heretical views on the doctrine of God or the Trinity (Grudem is one of them!). It’s a great work for classical Christian theism and a solid defense for an orthodox doctrine of God. I see similarities in the conflicts and controversies that confessional Lutherans and Presbyterians are engaged in regarding theology, philosophy, method, creeds and confessions, gender, etc. and will be purchasing your book whenever I can!
I think that eternal functional subordination in some sense is compatible with orthodox theology, if we stress the functional part. That is, the Father creates through the Son and not vice versa, the Father sends the Son in the Incarnation and not vice versa, the Son always reveals the Father and leads us to the Father and not vice versa, etc. This, at least from our human perspective, means that the Son is always some sort of "agent" of the Father if we're speaking strictly about the function of the hypostases in the economy, and not vice versa. It's not subordination in the sense that one hypostasis submits to the will of another, but rather it is the one will of both hypostases (who have the same one will) that they relate to creation in this particular way. So in function and economy there is "subordination" in the sense that the Father works through the Son and not vice versa, but this is not the result of one literally submitting to another (which would require separate wills) but rather just how the Deity functions in its relationship with creation according to the one divine will of both hypostases. So it's really not actual subordination in the sense that we think of it in human relations (where one puts his own will aside to follow the will of another), but rather the true one will of both hypostases to have this "sender-sent" way of operation in the economy, which is indeed a kind if "subordination" in function (meaning that one hypostasis consistently works through the other and not vice versa). When defending against non-orthodox views of functional subordination which deny the one divine will I think that it's important to also stress this actual revealed relationship between the Father and the Son, so the we don't conflate the "roles" of each hypostasis in the economy, while maintaining the orthodox doctrine of one single divine will. That is, the Son doesn't literally submit to the Father, as their will is one, but his function in the economy of divine operations is one that we in human relationships would call subordinate (the Father works through the Son and not vice versa, according to the one will of both hypostases).
9:00 He keeps making the same old tired argument every time he talks about EFS. "SuBmIsSiOn DeMaNdS tWo WiLlS." He never addresses the counter argument though. Does mutual love logically demand two wills and two hearts? Yes, if you're using Cooper's logic. Therefore, he's stuck with only a few options. He can: 1. Deny the singular will of God, 2. Acknowledge that the Trinity can love and submit to one another without having multiple disunities wills, or 3. Deny that there is love between the persons of the Trinity. Go with #2. It's what Scripture teaches plainly.
Just listened to an episode of The Liturgists podcast with a horrendous explanation of Christ from Richard Rohr. This came at a perfect time to help me cool my jets.
I've heard a little about him. He was a little out there in some respects if I remember correctly. Just out of curiosity, what did he say that made you annoyed if you don't mind me asking?
2:32 And right here is where the Crux of the problem comes in when talking to somebody about God's existence Triune being! 🤨😒🙄✝️💞 10:21 Here's another point..... Wasn't Jesus supposed offer a sacrifice to the Father for the sins of his people? Even if the priest was the sacrifice Himself? This is where you have to check ya balance because I believe God said 1 JOHN: 10-11 🤔💞✝️
The idea of God having three wills, and one of them didn't want to go to the cross ("Not my will, but your's be done"), almost drove me to Oneness Pentecostalism ... it just didn't make sense that the One True God spoken of in Scripture would have three different wills and that they could be contrary to each other. Eventually (through my study of Oneness Pentecostalism), I came to the conclusion that it was the Son's human will that was struggling in the Garden, not the Divine Will of God. I then applied that to my Trinitarian beliefs, but still had this concept(/misunderstanding?) that the Trinity has three wills, only now I saw them in unity with each other. This teaching makes me want to look into this even further, could you please provide some resources that can better help me to understand the Trinity, and how the Three Persons all share the one Divine Will, it would go a long way to helping me make sense (as much as any man can) the nature of the Trinity, and establish me in my Trinitarian faith (which I do affirm, having renounced Oneness Pentecostalism completely).
You may want to check out this ua-cam.com/video/6hXRfOMOL_0/v-deo.html interview on Simply Trinity that Dr Cooper recently did with Matthew Barrett. I haven't read it but it is also strongly recommended by Matthew Levering, an excellent Catholic theologian. Hope this helps.
In 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 the word "for" is the Greek word “peri,” which means “around or with respect to.” This indicates for the sake of, or because of, our sins, and not as a replacement or substitutional payment for sins. "Propitiation” in Greek "hilasmos," means “mercy seat,” which shows Jesus as a propitiator, not a propitiation. Jesus is whom we look to as our means of obtaining God’s mercy when we turn from sin and obey Him, as we read in the very next verse, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments” 1 John 2:3. God extends mercy and forgiveness to all who turn from sin and follow his commandments, and obedience is best demonstrated by and through Jesus, God’s Son. 1 John 4:10 says that God "loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation," so God was acting in love, not anger. The only biblical example of the word "hilaskomai" being applied in real life is in Luke 18:13, "But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful [hilaskomai] to me, a sinner!’" We can see that the functional use of the word involves requesting mercy, not trying to appease God directly. He is acknowledging his sin and begging for mercy. He does not pay God or make an offering to appease God as if God is some pagan deity who needs to be appeased. Also, having a third party pay does not involve the sinner repenting and stopping the sin. It ignores the real sin problem. For more on this topic, see the book “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George.
Hi Dr. Cooper, what are your thoughts about Lewis’s depiction of the atonement in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. Is it a helpful picture? I like the implication of the cosmic ramifications of the sacrifice of the traitor. If the white witch does not get the blood of a traitor all of reality perishes on fire. The deep magic must be satisfied. I think it is helpful to think of reality as having rules (because God is a god of order) and that because of the way reality is established, blood is the only way (the loop hole?) that sin is dealt with, without disturbing the cosmic order.
So if the human will of Jesus submits to the outpouring of wrath from the divine will we maybe escape the accusation of child abuse but wouldn't that just be some sort of schizophrenic masochism with one will pouring out wrath on the other will within the hypostatic union?
@@DrJordanBCooper if we only have one personality in Christ and both a human and divine will then it seems that Christ is simultaneously willing wrath upon himself and willingly accepting that wrath. That seems like masochism and perhaps even suicide instead of self sacrifice.
@@SamuelAdamsT Think about it in regular human terms. For example, soldiers willingly suffer and even go into situations when they know they will die. Does this make them masochists? No sane human wants to suffer, but they do so willingly for the sake of others. The martyrs wanted to do God's will. They didn't want to feel pain, to suffer and die. But they did so willingly in obedience to God. How much more can Christ wish that the cup of suffering would pass from him, but also willingly go to the cross, suffer and die, for our sake?
God is revealing in Christ the essence of human nature as the potential to obey the mystery of God, and how that human essence therefore finds fulfillment: by actually lovingly obeying God, even unto death on a Cross. Not two wills, but a potentiality for obedience (present in all humans but never attained by human effort) which in Christ is absolutely fulfilled, 'demonstrated', perfectly realized. The paradigmatic utterance of that fulfillment which we are called to follow and 'incarnate' in our own lives, or rather by his life in us, is: "not my will but Thy Will be done." These are not two competing wills, but God willing to become other than God in man, without ceasing to be himself (this is the absolute mystery), so that God may _really_ be given to man and human nature _really_ united with God. The hypostatic union is the mystery of God's proximity in its absolute and unsurpassable form. The inner divinization of Christ's humanity in grace and glory has eternal significance for all human nature hence. It is the open door: "not I but Christ lives in me" - obedience to the mystery (grace, incarnation, glory). "I know that my Redeemer lives."
when it was generally admitted that ousias (of the essence or substance) simply implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that the Son is of the Father, but is not a part of his substance, it seemed right to us to assent.
Trinitarian theology is bad not only when it comes to the atonement, but in everything that God is. Start with the definition of God- one supreme divine being, who is Spirit and possesses divine attributes. He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, everlasting, immutable, etc. All of these contradict the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity teaches that the Son is the "begotten God" before all ages (Nicene Creed). Catholic councils declared that the Son was twice begotten, and "anathema" to anyone who doesn't believe that. If the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeding, how can they be equal? When it comes to the doctrine of "distinction" in the three persons, things get even worse. One example, who is the Father of Jesus Christ, the Father or the Spirit? The bible teaches that he was born of both. So does Jesus have two fathers? What Spirit do Christians receive? The Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ, which is the Spirit of adoption? I await your comments, Dr. Cooper.
I think your definition of Social Trinitarianism (ST) is too hasty a generalization. William Hasker, William Lane Craig, Andrew Kirschner all affirm both ST and the single, undivided, shared essence of God.
Yeah, I did simplify a bit, mostly because my point wasn't to identify the specifics of social Trinitarianism in its different formulations. Perhaps for a future video!
@@DrJordanBCooper One of my favorite quote from Luther is when he corrected Erasmus by saying "your thoughts of God were too human". As you said, the mystery of Trinity pushed too far into the creation realm dishonors the perfect harmony and unity of Godhead in the creator realm.
@@DrJordanBCooper Hello, Dr. Cooper. I was wondering if you could address the Eastern Orthodox model of the Trinity in contradistinction to the Latin model of the Trinity and if a Lutheran could hold to either view. So for example, I think a good discussion might be the "Monarchy of the Father" and the East and West would view the topic. A good example of the Eastern perspective on the Monarchy of the Father would be St. John of Damascus where he says in The Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Book 1 Chapter 8 that "All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father that is, because of the Father’s existence the Son and the Spirit exist and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted. For in these hypostatic or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences1555 differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence." Thank you.
*sigh* Who poured out wrath on the Son while He hung on the cross? If your answer isn't "the Father," then you aren't Christian. There can be no satisfaction of wrath and justice in self-flagellation. The Son offered Himself as a propitiation to the Father. That's why Isaiah 53 says it was the will of Yahweh, the Father, to crush the Servant, the Son. Nowhere does Scripture teach that the Spirit crushed the Son. Nowhere does Scripture teach that the Son crushed Himself. Only the Father is described as crushing the Son. Prove me wrong from Scripture.
I wonder what Cooper would do with Jesus' statement, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Obviously, the Son didn't forsake Himself. Obviously, He's talking to the Father, so how then does Cooper think he can get away with saying the atonement isn't the Father being angry with the Son? I've said it a thousand times on these videos. Cooper is ignorant of Scripture. That's why he never cites it to prove his points. He just appeals to "classical philosophy" and the heretic Aquinas.
If the Son's wrath is the same as the Father's and the Son did not pour out His wrath, then naturally, we must submit the Father did not pour out His wrath--they won't contradict each other. Historically, the church, including Augustine, did not go as far as to say the Son bore the wrath of God. It would be considered heretical if anyone suggested that. But more importantly, this is what is clearly revealed in scripture concerning the nature of the relationship of the Father and Son.
@@kengineexpress, Penal substitutionary atonement is heresy? Calvin is a heretic? Like, all of Presbyterians are heretics? Jonathan Edwards too? News to me. Also, I believe a case can be made that penal substitutionary atonement is not absent in the church fathers. "Mathetes" (1st-2nd centuries), "Epistle to Diognetus," chapter 9, "When our iniquity had been fully accomplished, and it had been made perfectly manifest that punishment and death were expected as its recompense, and the season came which God had ordained when henceforth He should manifest His goodness and power-O the exceedingly great kindness and love of God-He did not hate us nor rejected us nor bore us malice, but was long-suffering and patient and in pity for us took upon Himself our sins and Himself parted with His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy for the lawless, the guileless for the evil, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else could hide our sins but the righteousness of that One? How could we who were lawless and impious be made upright except by the Son of God alone? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation, that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.” Mathetes says "punishment and death" were due to sinners because of justice. To solve this problem, God killed Jesus, and Mathetes exclaims joyfully, "O sweet exchange!" He's teaching double imputation. The righteousness of Jesus justifies many sinners, and Jesus suffering "punishment and death" ransomed sinners. That's penal substitutionary atonement. Justin Martyr (2nd century), "Dialogue with Trypho," chapter 40, "God does not permit the lamb of the Passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named, knowing that the days will come after the suffering of Christ when even the place of Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease. That lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross, which Christ would undergo. ... In Jerusalem you shall recognize Him whom you have dishonored, who was an offering for all sinners willing to repent and keep the fast which Isaiah speaks of, loosening the terms of the violent contracts, and keeping the other precepts likewise enumerated by Him, which I have quoted, which those believing in Jesus do.” Justin said the roasting of the lamb was a type of Jesus' suffering on the cross. Since God's wrath is most figured by fire, this is a picture of penal substitutionary atonement, especially since Justin says the result was to "loosen the terms of the violent contracts." He's referring to covenant of works, where God says if you sin, then you are the object of His wrath who deserves to die. Jesus was the object of wrath and died to loose the terms of that violent contract by satisfying the legal demands of the covenant. Tertullian (2nd-3rd centuries), "On the Soul and Body," section 5, paragraph 2, "It is sufficiently discovered that He suffered shame for man’s sake, to set him free from death. He exclaimed that as in the words of the prophet, ‘I have endured as a travailing woman.’ In very deed did He endure for our sakes sorrow, ignominy, torment, even death itself, and burial, for thus He says Himself by the prophet, ‘I went down into the deep.’” You could try to say the "shame," "travailing," "sorrow," "ignominy," and "torment" only came from men, but this ignores the biblical teaching that Jesus drank the cup (a metaphor for wrath) (Matthew 26), was forsaken by the Father (Matthew 27), and was crushed by the Father (Isaiah 53). Eusebius of Caesarea (3rd-4th centuries), "Demonstration of the Gospel," chapter 2, "Surely, if they [Prophets] predicted His tribe and race and manner of birth and the miracle of the Virgin and His manner of life, then it was impossible for them to pass over in silence that which followed, namely, His death. What does Isaiah prophesy about it? ‘A man,’ he says, ‘of suffering, and knowing to bear sickness. He was dishonored and not esteemed. This man bears our sin and is pained for our sake, and we thought him to be in trouble, in suffering, and in evil. He was wounded for our sins and bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord delivered Him for our sins. Because of His affliction, He opens not His mouth. He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb is dumb before her shearers, so He opens not His mouth. Who shall declare His generation? For His life is taken from the earth.’ In this, he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on Himself. Therefore, He will suffer the penalty of sinners and will be pained on their behalf, not on His own. If He shall be wounded by the strokes of blasphemous words, this also will be the result of our sins, for He is weakened through our sins, so that we, when He had taken on Him our faults and the wounds of our wickedness, might be healed by His stripes. This is the cause of why the Sinless shall suffer among men.” If Christ "suffer[ed] the penalty of sinners and [was] pained on their behalf," and if the penalty of sinners if God's wrath, then logically penal substitutionary atonement is in that text. These are just a smattering of quotes from the first 300 years of the church. There's more testimony after that, but they're farther removed from the Apostles and, therefore, carry less weight.
I didn’t say PSA itself was heresy, but the idea of the Father and Son would be in contradiction of each other is heresy. You can’t have the Son withholding His wrath, while the Father pours out His wrath. The Son is of the same essence of the Father, therefore the Son’s wrath is the same as the Father, thus if the Son withholds His wrath on the cross, the Father does as well. This is the starting point of any atonement theory, because we have to truly understand the nature of the relationship between the Father and Son first before moving forward in building our atonement theory. When Jesus says “The Father and I are one” and “If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father,” they are direct and clear statements about the nature of their relationship. In Hebrews, it even says Jesus was the perfect image of the invisible God, who is the Father. Therefore, if the Son withholds His wrath and the Father doesn’t, the Son is no longer the perfect image of the Father, and our salvation collapses because it is completely dependent on them being united in will, nature, and work. It doesn’t mean the Son doesn’t act under His own authority, but the Father will never contradict Him either. We must submit this is what the scriptures reveal. Therefore, all other verses that have been traditionally viewed as God’s wrath being poured out, no longer stands, because of what is revealed about the nature of the relationship between Father and Son. Theologians like St.Augustine and Athanasius, names we should not take lightly, would have rejected the idea of God’s wrath being poured out. St. Augustine, would have even gone further and rejected the idea of the Father’s wrath needed to be satisfied. Why? Because there’s an inherent contradiction in that statement: The Father’s wrath needed to be satisfied, but not the Son or Holy Spirit? Same essence, so we’d have to say it was true about the Son and Spirit. Thus, God’s love was poured out, not His wrath. www.newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm On the Trinity: Book 13, St. Augustine Chapter 11.- “A Difficulty, How We are Justified in the Blood of the Son of God. 15. But what is meant by justified in His blood? What power is there in this blood, I beseech you, that they who believe should be justified in it? And what is meant by being reconciled by the death of His Son? Was it indeed so, that when God the Father was angry with us, He saw the death of His Son for us, and was appeased towards us? Was then His Son already so far appeased towards us, that He even deigned to die for us; while the Father was still so far angry, that except His Son died for us, He would not be appeased? And what, then, is that which the same teacher of the Gentiles himself says in another place: What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; how has He not with Him also freely given us all things? Pray, unless the Father had been already appeased, would He have delivered up His own Son, not sparing Him for us? Does not this opinion seem to be as it were contrary to that? In the one, the Son dies for us, and the Father is reconciled to us by His death; in the other, as though the Father first loved us, He Himself on our account does not spare the Son, He Himself for us delivers Him up to death. But I see that the Father loved us also before, not only before the Son died for us, but before He created the world; the apostle himself being witness, who says, According as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world. Nor was the Son delivered up for us as it were unwillingly, the Father Himself not sparing Him; for it is said also concerning Him, Who loved me, and delivered up Himself for me. Therefore together both the Father and the Son, and the Spirit of both, work all things equally and harmoniously; yet we are justified in the blood of Christ, and we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. And I will explain, as I shall be able, here also, how this was done, as much as may seem sufficient.”
@@kengineexpress, In light of that, I have 5 exegetical questions: 1. What does it mean that "It pleased I Am to crush Him [the suffering Servant]"? 2. What does it mean that "He was crushed for our iniquities, and upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace"? 3. What does it mean when Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" 4. What does it mean when Jesus said, "Let this cup pass from Me?" What does the cup refer to? 5. What does the word "propitiate" mean, and how did Jesus do that? Basically, how did God crush, chastise, and forsake Jesus on the cross if He did not pour out divine wrath upon Him (which is *always* the meaning of the metaphorical cup in Scripture) to satisfy divine wrath (propitiation)?
Regarding God as a child abuser. The Son is the exact representation of the unseen God. In other words, it is God Himself offering Himself in Christ. It is not an isolated and individual "Father" punishing his Son on the cross. It is God offering Himself in Christ to reconcile and save the world.
When I first heard about this " Divine child abuse " stuff a couple of years ago, my immediate reaction was that the people who believed this stuff were screwy on the Trinity. Thanks for confirming that this amateur theologian was correct!
Thank you for this. I’m seriously considering Lutheranism. From my evangelical (restorationist) background I thought Catholicism/Orthodoxy were my only options.
Gengar Pr Mccain THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS, see issuesetc.org/?s=Mccain+THE+LUTHERAN+CONFESSIONS
Jordan B Cooper, see issuesetc.org/?s=Jordan+B+Cooper
I think Lutheranism is more balanced than the other two. I was a modern evangelical and I have found the Lutheran views most consistent with Scriptures and Church History, and most importantly Christ centered.
Oh wow I come from a restorationist (Church of Christ) background too! Ironically in a strange way Lutherans seem more sola scriptura
Magnificent lecture - Thanx for posting from a practicing Anglican Church NA member, but who's beliefs are confessional Lutheran. Love Augsburg Confession
Grew up Jack Mormon, my parents cared more about the universal body of Christ than Mormon exceptionalism. I'm leaning Lutheran, thanks to a local pastor hosting a comparative theological class and channels like yours and Lutheran satire
I thought you were about to do a Chris Rosebrough-style sermon critique :)
Not really my thing.
@@DrJordanBCooper I wouldn't know about you if Chris didn't recommend you.
@@DrJordanBCooper I've "discovered" Lutheranism through Chris Rosebrough, and I really enjoy learning about its insights through your channel. I consider myself broadly Reformed.
@@ethanhocking8229 ditto
@@ethanhocking8229 well my dude, what are you waiting for?
thank you for this perspective. the atonement, the problem of penal substitution, and the problem of hell have all really shaken my boldness to share the gospel. i believe the gospel and know i am born again, but i can't say i truly understand it, like a child who knows his parents, knows he is their child, yet doesn't know how babies are made.
Given the classical trinitarian view, what sense does it make to use the term "person" to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If there aren't three distinct conscious subjects, then wouldn't another term like "hypostasis" make much more sense? There's a lot of baggage that comes with the term person, from two different angles. Firstly, the original / heretical meaning of person which roughly means "mask," and secondly, the modern sense of the term that denotes a conscious subject. Thoughts?
I'm coming from an Orthodox background, and so we reject the classical western definition of simplicity (that God's will is identical to His essence, for example), yet we also deny social trinitarianism on the basis that it undermines the unity of the Trinity. Just trying to get my head around the different views so I can better understand my own. Thank you.
"But He was pierced for our offenses, He was crushed for our wrongdoings; The punishment for our well-being was laid upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed. All of us, like sheep, have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off from the land of the living For the wrongdoing of my people, to whom the blow was due? And His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. But the Lord desired To crush Him, causing Him grief; If He renders Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, For He will bear their wrongdoings."
Isaiah 53:5-11 NASB2020
On the same grounds we admitted also the expression “begotten, not made”: “for made,” said they, “is a term applicable in common to all the creatures which were made by the Son, to whom the Son has no resemblance.
Dr. Cooper, I just read a book review for your “Prolegomena: A Defense of the Scholastic Method” in The Confessional Presbyterian Journal vol. 16 p. 233-236 (2020). As a Reformed Presbyterian who loves reading the Reformed (and when I can, Lutheran) scholastics, and listening to your content, I agree with your points and conclusions on how it is engaging in theology following a scholastic methodological approach that would greatly care for Christ’s sheep in a post-modern world. Preus and Muller have been huge impacts in both Lutheran and Reformed circles for the recovery of scholasticism.
I am curious to know if you have read Reformed Baptist James Dolezal’s book “All That Is In God” in which he combats theistic mutualists in the Reformed camp who are not satisfied with the confessional and credal articulations of Theology Proper and are coming up with either heterodox or heretical views on the doctrine of God or the Trinity (Grudem is one of them!). It’s a great work for classical Christian theism and a solid defense for an orthodox doctrine of God.
I see similarities in the conflicts and controversies that confessional Lutherans and Presbyterians are engaged in regarding theology, philosophy, method, creeds and confessions, gender, etc. and will be purchasing your book whenever I can!
Thank you
I think that eternal functional subordination in some sense is compatible with orthodox theology, if we stress the functional part. That is, the Father creates through the Son and not vice versa, the Father sends the Son in the Incarnation and not vice versa, the Son always reveals the Father and leads us to the Father and not vice versa, etc. This, at least from our human perspective, means that the Son is always some sort of "agent" of the Father if we're speaking strictly about the function of the hypostases in the economy, and not vice versa. It's not subordination in the sense that one hypostasis submits to the will of another, but rather it is the one will of both hypostases (who have the same one will) that they relate to creation in this particular way. So in function and economy there is "subordination" in the sense that the Father works through the Son and not vice versa, but this is not the result of one literally submitting to another (which would require separate wills) but rather just how the Deity functions in its relationship with creation according to the one divine will of both hypostases.
So it's really not actual subordination in the sense that we think of it in human relations (where one puts his own will aside to follow the will of another), but rather the true one will of both hypostases to have this "sender-sent" way of operation in the economy, which is indeed a kind if "subordination" in function (meaning that one hypostasis consistently works through the other and not vice versa). When defending against non-orthodox views of functional subordination which deny the one divine will I think that it's important to also stress this actual revealed relationship between the Father and the Son, so the we don't conflate the "roles" of each hypostasis in the economy, while maintaining the orthodox doctrine of one single divine will. That is, the Son doesn't literally submit to the Father, as their will is one, but his function in the economy of divine operations is one that we in human relationships would call subordinate (the Father works through the Son and not vice versa, according to the one will of both hypostases).
9:00
He keeps making the same old tired argument every time he talks about EFS. "SuBmIsSiOn DeMaNdS tWo WiLlS." He never addresses the counter argument though. Does mutual love logically demand two wills and two hearts? Yes, if you're using Cooper's logic. Therefore, he's stuck with only a few options. He can:
1. Deny the singular will of God,
2. Acknowledge that the Trinity can love and submit to one another without having multiple disunities wills, or
3. Deny that there is love between the persons of the Trinity.
Go with #2. It's what Scripture teaches plainly.
Just listened to an episode of The Liturgists podcast with a horrendous explanation of Christ from Richard Rohr. This came at a perfect time to help me cool my jets.
I've heard a little about him. He was a little out there in some respects if I remember correctly. Just out of curiosity, what did he say that made you annoyed if you don't mind me asking?
Rohr is more like a new age guru than a Christian theologian.
Ah I gotcha. I see.
2:32
And right here is where the Crux of the problem comes in when talking to somebody about God's existence Triune being! 🤨😒🙄✝️💞
10:21
Here's another point.....
Wasn't Jesus supposed offer a sacrifice to the Father for the sins of his people? Even if the priest was the sacrifice Himself?
This is where you have to check ya balance because I believe God said
1 JOHN: 10-11 🤔💞✝️
The idea of God having three wills, and one of them didn't want to go to the cross ("Not my will, but your's be done"), almost drove me to Oneness Pentecostalism ... it just didn't make sense that the One True God spoken of in Scripture would have three different wills and that they could be contrary to each other.
Eventually (through my study of Oneness Pentecostalism), I came to the conclusion that it was the Son's human will that was struggling in the Garden, not the Divine Will of God.
I then applied that to my Trinitarian beliefs, but still had this concept(/misunderstanding?) that the Trinity has three wills, only now I saw them in unity with each other.
This teaching makes me want to look into this even further, could you please provide some resources that can better help me to understand the Trinity, and how the Three Persons all share the one Divine Will, it would go a long way to helping me make sense (as much as any man can) the nature of the Trinity, and establish me in my Trinitarian faith (which I do affirm, having renounced Oneness Pentecostalism completely).
You may want to check out this ua-cam.com/video/6hXRfOMOL_0/v-deo.html interview on Simply Trinity that Dr Cooper recently did with Matthew Barrett. I haven't read it but it is also strongly recommended by Matthew Levering, an excellent Catholic theologian. Hope this helps.
Denying the trinity leads to a works based salvation because the atonement is diminished. The implications are theologically significant.
I keep knodding my head in agreement as I watch this video. 👍
In 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 the word "for" is the Greek word “peri,” which means “around or with respect to.” This indicates for the sake of, or because of, our sins, and not as a replacement or substitutional payment for sins.
"Propitiation” in Greek "hilasmos," means “mercy seat,” which shows Jesus as a propitiator, not a propitiation. Jesus is whom we look to as our means of obtaining God’s mercy when we turn from sin and obey Him, as we read in the very next verse, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments” 1 John 2:3. God extends mercy and forgiveness to all who turn from sin and follow his commandments, and obedience is best demonstrated by and through Jesus, God’s Son. 1 John 4:10 says that God "loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation," so God was acting in love, not anger.
The only biblical example of the word "hilaskomai" being applied in real life is in Luke 18:13, "But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful [hilaskomai] to me, a sinner!’" We can see that the functional use of the word involves requesting mercy, not trying to appease God directly. He is acknowledging his sin and begging for mercy. He does not pay God or make an offering to appease God as if God is some pagan deity who needs to be appeased. Also, having a third party pay does not involve the sinner repenting and stopping the sin. It ignores the real sin problem.
For more on this topic, see the book “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George.
Hi Dr. Cooper, what are your thoughts about Lewis’s depiction of the atonement in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. Is it a helpful picture?
I like the implication of the cosmic ramifications of the sacrifice of the traitor. If the white witch does not get the blood of a traitor all of reality perishes on fire. The deep magic must be satisfied.
I think it is helpful to think of reality as having rules (because God is a god of order) and that because of the way reality is established, blood is the only way (the loop hole?) that sin is dealt with, without disturbing the cosmic order.
So if the human will of Jesus submits to the outpouring of wrath from the divine will we maybe escape the accusation of child abuse but wouldn't that just be some sort of schizophrenic masochism with one will pouring out wrath on the other will within the hypostatic union?
That would only work if one posited a double personality in Christ.
@@DrJordanBCooper if we only have one personality in Christ and both a human and divine will then it seems that Christ is simultaneously willing wrath upon himself and willingly accepting that wrath. That seems like masochism and perhaps even suicide instead of self sacrifice.
@@SamuelAdamsT Think about it in regular human terms. For example, soldiers willingly suffer and even go into situations when they know they will die. Does this make them masochists? No sane human wants to suffer, but they do so willingly for the sake of others. The martyrs wanted to do God's will. They didn't want to feel pain, to suffer and die. But they did so willingly in obedience to God. How much more can Christ wish that the cup of suffering would pass from him, but also willingly go to the cross, suffer and die, for our sake?
God is revealing in Christ the essence of human nature as the potential to obey the mystery of God, and how that human essence therefore finds fulfillment: by actually lovingly obeying God, even unto death on a Cross. Not two wills, but a potentiality for obedience (present in all humans but never attained by human effort) which in Christ is absolutely fulfilled, 'demonstrated', perfectly realized. The paradigmatic utterance of that fulfillment which we are called to follow and 'incarnate' in our own lives, or rather by his life in us, is: "not my will but Thy Will be done." These are not two competing wills, but God willing to become other than God in man, without ceasing to be himself (this is the absolute mystery), so that God may _really_ be given to man and human nature _really_ united with God. The hypostatic union is the mystery of God's proximity in its absolute and unsurpassable form. The inner divinization of Christ's humanity in grace and glory has eternal significance for all human nature hence. It is the open door: "not I but Christ lives in me" - obedience to the mystery (grace, incarnation, glory). "I know that my Redeemer lives."
when it was generally admitted that ousias (of the essence or substance) simply implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that the Son is of the Father, but is not a part of his substance, it seemed right to us to assent.
Are the contributors over at trintyinyou Social Trintarians like what you're talking about?
God be praised!!
Trinitarian theology is bad not only when it comes to the atonement, but in everything that God is. Start with the definition of God- one supreme divine being, who is Spirit and possesses divine attributes. He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, everlasting, immutable, etc. All of these contradict the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity teaches that the Son is the "begotten God" before all ages (Nicene Creed). Catholic councils declared that the Son was twice begotten, and "anathema" to anyone who doesn't believe that. If the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeding, how can they be equal? When it comes to the doctrine of "distinction" in the three persons, things get even worse. One example, who is the Father of Jesus Christ, the Father or the Spirit? The bible teaches that he was born of both. So does Jesus have two fathers? What Spirit do Christians receive? The Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ, which is the Spirit of adoption? I await your comments, Dr. Cooper.
How about God being like time Trinity Past Present Future
I agree bad trinitarian theology makes bad soteriology. The West has abandoned the Monarchy of the Father.
Isaiah 53 explains it best.
I think your definition of Social Trinitarianism (ST) is too hasty a generalization. William Hasker, William Lane Craig, Andrew Kirschner all affirm both ST and the single, undivided, shared essence of God.
Yeah, I did simplify a bit, mostly because my point wasn't to identify the specifics of social Trinitarianism in its different formulations. Perhaps for a future video!
@@DrJordanBCooper One of my favorite quote from Luther is when he corrected Erasmus by saying "your thoughts of God were too human". As you said, the mystery of Trinity pushed too far into the creation realm dishonors the perfect harmony and unity of Godhead in the creator realm.
Maybe they don't understand what they affirm.
If they got everything right they would be Lutheran.
@@DrJordanBCooper Hello, Dr. Cooper. I was wondering if you could address the Eastern Orthodox model of the Trinity in contradistinction to the Latin model of the Trinity and if a Lutheran could hold to either view. So for example, I think a good discussion might be the "Monarchy of the Father" and the East and West would view the topic. A good example of the Eastern perspective on the Monarchy of the Father would be St. John of Damascus where he says in The Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Book 1 Chapter 8 that
"All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being
and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses
a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father
that is, because of the Father’s existence the Son and the Spirit exist and through
the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all
their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted.
For in these hypostatic or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences1555 differ
from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of
their proper and peculiar subsistence."
Thank you.
*sigh*
Who poured out wrath on the Son while He hung on the cross? If your answer isn't "the Father," then you aren't Christian. There can be no satisfaction of wrath and justice in self-flagellation. The Son offered Himself as a propitiation to the Father. That's why Isaiah 53 says it was the will of Yahweh, the Father, to crush the Servant, the Son. Nowhere does Scripture teach that the Spirit crushed the Son. Nowhere does Scripture teach that the Son crushed Himself. Only the Father is described as crushing the Son. Prove me wrong from Scripture.
I wonder what Cooper would do with Jesus' statement, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Obviously, the Son didn't forsake Himself. Obviously, He's talking to the Father, so how then does Cooper think he can get away with saying the atonement isn't the Father being angry with the Son? I've said it a thousand times on these videos. Cooper is ignorant of Scripture. That's why he never cites it to prove his points. He just appeals to "classical philosophy" and the heretic Aquinas.
If the Son's wrath is the same as the Father's and the Son did not pour out His wrath, then naturally, we must submit the Father did not pour out His wrath--they won't contradict each other. Historically, the church, including Augustine, did not go as far as to say the Son bore the wrath of God. It would be considered heretical if anyone suggested that. But more importantly, this is what is clearly revealed in scripture concerning the nature of the relationship of the Father and Son.
@@kengineexpress,
Penal substitutionary atonement is heresy? Calvin is a heretic? Like, all of Presbyterians are heretics? Jonathan Edwards too? News to me.
Also, I believe a case can be made that penal substitutionary atonement is not absent in the church fathers.
"Mathetes" (1st-2nd centuries), "Epistle to Diognetus," chapter 9, "When our iniquity had been fully accomplished, and it had been made perfectly manifest that punishment and death were expected as its recompense, and the season came which God had ordained when henceforth He should manifest His goodness and power-O the exceedingly great kindness and love of God-He did not hate us nor rejected us nor bore us malice, but was long-suffering and patient and in pity for us took upon Himself our sins and Himself parted with His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy for the lawless, the guileless for the evil, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else could hide our sins but the righteousness of that One? How could we who were lawless and impious be made upright except by the Son of God alone? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation, that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.”
Mathetes says "punishment and death" were due to sinners because of justice. To solve this problem, God killed Jesus, and Mathetes exclaims joyfully, "O sweet exchange!" He's teaching double imputation. The righteousness of Jesus justifies many sinners, and Jesus suffering "punishment and death" ransomed sinners. That's penal substitutionary atonement.
Justin Martyr (2nd century), "Dialogue with Trypho," chapter 40, "God does not permit the lamb of the Passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named, knowing that the days will come after the suffering of Christ when even the place of Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease. That lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross, which Christ would undergo. ... In Jerusalem you shall recognize Him whom you have dishonored, who was an offering for all sinners willing to repent and keep the fast which Isaiah speaks of, loosening the terms of the violent contracts, and keeping the other precepts likewise enumerated by Him, which I have quoted, which those believing in Jesus do.”
Justin said the roasting of the lamb was a type of Jesus' suffering on the cross. Since God's wrath is most figured by fire, this is a picture of penal substitutionary atonement, especially since Justin says the result was to "loosen the terms of the violent contracts." He's referring to covenant of works, where God says if you sin, then you are the object of His wrath who deserves to die. Jesus was the object of wrath and died to loose the terms of that violent contract by satisfying the legal demands of the covenant.
Tertullian (2nd-3rd centuries), "On the Soul and Body," section 5, paragraph 2, "It is sufficiently discovered that He suffered shame for man’s sake, to set him free from death. He exclaimed that as in the words of the prophet, ‘I have endured as a travailing woman.’ In very deed did He endure for our sakes sorrow, ignominy, torment, even death itself, and burial, for thus He says Himself by the prophet, ‘I went down into the deep.’”
You could try to say the "shame," "travailing," "sorrow," "ignominy," and "torment" only came from men, but this ignores the biblical teaching that Jesus drank the cup (a metaphor for wrath) (Matthew 26), was forsaken by the Father (Matthew 27), and was crushed by the Father (Isaiah 53).
Eusebius of Caesarea (3rd-4th centuries), "Demonstration of the Gospel," chapter 2, "Surely, if they [Prophets] predicted His tribe and race and manner of birth and the miracle of the Virgin and His manner of life, then it was impossible for them to pass over in silence that which followed, namely, His death. What does Isaiah prophesy about it? ‘A man,’ he says, ‘of suffering, and knowing to bear sickness. He was dishonored and not esteemed. This man bears our sin and is pained for our sake, and we thought him to be in trouble, in suffering, and in evil. He was wounded for our sins and bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord delivered Him for our sins. Because of His affliction, He opens not His mouth. He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb is dumb before her shearers, so He opens not His mouth. Who shall declare His generation? For His life is taken from the earth.’ In this, he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on Himself. Therefore, He will suffer the penalty of sinners and will be pained on their behalf, not on His own. If He shall be wounded by the strokes of blasphemous words, this also will be the result of our sins, for He is weakened through our sins, so that we, when He had taken on Him our faults and the wounds of our wickedness, might be healed by His stripes. This is the cause of why the Sinless shall suffer among men.”
If Christ "suffer[ed] the penalty of sinners and [was] pained on their behalf," and if the penalty of sinners if God's wrath, then logically penal substitutionary atonement is in that text.
These are just a smattering of quotes from the first 300 years of the church. There's more testimony after that, but they're farther removed from the Apostles and, therefore, carry less weight.
I didn’t say PSA itself was heresy, but the idea of the Father and Son would be in contradiction of each other is heresy. You can’t have the Son withholding His wrath, while the Father pours out His wrath. The Son is of the same essence of the Father, therefore the Son’s wrath is the same as the Father, thus if the Son withholds His wrath on the cross, the Father does as well. This is the starting point of any atonement theory, because we have to truly understand the nature of the relationship between the Father and Son first before moving forward in building our atonement theory. When Jesus says “The Father and I are one” and “If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father,” they are direct and clear statements about the nature of their relationship. In Hebrews, it even says Jesus was the perfect image of the invisible God, who is the Father. Therefore, if the Son withholds His wrath and the Father doesn’t, the Son is no longer the perfect image of the Father, and our salvation collapses because it is completely dependent on them being united in will, nature, and work. It doesn’t mean the Son doesn’t act under His own authority, but the Father will never contradict Him either. We must submit this is what the scriptures reveal. Therefore, all other verses that have been traditionally viewed as God’s wrath being poured out, no longer stands, because of what is revealed about the nature of the relationship between Father and Son. Theologians like St.Augustine and Athanasius, names we should not take lightly, would have rejected the idea of God’s wrath being poured out. St. Augustine, would have even gone further and rejected the idea of the Father’s wrath needed to be satisfied. Why? Because there’s an inherent contradiction in that statement: The Father’s wrath needed to be satisfied, but not the Son or Holy Spirit? Same essence, so we’d have to say it was true about the Son and Spirit. Thus, God’s love was poured out, not His wrath.
www.newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm
On the Trinity: Book 13, St. Augustine
Chapter 11.- “A Difficulty, How We are Justified in the Blood of the Son of God.
15. But what is meant by justified in His blood? What power is there in this blood, I beseech you, that they who believe should be justified in it? And what is meant by being reconciled by the death of His Son? Was it indeed so, that when God the Father was angry with us, He saw the death of His Son for us, and was appeased towards us? Was then His Son already so far appeased towards us, that He even deigned to die for us; while the Father was still so far angry, that except His Son died for us, He would not be appeased? And what, then, is that which the same teacher of the Gentiles himself says in another place: What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; how has He not with Him also freely given us all things? Pray, unless the Father had been already appeased, would He have delivered up His own Son, not sparing Him for us? Does not this opinion seem to be as it were contrary to that? In the one, the Son dies for us, and the Father is reconciled to us by His death; in the other, as though the Father first loved us, He Himself on our account does not spare the Son, He Himself for us delivers Him up to death. But I see that the Father loved us also before, not only before the Son died for us, but before He created the world; the apostle himself being witness, who says, According as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world. Nor was the Son delivered up for us as it were unwillingly, the Father Himself not sparing Him; for it is said also concerning Him, Who loved me, and delivered up Himself for me. Therefore together both the Father and the Son, and the Spirit of both, work all things equally and harmoniously; yet we are justified in the blood of Christ, and we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. And I will explain, as I shall be able, here also, how this was done, as much as may seem sufficient.”
@@kengineexpress,
In light of that, I have 5 exegetical questions:
1. What does it mean that "It pleased I Am to crush Him [the suffering Servant]"?
2. What does it mean that "He was crushed for our iniquities, and upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace"?
3. What does it mean when Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
4. What does it mean when Jesus said, "Let this cup pass from Me?" What does the cup refer to?
5. What does the word "propitiate" mean, and how did Jesus do that?
Basically, how did God crush, chastise, and forsake Jesus on the cross if He did not pour out divine wrath upon Him (which is *always* the meaning of the metaphorical cup in Scripture) to satisfy divine wrath (propitiation)?
Regarding God as a child abuser. The Son is the exact representation of the unseen God. In other words, it is God Himself offering Himself in Christ. It is not an isolated and individual "Father" punishing his Son on the cross. It is God offering Himself in Christ to reconcile and save the world.