Dan Chapa

I recently was reading a book that accused James Arminius of a Trinitarian heresy:  denying Christ’s aseity (self existence).  This relates to the “auto-theos” controversy in which Arminius denied a specific sense in which Christ is God “from Himself”.  ( Works of James Arminius.  Apology Article 21 )  That is to say, Arminius defended the doctrine in the Nicene creed: ” And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds , Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father ”. In short, Arminius defended the Father’s eternal generation of the Son.  In this post, I will briefly provide the biblical basis for eternal generation and then defend it from a specific charge: that affirming the eternal generation of the Son implicitly denies the aseity of the Son. 1 John 5:18 says “  We know that everyone who has been born of God do...

Steve Hays responded to my posts on the Trinity. ( link ) My response is long, so I will break it into four parts, Steve’s view and my view on Consubstantiality and Steve’s view and my view on Eternal Generation. ii) As Gerald Bray points out (The Doctrine of God, 168-69), Nicene subordination goes back to the Plotinian model of divine emanation: One-Mind-Soul Nicene subordination adapts that paradigm the Trinity: Father-Son-Spirit If Dan regards Plotinian Neoplatonism as the touchstone of Christian orthodoxy, that’s his business. I’d rather keep my theology squared with something called the Bible. Well some folks disagree with that assessment and point to Monotheism in Jewish thought instead. 1   And for good reason: the Platonic concept of emanations was altered by the Church Fathers from the idea of a God to creation emintation to the idea of an emination internal to God. 2 It’s true that pre-Athanasian fathers from time to time say things I don’t like, althoug...

Steve Hays responded to my posts on the Trinity. ( link ) My response is long, so I will break it into four parts, Steve’s view and my view on Consubstantiality and Steve’s view and my view on Eternal Generation. a) The Bible doesn’t teach the eternal generation of the Son. Not that I can see. b) There is also the exegetical question as to whether the Bible even applies that specific metaphor to Christ. Most NT scholars and lexicographers challenge the traditional rendering of monogenes. The passages with ‘gennao’ ( Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5, 5:5 ) are not really in question, even if those with monogenes are. Do you really question if begotten (or Fathered) applies to Christ? That goes against some rather plain scriptural statements. BTW, the 381AD version of the Nicene Creed says “begotten of the Father before all worlds”. Same with the Athanasian Creed: “begotten before the worlds”. Likewise the 39 articles of the church of England: “begotten from everlasting of the Father”. Same w...

I was recently asked to back up my comments that Steve Hays disagrees with the Nicene Creed as understood and taught by the Church Fathers and the church at large. Specifically, I raised concerns about consubstantiality and eternal generation. Regarding consubstantiality, it seems Steve disagrees that the Father, Son and Spirit have a numerically one and simple divine essence. Regarding 'eternal generation', Steve seems to think it relates only to the roles each member of the Trinity plays and not to their mode of subsistence. Admittedly, I see disagreements with the Nicene Creed as somewhat of a red flag, so it's possible I am jumping to conclusions. Further, I was basing this moreso on what Steve was opposing vs. what he was affirming. So below are a list of quotes from Steve on the subject and if he would like to take this opportunity to clarify his views on consubstantiality and eternal generation and square them with the orthodox position, that would be great. Ste...

The following is a response to Steve Hays in our discussion on the Trinity and Eternal Generation. ( link ) Me: “There is a difference between what consubstantial means with how it can be. No one has any idea as to how the Trinitarian persons can be consubstantial, but that doesn't mean we don't know if consubstantial means numeric or generic identity.” Thee: And how do you know that? On the basis of exegetical theology? Historical theology? Philosophical theology? What’s your frame of reference? Exegetical, from the passages which teach God is one. Deuteronomy 6:4-6; John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; Mark 12:32-34; James 2:19; Galatians 3:20; Deuteronomy 32:39; 2 Kings 19:15; Nehemiah 9:6; Isaiah 37:20; Zechariah 14:9; John 5:44; Romans 3:30; 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Timothy 2:5; Jude 1:25 . It is in this sense that we understand John 10:30 . Historically, the church explained the scriptures this way and used philosophy to reconcile this idea with other scriptural truths. I am not sure...

Steve Hays' post denying eternal procession in the Nicene creed caught my eye. ( link ) Here's our recent exchange ( link ). 1. I don’t regard Wikipedia as the gold standard of theological discourse. Nor do I, but it is popular and common. 2. ”Consubstantial” simply means “of one and the same substance or essence” (OED). Yes, but in the context of the Arian dispute, it carries an additional connotation, since neither side considered multiple divine essences. 3. At a minimum, the purpose of the homoousios clause was to exclude the notion that the Son is merely of “like essence” with the Father, rather than identical essence. True, that's the core. 4. From what I’ve read, there’s a scholarly dispute over the more specialized question of whether homoousios was also meant to denote generic identity or numeric identity. You appealed to Calvin. Here's what he had to say on the subject: While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons...