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.

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

"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.

I thought you were about to do a Chris Rosebrough-style sermon critique :)

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.

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.

I keep knodding my head in agreement as I watch this video. 👍

Thank you

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 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).

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).

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!

God be praised!!

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.

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?

Are the contributors over at trintyinyou Social Trintarians like what you're talking about?

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.

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.

How about God being like time Trinity Past Present Future

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.

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 🤔💞✝️

I agree bad trinitarian theology makes bad soteriology. The West has abandoned the Monarchy of the Father.

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.

Isaiah 53 explains it best.

*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.

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.