The giveaway is planned for Christmas day, so you have a week and a half to get your name in.

Here are the 11 books that he is giving away:

1. The Reason for God by Tim Keller
2. Culture Making by Andy Crouch
3. Surprised by Hope by N. T. Wright
4. Why We’re Not Emergent by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck
5. How People Change by Timothy Lane and Paul David Tripp
6. The Big Picture Story Bible by David Helm and Gail Schoonmaker
7. Jesus Made in America by Stephen Nichols
8. Resident Aliens by Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon
9. Worship Matters by Bob Kauflin
10. The Sermon on the Mount through the Centuries, edited by Jeffrey Greenman, Timothy Larsen, and Stephen Spencer
11. ESV Study Bible, edited by Lane T. Dennis, Wayne Grudem, J. I. Packer, C. John Collins, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Justin Taylor

You can get your name in up to three times by doing the following items:

1. Subscribe to his RSS feed.
2. Add his blog to your blogroll.
3. Blog about the promotion.

Once you’re done, just send him an email and let him know which of these you have done, including all of the appropriate links. Be sure to include your name, age, and shipping address.

Read all the official details in Trevin’s post.

HT: Mark L. Ward

This book is much better than any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.

The individual was Jonathan Edwards.

The book was Peter Van Mastricht’s A Treatise on Regeneration, which was published by Soli Deo Gloria, now a part of Reformation Heritage Books.

Wow! I want to read that book. I wonder how it compares with John Piper’s Finally Alive.

Here’s the description of A Treatise on Regeneration from Monergism:

Jesus said that people must be “born again,” and that without that occurring they could not enter the kingdom of God. Thus, the new birth, or regeneration, is a thing of great importance. But is regeneration the result of faith, or is it the cause of faith? And what part does the human will play in this eternally significant event? These are the questions answered in this book by this great theologian Peter Van Mastricht. He was educated at the University of Utrecht, and held pastorates in Germany and Denmark before accepting a position as professor of Hebrew and practical theology at Frankfurt, and later at his alma mater. This material is taken from his Theologia Theoretico-Practica (Theoretical and Practical Theology). The great Jonathan Edwards incorporated many of Van Mastricht’s ideas in his famous book, The Freedom of the Will, also published by Soli Deo Gloria.

Jonathan Edwards once said of this book: “This book is much better than any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.”

This line from Edwards is quoted on the front cover of the book. Curious of the context, I wanted to track it down. After a little hunting, I was able to find it in the Works of Jonathan Edwards Online. Here is the full context of the quote.

In a letter to the Joseph Bellamy on January 15, 1746/7, Edwards writes,

Dear Sir,

I received your letter by Mr. [Job] Strong this day. Mr. [John] Searle was here at my house presently after, and I gave your questions to him, and told him the bearer intended quickly to return.

(As to the affair of sheep, I am much obliged to you for the pains you have taken. I believe you have acted the part of a trusty friend therein. I suppose it is known by this time, whether the man that went to Newtown has succeeded. If he has, and the sheep are bought, we shall rest in what you have done; but if not, and you shall have found no opportunity till this letter reaches you, it is so late in the year, that I desire you would keep the money till shearing time is over and then buy; when I suppose they may be bought much cheaper than now. But I would pray you to send us word by the first opportunity, that if we are not like to have any sheep this year, we may seasonably be looking out, and laying in for wool elsewhere, for the supply of the family. In the spring, if you can give us any encouragement, I should be glad to lay out £60 more for sheep in those parts, as soon as shearing time is over, — 217 — besides the £30 you have in your hands. But only, if you buy so many sheep for us, it might be perhaps expedient, on some accounts, for the present, not to let it be known who the sheep are for.)

As to the books you speak of: Mastricht is sometimes in one volume, a very thick, large quarto; sometimes in two quarto volumes. I believe it could not be had new under eight or ten pounds. Turretin is in three volumes in quarto, and would probably be about the same price.^[1] They are both excellent. Turretin is on polemical divinity; on the Five Points, and all other controversial points; and is much larger in these than Mastricht; and is better for one that desires only to be thoroughly versed in controversies. But take Mastricht for divinity in general, doctrine, practice, and controversy; or as an universal system of divinity and it is much better than Turretin or any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion. I have thoughts of sending, myself, this year, to England for a few books, and have written to Mr. [Edmund] Quincy, a merchant in Boston, about it, to desire his advice and assistance, as to the course to be taken to obtain ‘em. If I employ him to send for me, I shall be willing to serve you, as I desire you to serve me about the sheep. I am willing to take your money and put it with my own, and put your books into my catalogue and have the books all come as mine; or shall be willing to serve you, if I can in any respect, by writing to my correspondents in Scotland.

I have been reading Whitby, which has engaged me pretty thoroughly in the study of the Arminian controversy; and I have writ considerably upon it in my private papers. I must entreat you, if possible, to borrow for me Dr. Stebbing, on the Spirit.^[2] I had rather pay something for the use of it, than not have some considerable opportunity with it. I have got so deep into this controversy, that I am not willing to dismiss it, till I know the utmost of their matters.

I have very lately received a packet from Scotland, with the several copies of a Memorial, for the continuing and propagating an agreement for joint prayer for the general revival of religion; three of which I here send you, desiring you to dispose of two of ‘em where they will — 218 — be most serviceable.^[3] For my part, I heartily wish it was fallen in with by all Christians from the rising to the setting sun.

I have returned you Mr. Dickinson’s book, but must pray you [to] let me have further opportunity with Dr. Johnson’s.^[4] If you could inquire of Dr. Johnson, or Mr. [John] Beach, or some other, and find out what is the best book on the Arminian side, for the defense of their notion of free will; and whether there be any better and more full than Whitby, I should be glad; provided you have convenient opportunity. I don’t know but I shall publish something after a while on that subject.

Dear Sir, we have so many affairs to confer upon that concern us both, that I would propose that you should come this way again in February or March. You han’t a great family to tie you at home as I have. But if you can’t come, I must desire you to write fully and largely on all the foregoing particulars of this letter. Herein you will oblige, your cordial and affectionate friend and brother,

Jonathan Edwards.

P.S. It now comes to my mind that I heard that Dr. [Joseph] Pynchon of Longmeadow has Turretin, and that he lately offered to change them away for other books; so that in all probability you may there have those books at a moderate price.

(“73. To the Reverend Joseph Bellamy,” in Letters and Personal Writings (WJE Online Vol. 16), ed. George S. Claghorn, 216–18.)

There are two things worth pointing out about this use of the quote from Edwards. I work in marketing, so I’m aware of the importance of presenting products in the best possible light, but it appears that this quote has been massaged just a tad—assuming that what I found is the real source of the quote.

1. I see no indication that Edwards was referring to this particular section of Van Mastricht’s Theoretica-Practica Theologia. (Would it be accurate to say that Edwards thought that the best book in the world was Nahum, just because it is part of the Bible, which he did indirectly refer to as the best book in the world?)
2. Edwards qualifies his “it is much better than . . . any other book in the world” statement by referring to “divinity in general, doctrine, practice, and controversy; or as an universal system of divinity.” Granted, that is fairly broad, but I think it would be wise to stop short of saying that Edwards called the part or the whole “better than . . . any other book in the world” without any qualification.

The quote on the book and on the product page should probably read, “For divinity in general, doctrine, practice, and controversy; or as an universal system of divinity . . . [Peter van Mastrict's Theoretica-Practica Theologia, from which A Treatise on Regeneration is excerpted and translated] is much better than . . . any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.” But that doesn’t have quite the same marketing force.

Anyway, my quibbles with the use of the quote aside, it still is a noteworthy endorsement.

So what’s your second favorite book in the world? I’m not sure I have one.

Footnotes

1. The books referred to are Peter van Mastrict, Theoretica-Practica Theologia, ed. nova (Utrecht, 1699); and Francis Turretin, Institutio Theologiæ Elencticæ (3 vols. Geneva, 1679—85).
2. Daniel Whitby, A Discourse Concerning I. The True Import of the Words Election and Reprobation. II. The Extent of Christ’s Redemption. III. The Grace of God. IV. The Liberty of the Will. V. The Perseverance or Deflectability of the Saint (London, 1710); and Henry Stebbing, Treatise Concerning the Operations of the Holy Spirit (London, 1719).
3. JE included the Memorial as part of the introduction to An Humble Attempt. See Works, 5, 324—28.
4. Jonathan Dickinson, Vindication of God’s Sovereign Free Grace (Boston, 1746); Samuel Johnson, Letter from Aristocles, to Authades Concerning the Sovereignty and the Promises of God (Boston, 1745).

It is the product of a multistep process of comparing the two translations and combining their strengths. With an eye for clarity and theological integrity, a team of readers—including W. H. Velema, the lone surviving author, together with Lawrence W. Bilkes and Gerald M. Bilkes—checked the entire work.

One might be tempted to question if this nearly 1,000-page tome rightly bears the descriptor concise. Compared to many systematic theology books, 1,000 pages is by no means brief, but held to the standard of other Dutch works like those of Bavinck (3,024 pp.), Kuyper (3,486 pp.), and Vos (≈1,900 pp.), it is definitely on the smaller side.

This volume is composed of 15 chapters covering the following topics:

1. Introduction . . . 1
2. Revelation . . . 20
3. Holy Scripture . . . 58
4. Concerning God . . . 117
5. God’s Counsel . . . 193
6. God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth . . . 246
7. God’s Providence . . . 283
8. Man as the Image of God . . . 314
9. Sin . . . 385
10. Christ, the Mediator . . . 437
11. The Covenant of Grace . . . 539
12. The Doctrine of Salvation . . . 573
13. The Church . . . 677
14. The Means of Grace . . . 753
15. Eschatology . . . 819

You can read the TOC, prefaces, and part of the introductory chapter as well as a portion of chapter 3 at the Westminster Bookstore site and a handful of endorsements at the Westminster Bookstore Blog.

Another book that caught my eye recently is Douglas F. Kelly’s forthcoming Systematic Theology I: The God Who Is—The Holy Trinity.  Karl Trueman shared some brief thoughts on a review copy that he received. The information on this volume is scant, so I don’t know much about it beyond what Trueman shares. No mention of it on the publisher’s website. At any rate, I’m eager to take a look at it and am excited to see an entire volume in a systematic theology set devoted to the doctrine of the Trinity—especially from the evangelical camp, which has been notorious for giving insufficient attention to the doctrine.

HT: James Grant

Also, how about we get someone to translate the whole thing—all 3,486 pages of it—into English for print and digital publication?

It’s composed of four volumes:

• Locus De Deo (949 pp.)
• Locus De Sacra Scriptura, Creatione, Creaturis (774 pp.)
• Locus De Providentia, Peccato, Foedere, Christo (1,035 pp.)
• Locus De Salute, Ecclesia, Sacramentis (728 pp.)

Sounds like a project for the Dutch Reformed Translation Society, Baker Academic, and Logos Bible Software, if you ask me.

While I’m on the subject of Dutch writers’ works in need of English translations, we really need to get Geerhardus Vos’s 1,900-page Gereformeerde dogmatiek (sometimes referred to simply as Dogmatiek) translated as well! I didn’t even know he had written one until Vos scholar extraordinaire Jim Dennison told me about it.

Update: On the subject of the Dutch Reformed Translation Society, it looks like they might have their hands full for a while. They are working on Petrus van Mastricht’s massive Theoretico-Practica Theologia.

I got a friendly email yesterday reminding me that I still needed to write my review and mentioning the week-long series of blog posts on verbal aspect from the book’s author next week at the Zondervan Koinonia blog. It appears that I’m not alone as I’ve seen several other reviews coming out today.

Though I had 11 semesters of Greek classes in college and seminary and taught elementary and intermediate Greek for six semesters, my exposure to the verbal aspect theory has been rather limited. In fact, I don’t recall its ever being mentioned in any of my Greek courses with the one exception of the 15- or 20-minute overview in Advanced Greek Grammar. But by that time, I had already done some reading on my own, first prompted by a question from one of my first-year Greek students (he had a friend from another school whose teacher was a proponent of the verbal aspect theory) and then by my preparing to teach tense uses to my fourth semester students. But the extent of my reading was the section in Wallace’s Grammar, “An Assessment of Time in Verb Tenses,” and a smattering of articles and papers that I found online. I have since read and would recommend an article written by my friend Andy Naselli, “A Brief Introduction to Verbal Aspect Theory in New Testament Greek.”

All this to say that I was excited to have an opportunity to dig a little bit deeper.

Contents

Verbal Aspect Theory

1. What is Verbal Aspect?
2. The History of Verbal Aspect
3. Perfective Aspect
4. Imperfective Aspect
5. The Problem of the Perfect

Verbal Aspect and New Testament Text

6. Verbal Lexeme Basics
7. Present and Imperfect Tense-forms
8. Aorist and Future Tense-forms
9. Perfect and Pluperfect Tense-Forms
10. More Participles

Summary

BVABG brings a technical and controversial subject down to a level that most Greek students can understand and benefit from. It’s a fairly easy read, even for those with little to no exposure to the details of the verbal aspect debate.

What follows is a brief summary of Campbell’s positions on some of the main issues.

Aspect and Aktionsart are distinct and must not be confused.

1. Aspect is the author’s subjective viewpoint or way of portraying action. A tense-form is always either perfective or imperfective. That never changes.
2. Aktionsart refers to the various kinds of action that a verb can perform based on the semantics, the lexeme, and the context. A tense-form can have many different Aktionsarten as those influencing factors change.

There are only two aspects—perfective and imperfective—not three (stative is not an aspect but an Aktionsart) or four as some have suggested.

1. Perfective aspect views the action externally, as a whole, in summary. It’s like a reporter watching a parade from a helicopter.
2. Imperfective aspect views an action internally, as it unfolds. It’s like a reporter watching a parade from the street.

Aspect corresponds to semantics, which is contrasted with pragmatics. Pragmatics corresponds to Aktionsart.

1. Semantics (or more properly verbal or grammatical semantics) refers to the “values that are encoded in the verbal form” (22). They are always present and uncancelable. Semantics answers the question “Who am I?”
2. “Pragmatics refers to the semantic values in context and in combination with other factors” (23). As such, they are changing. Pragmatics answers the question “What do I do?”

This semantics–pragmatics dichotomy is what leads Campbell and others to exclude time from the tense-forms, for if the time element is changeable or cancelable (and it is), then it must be part of pragmatics and thus a part of the verbs Aktionsart, not a part of semantics, what the tense-form always communicates. And to say that time belongs to pragmatics is to say that the tense-forms don’t encode temporal reference.

As Campbell puts it,

The remaining question related to the distinction, however, is this: Is temporal reference semantic or pragmatic? If temporal reference is semantic, then Greek verbs truly are tenses. A verb’s temporal reference is uncancelable and is a core part of its meaning. An aorist is a past tense and must always be a past tense.

But here, of course, lies a problem. We learn early on that aorist are not always past referring. Therefore, we are led to ask: Is past temporal reference a semantic value of the aorist? . . . Even though the aorist often ends up expressing past temporal reference when used in Greek texts, this is a pragmatic implicature rather than semantic encoding. (24)

The most important players in the history of verbal aspect are Georg Curtius, K. L. McKay, Stanley Porter, Buist Fanning, Mari Broman Olsen, Rodney J. Decker, T. V. Evans, and—the author himself—Constantine R. Campbell.

The present points of disagreement among scholars are

1. whether time is intrinsic to the tense-forms in the indicative mood,
2. how many aspects there are, and
3. which tense-forms belongs to which aspects—a point that Campbell leaves off.

Perfective Tense-Forms

Campbell argues that both the aorist and future tense-forms are perfective. Many have maintained that the future is aspectually vague or non-aspectual, but Campbell disagrees. In addition to being perfective, the aorist is remote, which can take the form of spatial, temporal, or logical remoteness. The future is also perfective, but, unlike all the other tense-forms, it is a true tense in that it always conveys future time, and by extension remoteness. I’m not sure why Campbell feels the need to make an exception with the future in terms of time. It seems that this is a similar move to Olsen’s when she maintains that some lexemes convey temporal reference in their semantics, but others do not. The bigger problem is the overlap between the aorist and the future. Since (1) both are perfective, (2) both are remote, and (3) both can be future, what’s the difference between them when they are both future referring. Why choose one over the other? Campbell’s attempt to differentiate between them in this case is less than satisfying.

Imperfective Tense-Forms

Since there are only two aspects in Campbell’s system, he puts the remaining tense-forums in the category of imperfective.

1. Present is imperfective and proximate.
2. Imperfect is imperfective and remote.
3. Perfect is imperfective and more proximate.
4. Pluperfect is imperfective and more remote.

Campbell defends his view based on the similar roles that the present and perfect on the one hand and the imperfect and pluperfect on the other hand play in narrative.

The rest of the book goes on to discuss the Aktionsarten of each of the tense-forms. Chapters 7–10 include examples as well as exercises, with an answer key in the back. Oddly enough, Campbell’s system results in something not too different from the tense uses that you find in Wallace’s Grammar. Though I do think that Campbell’s system does provide a more linguistically informed and organized approach to the Greek verbal system, I’m not yet convinced that it really changes as much as proponents seem to suggest.

Evaluation

As one who has not delved into the technical literature on this subject, I find Campbell’s book informative, accessible, and fairly well reasoned. It doesn’t answer all of the questions, but it certainly provides one with a nice introduction to the major players and contours of the issues involved in the verbal aspect debate. I highly recommend it to those wanting to learn more about verbal aspect.

Finally, one grammatical error that was missed: “Thus, the semantic values of the future indicative tense-form is [are] perfective aspect and future temporal reference” (39).

Endorsements

Other Reviews

Mike Aubrey at his ἐν ἐφέσῳ: Thoughts and Meditations blog:

• The Basics of Verbal Aspect
• The Basics of Verbal Aspect - A Review Part I
• The Basics of Verbal Aspect - A Review Part II

Michael Hanel at the BibleWorks Blog:

• Review of Campbell’s Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek - Introduction
• Review of Campbell’s Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek - Part Two
• More on Campbell and Verbal Aspect

Donald Kim at his blog:

• Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek, A Review

Matthew Malcolm at his Crypto-theology blog:

• Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek

Andy Naselli at his blog:

• Con Campbell’s Primer on Verbal Aspect Theory

William Varner at Amazon:

• A Good Start, But…

HT: JT

CrossOver Linux is a customized, commercial version of Wine, the popular software that allows you to run many Windows applications on Linux (e.g., Ubuntu, et al.).

On October 28, 2008, the folks at CodeWeavers are making either of these products—in its downloadable, professional version—free of charge for one day only (though I successfully downloaded it tonight at at 8:00 PM PST).

Here’s what they say,

We are giving away all of our software for free on Tuesday, October 28th, 2008. This is a fully working, fully supported copy of either CrossOver Mac Professional, or CrossOver Linux Professional. No hooks, tricks, timebombs, or gimmicks: it’s the real deal.

Here’s how to get it:

1. Go to http://lameduck.codeweavers.com/free/ and enter your email address. You’ll receive a serial number via email.
2. Go to http://register.codeweavers.com/ and enter your serial number. You’ll receive an email with instructions on how to log in and download your software.
3. Go to http://www.codeweavers.com/account/, change your password, and go to My Downloads and download the appropriate trial version of the software.
4. Install the trial software and unlock it within the application with your email address and password to upgrade it to the full professional version.

At the My Downloads page, you’ll read this note:

Due to high demand during the Lame Duck Free Day, we have temporarily disabled the unlocked builds normally available on this page.

At this time we are offering downloads of our trial version available from our world wide network of mirrors. Please be aware that the trial version can be unlocked to the full version from within the software itself. So you are not missing out on any features this way.

Once the traffic returns to normal levels you can return to this page at anytime if you still wish to download the fully unlocked builds.

I can verify that downloading the trial version and unlocking it from within the application does successfully upgrade it to the full professional version, though it took a few minutes for the registration to go through. Be patient.

Find out why they are giving it away and other pertinent details at The Unofficial Apple Weblog or in the official Codeweavers press release.

HT: Karl Kleinpaste

In the last section of his chapter on the Trinity, “Logic and the Doctrine of the Trinity,” Feinberg is responding to criticisms that challenge the logical coherency of the doctrine.

Timothy Bartel raises an objection that parallels the McCall–Yandell argument very closely, the only difference being which properties are in view. McCall and Yandell attacked the notions of authority and submission, but if their argument is applied consistently, it would have to encompass any properties that the three don’t share in common.

Feinberg summarizes the objection like this:

The church, as we noted, said that the Father is ungenerate and that he begets the Son. The Son’s property is being eternally begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit’s property is his procession from the Father (or Father and Son). Given these respective properties, . . . we seem to have a problem, according to Bartel, for we can now write an argument like the following:

God the Son is eternally begotten of the Father qua divine.
God the Father is not eternally begotten of the Father qua divine;
Therefore, God the Son is not the same deity as God the Father. (494)

Those familiar with the McCall–Yandell argument will immediately see the similarities. If one of the persons has a property that at least one of the others lacks, then they don’t have the same divine nature and Arianism is the result. It sounds logical on the surface, but Feinberg explains why it fails:

This may seem to be an insuperable dilemma, but Bartel thinks not, and I agree. . . . The reason is that being eternally begotten and eternally proceeding are not properties the Son and Spirit have in virtue of being divine, but in virtue of being distinct subsistences of that divine essence. Hence, the premises of the above should read “qua subsistence or person,” and the conclusion should say, “Therefore, God the Son is not the same person or subsistence as God the Father.” (494–95)

I think Feinberg’s analysis highlights perfectly why the McCall–Yandell argument just won’t work. It wrongly tries to draw a conclusion about the one shared divine nature when the properties under discussion belong to the persons qua persons, not to the persons qua divine.

Here’s a selection from the publisher’s description:

This Bible [the ESV] has been growing in popularity among students in biblical studies, mainline Christian scholars and clergy, and Evangelical Christians of all denominations.

Along with that growth comes the need for the books of the Apocrypha to be included in ESV Bibles, both for denominations that use those books in liturgical readings and for students who need them for historical purposes. More Evangelicals are also beginning to be interested in the Apocrypha, even though they don’t consider it God’s Word. The English Standard Version Bible with the Apocrypha, for which the Apocrypha has been commissioned by Oxford University Press, employs the same methods and guidelines used by the original translators of the ESV, to produce for the first time an ESV Apocrypha. This will be the only ESV with Apocrypha available anywhere, and it includes all of the books and parts of books in the Protestant Apocrypha, the Catholic Old Testament, and the Old Testament as used in Orthodox Christian churches. It will have a lovely pre-printed case binding, and will include a full-color map section, a table of weights and measures used in the Bible, and many other attractive features.

More info here:

• Bible Design and Binding has the news: Oxford’s ESV with Apocrypha.
• Here’s the listing on Oxford’s site: English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha.
• Here’s the listing on Amazon: English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha (Hardcover).

Maybe this is old news, but I don’t recall seeing anything about this in my slice of the blog world.

HT: Sam Bray

The Argument

Here’s their argument:

1. If the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in all possible worlds, then the Son is necessarily subordinate to the Father.
2. If the Son is necessarily subordinate to the Father, then the Son is essentially subordinate to the Father.
3. Thus, the Son, as essentially subordinate to the Father, is of a different essence or nature than the Father, which entails a denial of homoousion.

My First Response

My first line of response is to show that this argument can be equally applied to any eternal difference between the Father and the Son. Let’s take the Son’s property of sonship and apply their own argument to it.

1. If the Son is eternally the Son and the Father is eternally not the Son in all possible worlds, then the Son is necessarily the Son and the Father is necessarily not the Son.
2. If the Son is necessarily the Son and the Father is necessarily not the Son, then the Son is essentially the Son and the Father is essentially not the Son.
3. Thus, the Son, as essentially the Son, and the Father, as essentially not the Son, are of a different essence or nature, which entails a denial of homoousion.

The result of extending the argument this way is that it demonstrates—assuming the legitimacy of the argument—that there can be no eternal difference of any kind without denying homoousion. But Yandell himself affirmed in the debate that the Son alone has the property of being the Son, and the Father alone the property of being the Father, and the Spirit alone the property of being the Spirit. Yet, according to his own argument, he must deny homoousion because these eternal differences constitute necessary differences, which constitute essential differences.

Yandell and McCall are attempting to affirm three propositions that simply cannot stand together. Here are the three incompatible propositions:

1. The argument is valid.
2. There are eternal differences among the three persons of the Trinity.
3. The Father and the Son are homoousios.

If they wish to maintain their claim to rationality, they must either deny (1) the legitimacy of the argument, (2) that the Son alone has the property of being the Son, etc. (which amounts to a denial of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity), (3) the doctrine of homoousion, or (4) some combination of the three. At least one of these has to go. All three cannot coexist.^[1]

My Second Response

My second line of response to this argument is to show that it confuses categories—just like Kevin Giles does in his unhelpful books on the subject.

Assuming for a moment that we should not deny that there are some eternal differences among the three persons of the Trinity, which, again, even Yandell acknowledged when he said that the Son alone has the property of being the Son, there must be some way to account for these differences without abandoning homoousion. I make this claim on the basis that Scripture seems to teach both.

First, it is important to point out that McCall and Yandell seem to be using only two categories: essence and function; while Grudem and Ware use three: essence, person, and function. Thus what Grudem and Ware mean by essence and person end up getting merged together into McCall and Yandell’s single category of essence.

In the two-category system, we need a place to put personal properties like fatherhood, sonship, and “spiritness.” Do they belong to essence or function? I doubt anyone would want to maintain that sonship is simply something the Son does and not something that He possesses or is. But does sonship belong to the one divine essence? No. If it did, then all three persons would be the Son, since they all share equally the one divine essence. So where do we put it? We must, in a two-category system, differentiate between the one divine essence shared equally by all three persons and their own individual essences that constitute what each person holds uniquely. This double use of the term essence is what seems to cause confusion for so many, so this might not be the best set of terms to use.^[2]

The important thing to note, though, is that this necessary distinction allows part of their conclusion—with a minor modification—(i.e., “the Son, as essentially the Son, and the Father, as essentially not the Son, are of a different essence different essences”) to be affirmed without denying homoousion, because it is the individual essences, not the shared essence, that the conclusion necessarily has in view (i.e., since the major and minor premises concern not what they share, but what they hold uniquely).

In the three-category system, the term essence is reserved for the one shared divine nature, while the term person is used for those properties that belong uniquely to each. So fatherhood, sonship, and “spiritness” would not belong to the one divine essence, but to the category of person. This approach has the advantage of using separate terms and avoiding confusion introduced by the two-category system, but it’s not without its challenges.^[3]

It doesn’t really matter to me what we call the category that accounts for their differences. The fact is that there must be such a category or we are forced to abandon rationality or deny clear biblical teaching.

Regardless of which system we go with (perhaps there’s a better option?), we must account for what the three share in common and what they hold uniquely, even if we do have to struggle to find the right terms. My main point is this: if the persons of the Trinity can equally share the one divine essence without obliterating their differences of being Father, Son, and Spirit, then we at least have a way to conceive of how they can equally share the one divine essence without obliterating their differences of authority and submission.

In the next post, I’ll respond to the second argument concerning the Father’s supposed inability to become incarnate.

See these previous posts of mine for the context of this post (most recent on top):

• My Question for Dr. Yandell
• Trinity Debate—Live
• Ware–Grudem vs. McCall–Yandell on the Trinity

Update 1: For clarification, I added “in all possible worlds” to the first premise of the argument. I was assuming it all along, but should have stated it explicitly to represent the argument most faithfully and avoid misunderstanding.

Update 2: Replaced my misuse of homoousian, which typically refers to someone who believes in homoousion, with the more appropriate homoousion.

Update 3: The discussion has continued over on James Gordon’s blog, Conquering Thirst.

Footnotes

1. One other possibility would be to demonstrate that this eternal difference (i.e., fatherhood, sonship, and “spiritness”) is categorically different from the other eternal difference (i.e., authority and submission) and thus the argument cannot be extended in this way. However, I cannot conceive how such a step could be successful.
2. Yes, this does essentially become a three-category system as well: (shared) essence, (individual) essences, and function.
3. What really is person? And how precisely does it relate to essence? Is person really any different from the individual essences mentioned above? If essence is what someone or something fundamentally is, aren’t the things assigned to person (i.e., fatherhood and being in authority on the one hand and sonship and being in submission on the other) also part of what the persons fundamentally are? I’m inclined to think that person is a somewhat arbitrary label whose merit is that it avoids the confusion of (shared) essence and (individual) essences. For more on this, see my previous post: Is the Trinity One “What” and Three “Who’s”?

If the Son is necessarily the Son and the Father is necessarily not the Son, then the Son is essentially the Son and the Father is essentially not the Son. Thus the Son is essentially different from the Father. Must you not deny homoousion on the basis of your own premises?

This parallels the central argument that Drs. Yandell and McCall were making—and shows its weakness:

If the Son is necessarily subordinate to the Father, then the Son is essentially subordinate to the Father. Thus, the Son is essentially different from the Father, which entails a denial of homoousion.

Unfortunately, Dr. Yandell didn’t understand the question. But it is one that needs to be addressed.

Neither he nor Tom shows how their position—on their own premises—can account for any necessary differences without denying homoousion, because, they argue, all necessary differences are essential differences.

They are left with three choices:

1. Deny homoousion.
2. Deny that there are any necessary differences among Father, Son, and Spirit.
3. Withdraw their argument.

I’d suggest #3, but they must choose at least one.

Update 1: Nick understands the force of my question.

Update 2: I develop the argument more thoroughly in my next post: Does Eternal Subordination Entail a Denial of Homoousion?

Update 3: Replaced my misuse of homoousian, which typically refers to someone who believes in homoousion, with the more appropriate homoousion.

Update 4: The discussion has continued over on James Gordon’s blog, Conquering Thirst.

I don’t know if I’ll liveblog. We’ll see. But I probably will write a post later analyzing the debate.

I wish I had access to this technology when I was running down this quote.

Check it out: http://labs.google.com/gaudi.

Read more:

• TechCrunch: “Google Launches Audio Indexing”
• ReadWriteWeb: “Google Audio Indexing: Keyword Searches for Political Videos”
• Google Blog: “Google Audio Indexing now on Google Labs”

In this interview you’ll learn important things about R. C., like what kind of vegetable he would be if he were one.

Right now they have their annual Customer Appreciation Sale going on. Save 10% on your order, and get free shipping with a $50+ purchase.

Christian Greetings!

Just a quick reminder that our Customer Appreciation Sale starts tomorrow, Wednesday, September 3, 2008, and runs thru Thursday, September 4th. This is your chance to save an extra 10% off our already discounted prices on everything we carry and this time there is an added incentive as well. We are continuing our popular free shipping offer for orders over $50 in addition to the extra discount savings. So be ready tomorrow for discounts on top of discounts and free shipping besides at www.cvbbs.com.

We thank you for your continued support and patronage.

Todd Jennings
cvbbs

They don’t always beat Amazon, but they’re worth checking out.