“It is thus tempting to point to [issues like monothelitism, whether the incarnate Christ has one will or two] as a bit of needle-headed theological hairsplitting on a matter of no importance and thus a piece of extrabiblical tradition imposed on the faith. (1/4) “Yet to draw such a conclusion would be to misunderstand how theology is formulated in and by the church. As noted above, each time one problem is solved, the terms of discussion are changed to take into account the new solution. (2/)

“Look on sin with that eye with which within a few hours we shall see it. (1/8) “Ah, souls! when you shall lie upon a dying bed, and stand before a judgment-seat, sin shall be unmasked, and its dress and robes shall then be taken off, and then it shall appear more vile, filthy, and terrible than hell itself; (2/)

Why would any woman compete in a boxing match with someone who remains a male? It’s one thing to pretend and be politically correct when it doesn’t cost you broken bones. But given the foreseeability of that kind of danger, why would any thinking woman go through with it? (1/)

https://twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1818959981527417058

The answer is: the same reason any female athlete goes through with competing against a biologically male opponent: the fear of being called a transphobe and a bigot—the fear of being canceled and shamed into oblivion for refusing to play pretend. (2/)

If we believe in eternal generation—that the Father eternally communicates the undivided and underived divine essence to the Son—are we somehow saying the Father brought the Son into existence? How can the Son “receive” the divine essence if He always had it? (1/10) How can we speak of the 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 of an eternal, uncreated Word?

The answer is: we have to speak of 𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 generation.

God the Father doesn’t generate God the Son in a manner that is one-to-one identical with human generation. (2/)

Scripture communicates the truth of the eternal generation of the Son—

the concepts of consubstantiality and fromness—

not only by the use of the terms 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘢𝘰̄ and 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦̄𝘴,

but also by the use of different figures as well: radiance, image, and Word. (1/13) The author of Hebrews begins his letter similar to how John begins his Gospel.

John says there was an eternal 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘥 who is only begotten 𝘚𝘰𝘯. Hebrews says in these last days God has spoken (i.e., His 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘥) to us in His 𝘚𝘰𝘯. (2/)

I’ve already spent some time here—both over the last few days as well as some time ago—

but I want to press further into the doctrine of eternal generation by pressing further into John 5. (1/18) The Jews are angry with Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath (5:1–16). Jesus responds by saying that 𝘏𝘦 works on the Sabbath because 𝘏𝘪𝘴 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 works on the Sabbath (5:17).

This enrages the Jews all the more, because they understood what Jesus was saying: (2/)

Scripture calls the Father “Father” and the Son “Son” because

(1) a son has the 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 as his father,

but a son has that nature (2) 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 his father.

Consubstantiality (i.e., sameness of nature), and “fromness.” (1/7) It can sound a bit strange at first, but I think we understand this in principle.

My son is human like I am human; we are the same sort of being, and so we are consubstantial.

But my son has his nature 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 me as his father. Consubstantiality, and fromness. (2/)

Some argue that the term 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦̄𝘴 is better translated as “unique” or “one of a kind,” because they believe the compound word comes from 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘴, “only,” and 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘴, “kind.” I disagree. (1/) That lexical argument seems to rest almost exclusively on the research of a single article, which has recently been ably challenged. Lee Irons demonstrates that 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦̄𝘴 comes from 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘴 and 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘢𝘰̄ (“to beget, generate”), not 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘴 and 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘴. (2/)

Puritan divine George Swinnock on divine simplicity:

“These attributes are the very essence of God, not qualities or properties, as in men and angels. (1/9) “The holiness of God is the holy God; ‘Once have I sworn by my holiness,’ Ps 89:36; i.e., by myself, ‘that i will not lie unto David;’ for Heb 6:13, ‘God having no greater to swear by, swore by himself.’ (2/)

The chaos in which our culture presently finds itself didn’t just appear out of nowhere. It came as the predicted result of living in rebellion against reality—against the infallible Word of the Triune God of the Bible. (1/7) That rebellion started when man exalted his own reasoning above God’s revelation, continued in the lies of atheism and evolution, and culminated in the rejection of all moral decency, making the personal sexual gratification the chief end of man. (2/)

Jesus does indeed “get us.” And this is what He has to say about us:

“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, … (1/7) “…as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man” (Mark 7:21-23).

“...but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:5). (2/)

Functional kenotic Christology teaches not that Christ surrendered the attributes themselves, but limited them in some sense, or just curtailed their use/function during His humiliation. This is serious Christological error. (1/20) The kenosis of Philippians 2:7 is not a surrender, a divestiture, a limitation, or a laying aside of any aspect of the Son’s divine existence. Instead, it is a taking—an assumption of a distinct essence (a human one) by means of which such limitations can be experienced. (2/)

When Philippians 2:7 says that the Son “emptied Himself” in His incarnation, Paul does not intend to say that the Son 𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 of Himself something related to His deity—whether essence, attributes, prerogatives, or anything else. (1/10) First, κενόω doesn’t mean “to pour out.” There is a verb for that: εκχέω, as in Rom 5:5: “the love of God has been 𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 within our hearts…”

But κενόω means “to nullify,” or “to make void,” as in Rom 4:14: “…faith is made void and the promise is nullified.” (2/)

When John says that the Word became flesh, that cannot mean that the divine person of the Son changed Himself into a human being.

It cannot mean that the divine nature transmuted into a human nature. That would be to introduce change where there can only be immutability. (1/6) It cannot mean that the Son exchanged His deity for humanity, or that He divested Himself of the divine nature.

He is God of very God even as He dwells on the earth: Immanuel, God with us (Matt 1:23; cf. John 8:58; Col 2:9). (2/6)

A needed thread on listening to gossip. (1/11)

Scripture calls those who give false testimony “worthless” (NASB, ESV) or “vile” (LSB) men (1 Kgs 21:10, 13).

So also the one who devises evil and spreads strife (Prov 6:12-14), and who digs up evil (Prov 16:27).

Worthless. Vile. It also calls the one who 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴 to gossip “an evildoer” and “a liar” (Prov 17:4).

In a fallen world, it does seem unavoidable that there will be worthless and vile men who publish hearsay in an attempt to stir up dissension and attract attention to themselves.

(2/)

“Sola Scriptura was never meant as a denial of the usefulness of the Christian tradition as a subordinate norm in theology.

“The views of the Reformers developed out of a debate in early medieval theology over the relation of Scripture and tradition, … (1/4) “…one party viewing the two as coequal norms, the other party viewing Scripture as the absolute and therefore prior norm, but allowing tradition a derivative but important secondary role in doctrinal statement. (2/4)

Owen on ISO & appropriations, w a delightful illustration in the middle:

“It must be yet farther observed that the immediate actings of the Holy Ghost are not spoken of him absolutely, nor ascribed unto him exclusively, as unto the other persons & their concurrence in them. (1/) “It is a saying generally admitted, that _Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa_. There is no such division in the external operations of God that any one of them should be the act of one person, without the concurrence of the others; (2/)

More from @JoelBeeke’s excellent @CredoMagazine article. Long, but worth it.

credomag.com/article/the-pu…

“Reason, or the ability to think logically, was regarded by Reformed scholastics as a faculty of the soul, which God created so that man might know him and his will. (1/) “Thus, the reason of man must always be exercised in submission to God and for his glory.

“As a created faculty, reason is essential to human nature. When God first made man and placed him in paradise, human reason was well suited to embrace God’s revelation… (2/)

In his excellent book, _When Harry Became Sally_, Ryan Anderson recounts the story of a woman named "Crash," who started taking testosterone at 20 and detransitioned at 27. (1/) What strikes me about her testimony is how clearly she realized that those who affirmed her in her desire to transition had harmed her, even though they were trying to be helpful and affirming. (2/)

A reflection on John 5:26:

“For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”

The Father has “life in Himself”—i.e., the attribute of aseity or self-existence. (1/7) The Son has this identical attribute of aseity (life-in-Himself), but He possesses it in a different manner than the Father does. The Father has life-in-Himself that has been given to Him by no one. The Son has this same life-in-Himself that was given to Him by the Father. (2/7)

@SharonDevol “If men struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely [lit., “so that her children (𝘺𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘥) come out (𝘺𝘢𝘵𝘴𝘢’)”], yet there is no injury”—no injury to whom? Surely, yes, to the pregnant woman. 1/ @SharonDevol But the nearest antecedent to the term “no injury,” or “no harm done” is the 𝘺𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘥. It is the children who “come out” prematurely.
So, if there’s any injury 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 to the mother 𝘰𝘳 to the children, the man who has caused injury ... 2/