On Not Signing the Nashville Statement

TylerR
Society & Culture
Nashville Statement

Mortification of Spin: Just as we predicted on the podcast, signing the Nashville Statement has become a measure of one’s commitment to biblical sexual ethics and gender distinctions. These sorts of things are inevitable. One group drafts a statement and opens it up to signatures with all the right people and influencers signing gladly. Suddenly those who do not sign are immediately suspected of going all squishy on the truth.

  • 10 views

Discussion

Profile picture for user AndyE
AndyE
Wed, 09/13/17 8:15 am

[Jay]

Yes, and I’m not even sure why the two were compared. I mean, I see that someone could try and make the comparison, but at the end of the day, they are two totally and completely different animals. Human marriage covenants aren’t eternal, like the Trinity is, and neither functions in exactly the same way.

Here is Andrew Naselli on the connection: http://andynaselli.com/trinity-husbands-wives

FWIW, I agree with him.

unsearchableriches.blogspot.com

Profile picture for user Bert Perry
Bert Perry
Wed, 09/13/17 9:22 am

One thing that comes to mind is that if we have ESS being important in describing male-female interactions, especially that in the church and that in marriage, is it not simultaneously important in describing father-son relationships on earth? Not an unimportant distinction for me, as my dad is not a believer, as far as I know.

There is the reality that sometimes we can take an analogy too far, but again, that would impact how the doctrine of the Trinity affects almost all of our relationships, no?

What’s the argument about Nicea, by the way? I know the creed, and I’m not getting any problem from there. Looks like I’m missing something.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Profile picture for user Don Johnson
Don Johnson
Wed, 09/13/17 12:31 pm

[Jay]

With caution, I will attempt an answer. The detractors say that ESS is a denial of Nicea. I don’t see that. The weakness is not, to me, ontological. ESS proponents affirm the complete ontological trinity.

Yes, I didn’t see that either, and that’s why I was confused as to why this is a thing. Ware is very clear on that point.

I do not find ESS helpful in the gender role debate which is where it became a big issue. In that respect, to me it was a good house built on the wrong foundation. The foundation was not a problem and the house was not a problem. They were just mismatched.

Yes, and I’m not even sure why the two were compared. I mean, I see that someone could try and make the comparison, but at the end of the day, they are two totally and completely different animals. Human marriage covenants aren’t eternal, like the Trinity is, and neither functions in exactly the same way.

as to why the Trinity is part of the discussion, it is because 1 Cor 11 uses the relationship of the Trinity as a theological basis for the relationship of husband and wife

Andy Naselli’s notes point this out, see the link that AndyE provided

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3