The Aseity of the Son

Dr. K. Scott Oliphint examines the Reformed tradition’s understanding of the Son as a se. In his assessment, much of the tradition relies upon unsatisfactory formulations offered by Thomas Aquinas. Oliphint encourages Reformed theologians to “tear away the tares of Thomism” in this first plenary address at Reformed Forum’s 2014 Theology Conference.

Unedited and Unprocessed Recording of the Livestream


Participants: ,

We will occasionally post special discussions to this podcast. These are usually recordings or clips that do not fit with our other programs. Browse more episodes from this program or subscribe to the podcast feed.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Richard Chelvan

5 years ago

I don’t think I agree with Dr. Scott Oliphint. I think he over argues this whole issue which I think may be a non issue as far as Reformed Historical Theology goes. The persons or people he should be criticizing are the Remonstrants (Arminians) who in turn have influenced much of Evangelicalism today. The result being a weak doctrine of the Christ as auto-theos. A cursory glance at Dr. Richard A. Muller’s (who Dr. Oliphint considers nigh on omniscient in such matters) The Triunity of God which is volume four of his “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics” will show that, notwithstanding Oliphint’s understanding of Turretine, the generation(s) after Calvin were indeed faithful to Calvin’s ideas concerning the Aseity of Christ.
I need to read Brannon Ellis’s book to see what he says. But I think that Dr. Oliphint’s critique of Aquinas’s views is beside the point.

Mark G

5 years ago

I found this very interesting. I was surprised at the claim that Son is fully God, just as the Father is God and the Spirit is God, underived is a minority view in reformed circles. I remember teaching our kids songs “the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Spirit is God, three in one” when they were little. I am not understanding something, or missing something?


5 years ago

Just throwing this out there, since I was asked this today. Why,precisely, doesn’t Calvin’s (or those of other theologians that were mentioned) same arguments concerning communication of deity apply likewise to communication of person, esp. considering Van Til’s respective advancement on this point? I can’t find any solid argumentation that positively presents why we should consider “person” as derivative. I might just be missing it, but most of the literature I can find speaks either of essentia as communicated, or why it *shouldn’t* be – but seems to assume that person, in any case, should. Any suggestions?


3 years ago

What is the term used at 43:15? “___________centric”. Not familiar with the word and cannot make it out. Thank you


3 years ago

sorry posted this on the wrong “Aseity of the Son” episode.



Reformed Forum
115 Commerce Dr., Suite E
Grayslake, IL 60030

+1 847.986.6140

Copyright © 2019 Reformed Forum