Eternal Subordination of the Son debate...where are things now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe it is wise to skip analogies for the Trinity altogether? My husband was just saying that the common "H2O= ice, water, steam" one is sort of modalism. Maybe the best thing is to try and present God without non biblical attempts to explain Him. And understanding marriage as Christ and the Church ought to be good enough for us.


Yes, I think it is wise. One of the interesting things about studying those who had to battle early Trinitarian heresies is that they believed that the Trinity was something to be adored and worshiped more than trying to penetrate it. They even spoke in terms of daring to have to speak in ways they might otherwise avoid because troublers of the Church were denying the divinity of Christ and so they had to take up the use of words to exclude those who would deny the truths that had been received in the Apostolic faith.

I was thinking about this the other day that we don't typically engage in "analogies" for things we don't understand. It is sufficient for us to know that the sun provides light and heat for us. Those with a deeper understanding of nuclear physics understand the nature of fusion and how enHydrogen atoms fuse to produce energy in the form of heat and light. We don't think: "I think I'll create an analogy for how the Sun produces its light..." and then embark upon a form of pseudo-technical language to describe a process we don't quite grasp because we lack the training to properly apprehend it.

I think it's best for us to simply confess what we've received - the Nicene Creed and Definition of Chalcedon. We may not understand it at a technical level but, if it's not our discipline, then why do we feel compelled to think that analogies that we can "relate" are adequate.

Let us simply adore the One God in Three Persons. Let us confess what the Church catholic has confessed for centuries and meditate upon it and grow in our understanding and not make fools of ourselves in trying to "creatively" deceive ourselves, our children, or others with analogies that are dangerous. I think it is better to remain devotionally ignorant of certain things and strive to grasp them further than to set our minds down a dark path with analogies.
 
What do we think about Augustine's analogies regarding Trinity and anthropology? Though I think Augustine was explaining anthropology more than Trinity.

  • Lover, loved object, the lover's love for that object (255 [VIII.5.13])
  • the mind, its knowledge, its love (272–5 [IX.1])
  • the mind's remembering itself, understanding itself, and willing itself (298–9 [X.4])
  • memory, understanding, and will (374–82 [XIV.2–3)
  • the mind's remembering God, understanding God, and willing God (383–92 [XIV.4–5])
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#Aug
  • existing, knowing that one exists, loving the fact that one exists (Augustine City, 483-4 [XI.26];cf. Confessions 264-5 [XIII.11])
 
What do we think about Augustine's analogies regarding Trinity and anthropology?

The illustration from understanding was used by the reformed scholastics. E.g., Ames, Marrow, 1.5.16: "Yet, in part, it may be shadowed in a similitude; namely the Father is as it were, Deus intelligens, God understanding. The Son, the express image of the Father, is as it were Deus intellectus, God understood. The Holy Spirit, flowing and breathed from the Father by the Son, is as it were Deus dilectus, God beloved."

Melchior Leydecker regarded the illustration as being excessively scholastic. "Quae sunt Amesii verba, certe Scholastica nimis: & quis Scholasticorum lusus in hoc mysterio probet?" (De Veritate Religionis
Reformatae Seu Evangelicae, 1688, p. 28.)
 
I have found that certain complementarians who propound ESS, while not necessarily following through logically with regard to the Trinity tend to follow through with rigid gender roles.
 
So when he [Grudem] claims that other respected past Reformed theologians saw it the same way, is that true? I think Hodge got mentioned somewhere else. I mean, even if you think Sproul is 100% correct and Trueman/Goligher/Jones, etc are correct, is this an area like say paedo vs credo where there is big disagreement but we have to accept it as within the bounds of Reformed church history?
I think the EFS debate far exceeds any comparison to the paedo vs. the anti-padedo baptistic disagreements. Broadly speaking, all doctrinal error is sin. That said, not each and every doctrinal error is equal in their weight in the faith we hold dear.

For example, no one would dispute that Trinitarian error is egregious and places one outside the faith when the Trinity is denied. Our Confessions serve as our basis of unity and for reasoned discussion. Our confessions on either side of the paedo and credo baptistic aisles label the other side as sinful. So when the issue is truly pressed both sides of the aisle concerning baptism declare the other side to be sinful, because, after all our Confessions, held to be summarizing Scripture, so say it.

On the topic of baptism, we here at PB try to avoid charging one another with sin and thereby polarizing discussions to the point of generating hard feelings. So, while there are no unimportant doctrines, yet relatively speaking, there are some. Fortunately PB's creation of separate forums for both baptistic views helps given that in these forums the assumption is that questions being asked in each are going to be answered by those informed of the particular view.

But...the EFS matter relates to the ontology of God and the three personal subsistences therein, therefore it is not a peripheral issue. It strikes at the very core of our faith. We cannot create intellectual idols of God then go off worshipping them and not expect to imperil our eternal destinies. Here we must do our best to pluck the offender from the fire. If there is a hill to fight and die upon regarding matters of the faith, this is the one.

In the interest of post length I will stop here and pick things up regarding your direct questions in my next post.
 
So when he [Grudem] claims that other respected past Reformed theologians saw it the same way, is that true? I think Hodge got mentioned somewhere else...

...Is it possible to say that the one particular attribute of authority is not part of the one-God essence and still be orthodox? Can you affirm this:

The Westminster Shorter Catechism's definition of God is merely an enumeration of his attributes: "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."

but not affirm the same level of authority as being an attribute, and be considered Confessional / Reformed / Orthodox?

From at least AD 325 the church catholic has argued that the relations of the Father and the Son are to be learned only from revelation of Scripture. Further, that all the divine relations being in and of God, Who, with all His plurality of person, is but one God, that these relations are in the same undivided divine essence, and as a consequent, belong to the nature of God, and must be eternal.

Hodge writing in vol. 1, Ch. 6.5(c), of his Systematic Theology, speaks of subordination in the Trinity as to the mode of subsistence (emphasis mine):

On this subject the Nicene doctrine includes,—
1. The principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority. For as the same divine essence with all its infinite perfections is common to the Father, Son, and Spirit, there can be no inferiority of one person to the other in the Trinity. Neither does it imply posteriority; for the divine essence common to the several persons is self-existent and eternal. The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation, implied in the Scriptural facts that the Son is of the Father, and the Spirit is of the Father and the Son, and that the Father operates through the Son, and the Father and the Son through the Spirit.​
...
...
If Christ is Son, if he is God of God, he is not self-existent and independent. But self-existence, independence, etc., are attributes of the divine essence, and not of one person in distinction from the others. It is the triune God, who is self-existent, and independent. Subordination, as to the mode of subsistence, and operation, is a scriptural fact; and so also is the perfect and equal godhead of the Father, and the Son, and, therefore, these facts must be consistent. In the consubstantial identity of the human soul, there is a subordination of one faculty to another, and so, however incomprehensible to us, there may be a subordination in the trinity consistent with the identity of essence in the godhead.

For Hodge, subordination is due to the difference in the modes of subsistence in the divine essence. In nothing of what Hodge writes do I find the claim that, given the mode of subordination described, the Father necessarily eternally rules over the Son, and the Son is necessarily eternally obedient to the Father, as Grudem claims. Necessary properties are ontological claims. If the Son is necessarily obedient, and the Father necessarily ruling over the Son, then two distinct ontologies exist, two Gods, not one God.

We have also seen that in the various outward works of the Trinity, the same subordination of office appears as is found in the mode of subsistence within. This subordination, in both respects, should be recognized because it is taught in Scripture. At the same time it must never be forgotten that the same Scripture distinctly declares the perfect equality of the three persons in the divine nature, which allows no inferiority of any one of them as God. Accordingly, the willing and self-chosen subordination of God the Son for our salvation should not be read back into the eternal life of God.
 
The illustration from understanding was used by the reformed scholastics. E.g., Ames, Marrow, 1.5.16: "Yet, in part, it may be shadowed in a similitude; namely the Father is as it were, Deus intelligens, God understanding. The Son, the express image of the Father, is as it were Deus intellectus, God understood. The Holy Spirit, flowing and breathed from the Father by the Son, is as it were Deus dilectus, God beloved."

Melchior Leydecker regarded the illustration as being excessively scholastic. "Quae sunt Amesii verba, certe Scholastica nimis: & quis Scholasticorum lusus in hoc mysterio probet?" (De Veritate Religionis
Reformatae Seu Evangelicae, 1688, p. 28.)

The "as it were" above is so important in respect to how we are to view this matter in an ectypal way, correct?
 
The "as it were" above is so important in respect to how we are to view this matter in an ectypal way, correct?

Yes, that is a very good point. Ames was only giving an illustration to show there is a difference between begetting and procession. He wasn't attempting to know the unknowable.
 
Semper fi, that was beautiful, thank you.

Mr R- I very much appreciate the clarification, esp on Hodge.

I asked my husband the other day if he ever heard any of this at Westminster TS back in the 70s ( ie different levels of authority) with anybody, and he said of course not. Even if the confession uses other words like power or rule or sovereign or omnipotent, it is all the same as authority.

But it did get him curious when I said Frame supposedly believes it ( he had Frame and really liked him).
So here is a clarification on that one.

In any event, in chapter 22 he has a section entitled “Subordination.” Assuming the page numbering is the same in the Kindle edition as in the print edition, it’s pages 500 through 502. At the end (page 502) he briefly mentions ramifications regarding feminism, and asks the question, “Should we regard this Trinitarian hierarchy as a model for human society?”

In typical Frame fashion, he is very careful – “When I say a), I don’t mean b) or c)”, that sort of thing. He rejects ontological subordination (which he associates with Arianism) but argues for economic subordination, or subordination of roles. “That the Father has some sort of primacy is implicit in the name Father in distinction from Son and Spirit, and of course, the doctrines of eternal generation and procession suggest that the Father has some sort of unique ‘originative’ role.” And he claims to be consistent with historical doctrinal understanding – “Theologians have used phrases such as fons deitatis (“fountain of deity”) and fons trinitatis (“fountain of the Trinity”) to describe the Father’s unique role in the Trinity” (footnote referencing, among other things, the Heidelberg Catechism).

But in the end he stops short of seeing relationships within the Trinity as a pattern for human relationships – “I hesitate to place much ethical weight on the intra-Trinitarian role relation” – instead saying that we should all strive to be like Jesus (per his earthly example) in serving one another.

So he isn't ESS as I understand it; it isn't ontological even if the roles are different. For what it's worth.

I knew a lot of former charismatics and Arminians whose churches used Grudem and many people became Calvinists (or neoCalvinists or whatever you call it) where Piper and Grudem together were sort of the substitute Confession. I thought it was a very positive thing compared to every wind of doctrine Charismania; I still think that. But current developments are sad.

Thanks again to all.
 
Last edited:
So he isn't ESS as I understand it; it isn't ontological even if the roles are different. For what it's worth.

It is still ontological in that it appeals to what is implicit in the Father-Son relationship. It differs from Dr. Grudem in acknowledging the voluntary nature of the Son's subordination as God-man, and in denying the intra-trinitarian relations are the pattern for human relationships.
 
That Grudem and others seek some refuge for their views in those of Frame's is unremarkable, especially when he makes the following statements:

*As we thus meditate on the nature of Jesus' eternal sonship, we should not confine our attention to his begetting. As Pannenberg says:

Relations among the three persons that are defined as mutual self-distinction distinction cannot he reduced to relations of origin in the traditional sense. The Father does not merely beget the Son. He also hands over his Kingdom to him and receives it hack from him. The Son is not merely begotten of the Father. He is also obedient to him and he thereby glorifies him as the one God. The Spirit is not just breathed. He also fills the Son and glorifies him in his obedience to the Father, thereby glorifying the Father himself. In so doing he leads into all truth (John 16:13) and searches out the deep things of Godhead (1 Cor. 2:10-11).
Footnote: Wulfhirt Pannenherg, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 320.
Along with the Son's eternal generation, then, we can speak of his eternal obedience and eternal glorification of the Father. But these assertions (including the assertion of eternal generation) should not be the subject of microscopic analysis and rigid enforcement as tests of orthodoxy. They are biblical hints as to the nature of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.
*Src: John M. Frame. Doctrine of God, The (A Theology of Lordship).​
 
Last edited:
I confess I am a bit of a novice here. I am still learning. Thank you for letting me be a part of this community. I mostly try to observe and learn and not post so much. By as I read through this posting and all the replies (which has been very helpful by the way), I couldn't help but think of something that has been bugging me of late in my personal studies. I am studying the Westminster Confession and recently came across Ch 2.3 which states that Jesus is "eternally begotten". I immediately thought of this ESS debate. Is there anything here or am I just reading into it too much. What is meant by "eternally begotten"?

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." WCF 2.3
 
Letham in his book says that there is something appropriate about the Son becoming incarnate and being sent by the Father....because he is the Son.

After all, would the Father have become incarnate and come to earth sent by the Son?

What do we think of Letham's conclusion?
 
Last edited:
Letham in his book says that there is some appropriate about the Son becoming incarnate and being sent by the Father....because he is the Son. After all, would the Father have become incarnate and come to earth sent by the Son?

What do we think of Letham's conclusion?

Standard Patristic taxis. There is a taxis or order to our knowledge of the Trinity. While Grudem and Co., are wrong, I do think they were reaching for something like that conclusion.
 
If Grudem et al say that they deny any ontological subordination, shouldn't we assume then that they are merely speaking of taxis? The taxis language and ESS sound awful similar.
 
...I am studying the Westminster Confession and recently came across Ch 2.3 which states that Jesus is "eternally begotten". I immediately thought of this ESS debate. Is there anything here or am I just reading into it too much. What is meant by "eternally begotten"?

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." WCF 2.3

It is a complex topic. This may be helpful:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/why-is-Jesus-titled-the-son-of-god.91112/#post-1116522
 
Letham in his book says that there is something appropriate about the Son becoming incarnate and being sent by the Father....because he is the Son.

After all, would the Father have become incarnate and come to earth sent by the Son?

What do we think of Letham's conclusion?
I suspect it is akin to the statement Letham makes elsewhere (see also this):

The Christological Question: Who Is Jesus Christ?

The questions raised by the relation between the incarnate Christ and the eternal Son are clearly Christological as well as Trinitarian. The ecumenical councils Chalcedon, Constantinople II, and Constantinople III established that Jesus Christ is the eternal Logos, who has assumed and personalized a human nature. Two natures did not join together to form a composite person; rather, the Son added humanity permanently. Constantinople II recognized the dogma of enhypostasia, entailing no separate, independent existence for the assumed humanity; rather, the Son personalized it. The humanity of Christ is the humanity of the Logos. The famous Cyrilline phrase, “One of the trinity suffered according to the flesh” expresses it well. The Jesus Christ of the gospels is thus personally identical to the eternal Son and the post-resurrection Son. In effect, the Christology of the early church father Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 376–444), seen especially in his Quod unus sint Christus, was canonized.17Every act of Christ’s mediation is the act of the whole person.18

From this, I argue that the assumption of humanity was appropriate to the Son. If this were not so, a radical Nestorian chasm would exist between the person of the Son (for whom submission to the Father was alien) and the assumed humanity (in which obedience to God was rendered). If obedient assumed humanity is congruent with the Son Himself, it would seem that there is something about the Son that makes this congruence possible.
Letham writes from the following perspective:

"The prime question is whether the obedience rendered by the incarnate Christ reflects eternal realities in God. Giles denies it; I affirm it. Such an affirmation, however, needs careful qualification.

Giles denies a connection between the eternal Son and the obedience of Christ as second Adam on the following grounds. He maintains that the Son is eternally equal to the Father in power and authority, possessing the one identical divine will; that the obedience of Christ was as the second Adam, as man, for our salvation; and that once His saving work was done, He was exalted to the full exercise of omnipotence.

Others argue in varying ways that there is a connection—a congruity, as I prefer to call it—between the incarnate Son’s obedience and the eternal Son’s relation to the Father. I avoid talk of “subordination” since this conveys the heretical notion of gradations of deity. Since the Son is the whole God, and the will of God is indivisible, He is all that the Father is except for being the Father. Whatever the connection between His incarnate obedience and His eternal deity, I argue that His omnipotence is in no way abbreviated. The question at issue is the way He exercises His omnipotence; it concerns the relations between the persons.​

Letham, then proceeds to base his arguments, contra Giles, using relational subordination, which to me denies Scripture wherein the Belgic Confession clearly summarizes that the Son is neither subordinate nor subservient. Along with Erickson, I believe that if roles and relations are necessary and eternal, they must therefore be ontological. If one is familiar with Letham's works, one readily recognizes that he often wants to have his cake and eat it too. All too often when reading Letham as he waxes eloquent, I kept telling myself, "there is a pony in there somewhere", but actually identifying it was an exercise in futility on many occasions. Letham on the one hand will affirm that eternal subordination of the Son is beyond the bounds, yet on the other hand he will speak at length about the eternal submission of the Son. See Letham's The Holy Trinity in Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship.
 
If Grudem et al say that they deny any ontological subordination, shouldn't we assume then that they are merely speaking of taxis? The taxis language and ESS sound awful similar.

As noted earlier, they can deny it in words but the thing is still there. There is no such thing as functional subordination apart from ontological subordination. Cur Deus Homo? Why the God-man? And their understanding of functional subordination takes in things which were only proper to the human nature as something inferior to the divine nature.

Then, by denying the ontological they deny the proper sense in which we can speak of the "order" of the Trinity. They forfeit the one genuine sense in which there is a "sub-ordination" which terminates on the personal properties.
 
If Grudem et al say that they deny any ontological subordination, shouldn't we assume then that they are merely speaking of taxis? The taxis language and ESS sound awful similar.

Except none of the fathers (to my knowledge) used authority-relation in the sense that Grudem does. And the relations between Father-Son-Spirit are also homoousios (which was Athanasius's main point in Contra Arianos). ESS threatens the homooiusios of the relation (since relation is also a predicate of essence).
 
Except none of the fathers (to my knowledge) used authority-relation in the sense that Grudem does. And the relations between Father-Son-Spirit are also homoousios (which was Athanasius's main point in Contra Arianos). ESS threatens the homooiusios of the relation (since relation is also a predicate of essence).

Okay, that was what I was wondering...whether or not new language was introduced that never appeared in the Church Fathers. This means Grudem is asserting a new phraseology (if not a new doctrine).

So in what ways is the Son voluntarily subordinate to the Father, since He did come to earth sent by the Father and came to do the Father's will. And at what point in time did He subordinate Himself to the Father?

If not from eternity, then was the Covenant of Redemption a "new thought" in the mind of God? But this covenant seems from eternity past. Do you believe in such a covenant from all eternity? If so, how does the Son then not subordinate Himself to the Father from all eternity?
 
So in what ways is the Son voluntarily subordinate to the Father, since He did come to earth sent by the Father and came to do the Father's will. And at what point in time did He subordinate Himself to the Father?

Here is the difficulty with that line of questioning, as Millard Erickson pointed out: The Son was also incarnate of the Holy Ghost in the womb, so does that mean that the Son is also subordinate to the Holy Spirit? But that raises problems of us Westerners, since we also have the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. So who is subordinate to whom at this point? Further, the Holy Spirit "drives" the Son into the wilderness. Is the Son functionally subordinate to the Holy Spirit, then?
 
Here is the difficulty with that line of questioning, as Millard Erickson pointed out: The Son was also incarnate of the Holy Ghost in the womb, so does that mean that the Son is also subordinate to the Holy Spirit? But that raises problems of us Westerners, since we also have the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. So who is subordinate to whom at this point? Further, the Holy Spirit "drives" the Son into the wilderness. Is the Son functionally subordinate to the Holy Spirit, then?
So how then is this resolved?
 
So how then is this resolved?
It is resolved in the understanding that...

(1) the subordination of the Son and the Spirit is temporary and functional (not eternal), for the period and purpose of their special ministry in the accomplishment and application of salvation to the human race;

(2) the Father's authority cannot be taken in isolation from the authority possessed by the Son and the Holy Spirit;

(3) Scriptures that speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying are to be understood as referring to the time of the Son's earthly ministry;

(4) the Father's will, which the Son obeys, is actually the will of all three members of the Trinity, administered on their behalf by the Father;

(5) for those claiming eternal functional subordination, the difference of role within the Trinity requires that one person have authority—per an assumed ranking over the other—has yet to be substantiated, rather merely stipulated as a new definition for personhood which requires a ranking, and ignores the possibility of a jointly decided covenant between members of the Trinity before creation;

(6) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son was never equal to the Father, the matter of the humiliation of the Son in the Incarnation as to exactly what He gave up requires a demagnification of Scripture's teachings concerning The Son's present glorification;

(7) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son could not do otherwise, then the Son's coming was not really a free act, nor, with respect to this one action, was God free;

(8) given the assumption by the eternal subordination proponent that the Son's subordination is similar to that of human sons to human fathers, then the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father—proceeding from both Father and Son—is either something akin to a second son or a grandson;

(9) given that each action of the members of the Trinity is an action by all members of the Trinity, the substitutionary penal view of the atonement is not laid open to charges of injustice for the punishment of an unwilling innocent;

(10) if the Son is eternally subordinate, then prayers directed to Jesus, such as the maranatha prayer asking His return, ought logically to be directed instead to the Father, since the Father sent the Son the first time, and prayers should be for the Father to send the Son the second time;

(11) if the Son is eternally subordinate, praise and worship of the Son is penultimate, not ultimate as that given to the Father; and

(12) if the Father is eternally and necessarily supreme among the persons of the Trinity, if the Son eternally is subordinated to the Father, then the Son is essentially, that is, not accidentally, subordinate to the Father. Therefore if there is a difference of essence between the Father and the Son—that the Father's essence includes supreme authority—while the Son's essence includes submission and subordination everywhere and always, then there is an ontological difference between members of the Trinity which would lead us back to Arianism.
 
Mr R- That was outstanding.

In my opinion, the measure of truly good teaching is being able to be very clear and also very concise for laymen. Thanks for the time you've put into this subject!

I've been thinking about it and if Jesus isn't sovereign and supreme and ruler and boss and all powerful, he isn't God. I mean that's what God is- authority. The King. Not partial but fully. But with all the long blog posts and arguments and technical discussions out there, and of course the fact of husband headship and wives submitting being scriptural thrown into the mix, the whole subject gets confusing. But if you go back to the simple question of is Jesus God, and can God have less authority and rule and power than God, well, of course not.

I have also suspected that politics may have caused some to dig in their heels. Trueman and Pruitt came out heavily against putting Mahaney into conference pulpits what with the various scandalous accusations and stories out there of SGM bungling sex abuse disasters back when Mahaney was lead Apostle of SGM and senior pastor of his church. And Grudem appears to be best buds with Mahaney and taught at his pastors college; Piper (ie CBMW- ESS) also took Mahaney's side. I know in my experience, my deep personal friendships have often colored my doctrinal thinking and it is hard to face serious flaws in those we love.
 
Last edited:
It is resolved in the understanding that...

(1) the subordination of the Son and the Spirit is temporary and functional, for the period and purpose of their special ministry in the accomplishment and application of salvation to the human race;

(2) the Father's authority cannot be taken in isolation from the authority possessed by the Son and the Holy Spirit;

(3) Scriptures that speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying are to be understood as referring to the time of the Son's earthly ministry;

(4) the Father's will, which the Son obeys, is actually the will of all three members of the Trinity, administered on their behalf by the Father;

(5) for those claiming eternal functional subordination, the difference of role within the Trinity requires that one person have authority—per an assumed ranking over the other—has yet to be substantiated, rather merely stipulated as a new definition for personhood which requires a ranking, and ignores the possibility of a jointly decided covenant between members of the Trinity before creation;

(6) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son was never equal to the Father, the matter of the humiliation of the Son in the Incarnation as to exactly what He gave up requires a demagnification of Scripture's teachings concerning The Son's present glorification;

(7) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son could not do otherwise, then the Son's coming was not really a free act, nor, with respect to this one action, was God free;

(8) given the assumption by the eternal subordination proponent that the Son's subordination is similar to that of human sons to human fathers, then the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father—proceeding from both Father and Son—is either something akin to a second son or a grandson;

(9) given that each action of the members of the Trinity is an action by all members of the Trinity, the substitutionary penal view of the atonement is not laid open to charges of injustice for the punishment of an unwilling innocent;

(10) if the Son is eternally subordinate, then prayers directed to Jesus, such as the maranatha prayer asking His return, ought logically to be directed instead to the Father, since the Father sent the Son the first time, and prayers should be for the Father to send the Son the second time;

(11) if the Son is eternally subordinate, praise and worship of the Son is penultimate, not ultimate as that given to the Father; and

(12) if the Father is eternally and necessarily supreme among the persons of the Trinity, if the Son eternally is subordinated to the Father, then the Son is essentially, that is, not accidentally, subordinate to the Father. Therefore if there is a difference of essence between the Father and the Son—that the Father's essence includes supreme authority—while the Son's essence includes submission and subordination everywhere and always, then there is an ontological difference between members of the Trinity which would lead us back to Arianism.


Thank you so much for the 12 reasons above.
 
This review (and the book) of No Little Women is worth a read:
http://theaquilareport.com/matter-women-taught/

"I am very thankful for Aimee’s work in No Little Women. I hope everyone will read it. With Aimee, I hope that pastors and elders are encouraged to get involved with the women of their church in order to teach, equip, protect, and utilize them in the work of the church. I also hope women especially will be spurred to greater faithfulness and discernment. Our churches need us to be competent women in our roles as necessary allies. May we be “little women” no longer."​
 
Over at http://www.heartandmouth.org/2017/02/21/economic-subordination-son-part-1-theologia-oikonomia/ Brad Mason sets out to understand how the early church fathers distinguished between theologia and oikonomia under the assumption that a great deal of the confusion between the economic and ontological Trinity lies with employing modern understandings of the terms versus their original intent by the ECF.

The piece contains a nice survey and some analysis of ECF thought, concluding:

...I hope that it is abundantly clear that the conceptual distinction between theologia and oikonomia in Fathers is not at all the distinction we commonly refer to as the Ontological/Economic distinction. The terms do not refer to the in se life of the immanent Trinity in distinction to the ad extra works and operations of the Trinity in creation and redemption. To the Fathers, there is no “Ontological Trinity” or “Economic Trinity”; in fact, the theologia/oikonomia distinction has nothing to do with Trinitarian theology per se. Of course it relates to the Trinity in as much as all doctrines do, but the distinction of the Fathers’ is primarily a Christological distinction.

The theologia is ascribed to the Son in His Divine Nature and all that is entailed by His true and perfect Godhead; the oikonomia is ascribed to the Son united with His manhood and all that is entailed by the appropriation of true flesh and human soul. And the purpose of the terms is to make plain that the latter does not diminish the former since it is an arrangement, a dispensation, a condescension, keeping the Natures distinct—God and man in one Person. It is no more a Trinitarian distinction than is the Double Account. Both are about Christ in His two natures and are intended to oppose Patripassians, Subordinationists, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc., and more importantly, to properly apprehend the teaching of our Savior in the Scriptures.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top