Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Of course, you are correct, Jack.
How does the Son "submit" to the Father?
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
Jesus never had, or now has, any time when the 2 wills are in conflict though, correct?
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
@Dachaser
@Scott Bushey
David:
Yes, Jesus has a human will and a divine will (as noted in the Scriptures I cited and by Jacob's excellent links to dyothelitism, which I recommend checking out). His having a human will is part of his being fully human. His having a divine will stems from His being the Second Person of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinity. It's all there in the Scripture and the links.
Part of the mystery of the Incarnation is His "coming not to do His own will," and yet yielding in the agony of His passion to say, "Nevertheless, Father, not my will but thine be done." Is there a perfect harmony of the two wills? Of course, as there is respecting everything pertaining to the integrity of the theanthropic person.
Even as he had two natures, divine and human, so he had two wills: a divine and human one. God has a will and a man has a will, so Jesus had two: a divine will and a human will. And there is in the hypostatic union a perfect unity of these two. This is basic orthodoxy and nothing controversial or obscure.
And I cite Scott B., too, because, unless I am missing something he's seeking to communicate, the question of whether one can distinguish in terms of God's will something like a decretive and a preceptive will is a different and other question from this one--a question that falls into theology proper, while the question of two wills in Christ falls into the locus of Christology.
Peace,
Alan
@Scott Bushey
David:
Yes, Jesus has a human will and a divine will (as noted in the Scriptures I cited and by Jacob's excellent links to dyothelitism, which I recommend checking out). His having a human will is part of his being fully human. His having a divine will stems from His being the Second Person of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinity. It's all there in the Scripture and the links.
Part of the mystery of the Incarnation is His "coming not to do His own will," and yet yielding in the agony of His passion to say, "Nevertheless, Father, not my will but thine be done." Is there a perfect harmony of the two wills? Of course, as there is respecting everything pertaining to the integrity of the theanthropic person.
Even as he had two natures, divine and human, so he had two wills: a divine and human one. God has a will and a man has a will, so Jesus had two: a divine will and a human will. And there is in the hypostatic union a perfect unity of these two. This is basic orthodoxy and nothing controversial or obscure.
And I cite Scott B., too, because, unless I am missing something he's seeking to communicate, the question of whether one can distinguish in terms of God's will something like a decretive and a preceptive will is a different and other question from this one--a question that falls into theology proper, while the question of two wills in Christ falls into the locus of Christology.
Peace,
Alan
If one reads nothing else from the controversy on this topic almost two years ago they need to read this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/11/23/kevin-giles-the-ets-response-to-grudem-and-ware/
Giles devastated Ware and Grudem in this to the point that both had to recant certain teachings. Note, especially, the points he makes about drawing ideas from human relationships and applying them to the nature of the Trinity. This is mdethodoligically they way of the Arians and the Socinians.
I commend this book to those who want to see the care that went into the formation of a doctrine that has been held as the dividing line between Christians and cults for almost 1800 years.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01A6GSKKO/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Giles devastated Ware and Grudem in this to the point that both had to recant certain teachings. Note, especially, the points he makes about drawing ideas from human relationships and applying them to the nature of the Trinity. This is mdethodoligically they way of the Arians and the Socinians.
I commend this book to those who want to see the care that went into the formation of a doctrine that has been held as the dividing line between Christians and cults for almost 1800 years.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01A6GSKKO/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I had not seen that one before, so thanks for sharing. The errors of Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware on eternal generation should have been enough to exclude them from orthodoxy. Thankfully, they have both changed their mind on the subject. I will have to read more of Kevin Giles' work in due course.
I was speaking of the Son prior to the incarnation.
I keep hearing this phrase:
"A subordination that extends into eternity cannot remain only functional."
But if the plan of redemption was arrived at in eternity past, then the Son planned to submit to the Father from eternity past in the work of salvation. Therefore, the submissions was eternal. And since it pertains to the work of redemption and not the being of God it is not ontological but functional or economical.
But then the opponents of this view say, "Well, if it is from eternity then it MUST be ontological." It seems they are putting words in the mouths of those who support the doctrine of EFS.
So when was the Pactum Salutis arrived at? One minute after eternity past? Did the Godhead not think up this plan until they started creating? If the Plan of Redemption was from eternity past, then the Son submitted to the Father from eternity past.
"A subordination that extends into eternity cannot remain only functional."
But if the plan of redemption was arrived at in eternity past, then the Son planned to submit to the Father from eternity past in the work of salvation. Therefore, the submissions was eternal. And since it pertains to the work of redemption and not the being of God it is not ontological but functional or economical.
But then the opponents of this view say, "Well, if it is from eternity then it MUST be ontological." It seems they are putting words in the mouths of those who support the doctrine of EFS.
So when was the Pactum Salutis arrived at? One minute after eternity past? Did the Godhead not think up this plan until they started creating? If the Plan of Redemption was from eternity past, then the Son submitted to the Father from eternity past.
Thanks! Very useful links.
The Giles article is helpful. I was very surprised to find in it that Grudem and Ware reject the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.
Giles says the following, however, which I do not yet understand. It seems the conclusion does not follow:
"What Philippians 2 teaches is the willing and self-chosen subordination and subjection of the Son for our salvation. On this basis, orthodox theologians with one voice insist that the subordination and obedience of the Son seen in the incarnation should not be read back into the eternal life of God. To do so is huge mistake."
BUt whether it was submission or "self-submission" - when did this happen?
If the Pactum Salutis happened in eternity past, how did the Son's willing agreement to go not happen from all eternity?
Did God start to create without a plan ready? Did the Pactum Salutis come to him at some point in time along the way?
No. So, the Son agreed and volunteered to his role from eternity past and this is a work of redemption (function or economy) and not ontology.
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
My understanding (subject to error always) is that If you are saying that Christ is Eternally Subordinate (in any manner) then logically you are describing him ontologically.
Just like if i say God is eternally Just and eternally righteous. So if you are saying that God the Son is eternally different (by being eternally subordinate) , than God the father... then at Best i think that is where one would be dancing close to polytheism. (Warning a little humor to lighten the mood....and remind us we are still brothers and need laughter sometimes.... warning ignore if sensitive to humor)
The Dancing I speak of that is at best close to polytheism:
End of humor:
Again this also is not in line with the majority of reformers (not scripture either in my opinion).
Holding this doctrine is not only unbiblical (in my opinion) but causes the Godhead to be a stumbling block not only to Christians (as already evidenced even in this thread)... but further to evangelical outreach to Hindus (or other people groups who are dominated with polytheistm) as one example.
Just my thoughts brother.... as I try to work all this out as well
Last edited by a moderator:
My understanding (subject to error always) is that If you are saying that Christ is Eternally Subordinate (in any manner) then logically you are describing him ontologically.
Just like if i say God is eternally Just and eternally righteous. So if you are saying that God the Son is eternally different (by being eternally subordinate) , than God the father... then at Best i think that is where one would be dancing close to polytheism. (Warning a little humor to lighten the mode....)
Dancing:
View attachment 5695
Again this also is not in line with the majority of reformers (not scripture either in my opinion).
Holding this doctrine is not only unbiblical (in my opinion) but causes the Godhead to be a stumbling block not only to Christians (as already evidenced even in this thread)... but further to evangelical outreach to Hindus (or other people groups who are dominated with polytheistm) as one example.
Just my thoughts brother.... as I try to work all this out as well
You keep telling me what I am really saying. But I am not really saying that.
When did the Pactum Salutis happen? At whatever point this happened was when the Son self-submitted to be sent. I think this happened in eternity past.
What are our other options? 1 second after eternity past? But did God not always have a plan? And since this plan involves the salvation of mankind, it cannot be said to be ad intra or ontological, but part of God's dealings with humanity, even from eternity past. It involves the economy of the Trinity and not its ontology.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
I think the problem lies in the idea that three persons means a compromise. It does not. It is an agreement thag each will do certain roles and not functions.
Can you explain?
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
I am not the best qualified to answer your question.... being newish to Reformed CT.
I do have an answer but I want to lean to the safe side... so take my answer with a grain of salt and be gentle if I misspeak.
Forgive me but I prefer using a plainer talk. I assume the “Pactum Salutis” is the Covenant of redemption (CoR). So, Assuming my assumption is properly assumed....
Could it logically be explained in a better way by saying the following:
“In the covenant of redemption God the Son voluntarily agreed to submit to God the father in and when he became God incarnate. Therefore, in CoR made in eternity, it was only agreed upon eternally. But the actual submission occurred in the incarnate form (the Godman). So NO ESS.”
Again be gentle, if this is heretical it is by accident and I will gladly delete the post. If my post adds confusion, I will gladly delete.
If the statement in quotes is solid... then I stand surprised that I may actually be starting to grasp some of this deeper (not likely).
Thanks. Maybe that is the solution, I don't know. Maybe somebody else will weigh in. I am also struggling with this.
I deny there is any hierarchy in the Trinity but only ordering/taxis. The Father and Son are co-equal. Any "submission" is also a self-submission and voluntary taking on of the role of mediator (not in ontology but for the work of redemption). I affirm the eternal generation of the Son (which it sounds like Dr Ware and Dr Grudem also do as well...now). I cannot imagine that the Father or the Spirit could have been sent as mediator, this role was most fitting for the Son to take.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Well at the end of the day we (the saints) need to keep each other from error in Love. I could equally be in error and my stiff-neckedness at some times seems to know no bounds.
No saint this side of the Grave will have the Godhead doctrine nailed down perfectly, which serves (like many other things) for us to sing “Come Lord Jesus, Come”. I pray you have a blessed Lord’s Day brother.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
You seem to be using "eternal" with a time element, basically, this redemptive planning business among the members of the Godhead happened long ago, in eternity past, so that means eternal submission.
The discussion is not about when something took place, but what is the nature of the parties wherein something took place.
Since the attribute of eternity inheres in the divine essence, any reality that is eternal is by necessity ontologically grounded. Eternity is a quality of existence. Therefore, if Christ's functional subordination is eternal, as both Grudem and Letham claim, it is also ontological. This implies something different exists in the essence (being) of the Son versus the essence (being) of the Father.
If one member of the Godhead always and everywhere is functionally superior to the other, then there must be an ontological basis for this difference.
The argument being made by Grudem and others is basically:
Distinctions of persons require different roles.
Therefore, distinctions of persons require differences of authority.
Therefore, distinctions of persons require differences of authority.
Something is missing in the argument: an intermediate premise:
Differences of role require differences of authority.
Hence the conclusion, distinctions of persons require differences of authority, does not follow. The argument is but an enthymeme.
We need to ask, does it follow from the necessity of differences of role that there must be superiority and subordination of role? This is certainly being assumed in the argument, but no argument for it is given.
The ISBE's online contain a useful treatment by Warfield in the Trinity entry. In particular, see section 20. The Question of Surbordination
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Dear Patrick, brothers, and sisters,
I am a babe in these more profound things of God so judge me accordingly. I have tried to follow this discussion, but I am suffering from brain fade. The following theory is mine from what I thought the Scriptures were teaching. So don't mind the many verses. This is just the way I think. Here goes.
BTW - I think it is a healthy sign that this vital subject if is being discussed more widely than I remember it being debated years ago.
=======
Brothers, I must be missing something, but the following seems clear to me. Hear me out and help me see where I went wrong. Pardon me if I have quoted too many verses.
=======
God is the head of Christ
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
This word "head" is the standard word for the thing on your shoulders–your head [κεφαλή]. It is also used to show superiority in order or rank. To all of us, Jesus is the head, our superior, even as a husband is head of the wife.
Verses where "head" is used for superiority.
Ephesians 1:22
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Mark 12:10
And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
Colossians 2:10
And ye are complete in him [Christ], which is the head of all principality and power:
=======
Similarly, God is the head of Christ and Christ is subject [ὑποτάσσω] unto the Father. That this was the case before, during, and after his incarnation is shown by the next two passages. There is no inequality of Persons in God (as many claim this idea teaches), but there is a rank or order amongst the Three. This relationship must be ontological. We know that there is rank and order between husband and wife but they are "heirs together of the grace of life." Jesus taught us to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Matthew 28:19) Would we baptize in the name of the Holy Ghost, and the Son, and the Father?
John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Note: I am aware that this verse has caused trouble in earlier times. I use it only to show rank and order–not at all meaning that the Three are not the same in substance, equal in power and glory.
1 Corinthians 15:26–28
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put [ὑποτάσσω] all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put [ὑποτάσσω] under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put [ὑποτάσσω] all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued [ὑποτάσσω] unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject [ὑποτάσσω] unto him that put [ὑποτάσσω] all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Verses with [ὑποτάσσω] = to submit, be subject, obey, subordinate
Luke 2:51
And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
Luke 10:17
17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
Romans 8:7
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Romans 13:1
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:5
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
1 Corinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Titus 2:5
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
1 Peter 3:5
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Ed,
I am failing to see where your verses cited prove subordination of God the Son in eternity past (as you put it before incarnation).
Help a brother out.
As far as the Trinity formula in baptism. I see the order stated as not only showing order but more specifically acknowledging the specific roles each member is the Godhead fills in salvation (God Elects, the Son redeems, Holy Spirit applies redemption). To to reorder would be silly at best... and at worst would stand at odds against the the way God redeems. Which was the voluntarily agreed upon roles in covenant of Redeemtion. A stronger point I think:
Further, Note that this verbal formula did not come about (regarding the covenant sign) until the days of Christ’s incarnation. Which would further seem to stand against and ESS/EFS mindset in my opinion. We have no biblical evidence of “i circumcise you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”.
Ed Walsh,
Your formulation is unorthodox and functionally tri-theistic. I'm not saying that to be mean-spritied but I recommend you read the article I cited above.
The error arises from failing to distinguish between The Son of God as God and the Son of God Incarnate (Christ). There are two wills in the Son of God (a Divine Will and a human will). The Son of God Incarnate (Christ) submits to the Father as God. His creaturely submission is not to be read into eternal ad intra categories. There is no separate "will" of the Son as God with which to "submit" to the Father. If you read the article you'll note that the Church says very, very little about the nature of the Godhead. The only orthodox way to distinguish the Persons ad intra is to note that the Father is neither begotten nor processes, the Son is eternally begotten, and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Again read the article and you'll see how the Nicene Fathers anticipated your arguments.
Your formulation is unorthodox and functionally tri-theistic. I'm not saying that to be mean-spritied but I recommend you read the article I cited above.
The error arises from failing to distinguish between The Son of God as God and the Son of God Incarnate (Christ). There are two wills in the Son of God (a Divine Will and a human will). The Son of God Incarnate (Christ) submits to the Father as God. His creaturely submission is not to be read into eternal ad intra categories. There is no separate "will" of the Son as God with which to "submit" to the Father. If you read the article you'll note that the Church says very, very little about the nature of the Godhead. The only orthodox way to distinguish the Persons ad intra is to note that the Father is neither begotten nor processes, the Son is eternally begotten, and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Again read the article and you'll see how the Nicene Fathers anticipated your arguments.
Economical Trinity, not ontological.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
He says it in his book on the Westminster Assembly. He hints at in his book on the Trinity.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Ed,
If this taxis (ordering, if you will) is ontological, this means there is something different about the beings (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in question. In other words, the essence of these beings is different. One cannot re-define what ontological means. As Rich notes, this ontological view of ranking or odering leads us to tri-theism.
We cannot read human relationships into the relations within the Godhead, ad intra. This tactic has been the warp and woof of many of the issues surrounding the whole subordination topic. As the quote above notes, God's essence is His very existence, for He wills it to be so. Nothing in human relationships is directly comparable to the Godhead, ad intra. See also, Giles, op. cit. by Rich above.
I do not see warrant from the baptismal formulaic of Matthew 28:19 as some indication of ontological ranking and order within the Godhead.
Warfield points out that this order is by no means invariable in the New Testament. In the benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14, the order is Lord, God, and Holy Spirit. In 1 Peter 1:2, the order is Father, Spirit, and Jesus Christ. In Jude 20-21, it is Holy Spirit, God, and Lord Jesus Christ. Sometimes, as in 1 Corinthians 12:3-6, the order is actually reversed completely, which may be a rhetorical device. Again, Warfield's statement is cautious:
"If in their conviction the very essence of the doctrine of the Trinity was embodied in this order, should we not anticipate that there should appear in their numerous allusions to the Trinity some suggestion of this conviction?"
[See: Warfield in the Trinity entry of the ISBE. In particular, see sections 18 and 20, Variations in Nomenclature, The Question of Surbordination, respectively.]
[See: Warfield in the Trinity entry of the ISBE. In particular, see sections 18 and 20, Variations in Nomenclature, The Question of Surbordination, respectively.]
Again, given the complexities of the topic, I point to the following book as required reading:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005EQV00Y/
The book also incorporates many of the arguments made by Giles (op. cit., by Rich above).
I do not think anyone denies there is economy of roles within the Godhead. The issues at hand, however, are claims that would entail distinctions of essence within the members of the Godhead. Despite the strident claims of Grudem and others so aligned, that no distinctions of essence are being made, they cannot escape the implication as Giles, Erickson, Jones, and others have clearly demonstrated.
If these men are going to just stipulate a new way of viewing ontology, rather than deal with the commonly understood philosophical and theological issues of being, then the discussion is ended, nothing more need be said. They are merely camping outside our camp.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Just got the ebook. Thanks
Cymro
Puritan Board Junior
My theological range is not as extensive as previous contributors, and I can only state how the subject means to me in my present light. It is asked when the Pactum Salutis happened? To my mind it did not happen but was eternally so. Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God, yet as the Son of God He was ever filially devoted and obedient to the Father. Not out of superiority of the one or the subordination of the other, but in a submission of love. It is the true essence of love not to seek her own; to bear all things, and to rejoice in the truth. Where love reigns there is oneness.
It may be that we err in equating submission with subordination. The act of loving submission became tangible to us in time when He Made Himself of no reputation, and was Made in the likeness of men. In that state of humiliation He fulfilled His Mediatorial role in the economy of salvation. He submitted lovingly and delightedly to the will of the Father. “ I come to do Thy will”, “I delight to do Thy will.”
I came across this quote in my Bible by Rev Hugh Martin concerning John 5:30. “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear I judge: and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will but the will of Him that sent me.” (Quote,) -‘Because in the covenant of grace He was Designated to this ministry, He was commissioned, He was sealed and sent. He Designed to do so, because He was Designated to do it.’ He was sent from Love, came in love, and manifested by His submission the interdependence of love.
My poor thoughts.
It may be that we err in equating submission with subordination. The act of loving submission became tangible to us in time when He Made Himself of no reputation, and was Made in the likeness of men. In that state of humiliation He fulfilled His Mediatorial role in the economy of salvation. He submitted lovingly and delightedly to the will of the Father. “ I come to do Thy will”, “I delight to do Thy will.”
I came across this quote in my Bible by Rev Hugh Martin concerning John 5:30. “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear I judge: and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will but the will of Him that sent me.” (Quote,) -‘Because in the covenant of grace He was Designated to this ministry, He was commissioned, He was sealed and sent. He Designed to do so, because He was Designated to do it.’ He was sent from Love, came in love, and manifested by His submission the interdependence of love.
My poor thoughts.
- Status
