How does the Son "submit" to the Father?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It's funny that Letham says that, since he rejects the Pactum salutis.

Hmmmm...is very weird. Any idea why he does this?

He says it in his book on the Westminster Assembly. He hints at in his book on the Trinity.

See:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...urrent-trinitarian-debate.90104/#post-1108121

 

[arapahoepark]

We need to think in terms of distinct acts in redemptive history and not distinct wills.
I got that from Mark Jones.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

We need to think in terms of distinct acts in redemptive history and not distinct wills.
I got that from Mark Jones.

Very helpful. I like to remind people that, in Christ, divine mercies have become human mercies. Divine love has become human love.

The Mediatorial work of Christ is the act that permits us fruition with the Divine. Eternity cannot be grasped or comprehended but God became man and so we have a true analogue of God's love and interest toward us. We can never (now or in eternity) penetrate into the Divine mystery of the Godhead. He is the Creator and we are the creature. But the Creator has become the creature to speak to us as creatures, to suffer as a true man, to experience trial and temptation. And so we have a great High Priest who understands our frame and intercedes for us and gives us full confidence that, in grasping the death and life of a man, we have laid hold of eternity.

 

[bookslover]

If there is one will in God, how does the Son submit to the Father?

Economic subordination, not ontological subordination.

 

[Dachaser]

@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

I understand that the 2 wills of Jesus then would have to always be in perfect harmony then, correct?

 

[Dachaser]

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.

Cannot the Members of thr Trinity agre among Themselves to have their assigned roles within the outworkings of the Will and purpose, and yet all still be equally God?

 

[Dachaser]

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

What were the areas that Dr Grudem and Ware have to backtrack off from then?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What were the areas that Dr Grudem and Ware have to backtrack off from then?

David,

If you read the item Rich posted, you would have clearly seen the answer:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/11/23/kevin-giles-the-ets-response-to-grudem-and-ware/

Hint: see the Postscript section

Really, brother, you need to follow the links someone provides if you intend to question the poster of said links about content related to the very reason the links were provided in the first place.

 

[Dachaser]

Economic subordination, not ontological subordination.

Is that the same as saying that Jesus submitted to the Father during the Incarnation, but that was only for the purpose of accomplishing the plan of salvation, but once ascended, the subordination went off?

 

[Dachaser]

David,

If you read the item Rich posted, you would have clearly seen the answer:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/11/23/kevin-giles-the-ets-response-to-grudem-and-ware/

Hint: see the Postscript section

Really, brother, you need to follow the links someone provides if you intend to question the poster of said links about content related to the very reason the links were provided in the first place.

I went back to read the article, as I had stopped reading beore the postscript section.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Is that the same as sayinjg that Jesus submetted to the Father during the Incarnation, bit thatwas only for the purpose of accomplishing the plan of salvation, but once ascended, the subordination went off?

See point #1 here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...here-are-things-now.92059/page-2#post-1126091

 

[bookslover]

Is that the same as saying that Jesus submitted to the Father during the Incarnation, but that was only for the purpose of accomplishing the plan of salvation, but once ascended, the subordination went off?

Yes.

 

[timfost]

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.

Perg,

I'm learning a lot from this thread.

Just wanted to point out that we need to distinguish an eternal plan from an eternal state. John Gill confuses the two in his formulation of the doctrine of eternal justification (he equated an imminent act with an eternal act/state). Similarly, you seem to make the jump from a plan to submit to eternal submission. But if every plan of God was eternal in substance because it was eternally in the mind of God, than you and I are also eternal since we were elect in eternity past. All things are in fact co-eternal with God since they were eternally in the mind of God. Of course, none of us believe this, although the logic seems to suggest this absurdity.

I hope I haven't missed something as I try to comprehend these points. Thanks for bearing with me!

 

[Pergamum]

Perg,

I'm learning a lot from this thread.

Just wanted to point out that we need to distinguish an eternal plan from an eternal state. John Gill confuses the two in his formulation of the doctrine of eternal justification (he equated an imminent act with an eternal act/state). Similarly, you seem to make the jump from a plan to submit to eternal submission. But if every plan of God was eternal in substance because it was eternally in the mind of God, than you and I are also eternal since we were elect in eternity past. All things are in fact co-eternal with God since they were eternally in the mind of God. Of course, none of us believe this, although the logic seems to suggest this absurdity.

I hope I haven't missed something as I try to comprehend these points. Thanks for bearing with me!

Thanks.

So just as God planned to justify the Elect from all eternity but only did so in time (avoiding the error of eternal justification), we can also say that the Son planned to voluntarily submit for the sake of Redemption from all eternity and yet this submission only occurred in time, avoiding the error of subordinationism or EFS?

Is that the key to my dilemma?

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks.

So just as God planned to justify the Elect from all eternity but only did so in time (avoiding the error of eternal justification), we can also say that the Son planned to voluntarily submit for the sake of Redemption from all eternity and yet this submission only occurred in time, avoiding the error of subordinationism or EFS?

Is that the key to my dilemma?

You are on the right track. It's similar to how we say that God's decree is not the same thing as God's execution of the decree.

 

[Steve Curtis]

So just as God planned to justify the Elect from all eternity but only did so in time (avoiding the error of eternal justification), we can also say that the Son planned to voluntarily submit for the sake of Redemption from all eternity and yet this submission only occurred in time, avoiding the error of subordinationism or EFS?

Is that the key to my dilemma?

That is a good summary.

 

[Pergamum]

Ok, thanks. I understand better now.

 

[Scott Bushey]

You are on the right track. It's similar to how we say that God's decree is not the same thing as God's execution of the decree.

This is exactly what I alluded to in post 34.

 

[Steve Curtis]

This is exactly what I alluded to in post 34.

It may be what you linked to in post #34, but you didn't actually allude to anything. In the interest of those who may not have the time or inclination to open every link without an inkling of what they might find, I, for one, would sure appreciate at least an original line or two summarizing what the linked content will expound upon.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Steven,
Forgive me if I didn't dialog; I thought that the titles of the links would have been sufficient. I guess that would all boil down to how u define 'allusion'.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Steven,
Forgive me if I didn't dialog; I thought that the titles of the links would have been sufficient. I guess that would all boil down to how u define 'allusion'.

 

[Dachaser]

The scriptures themselves would not give to us the ESS theology, and we have to read back into them the human relationships in order to develop that theology from the scriptures.
How can God be subordiante to Himself?

 

[Dachaser]

Thanks.

So just as God planned to justify the Elect from all eternity but only did so in time (avoiding the error of eternal justification), we can also say that the Son planned to voluntarily submit for the sake of Redemption from all eternity and yet this submission only occurred in time, avoiding the error of subordinationism or EFS?

Is that the key to my dilemma?

Yes, as you articulated it here would seem to be how scriptures address this issue.