# Intra-Trinitarian Subordination?



## AV1611 (Aug 27, 2007)

To what extent, if at all, is it correct to speak of the subordination of the Son to the Father?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 27, 2007)

Economically, but not ontologically.


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 27, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Economically, but not ontologically.



Yes, I came across that in Berkhof yet in reading Hoeksema I am not at all sure such a distiction can be made.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 27, 2007)

Well, there are texts which seem to speak of some sort of subordination: and there are texts which speak of absolute equality. So it's obvious that they're talking about different aspects. And I would think that "economically" would include the fact of Jesus' incarnation and His position as mediatorial head: and Heoksema can't tell me that THAT isn't different!


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 27, 2007)

Hoeksema writes that "It is plain that those who see in these passages a covenant between the Father and the Son fail to make a distinction between Christ as the eternal Son in his human nature as the servant of the Lord and the same Christ as the eternal Son of God in his divine nature. A conclusion simply is drawn from Christ's relation to the triune God as the servant of the Lord to the eternal economical relation between the Father and the son. The result is that a wrong conception is formed about the counsel of peace and that no place is found in the _pactum salutis_ for the theird person of the holy Trinity." _Reformed Dogmatics_ vol 1, pp451


----------



## terry72 (Aug 27, 2007)

The very idea of Father and Son imply an economical subordination. I believe to deny this sense of eternal economical subordinations undermines the doctrine of the trinity and would cause someone to come dangerously close to modalism.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Hoeksema writes that "It is plain that those who see in these passages a covenant between the Father and the Son fail to make a distinction between Christ as the eternal Son in his human nature as the servant of the Lord and the same Christ as the eternal Son of God in his divine nature. A conclusion simply is drawn from Christ's relation to the triune God as the servant of the Lord to the eternal economical relation between the Father and the son. The result is that a wrong conception is formed about the counsel of peace and that no place is found in the _pactum salutis_ for the theird person of the holy Trinity." _Reformed Dogmatics_ vol 1, pp451





This is because Hoeksma is a monocovenantalist.


----------



## Contra Marcion (Aug 27, 2007)

> This is because Hoeksma is a monocovenantalist.



 Exactly. As usual, Fred says what I was thinking, and puts it more succintly than I can.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 27, 2007)

"The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity." - Karl Rahner


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 27, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> This is because Hoeksma is a monocovenantalist.



And......


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 27, 2007)

weinhold said:


> "The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity." - Karl Rahner



I have lost sleep over that quotation before.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 27, 2007)

terry72 said:


> The very idea of Father and Son imply an economical subordination. I believe to deny this sense of eternal economical subordinations undermines the doctrine of the trinity and would cause someone to come dangerously close to modalism.
> 
> Blessings in Christ,
> Terry W. West



I don't think anybody is denying an economic subordination. The question from OP is if we can make a distinction between economic and ontological subordinations. I believe we should.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Economically, but not ontologically.
> ...



It's a simple distinction, really. Ontologically, all three Persons of the Trinity are exactly equal in every way because all three Persons are God (make up the one divine Godhead). Economically, there is a "division of labor," so to speak, in which the Son is subordinated to the Father. The Father and the Son, in carrying out the divine plan, are both still completely equal _as God_, but the Son performs the Father's will (as Jesus Himself said). The Holy Spirit, in His turn, has been performing His part in the divine "division of labor" since Jesus' return to Heaven.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 27, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I don't think anybody is denying an economic subordination. The question from OP is if we can make a distinction between economic and ontological subordinations. I believe we should.




That's simple. There is no ontological subordination. Subordination is purely economic.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > This is because Hoeksma is a monocovenantalist.
> ...



His view of the covenants is driving his view of the Trinity, not the reverse. That is why the quote you provided is more about the _pactum salutis_ than the Trinity itself.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 27, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anybody is denying an economic subordination. The question from OP is if we can make a distinction between economic and ontological subordinations. I believe we should.
> ...



Agreed. I was just restating the OP.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 27, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Agreed. I was just restating the OP.



That's good. Usually, you can't trust a guy in a white suit.


----------



## MW (Aug 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Hoeksema writes that "It is plain that those who see in these passages a covenant between the Father and the Son fail to make a distinction between Christ as the eternal Son in his human nature as the servant of the Lord and the same Christ as the eternal Son of God in his divine nature. A conclusion simply is drawn from Christ's relation to the triune God as the servant of the Lord to the eternal economical relation between the Father and the son. The result is that a wrong conception is formed about the counsel of peace and that no place is found in the _pactum salutis_ for the theird person of the holy Trinity." _Reformed Dogmatics_ vol 1, pp451



I don't think the problem is to be traced to the one covenant idea of the PRs. It more has to do with the idea that the family life of the three blessed persons is a covenant of friendship, which opens the door to ontological subordinationism.

Hoeksema hasn't considered that the third person of the Trinity Himself undergoes a "parousia" so far as the economy of salvation is concerned. He comes as "Another Paraklete," and this gives ample scope for the work of the Spirit within the pactum salutis.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 27, 2007)

terry72 said:


> The very idea of Father and Son imply an economical subordination. I believe to deny this sense of eternal economical subordinations undermines the doctrine of the trinity and would cause someone to come dangerously close to modalism.
> 
> Blessings in Christ,
> Terry W. West



I'm not sure I understand this, Terry. In what sense is an economical subordination eternal? What has the Trinity eternally been doing that required distinct and subordinate roles? Or am I not appreciating the drift of your statement?

P.S. I reprobate modalism as a particularly incoherent heresy.


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 28, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I don't think the problem is to be traced to the one covenant idea of the PRs. It more has to do with the idea that the family life of the three blessed persons is a covenant of friendship, which opens the door to ontological subordinationism.



I may have read this wrong so forgive me but are you arguing that Hoeksema advocates ontological subordinationism? From my reading of him that is what he seems to be expressly denying and arguing that we cannot take verses which are expressive of Christ as the servant of the Lord (call this economic if you will) as denoting the ontological relationship which characterised by co-equality thereby ruling out ontological subordinationism.


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 28, 2007)

bookslover said:


> It's a simple distinction, really. Ontologically, all three Persons of the Trinity are exactly equal in every way because all three Persons are God (make up the one divine Godhead). Economically, there is a "division of labor," so to speak, in which the Son is subordinated to the Father. The Father and the Son, in carrying out the divine plan, are both still completely equal _as God_, but the Son performs the Father's will (as Jesus Himself said). The Holy Spirit, in His turn, has been performing His part in the divine "division of labor" since Jesus' return to Heaven.



Does the Son carryout the will of the Father as the Son or as the Servant of the Lord? What I am trying to figure out is whether the _Pactum salutis_ is between the Father and Son as the second person or the trinity *or* between the Triune God and Christ as Mediator (servant).


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 28, 2007)

bookslover said:


> There is no ontological subordination. Subordination is purely economic.



Once we enter the realms of the economic trinity are the relations the same. In the economic sphere as it were are we considering the Son as Son or as something else?


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the problem is to be traced to the one covenant idea of the PRs. It more has to do with the idea that the family life of the three blessed persons is a covenant of friendship, which opens the door to ontological subordinationism.
> ...



The statement pertained to the PR doctrine of a covenant of friendship within the Trinitarian life, not to Hoeksema per se; and I only maintain that it "opens the door," not that they advocate it.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Once we enter the realms of the economic trinity are the relations the same. In the economic sphere as it were are we considering the Son as Son or as something else?



Also as Mediator of the covenant, as Redeemer of God's elect.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 28, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > It's a simple distinction, really. Ontologically, all three Persons of the Trinity are exactly equal in every way because all three Persons are God (make up the one divine Godhead). Economically, there is a "division of labor," so to speak, in which the Son is subordinated to the Father. The Father and the Son, in carrying out the divine plan, are both still completely equal _as God_, but the Son performs the Father's will (as Jesus Himself said). The Holy Spirit, in His turn, has been performing His part in the divine "division of labor" since Jesus' return to Heaven.
> ...



Sounds like you're over-thinking this. The difference between "Father and Son as the second person of the trinity" and "Triune God and Christ as Mediator (servant)" is merely one of perspective since the incarnate Jesus Christ is still (and always) the Second Person of the Trinity. 

Maybe it would be easier just to say that, in the Covenant of Redemption, the three Persons of the Godhead agreed upon the work to be done and which Person would perform which part.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 28, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > There is no ontological subordination. Subordination is purely economic.
> ...



Intertrinitarian relations remain the same, as the trinity never changes - God being incapable of change. The Son remains the Son - He loses none of His attributes as God, but takes on human flesh. In His incarnate state, the Son performs His task of redeeming His people, but His essential nature as God doesn't change.


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 29, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The statement pertained to the PR doctrine of a covenant of friendship within the Trinitarian life, not to Hoeksema per se; and I only maintain that it "opens the door," not that they advocate it.



Would you mind explaining how their view opens the door to ontological subordinationism?


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 29, 2007)

bookslover said:


> The difference between "Father and Son as the second person of the trinity" and "Triune God and Christ as Mediator (servant)" is merely one of perspective since the incarnate Jesus Christ is still (and always) the Second Person of the Trinity.



But as the servant of the Lord he is not equal to the Father. Now the Son voluntarily "took upon him the form of a servant" hence Gill writes he "was not obliged, or forced to be in the form of a servant; he appeared as one in human nature, and was really such; a servant to his Father, who chose, called, sent, upheld, and regarded him as a servant; and a very prudent, diligent, and faithful one he was unto him...he was often prophesied of as a servant, in Isa 42:1, in which several places he is called in the Targum, עבדי משיחא, "my servant the Messiah": put these two together, "the form of God", and "the form of a servant", and admire the amazing stoop!"

As Son he is equal to the Father yet as Mediator he is the servant and the will of God (or the Father) is his will hence "Not my will but thy will be done".

On Isaiah 4:2 John Gill comments (I have edited it down to the relevant sections) 

*In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious,....* by whom is meant...the Messiah,...and so the Targum, which paraphrases the words thus, "at that time shall the Messiah of the Lord be for joy and glory;''. *Christ is called "the branch", not as God, but as man, not as a son, but as a servant, as Mediator*; and it chiefly regards his descent from David, and when his family was very mean and low; and a branch being but a tender thing, it denotes Christ's state of humiliation on earth, when he grew up as a tender plant before the Lord, and was contemptible in the eyes of men: and he is called the branch "of the Lord", because of his raising up, and bringing forth; see Zec 3:8 and yet this branch became "beautiful", being laden with the fruits of divine grace, such as righteousness, reconciliation, peace, pardon, adoption, sanctification, and eternal life; as well as having all his people as branches growing on him, and receiving their life and fruitfulness from him: and "glorious", being the branch made strong to do the work of the Lord, by his obedience and death; and especially he became glorious when raised from the dead, when he ascended up to heaven, and was exalted there at the right hand of God; and when his Gospel was spread and his kingdom increased in the Gentile world, as it did, both before and after the destruction of Jerusalem, the time here referred to; and which will he in a more glorious condition in the last days; and now he is glorious in the eyes of all that believe in him, and is glorified by them; and when he comes a second time, he will appear in his own and his father's glory, and in the glory of the holy angels. 

*And the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely;*... the Messiah, as before...called "the fruit of the earth", to show that he is not a dry and withered, but a fruitful branch, and which should fill the earth with fruit; and because he sprung from the earth as man, and was the fruit of a woman, that was of the earth, earthly; and so this, as the former, *denotes the meanness of Christ in human nature*, while here on earth; and yet he became, as these words foretold be should, "excellent": he appeared to be excellent in his person as the Son of God, and to have a more excellent name and nature than the angels, and fairer than the sons of men; to be excellent as the cedars, and more excellent than the mountains of prey; to have obtained a more excellent ministry than Aaron and his sons; to be excellent in all his offices of Prophet, Priest, and King; and particularly in the fruits and blessings of grace, which grew upon him, and came from him..."and comely", in his person, as God and man, in the perfections of his divine nature, and in the fulness of his grace; and so are his people, as considered in him, who are made perfectly comely, through the comeliness he puts upon them: and so he is...​


bookslover said:


> Maybe it would be easier just to say that, in the Covenant of Redemption, the three Persons of the Godhead agreed upon the work to be done and which Person would perform which part.



It may be easier yet I am skeptical of the Scripturalness of a CofR. It does seem that those who argue for it are using the servant passages of Scripture to interpret the intra-trinitarian relations.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Aug 29, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> To what extent, if at all, is it correct to speak of the subordination of the Son to the Father?



I'm not sure that "subordination" is the best word to use because [1] it's not biblical and it's best to stick with biblical language where we can (there are of course times we need extra-biblical language like "trinity"); and [2] "subordination" carries with it too much freight in peoples' minds (i.e. there's ambiguity).

If we try to use biblical language, it's better to speak of the Son's "submission" to the Father.

Secondly, I'm not sure that the son's "economic" subordination is the best language to use, but rather "functional". "Economic" generally refers to the actions of God _ad extra_, whereas it seems to me there must be some functional submission of the Son to the Father _ad intra_.

If we agree that the son economically submits to the Father, this must reflect something about the relationship of the three divine persons _ad intra_. If it doesn't then we fall into modalism (i.e. we can't say anything about God _ad intra_).


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Aug 29, 2007)

weinhold said:


> "The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity." - Karl Rahner



No! This is basically pantheism, or least panentheism. It amounts to a denial of the creator / creature distinction.

Better (and in line with the Christian tradition): "The economic Trinity is a *reflection* of the immanent Trinity".


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 29, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> If we try to use biblical language, it's better to speak of the Son's "submission" to the Father.



The submission was due to what?


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 29, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> "The economic Trinity is a *reflection* of the immanent Trinity".



That I do have a problem with


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Aug 29, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > "The economic Trinity is a *reflection* of the immanent Trinity".
> ...



And that is?


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Aug 29, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > If we try to use biblical language, it's better to speak of the Son's "submission" to the Father.
> ...



Two basic reasons:

[1] That the *person* of the Son is the eternal generation of the *person* of the Father (John 5:26; 1 John 5:18).

[2] Because of what appears to be some eternal mutual agreement between the Father and the Son (and the Spirit?) that the divine persons will function this way. This is based on the idea that Christ doesn't submit to the Father by necessity but freely (John 10:18).


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 29, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> And that is?



The idea that the economic trinity reflects an inherent subordination of the Son to the Father when they are in reality co-equal.



JohnOwen007 said:


> [1] That the *person* of the Son is the eternal generation of the *person* of the Father (John 5:26; 1 John 5:18).



You apear to be here arguing for an ontological subordination between the Son and the Father i.e. the Son is inherently subordinate to the Father. This I am unable to accept. The Father and Son and Holy Ghost are equally God and co-equal. There is no ontological subordination (that I can see anywise).



JohnOwen007 said:


> [2] Because of what appears to be some eternal mutual agreement between the Father and the Son (and the Spirit?) that the divine persons will function this way. This is based on the idea that Christ doesn't submit to the Father by necessity but freely (John 10:18).



Are you not hereby confusing categories and so attributing what Christ says as the servant of Jehovah (in the Office of Mediator) to the Second Person of the co-equal Godhead? Hoeksema writes in his _Reformed Dogmatics _ on page 446 the following:

It is plain from John 10:18 that the relation described here is one of Lord and servant, of master and subject, of the one who sends and him who is sent. It is in the human nature that the Son of God dies and in the same nature that he rises. In the human nature he has this power, and in the human nature he is obedient to the commandment of the Father. This cannot refer to a covenant relation between the Father and the Son, for as the Son of God he has all power in himself and cannot receive a commandment from the Father.​
Your thoughts are appreciated


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 29, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> weinhold said:
> 
> 
> > "The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity." - Karl Rahner
> ...



Are we using IMMANENT in the sense of ONTOLOGICAL?


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 29, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Are we using IMMANENT in the sense of ONTOLOGICAL?



That is how I understood it.

I found the following interesting:



> It seems to be exactly Calvin's point of view to which Dr. Hodge gives expression when he writes: "A distinction must be made between the Nicene Creed (as amplified in that of Constantinople) and the doctrine of the Nicene Fathers. The creeds are nothing more than the well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son and Spirit; their mutual relation as expressed by these terms; their absolute unity as to substance or essence, and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and operation. These are Scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense that they have been accepted by the Church Universal. But the Nicene Fathers did undertake in a greater or less degree to explain these facts. These explanations relate principally to the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, and to what is meant by generation, or the relation between the Father and the Son. . . . As in reference to the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, as asserted in the ancient creeds, it is not to the fact that exception is taken, but to the explanation of that fact, as given by the Nicene Fathers, the same is true with regard to the doctrine of Eternal Generation."
> 
> The circumstance that Dr. Charles Hodge, writing three centuries afterwards (1559-1871), reproduces precisely Calvin's position may intimate to us something of the historical significance of Calvin's discussion of the Trinity. Clearly Calvin's position did not seem a matter of course, when he first enunciated it. It roused opposition and created a party. But it did create a party: and that party was shortly the Reformed Churches, of which it became characteristic that they held and taught the self-existence of Christ as God and defended therefore the application to Him of the term auvto,qeoj; that is to say, in the doctrine of the Trinity they laid the stress upon the equality of the Persons sharing in the same essence, and thus set themselves with more or less absoluteness against all subordinationism in the explanation of the relations of the Persons to one another. When Calvin asserted, with the emphasis which he threw upon it, the self-existence of Christ, he unavoidably did three things. First and foremost, he declared the full and perfect deity of our Lord, in terms which could not be mistaken and could not be explained away. The term auvto,qeoj served the same purpose in this regard that the term o`moou,sioj had served against the Arians and the term u`po,stasij against the Sabellians. No minimizing conception of the deity of Christ could live in the face of the assertion of aseity or auvtoqeo,thj of Him. This was Calvin's purpose in asserting aseity of Christ and it completely fulfilled itself in the event. In thus fulfilling itself, however, two further effects were unavoidably wrought by it. The inexpugnable opposition of subordinationists of all types was incurred: all who were for any reason or in any degree unable or unwilling to allow to Christ a deity in every respect equal to that of the Father were necessarily offended by the vindication to Him of the ultimate Divine quality of self-existence. And all those who, while prepared to allow true deity to Christ, yet were accustomed to think of the Trinitarian relations along the lines of the traditional Nicene orthodoxy, with its assertion of a certain subordination of the Son to the Father, at least in mode of subsistence, were thrown into more or less confusion of mind and compelled to resort to nice distinctions in order to reconcile the two apparently contradictory confessions of auvtoqeo,thj and of qeo.j evk qeou/ of our Lord.


 From Warfield's _Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity_


----------



## bookslover (Aug 30, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> But as the servant of the Lord he is not equal to the Father. Now the Son voluntarily "took upon him the form of a servant"...As Son he is equal to the Father yet as Mediator he is the servant and the will of God (or the Father) is his will hence "Not my will but thy will be done".



Remember, though, that language like "servant of the Lord" and "mediator" is _economic_ language, not _ontological_ language. He never ceased to be God even as He was performing the will of His Father on earth - which, of course, was also _His_ will.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 30, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Are we using IMMANENT in the sense of ONTOLOGICAL?



It's hard to see how, since "immanent," in trinitarian discussion, is used to speak of God acting in His world.

Also, since no context was given, it's hard to know what Rahner meant by the quoted words.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Aug 30, 2007)

Dear AV,

Thanks for your response. Let me try and clarify.



AV1611 said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > [1] That the *person* of the Son is the eternal generation of the *person* of the Father (John 5:26; 1 John 5:18).
> ...



No definitely not. Just to clear the ground: (i) We must keep a clear distinction between person and nature, and (ii) a clear distinction between nature and function.

Concerning (i): The persons of the Father, Son, and Spirit are equal because they each take up the entire divine nature (perichoresis). In other words, the value of the person resides in the (divine) *nature*; each of them is fully divine. Hence they must be equal. The Son, as eternally begotten of the Father (a la Nicene Creed) has been given the *entire *divine nature (John 5:26) and so is fully divine and hence equal to the Father. This is traditional Trinitarian theology.

However, concerning (ii): the 3 divine *persons* have different *functions*, not out of necessity but out of freedom. What one does (function) does *not *determine their value; it's nature that determines value. The basic (but flawed) assumption of our modern society is that function determines value (i.e. my boss is better than I). What we do does not determine our value.

Equality resides in the divine nature, not function of each person. One can submit to another person but that does not mean they are not equal. This undergirds the order within marriage (different function) whilst at the same time affirmed the co-equality of husband and wife.



AV1611 said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > [2] Because of what appears to be some eternal mutual agreement between the Father and the Son (and the Spirit?) that the divine persons will function this way. This is based on the idea that Christ doesn't submit to the Father by necessity but freely (John 10:18).
> ...



No this is not a confusion of categories at all. It is a basic principle (throughout Scripture) that what we do reflects who we are. Jesus taught this when he said spoke of a good tree bearing good fruit and bad tree bearing bad fruit.

What God does (the economic Trinity) is a reflection of what God is like (the immanent Trinity). Or what God does on the outside (_ad extra_) reflects what he is like on the inside (_ad intra_). If this is not the case then we can have no idea what God is like on the inside. This is a basic principle that undergirds Trinitarian theology since the 4th century.

Hence, Christ's (functional) submission (I don't like subordination) reflects something about the functioning of the divine persons _ad intra_. But the value (and hence equality) of each person is not based on function.

If the above is not the case then a wife can never be equal to a husband.

I'm simply upholding Catholic (not Roman!) Trinitarian theology.

A good place for a longer and more detailed explanation is not Hoeksema (not a renowned Trinitarian thinker) but someone like Bob Letham's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Trinity-Scripture-History-Theology/dp/0875520006/ref=sr_1_1/103-9711797-4497405?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188462739&sr=1-1"]_The Holy Trinity_[/ame].

God bless you AV.


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 30, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> A good place for a longer and more detailed explanation is not Hoeksema (not a renowned Trinitarian thinker) but someone like Bob Letham's _The Holy Trinity_.



I am told I am getting that to read from our curate


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 30, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Once we enter the realms of the economic trinity are the relations the same. In the economic sphere as it were are we considering the Son as Son or as something else?
> ...



Would you agree with these:

http://www.truecovenanter.com/supralapsarian/pgilles_aoc_cap03.html
http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/dickson_regeneration.html


----------



## MW (Aug 30, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > AV1611 said:
> ...



Certainly. Only I would be careful to point out that the covenant with the Son is not different from the covenant with the elect. The covenant of grace is made with Christ as the second Adam and in Him with all the elect as His seed.


----------



## weinhold (Aug 30, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Are we using IMMANENT in the sense of ONTOLOGICAL?
> ...



In this case, Rahner's usage of "immanent" is synonymous with "ontological"


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 31, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Certainly. Only I would be careful to point out that the covenant with the Son is not different from the covenant with the elect. The covenant of grace is made with Christ as the second Adam and in Him with all the elect as His seed.



Out of the two I found Gilespie to be the most convincing. He sees the CofR as being between Jehovah and the Son as Mediator. This subordination then is due to the office of the Son not his deity or similar, if that makes sense.

I take it you would deny an ontological subordinationism? If so how does the economic subordinationism teach us about the relationship between the Father and Son? What impact does the begetting of the Son have upon his relation with the Father?

I will PM you also (why will be obvious)


----------



## Mayflower (Aug 31, 2007)

Anyone familiar with : Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance by Bruce A. Ware ?

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Father-Son-Holy-Spirit-Relationships/dp/1581346689/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/104-7371819-1322320?ie=UTF8&qid=1188462739&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance: Books: Bruce A. Ware[/ame]


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 31, 2007)

Mayflower said:


> Anyone familiar with : Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance by Bruce A. Ware ?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Father-Son-Ho...7371819-1322320?ie=UTF8&qid=1188462739&sr=1-1



How did you find Engelsma's _Trinity and Covenant_?


----------



## MW (Aug 31, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> I take it you would deny an ontological subordinationism? If so how does the economic subordinationism teach us about the relationship between the Father and Son? What impact does the begetting of the Son have upon his relation with the Father?



My view of the hypostatical union keeps at the centre a very important principle -- that each nature does what is proper to itself. With regard to this question, subordination is proper to the human nature. It cannot in any sense be predicated of divinity. At the same time, there is a Trinitarian principle to be recognised -- ontological reality. It is a fact that the second person of the Trinity assumed human nature. This assumption must have been in keeping with the ontological relation of Father and Son. Hence the work of salvation reflects the ontological reality which is traditionally known as the eternal generation of the Son, without in any sense suggesting the idea of subordination, which would be improper to divinity.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> My view of the hypostatical union keeps at the centre a very important principle -- that each nature does what is proper to itself. With regard to this question, subordination is proper to the human nature. It cannot in any sense be predicated of divinity. At the same time, there is a Trinitarian principle to be recognised -- ontological reality. It is a fact that the second person of the Trinity assumed human nature. This assumption must have been in keeping with the ontological relation of Father and Son. Hence the work of salvation reflects the ontological reality which is traditionally known as the eternal generation of the Son, without in any sense suggesting the idea of subordination, which would be improper to divinity.



And therefore you would understand the term "Father" used by Christ in the Gospels to refer to the 1st Person?


----------

