# A Trinity and Complementarian Debate



## Timmay (Jun 9, 2016)

Looks like there's a bit of discussion going on between Trueman and Grudem over the Trinity and how it represents complementarianism between men and women.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/the-coming-war-nicene-complementarians-vs-homoian-complementarians/

And Grudem's response.

http://cbmw.org/public-square/whose-position-on-the-trinity-is-really-new/


----------



## MW (Jun 9, 2016)

First, there is no way to base male-female relationships on the Trinity because of the infinite distance between Creator and creature, and because there is no male-female distinction in God which can function as a point of resemblance. The only analogy provided by Scripture points to Christ as Mediator between God and man, 1 Cor. 11, Eph. 5; and all agree that kind of subordination is entirely voluntary on the Son's part and requires Him to assume a nature which is not essential to Him. Secondly, because of this irrelevance, the two groups are bound to talk past each other, importing their own ideas into the concept of "subordination," one group saying the other means "this," and the other saying they mean "that."


----------



## SRoper (Jun 11, 2016)

Here are the recent post I found on this:

Is it Okay to Teach a Complementarianism Based on Eternal Subordination? by Liam Goligher

Reinventing God by Goligher

Fahrenheit 381 by Carl Trueman

God the Son--at once eternally God with His Father, and eternally Son of the Father by Bruce Ware

A Surrejoinder to Bruce Ware by Trueman

Whose Position on the Trinity is Really New? by Wayne Grudem

A rejoinder to Wayne Grudem by Trueman

Why did the Son become incarnate? Because he submitted? by Mark Jones

There are also further posts by Trueman and Scott Clark that are mostly quotes from the Reformers.

I'm having trouble understanding this. It appears that the discussion is between eternal generation vs. eternal submission. I had only heard of eternal submission a few times before, and every time I substituted eternal generation in my mind. I thought that the one was entailed in the other. However, it appears that at least Dr. Ware denies eternal generation. Do all supporters of eternal submission deny eternal generation?

Rev. Winzer, why do you see both groups talking past each other? My understanding is that Goligher, Trueman, Jones, and Clark all agree with you that "there is no way to base male-female relationships on the Trinity" while Ware and Grudem disagree.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 11, 2016)

Jeff Waddington has a similar take to Jones. http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/some-thoughts-on-the-current-c.php


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 11, 2016)

I go to the ARP Synod for a week and half of conservative evangelicalism seems to have become Tritheists and/or denied the ontological Trinity.

Bizarre.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 11, 2016)

I don't see why "Complementarianism" can't be an echo of the orthodox doctrine of the ontological and economic Trinity. 

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 11, 2016)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I go to the ARP Synod for a week and half of conservative evangelicalism seems to have become Tritheists and/or denied the ontological Trinity.
> 
> Bizarre.



Can you explain that?

Ware and Grudem never deny the ontological co-equality of all the Persons of the Godhead, right?


----------



## MW (Jun 12, 2016)

SRoper said:


> Rev. Winzer, why do you see both groups talking past each other?



Take, for example, Dr. Trueman's rejoinders. He refers to the importance of the doctrine of eternal generation. It is a fair point in itself because that doctrine imposes conceptual control over the idea of subordination. If Drs. Ware and Grudem speak of subordination apart from eternal generation they are bound to be taken as speaking without the conceptual control which that doctrine imposes; and yet Drs. Ware and Grudem appear to me to limit subordination in much the same way as one would limit it by the doctrine of eternal generation. Their error would then lie solely in the attempt to ground the male-female relationship in the relationship between the persons of the Trinity.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 13, 2016)

Please excuse my ignorance and confusion, I don't understand the exact problem.

I thought the eternal subordination of the son referred to the fact that he put on human flesh forever, and lives now as the (glorified and resurrected) human flesh god-man, and will forever, in time and space, and is coming back in the flesh one day, and we will all live with him in our resurrection bodies. But he is still fully God, fully deity, fully one mind and will with the father and the Holy Spirit. But it was a humiliation/subordination to leave only non created spirit that existed before creation, and become created material, right? 

So am I not understanding what the eternal subordination of the son means? Does it mean some loss of will and mind in the way it is being presented by new Calvinists? Or is the big problem here just the fact that (as Trueman says) _when it comes to submission in scripture, the explicit New Testament model for such in marriage is the relationship of the incarnate, crucified Christ and the church, not that of the Father and Son in eternity._

Is there a different theological term for the second person of the trinity becoming human flash forever, a term other than incarnation? Is it OK to use the words eternal subordination to mean this, or not OK? 

Thanks for any help.


----------



## Toasty (Jun 13, 2016)

lynnie said:


> Please excuse my ignorance and confusion, I don't understand the exact problem.
> 
> I thought the eternal subordination of the son referred to the fact that he put on human flesh forever, and lives now as the (glorified and resurrected) human flesh god-man, and will forever, in time and space, and is coming back in the flesh one day, and we will all live with him in our resurrection bodies. But he is still fully God, fully deity, fully one mind and will with the father and the Holy Spirit. But it was a humiliation/subordination to leave only non created spirit that existed before creation, and become created material, right?
> 
> ...



The phrase "eternal subordination of the Son" means that Jesus has been submitting Himself to the Father throughout all of eternity. It doesn't mean loss of mind or will. Grudem and Ware argue that the Son can submit Himself to the Father for all of eternity without giving up His full deity.


----------



## tangleword (Jun 13, 2016)

Barnes and Ayres have weighed in as well, see link to mos page which has links to them in it: 
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/1517/barnes-and-ayres-weigh-in#.V17t_tIrKUk


----------



## tangleword (Jun 13, 2016)

Ayres, on an aside, speaks very critically of Grudem, specifically about Eternal generation : "Though I will say, in case anyone asks, that what Wayne Grudem says about eternal generation is just plain daft. I gave a paper – I’ve never published it – at ETS some years ago just exploring how Origen talks about eternal generation, largely in order to show that, surprise, surprise, the term “monogenes” plays very little role in the argument. Wayne was there and we had the opportunity to speak about this at Southern Seminary 3-4 years ago at their Trinity conference. He was very friendly and polite, but I don’t think he even listened."


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2016)

lynnie said:


> I thought the eternal subordination of the son referred to the fact that he put on human flesh forever, and lives now as the (glorified and resurrected) human flesh god-man, and will forever, in time and space, and is coming back in the flesh one day, and we will all live with him in our resurrection bodies.



It is complicated because economical subordination tends to be set in opposition to ontological subordination as if the latter were related to the error of subordinationism. But as Bishop Bull's defence of the Nicene Creed has demonstrated, there is a subordination of order implied in the eternal generation of the Son. Some reformed and evangelical theologians prefer not to call it subordination, and usually stop at calling it an order or some such term. But whatever term they employ they are basically affirming that there is a sub-ordination within the Trinity which is limited to the personal properties and does not impinge on the sameness of substance or equality of glory.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 13, 2016)

Denny Burk and Mike Ovey come down on Ware's side.

A brief response to Trueman and Goligher

Should I resign?


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2016)

SRoper said:


> Denny Burk and Mike Ovey come down on Ware's side.
> 
> A brief response to Trueman and Goligher
> 
> Should I resign?



They are on a pendulum swinging back the other way. I think they were correct to point out that subordination is a part of the Christian discussion through the centuries, but then they try to defend the legitimacy of finding analogies of human subordination in the Uncreated Trinity; and they do so by appeal to texts of Scripture which speak of Christ as one who had voluntarily assumed a created nature.


----------



## tangleword (Jun 14, 2016)

Mark Jones has started a series on it that is really good:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/gods-will-and-eternal-submission-part-one#.V162H2rO5TY.twitter
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/eternal-subordination-of-wills-nein
D Glen Butner also spoke on it in refernce to the 7 councils: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/eternal-submission-and-the-sto.php


----------



## tangleword (Jun 14, 2016)

Here is an attempt to clarify it for lay people: http://reformedarsenal.com/2016/06/13/the-erasefs-controversy/


----------



## Toasty (Jun 14, 2016)

Grudem and Ware debate Yandell and McCall concerning this issue. Here is the link to the debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySFrG3mOp5o


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 14, 2016)

This from the debate is quite enlightening In my humble opinion:



> Yandell backed McCall's argument with a series of philosophical proofs. He contended that Ware and Grudem held doctrine that cannot be argued exegetically from any biblical text. He worked toward a climax that argued Ware and Grudem's view of subordination actually undermines the Trinity with a form of Arian heresy, though he did not employ that loaded term. The Arians, defeated by Athanasius at Nicaea in the fourth century, believed that Jesus was created a little lower than the Father. In Ware and Grudem's view, Yandell said, "The Son has as an essential property being subordinate to the Father and of course the Father lacks that property. So the Father has an essential property — a property that is part of the Father's nature — that the Son does not have as part of the Son's nature, and the Son has an essential property — a property that is part of the Son's nature — that the Father does not have as part of the Father's nature. This entails that the Father and the Son do not share the same nature after all."



http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/.../141-53.0.html

It also indicates that this dispute hasn't just "blown up", since this debate occurred in 2008. Apparently Wayne Grudem taught eternal subordination in his _Systematic Theology_, which was published in 1994, but I don't have it to hand to check that,


----------



## bookslover (Jun 14, 2016)

Here's Grudem, from the original 1994 edition:

_In affirming that the Son was of the same nature as the Father, the early church also excluded a related false doctrine, subordinationism. While Arianism held that the Son was created and was not divine, subordinationism held that the Son was eternal (not created) and divine, but still not equal to the Father in being or attributes - the Son was inferior or "subordinate" in being to God the Father. The early church father, Origen (c. 185-c. 254), advocated a form of subordinationism by holding that the Son was inferior to the Father in being, and that the Son eternally derives His being from the Father. Origen was attempting to protect the distinction of persons and was writing before the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly formulated in the church. The rest of the church did not follow him but clearly rejected his teaching at the Council of Nicea._ (p. 245)

And here's a footnote (#27) on the same page: _The heresy of subordinationism, which holds that the Son is inferior in being to the Father, should be clearly distinguished from the orthodox doctrine that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in role or function: without this truth, we would lose the doctrine of the Trinity, for we would not have any eternal personal distinctions between the Father and the Son, and they would not eternally be Father and Son._

As far as I can tell, that's all he has to say on the subject, at least in the first edition.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 14, 2016)

I _thought_ something was going on. Two days ago, my Twitter feed started showing tweets from both Dr. R. Scott Clark (Westminster Seminary West) and Phil Johnson (John MacArthur's right hand man) being upset by something someone had said somewhere about the doctrine of the Trinity. Thanks to this thread for clearing up the mystery.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 16, 2016)

bookslover said:


> Here's Grudem, from the original 1994 edition:
> 
> _In affirming that the Son was of the same nature as the Father, the early church also excluded a related false doctrine, subordinationism. While Arianism held that the Son was created and was not divine, subordinationism held that the Son was eternal (not created) and divine, but still not equal to the Father in being or attributes - the Son was inferior or "subordinate" in being to God the Father. The early church father, Origen (c. 185-c. 254), advocated a form of subordinationism by holding that the Son was inferior to the Father in being, and that the Son eternally derives His being from the Father. Origen was attempting to protect the distinction of persons and was writing before the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly formulated in the church. The rest of the church did not follow him but clearly rejected his teaching at the Council of Nicea._ (p. 245)
> 
> ...


Grudem fails to mention that Father, Son and Spirit would still be distinguished by the fact that the Father eternally generates the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## MW (Jun 16, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> Grudem fails to mention that Father, Son and Spirit would still be distinguished by the fact that the Father eternally generates the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.



Yes, he speaks of "role" and "function," and he refers to the Son's incarnate subordination to explain it. If he stopped at the personal properties he would also restrict the subordination to the order of the persons; but by going beyond this he sounds like he is introducing subordinationist ideas, even though he makes qualifications to annul these ideas.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jun 16, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Here's Grudem, from the original 1994 edition:
> ...



Exactly. The distinction between the persons lies in their personal properties: the Father begetting; the Son being begotten; the Spirit proceeding. We don't need to go any further- by imputing to the Trinity human relations which necessarily involve hierarchy- in order to distinguish between the persons. Grudem et. al. are trying to prove too much.

Frankly they should just cease immediately before they do any more damage. They do not know of what they speak.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 17, 2016)

Here is a very helpful post by Paul Helm, including three long quotations from Benjamin Warfield.

www.paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com. The top post, "Warfield on the Trinity."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 17, 2016)

Another great artile by Mark Jones: http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/subordination-in-the-pactum-and-the-irony-of-ess

One of the things that's great about the Puritanboard is that you sort of get all the great systematic and historical treatments eeked out in small chunks that make them consumable. Doesn't make me a Doctor of Theology but I can at least have a working knowledge to be able to have a discerning ear.


----------



## Toasty (Jun 17, 2016)

When Jesus submitted to the Father's will on earth, does that refer to His human nature only? Is Jesus' submission a human attribute only?


----------



## MW (Jun 17, 2016)

Toasty said:


> When Jesus submitted to the Father's will on earth, does that refer to His human nature only? Is Jesus' submission a human attribute only?



The specific kind of submission was appropriate only because of the human nature which He assumed. He submitted to the Father as one superior to Him in NATURE, and as one obliged to Him by LAW. But this was owing to His voluntary submission. The question that has to be asked is this -- Was it appropriate for the Son to voluntarily assume a human nature and a place of inferiority to the Father with respect to His human nature? Is there something in the intra-Trinitarian relations which renders it appropriate? And the answer, obviously, is, Yes. It is "the Son" as "the Son" who voluntarily assumed human nature. It was neither the Father nor the Spirit who did so.

There is an error, though, when ideas of human subordination are read back into the intra-Trinitarian relations, and this is done when texts relating to Christ's mediatorial work are applied to His eternal Sonship. That is what the debate should focus on. It is one thing to affirm an order in the Trinity; it is quite another thing to conceive of that order in terms of the Son's mediatorial submission to the Father.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 19, 2016)

Now even the Babylon Bee has joined in the "fun," this time bringing in the name of Osteen.

http://babylonbee.com/news/joel-osteen-googles-trinity/


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 19, 2016)

DMcFadden said:


> Now even the Babylon Bee has joined in the "fun," this time bringing in the name of Osteen.
> 
> http://babylonbee.com/news/joel-osteen-googles-trinity/



Oh wow.... The Babylon Bee guy keeps hitting it out of the ballpark.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2016)

The ultimate clinchers against the modern subordinationist views is this:

Are the relations between the members _homoousion_? If they are, then it's hard to see exactly what eternal functional subordinationism brings to the debate. If the relations between the members aren't homoousion, then game over.


----------



## ClayPot (Jul 6, 2016)

This has been an interesting thread to read. To me, it seems that there are three things in play:

1. The eternal generation of the Son (which none of the actors in the arguments above are denying).
2. The eternal Sonship of the Son (it seems funny to write it that way). But that the relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity is one of Father and Son. I don't think anybody is denying this, though some well known Christian figures have denied this (e.g., Walter Martin and at one point, John MacArthur, from what I understand).
3. The eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Here is where people seem to diverge, but I think it may hinge on what their understanding of point 2 is.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2016)

jpfrench81 said:


> This has been an interesting thread to read. To me, it seems that there are three things in play:
> 
> 1. The eternal generation of the Son (which none of the actors in the arguments above are denying).
> 2. The eternal Sonship of the Son (it seems funny to write it that way). But that the relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity is one of Father and Son. I don't think anybody is denying this, though some well known Christian figures have denied this (e.g., Walter Martin and at one point, John MacArthur, from what I understand).
> 3. The eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Here is where people seem to diverge, but I think it may hinge on what their understanding of point 2 is.



Per (3) there is no problem in positing a _taxis_ or order in the Trinity. That's Gregory of Nazianzus 101. The problem is that language of eternal submission seems to confuse the categories of God in se and the Economia of God.


----------



## Natertot (Jul 17, 2016)

So reading this thread and some other sources, I am still confused about the difference between Ware and Grudem's EFS doctrine and the roles of the economic trinity. What is the difference between the two; they seem to be saying the same to me? What is the core problem of their position? I am not really that well versed in philosophy or any language but English.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2016)

Natertot said:


> So reading this thread and some other sources, I am still confused about the difference between Ware and Grudem's EFS doctrine and the roles of the economic trinity. What is the difference between the two; they seem to be saying the same to me? What is the core problem of their position? I am not really that well versed in philosophy or any language but English.



They say that the _taxis_ in the Trinity (which is correct and normative in Christian history) logically entails a hierarchy of gradations of submission in the Trinity, and it does no such thing.


----------



## Natertot (Jul 18, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> Natertot said:
> 
> 
> > So reading this thread and some other sources, I am still confused about the difference between Ware and Grudem's EFS doctrine and the roles of the economic trinity. What is the difference between the two; they seem to be saying the same to me? What is the core problem of their position? I am not really that well versed in philosophy or any language but English.
> ...



By _'taxis'_ you mean the order, correct? And could you define "hierarchy of gradations?" I guess my confusion is I do not understand the difference between "Taxis"(which is ) and the "hierarchy of gradations"down


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 18, 2016)

Natertot said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Natertot said:
> ...



Taxis just means order. At the most basic from our perspective (epistemologically) it is the order of knowing: We know the Father in the Son through the Spirit. Read Basil the Great's _On the Holy Spirit_ and Gregory of Nazianzus's Fifth Theological Oration. These also point to the inner relations of the Trinity.

Ware/Grudem agree with the idea of order, but they think that order means grades of hierarchy and obedience in the Trinity. 

Father
{Diminution of authority}
Son
{Diminution of authority}
Spirit
{Diminution of authority}
created reality

This is Plotinus 101. To be fair, they don't see this as a gradation of being but there is no reason why not.


----------



## Natertot (Jul 18, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> Natertot said:
> 
> 
> > ReformedReidian said:
> ...



So Ware and Grudem say authority is part of the distinction of personhood, and so claim it's ok to make distinction based on that. Whereas the traditional understanding would place authority in the category of being. Therefore the gradation of submission is in error. 

Is this a correct understanding?


----------



## Toasty (Jul 18, 2016)

Natertot said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Natertot said:
> ...



Yes, that is the correct way to understand the debate.

Ware and Grudem are saying that Jesus was in submission to the Father for all of eternity and that He is equal in essence to the Father. Some people think that if Jesus was in submission to the Father for all of eternity, then He cannot be equal in essence to the Father.


----------



## tangleword (Jul 18, 2016)

The view of submission withing the trinity also necessitates by logic a separation of wills in the immanent trinity, which becomes tritheism. Trueman has a good post on it : http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/post...-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism#.V40dP9IrKUm
where he even quotes an article in a book edited by Ware that says "One often overlooked feature of such a proposal [on eternal submission of Son to Father as articulated by Grudem and Ware] is that this understanding of the eternal relationship between Father and Son seems to entail a commitment to three distinct wills in the immanent Trinity. In order for the Son to submit willingly to the will of the Father, the two must possess distinct wills. This way of understanding the immanent Trinity does run counter to the pro-Nicene tradition, as well as the medieval, Reformation, and post-Reformation Reformed traditions that grew from it. According to traditional Trinitarian theology, the will is predicated of the one undivided essence so that there is only one divine will in the immanent Trinity."


----------



## Natertot (Jul 18, 2016)

tangleword said:


> The view of submission withing the trinity also necessitates by logic a separation of wills in the immanent trinity, which becomes tritheism. Trueman has a good post on it : http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/post...-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism#.V40dP9IrKUm
> where he even quotes an article in a book edited by Ware that says "One often overlooked feature of such a proposal [on eternal submission of Son to Father as articulated by Grudem and Ware] is that this understanding of the eternal relationship between Father and Son seems to entail a commitment to three distinct wills in the immanent Trinity. In order for the Son to submit willingly to the will of the Father, the two must possess distinct wills. This way of understanding the immanent Trinity does run counter to the pro-Nicene tradition, as well as the medieval, Reformation, and post-Reformation Reformed traditions that grew from it. According to traditional Trinitarian theology, the will is predicated of the one undivided essence so that there is only one divine will in the immanent Trinity."



This makes sense. So, what actually differentiates the _persons_ in the immanent trinity? is it just the roles as the economic trinity that do that?


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 18, 2016)

Isn't one of the problems of this, as it's applied or extrapolated from roles in marriage or the church, that the authority men are called to represent or imitate is that of the Father? Whereas the authority men are representing in church and family is that of Christ -- & of Christ in his estate of humiliation: setting aside his glory, kneeling, laying down his life, serving his bride?


----------



## Natertot (Jul 18, 2016)

a mere housewife said:


> Isn't one of the problems of this, as it's applied or extrapolated from roles in marriage or the church, that the authority men are called to represent or imitate is that of the Father? Whereas the authority men are representing in church and family is that of Christ -- & of Christ in his estate of humiliation: setting aside his glory, kneeling, laying down his life, serving his bride?



That is one of the critiques I have heard, that the analogy used in scripture for marriage is the Christ-church relationship, not the Father-Son relationship.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 18, 2016)

Natertot said:


> tangleword said:
> 
> 
> > The view of submission withing the trinity also necessitates by logic a separation of wills in the immanent trinity, which becomes tritheism. Trueman has a good post on it : http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/post...-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism#.V40dP9IrKUm
> ...



Modes of origination is what differentiates the persons.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 18, 2016)

Natertot said:


> That is one of the critiques I have heard, that the analogy used in scripture for marriage is the Christ-church relationship, not the Father-Son relationship.



It has to make a big practical difference I think -- a 'theology of glory' view of authority vs. a 'theology of the cross' view of authority. It's odd that the there seems to be a reversal of the Scriptural analogy of whose role is about imitating Christ in the form of a servant (if I've understood right).


----------



## Natertot (Jul 18, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> Natertot said:
> 
> 
> > tangleword said:
> ...



So the eternal generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit. correct? I'm going to go look into this after work but these simplified answers are really helping.


----------



## Toasty (Jul 18, 2016)

tangleword said:


> The view of submission withing the trinity also necessitates by logic a separation of wills in the immanent trinity, which becomes tritheism. Trueman has a good post on it : http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/post...-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism#.V40dP9IrKUm
> where he even quotes an article in a book edited by Ware that says "One often overlooked feature of such a proposal [on eternal submission of Son to Father as articulated by Grudem and Ware] is that this understanding of the eternal relationship between Father and Son seems to entail a commitment to three distinct wills in the immanent Trinity. In order for the Son to submit willingly to the will of the Father, the two must possess distinct wills. This way of understanding the immanent Trinity does run counter to the pro-Nicene tradition, as well as the medieval, Reformation, and post-Reformation Reformed traditions that grew from it. According to traditional Trinitarian theology, the will is predicated of the one undivided essence so that there is only one divine will in the immanent Trinity."



Why would an eternal submission imply more than one will in the Trinity, but not a temporal submission?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 18, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> Natertot said:
> 
> 
> > tangleword said:
> ...



Right.

This, after some recent reading, seems to separate many modern Christians from the early Church (and theology that came after it). There was a real understanding of the vast gulf between Creator and creature and they were content with saying: "This is about all we can say about the intra-Trinitarian distinctions between the Persons."

I found it fascinating that the main reason the theologians of Nicea and those who followed (especially Athanasius) even knew they were on dangerous ground to say too much about the Trinity. God was to be adored - Father, Son, and Spirit. God was not an object of speculation or inquiry beyond Revelation.

They took up language primarily to put down heresy. They employed metaphysical language in ways different than used before in many cases to make sure that people they knew had heretical ideas could not affirm something that was true of the Godhead and the Persons.

The Father neither generates nor proceeds. The Son is eternally generate of the Father. The Spirit from the Father through the Son (sometimes called the bond of love in the Trinity).

There is not much more that can be said.

One thing that these Church men were committed to was the full divinity of the Persons. They put down, repeatedly, any notions that any of the Persons were subordinate or submissive or somehow less than possessing the full divinity.

It was even said that the Father is only the Father insofar as He generates the Son so there is no sense in Nicean-Constantinopolitan Theology that the Son is somehow eternally in a place of submission to the Father.

It's interesting to note that the Councils did not write that "it seems good to us" about the Trinity but they firmly believed this was the Apostolic faith they had _received_ and that the salvation of men depended upon it. It was the Gospel. They clearly understood and articulated the role of Christ as Mediator - as God-Man Whose humanity made it possible for humanity to have communion and analogical understanding of the Godhead. I was struck by how many myths I had about later developments and competing atonement theories are blown out of the water when you read how well these early theologians thought through these things.

In a real sense, I see, again, a breakdown in respect for the Creator-creature distinction. I'm always amazed how often that seems to come up in modern theology - even by those who call themselves Evangelical or Reformed. Theology is supposed to proceed from a place of reverence and awe about the unapproachable Light of the Divine Trinity. It places its hand over its mouth and says: "I am a creature in need of the God-man to mediate my relationship and understanding to my Creator." Instead, I see increasingly men who think they can think their way into God's inner being and make all sorts of theological pronouncements.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 18, 2016)

Toasty said:


> tangleword said:
> 
> 
> > The view of submission withing the trinity also necessitates by logic a separation of wills in the immanent trinity, which becomes tritheism. Trueman has a good post on it : http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/post...-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism#.V40dP9IrKUm
> ...



Because it has the other Person(s?) actively willing to be submissive to the other one(s?). And if there are three different "active willings" going on, then it's hard to maintain the claim that there is only one will and energy of operation in the Trinity.


----------



## MW (Jul 18, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> And if there are three different "active willings" going on, then it's hard to maintain the claim that there is only one will and energy of operation in the Trinity.



The Son loves the Father ontologically and eternally. It is impossible to give full scope to the idea of love and remove the concept of a will of complacency from that love. I think we have to allow for some overlap in the use of language, but be sure we are clear as to what is predicated of the essence and what is predicated of the persons. There is one will, but there are three persons who are conscious actors of that one will. So the term "active willings" might be a genuine expression of personhood, although it would have to be clarified that this terminates with the person and is not to be applied to the essence.


----------

