# Surprised that some famous Theologians Agreed with Dr Grudem on the ESS



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2018)

Surprised that some famous Theologians Agreed with Dr Grudem on the ESS.

I was surprised that some prominent theologians of the past and present actually seemed to be in agreement with Dr Grudem, regarding the ESS view on Jesus and the Father.
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php

{broken link updated}


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 26, 2018)

It appears to be a bad link. Try this one:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Surprised that some famous Theologians Agreed with Dr Grudem on the ESS.
> 
> I was surprised that some prominent theologians of the past and present actually seemed to be in agreement with Dr Grudem, regarding the ESS view on Jesus and the Father.
> http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.ph


David,
The link you provided is dead. It looks like you left a _p_ off the end of it. Here is the full URL: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php

Most of the theologians referred to _do not_ hold to any kind of essential subordination of the Son to the Father. That's clear in the quotes provided, even. It seems to me that there is a lot of equivocation going on here.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Surprised that some famous Theologians Agreed with Dr Grudem on the ESS.
> 
> I was surprised that some prominent theologians of the past and present actually seemed to be in agreement with Dr Grudem, regarding the ESS view on Jesus and the Father.
> http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.ph


David,

I corrected the broken link in your OP.

As noted previously, please see this post, and the overall thread in question which discusses Grudem, et al:

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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 26, 2018)

Most, especially the Reformed do not. Even some of the quotes, had Grudem actually read a tad further, would have seen it undermined his position. It was intellectually sloppy and lazy on Grudem's part.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 26, 2018)

They don't agree with him. The church has usually posited a taxis of the Trinity without hardening that order into quasi-ontological distinctions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 26, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> Even some of the quotes, had Grudem actually read a tad further, would have seen it undermined his position. It was intellectually sloppy and lazy on Grudem's part.



That's a bold claim. Would you care to substantiate it by citing the relevant sections of those Reformed Theologians that back it up? Failing to do so would be both lazy _and unkind_.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 26, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> That's a bold claim. Would you care to substantiate it by citing the relevant sections of those Reformed Theologians that back it up? Failing to do so would be both lazy _and unkind_.



It's been document numerous times by everyone from Baptists like Erickson to Catholics like Michel Barnes. Grudem sees the "order" or _taxis _of the persons of the Trinity and reads in semi-ontological distinctions between them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 26, 2018)

https://cocceius.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/erickson-contra-grudem/


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> David,
> The link you provided is dead. It looks like you left a _p_ off the end of it. Here is the full URL: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php
> 
> Most of the theologians referred to _do not_ hold to any kind of essential subordination of the Son to the Father. That's clear in the quotes provided, even. It seems to me that there is a lot of equivocation going on here.


Is it wrong to hold to Jesus being in a subordination state to the Father while Incarnated here upon the earth, but no longer in that condition once ascended again?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's been document numerous times by everyone from Baptists like Erickson to Catholics like Michel Barnes. Grudem sees the "order" or _taxis _of the persons of the Trinity and reads in semi-ontological distinctions between them.



That would be a dodge.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> That's a bold claim. Would you care to substantiate it by citing the relevant sections of those Reformed Theologians that back it up? Failing to do so would be both lazy _and unkind_.


Some of those quotes attriubted to them seemed to be leaning towards supporting ESS in some fashion.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 26, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> That would be a dodge.


https://cocceius.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/erickson-contra-grudem/


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> Most, especially the Reformed do not. Even some of the quotes, had Grudem actually read a tad further, would have seen it undermined his position. It was intellectually sloppy and lazy on Grudem's part.


The position taken by the Zovdervan NIV study bible edited by DA Carson seem also to take Dr Grudem take on this issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The position taken by the Zovdervan NIV study bible edited by DA Carson seem also to take Dr Grudem take on this issue.



Could you explain why you say so?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 26, 2018)

From what I have read of Hilary of Poitiers and the discussion of the issue in Philip Schaff, it does appear that what is often called EFS has a respectable pedigree. I say that as one who has no sympathy for the position. It is also debatable if EFS fully conforms to Dr Grudem's view, but I am not sure.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 26, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> That's a bold claim. Would you care to substantiate it by citing the relevant sections of those Reformed Theologians that back it up? Failing to do so would be both lazy _and unkind_.


The Edwards quote practically speaks for itself. Right after the bolded section is the whole thing for which Grudem, et al are arguing and Edwards denies.
When I have more time over the weekend I will get back you. Others, like Mark Jones have shown Grudem to be in err.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2018)

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/post...other-guest-post-from-mark-jones#.W1sF4NJKiUk

Jones' post ends the debate. I'll follow up with a mopping up exercise:

1. Take away the need to justify Complementarianism and Ware/Grudem's proposal evaporates.
2. Grudem knows its hard to justify his position without jettisoning the claim that there is one will in the Trinity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Is it wrong to hold to Jesus being in a subordination state to the Father while Incarnated here upon the earth, but no longer in that condition once ascended again?


It would be wrong to claim that there is any principle of subordination intrinsic to the Trinity. The Son submits to the Father in the covenant of grace before his incarnation, in his earthly ministry, and forward to eternity. As long as he is the last Adam, he is in submission; but this submission is not a property of Divine Sonship.

Reactions: Edifying 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2018)

Here is a thought--the Spirit "drives" the Son out into the desert, so that would make the Son in submission to the Spirit. Yet the Spirit proceeds from the Son. So the Son is in submission to him from whom he proceeds? But wait, it gets better.

In John 15 Jesus says he will send the Spirit. How can he do that, if given the functional models, he is already in submission to the Spirit via the desert temptations.

This is why we don't use the Trinity to make models for complementarian politics and then read those complementarian models back into the essence of God.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> It would be wrong to claim that there is any principle of subordination intrinsic to the Trinity. The Son submits to the Father in the covenant of grace before his incarnation, in his earthly ministry, and forward to eternity. As long as he is the last Adam, he is in submission; but this submission is not a property of Divine Sonship.



That post perfectly sums up my own position. The Son's submission to the Father is in his role as the mediator of the covenant of grace. All other talk of submission or subordination is, at best, confusing.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is why we don't use the Trinity to make models for complementarian politics and then read those complementarian models back into the essence of God.



Why would one need to "read back into" God what one believes is already found in God?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Why would one need to "read back into" God what one believes is already found in God?



I think I can make that argument because:
1) It conveniently matches his argument for complementarianism.
2) It compromises what the church has always said about one will in God.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 27, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> From what I have read of Hilary of Poitiers and the discussion of the issue in Philip Schaff, it does appear that what is often called EFS has a respectable pedigree. I say that as one who has no sympathy for the position. It is also debatable if EFS fully conforms to Dr Grudem's view, but I am not sure.



Unfortunately, a partisan spirit dominates the discussion of this topic making any thoughtful engagement with points like the one you are making impossible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Unfortunately, a partisan spirit dominates the discussion of this topic making any thoughtful engagement with points like the one you are making impossible.


Chris,

I disagree, I think PB (specifically this thread) is an environment where we all desire fruitful and thought provoking discussion (at least at heart).

What thoughtful engagements would you like to make other than criticizing others attempts to speak to the OP?

Where do you stand regarding Grudem's article? Answering this question might better serve the OP and the general audience watching this thread (myself included).

I have gleaned a lot from the teachings of Grudem (especially his Systematic Theology Book). He is a writer that has a gift for explaining difficult doctrinal positions in an easy to understand manner (in my opinion). So even though i disagree with him on several things, he is a gifted teacher and a valued brother in Christ.
His position of ESS, in my opinion, threatens an Orthodox view of the Trinity (simply put).

It would also appear, from the opinion of others, that Grudem misrepresents some of our reformed forefathers on the matter.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think I can make that argument because:
> 1) It conveniently matches his argument for complementarianism.
> 2) It compromises what the church has always said about one will in God.



Well, you would need to flesh that out a bit for idiots like myself. But your comments appear to assume two things. First, they assume Complemntarianism is somehow dependent on ESS. It is not. The Danvers Statement makes no mention of it at all. And second, you seem to think that Grudem has adopted his position for no other reason than to shore-up Complentarianism. That is simply an unkind aspersion. And its one that makes no sense given the fact that the doctrine of ESS is of no consequence to Complematarian teaching. 

For whatever reason, a concerted effort has been made by those opposing ESS to make it the _sine qua non_ of Complentarianism. In so doing, they have effectively labeled Complemarianism as heresy and those espousing it as heretics. It is a troubling development.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Well, you would need to flesh that out a bit for idiots like myself. But your comments appear to assume two things. First, they assume Complemntarianism is somehow dependent on ESS. It is not. The Danvers Statement makes no mention of it at all. And second, you seem to think that Grudem has adopted his position for no other reason than to shore-up Complentarianism. That is simply an unkind aspersion. And its one that makes no sense given the fact that the doctrine of ESS is of no consequence to Complematarian teaching.
> 
> For whatever reason, a concerted effort has been made by those opposing ESS to make it the _sine qua non_ of Complentarianism. In so doing, they have effectively labeled Complemarianism as heresy and those espousing it as heretics. It is a troubling development.


I will have to dig deeper but, I am fairly certain, germain to the first point, both Ware and Grudem have said it is the reason they are defending ESS.


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 27, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> From what I have read of Hilary of Poitiers and the discussion of the issue in Philip Schaff, it does appear that what is often called EFS has a respectable pedigree. I say that as one who has no sympathy for the position. It is also debatable if EFS fully conforms to Dr Grudem's view, but I am not sure.


Daniel,
What does EFS stand for?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Could you explain why you say so?


https://adaughterofthereformation.w...rvan-study-bible-a-comparison-of-study-notes/


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Daniel,
> What does EFS stand for?


I found this:

"Eternal functional subordination (EFS)"

Maybe EFS started being used by the group that hold ESS in an effort to better explain/reflect their position? I am not sure.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> That post perfectly sums up my own position. The Son's submission to the Father is in his role as the mediator of the covenant of grace. All other talk of submission or subordination is, at best, confusing.


Wouldn't that make the submission of Jesus only for when He was here in human body, and was done when He ascended back to heaven?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 27, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> I disagree, I think PB (specifically this thread) is an environment where we all desire fruitful and thought provoking discussion (at least at heart).



Perhaps I should have been clearer. I was speaking in the broadest sense about the heat generated by this discussion, not exclusively here in this thread or on PB. In that sense, it is very much the case that a partisan spirit hinders the discussion. And how can it not be the case when the first salvo in a debate is to charge the other side with heresy? You are welcome to disagree, but that's what I've observed.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> Chris,
> 
> I disagree, I think PB (specifically this thread) is an environment where we all desire fruitful and thought provoking discussion (at least at heart).
> 
> ...


Would you see Dr Grudem in same light as say Dr Macarthur, as gifted bible teachers who have some weak areas in their theology? Dr Grudem in the areas of ESS and Charasamatic gifts, and Dr Macarthur on his Israel/Church viewpoint?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Well, you would need to flesh that out a bit for idiots like myself. But your comments appear to assume two things. First, they assume Complemntarianism is somehow dependent on ESS. It is not. The Danvers Statement makes no mention of it at all. And second, you seem to think that Grudem has adopted his position for no other reason than to shore-up Complentarianism. That is simply an unkind aspersion. And its one that makes no sense given the fact that the doctrine of ESS is of no consequence to Complematarian teaching.
> 
> For whatever reason, a concerted effort has been made by those opposing ESS to make it the _sine qua non_ of Complentarianism. In so doing, they have effectively labeled Complemarianism as heresy and those espousing it as heretics. It is a troubling development.


Woudl it be actual heresy, or instead a wrong view, a misunderstanding of what the scriptures teach?


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Perhaps I should have been clearer. I was speaking in the broadest sense about the heat generated by this discussion, not exclusively here in this thread or on PB. In that sense, it is very much the case that a partisan spirit hinders the discussion. And how can it not be the case when the first salvo in a debate is to charge the other side with heresy? You are welcome to disagree, but that's what I've observed.


"Partisan" is a strong word, and not charitable if by it you mean that those you accuse have not heavily weighed both sides of the matter.

If by it you simply mean "supporter", then it could be said that Gruedum himself is partisan to his position on ESS.

Now, where do you stand on the ESS matter?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Would you see Dr Grudem in same light as say Dr Macarthur, as gifted bible teachers who have some weak areas in their theology? Dr Grudem in the areas of ESS and Charasamatic gifts, and Dr Macarthur on his Israel/Church viewpoint?


Short answer.....Yes (same could be said for any faithful Christian teacher)...but let's not get too off topic.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Why would one need to "read back into" God what one believes is already found in God?


Can you lay out your position on this matter (complementarian) as well as the ESS view? You seem to be stopping by with questions that hint you have a position. Can you share it?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Well, you would need to flesh that out a bit for idiots like myself. But your comments appear to assume two things. First, they assume Complemntarianism is somehow dependent on ESS. It is not. The Danvers Statement makes no mention of it at all. And second, you seem to think that Grudem has adopted his position for no other reason than to shore-up Complentarianism. That is simply an unkind aspersion. And its one that makes no sense given the fact that the doctrine of ESS is of no consequence to Complematarian teaching.
> 
> For whatever reason, a concerted effort has been made by those opposing ESS to make it the _sine qua non_ of Complentarianism. In so doing, they have effectively labeled Complemarianism as heresy and those espousing it as heretics. It is a troubling development.


Isn't Complentarianism though the position laid out to us in the scriptures themselves?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 27, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> "Partisan" is a strong word, and not charitable if by it you mean that those you accuse have not heavily weighed both sides of the matter.



If some are guilty of a party spirit (which is something we are all guilty of from time to time) there is nothing uncharitable about saying so.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> If some are guilty of a party spirit (which is something we are all guilty of from time to time) there is nothing uncharitable about saying so.


We will just disagree on that point. I don't want to get to off subject on the thread.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Well, you would need to flesh that out a bit for idiots like myself. But your comments appear to assume two things. First, they assume Complemntarianism is somehow dependent on ESS. It is not. The Danvers Statement makes no mention of it at all. And second, you seem to think that Grudem has adopted his position for no other reason than to shore-up Complentarianism. That is simply an unkind aspersion. And its one that makes no sense given the fact that the doctrine of ESS is of no consequence to Complematarian teaching.
> 
> For whatever reason, a concerted effort has been made by those opposing ESS to make it the _sine qua non_ of Complentarianism. In so doing, they have effectively labeled Complemarianism as heresy and those espousing it as heretics. It is a troubling development.



Classical theism posits one will in the Trinity. Grudem/Ware have Jesus submitting his will (pre-incarnation) the Father.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Can you lay out your position on this matter (complementarian) as well as the ESS view? You seem to be stopping by with questions that hint you have a position. Can you share it?


I think you are smelling what I am stepping in.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Classical theism posits one will in the Trinity. Grudem/Ware have Jesus submitting his will (pre-incarnation) the Father.


Each one of the Trinity would have their own minds, but would always be in total agreement , correct?
So why couldn't each have a Will, but always be agreeing all of the time?
Each one of them have a will, and each having the very will of God?


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> each one of the Trinity would have their own minds, but would always be in total agreement , correct?
> So why couldn't each have a Will, but always be agreeing all of the time?
> Eacj one of their have a will, and each having the very will of God?


If they are one essence, they would have one will. Otherwise, logically it goes to polytheism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> each one of the Trinity would have their own minds, but would always be in total agreement , correct?
> So why couldn't each have a Will, but always be agreeing all of the time?
> Eacj one of their have a will, and each having the very will of God?


David this is dangerous. There is one will.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> David this is dangerous. There is one will.


Yes, but they would each have their own willl, with each One having very will of God, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> If they are one essence, they would have one will. Otherwise, logically it goes to polytheism.


All three of the trinity are fully God, but each One has their own mind and will, but always in full agreement?


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, but they would each have their own willl, with each One having very will of God, correct?


No sir...


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> No sir...


I think that I am not stating very well my understanding on this issue. Each member of the Trinity are all fully God, and each One of them having the same mind and will, as that would be the very mind and will of God.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 27, 2018)

The thread is is re-ploughing ground covered elsewhere:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...of-the-son-debate-where-are-things-now.92059/

The thread above contains plenty of online references to the individuals being discussed, the terminology being used, etc., that can actually be quoted from when making summary statements about "_who believes what and why_" or to understand what the terms at play mean.

Please take the time to carefully review the previous thread.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Each one of the Trinity would have their own minds, but would always be in total agreement , correct?
> So why couldn't each have a Will, but always be agreeing all of the time?
> Each one of them have a will, and each having the very will of God?



Nope. That's polytheism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

The doctrine of the trinity can be tricky. It is very easy to error on our thoughts of the Godhead. I usually just try to stick to the definitions given in the Westminster Confession/Catechism. I am not saying you are in sin with your comments per se...but rather (based on your comments)..you need to be careful as we all do an tread lightly.
*
*
*Chapter II*
*Of God, and of the Holy Trinity*
I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions;[7] immutable,[8] immense,[9] eternal,[10] incomprehensible,[11] almighty,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most free,[15] most absolute;[16] working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,[17] for His own glory;[18] most loving,[19] gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;[20] the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;[21] and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,[22] hating all sin,[23] and who will by no means clear the guilty.[24]

II. God has all life,[25] glory,[26] goodness,[27] blessedness,[28] in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made,[29] nor deriving any glory from them,[30] but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;[31] and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases.[32] In His sight all things are open and manifest,[33] His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,[34] so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.[35] He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.[36] To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.[37]

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.[38] The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. [40]


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The thread is is re-ploughing ground covered elsewhere:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...of-the-son-debate-where-are-things-now.92059/
> 
> The thread above contains plenty of online references to the individuals being discussed, the terminology being used, etc., that can actually be quoted from when making summary statements about "_who believes what and why_" or to understand what the terms at play mean.
> ...


Mr. Religion,

I agree. Let's get back to the OP. And hopefully Chris will respond with his position and his thoughts on the OP article.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Daniel,
> What does EFS stand for?



Eternal Functional Subordination. I think that was the view of Mike Ovey and others, which some claim is supposed to be different from ESS (though I am not entirely sure how).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Unfortunately, a partisan spirit dominates the discussion of this topic making any thoughtful engagement with points like the one you are making impossible.



Christopher, that is what I have found as well. While I have generally agreed with the opponents of ESS/EFS, they have tended to condemn anyone who used the language of eternal submission/subordination as if they were an Arian. As I understand it, that supposition is not accurate.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 27, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Can you lay out your position on this matter (complementarian) as well as the ESS view? You seem to be stopping by with questions that hint you have a position. Can you share it?



I have endeavored to engage thoughtfully with the people in this thread. No, I suppose I haven't laid out a detailed statements of my views, but that wasn't what the OP asked for; and to my knowledge, no one else has done that either.

As for my views, I agree with complementarianism as expreseed in the Danvers statement. I see nothing inherently unorthodox about ESS/EFS so long as it is properly qualified as relating to the Divine economy and not essence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Christopher, that is what I have found as well. While I have generally agreed with the opponents of ESS/EFS, they have tended to condemn anyone who used the language of eternal submission/subordination as if they were an Arian. As I understand it, that supposition is not accurate.


Dr Grudem fully holds to the doctrine of Jesus being fully God.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I have endeavored to engage thoughtfully with the people in this thread. No, I suppose I haven't laid out a detailed statements of my views, but that wasn't what the OP asked for; and to my knowledge, no one else has done that either.
> 
> As for my views, I agree with complementarianism as expreseed in the Davers statement. I see nothing inherently unorthodox about ESS/EFS so long as it is properly qualified as relating to the Divine economy and not essence.


Do you see Jesus as being subordinate to the Father while just here upon the earth, or from all Eternity?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> The doctrine of the trinity can be tricky. It is very easy to error on our thoughts of the Godhead. I usually just try to stick to the definitions given in the Westminster Confession/Catechism. I am not saying you are in sin with your comments per se...but rather (based on your comments)..you need to be careful as we all do an tread lightly.
> 
> 
> *Chapter II*
> ...


I am going to stick from now on the 1689 Confession take on the Trinity.
*Chapter 2: Of God and of the Holy Trinity*
1._____The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. 
( 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Deuteronomy 6:4; Jeremiah 10:10; Isaiah 48:12; Exodus 3:14; John 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17; Deuteronomy 4:15, 16; Malachi 3:6; 1 Kings 8:27; Jeremiah 23:23; Psalms 90:2; Genesis 17:1; Isaiah 6:3; Psalms 115:3; Isaiah 46:10; Proverbs 16:4; Romans 11:36; Exodus 34:6, 7; Hebrews 11:6; Nehemiah 9:32, 33; Psalms 5:5, 6; Exodus 34:7; Nahum 1:2, 3 )
2._____God, having all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself, is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creature which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things, and he hath most sovereign dominion over all creatures, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth; in his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain; he is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands; to him is due from angels and men, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience, as creatures they owe unto the Creator, and whatever he is further pleased to require of them.
( John 5:26; Psalms 148:13; Psalms 119:68; Job 22:2, 3; Romans 11:34-36; Daniel 4:25, 34, 35; Hebrews 4:13; Ezekiel 11:5; Acts 15:18; Psalms 145:17; Revelation 5:12-14 )

3._____ In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.
( 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6 )


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Dr Grudem fully holds to the doctrine of Jesus being fully God.



No one denies that Grudem believes he holds that. We are saying that his conclusion (Jesus is God) is somewhat in tension with what he has written.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Wouldn't that make the submission of Jesus only for when He was here in human body, and was done when He ascended back to heaven?



He continues to be God and man in one person forever. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that "the head of Christ _is_ God." I would presume that God is the head to whom Christ submits, not in an ontological sense as the second person of the Trinity but in his economic role as mediator of the covenant of grace.

As Jacob has indicated, there seems to be some tension is asserting that God the Father and God the Son are ontologically equal if we also argue for an eternal subordination of God the Son in anything other than his role as the mediator of the covenant of grace. I realise that ESS guys such as Wayne Grudem are not denying the full deity of Christ, but I think that their terminology is confusing.

I have heard it said that the EFS people would not go as far as Dr Grudem (Mark Thompson of Moore Theological Seminary in Sydney told me that the last time he was in Northern Ireland), yet I am not sure how that position avoids the same problems as ESS raises. Regretfully, as Christopher noted, the partisan nature of this debate has generated more heat than light.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one denies that Grudem believes he holds that. We are saying that his conclusion (Jesus is God) is somewhat in tension with what he has written.


How so? As His position on Jesus being subordinate to the Father does not refer to Him being in essense leass than God, but that He has chosen to submit to the father as being supreme one over Him in the Trinity.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 27, 2018)

I think most of the opponents of ESS would argue that it seems to contradict divine simplicity, as it is incongruous to argue both that God is simple and that the persons of the Trinity have more than one will, which is what they think is implied by arguing that the Son submits to the Father as the second person of the Trinity.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> He continues to be God and man in one person forever. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that "the head of Christ _is_ God." I would presume that God is the head to whom Christ submits, not in an ontological sense as the second person of the Trinity but in his economic role as mediator of the covenant of grace.
> 
> As Jacob has indicated, there seems to be some tension is asserting that God the Father and God the Son are ontologically equal if we also argue for an eternal subordination of God the Son in anything other than his role as the mediator of the covenant of grace. I realise that ESS guys such as Wayne Grudem are not denying the full deity of Christ, but I think that there terminology is confusing.
> 
> I have heard it said that the EFS people would not go as far as Dr Grudem (Mark Thompson of Moore Theological Seminary in Sydney told me that the last time he was in Northern Ireland), yet I am not sure how that position avoids the same problems as ESS raises. Regretfully, as Christopher noted, the partisan nature of this debate has generated more heat than light.


Dr Grudem is always speaking on how the Trinity interact among Themselves, and not as to how they are somehow not all equally God, correct?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Dr Grudem is always speaking on how the Trinity interact among Themselves, and not as to how they are somehow not all equally God, correct?



I have seen no evidence that Dr Grudem denies the full deity of Christ, so that appears to be correct.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> How so? As His position on Jesus being subordinate to the Father does not refer to Him being in essense leass than God, but that He has chosen to submit to the father as being supreme one over Him in the Trinity.



Is the Father eternally "over" the Son? Eternal moves the discussion back into ontology, which is running very close to Arianism.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is the Father eternally "over" the Son? Eternal moves the discussion back into ontology, which is running very close to Arianism.


Would that not be seen as Jesus being the eternally begotten of the Father though? Of being the same essense, so not a created being?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Do you see Jesus as being subordinate to the Father while just here upon the earth, or from all Eternity?



Not an ontological subordination but an economic one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 27, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think most of the opponents of ESS would argue that it seems to contradict divine simplicity, as it is incongruous to argue both that God is simple and that the persons of the Trinity have more than one will, which is what they think is implied by arguing that the Son submits to the Father as the second person of the Trinity.



Dr. Lane Tipton of Westminster:

"Built into the idea of the pactum salutis are three distinct self-conscious persons (not separate self-conscious persons since that would be tritheism) within the unity of the Godhead undertaking the decrees of creation and redemption, and doing so _freely_ and _voluntarily_. That moves us into the idea that even though we want to affirm _without compromise_ that there is one God and one essential will in the Godhead, there are nonetheless also three self-conscious distinct persons hypostatically, personally willing certain things. The Father _wills_ to send the Son; the Son _wills_ to be sent; the Father and Son _will_ to give the Spirit; and the Spirit _wills_ to be given."​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Not an ontological subordination but an economic one.


He would be equally Goda as the father, but willing to submit and defer to the Father then?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Dr. Lane Tipton of Westminster:
> 
> "Built into the idea of the pactum salutis are three distinct self-conscious persons (not separate self-conscious persons since that would be tritheism) within the unity of the Godhead undertaking the decrees of creation and redemption, and doing so _freely_ and _voluntarily_. That moves us into the idea that even though we want to affirm _without compromise_ that there is one God and one essential will in the Godhead, there are nonetheless also three self-conscious distinct persons hypostatically, personally willing certain things. The Father _wills_ to send the Son; the Son _wills_ to be sent; the Father and Son _will_ to give the Spirit; and the Spirit _wills_ to be given."​


That quote appears to be very close to what I posted earlier on this OP.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Would that not be seen as Jesus being the eternally begotten of the Father though? Of being the same essense, so not a created being?



Here's the problem. Begotten necessarily conveys "same essence." "Being over" does not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Dr. Lane Tipton of Westminster...


Is the quote from the discussion around the 39 minute mark here:
https://reformedforum.org/ctc445/ ?

I doubt that Lane Tipton is implying three independent centers of self-consciousness existing in the Persons of the Godhead.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Here's the problem. Begotten necessarily conveys "same essence." "Being over" does not.


My Father was over me when I was a child, but we were both fully human though.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> That quote appears to be very close to what I posted earlier on this OP.


Where? You posted several times, then revisited a post to be more clear, which I think was to say there is but one will of God.

Do you recall how to include links to posts you refer to?
See:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/baptism-new-covenant.95547/page-4#post-1168742

In any event, an important point to keep in mind: _will_ is a property of _nature_, not _Person._


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> My Father was over me when I was a child, but we were both fully human though.


What????
What are you getting at?

#1-Our human relationships cannot be compared on the same terms as the Trinity.

You and your father are 2 separate people....your comparison leads to heresy at best. Please clarify.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Where? You posted several times, then revisited a post to be more clear, which I think was to say there is but one will of God.
> 
> Do you recall how to include links to posts you refer to?
> See:
> ...


So it would be taht the Will of God is same to all of the Trinity, as God Himself cannot subdivide that Will?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> What????
> What are you getting at?
> 
> #1-Our human relationships cannot be discussed on the same terms as the Trinity.
> ...


I was speaking to the fact that I was subordinate to Him as in function, as he was the boss growing up over me, but both were still exactly human, so in essense the same.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> My Father was over me when I was a child, but we were both fully human though.


The word "though" you continue to add to posts implies disagreement with what you are responding to, so explain that disagreement you see rather than expecting the reader to tease it out from your posts.

Is your essence identical with that of your Father?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The word "though" you continue to add to posts implies disagreement with what you are responding to, so explain that disagreement you see rather than expecting the reader to tease it out from your posts.
> 
> Is your essence identical with that of your Father?


I was just saying that I can function as subordinate towards my Father, as he is in authority over me, but both of us are still same in Humanity.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I was speaking to the fact that I was subordinate to Him as in function, as he was the boss growing up over me, but both were still exactly human, so in essense the same.


In order to save their complementarianism they are reading modern notions of the Father and Son human categories of parent and child into the Trinity. The analogical use of the terms are meant to convey ideas of sameness, the King sends an heir apparent that represents all of him and his kingdom. Granted even that analogy breaks down but, that's how our ancient readers and ancient fathers would understood it.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So it would be taht the Will of God is same to all of the Trinity, as God Himself cannot subdivide that Will?


God _is_ will, strictly speaking so as to not slide down a slope denying His _simplicity_ (not _dim-wittedness_, rather God is not decomposable into parts comprising the whole). But we can say God's _nature_ includes the _property_ of _willing _to move forward in the discussion.

_Will _is a property of _nature_. God has a nature (divine). Apropos, God "has" a will. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God. All have a will...one will...God's will. This cannot be otherwise (per your "subdivide") else the eternal, exhaustive, perichoretic interpenetration between the Godhead is undone.



Spoiler: Trinity Essentials



1. *There is in the divine Being (God) but one indivisible essence* (_ousia, essential, being_), see Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4, Galatians 3:20, 1 Timothy 2:5.
2. *The nature of the one divine being, God, is inclusive of all the attributes of His being, that is, God is His attributes*, see *God*, as above.
3. *In this one divine Being (God) there are three personal distinctions (what the church throughout history calls persons), or individual subsistences (personal modes of existence) Father, Son and Holy Spirit*, see Genesis 1:1, 26, 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1, Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14.
4. *The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons*, see John 6:27, Romans 1:7, 1 Peter 1:2, John 1:1, 14, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8, 1 John 5:20, Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:16.
5. *The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order*, see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, 1 John 4:14, John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, John 16:13-14.
6. *There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished*, see 1 Corinthians 8:6, Revelation 4:11, Revelation 1:1, John 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, John 1:1, 16:12-15, Matthew 11:27, Revelation 1:1, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Matthew 1:21, John 4:42, Genesis 1:2, Job 26:13, Psalm 104:30, John 16:12-15, Ephesians 3:5, 2 Peter 1:21, John 3:6, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:2, Isaiah 61:1, Acts 10:38.
7. *The church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the full comprehension of man* . *There are absolutely no human analogies that can be made to capture the mystery of the Trinity*, see Romans 11:33-34.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I was just saying that I can function as subordinate towards my Father, as he is in authority over me, but both of us are still same in Humanity.


If that is what you are "saying" then you need to actually say it explicitly. Moreover, drawing analogies between humanity and the Godhead will inevitably lead to error.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 27, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> In order to save *their* complementarianism...



Would I be right to conclude by this statement that you are disassociating yourself with complementarianism?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> My Father was over me when I was a child, but we were both fully human though.



Arius's view of God the Father was "over" the Son, but they weren't of the same essence. And your above view of "fully human" is a generic essence, not a numerical one.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 27, 2018)

Yes, the human analogies are unhelpful in this discussion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Yes, the human analogies are unhelpful in this discussion.


Agreed... Next thing you know someone will be giving the same analogy that the Mormons tried to give me one fine Sunday evening “the trinity is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich”

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Would I be right to conclude by this statement that you are disassociating yourself with complementarianism?


Off topic but, yes. The earlier Trueman, Byrd, Miller stuff and then the infighting about the Trinity made me rethink some things. And no I am not on the way the liberalism. Back to the OP

As for analogies, I have to agree, they are not good.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 27, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> Off topic but, yes. The earlier Trueman, Byrd, Miller stuff and then the infighting about the Trinity made me rethink some things. And no I am not on the way the liberalism. Back to the OP
> 
> As for analogies, I have to agree.




 Maybe your not on the way. Maybe you are already there?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

Is Point 5 speaking to subordination then?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2018)

I fully agree that we cannot press the analogy too far, as the Trinity has but 1 Will, exact same attributes among Them, while we as humans do not.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 27, 2018)

Picking up on something that has been commented on in passing in this thread is the issue of ESS advocates basing complementarianism on the Trinity. Basing gender relations on the Trinity has always struck me as strange, because, for one thing, all the persons of the Godhead are male. Instead, it is better to ground gender relations in nature.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Dr. Lane Tipton of Westminster:
> 
> "Built into the idea of the pactum salutis are three distinct self-conscious persons (not separate self-conscious persons since that would be tritheism) within the unity of the Godhead undertaking the decrees of creation and redemption, and doing so _freely_ and _voluntarily_. That moves us into the idea that even though we want to affirm _without compromise_ that there is one God and one essential will in the Godhead, there are nonetheless also three self-conscious distinct persons hypostatically, personally willing certain things. The Father _wills_ to send the Son; the Son _wills_ to be sent; the Father and Son _will_ to give the Spirit; and the Spirit _wills_ to be given."



I have read this quotation a couple of times. Forgive my slowness, but how does it help us with respect to the debate over ESS/EFS?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 27, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Picking up on something that has been commented on in passing in this thread is the issue of ESS advocates basing complementarianism on the Trinity. Basing gender relations on the Trinity has always struck me as strange, because, for one thing, all the persons of the Godhead are male. Instead, it is better to ground gender relations in nature.



As I have stated at least twice, Complementarianism is not based on the roles of the persons of the Trinity but on the teaching of Scripture regarding that matter. 



Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have read this quotation a couple of times. Forgive my slowness, but how does it help us with respect to the debate over ESS/EFS?



Opponents of ESS/EFS argue that the eternal subordination of the Son is contrary to the simplicity of God.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 27, 2018)

I think everyone agrees, probably Grudem included, that complementarianism does not depend on the doctrine of ESS, nor is it disproved by the negation of ESS. The trouble with Grudem is that he seeks to use the trinity to establish complementarianism, and thus introduces troubling concepts into our understanding of the trinity. In this sense, he actually serves to obsfucate a far more important doctrine in seeking to bolster a lesser one. We should reject this effort as misguided and destructive, and frankly unnecessary. Complementarianism can be competently argued for from scripture without mangling the trinity in the process.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 27, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> As I have stated at least twice, Complementarianism is not based on the roles of the persons of the Trinity but on the teaching of Scripture regarding that matter.



I recognise that that is your position, but I do not think that is correct in relation to all complementarians (which is a fairly broad church). As you note, however, the truth or otherwise of complementarianism is not contingent on the analogy with the relations between the persons of the Trinity. 



C. M. Sheffield said:


> Opponents of ESS/EFS argue that the eternal subordination of the Son is contrary to the simplicity of God.



So, would you argue that the pactum salutus is liable to the same objection as the anti-ESS/EFS people make against eternal submission?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> So, would you argue that the pactum salutus is liable to the same objection as the anti-ESS/EFS people make against eternal submission?



That is the only reason I don't completely dismiss the question out of hand. Yes, the arguments of Grudem and Ware are horribly bad. But still, the pactum salutis is biblical and we need to give coherent reasons why the persons of the trinity can "pact" together and that not be polytheism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 28, 2018)

I mentioned this in another thread this evening and it is appropriate for this one, too:

https://adaughterofthereformation.w...down-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/

Worth a read.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 28, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I mentioned this in another thread this evening and it is appropriate for this one, too:
> 
> https://adaughterofthereformation.w...down-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/
> 
> Worth a read.


Excellent article that is charitable to all sides, yet clear(with evidence) that Grudem has erred.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I think everyone agrees, probably Grudem included, that complementarianism does not depend on the doctrine of ESS, nor is it disproved by the negation of ESS. The trouble with Grudem is that he seeks to use the trinity to establish complementarianism, and thus introduces troubling concepts into our understanding of the trinity. In this sense, he actually serves to obsfucate a far more important doctrine in seeking to bolster a lesser one. We should reject this effort as misguided and destructive, and frankly unnecessary. Complementarianism can be competently argued for from scripture without mangling the trinity in the process.


Agreed, as we can show that the roles and distinctions that God has made for Man and Woman are not dependent upon trying to be established via the relationship among the Trinity Themselves.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is the only reason I don't completely dismiss the question out of hand. Yes, the arguments of Grudem and Ware are horribly bad. But still, the pactum salutis is biblical and we need to give coherent reasons why the persons of the trinity can "pact" together and that not be polytheism.


Therer still seems to be some type of assigned/agreed upon roles with the Trinity though.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I mentioned this in another thread this evening and it is appropriate for this one, too:
> 
> https://adaughterofthereformation.w...down-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/
> 
> Worth a read.


Very interesting, as to me it seems that Both Dr Ware/Grudem are trying to have the subordination that Jesus agreed to having while here on earth has to be extended into eternal relaionship between Jesus and the Father, and not just confined to that tempoary period of time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Very interesting, as to me it seems that Both Dr Ware/Grudem are trying to have the subordination that Jesus agreed to having while here on earth has to be extended into eternal relaionship between Jesus and the Father, and not just confined to that tempoary period of time.


Now you are cooking on the front burner, David.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Very interesting, as to me it seems that Both Dr Ware/Grudem are trying to have the subordination that Jesus agreed to having while here on earth has to be extended into eternal relaionship between Jesus and the Father, and not just confined to that tempoary period of time.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Therer still seems to be some type of assigned/agreed upon roles with the Trinity though.



None of which necessarily entails what Grudem is saying.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> None of which necessarily entails what Grudem is saying.


Because all members of the Trinity are still functioning within their roles as being equally in authority?


----------



## Aco (Jul 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Nope. That's polytheism.


Why is that polytheism? 
How could then the mutual necessity of Tri-personality and Uni-personality of the godhead be posited by some reformed theologians, to avoid _ouisa _being a mere impersonal abstraction?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Aco said:


> Why is that polytheism?
> How could then the mutual necessity of Tri-personality and Uni-personality of the godhead be posited by some reformed theologians, to avoid _ouisa _being a mere impersonal abstraction?


Each One would have their own personailty, correct?


----------



## Aco (Jul 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Each One would have their own personailty, correct?


Yes, but the mutual necessity of tri-personality and uni-personality means that God is three person while also being one person. So my question is could not a kind of paradox be posited in the case of God‘s will having one will while each person having a will?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2018)

Aco said:


> Why is that polytheism?
> How could then the mutual necessity of Tri-personality and Uni-personality of the godhead be posited by some reformed theologians, to avoid _ouisa _being a mere impersonal abstraction?



will = essence. Three wills = three divine essences

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Aco (Jul 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> will = essence. Three wills = three divine essences


How ought then the voluntary submission and acceptance of the Son to the work of redemption intended by the Father be explained in light of that?


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 28, 2018)

Aco said:


> How ought then the voluntary submission and acceptance of the Son to the work of redemption intended by the Father be explained in light of that?


The will for the son to voluntarily submit was the will of all three persons of the Godhead ...... so 1 will.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Aco (Jul 28, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> The will for the son to voluntarily submit was the will of all three persons of the Godhead ...... so 1 will.


Could that then the issue of submission of the Son to the Father be extrapolated into eternity, Taking the position of ESS/EFS?


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 28, 2018)

Aco said:


> Could that then the issue of submission of the Son to the Father be extrapolated into eternity, Taking the position of ESS/EFS?


No....Not according to my own brain power. I would like to avoid using confusing word play (much like the proponents of ESS/EFS use). Again that is why it is so easy to fall into a heretical ditch (on either side) when going beyond scripture to understand the Godhead.

Rather than “poke” possibly explain if you are for or against ESS as Grudem explains it and maybe respond to the OP. That might save the thread.

in my opinion Grudem is wrong and he apparently also misquotes more than a couple reformers (not surprising).

Alan Strange and Mr. Religion have handled this matter sufficiently (in my opinion). Between this thread and the below linked thread:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/how-does-the-son-submit-to-the-father.96020/

Time to move on.... before this thread serves better to confuse than to edify.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2018)

Aco said:


> How ought then the voluntary submission and acceptance of the Son to the work of redemption intended by the Father be explained in light of that?



Person doesn't equal nature. While the Son has the same will as the Father, the Son is not the Father. So there isn't an outright contradiction. Difficult to understand, perhaps, but no contradiction.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40 (Jul 30, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Person doesn't equal nature. While the Son has the same will as the Father, the Son is not the Father. So there isn't an outright contradiction. Difficult to understand, perhaps, but no contradiction.



More than "difficult" but impossible.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 30, 2018)

Aco said:


> Yes, but the mutual necessity of tri-personality and uni-personality means that God is three person while also being one person. So my question is could not a kind of paradox be posited in the case of God‘s will having one will while each person having a will?


Each one of the trinity would all be having the same will then, the Will of God.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 30, 2018)

Aco said:


> Could that then the issue of submission of the Son to the Father be extrapolated into eternity, Taking the position of ESS/EFS?


Per Paul in Phillipians though, would not that voluntary subordinate submission happen just during the time of Jesus Incarnation here on earth though?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 30, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Person doesn't equal nature. While the Son has the same will as the Father, the Son is not the Father. So there isn't an outright contradiction. Difficult to understand, perhaps, but no contradiction.


Jesus and the Father have the same essense, would they not have same natures, that of being God?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus and the Father have the same essense, would they not have same natures, that of being God?


Yes, all Persons of the Godhead co-inhere the one and only indivisible, divine essence (_ousia_, _essential_, _being_) of God. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons, see John 6:27, Romans 1:7, 1 Peter 1:2, John 1:1, 14, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8, 1 John 5:20, Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:16.

All Persons of the Godhead possess a divine nature. The nature of the one divine being, God, is inclusive of all the attributes of His being, which is to say, God _is_ His attributes. Statements in Scripture about God’s _nature_ are statements about God’s _essence_.

God is a simple and uncompounded spiritual _being_. We can say the same by stating, God is a simple and uncompounded spiritual _essence_. _Essence is that by which something is what it is, that is, its nature_. Generally speaking, _essence_ and _being_ are interchangeable in most discussions of God. Some also use _nature_ and _essence_ interchangeably.

Again, God’s _essence _is common to the three Persons in God, not communicated from one to another; each of the three Person partake of the _essence_, and possess it as one undivided _nature_—“_as all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ_”, so in the Holy Spirit; and of the Father. One God who eternally exists in three different persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal (Romans 16:26; Revelations 1:17; Matthew 28:20; Acts 17:28-29; John 14-16).

If you want a more detailed discussion, my debate with an anti-Trinitarian might be worth a careful read:
https://www.puritanboard.com/resources/trinity-of-god-debate.29/

So, how does this impact what you are asking?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus and the Father have the same essense, would they not have same natures, that of being God?



Yes, but my point was that person doesn't equal essence/nature.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 30, 2018)

It's interesting that this topic keeps arising and shows the damage that bad ideas (e.g. Grudem and Ware) have on the Church. Both (almost 2 years ago at a conference, recanted of certain views that were in direct conflict with Nicene orthodoxy while they continued to maintain other errant ideas.

Just to be clear, it isn't enough to hand-wave that you believe in one God in three Persons if you start ascribing things to the Persons that make them three Gods. Using the excuse that you're only talking about the economic Trinity doesn't resolve an issue if you start ascriving to will something that essential to God. It's akin to saying: "I only believe in 3 Gods _economically_ but not _essentially_." It makes no sense.

I can't remember who first wrote it but he said he was Christian, Protestant, Reformed, and Presbtyerian and he dare not reverse that order. Each one of those distinctions is a further refinement of a branch of Christianity.

When we're talking about the nature of the Trinity we are dealing with the very first tier: if you monkey with the Trinity then whatever else you say you affirm about being Protestant, Reformed and Presbyterian (of Baptist) is quite immaterial because your doctrine of God may not even be CHRISTIAN!

The stakes are high, ladies and gentlemen. We're accustomed to kind and respectful things being said of theologians for all the "good work" that they do but if they are fundamentally contradicting what every branch of Christianity has affirmed for 1800 years then it needs to be roundly condemned.

Now, I realize that many people are not sure of all the details. It is admittedly difficult to understand the disntinctions between essence and person. The Church, when it took up the battle for the Divinity of Christ in the 4th Century did so because they were under the conviction that this was a received truth - not only handed down in Scripture (which they exegeted) but so clearly believed by the Church that this was inviolate.

At issue was the very nature of the Son as God (also the Spirit but that came as well once you got the first established). They understood, even back then, that our Mediator needed to be fully God and fully Man.

They considered it something to be adored more than articulated but they, in a sense, took up language with fear and trembling in a way to make sure that those who denied the Divinity of the Son (and would not be corrected) would be put outside the Christian faith.

They painstakingly crafted language that they knew someone who denied Christ's Divinity could not confess. They understood the distinction between the Divinity and the humanity of the Son of God and they were insistent on the former to ensure that they clearly articulated things that the Son of God was of the _same essence_ as the Father. God from God. Light from Light. They said no more about the nature of this intra-Trinitarian life and distinction of the Persons than what Scripture revealed to mankind. They were earnest to not make the mistake that the intra-Trinitarian relationships were to be understood on the basis of human relationships or reason but upon what had been Divinely revealed.

So, yes, the stakes are high. Don't let the modern culture of treating these divisions as so much: "I've got your conviction and you've got yours."

That it is only these modern times when theologians like Grudem, Ware, or Frame (whose writings contradict Simplicity) feel free to ignore the very foundations of Christianity for 1800 years. To be frank, I don't care a bit about whatever pedigree they have or whatever perceived good they have done. I'm even thankful for some of it but, on the nature of the Godhead, they are treading on very dangerous ground and I, for one, do not advise anyone to take this issue lightly. You're better off adoring the Trinity and staying out of the fray if you're struggling to understand these things rather than promoting error on this topic.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 30, 2018)

Excellent points that you present here regarding this discussion on the Trinity. Much of the problem on this issue would be that we have given to the Dr Grudems of the Church free hand in their theology, as we do recognize that God has gifted them to be theologians, and the church does a bad job in getting these thorny issues to the flock. I do not know how many sermons or Sunday school teachings ever really broke down the Trinity this deeply.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 30, 2018)

David,

It's not that I disagree we could always have more instruction in such matters but some of these issues require years of study to get to the substance of the issues and why the Church used the language it did and why it has stood for centuries. There are at least two faults:

1. Drs. Grudem, Ware, and Frame in making sure they properly study historical theology and why certain truths have stood the test of time. The former two were in the embarassing position of having to be "schooled" on this topic after basing many teachings and arguing for months against those who had studied it. Dr. Frame is still kicking against the goads with respect to Divine Simplicity. You can't afford to be lazy on this topic if you're going to be a teacher. If you're not going to do the work then don't try writing a Systematic Theology or present a new theological idea if you're going to get the Trinity wrong.

2. The modern Church is far too forgiving on this issue. Carl Trueman pointed out that the "Evangelical Conference" scene has been providing a big tent for anyone who seems to get the message of the Gospel right while caring little about whether they are getting the Doctrine of God wrong. Mark Driscoll is a case in point. We're a bunch of pragmatists and, as long as it seems people are "getting the Gospel", we're mostly soft on getting the nature of God right. Our forebears would not understand this schizophrenia for the sake of pragmatism.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 30, 2018)

It gets very hard to know who is right and wrong on this issue though, as the fine points on this discussion are frankly beyond the reach of many Christians, so we have to accept the so called Theology experts that we have accorded the reputation to knowing of what they write and speak on concerning doctrines of the faith.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2018)

We need to get Richard Muller's volumes 3 and 4 released as individual volumes on the doctrine of God. I don't buy the line that "Baker is just about to release a new series" (5 years running).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 31, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> It gets very hard to know who is right and wrong on this issue though, as the fine points on this discussion are frankly beyond the reach of many Christians, so we have to accept the so called Theology experts that we have accorded the reputation to knowing of what they write and speak on concerning doctrines of the faith.


I didn't say that we all have to accept them. You don't have to accept the opinion of a radiologist who tells you that an MRI indicates cancer in your body. Yet, before you dismiss him, you can seek another opinion of one trained in anatomy, cancerous diseases, imagery, etc. or you can spend the years of in-depth research needed.

Jacob has no PhD but he spent far more time than many PhD's reading theological sources.

The point is that the history of the doctinre matters. The words selected matter. The metaphysical language matters. The exegesis matters. The nermeneutics matter.

It took me a few years to learn Greek and I'm at a point where I can understand what a scholar means by certain arguments made appealing to syntax but I'm not an expert and I would not hazard to produce an exegetical commentary. That's just one discipline.

So, you can be arrogant out of ignorance and assume that you have enough information to make up your own mind about what is plain from the text without any schooling. You'd fit in with many cultists and other errantists who have taken that path.

Or, you can recognize that the Church collectively works together, each one contirbubing its part ans skill to help one another. I seem to recall a Body analogy somewhere in the New Testament....

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 31, 2018)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Jacob has no PhD but he spent far more time than many PhD's reading theological sources.



You're too kind. I learned the brutally hard way by trying to debate EO and Rad Trads online. I then learned that I had to read the sources and all of the best scholarly literature. It has taken about 12 years so far.

While I disagree with Perry Robinson on many points, his "recommended reading list" forced me to work through the tough issues of Trinity and Christology. I am even working on my own list.
https://cocceius.wordpress.com/philosophical-analysis-of-reformation-sources-a-bibliography/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Aug 19, 2018)

I don't mean to resurrect the discussion, but I came across this passage in John Brown of Haddington in his Systematic Theology in my morning reading which seemed apropos_:




It being plainly evident from God's own word, that each of these three persons is equally the Most High and the only true God, no term or phrase must be admitted, in the explication of their personal properties, which can in the least interfere with the divine equality or absolute independence of any one of them.--Subordinate Godhead is no Godhead at all, nor anything but a mere chimera in men's brain. By calling the Father the fountain of Deity or of the Trinity, by saying that the divine essence is communicated,--or that the Son and Spirit are produced,--or that they have a personal though not an essential dependence on the father, learned men have inadvertently hurt this mystery [i.e. the Trinity], and given occasion for its enemies to blaspheme.

Click to expand...

_
While it seems that he has Origen, at least in part, in his crosshairs here, his warning should apply to the modern debate too, no matter how useful such schemes may be in other areas of theology.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

