# Teaching my son the Trinity. Can you judge my summary - am I a Subordinationist?



## Pergamum (Jun 11, 2016)

My son Noah (11) asked me what I was reading hunched over at the laptop yesterday. I was reading up on this current Trinitarian controversy, and he asked for an answer. 

And so below was my concise attempt at an answer to this controversy for him:



> "The Covenant of Redemption happened in eternity past whereby God, the Persons of the Trinity, were involved in the work of salvation; the Father agreeing to pick out an elect people, the Father agreeing to send the Son to save that elect people, the Son agreeing to take on human flesh and die to procure salvation for the Elect, and the Father and the Son agreeing to send the Spirit to apply the work of salvation to that elect people. These economic aspects of the Trinity (this division of labor which assumes subordination, not in being, but in work and function in salvation) has always existed because the Covenant was made from eternity past.
> 
> Therefore, the Persons of the Trinity are always ontologically equal and there is no subordination in the inner life of God, but there was also always an economic subordination of the Son to the Father. There was never a time in which the Son did not exist as the Son and the Father did not exist as the Father.
> 
> Of course, if you don't believe in a Covenant of Redemption, this definition may be unsatisfying."




So, does my simple summary stand up? 

Or did I just teach my son Subordinationism? 

But doesn't the heresy of Subordinationism require the false teaching that there is also an ontological subordination of the Son to the Father (a subordination in the inner life of God) and not merely an economic subordination made in eternity past due to the Covenant of Redemption?

How would you tweak my statement or what should I add in order to teach my son the true doctrine of the Trinity?



And what do we do about the Covenant of Redemption? This Covenant of Redemption was made in eternity past, whereby the Persons of the Trinity agreed to their roles in the work of salvation? 

Do you affirm a Covenant of Redemption and, if so, when did this happen? In time, or in eternity past? And if this Covenant of Redemption did , indeed, happen in eternity past, then though we affirm that there is no subordination in the "inner life" or being of God (the Ontological Trinity) how can we NOT speak of an eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father due to the Covenant of Redemption made in eternity past? There never was a time in which it did not exist. 

When we speak of the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity, we cannot then say (right?) that there was a time in which there was an Ontological Trinity but there was no Economic Trinity, due to the eternal "division of labor" made in the Covenant.

Please help me. I am drowning.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 11, 2016)

I will never forget when I was in the fourth grade Monsieur Nugget came into our class room to explain the doctrine of The Trinity. What stuck with me is how he explained God is one but three in persons and said this is a mystery along with how Jesus is both God and man. I say this to suggest teach first the above as prime importance and do not be afraid to empathize the real mystery that many try to bridge unsuccessfully. From this the Christology flows and I am to this day amazed by the mystery of the incarnation.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 11, 2016)

Obviously Nicene in 325 and Constantinople in 381 go further than the simple "One in Three" formulation. I am trying to explain how Jesus and the Father are one and equal even as Jesus says "The Father is greater than I." And I am also trying to summarize the two sides to the current debate to an 11-year old and give him a biblical simple answer.


----------



## BGF (Jun 11, 2016)

I don't know if I can but Donall and Conall might judge.

https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 11, 2016)

BGF said:


> I don't know if I can but Donall and Conall might judge.
> 
> https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw



Can you explain?

And don't the Lutherans believe in the omnipresence of Christ's physical body anyhow in order to defend their errant view of consubstantiation? Thus Donall and Conall might not be the best authorities on the Trinity if they are Lutheran (plus, who can trust Irishmen who criticize Patrick of Ireland, after all)?


----------



## Philip (Jun 11, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> And don't the Lutherans believe in the omnipresence of Christ's physical body anyhow



That's true, but that's an error with regard to the two natures, not in Trinitarian theology as such. The relevant councils would be Ephesus-Chalcedon, not Nicaea-Constantinople.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 11, 2016)

Pergy, I think you're asking great questions. Certainly, the answers will take us deeper than we can go with Donall and Conall, as much as I do love those guys. I am hoping some of the great minds on this board can explain it not only for your sake but also for mine, perhaps even in child-friendly language. That would be wonderfully helpful.

I have dealt with this issue when teaching, but have never fully answered it. I have affirmed that God is one being and there's no hierarchy within his being. I've explained that the Father and Son are equal in glory, power, etc. I say they're separate persons who can make agreements together as persons do, yet there's no disagreement or infighting or power plays within God; he is one. I will say that the Father and Son are Father and Son eternally, which means each has always been Father-like and Son-like, even before the Son became the man Jesus. I have said this suggests there's some way in which the Father gives direction and the Son takes direction, even before the Son was Jesus, but without the Son being in any way less than all-supreme God. And then I say I don't quite understand exactly how that all works, and that theologians far smarter than me sometimes have deep discussions about it.

You brought up John 14. I've addressed both that and passages in chapter 5 in this regard. I've said I can't be sure how much Jesus is talking about the Father being greater eternally because, at the point in time of the gospel of John, Jesus is speaking not only as eternal God but also as a human man and as the Christ. As the best-ever Prophet, Priest, and King he certainly must adopt a stance of submission to the Father. He would be a bad Prophet/Priest/King if he did not do this. So I mention that his humanity and his office get mixed into the discussion and that, again, I'm not sure how to sort out every detail.

So I too would love a succinct, clear, child-friendly answer (if one exists), as well as gentle correction if there's something I'm not phrasing quite right.

One observation that may be helpful: I often point out that to submit is not always to be lesser. There is greatness and glory in submission (if it is submission to God) just as there is in order-giving. This we learn in the Trinity. This is important to understand not only as an encouragement in our own submission, but so that we may see the submission of Christ and, in it, more fully appreciate and praise the full glory of God.


----------



## BGF (Jun 12, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> BGF said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if I can but Donall and Conall might judge.
> ...



Just a moment of levity. But it does illustrate some of the trouble we can get into when trying to grasp and illustrate the Trinity. The best we can do is describe the biblical teaching, even if we cannot understand it fully.

Here's the succinct description of the Trinity from the WLC



> Q. 9. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
> A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.



Is this exhaustive? No, but it's a place to start. Then moving to the early creeds that shaped our doctrine can add. However, none of these things are sufficient to make us understand. They just teach what the Bible says about God.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 12, 2016)

I was hoping to go a little beyond this.... but perhaps I ought to stay in the wading pool for awhile more. Noah replied, "Yes, me and you are the same as humans, equal, but we have different jobs and you send me to do things and I obey..." So, not bad for an 11-year old as a start to understanding the ontologic versus economic aspects of the Trinity.

But I would LOVE a child-like summary how the Son can be seen as proceeding from the Father and as eternally-begotten, and yet not inferior in hierarchy or subordinate in the inner life of God.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 12, 2016)

Pergy, I think your explanation is fine (although maybe too many big words for a typical 11-year-old).

Ontological subordination: no. Economic subordination: yes.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 12, 2016)

bookslover said:


> Pergy, I think your explanation is fine (although maybe too many big words for a typical 11-year-old).
> 
> Ontological subordination: no. Economic subordination: yes.



He seemed to understand the analogy between me and him: We are both equally persons and of equal worth as persons. But I have a job and send him to do it and he obeys me and does it. Although, I told him that in human affairs the Father is born first and then the Son but in the Trinity all have always existed and there never was a time when the Son was not (in the beginning the Word already was). 

I still fail mostly to explain the Spirit to him if anybody has an analogy.


----------



## johnny (Jun 12, 2016)

earl40 said:


> I will never forget when I was in the fourth grade Monsieur Nugget came into our class room to explain the doctrine of The Trinity. What stuck with me is how he explained God is one but three in persons and said this is a mystery along with how Jesus is both God and man. I say this to suggest teach first the above as prime importance and do not be afraid to empathize the real mystery that many try to bridge unsuccessfully. From this the Christology flows and I am to this day amazed by the mystery of the incarnation.



I remember having the same discussion in catholic school at around the same age, and the mystery of the Trinty being presented by Monsignor Marley who didn't often come to our class. It left an impact on my life and somehow has stayed with me as a reference point. I understood that I couldn't understand.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 12, 2016)

When explaining the Trinity to my son when he was around five years old, I used the tricycle he loved as a starting point.

One _What _(the tricycle, God the being), three _Whos _(the wheels, the persons all inhering the one essence; the tricycle, and persons (wheels) acting in complete agreement having individual roles, yet all fully God, the tricycle). 

Obviously, it is easy to misuse the analogy and fall into errors regarding modalism, God having parts, mistaken assumptions given that one wheel is bigger than the other two, etc., but I think I got the point across at the time.


----------



## KeithW (Jun 12, 2016)

I am trying to follow the terminology here. Please help me if I am wrong.

Economic subordination - the persons of the Trinity have different roles and responsibilities, including things which are reserved to the prerogative of the Father alone. In John chapter 17 the Son declares many things which belong to the Father or which the Father instructs the Son to do. Also places like Matt. 11:25-27; Matt. 16:17; Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32; John 6:37,40,44,65-66.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 12, 2016)

KeithW said:


> I am trying to follow the terminology here. Please help me if I am wrong.
> 
> Economic subordination - the persons of the Trinity have different roles and responsibilities, including things which are reserved to the prerogative of the Father alone. In John chapter 17 the Son declares many things which belong to the Father or which the Father instructs the Son to do. Also places like Matt. 11:25-27; Matt. 16:17; Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32; John 6:37,40,44,65-66.



Economic (the "Economic Trinity") subordination refers to roles and hierarchy in relation to God's works of creation, sustenance, providence and redemption.

"Ontogoloical" (the "Ontological Trinity') refers to God as He is in Himself and His internal relations without reference to the creation. The "dispute" is about whether there is subordination in the ontological Trinity from all eternity, that is the Son being subordinate to the Father, the Spirit being subordinate to the Father and the Son, and if that is compatible with them being equal in power and glory.

Here's an article which cites Warfield, but uses the expression "immanent" - or imminent (sic), typo - for "ontological", which I had not come across before. Warfield does not come to the conclusion that the doctrine of eternal subordination is justified by the language of Scripture. 

http://philgons.com/2011/08/warfield-on-eternal-subordination-in-the-trinity/

The doctrine of eternal subordination was anyway rejected by the ecumenical council of Nicea, which strictly-speaking puts it beyond the bounds of orthodox Catholic Christian teaching.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 12, 2016)

This from a debate in 2008 is quite enlightening:



> 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/2008/octoberweb-only/141-53.0.html


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 12, 2016)

KeithW said:


> I am trying to follow the terminology here. Please help me if I am wrong.
> 
> Economic subordination - the persons of the Trinity have different roles and responsibilities, including things which are reserved to the prerogative of the Father alone. In John chapter 17 the Son declares many things which belong to the Father or which the Father instructs the Son to do. Also places like Matt. 11:25-27; Matt. 16:17; Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32; John 6:37,40,44,65-66.



Yes, economic subordination does not mean there is any difference in the inner life of God or that the Son is inferior to the Father. That would be ontological subordination, a difference in the Being of God, and in the ancient church was called the heresy of Subordinationism. Not all who speak of the subordination of the Son (economically) are subordinationists.


----------



## Toasty (Jun 14, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> This from a debate in 2008 is quite enlightening:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wouldn't Grudem and Ware say that submitting to the Father is something that Jesus does, but it is not an essential property?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 14, 2016)

In my own mind, it is difficult to say "when did the Son submit to the Father, and when did the Spirit submit to the Son and the Father" because we order things temporally. But how do you do that with eternity? Is eternity endless time or is it timelessness? Those who say there was no submission up until the moment of the incarnation are, in my mind, way off base. Indeed, at "whatever point in eternity" the decrees were ordered - which when ordered clearly entail submission within the Godhead (so much as agreeing to submit in actual history is itself a form of submission), and certainly when the Covenant of Redemption was entered into, there was submission to the terms of the covenant. All this took place "in eternity." But does that mean that the Son is "eternally submissive?"


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 14, 2016)

I would say that _eternity_ is God's timelessness, and is distinct from _aeviternity_ (everlasting) in the created realms (which includes heaven). There is "before" for creation, including time; but there is no "before" for God. That's why there is no "_eternity past_". God alone is eternal, and eternity is one of His incommunicable attributes. But time had a beginning. An inception. So there is only _aeviternity_ (everlasting/ness) going forward from that initial creation of time; hence, no "eternity past".

God's eternity is not indefinitely extended time, but something essentially different, of which we can form no conception. Some have proposed that God's eternity may be defined as _that perfection of God whereby He is elevated above all temporal limits and all succession of moments, and possesses the whole of His existence in one indivisible present_.

God inhabits something vastly qualitatively different from time, what we know as eternity: "_For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: "I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite._" (Isa 57:15). In other words, the difference between the creature and the Creator is an immensely vast difference, for God exists in a fundamentally different order of being. It is not just that we exist and God has always existed; it is also that God _necessarily_ exists in an infinitely better, stronger, more excellent way. Eternity differs essentially, not merely accidentally. Eternity is an essential, changeless state of being that transcends moment-by-successive-moment reality. 

Bavinck wrote of God’s eternality by saying, “_eternity is identical with God’s essence; hence, it implies a fullness of essence. Not only is God eternal, but he is even “his own eternity_.”


----------



## tangleword (Jun 14, 2016)

SolaScriptura said:


> In my own mind, it is difficult to say "when did the Son submit to the Father, and when did the Spirit submit to the Son and the Father" because we order things temporally. But how do you do that with eternity? Is eternity endless time or is it timelessness? Those who say there was no submission up until the moment of the incarnation are, in my mind, way off base. Indeed, at "whatever point in eternity" the decrees were ordered - which when ordered clearly entail submission within the Godhead (so much as agreeing to submit in actual history is itself a form of submission), and certainly when the Covenant of Redemption was entered into, there was submission to the terms of the covenant. All this took place "in eternity." But does that mean that the Son is "eternally submissive?"



Not sure I agree, my understanding is that the submission is related to the human nature, that is what Mark Jones seems to argue (using the councils) as well, to me at least. I find it hard to see how there is submission in the divine nature where there is one will. There was not two wills in Christ (his divine and human) until the incarnation, so there was not an ability to submit until then, since it was his human will that submits (and it submits even to his divine will). Even if the decrees were ordered in eternity , they were ordered by all you could say, so the son was not really submitting to the decree he was also decreeing them.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 14, 2016)

tangleword said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > In my own mind, it is difficult to say "when did the Son submit to the Father, and when did the Spirit submit to the Son and the Father" because we order things temporally. But how do you do that with eternity? Is eternity endless time or is it timelessness? Those who say there was no submission up until the moment of the incarnation are, in my mind, way off base. Indeed, at "whatever point in eternity" the decrees were ordered - which when ordered clearly entail submission within the Godhead (so much as agreeing to submit in actual history is itself a form of submission), and certainly when the Covenant of Redemption was entered into, there was submission to the terms of the covenant. All this took place "in eternity." But does that mean that the Son is "eternally submissive?"
> ...



I get it; but most (all?) commentators understand Phil 2:6 "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," as referring to an attitude that Christ had in his preexistent state. Anyway, the decrees - and especially the CoR - call for functional submission, the act of agreeing to submit is itself a form of submission and in no way implies ontological inferiority. So many Reformed fathers have acknowledged functional subordination that to me it is absurd to deny it. (Even Batzig, though he disagrees with it, acknowledges it appears to have been taught in Vos.) Of course, the opposing side disagrees and a few pretty much take it upon themselves to anathematize Grudem and Ware. 

Anyway, I don't claim to know for sure, but I do have impatience with some of the attackers.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 14, 2016)

SolaScriptura said:


> All this took place "in eternity." But does that mean that the Son is "eternally submissive?"



My thinking, which cannot comprehend such things thinks that maybe this would fall into some type of accommodation of God speaking to us in baby talk that may mean "as if" The Son took on a role which to us appears to happened in time before time began. I say this of course because God is outside of time and The Son was always outside of time with The Father and Holy Spirit.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 14, 2016)

In 1 Cor 15 where it speaks of Jesus putting all things under his feet and then turning it back over to the Father, I've always assumed this to be an eternal thing.


----------



## MW (Jun 14, 2016)

Any subordination/submission which related to the covenant of redemption was voluntary, not essential; and as a part of the "economy" of salvation falls under the economical as distinct from the ontological Trinity. This includes 1 Cor. 11 and 15.

Part of the problem with the Ware-Grudem position is that it uses economical relations and acts to explain the ontological relations and acts. In so doing they naturally import the idea of inferiority into the Godhead, because the work of redemption required Christ to assume the nature of man which is inferior to God.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 14, 2016)

Something can be eternal without it being ontological, right? Especially if there never was a time in which the Pactum Salutis wasn't in existence. Is that correct?

Do you agree with Millard Erickson's book on Tampering with the Trinity, where he seems to speak only of a temporary economical subordination?


----------



## MW (Jun 14, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Something can be eternal without it being ontological, right? Especially if there never was a time in which the Pactum Salutis wasn't in existence. Is that correct?
> 
> Do you agree with Millard Erickson's book on Tampering with the Trinity, where he seems to speak only of a temporary economical subordination?



Ontos is being. So if the "something" is eternal it is ontologically eternal.

The decree and the covenant of redemption are eternal in a different respect to the eternity of God. The decree and covenant are "free" acts of God's will, whereas the begetting of the Son is a "necessary" act. Although we cannot mark a time at which God decreed, we can differentiate the decree from God Himself. This means God may not have decreed, and the covenant of redemption may not have been enacted, in which case the Son would not have voluntarily submitted Himself to do the will of the Father for the salvation of the elect. This means His mediatorial subordination to the Father is not ontological, but only economical.

The Son, though, is necessarily begotten of the Father. As a necessary, eternal action this means the Son is necessarily "God of God," and maintains an ontological "order" in relation to the Father. While this order is not inferior as to the Godhead, there is a dependence which terminates on the person. I would conclude from this that a restricted form of sub-ordination is ontological, but I would qualify that it is different in NATURE from the sub-ordination which is voluntarily assumed for the purposes of redemption. Such is the difference that many reformed theologians omit the word "subordination" so as to avoid confusion. They prefer to speak only of the "order;" and that seems wise when the term is open to misunderstanding, but it should also be acknowledged that the term has been used in the restricted sense without being labelled subordinationism.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 15, 2016)

I was reading in Reymond's theology pp.323ff and I appreciate his discussion. I was especially intrigued with how the reformers interacted with and modified patristic language and thinking. I was intrigued that they felt free to do that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2016)

If you haven't read these articles yet then they are very helpful: 

This one relates the number of ways that are sought around historical defintions that run aground in other areas. For instance, for the Son to eternally submit to the Father, it requires that will is a function of the Person (hypstasis) and this runs into a problem of monotheletism (that the Son of God has one will).
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/eternal-submission-and-the-sto.php

This article is a good reminder that Reformed hermeneutics is not a "me and my Bible" enterprise. The rejection of metaphysical categories is actually a trajectory in the direction of Socinianism. It's also a good reminder that these so-called "scholastics" were a lot better at both theology *and* exegesis than we were. There's a lot of "seems to me on the surface of this text" that is dismissive of the theological richness that has come before that many casually dismiss:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/...-and-arid-scholasticism#.V2CSfSmPfsM.facebook

For my part, I'm not going to let this board be a place that simply dismisses longstanding orthodoxy. How many Patristic scholars and other theologians have to line up against Ware and Grudem before they'll take a pause and say: "Maybe I ought to reconsider this...." I really don't think this is just men being mean-spirited. We're generally very intellectually lazy about a lot of these core thoelogical issues (myself included) and this debate has been very useful for me to sharpen and clarify the "why" of these debates.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2016)

Perg: This article also addresses some issues with respect to how we think about redemption: http://www.donaldmacleod.org.uk/dm/subordinationism-out-of-the-blue/


----------



## Jack K (Jun 15, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Perg: This article also addresses some issues with respect to how we think about redemption: http://www.donaldmacleod.org.uk/dm/subordinationism-out-of-the-blue/



Thank you. Macleod is both scholarly and clear, as usual, and that is a helpful article.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2016)

Mark Jones: https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/06/15/propositions-questions-fred-sanders-trinity/


----------



## MW (Jun 15, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> For instance, for the Son to eternally submit to the Father, it requires that will is a function of the Person (hypstasis) and this runs into a problem of monotheletism (that the Son of God has one will).



Will belongs to the divine nature, but there is an "I," "Thou," and "He," owing to the personal properties. The second person knows Himself as the Son of the Father, and rejoices in it. Without this personal knowledge He could not have volunteered to make Himself of no reputation.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jun 15, 2016)

BGF said:


> I don't know if I can but Donall and Conall might judge.
> 
> https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw



This cracks me up every time I see it.........


----------



## MW (Jun 15, 2016)

SolaScriptura said:


> I was reading in Reymond's theology pp.323ff and I appreciate his discussion. I was especially intrigued with how the reformers interacted with and modified patristic language and thinking. I was intrigued that they felt free to do that.



That discussion is not historically accurate seeing Calvin affirmed the Son is eternally begotten. When Reymond's Systematic first came out it was critiqued at this particular point in both the Westminster and Calvin Theological Journals.

The following is an excellent summary of the evidence for Calvin's view: http://www.kerux.com/doc/2501A4.asp


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 15, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Perg: This article also addresses some issues with respect to how we think about redemption: http://www.donaldmacleod.org.uk/dm/subordinationism-out-of-the-blue/



Thanks!


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 15, 2016)

SolaScriptura said:


> I was reading in Reymond's theology pp.323ff and I appreciate his discussion. I was especially intrigued with how the reformers interacted with and modified patristic language and thinking. I was intrigued that they felt free to do that.



Doesn't Reymond misrepresent Calvin's position on the Trinity?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 16, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > I was reading in Reymond's theology pp.323ff and I appreciate his discussion. I was especially intrigued with how the reformers interacted with and modified patristic language and thinking. I was intrigued that they felt free to do that.
> ...



Raymond does more than interact with Calvin - he refers to the reformers in general - and what I was referring to was the simple fact that they felt free to adjust language used by the patristics. In his discussion he cites Hodge, Warfield and others who also speak of the reformers tweaking the verbiage. What caught my eye was not any particular position, but the brute fact that they felt free to adjust the language.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 16, 2016)

MW said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > For instance, for the Son to eternally submit to the Father, it requires that will is a function of the Person (hypstasis) and this runs into a problem of monotheletism (that the Son of God has one will).
> ...


Thank you for that important qualification!


MW said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > I was reading in Reymond's theology pp.323ff and I appreciate his discussion. I was especially intrigued with how the reformers interacted with and modified patristic language and thinking. I was intrigued that they felt free to do that.
> ...



Thanks for the link! This is a really interesting historical read. The interesting aspect of Calvin's view is that the Aseitas of the Son is a push in the complete opposite direction of any notion of eternal submission. Even if one admits the schoool of thought that Calvin rejects eternal generation and the communication of essence, this would utterly destroy any idea of an ad intra eternal submission.


----------



## MW (Jun 16, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The interesting aspect of Calvin's view is that the Aseitas of the Son is a push in the complete opposite direction of any notion of eternal submission. Even if one admits the schoool of thought that Calvin rejects eternal generation and the communication of essence, this would utterly destroy any idea of an ad intra eternal submission.



That is true with respect to the essence, which is one. But Calvin allowed for subordination of the Son terminating on the person and limited to the order of the persons. Richard Muller makes this point in PRRD 4:80.

The problem with the school that reads Calvin as rejecting eternal generation is that it is not operating within the classical distinctions in which Calvin operated. Calvin affirmed the autotheos of the Son because he was committed to the classical position that there are three divine persons who are distinguished by personal properties. If "autotheos" is taken apart from personal properties one effectively has three theoi, that is, three gods, or tritheism. Calvin's commitment to the Son's autotheos must be counterbalanced by the classical view of personal properties in order to avoid classical tritheism. And, on the other side, the personal properties must be counterbalanced by the autotheoi in order to avoid a form of modalism. It is this latter point that Calvin makes when he affirms the Son is autotheos.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jun 16, 2016)

Definitely the order of the Trinity has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. It's an order of distinction: the Father subsists in a manner of begetting; the Son in a manner of being begotten; the Spirit in a manner of proceeding. Fathers and sons on earth have a hierarchy, but this should not be read back into the Trinity.

Perhaps the covenant of redemption doctrine is problematic and creates an unnecessary complication. I prefer to go with the Scottish divines who rejected the idea and stuck to the two covenants: works and grace. Perhaps separating the covenant of grace into two covenants, with the so-called covenant of redemption being isolated in eternity creates a problem: by divorcing it from the covenant of grace proper, a covenant concerned with "in time" action, it implies an eternal, inherent subordination within the ontological Trinity.


----------



## MW (Jun 16, 2016)

alexandermsmith said:


> Perhaps the covenant of redemption doctrine is problematic and creates an unnecessary complication. I prefer to go with the Scottish divines who rejected the idea and stuck to the two covenants: works and grace. Perhaps separating the covenant of grace into two covenants, with the so-called covenant of redemption being isolated in eternity creates a problem: by divorcing it from the covenant of grace proper, a covenant concerned with "in time" action, it implies an eternal, inherent subordination within the ontological Trinity.



I also prefer to speak of the covenant of grace as one, but this means the covenant of redemption is the covenant of grace as made with Christ from eternity. Those, like Boston, who affirm a single covenant of grace do not place the making of that covenant in time.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jun 16, 2016)

To clarify, I didn't mean to speak of the covenant of grace being made in time, rather its being concerned with in time atoning acts (obviously to achieve everlasting salvation). What I was suggesting was by having a separate covenant of redemption, that could imply an inherent subordination; whereas holding to a single covenant of grace keeps the submission of the Son grounded in His role as mediator, rather than suggesting an inherent submission (covenant of redemption) manifesting itself in His work as mediator (covenant of grace).


----------



## MW (Jun 16, 2016)

alexandermsmith said:


> To clarify, I didn't mean to speak of the covenant of grace being made in time, rather its being concerned with in time atoning acts (obviously to achieve everlasting salvation). What I was suggesting was by having a separate covenant of redemption, that could imply an inherent subordination; whereas holding to a single covenant of grace keeps the submission of the Son grounded in His role as mediator, rather than suggesting an inherent submission (covenant of redemption) manifesting itself in His work as mediator (covenant of grace).



I see what you are driving at, but those who teach the covenant of grace is made with Christ maintain that the eternal Son of God voluntarily consented from eternity to be the Mediator between God and men. In fact, even those who reject an everlasting covenant still affirm this voluntary act on the part of the Son, which was personal to Him. He made Himself of no reputation. It was not the Father, nor the Spirit; it was the Son.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 16, 2016)

Helm weighs in on the topic dissecting Warfield's _The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity _in three parts:
https://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2016/06/warfield-on-trinity.html

1. ‘Son’ and Spirit’ may seem to be obviously subordinate expressions. But this is not the semitic way of understanding these terms.
2. Sonship in 'only begotten Son' is simply ‘likeness’. Whatever the Father is the Son is also. It is thus an assertion of equality with the Father, and not of subordination.
3. So expressions of the ‘begottenness’ of the Son may convey no suggestion of coming into being, but of the Father's priority of existence. And similarly with ‘Spirit’.
4. There are in the NT almost full definitions of Sonship – in John.5.18 – and of Spirit – in I Cor. 2. 10 -11. – that are non-subordinationist.

-----

1. In the NT there is subordination in the ‘modes of operation’ of the persons in respect of redemption, but it is ‘not so clear’ that there is subordination in each person’s ‘mode of subsistence’, the way in which the person’s are related to each other.

2 It may be that the subordination in respect of redemption rests on subordination in modes of existence, but it might equally well be based not on nature but on convention, a one-willed convention of a covenantal character. And it looks that way because of the pervasiveness of the NT teaching on the Covenant of Redemption, on the humiliation of Christ, and on the two-natured character of Christ.

3. But this must be understood as being not at the expense of the NT’s teaching on the ‘complete identity’ of the three persons in their being and powers. The three are one God.

-----

1. The threefold work of God in redemption is echoed and thus borne out in Christian experience.

2. The Christian finds the doctrine of the Trinity underlying and giving their significance and consistency to the teaching of the Scriptures as to the processes of salvation.

3. So the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of redemption stand or fall together.

So if Warfield is correct, what he says affects the theory that the Son is subordinate, being begotten, but subordinate only by a convention, the Persons' co-willingness, the willingness of one eternal will, to take different roles in redemption.


----------



## MW (Jun 16, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> H3. So expressions of the ‘begottenness’ of the Son may convey no suggestion of coming into being, but of the Father's priority of existence.



Accepting the "priority" is not of time, but of order, an affirmation of the Father's priority requires the acknowledgment of the Son's posteriority. Not of time, but of order.

I doubt there is a "semitic" way of conceiving of sonship in a way that removes all ideas of subordination. While "dignity" is at the heart of the term, it is such dignity that is "derived" from the relationship with the father. The only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father is an expression of the highest dignity, but it is still a dignity depending upon the dignity which the Father has in Himself. Even if you removed "Sonship," and only spoke of "the second person," the concepts of order and priority would still be present.

It is better to follow the older divines who recognised the order but limited it to the persons and rejected the idea that it pertained in any way to the essence.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 17, 2016)

Another neat article from Mark Jones distinguishing Will from Act: http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/subordination-in-the-pactum-and-the-irony-of-ess


----------



## MW (Jun 17, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Another reat article from Mark Jones distinguishing Will from Act: http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/subordination-in-the-pactum-and-the-irony-of-ess



It is important to recognise that the three persons consciously act with one will. That is a step in the right direction.

I am sorry to say, though, that Dr. Jones has misappropriated the quotation from Herman Witsius. That quotation specifically referred to subjection to the law of a superior. As God, the Son was in no way subject to the Father in this respect.

One might consult Herman Witsius' Dissertations on the Apostle's Creed, 1:149ff, for his teaching on the priority of the Father. Especially relevant are his remarks on the order of operation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 17, 2016)

MW said:


> I am sorry to say, though, that Dr. Jones has misappropriated the quotation from Herman Witsius. That quotation specifically referred to subjection to the law of a superior. As God, the Son was in no way subject to the Father in this respect.


I'm missing how Dr. Jones misappropriated the quote. It seems he's making that point. Spell it out a little bit more in the flow of what you think Mark is arguing for before and after he quotes Witsius because he comes to the conclusion that the Son was not in subject to the Father.


----------



## MW (Jun 17, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm missing how Dr. Jones misappropriated the quote.



Going back a paragraph or two in the Economy of the Covenants shows that Dr. Witsius was speaking of subjection to the law of a superior. Dr. Jones concludes from his quotation "the utter folly of speaking in language of subordination with regards to the Son in his relationship to the Father." Dr. Witsius excludes a specific kind of subordination and Dr. Jones concludes from this that it is utter folly to speak in terms of subordination at all. And the complementarians who maintain a kind of subordination do not maintain the type "subjection" which Dr. Witsius was speaking against. They speak more in terms of the order of operation which Dr. Witsius affirmed in his Dissertations.


----------



## MW (Jun 17, 2016)

To follow up on Dr. Jones' piece, I've had a look at his material from Dr. Owen, and I think he takes a very large leap in logic when he draws the following conclusion:



> Nowhere do we need to posit “submission” or “subordination.” There simply (pardon the pun) is no need to do so. It creates confusion because people then start to think there might be two wills in God when you speak of the Son “submitting” in terms of ad intra necessary or free relations.



First, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, since he has already acknowledged there are "personal" acts of the one "essential" will. Secondly, it would be a poor conclusion to draw from Dr. Owen when he explicitly used the terms "order" and "subordination" to describe the Son's personal relation to the Father. He wrote, "It is true, there is an _order_, yea, a _subordination_, in the persons of the Trinity themselves, whereby the Son, as to his personality, may be said to depend on the Father, being begotten of him" (Works, 12:201).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 17, 2016)

MW said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I'm missing how Dr. Jones misappropriated the quote.
> ...



When you note: "...the complementarians who maintain a kind of subordination do not maintain the type "subjection" which Dr. Witsius was speaking against. They speak more in terms of the order of operation which Dr. Witsius affirmed in his Dissertations."

I might be missing something here but it seems the complementarians are arguing for a _necessary_ ad intra submission of the Son to the Father and not merely that there is an order of the persons as you have articulated. It seems they're arguing for much more than the fact that the Father generates and that the Son is generated and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. You have noted this might be denoted a form of sub-ordination but not in the sense that we sometimes think. If this was all they are saying it seems non-controversial. It seems they are arguing for an eternal (e.g. necessary) submission of the Son to the Father that is then paradigmatic for male-female relationships.

Help me out here.


----------



## MW (Jun 17, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Help me out here.



One of the things I noted on the other thread is that the complementarians are not limiting their idea of subordination to the eternal generation. Eternal generation imposes a conceptual control over subordination. It limits subordination to the person because eternal generation is a personal property. Subordination in such a case is not of the essence. If the complementarians traced subordination to the personal properties they would be confined within the limits of orthodoxy. But they go further, and trace subordination to the ad extra voluntary works of the Son as Mediator, and this introduces a subordination of NATURE because the Son as man was bound by inferior nature to obey the Father. They make qualifications to guard against this but it is difficult not to read this subordination of nature into their meaning because of their appeal to the Mediator's subordination.

If the critiques concentrated on this point it would be helpful towards solving the problem. But as it stands, the idea of subordination itself has been the point of scrutiny. As can be seen from Dr. Jones' posts, all subordination is being rejected. They do not limit it to the personal properties, but reject it out of hand as if it were to be equated to subordinationism. The problem is, the Christian tradition has long recognised a qualified use of subordination in an orthodox sense.

So effectively the critiques are shooting the horse to stop the rider instead of shooting the rider and putting the horse to a good use.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 18, 2016)

MW said:


> So effectively the critiques are shooting the horse to stop the rider instead of shooting the rider and putting the horse to a good use.



To be fair, there have been a few critiques that have noted what you have noted about a proper way to view an order in the Trinity but there have been quite a few different things written by different scholars so it's hard to catch.

At least from what I've discerned, the issue is not so much an outright denial of the order by critics of EFS (e.g. eternal generation of the Son and spiration of the Spirit) but that the subordination/submission of the Son as Mediator is traced back into the ad intra relationship or that this submission/subordination of ths Son as Man/Mediator is attached to the _Person_ of the Son so that it is true not only in His humanity but necessarily of the Son.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 18, 2016)

This has been a great thread! I can't wait to hear how it went when Pergy explains this to his son.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 18, 2016)

My son Noah's (11) response was:



> I know that there is one God. And that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Spirit is, too. Each one is not like part of God or 1/3rd God, but each one is totally God even though that is weird to think about. And each one is equal.



And



> Even though they are equal, they have different jobs. Like you are dad and I am a kid, but we are equally human, but you are a father and I am a son and so we do different things every day, and I listen to you. And so God sent Jesus and Jesus died. And when we believe the Spirit lives in our heart. But they are all equal...even though the Son did everything the Father said on earth.



and then;



> I can't really understand much more than this.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 18, 2016)

*Where I am at:*

I fell upon this question and became very confused: *"Could any of the Three Persons of the Trinity Have become Incarnate?"
*

Here are Letham's conclusions:

There is something intrinsic in the Son that makes Him the Son. In other words, it wasn't as if any of the 3 Persons of the Trinity could have become incarnate and sent and died for mankind, but that this was appropriate for the Son.

Letham says:



> The human obedience of Christ has a basis in the Son of God himself. Avoiding Nestorianism, we affirm that the obedience of Christ as man has a basis in the Son of God himself."
> 
> ...It was very natural for the Son to unite to himself a human nature that yields obedience to the Father.



The incarnate Son reveals the eternal Son. We see something of the eternal nature of Christ when we see Christ as He was on earth. 
And also:



> ...the obedience of Christ reflects a comparable attitude on the divine level, in which the Son lives in loving submission to the Father.
> 
> .....in Barth's thought "Jesus' human actions are never merely the actions of a human being who was not also the eternal Son of God."



Is Letham correct?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jun 21, 2016)

On why it was the Son who had to become incarnate, Mark Jones has this article where he summarises reasons given by the Reformed:

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517...e-incarnate-because-he-submitted#.V2kftdQrKPQ

I would have to agree that distinguishing between a correct subordination and incorrect subordination probably isn't helpful in the current debate. We shouldn't be giving any more fuel to the fire started by these people. I think it's safer to stick with the fact that there is an order of distinction- the Father must, logically, precede the Son and the Spirit who proceeds from both must, logically, come third- but any talk of subordination should be kept within the bounds of the incarnate Son: the God-man, Christ Jesus, and not the second person of the Trinity. And yes we do distinguish between the persons in terms of their actions, but we also recognise that all three persons act in all acts: there is no situation where _only_ the Father, or Son, or Spirit act. When we talk about one person of the Trinity performing a certain act we mean that that particular act is most prominently situated in that person (e.g. the incarnation terminates on the Son though the act is willed by the three persons of the Trinity) not that the other two are not involved. There is only one will and one act in God, for He is simple. Only the incarnate God-man, Christ, has two wills. As Mark Jones makes the point: it's this crucial distinction which the parliamentarians don't understand.

And while we do have 1 Corinthians 11:3 using Christ's relationship to the Father in the context of male female relations, it is a)specifically the mediator being spoken of, and b)how we understand God being the head of Christ is different from how we understand the man being the head of the woman. Whereas the relationship the Bible most prominently puts forward as the model for male female relationships is Christ's relationship to the church, rather than the second person's relationship to the first (which, in terms of ad intra relations, is never used as a model- I think). Why the analogy given explicitly in Scripture is not sufficient for these people I don't know.


----------

