# Eternal Subordination of the Son debate...where are things now?



## lynnie

Hi all-

I've been wondering about the whole mess, and because I've spent less time online for months, I didn't check the Aquila Report very often which is where I saw linked blog posts when the fight started.

I'm hoping for a brief Cliff notes type update here- ESS battle status for dummies sort of reply- and not links to endless blog posts.

Back when it started it was Grudem and Ware and CBMW, vs Trueman, Pruitt, and Golligher, and then a lot of others jumped into the rumble. Grudem was being labeled a heretic by somebody reputable. Later on I read Mark Jones and he was good.

I heard Grudem apologized/recanted for something. Then I heard maybe Grudem or somebody had- or will have- a conference to defend the ESS position. I just haven't had time to follow it all.

So, a few questions in brief:

1. Is it generally opined here at PB by Reformed pastors and theologians that the Truman etc side is correct ( back when I read it they sounded probably correct to me, but I am asking the board here) when they said actual heresy was being taught against the Nicene Creed? Or do people here think it was/is more just confused semantics?

2. Did Grudem apologize for something that was actually heretical? Or did he apologize just for a crappy analogy? (The best biblical analogy for marriage is Jesus Christ as the bridegroom, and the church is the bride, instead of ESS where the husband is the Father, the wife is Christ, and the HS is the children). Did they all ( CBMW) agree to drop that analogy? 

3. Just curious, where is John Piper at?

4. Did the Gospel Coalition take an official stand? If so, what is it? Or if they split can you tell me who took which side? ( Keller, Carson, Duncan, etc)

5. Is the word "heresy" still being used by the one side? Heresy is a big deal. Or are they no longer called heretics but they are just called confusing/poor teachers about the trinity? Or is it OK now? Is everybody one big happy family?

What's going on? It was so depressing last year to read it all. Thanks for any imput. Please give me your best short and sweet summary without more links to more articles. Thanks!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

I fear explanations of things explained, hence a refresher, with apologies for the list of links yet in favor of having the proponents' own words in view, seems more prudent than any infelicitous summary of the complex issues I might offer up:

One survey of Grudem's views:
https://www.newcitytimes.com/news/story/wayne-grudems-historical-theology

The debate timeline and commentary:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/10/the-best-of-the-trinity-debate.php

TGC commentary:
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...of-the-trinity-within-the-reformed-tradition/

Themeliois May, 2011: _Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective_
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/36.1/Themelios36.1.pdf#page=9

_Butner, Jets 58/1, 2015: Eternal Functional Subordination And The Problem Of The Divine Will_ (Jets 58/1, 2015) on why eternal functional subordination of the Son should be rejected:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/58/58-1/JETS_58-1_131-49_Butner.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

Mr Religion- I appreciate the time you took to pull them together and post.

You do realize the second link has 36 separate blog posts, right, and most or all of them have dozens of comments beneath, some quite thoughtful? 

Aaagh. You can see why I wanted the Cliff notes version. I still do, if anybody else here has a conscience willing to give it a try ( I bet Mr Religion could do it, but respect his humility in preferring not to). 

I did look at TGC and am happy to see DeYoung took the side of Trueman, Jones, Goligher, etc. 

Just from the titles it appears Grudem is the same, but I heard he (or one of them) recanted something along the way. Am I thinking of how he recanted his Trump endorsement? Ha. You can see how confusing it was. So Jesus still is exemplified by a wife, not the bridegroom? 

I also read the one on the word heresy. I guess I misunderstood what heresy meant exactly. LG says they are believers and fellow Christians while labeling it heresy according to the creeds and confessions. I had thought when the word heresy was used it implied not saved and on the way to hell if you don't repent. I guess I confused it with apostate- my mistake. Maybe some heresies are damning and some are not? I could use a cliff notes version of what exactly is meant with the word heresy.

Maybe I will make February my Trinity month and tackle one link a day. If there are further developments (like major changes on the ESS side to the classical side) I hope you will add links in the future.

Thank you again.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

lynnie said:


> I bet Mr Religion could do it, but respect his humility in preferring not to


It is more fear and trembling that what I may say will lead others into error when discussing the great mystery of the Trinity that makes me hesitant.

The primary argument is that there are some theologians claiming that there is an inherent principle of eternal subordination or submission in the _ontological_ Trinity according to God’s _ad intra_ necessary will. The argument's genesis came out of discussions of _egalitarianism_, wherein proponents of the same are claiming that this eternal, ontological functional subordination is the pattern for all created male-female relationships.

In these debates we are told that...
“.._if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the __way the three persons relate to one another,_” such that, if we reject eternal functional subordination (EFS), “_we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity_.” (Src: Wayne Grudem, _Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1994) p. 251. 

Further, from Grudem's same cited work and page above, those who reject EFS are said to be “_condemning all orthodox Christology from the Nicene Creed onward_” because the Nicene Creed affirms that the Son is _eternally begotten_.

In _Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance_, Bruce A. Ware, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005) p. 21 we find the EFS claim that the Father and the Son are eternally distinguished by an “_authority-submission structure_” such that the Son eternally submits to the Father and the Father eternally has authority over the Son.

The most prevalent philosophical and theological argument against EFS condemns the doctrine with undermining the view fact that the Father is _homoousios_ with the Son. Thus, there will be charges that the advocates of EFS are part and parcel heretical Arians.

In _Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate_ (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009) Millard Erickson presents the standard argument as follows (p. 172): 

"The problem is this: If authority over the Son is an essential, not an accidental, attribute of the Father, and subordination to the Father is an essential, not an accidental, attribute of the Son, then something significant follows. _Authority_ is part of the Father's essence, and subordination ordination is part of the Son's essence, and each attribute is not part of the essence of the other person. That means that the essence of the Son is different from the essence of the Father. The Father's essence includes omnipresence, omniscience, love, etc., and authority over the Son. The Son's essence includes omnipresence, omniscience, love, etc., and submission to the Father. But that is equivalent to saying that they are not _homoousious_ with one another. Here is surely a problem for the _gradationists_, for they want to affirm the _homoousious_, in order to reject Arianism. On face value, therefore, there seems to be an internal contradiction in this doctrine."​
Elsewhere in the book, Erickson describes the opposing camps:

*"*We may term the one view the _gradational view_, because its proponents maintain that there is an eternal hierarchy of authority among the three persons. According to this view, the Father is the supreme member of the Trinity, possessing the highest authority, and the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to him and submit to his authority. This is how the three have been related in eternity past, during the earthly ministry of Jesus, and the present ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers, and it will also be true throughout eternity future. The Son came in the Incarnation because the Father sent him, which he had the authority to do. The Son rightly obeyed the Father. This is of the very nature of the relationship and is believed to be of the very essence of the Trinity. Yet, this view maintains, there is absolute equality of being or essence among the three persons.

The other view can be called the _equivalence view_, for it holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally equal in authority. A temporary functional subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father has been established for the purpose of carrying out a particular mission. But when that mission is completed, the three persons' full equality of authority will resume. References to the Father's superiority to the Son, or to the Son doing the Father's will, are to be referred to this temporary functional and missional subordination.*"*​
The name most associated with the _gradationist_ view is Bruce Ware. The two names often coming up in the _equivalence view_ are Gilbert Bilezikian and Kevin Giles.

The above is the 50,000 foot view.

Wading into the debate requires a solid grasp of Trinitarianism for starters, beginning with the following... 


Spoiler



Western theology begins here: *One God possessing full Godhead.* 

The Father is unbegotten. As such God the Father is the ever-flowing fountain of the divine essence. The Father _communicates_ this essence to the Son. The Father with the Son _communicates_ this essence to the Spirit. The communication is eternal. It did not happen one time and then stop. 

The first communication is called _begetting_; the second communication is called _procession_. Call the communication whatever one pleases, it is the communication itself which is important. So we say the Father _begets_ the Son, and the Holy Spirit _proceeds_ from Father and the Son. The _begetting_ is also often termed _generation_. The _procession_ is also sometimes called _spiration_.

Understanding how these words are used and defined by all parties in the ongoing debate is crucial.

Berkhof writes (emphasis mine)
This _procession_ of the Holy Spirit, briefly called _spiration_, is his personal property. Much of what was said respecting the generation of the Son also applies to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, and need not be repeated. The following points of distinction between the two may be noted, however:
(1) _Generation_ is the work of the Father only; _spiration_ is the work of both the Father and the Son.
(2) By generation the Son is enabled to take part in the work of spiration, but the Holy Spirit acquires no such power.
(3) In _logical order_ _generation precedes spiration_.

 It should be remembered, however, that all this implies no essential subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son.

 In spiration as well as in generation there is a communication of the _whole of the divine essence_, so that the Holy Spirit is on an _equality_ with the Father and the Son

 The doctrine of the _procession_ of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is based on John 15:26, and on the fact that the Spirit is also called the Spirit of Christ and of the Son, Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6, and is sent by Christ into the world. _Spiration_ may be defined as that eternal and necessary act of the first and second persons in the Trinity whereby they, within the divine Being, become the ground of the personal subsistence of the Holy Spirit, and put the third person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation or change.

 When one begins with the unity of God these personal properties are the means by which Godhead is understood to belong to a distinct mode of subsistence within the undivided substance.​



I hope this helps to set a minimum foundation from which one can then dig into the ongoing debates and begin to sort out the frequent nuances and redefinitions of commonly understood terms that accompany the discussions.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum

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

This blog has accumulated several recent analyses of the state of the question. So, there's more than this one post.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## au5t1n

I would recommend caution with feeling the need to keep up with protracted blog or web controversies. Granted, if one's acquaintances - or in the case of a minister, one's congregants - are hearing confusing things, then there may be prudence in becoming educated enough to identify subtle errors and point others in the right direction. But more often Reformed news and blogs have a tendency to become more like entertainment - sort of like an ongoing soap opera - and somewhere along the line continuing to follow the discussion moves past all profitability. At some point it is more fruitful simply to return to the Scriptural and historical/confessional sources and become grounded in the truth, and move on.

I am far from criticizing the OP or anyone else for raising the question. I am just offering my thoughts and suggesting that those who are not up to speed on the "developments" may be better off for it than they realize.

I will say it: Following popular Reformed blogs is almost entirely a waste of time. These days I subscribe to the Reformation Scotland blog (one very profitable article in my email inbox once a week on Saturday morning), and occasionally check David Murray's blog (He regularly provides a list of a few recommended recent articles) or the Aquila Report for any rare gems. And I must say they are either becoming rarer, or I am becoming more discriminating - and perhaps a bit of both.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## MW

Contra_Mundum said:


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



That is very helpfully reported, and being a colloquium of sorts it clarifies the differences.

As I view the discussion I see two problems.

One problem is that there is no such thing as "functional" submission apart from "ontological" submission. Every being functions according to what it is. The incarnation was ontological. Christ became man and assumed an inferior nature for the purpose of doing the work which the Father gave Him to do. Every attempt of Drs. Grudem and Ware to limit their discussion to functional subordination necessarily implies ontological subordination, and this is what their interlocutors are repeatedly hearing. Moreover, they always affirm functional subordination in terms which apply to the God-man rather than the Son as the second person of the Trinity. This means they are carrying over the type of subordination which is proper for an human nature as being inferior to the divine nature.

The second problem is that the other side of the debate fails to recognise the property of Christ as begotten is itself a "sub" in the personal "order" of the Trinity. Every ab intra personal action must therefore be an act of "sub-ordination." The very recognition that the Son is the "Son" entails a complacent submission to the Father as "Father." This is all personal, not essential. It refers to the personal properties, not the undivided essence. As such, it is quite within the bounds of Nicene orthodoxy to speak of the Son as subordinate. Generally theologians dislike the term because it is liable to misuse, but they still speak of the thing even when they use other terms like the "order" of the Trinity.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2 | Edifying 3


----------



## lynnie

Mr R- excellently helpful, thank you. You write very well. 

CM- great link. 

Austin- We have traveled in past circles where Grudem's ST is a prime choice for small group study, or serves essentially as a Confession in some cases (Calvinist, Baptist, Continuationist). I know people who regard Piper/Grudem the way folks here regard Calvin/Hodge. (I used to have that level of respect, but don't anymore). NeoCalvinism is an interesting facet of the modern Reformed, certainly with its share of problems. I am increasingly more interested myself in "old dead guys" and would like to see NeoCalvinists pay more attention to Puritans than tweets from the Gospel Coalition....but given the younger folk I sometimes interact with, I just wanted to figure all this out. But thanks.

Does anybody know ( and maybe is it in that list of 36 blog posts) if the one side decided to scrap the analogy of Jesus Christ being like a wife? Back when it started there was some pressure to get them to scrap the Trinity analogy of Husband/Wife/Child. Even if they stick to their understanding of how the Trinity relates, did they ( CBMW, etc) ever agree to stop using that example? Did they ever agree to say that a husband is like Christ and the wife is like the Church in Ephesians 5? It just seems weird to say Jesus pictures a wife. 

Thanks for all the the imput.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

MW said:


> One problem is that there is no such thing as "functional" submission apart from "ontological" submission.



This seems like a huge assumption. How can this be proved or disproved?


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> This seems like a huge assumption. How can this be proved or disproved?



As I stated in the sentences following the quoted portion: "Every being functions according to what it is. The incarnation was ontological. Christ became man and assumed an inferior nature for the purpose of doing the work which the Father gave Him to do." Every argument used to prove the necessity of Christ becoming man for the purpose of saving man is a demonstration of the point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

Another voice. Well articulated.

http://heartandmouth.org/2017/01/28/subordination-of-the-son-ligonier-and-the-economic-trinity/
_
DEC 22, 2016 | 03:18PM EST_

_Here is the official position of Dr. Sproul and Ligonier on the Eternal Subordination of the Son debate:

Dr. Sproul and Ligonier Ministries deny the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son and the idea that the Father eternally has greater authority than the Son. The Bible clearly teaches the deity of Christ (e.g. John 1:1; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8–9; 2 Pet. 1:1), and there are no degrees of deity. All of the attributes of God belong equally to all three Persons of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is why we confess the Nicene Creed, declaring that the Son is homoousios (i.e. same nature, same substance) with the Father. To use the language of the Athanasian Creed, the Father, Son, and Spirit are “co-equal with each other.” The fifth ecumenical council in AD 553, elaborated on the implications of the homoousios doctrine, explaining that the Father, Son, and Spirit “have one nature or substance” and that they have “one power and authority.” There can no more be levels of authority within the one divine being than there can be levels of deity. The biblical doctrine taught in the early creeds is taught in our Reformed confessions as well. The Westminster Confession declares that the Son is “equal with the Father” (8.2). The Holy Spirit is also equal (WLC Q. 11). The Belgic Confession concurs, saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “equal from eternity” (Article 8). All of this is what it means to confess, along with Scripture, the true deity of Christ and of the Spirit._


----------



## RamistThomist

MW said:


> Every being functions according to what it is.



That is the best one line response I have seen yet. Thank you.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MW

lynnie said:


> _Here is the official position of Dr. Sproul and Ligonier on the Eternal Subordination of the Son debate:_



In Truths We Confess, vol. 1, p. 71, Dr. Sproul wrote, "The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding. Here is the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father -- not that the Son is of less value, power, eternity, or dignity than the Father."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

Hum. Well, I checked the book on Amazon and it is from 2006 or 2007 ( not sure which one you quote). Maybe the last ten years has forced him to reword his concepts because of how they were being misunderstood. Older and wiser now perhaps.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

I think Sproul is meaning that the subordination spoken to is a voluntary act by the Son. See the extract from his _Essential Truths of the Christian Faith_:

https://ho-logos.blogspot.com/2009/03/subordination-of-Christ-rc-sproul.html

He draws the distinction of subordination from the perspective of the economic Trinity:
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/whats-difference-between-ontological-and-economic-trinity/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I think Sproul is meaning that the subordination spoken to is a voluntary act by the Son. See the extract from his _Essential Truths of the Christian Faith_:



In "Essential Truths" that ad extra voluntary act is apparent, and this aspect is additionally stated in the next paragraph in Truths We Confess. But in the paragraph in which the quotation appears it seems evident that he is referring to the Trinity ab intra because it comes (1) as an explanation of the Confession which is dealing with the personal properties, (2) he speaks of it as "eternal," and (3) he goes on to say, "The Father is that subsistence in the Godhead from whom the Son is begotten and from whom (with the Son) the Holy Spirit proceeds." (Ibid., 71-72.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Yes, the quote from TWC is contextually ab intra. When the three volumes first appeared I thought they would be a place wherein all of what RC has written on matters of doctrine would coalesce into weighty discussion. Needless to say I was disappointed when I received them. The haste in which they seem to have been prepared is evident in the writing and the uneven cobbling of past treatments into these volumes. Given what he has written elsewhere, I am confident RC is not double-minded, but rather suffers from some terribly infelicitous wording on a matter he knows not to treat superficially.

I have contacted the Ligonier folks about the issue in hopes of receiving clarification.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Thankyou for making that contact, Patrick. It will be good to receive an explanation as to whether ab intra subordination was intended or if there has been a change of mind in view of the controversy or something else.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

This is a snip from Mike Ovey in Mr Religion's link to the debate list, title is "Should I Resign". 

_Thirdly, while committed to the eternal subordination of the Son, I share Liam’s concern about too readily reading from the eternal trinitarian relations onto human relationships.

In the complementarian gender debate, for instance, I do not think eternal subordination means that any given adult male is in a headship position with respect to any given adult female._

I was glad to hear there are ESS voices who don't think the Father and son are analogous to a husband and wife. ( yes I am complementarian but not ESS). 

Maybe it is wise to skip analogies for the Trinity altogether? My husband was just saying that the common "H2O= ice, water, steam" one is sort of modalism. Maybe the best thing is to try and present God without non biblical attempts to explain Him. And understanding marriage as Christ and the Church ought to be good enough for us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

lynnie said:


> This is a snip from Mike Ovey in Mr Religion's link to the debate list, title is "Should I Resign".
> 
> _Thirdly, while committed to the eternal subordination of the Son, I share Liam’s concern about too readily reading from the eternal trinitarian relations onto human relationships.
> 
> In the complementarian gender debate, for instance, I do not think eternal subordination means that any given adult male is in a headship position with respect to any given adult female._
> 
> I was glad to hear there are ESS voices who don't think the Father and son are analogous to a husband and wife. ( yes I am complementarian but not ESS).
> 
> Maybe it is wise to skip analogies for the Trinity altogether? My husband was just saying that the common "H2O= ice, water, steam" one is sort of modalism. Maybe the best thing is to try and present God without non biblical attempts to explain Him. And understanding marriage as Christ and the Church ought to be good enough for us.


Indeed. I have found those advocating aggressively for this bizarre in their worldview...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

MW said:


> Thankyou for making that contact, Patrick. It will be good to receive an explanation as to whether ab intra subordination was intended or if there has been a change of mind in view of the controversy or something else.


I received the following response from Ligonier this morning:

FEB 06, 2017 | 09:18AM EST
*Jacob* replied:
Thank you for contacting Ligonier Ministries. The denial of the Eternal Subordination of the Son in the statement we provided and The Word Made Flesh Christology statement is responding to the idea that the one simple essence of God can be conceived of as possessing different levels of authority. The essential properties are the same (WLC Q&A 9). All of the attributes of the one divine essence belong equally to all three Persons.

In the quote you provided from page 71 of _Truths We Confess_, Dr. Sproul is changing the subject from essential properties to personal properties of the three Persons of the Trinity. The discussion of personal properties is meant to be read within the context of the prior discussion of essential properties.

The subordination that Dr. Sproul speaks of in the latter discussion has to do with the order of procession/relation and the economic subordination of the Son in the incarnation. No one denies an order of relations (the personal properties). No one denies the subordination of the Son in the Incarnation in the temporary state of humiliation. What is denied is the tritheism inherent in any view that divides the essence/ousia of God.

We hope this clears up any confusion. If there is anything else we can help you with, please let us know.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## MW

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> We hope this clears up any confusion. If there is anything else we can help you with, please let us know.



Thankyou, Patrick. That effectively clears up the confusion.


----------



## Pergamum

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I received the following response from Ligonier this morning:
> 
> FEB 06, 2017 | 09:18AM EST
> *Jacob* replied:
> Thank you for contacting Ligonier Ministries. The denial of the Eternal Subordination of the Son in the statement we provided and The Word Made Flesh Christology statement is responding to the idea that the one simple essence of God can be conceived of as possessing different levels of authority. The essential properties are the same (WLC Q&A 9). All of the attributes of the one divine essence belong equally to all three Persons.
> 
> In the quote you provided from page 71 of _Truths We Confess_, Dr. Sproul is changing the subject from essential properties to personal properties of the three Persons of the Trinity. The discussion of personal properties is meant to be read within the context of the prior discussion of essential properties.
> 
> The subordination that Dr. Sproul speaks of in the latter discussion has to do with the order of procession/relation and the economic subordination of the Son in the incarnation. No one denies an order of relations (the personal properties). No one denies the subordination of the Son in the Incarnation in the temporary state of humiliation. What is denied is the tritheism inherent in any view that divides the essence/ousia of God.
> 
> We hope this clears up any confusion. If there is anything else we can help you with, please let us know.



But if we say only that, "No one denies the subordination of the Son in the Incarnation in the temporary state of humiliation" then what of the pre-incarnate appearances of the second Person of the Trinity such as to Abraham and Jacob etc.? 

Are not we to conclude that the Son's pre-incarnate visits to earth in the form of the Angel of the Lord were out of obedience to the Father, too, and not the Son's idea alone? The Son of God appeared many times before the incarnation, after all.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Pergamum said:


> But if we say only that, "No one denies the subordination of the Son in the Incarnation in the temporary state of humiliation" then what of the pre-incarnate appearances of the second Person of the Trinity such as to Abraham and Jacob etc.?
> 
> Are not we to conclude that the Son's pre-incarnate visits to earth in the form of the Angel of the Lord were out of obedience to the Father, too, and not the Son's idea alone? The Son of God appeared many times before the incarnation, after all.


I think you have misread the response.

Think of it as reading:
"No one denies an order of relations (the personal properties). _For that matter, n_o one denies the subordination of the Son in the Incarnation in the temporary state of humiliation. "

The respondent could have stopped at "No one denies an order of relations (the personal properties)." But he was on a roll and added content to just bolster the previous statement. The statement was not intended as a narrowing of the matter to simply the incarnation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

okay, great.


----------



## lynnie

So just to be absolutely crystal clear here, would Wayne Grudem, Ware, CBMW, and I am not sure who all the names are, hold to this:

_the idea that the one simple essence of God can be conceived of as possessing different levels of authority. _

and deny this:

_The essential properties are the same (WLC Q&A 9). All of the attributes of the one divine essence belong equally to all three Persons. _

I just want to make sure I understand.

Would they say they do agree....and then get into all kinds of semantics that Carl Trueman would pick to pieces as being heresy as worded and parsed...or would they actually say they don't agree? This is what the core of ESS is right? Denying this? "The essential properties are the same (WLC Q&A 9). All of the attributes of the one divine essence belong equally to all three Persons."

Thanks for writing to him Mr R.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Lynnie,

I think you have it reasonably summarized, especially the issue of the semantics that are being used. As is typical, persons who are moving beyond the boundaries of doctrine will assert they are within the camp, but demonstrate they are not by their recasting of commonly understood words and meanings to suit their purposes. So it is difficult or impossible to simply use things like WLC #9 or even the Nicene Creed as a litmus test for these persons. They will affirm them loudly. It is only when pressed for details that the nuances emerge and the facts are revealed.

For example, ask any open theist if he affirms that God is _omniscient_. They will gladly affirm this to be so. Yet, when asked how they define _omniscience_, it is revealed that they hold _God knows all that there is to know_ and since the future has not yet happened, God cannot possibly know the future. Sigh.

So while Grudem and Ware may affirm WLC #9, they ultimately nuance it by assigning meanings they will declare do not imply assignment of different attributes to the Father or the Son. On the one hand they both will insist that they believe that the Father and Son are equal in being. Yet on the other hand, they make statements about the authority and submission of Father and Son that I and others believe actually impact the ontological aspects of God. As M. Erickson observed,

"...if the Son is eternally and necessarily subordinate, then that is an ontological statement. Drs. Ware and Grudem have made a division between God’s attributes and the personal properties of the three persons. They would say the Son is functionally subordinate but has the full divine essence.

"...if an attribute is necessary, it is essential and therefore inseparable from nature. Drs. Ware and Grudem teach that authority and submission are inherent in the Father and Son. According to proponents of ESS, the Father has an essential attribute (authority) that the Son doesn’t have, and the Son has an essential attribute (submission) that the Father doesn’t have.

"Even the use of the term “fundamental” instead of “essence” or “essential” doesn’t change the ontological nature of the argument. If authority and submission are fundamental, then the Father and the Son are fundamentally different. Calling the differences of authority and submission “relational” confuses relationship with properties."​Grudem's notes from the ETS meeting are instructive along these lines:
http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ETS-Presentation-on-Trinity-11-15-16.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

Ok, that was helpful, thanks. 

I looked at the notes.

_e. My conclusion on eternal generation: I am now willing to affirm the “eternal generation of the Son,” based on John 1:14, 18, etc., as something mysterious, not implying creation of the Son (“begotten not made”), and somehow analogous to a human father-son relationship_

I guess that's a big improvement over making it analogous to a husband and a wife. 

So when he claims that other respected past Reformed theologians saw it the same way, is that true? I think Hodge got mentioned somewhere else. I mean, even if you think Sproul is 100% correct and Trueman/Goligher/Jones, etc are correct, is this an area like say paedo vs credo where there is big disagreement but we have to accept it as within the bounds of Reformed church history?

Is it possible to say that the one particular attribute of authority is not part of the one-God essence and still be orthodox? Can you affirm this:

_The Westminster Shorter Catechism's definition of God is merely an enumeration of his attributes: "God is a *Spirit*, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, *holiness*, justice, *goodness*, and truth."_

but not affirm the same level of authority as being an attribute, and be considered Confessional/Reformed/Orthodox? 

In my neo-Calvinist background 20 years ago everybody cut their teeth on Grudem. I've gone more confessional since those days so phew, this is a tough subject. I think Sproul is right- it just makes sense that one authority must be an attribute of the Godhead...but I am wondering if Grudem's claim to be part of a solid ESS Reformed theological past which does not make one level of authority an essential attribute is accurate. 

Thanks for helping me figure this out. 
_
_


----------



## RamistThomist

lynnie said:


> Is it possible to say that the one particular attribute of authority is not part of the one-God essence and still be orthodox?



No. God's attributes are his essence. Or his essence is his attributes.


----------



## lynnie

Yes. But his essence and his attributes of all three persons do not include being incarnated. So if Grudem says that the level of authority is also not included in shared attributes, just like the human body is not shared, and claimed that a whole list of Reformed guys also said the same thing, what is the reply to that? Did they? Did a bunch of old dead guys say that authority is not one of the attributes of God's essence that all three share?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

lynnie said:


> Maybe it is wise to skip analogies for the Trinity altogether? My husband was just saying that the common "H2O= ice, water, steam" one is sort of modalism. Maybe the best thing is to try and present God without non biblical attempts to explain Him. And understanding marriage as Christ and the Church ought to be good enough for us.




Yes, I think it is wise. One of the interesting things about studying those who had to battle early Trinitarian heresies is that they believed that the Trinity was something to be adored and worshiped more than trying to penetrate it. They even spoke in terms of daring to have to speak in ways they might otherwise avoid because troublers of the Church were denying the divinity of Christ and so they had to take up the use of words to exclude those who would deny the truths that had been received in the Apostolic faith.

I was thinking about this the other day that we don't typically engage in "analogies" for things we don't understand. It is sufficient for us to know that the sun provides light and heat for us. Those with a deeper understanding of nuclear physics understand the nature of fusion and how enHydrogen atoms fuse to produce energy in the form of heat and light. We don't think: "I think I'll create an analogy for how the Sun produces its light..." and then embark upon a form of pseudo-technical language to describe a process we don't quite grasp because we lack the training to properly apprehend it.

I think it's best for us to simply confess what we've received - the Nicene Creed and Definition of Chalcedon. We may not understand it at a technical level but, if it's not our discipline, then why do we feel compelled to think that analogies that we can "relate" are adequate.

Let us simply adore the One God in Three Persons. Let us confess what the Church catholic has confessed for centuries and meditate upon it and grow in our understanding and not make fools of ourselves in trying to "creatively" deceive ourselves, our children, or others with analogies that are dangerous. I think it is better to remain devotionally ignorant of certain things and strive to grasp them further than to set our minds down a dark path with analogies.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

What do we think about Augustine's analogies regarding Trinity and anthropology? Though I think Augustine was explaining anthropology more than Trinity.


Lover, loved object, the lover's love for that object (255 [VIII.5.13])
the mind, its knowledge, its love (272–5 [IX.1])
the mind's remembering itself, understanding itself, and willing itself (298–9 [X.4])
memory, understanding, and will (374–82 [XIV.2–3)
the mind's remembering God, understanding God, and willing God (383–92 [XIV.4–5])
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#Aug

existing, knowing that one exists, loving the fact that one exists (Augustine _City_, 483-4 [XI.26];cf. _Confessions_ 264-5 [XIII.11])


----------



## MW

ReformedReidian said:


> What do we think about Augustine's analogies regarding Trinity and anthropology?



The illustration from understanding was used by the reformed scholastics. E.g., Ames, Marrow, 1.5.16: "Yet, in part, it may be shadowed in a similitude; namely the Father is as it were, Deus intelligens, God understanding. The Son, the express image of the Father, is as it were Deus intellectus, God understood. The Holy Spirit, flowing and breathed from the Father by the Son, is as it were Deus dilectus, God beloved."

Melchior Leydecker regarded the illustration as being excessively scholastic. "Quae sunt Amesii verba, certe Scholastica nimis: & quis Scholasticorum lusus in hoc mysterio probet?" (De Veritate Religionis
Reformatae Seu Evangelicae, 1688, p. 28.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

I have found that certain complementarians who propound ESS, while not necessarily following through logically with regard to the Trinity tend to follow through with rigid gender roles.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

lynnie said:


> So when he [Grudem] claims that other respected past Reformed theologians saw it the same way, is that true? I think Hodge got mentioned somewhere else. I mean, even if you think Sproul is 100% correct and Trueman/Goligher/Jones, etc are correct, is this an area like say paedo vs credo where there is big disagreement but we have to accept it as within the bounds of Reformed church history?


I think the EFS debate far exceeds any comparison to the paedo vs. the anti-padedo baptistic disagreements. Broadly speaking, all doctrinal error is sin. That said, not each and every doctrinal error is equal in their weight in the faith we hold dear.

For example, no one would dispute that Trinitarian error is egregious and places one outside the faith when the Trinity is denied. Our Confessions serve as our basis of unity and for reasoned discussion. Our confessions on either side of the paedo and credo baptistic aisles label the other side as sinful. So when the issue is truly pressed both sides of the aisle concerning baptism declare the other side to be sinful, because, after all our Confessions, held to be summarizing Scripture, so say it.

On the topic of baptism, we here at PB try to avoid charging one another with sin and thereby polarizing discussions to the point of generating hard feelings. So, while there are no unimportant doctrines, yet relatively speaking, there are some. Fortunately PB's creation of separate forums for both baptistic views helps given that in these forums the assumption is that questions being asked in each are going to be answered by those informed of the particular view.

But...the EFS matter relates to the ontology of God and the three personal subsistences therein, therefore it is not a peripheral issue. It strikes at the very core of our faith. We cannot create intellectual idols of God then go off worshipping them and not expect to imperil our eternal destinies. Here we must do our best to pluck the offender from the fire. If there is a hill to fight and die upon regarding matters of the faith, this is the one.

In the interest of post length I will stop here and pick things up regarding your direct questions in my next post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

lynnie said:


> So when he [Grudem] claims that other respected past Reformed theologians saw it the same way, is that true? I think Hodge got mentioned somewhere else...
> 
> ...Is it possible to say that the one particular attribute of authority is not part of the one-God essence and still be orthodox? Can you affirm this:
> 
> The Westminster Shorter Catechism's definition of God is merely an enumeration of his attributes: "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."
> 
> but not affirm the same level of authority as being an attribute, and be considered Confessional / Reformed / Orthodox?



From at least AD 325 the church catholic has argued that the _relations_ of the Father and the Son are to be learned only from revelation of Scripture. Further, that all the divine relations being in and of God, Who, with all His plurality of person, is but one God, that these relations are in the same undivided divine essence, and as a consequent, belong to the nature of God, and must be eternal.

Hodge writing in vol. 1, Ch. 6.5(c), of his _Systematic Theology_, speaks of subordination in the Trinity as to the mode of subsistence (emphasis mine):



Spoiler



On this subject the Nicene doctrine includes,—
1. The principle of the *subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority*. For as the same divine essence with all its infinite perfections is common to the Father, Son, and Spirit, there can be no inferiority of one person to the other in the Trinity. Neither does it imply posteriority; for the divine essence common to the several persons is self-existent and eternal. *The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation*, implied in the Scriptural facts that the Son is of the Father, and the Spirit is of the Father and the Son, and that the Father operates through the Son, and the Father and the Son through the Spirit.​...
...
If Christ is Son, if he is God of God, he is not self-existent and independent. But self-existence, independence, etc., are attributes of the divine essence, and not of one person in distinction from the others. It is the triune God, who is self-existent, and independent. *Subordination, as to the mode of subsistence, and operation, is a scriptural fact*; and so also is the perfect and equal godhead of the Father, and the Son, and, therefore, these facts must be consistent. In the consubstantial identity of the human soul, there is a subordination of one faculty to another, and so, however incomprehensible to us, *there may be* a subordination in the trinity *consistent with the identity of essence in the godhead.*​



For Hodge, subordination is due to the difference in the modes of subsistence in the divine essence. In nothing of what Hodge writes do I find the claim that, given the mode of subordination described, the Father necessarily eternally rules over the Son, and the Son is necessarily eternally obedient to the Father, as Grudem claims. Necessary properties are ontological claims. If the Son is necessarily obedient, and the Father necessarily ruling over the Son, then two distinct ontologies exist, two Gods, not one God.

We have also seen that in the various outward works of the Trinity, the same _subordination of office_ appears as is found in the mode of subsistence within. This subordination, in both respects, should be recognized because it is taught in Scripture. At the same time it must never be forgotten that the same Scripture distinctly declares the perfect equality of the three persons in the divine nature, which allows no inferiority of any one of them as God. Accordingly, the willing and self-chosen subordination of God the Son for our salvation should not be read back into the eternal life of God.


----------



## earl40

MW said:


> The illustration from understanding was used by the reformed scholastics. E.g., Ames, Marrow, 1.5.16: "Yet, in part, it may be shadowed in a similitude; namely the Father is as it were, Deus intelligens, God understanding. The Son, the express image of the Father, is as it were Deus intellectus, God understood. The Holy Spirit, flowing and breathed from the Father by the Son, is as it were Deus dilectus, God beloved."
> 
> Melchior Leydecker regarded the illustration as being excessively scholastic. "Quae sunt Amesii verba, certe Scholastica nimis: & quis Scholasticorum lusus in hoc mysterio probet?" (De Veritate Religionis
> Reformatae Seu Evangelicae, 1688, p. 28.)



The "as it were" above is so important in respect to how we are to view this matter in an ectypal way, correct?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> The "as it were" above is so important in respect to how we are to view this matter in an ectypal way, correct?



Yes, that is a very good point. Ames was only giving an illustration to show there is a difference between begetting and procession. He wasn't attempting to know the unknowable.


----------



## lynnie

Semper fi, that was beautiful, thank you.

Mr R- I very much appreciate the clarification, esp on Hodge.

I asked my husband the other day if he ever heard any of this at Westminster TS back in the 70s ( ie different levels of authority) with anybody, and he said of course not. Even if the confession uses other words like power or rule or sovereign or omnipotent, it is all the same as authority.

But it did get him curious when I said Frame supposedly believes it ( he had Frame and really liked him).
So here is a clarification on that one.

_ In any event, in chapter 22 he has a section entitled “Subordination.” Assuming the page numbering is the same in the Kindle edition as in the print edition, it’s pages 500 through 502. At the end (page 502) he briefly mentions ramifications regarding feminism, and asks the question, “Should we regard this Trinitarian hierarchy as a model for human society?”_

_In typical Frame fashion, he is very careful – “When I say a), I don’t mean b) or c)”, that sort of thing. He rejects ontological subordination (which he associates with Arianism) but argues for economic subordination, or subordination of roles. “That the Father has some sort of primacy is implicit in the name Father in distinction from Son and Spirit, and of course, the doctrines of eternal generation and procession suggest that the Father has some sort of unique ‘originative’ role.” And he claims to be consistent with historical doctrinal understanding – “Theologians have used phrases such as fons deitatis (“fountain of deity”) and fons trinitatis (“fountain of the Trinity”) to describe the Father’s unique role in the Trinity” (footnote referencing, among other things, the Heidelberg Catechism)._

_But in the end he stops short of seeing relationships within the Trinity as a pattern for human relationships – “I hesitate to place much ethical weight on the intra-Trinitarian role relation” – instead saying that we should all strive to be like Jesus (per his earthly example) in serving one another._

So he isn't ESS as I understand it; it isn't ontological even if the roles are different. For what it's worth. 

I knew a lot of former charismatics and Arminians whose churches used Grudem and many people became Calvinists (or neoCalvinists or whatever you call it) where Piper and Grudem together were sort of the substitute Confession. I thought it was a very positive thing compared to every wind of doctrine Charismania; I still think that. But current developments are sad.

Thanks again to all.


----------



## MW

lynnie said:


> So he isn't ESS as I understand it; it isn't ontological even if the roles are different. For what it's worth.



It is still ontological in that it appeals to what is implicit in the Father-Son relationship. It differs from Dr. Grudem in acknowledging the voluntary nature of the Son's subordination as God-man, and in denying the intra-trinitarian relations are the pattern for human relationships.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

That Grudem and others seek some refuge for their views in those of Frame's is unremarkable, especially when he makes the following statements:

*As we thus meditate on the nature of Jesus' eternal sonship, we should not confine our attention to his begetting. As Pannenberg says:

Relations among the three persons that are defined as mutual self-distinction distinction cannot he reduced to relations of origin in the traditional sense. The Father does not merely beget the Son. He also hands over his Kingdom to him and receives it hack from him. The Son is not merely begotten of the Father. He is also obedient to him and he thereby glorifies him as the one God. The Spirit is not just breathed. He also fills the Son and glorifies him in his obedience to the Father, thereby glorifying the Father himself. In so doing he leads into all truth (John 16:13) and searches out the deep things of Godhead (1 Cor. 2:10-11).
_Footnote_: Wulfhirt Pannenherg, _Systematic Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 320.​Along with the Son's eternal generation, then, *we can speak of his eternal obedience* and eternal glorification of the Father. But these assertions (including the assertion of eternal generation) *should not be the subject of microscopic analysis and rigid enforcement as tests of orthodoxy*. They are biblical hints as to the nature of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.
*Src: John M. Frame. _Doctrine of God, The (A Theology of Lordship)_.​


----------



## Pilgrim0297

I confess I am a bit of a novice here. I am still learning. Thank you for letting me be a part of this community. I mostly try to observe and learn and not post so much. By as I read through this posting and all the replies (which has been very helpful by the way), I couldn't help but think of something that has been bugging me of late in my personal studies. I am studying the Westminster Confession and recently came across Ch 2.3 which states that Jesus is "eternally begotten". I immediately thought of this ESS debate. Is there anything here or am I just reading into it too much. What is meant by "eternally begotten"? 

"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, The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." WCF 2.3


----------



## Pergamum

Letham in his book says that there is something appropriate about the Son becoming incarnate and being sent by the Father....because he is the Son. 

After all, would the Father have become incarnate and come to earth sent by the Son?

What do we think of Letham's conclusion?


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> Letham in his book says that there is some appropriate about the Son becoming incarnate and being sent by the Father....because he is the Son. After all, would the Father have become incarnate and come to earth sent by the Son?
> 
> What do we think of Letham's conclusion?



Standard Patristic taxis. There is a taxis or order to our knowledge of the Trinity. While Grudem and Co., are wrong, I do think they were reaching for something like that conclusion.


----------



## Pergamum

If Grudem et al say that they deny any ontological subordination, shouldn't we assume then that they are merely speaking of taxis? The taxis language and ESS sound awful similar.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Pilgrim0297 said:


> ...I am studying the Westminster Confession and recently came across Ch 2.3 which states that Jesus is "eternally begotten". I immediately thought of this ESS debate. Is there anything here or am I just reading into it too much. What is meant by "eternally begotten"?
> 
> "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, The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." WCF 2.3



It is a complex topic. This may be helpful:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/why-is-Jesus-titled-the-son-of-god.91112/#post-1116522


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Pergamum said:


> Letham in his book says that there is something appropriate about the Son becoming incarnate and being sent by the Father....because he is the Son.
> 
> After all, would the Father have become incarnate and come to earth sent by the Son?
> 
> What do we think of Letham's conclusion?


I suspect it is akin to the statement Letham makes elsewhere (see also this):



Spoiler



*The Christological Question: Who Is Jesus Christ?*

The questions raised by the relation between the incarnate Christ and the eternal Son are clearly Christological as well as Trinitarian. The ecumenical councils Chalcedon, Constantinople II, and Constantinople III established that Jesus Christ is the eternal Logos, who has assumed and personalized a human nature. Two natures did not join together to form a composite person; rather, the Son added humanity permanently. Constantinople II recognized the dogma of _enhypostasia_, entailing no separate, independent existence for the assumed humanity; rather, the Son personalized it. The humanity of Christ is the humanity of the Logos. The famous Cyrilline phrase, “One of the trinity suffered according to the flesh” expresses it well. The Jesus Christ of the gospels is thus _personally_ identical to the eternal Son and the post-resurrection Son. In effect, the Christology of the early church father Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 376–444), seen especially in his _Quod unus sint Christus_, was canonized.17Every act of Christ’s mediation is the act of the whole person.18

From this, *I argue that the assumption of humanity was appropriate to the Son*. If this were not so, a radical _Nestorian_ chasm would exist between the person of the Son (for whom submission to the Father was alien) and the assumed humanity (in which obedience to God was rendered). *If obedient assumed humanity is congruent with the Son Himself, it would seem that there is something about the Son that makes this congruence possible*.


Letham writes from the following perspective:

"The prime question is whether *the obedience rendered by the incarnate Christ reflects eternal realities in God*. Giles denies it; *I affirm it*. Such an affirmation, however, needs careful qualification.

Giles denies a connection between the eternal Son and the obedience of Christ as _second Adam _on the following grounds. He maintains that the Son is eternally equal to the Father in power and authority, possessing the one identical divine will; that the obedience of Christ was as the second Adam, _as man_, for our salvation; and that once His saving work was done, He was exalted to the full exercise of omnipotence.

Others argue in varying ways that there is a connection—a congruity, as I prefer to call it—between the incarnate Son’s obedience and the eternal Son’s relation to the Father. I avoid talk of “subordination” since this conveys the heretical notion of gradations of deity. Since the Son is the whole God, and the will of God is indivisible, He is all that the Father is except for being the Father. Whatever the connection between His incarnate obedience and His eternal deity, I argue that His omnipotence is in no way abbreviated. *The question at issue is the way He exercises His omnipotence; it concerns the relations between the persons*.​
Letham, then proceeds to base his arguments, contra Giles, using _relational subordination_, which to me denies Scripture wherein the Belgic Confession clearly summarizes that the Son is neither subordinate nor subservient. Along with Erickson, I believe that if roles and relations are necessary and eternal, they must therefore be ontological. If one is familiar with Letham's works, one readily recognizes that he often wants to have his cake and eat it too. All too often when reading Letham as he waxes eloquent, I kept telling myself, "there is a pony in there somewhere", but actually identifying it was an exercise in futility on many occasions. Letham on the one hand will affirm that eternal subordination of the Son is beyond the bounds, yet on the other hand he will speak at length about the eternal submission of the Son. See Letham's T_he Holy Trinity in Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> If Grudem et al say that they deny any ontological subordination, shouldn't we assume then that they are merely speaking of taxis? The taxis language and ESS sound awful similar.



As noted earlier, they can deny it in words but the thing is still there. There is no such thing as functional subordination apart from ontological subordination. Cur Deus Homo? Why the God-man? And their understanding of functional subordination takes in things which were only proper to the human nature as something inferior to the divine nature.

Then, by denying the ontological they deny the proper sense in which we can speak of the "order" of the Trinity. They forfeit the one genuine sense in which there is a "sub-ordination" which terminates on the personal properties.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> If Grudem et al say that they deny any ontological subordination, shouldn't we assume then that they are merely speaking of taxis? The taxis language and ESS sound awful similar.



Except none of the fathers (to my knowledge) used authority-relation in the sense that Grudem does. And the relations between Father-Son-Spirit are also homoousios (which was Athanasius's main point in Contra Arianos). ESS threatens the homooiusios of the relation (since relation is also a predicate of essence).


----------



## Pergamum

ReformedReidian said:


> Except none of the fathers (to my knowledge) used authority-relation in the sense that Grudem does. And the relations between Father-Son-Spirit are also homoousios (which was Athanasius's main point in Contra Arianos). ESS threatens the homooiusios of the relation (since relation is also a predicate of essence).



Okay, that was what I was wondering...whether or not new language was introduced that never appeared in the Church Fathers. This means Grudem is asserting a new phraseology (if not a new doctrine).

So in what ways is the Son voluntarily subordinate to the Father, since He did come to earth sent by the Father and came to do the Father's will. And at what point in time did He subordinate Himself to the Father? 

If not from eternity, then was the Covenant of Redemption a "new thought" in the mind of God? But this covenant seems from eternity past. Do you believe in such a covenant from all eternity? If so, how does the Son then not subordinate Himself to the Father from all eternity?


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> So in what ways is the Son voluntarily subordinate to the Father, since He did come to earth sent by the Father and came to do the Father's will. And at what point in time did He subordinate Himself to the Father?



Here is the difficulty with that line of questioning, as Millard Erickson pointed out: The Son was also incarnate of the Holy Ghost in the womb, so does that mean that the Son is also subordinate to the Holy Spirit? But that raises problems of us Westerners, since we also have the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. So who is subordinate to whom at this point? Further, the Holy Spirit "drives" the Son into the wilderness. Is the Son functionally subordinate to the Holy Spirit, then?


----------



## arapahoepark

ReformedReidian said:


> Here is the difficulty with that line of questioning, as Millard Erickson pointed out: The Son was also incarnate of the Holy Ghost in the womb, so does that mean that the Son is also subordinate to the Holy Spirit? But that raises problems of us Westerners, since we also have the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. So who is subordinate to whom at this point? Further, the Holy Spirit "drives" the Son into the wilderness. Is the Son functionally subordinate to the Holy Spirit, then?


So how then is this resolved?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

arapahoepark said:


> So how then is this resolved?


It is _resolved_ in the understanding that...

(1) the subordination of the Son and the Spirit is temporary and functional (not eternal), for the period and purpose of their special ministry in the accomplishment and application of salvation to the human race;

(2) the Father's authority cannot be taken in isolation from the authority possessed by the Son and the Holy Spirit;

(3) Scriptures that speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying are to be understood as referring to the time of the Son's earthly ministry;

(4) the Father's will, which the Son obeys, is actually the will of all three members of the Trinity, administered on their behalf by the Father;

(5) for those claiming eternal functional subordination, the difference of _role_ within the Trinity requires that one person have _authority—_per an assumed _ranking_ over the other—_has yet to be substantiated_, rather merely _stipulated_ as a new definition for personhood which requires a _ranking_, and ignores the possibility of a jointly decided _covenant_ between members of the Trinity before creation;

(6) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son was never equal to the Father, the matter of the humiliation of the Son in the Incarnation as to exactly what He gave up requires a demagnification of Scripture's teachings concerning The Son's present glorification;

(7) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son could not do otherwise, then the Son's coming was not really a free act, nor, with respect to this one action, was God free;

(8) given the assumption by the eternal subordination proponent that the Son's subordination is similar to that of human sons to human fathers, then the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father—_proceeding_ from both Father and Son—is either something akin to a second son or a grandson;

(9) given that each action of the members of the Trinity is an action by all members of the Trinity, the substitutionary penal view of the atonement is not laid open to charges of injustice for the punishment of an unwilling innocent;

(10) if the Son is eternally subordinate, then prayers directed to Jesus, such as the _maranatha prayer_ asking His return, ought logically to be directed instead to the Father, since the Father sent the Son the first time, and prayers should be for the Father to send the Son the second time;

(11) if the Son is eternally subordinate, praise and worship of the Son is _penultimate_, not ultimate as that given to the Father; and

(12) if the Father is _eternally_ and _necessarily_ supreme among the persons of the Trinity, if the Son eternally is subordinated to the Father, then the Son is _essentially_, that is, not _accidentally_, subordinate to the Father. Therefore if there is a difference of essence between the Father and the Son—that the Father's essence includes supreme authority—while the Son's essence includes submission and subordination everywhere and always, then there is an _ontological_ difference between members of the Trinity which would lead us back to Arianism.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist

arapahoepark said:


> So how then is this resolved?



It's resolved when Grudem et al stop importing categories that are primarily used to justify complementarianism. Compl. may or may not be true, but the purpose of the Trinity is not to clarify complementarianism.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## lynnie

Mr R- That was outstanding.

In my opinion, the measure of truly good teaching is being able to be very clear and also very concise for laymen. Thanks for the time you've put into this subject!

I've been thinking about it and if Jesus isn't sovereign and supreme and ruler and boss and all powerful, he isn't God. I mean that's what God is- authority. The King. Not partial but fully. But with all the long blog posts and arguments and technical discussions out there, and of course the fact of husband headship and wives submitting being scriptural thrown into the mix, the whole subject gets confusing. But if you go back to the simple question of is Jesus God, and can God have less authority and rule and power than God, well, of course not.

I have also suspected that politics may have caused some to dig in their heels. Trueman and Pruitt came out heavily against putting Mahaney into conference pulpits what with the various scandalous accusations and stories out there of SGM bungling sex abuse disasters back when Mahaney was lead Apostle of SGM and senior pastor of his church. And Grudem appears to be best buds with Mahaney and taught at his pastors college; Piper (ie CBMW- ESS) also took Mahaney's side. I know in my experience, my deep personal friendships have often colored my doctrinal thinking and it is hard to face serious flaws in those we love.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> It is _resolved_ in the understanding that...
> 
> (1) the subordination of the Son and the Spirit is temporary and functional, for the period and purpose of their special ministry in the accomplishment and application of salvation to the human race;
> 
> (2) the Father's authority cannot be taken in isolation from the authority possessed by the Son and the Holy Spirit;
> 
> (3) Scriptures that speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying are to be understood as referring to the time of the Son's earthly ministry;
> 
> (4) the Father's will, which the Son obeys, is actually the will of all three members of the Trinity, administered on their behalf by the Father;
> 
> (5) for those claiming eternal functional subordination, the difference of _role_ within the Trinity requires that one person have _authority—_per an assumed ranking over the other—_has yet to be substantiated_, rather merely _stipulated_ as a new definition for personhood which requires a _ranking_, and ignores the possibility of a jointly decided _covenant_ between members of the Trinity before creation;
> 
> (6) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son was never equal to the Father, the matter of the humiliation of the Son in the Incarnation as to exactly what He gave up requires a demagnification of Scripture's teachings concerning The Son's present glorification;
> 
> (7) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son could not do otherwise, then the Son's coming was not really a free act, nor, with respect to this one action, was God free;
> 
> (8) given the assumption by the eternal subordination proponent that the Son's subordination is similar to that of human sons to human fathers, then the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father—_proceeding_ from both Father and Son—is either something akin to a second son or a grandson;
> 
> (9) given that each action of the members of the Trinity is an action by all members of the Trinity, the substitutionary penal view of the atonement is not laid open to charges of injustice for the punishment of an unwilling innocent;
> 
> (10) if the Son is eternally subordinate, then prayers directed to Jesus, such as the _maranatha prayer_ asking His return, ought logically to be directed instead to the Father, since the Father sent the Son the first time, and prayers should be for the Father to send the Son the second time;
> 
> (11) if the Son is eternally subordinate, praise and worship of the Son is _penultimate_, not ultimate as that given to the Father; and
> 
> (12) if the Father is _eternally_ and _necessarily_ supreme among the persons of the Trinity, if the Son eternally is subordinated to the Father, then the Son is _essentially_, that is, not _accidentally_, subordinate to the Father. Therefore if there is a difference of essence between the Father and the Son—that the Father's essence includes supreme authority—while the Son's essence includes submission and subordination everywhere and always, then there is an _ontological_ difference between members of the Trinity which would lead us back to Arianism.




Thank you so much for the 12 reasons above.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

This review (and the book) of No Little Women is worth a read:
http://theaquilareport.com/matter-women-taught/

"I am very thankful for Aimee’s work in _No Little Women. _I hope everyone will read it. With Aimee, I hope that pastors and elders are encouraged to get involved with the women of their church in order to teach, equip, protect, and utilize them in the work of the church. I also hope women especially will be spurred to greater faithfulness and discernment. Our churches need us to be competent women in our roles as necessary allies. May we be “little women” no longer."​


----------



## MW

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> This review (and the book) of No Little Women is worth a read:
> http://theaquilareport.com/matter-women-taught/



The sequel to Little Women is Good Wives.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Over at http://www.heartandmouth.org/2017/02/21/economic-subordination-son-part-1-theologia-oikonomia/ Brad Mason sets out to understand how the early church fathers distinguished between _theologia_ and _oikonomia_ under the assumption that a great deal of the confusion between the _economic_ and _ontological_ Trinity lies with employing modern understandings of the terms versus their original intent by the ECF.

The piece contains a nice survey and some analysis of ECF thought, concluding:

...I hope that it is abundantly clear that the conceptual distinction between _theologia_ and _oikonomia_ in Fathers is not at all the distinction we commonly refer to as the Ontological/Economic distinction. The terms do not refer to the _in se_ life of the immanent Trinity in distinction to the _ad extra_ works and operations of the Trinity in creation and redemption. To the Fathers, _there is no “Ontological Trinity” or “Economic Trinity”;_ in fact, the_ theologia_/_oikonomia_ distinction has nothing to do with Trinitarian theology _per se_. Of course it relates to the Trinity in as much as all doctrines do, but the distinction of the Fathers’ is primarily a _Christological distinction_.

The _theologia_ is ascribed to the Son in His Divine Nature and all that is entailed by His true and perfect Godhead; the _oikonomia_ is ascribed to the Son united with His manhood and all that is entailed by the appropriation of true flesh and human soul. And the _purpose_ of the terms is to make plain that the latter does not diminish the former since it is an arrangement, a dispensation, a condescension, keeping the Natures distinct—God and man in one Person. It is no more a Trinitarian distinction than is the Double Account. Both are about Christ in His two natures and are intended to oppose Patripassians, Subordinationists, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc., and more importantly, to properly apprehend the teaching of our Savior in the Scriptures.​

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## reaganmarsh

This has been a very helpful thread -- AMR's 12 points in particular.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MW

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Over at http://www.heartandmouth.org/2017/02/21/economic-subordination-son-part-1-theologia-oikonomia/ Brad Mason sets out to understand how the early church fathers distinguished between _theologia_ and _oikonomia_ under the assumption that a great deal of the confusion between the _economic_ and _ontological_ Trinity lies with employing modern understandings of the terms versus their original intent by the ECF.



I found this paper unconvincing. The theologia-oikonomia distinction is ingrained in post-Nicene theology. There is an apparent and determined effort on the part of theologians after Nicea to clarify when they are speaking about God in Himself (theologia, or theology proper) and as He is towards His creatures (oikonomia).

It would be a shame if Dr. Grudem's false dichotomy between ontology and function were accidentally assumed and created a new paradigm for understanding the "fathers."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I think the EFS debate far exceeds any comparison to the paedo vs. the anti-padedo baptistic disagreements. Broadly speaking, all doctrinal error is sin. That said, not each and every doctrinal error is equal in their weight in the faith we hold dear.
> 
> For example, no one would dispute that Trinitarian error is egregious and places one outside the faith when the Trinity is denied. Our Confessions serve as our basis of unity and for reasoned discussion. Our confessions on either side of the paedo and credo baptistic aisles label the other side as sinful. So when the issue is truly pressed both sides of the aisle concerning baptism declare the other side to be sinful, because, after all our Confessions, held to be summarizing Scripture, so say it.
> 
> On the topic of baptism, we here at PB try to avoid charging one another with sin and thereby polarizing discussions to the point of generating hard feelings. So, while there are no unimportant doctrines, yet relatively speaking, there are some. Fortunately PB's creation of separate forums for both baptistic views helps given that in these forums the assumption is that questions being asked in each are going to be answered by those informed of the particular view.
> 
> But...the EFS matter relates to the ontology of God and the three personal subsistences therein, therefore it is not a peripheral issue. It strikes at the very core of our faith. We cannot create intellectual idols of God then go off worshipping them and not expect to imperil our eternal destinies. Here we must do our best to pluck the offender from the fire. If there is a hill to fight and die upon regarding matters of the faith, this is the one.
> 
> In the interest of post length I will stop here and pick things up regarding your direct questions in my next post.



Believe that you are saying here that there are issues where one side can be wrong and not be in violation of a major doctrine, such as in mode of water baptism, but how one views the Trinity would be going into major doctrines that cannot be violated? is that correct?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Yes, David, having the wrong view of matters related to the Trinity generally leads one down the path to idolatry.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yes, David, having the wrong view of matters related to the Trinity generally leads one down the path to idolatry.


Coming through my Pentecostal background, 2 major errors concerning the Trinity viewpoints would be the concept of Christians having 3 separate Gods, as Mormons view God, or else God is One person who takes on three roles...
Have seen both of those errors within some of the Church...


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Coming through my Pentecostal background, 2 major errors concerning the Trinity viewpoints would be the concept of Christians having 3 separate Gods, as Mormons view God, or else God is One person who takes on three roles...
> Have seen both of those errors within some of the Church...



I think of belief-systems as something like a spiderweb. Control-beliefs are at the center: Trinity, etc. Compromise those and the integrity of the whole thing is suspect. But other beliefs, like timing of the millennium, are at the outside. If you are wrong on the latter, most of your system is still probably intact.


----------



## reaganmarsh

Hi Jacob,

You've probably seen this little booklet before, but Al Mohler wrote about "theological triage" in his _The Pastor as Theologian _(originally appearing in _A Theology for the Church_, pp. 725-26). It was a helpful concept for me, and would parallel nicely with your spiderweb imagery.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

reaganmarsh said:


> Hi Jacob,
> 
> You've probably seen this little booklet before, but Al Mohler wrote about "theological triage" in his _The Pastor as Theologian _(the concept originally appeared in his contribution to _A Theology for the Church_, pp. 725-26). It was a helpful concept for me, and would parallel nicely with your spiderweb imagery.



I remember when he first did the audio tapes on these in embryonic format years ago.


----------



## reaganmarsh

ReformedReidian said:


> I remember when he first did the audio tapes on these in embryonic format years ago.



Very cool. I've not heard, or heard of, the audio tapes. I didn't know he'd even addressed the concept outside of writing until I just googled it and found this video.


----------



## RamistThomist

reaganmarsh said:


> Very cool. I've not heard, or heard of, the audio tapes. I didn't know he'd even addressed the concept outside of writing until I just googled it and found this video.



I might have the tapes wrong. I know he did something like this long time ago. Then again, i also used to own the book in which that essay appeared. So it could have been that.


----------



## Dachaser

reaganmarsh said:


> Hi Jacob,
> 
> You've probably seen this little booklet before, but Al Mohler wrote about "theological triage" in his _The Pastor as Theologian _(originally appearing in _A Theology for the Church_, pp. 725-26). It was a helpful concept for me, and would parallel nicely with your spiderweb imagery.


He also wrote about levels 1/2/3 in theology, as level 1 would be the essential doctrines of faith, such as Trinity, Jesus died for atonement, rose again, Gospel is saved by faith alone/grace alone, must always be held or outside Christianity, level 2 doctrines like second coming timing,modes of water baptism, important, but not rising to being outside the faith, while level 3 like version of bible, to go to movies or have TV etc....

Mess up the essential/major doctrines, and you will have your whole house of cards collapse on you....


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

While I do not think it needs to be said to any member herein, it perhaps should be stated for the person just driving by and _peeking in_ at us stodgy Reformed folks: given that God is not a waster of words, there are absolutely no _non-essentials _within Scripture.

The analogy from medicine, _theological triage_, presumes the dying are _already dead_, the gravely ill will _actually die_ without intervention, and the wounded _will recover_ without any intervention. Not that I am assuming so, the pragmatism of pastoral approaches should never be taken to replace the actualities of our redemption and walk of faith.


----------



## Ed Walsh

lynnie said:


> Maybe the best thing is to try and present God without non biblical attempts to explain Him.



No "maybes" about it! Stick to the Bible _and_ the Confessions. In fact, start with the Confessions and Creeds.

Ed

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reaganmarsh

Ed Walsh said:


> No "maybes" about it! Stick to the Bible _and_ the Confessions. In fact, start with the Confessions and Creeds.
> 
> Ed



Quite so. The Confessions and Creeds are there, in part, to demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture for life and godliness.


----------



## Pilgrim

reaganmarsh said:


> Very cool. I've not heard, or heard of, the audio tapes. I didn't know he'd even addressed the concept outside of writing until I just googled it and found this video.



This article from 2005 may be the first time Dr. Mohler went into print with the term theological triage, and perhaps it was related to a discussion of the concept on his old radio talk show. The "Baptist Identity" guys in the SBC (sort of their equivalent of "Truly Reformed" who focused heavily on Baptist distinctives) didn't like it.


----------

