# How does the Son "submit" to the Father?



## Pergamum (Jul 27, 2018)

If there is one will in God, how does the Son submit to the Father?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



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

Déjà vu, brother!

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...dge-my-summary-am-i-a-subordinationist.90016/ 

The submission in question is deemed appropriate because of the assumption of a human nature. The Son submits to the Father, superior to the the Son in nature, and also obligated to the Son by law. The submission was _voluntary_.

Within the intra-Trinitarian relations, it was proper for the Son to _voluntarily_ assume a human nature and the position of inferiority to the Father with respect to the Son's human nature. The Son, as the Son, voluntarily assumed a human nature. The Father, nor the Spirit did not assume a human nature.

We get off in the weeds when we read back into intra-Trinitarian relations notions of human subordination. We see this happening when Scripture related to the Son's mediatorial work is applied to the Son's eternal sonship.

We can happily affirm there is an order (_taxis_) within the Godhead. We should not conceptualize that order using mediatorial submission to the Father by the Son.

With plenty of infelicitous language being used related to the _will_ of God, _subordination_ of the Son, etc., we must take special care to identify what is predicated of the _essence_ of God and what is predicated of the _Persons_ of the Godhead (Muller is instructive here, see PRRD 4:80).

I find no warrant in Scripture that suggests there is more than _one will_ of God. That said, I do find plenty of warrant for three _Persons_, self-conscious actors of that one will.

Hence, when reading others speaking of the _active willings_ of the Persons, I tend to place these into the category of _expressions of personhood_; these _active willings_ terminating upon the _Person_, not being applied to the _essence_.

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

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2018)

When the plan of salvation was agreed upon from eternity past, is it appropriate to say that the Son submitted to the plan to be sent and take on human flesh from eternity past?

And if this plan was from eternity past, why is it bad to say that the Son voluntarily submitted to that subordinate role from eternity past? It doesn't change anything ontologically, but the economy of redemption was set from eternity past, therefore, the voluntary submission was from eternity past. It seems that many are saying, "Aha! That MUST mean ontological submission and not merely economical submission..." but I see nobody saying that.


----------



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

Pergamum said:


> When the plan of salvation was agreed upon from eternity past, is it appropriate to say that the Son submitted to the plan to be sent and take on human flesh from eternity past?


I would say "the Son voluntarily submitted" along with some careful qualifiers about what is meant by "submission".



Pergamum said:


> And if this plan was from eternity past, why is it bad to say that the Son voluntarily submitted to that subordinate role from eternity past? It doesn't change anything ontologically, but the economy of redemption was set from eternity past, therefore, the voluntary submission was from eternity past. It seems that many are saying, "Aha! That MUST mean ontological submission and not merely economical submission..." but I see nobody saying that.


There is nothing incorrect in identifying order within the Godhead. From eternity, He is the Son of the Father. Necessarily this means the _second_ person of the Godhead. The assumed human nature is subordinate to God and will always be subordinate to God.

The issue is that to say the Second Person of the Godhead is eternally subordinate to the Father is to say the Son's submission is _necessary_, not _accidental _(see here).

To look to the _ad extra_ voluntary works of the Son as Mediator as evidence of subordination from eternity means the _nature_ of the Son is subordinate. That's ontological and error (my point #12 here).

The CoR was jointly decided within the Godhead. 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 (my point #7 here). The willing and self-chosen subordination of God the Son for our salvation should not be read back into the eternal life of God. 

For reasons why unqualified use of "submission" can lead to error, see: https://www.newcitytimes.com/news/story/subordination-in-the-pactum-and-the-irony-of-ess

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2018)

But if the order or taxis is from eternity then the Father was Father from all eternity and the Son was Son from all eternity. Therefore, it seems most fitting that the Son would go and not the Father or the Spirit to become incarnate. It seems most fitting that the Son take on this task, and that so from all eternity.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2018)

Letham says, " “the Son submits in eternity to the Father.”

Do you agree or disagree?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jul 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Letham says, " “the Son submits in eernity to the Father.”
> Do you agree or disagree?



Agree! I think there is an eternal order withing the Persons of the Trinity - The Son is eternally from the Father, and the Father as the fountainhead is from none, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father _through_ the Son.
I wrote more but decided to delete it, for I am a clild in these matters. Much much more needs to be said by those wiser than I.

1 Corinthians 15:26-28
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.
28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.​


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2018)

So if this submission is from all eternity, it is the eternal submission of the Son. And if it is not ontological, but economical or functional, then it is the Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son (EFS).


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> So if this submission is from all eternity, it is the eternal submission of the Son. And if it is not ontological, but economical or functional, then it is the Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son (EFS).


The implication of ESS/EFS/ERAS: They all use language that is impossible to separate from the ontological (no matter what words they use for wiggling). The very word eternal bleeds in ontology. Further they are confusing Christians in the Godhead doctrine. Also they are abusing the words of our reformed forefathers, by claiming many held their belief. This may seem so on the surface, but is not so.

I think Mr. Religion has made some great post on this thread and others that help us wade through this matter. I recommend the below article, which Mr. Religion provided in a similar thread:

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

Prying too deeply and making further distinctions within the Trinity can lead to heretical views.... I stick to the confession (WS) and leave it their.

Also looking into eternally “begotten” May aid you in your study.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2018)

Richard Muller: talk of Christ’s subordination referred to his mediatorial kingdom, when he handed it over to the Father (115). Richard Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Triunity of God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Letham says, " “the Son submits in eternity to the Father.”
> 
> Do you agree or disagree?



It's funny that Letham says that, since he rejects the Pactum salutis.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> If there is one will in God, how does the Son submit to the Father?



I've not seen this specifically addressed here, but perhaps I missed it on a quick read: Yes, there is one will in the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinity. Our Lord, in His Incarnation, however, also took on a human will, just as he did a human body and soul.

Thus, in the integrity of the theanthropic person, there is a divine will and a human will. To deny such is monothelitism, a heresy condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-1), the Sixth Ecumenical Council. 

This was the final plank in the great Christological controversies so that Christ was confessed as fully God (against Arius), fully man (against Apollinaris), in one person (against Nestorius), with two natures (against Eutyches). 

The doctrine of Christ's two wills is, as are the other orthodox formulations, the church seeking not to be rationalistic but biblical: since the Bible teaches two wills in the Incarnate Christ (John 6:38-9, Matthew 26:39, etc.), that is what we believe and confess. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I've not seen this specifically addressed here, but perhaps I missed it on a quick read: Yes, there is one will in the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinity. Our Lord, in His Incarnation, however, also took on a human will, just as he did a human body and soul.
> 
> Thus, in the integrity of the theanthropic person, there is a divine will and a human will. To deny such is monothelitism, a heresy condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-1), the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
> 
> ...



What he said ^. Here is some good literature on dyotheletism
https://cocceius.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/outline-of-maximus-cosmology/
https://cocceius.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/review-cosmic-mystery/
https://cocceius.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/analytic-outline-balthasars-cosmic-liturgy/


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 28, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I've not seen this specifically addressed here, but perhaps I missed it on a quick read: Yes, there is one will in the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinity. Our Lord, in His Incarnation, however, also took on a human will, just as he did a human body and soul.
> 
> Thus, in the integrity of the theanthropic person, there is a divine will and a human will. To deny such is monothelitism, a heresy condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-1), the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
> 
> ...


Alan,

Have you written anything on ESS? I would like to get your perspective. Fell free to share on this thread, if you feel it appropriate to the OP, if not feel free to PM me.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Letham says, " “the Son submits in eternity to the Father.”
> 
> Do you agree or disagree?


the Cross of Jesus was from Eternity, so there was never a time the trinity did not agree with the Plan, so the submission seems to be just temporary, wheile the Son assumed humanity in order to accomplish the plan of salvation.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Agree! I think there is an eternal order withing the Persons of the Trinity - The Son is eternally from the Father, and the Father as the fountainhead is from none, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father _through_ the Son.
> I wrote more but decided to delete it, for I am a clild in these matters. Much much more needs to be said by those wiser than I.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 15:26-28
> ...


The Holy Spirit proceeds forth from both the Father and Son, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> So if this submission is from all eternity, it is the eternal submission of the Son. And if it is not ontological, but economical or functional, then it is the Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son (EFS).


Only during His time while here upon the earth.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I've not seen this specifically addressed here, but perhaps I missed it on a quick read: Yes, there is one will in the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinity. Our Lord, in His Incarnation, however, also took on a human will, just as he did a human body and soul.
> 
> Thus, in the integrity of the theanthropic person, there is a divine will and a human will. To deny such is monothelitism, a heresy condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-1), the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
> 
> ...


Jesus has 2 wills, but they both are always in perfect unity.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus has 2 wills, but they both are always in perfect unity.


I thought that Jesus has but 1 will, but 2 natures, as He being God has no real will as we define it being?


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus has 2 wills, but they both are always in perfect unity.





Dachaser said:


> I thought that Jesus has but 1 will, but 2 natures, as He being God has no real will as we define it being?


David please be careful not to add confusion to the thread. You risk confusing others on the Trinity who view this thread.

I think the post from Dr. Strange captured the biblical truth both clearly and sufficiently regarding the will involved in the Godhead.


----------



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

Pergamum said:


> Letham says, " “the Son submits in eternity to the Father.”
> 
> Do you agree or disagree?





Pergamum said:


> So if this submission is from all eternity, it is the eternal submission of the Son. And if it is not ontological, but economical or functional, then it is the Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son (EFS).



Letham's view (and similarly Grudem's) should give us pause. A subordination that extends into eternity cannot remain only _functional_. A subordination that extends into eternity also becomes _ipso facto_ an ontological reality. Since the attribute of eternity inheres in the divine essence, any reality that is eternal is by necessity _ontologically _grounded. Eternity is a quality of existence. Therefore if Christ's subordination is eternal, as both Grudem and Letham claim, it is also ontological.

Further, one wonders where the equality came from that the Son let go in the _kenosis _(Phil. 2:6). Eternal subordination precludes equality. The Biblical definition of the _kenosis_ as the Son's refusal to exploit the status of equality He had with the Father attests to the fact that there was no subordination prior to the _kenosis_.

The combination of eternal functional subordination and equality of essence simply cannot be maintained. If one party is _forever excluded_ from certain responsibilities—no matter what their competency may be—simply on the basis of who they _are_, then this indicates they lack something that only their superior possesses. In other words, they are _inferior_ in some _essential_ way.

Given the complexities of the topic and the variations of views, one needs to first become grounded on the basics. The book below is *required reading* (really, get it and read it) for anyone deeply interested in the topic and the ongoing debates:
https://www.amazon.com/Whos-Tampering-Trinity-Assessment-Subordination-ebook/dp/B005EQV00Y/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> David please be careful not to add confusion to the thread. You risk confusing others on the Trinity who view this thread.
> 
> I think the post from Dr. Strange captured the biblical truth both clearly and sufficiently regarding the will involved in the Godhead.


My purpose was not to confuse, but to clarify, as I thought Jesus has 1 Will, and 2 natures.


----------



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

Dachaser said:


> I thought that Jesus has but 1 will, but 2 natures, as He being God has no real will as we define it being?


No.
The very basics follow. Copy and paste these for your personal studies. Test what you read and conclude against each of the items below to avoid error.

Our Lord was (is) fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this _mystical union_ (together united in one distinguishable subsistence) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The mystical union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (*Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians*);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (_anomoios_) with the Father (*semi-Arianism*);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (*Apollinarians*);
4. a denial of a distinct subsistence in the Trinity (*Dynamic Monarchianism*);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (*Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church*);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (*Eutychianism/Monophysitism*);
7. two distinct subsistences (often called _persons_) (*Nestorianism*);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (*docetism*);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (*kenoticism*);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (*Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper*); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (*Adoptionism*).

The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many *heterodoxies* identified above during the third century.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

The Members of the Trinity have their agreed upon roles within the working out of the plan of salvation, so would it not be that Jesus accepted becoming the sin bearer from all eternity, and then assumed that while here earth as a servant of the Father, He would in a subordinate position, but when ascended, He went back to full equality again?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> No.
> The very basics follow. Copy and paste these for your personal studies. Test what you read and conclude against each of the items below to avoid error.
> 
> Our Lord was (is) fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.
> ...


I fully accept that the Lord Jesus has His 2 natures, but how can He have a human will and His God will operating at same time?


----------



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

Dachaser said:


> My purpose was not to confuse, but to clarify, as I thought Jesus has 1 Will, and 2 natures.





Dachaser said:


> I fully accept that the Lord Jesus has His 2 natures, but how can He have a human will and His God will operating at same time?



Our Lord's human will was never out of accord with His divine will. In that _sense_, with the aformentioned qualifiers, one may say Our Lord has "one will". Perhaps that is where you are going astray.


----------



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

Dachaser said:


> I fully accept that the Lord Jesus has His 2 natures, but how can He have a human will and His God will operating at same time?


You overlooked point #6 in my previous post, David. Slow down a wee bit, please.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Our Lord's human will was never out of accord with His divine will. In that _sense_, with the aformentioned qualifiers, one may say Our Lord has "one will". Perhaps that is where you are going astray.


If He has 2 wills, they would always be in agreement, so would not really be 2 seperate wills.


----------



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

Dachaser said:


> If He has 2 wills, they would always be in agreement, so would not really be 2 seperate wills.


You are ignoring ontological (the nature of _being_) issues here, David. _Will_ is a property of _nature_.

Our Lord assumed a human nature (with a _will_) in a mystical union (_hypostatic_) with His divine nature. The divine nature possesses a _will_. Neither natures may be _divided_, _separated_, _mixed_, or _confused_, else one falls into one of the heresies outlined by the Chalcedonian Definition I linked to earlier above.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 28, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Our Lord was fully God and fully man



This is phrasing I find it easy to slip into, and I constantly have to check myself. I think you mean our Lord_ is_, not_ was_. None of the points you made have been altered by his resurrection and ascension, correct?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



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

Of course, you are correct, Jack.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You are ignoring ontological (the nature of _being_) issues here, David. _Will_ is a property of _nature_.
> 
> Our Lord assumed a human nature (with a _will_) in a mystical union (_hypostatic_) with His divine nature. The divine nature possesses a _will_. Neither natures may be _divided_, _separated_, _mixed_, or _confused_, else one falls into one of the heresies outlined by the Chalcedonian Definition I linked to earlier above.


Jesus never had, or now has, any time when the 2 wills are in conflict though, correct?


----------



## Aco (Jul 28, 2018)

I recommend you to read B. A. Bosserman's, _The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox. _
It is very helpful on varoius issues concerning trinitarian paradoxes and the mutual relationship of the divine persons.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 28, 2018)

http://www.puritanpublications.com/...d-really-have-two-wills-by-c-matthew-mcmahon/

https://www.monergism.com/topics/providence-god’s-will/two-wills-god


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 28, 2018)

@Dachaser
@Scott Bushey

David:

Yes, Jesus has a human will and a divine will (as noted in the Scriptures I cited and by Jacob's excellent links to dyothelitism, which I recommend checking out). His having a human will is part of his being fully human. His having a divine will stems from His being the Second Person of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinity. It's all there in the Scripture and the links. 

Part of the mystery of the Incarnation is His "coming not to do His own will," and yet yielding in the agony of His passion to say, "Nevertheless, Father, not my will but thine be done." Is there a perfect harmony of the two wills? Of course, as there is respecting everything pertaining to the integrity of the theanthropic person. 

Even as he had two natures, divine and human, so he had two wills: a divine and human one. God has a will and a man has a will, so Jesus had two: a divine will and a human will. And there is in the hypostatic union a perfect unity of these two. This is basic orthodoxy and nothing controversial or obscure. 

And I cite Scott B., too, because, unless I am missing something he's seeking to communicate, the question of whether one can distinguish in terms of God's will something like a decretive and a preceptive will is a different and other question from this one--a question that falls into theology proper, while the question of two wills in Christ falls into the _locus_ of Christology. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 28, 2018)

If one reads nothing else from the controversy on this topic almost two years ago they need to read this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/11/23/kevin-giles-the-ets-response-to-grudem-and-ware/

Giles devastated Ware and Grudem in this to the point that both had to recant certain teachings. Note, especially, the points he makes about drawing ideas from human relationships and applying them to the nature of the Trinity. This is mdethodoligically they way of the Arians and the Socinians.

I commend this book to those who want to see the care that went into the formation of a doctrine that has been held as the dividing line between Christians and cults for almost 1800 years.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01A6GSKKO/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 28, 2018)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Giles devastated Ware and Grudem in this to the point that both had to recant certain teachings. Note, especially, the points he makes about drawing ideas from human relationships and applying them to the nature of the Trinity. This is mdethodoligically they way of the Arians and the Socinians.



I had not seen that one before, so thanks for sharing. The errors of Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware on eternal generation should have been enough to exclude them from orthodoxy. Thankfully, they have both changed their mind on the subject. I will have to read more of Kevin Giles' work in due course.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2018)

Hmm


BayouHuguenot said:


> It's funny that Letham says that, since he rejects the Pactum salutis.



Hmmmm...is very weird. Any idea why he does this?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I've not seen this specifically addressed here, but perhaps I missed it on a quick read: Yes, there is one will in the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinity. Our Lord, in His Incarnation, however, also took on a human will, just as he did a human body and soul.
> 
> Thus, in the integrity of the theanthropic person, there is a divine will and a human will. To deny such is monothelitism, a heresy condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-1), the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
> 
> ...


I was speaking of the Son prior to the incarnation.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2018)

I keep hearing this phrase:

"A subordination that extends into eternity cannot remain only _functional_."

But if the plan of redemption was arrived at in eternity past, then the Son planned to submit to the Father from eternity past in the work of salvation. Therefore, the submissions was eternal. And since it pertains to the work of redemption and not the being of God it is not ontological but functional or economical.

But then the opponents of this view say, "Well, if it is from eternity then it MUST be ontological." It seems they are putting words in the mouths of those who support the doctrine of EFS.

So when was the Pactum Salutis arrived at? One minute after eternity past? Did the Godhead not think up this plan until they started creating? If the Plan of Redemption was from eternity past, then the Son submitted to the Father from eternity past.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2018)

Semper Fidelis said:


> If one reads nothing else from the controversy on this topic almost two years ago they need to read this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/11/23/kevin-giles-the-ets-response-to-grudem-and-ware/
> 
> Giles devastated Ware and Grudem in this to the point that both had to recant certain teachings. Note, especially, the points he makes about drawing ideas from human relationships and applying them to the nature of the Trinity. This is mdethodoligically they way of the Arians and the Socinians.
> 
> ...


Thanks! Very useful links.

The Giles article is helpful. I was very surprised to find in it that Grudem and Ware reject the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.


Giles says the following, however, which I do not yet understand. It seems the conclusion does not follow:

"What Philippians 2 teaches is _the willing and self-chosen subordination and subjection_ of the Son for our salvation. On this basis, orthodox theologians with one voice insist that the subordination and obedience of the Son seen in the incarnation should not be read back into the eternal life of God. To do so is huge mistake."

BUt whether it was submission or "self-submission" - when did this happen? 

If the Pactum Salutis happened in eternity past, how did the Son's willing agreement to go not happen from all eternity? 

Did God start to create without a plan ready? Did the Pactum Salutis come to him at some point in time along the way? 

No. So, the Son agreed and volunteered to his role from eternity past and this is a work of redemption (function or economy) and not ontology.


----------



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

Dachaser said:


> Jesus never had, or now has, any time when the 2 wills are in conflict though, correct?


Yes, as I noted:


Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Our Lord's human will was never out of accord with His divine will. In that _sense_, with the aformentioned qualifiers, one may say Our Lord has "one will". Perhaps that is where you are going astray.



AMR


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Thanks! Very useful links.
> 
> The Giles article is helpful. I was very surprised to find in it that Grudem and Ware reject the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.
> 
> ...


My understanding (subject to error always) is that If you are saying that Christ is Eternally Subordinate (in any manner) then logically you are describing him ontologically.

Just like if i say God is eternally Just and eternally righteous. So if you are saying that God the Son is eternally different (by being eternally subordinate) , than God the father... then at Best i think that is where one would be dancing close to polytheism. (Warning a little humor to lighten the mood....and remind us we are still brothers and need laughter sometimes.... warning ignore if sensitive to humor)
The Dancing I speak of that is at best close to polytheism:




End of humor:
Again this also is not in line with the majority of reformers (not scripture either in my opinion).

Holding this doctrine is not only unbiblical (in my opinion) but causes the Godhead to be a stumbling block not only to Christians (as already evidenced even in this thread)... but further to evangelical outreach to Hindus (or other people groups who are dominated with polytheistm) as one example.

Just my thoughts brother.... as I try to work all this out as well

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> My understanding (subject to error always) is that If you are saying that Christ is Eternally Subordinate (in any manner) then logically you are describing him ontologically.
> 
> Just like if i say God is eternally Just and eternally righteous. So if you are saying that God the Son is eternally different (by being eternally subordinate) , than God the father... then at Best i think that is where one would be dancing close to polytheism. (Warning a little humor to lighten the mode.... ⚠️)
> Dancing:
> ...



You keep telling me what I am really saying. But I am not really saying that.

When did the Pactum Salutis happen? At whatever point this happened was when the Son self-submitted to be sent. I think this happened in eternity past.

What are our other options? 1 second after eternity past? But did God not always have a plan? And since this plan involves the salvation of mankind, it cannot be said to be ad intra or ontological, but part of God's dealings with humanity, even from eternity past. It involves the economy of the Trinity and not its ontology.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> You keep telling me what I am really saying. But I am not really saying that.
> 
> When did the Pactum Salutis happen? At whatever point this happened was when the Son self-submitted to be sent. I think this happened in eternity past.


I think the problem lies in the idea that three persons means a compromise. It does not. It is an agreement thag each will do certain roles and not functions.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> I think the problem lies in the idea that three persons means a compromise. It does not. It is an agreement thag each will do certain roles and not functions.


Can you explain?


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> You keep telling me what I am really saying. But I am not really saying that.
> 
> When did the Pactum Salutis happen? At whatever point this happened was when the Son self-submitted to be sent. I think this happened in eternity past.


I am not the best qualified to answer your question.... being newish to Reformed CT.
I do have an answer but I want to lean to the safe side... so take my answer with a grain of salt and be gentle if I misspeak.

Forgive me but I prefer using a plainer talk. I assume the “Pactum Salutis” is the Covenant of redemption (CoR). So, Assuming my assumption is properly assumed....

Could it logically be explained in a better way by saying the following:

“In the covenant of redemption God the Son voluntarily agreed to submit to God the father in and when he became God incarnate. Therefore, in CoR made in eternity, it was only agreed upon eternally. But the actual submission occurred in the incarnate form (the Godman). So NO ESS.”


Again be gentle, if this is heretical it is by accident and I will gladly delete the post. If my post adds confusion, I will gladly delete.

If the statement in quotes is solid... then I stand surprised that I may actually be starting to grasp some of this deeper (not likely).


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> I am not the best qualified to answer your question.... being newish to Reformed CT.
> I do have an answer but I want to lean to the safe side... so take my answer with a grain of salt and be gentle if I misspeak.
> 
> Forgive me but I prefer using a plainer talk. I assume the “Pactum Salutis” is the Covenant of redemption (CoR). So, Assuming my assumption is properly assumed....
> ...



Thanks. Maybe that is the solution, I don't know. Maybe somebody else will weigh in. I am also struggling with this. 

I deny there is any hierarchy in the Trinity but only ordering/taxis. The Father and Son are co-equal. Any "submission" is also a self-submission and voluntary taking on of the role of mediator (not in ontology but for the work of redemption). I affirm the eternal generation of the Son (which it sounds like Dr Ware and Dr Grudem also do as well...now). I cannot imagine that the Father or the Spirit could have been sent as mediator, this role was most fitting for the Son to take.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 28, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Thanks. Maybe that is the solution, I don't know. Maybe somebody else will weigh in. I am also struggling with this.
> 
> I deny there is any hierarchy in the Trinity but only ordering/taxis. The Father and Son are co-equal. Any "submission" is also a self-submission and voluntary taking on of the role of mediator (not in ontology but for the work of redemption). I affirm the eternal generation of the Son (which it sounds like Dr Ware and Dr Grudem also do as well...now). I cannot imagine that the Father or the Spirit could have been sent as mediator, this role was most fitting for the Son to take.


Well at the end of the day we (the saints) need to keep each other from error in Love. I could equally be in error and my stiff-neckedness at some times seems to know no bounds.

No saint this side of the Grave will have the Godhead doctrine nailed down perfectly, which serves (like many other things) for us to sing “Come Lord Jesus, Come”. I pray you have a blessed Lord’s Day brother.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 29, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> I keep hearing this phrase:
> 
> "A subordination that extends into eternity cannot remain only _functional_."
> 
> But if the plan of redemption was arrived at in eternity past, then the Son planned to submit to the Father from eternity past in the work of salvation. Therefore, the submissions was eternal. And since it pertains to the work of redemption and not the being of God it is not ontological but functional or economical.


You seem to be using "eternal" with a time element, basically, this redemptive planning business among the members of the Godhead happened long ago, in eternity past, so that means eternal submission. 

The discussion is not about _when_ something took place, but what is the _nature_ of the parties wherein something took place.

Since the attribute of eternity inheres in the divine essence, any reality that is eternal is by necessity ontologically grounded. _Eternity_ is a quality of existence. Therefore, if Christ's functional subordination is eternal, as both Grudem and Letham claim, it is also ontological. This implies something different exists in the essence (being) of the Son versus the essence (being) of the Father.

If one member of the Godhead always and everywhere is functionally superior to the other, then there must be an ontological basis for this difference.

The argument being made by Grudem and others is basically:

_Distinctions of persons require different roles. 
Therefore, distinctions of persons require differences of authority. _​
Something is missing in the argument: an intermediate premise:

_Differences of role require differences of authority. _​
Hence the conclusion, _distinctions of persons require differences of authority, _does not follow. The argument is but an enthymeme.

We need to ask, does it follow from the necessity of differences of role that there must be superiority and subordination of role? This is certainly being assumed in the argument, but no argument for it is given.

The ISBE's online contain a useful treatment by Warfield in the _Trinity_ entry. In particular, see section 20. _The Question of Surbordination_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 29, 2018)

So when did the Pactum Salutis happen?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jul 29, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Since the attribute of eternity inheres in the divine essence, any reality that is eternal is by necessity ontologically grounded. _Eternity_ is a quality of existence. Therefore, if Christ's functional subordination is eternal, as both Grudem and Letham claim, it is also ontological. This implies something different exists in the essence (being) of the Son versus the essence (being) of the Father.
> 
> If one member of the Godhead always and everywhere is functionally superior to the other, then there must be an ontological basis for this difference.
> 
> ...




Dear Patrick, brothers, and sisters,

I am a babe in these more profound things of God so judge me accordingly. I have tried to follow this discussion, but I am suffering from brain fade. The following theory is mine from what I thought the Scriptures were teaching. So don't mind the many verses. This is just the way I think. Here goes.

BTW - I think it is a healthy sign that this vital subject if is being discussed more widely than I remember it being debated years ago.

=======

Brothers, I must be missing something, but the following seems clear to me. Hear me out and help me see where I went wrong. Pardon me if I have quoted too many verses.

=======
*God is the head of Christ*

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

This word "head" is the standard word for the thing on your shoulders–your head [κεφαλή]. It is also used to show superiority in order or rank. To all of us, Jesus is the head, our superior, even as a husband is head of the wife.

*Verses where "head" is used for superiority.*

Ephesians 1:22
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Mark 12:10
And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

Colossians 2:10
And ye are complete in him [Christ], which is the head of all principality and power:

=======

Similarly, God is the head of Christ and Christ is subject [ὑποτάσσω] unto the Father. That this was the case before, during, and after his incarnation is shown by the next two passages. There is no inequality of Persons in God (as many claim this idea teaches), but there is a rank or order amongst the Three. This relationship must be ontological. We know that there is rank and order between husband and wife but they are "_heirs_ together of the grace of life." Jesus taught us to baptize "in the name of the _Father_, and of the _Son_, and of the _Holy_ _Ghost_:" (Matthew 28:19) Would we baptize in the name of the Holy Ghost, and the Son, and the Father?

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Note: I am aware that this verse has caused trouble in earlier times. I use it only to show rank and order–not at all meaning that the Three are not the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

1 Corinthians 15:26–28
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put [ὑποτάσσω] all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put [ὑποτάσσω] under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put [ὑποτάσσω] all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued [ὑποτάσσω] unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject [ὑποτάσσω] unto him that put [ὑποτάσσω] all things under him, that God may be all in all.

*Verses with [ὑποτάσσω] = to submit, be subject, obey, subordinate*

Luke 2:51
And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was _subject_ unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

Luke 10:17
17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are _subject_ unto us through thy name.

Romans 8:7
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not _subject_ to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 13:1
Let every soul _be subject_ unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Romans 13:5
Wherefore ye must needs _be subject_, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

1 Corinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be _under obedience_, as also saith the law.

Titus 2:5
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, _obedient_ to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3:5
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in _subjection_ unto their own husbands:


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Similarly, God is the head of Christ and Christ is subject [ὑποτάσσω] unto the Father. That this was the case before, during, and after his incarnation is shown by the next two passages.


Ed,

I am failing to see where your verses cited prove subordination of God the Son in eternity past (as you put it before incarnation).

Help a brother out.

As far as the Trinity formula in baptism. I see the order stated as not only showing order but more specifically acknowledging the specific roles each member is the Godhead fills in salvation (God Elects, the Son redeems, Holy Spirit applies redemption). To to reorder would be silly at best... and at worst would stand at odds against the the way God redeems. Which was the voluntarily agreed upon roles in covenant of Redeemtion. A stronger point I think:

Further, Note that this verbal formula did not come about (regarding the covenant sign) until the days of Christ’s incarnation. Which would further seem to stand against and ESS/EFS mindset in my opinion. We have no biblical evidence of “i circumcise you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 29, 2018)

Ed Walsh,

Your formulation is unorthodox and functionally tri-theistic. I'm not saying that to be mean-spritied but I recommend you read the article I cited above.

The error arises from failing to distinguish between The Son of God as God and the Son of God Incarnate (Christ). There are two wills in the Son of God (a Divine Will and a human will). The Son of God Incarnate (Christ) submits to the Father as God. His creaturely submission is not to be read into eternal ad intra categories. There is no separate "will" of the Son as God with which to "submit" to the Father. If you read the article you'll note that the Church says very, very little about the nature of the Godhead. The only orthodox way to distinguish the Persons ad intra is to note that the Father is neither begotten nor processes, the Son is eternally begotten, and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Again read the article and you'll see how the Nicene Fathers anticipated your arguments.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 29, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Dear Patrick, brothers, and sisters,
> 
> I am a babe in these more profound things of God so judge me accordingly. I have tried to follow this discussion, but I am suffering from brain fade. The following theory is mine from what I thought the Scriptures were teaching. So don't mind the many verses. This is just the way I think. Here goes.
> 
> ...



Economical Trinity, not ontological.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 29, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Hmm
> 
> 
> Hmmmm...is very weird. Any idea why he does this?



He says it in his book on the Westminster Assembly. He hints at in his book on the Trinity.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 29, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Similarly, God is the head of Christ and Christ is subject [ὑποτάσσω] unto the Father. That this was the case before, during, and after his incarnation is shown by the next two passages. There is no inequality of Persons in God (as many claim this idea teaches), but there is a rank or order amongst the Three. This relationship must be ontological.


Ed,

If this taxis (_ordering_, if you will) is _ontological_, this means there is something different about the _beings _(Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in question. In other words, the _essence_ of these beings is different. One cannot re-define what _ontological_ means. As Rich notes, this ontological view of ranking or odering leads us to tri-theism.



Spoiler: Essence of God



Heppe's citation of Polan, in Reformed Dogmatics

Polan (II, 5):



​





Ed Walsh said:


> We know that there is rank and order between husband and wife but they are "_heirs_ together of the grace of life."


We cannot read human relationships into the relations within the Godhead, _ad intra_. This tactic has been the warp and woof of many of the issues surrounding the whole subordination topic. As the quote above notes, God's _essence_ is His very _existence, _for He wills it to be so. Nothing in human relationships is directly comparable to the Godhead, _ad intra. _See also, Giles, _op. cit._ by Rich above.



Ed Walsh said:


> Jesus taught us to baptize "in the name of the _Father_, and of the _Son_, and of the _Holy_ _Ghost_:" (Matthew 28:19) Would we baptize in the name of the Holy Ghost, and the Son, and the Father?


I do not see warrant from the baptismal formulaic of Matthew 28:19 as some indication of _ontological_ ranking and order within the Godhead.

Warfield points out that this order is by no means invariable in the New Testament. In the benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14, the order is Lord, God, and Holy Spirit. In 1 Peter 1:2, the order is Father, Spirit, and Jesus Christ. In Jude 20-21, it is Holy Spirit, God, and Lord Jesus Christ. Sometimes, as in 1 Corinthians 12:3-6, the order is actually reversed completely, which may be a rhetorical device. Again, Warfield's statement is cautious:

"If in their conviction the very essence of the doctrine of the Trinity was embodied in this order, should we not anticipate that there should appear in their numerous allusions to the Trinity some suggestion of this conviction?"
[See: Warfield in the _Trinity_ entry of the ISBE. In particular, see sections 18 and 20, _Variations in Nomenclature_, _The Question of Surbordination, _respectively.]​
Again, given the complexities of the topic, I point to the following book as *required reading*:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005EQV00Y/

The book also incorporates many of the arguments made by Giles (_op. cit._, by Rich above).

I do not think anyone denies there is economy of roles within the Godhead. The issues at hand, however, are claims that would entail distinctions of essence within the members of the Godhead. Despite the strident claims of Grudem and others so aligned, that no distinctions of _essence_ are being made, they cannot escape the implication as Giles, Erickson, Jones, and others have clearly demonstrated.

If these men are going to just stipulate a new way of viewing _ontology_, rather than deal with the commonly understood philosophical and theological issues of _being_, then the discussion is ended, nothing more need be said. They are merely camping outside our camp.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jul 29, 2018)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Your formulation is unorthodox and functionally tri-theistic. I'm not saying that to be mean-spritied but I recommend you read the article I cited above



Just got the ebook. Thanks

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 29, 2018)

This thread is rich in good book recommendations. Thanks! I have also gotten each of those books.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro (Jul 29, 2018)

My theological range is not as extensive as previous contributors, and I can only state how the subject means to me in my present light. It is asked when the Pactum Salutis happened? To my mind it did not happen but was eternally so. Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God, yet as the Son of God He was ever filially devoted and obedient to the Father. Not out of superiority of the one or the subordination of the other, but in a submission of love. It is the true essence of love not to seek her own; to bear all things, and to rejoice in the truth. Where love reigns there is oneness.

It may be that we err in equating submission with subordination. The act of loving submission became tangible to us in time when He Made Himself of no reputation, and was Made in the likeness of men. In that state of humiliation He fulfilled His Mediatorial role in the economy of salvation. He submitted lovingly and delightedly to the will of the Father. “ I come to do Thy will”, “I delight to do Thy will.”

I came across this quote in my Bible by Rev Hugh Martin concerning John 5:30. “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear I judge: and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will but the will of Him that sent me.” (Quote,) -‘Because in the covenant of grace He was Designated to this ministry, He was commissioned, He was sealed and sent. He Designed to do so, because He was Designated to do it.’ He was sent from Love, came in love, and manifested by His submission the interdependence of love.

My poor thoughts.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 29, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's funny that Letham says that, since he rejects the Pactum salutis.





Pergamum said:


> Hmmmm...is very weird. Any idea why he does this?





BayouHuguenot said:


> He says it in his book on the Westminster Assembly. He hints at in his book on the Trinity.



See:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...urrent-trinitarian-debate.90104/#post-1108121


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 29, 2018)

We need to think in terms of distinct acts in redemptive history and not distinct wills.
I got that from Mark Jones.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 29, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> We need to think in terms of distinct acts in redemptive history and not distinct wills.
> I got that from Mark Jones.


Very helpful. I like to remind people that, in Christ, divine mercies have become human mercies. Divine love has become human love.

The Mediatorial work of Christ is the act that permits us fruition with the Divine. Eternity cannot be grasped or comprehended but God became man and so we have a true analogue of God's love and interest toward us. We can never (now or in eternity) penetrate into the Divine mystery of the Godhead. He is the Creator and we are the creature. But the Creator has become the creature to speak to us as creatures, to suffer as a true man, to experience trial and temptation. And so we have a great High Priest who understands our frame and intercedes for us and gives us full confidence that, in grasping the death and life of a man, we have laid hold of eternity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Jul 30, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> If there is one will in God, how does the Son submit to the Father?



Economic subordination, not ontological subordination.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 30, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> @Dachaser
> @Scott Bushey
> 
> David:
> ...


I understand that the 2 wills of Jesus then would have to always be in perfect harmony then, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 30, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> You keep telling me what I am really saying. But I am not really saying that.
> 
> When did the Pactum Salutis happen? At whatever point this happened was when the Son self-submitted to be sent. I think this happened in eternity past.
> 
> What are our other options? 1 second after eternity past? But did God not always have a plan? And since this plan involves the salvation of mankind, it cannot be said to be ad intra or ontological, but part of God's dealings with humanity, even from eternity past. It involves the economy of the Trinity and not its ontology.


Cannot the Members of thr Trinity agre among Themselves to have their assigned roles within the outworkings of the Will and purpose, and yet all still be equally God?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 30, 2018)

Semper Fidelis said:


> If one reads nothing else from the controversy on this topic almost two years ago they need to read this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/11/23/kevin-giles-the-ets-response-to-grudem-and-ware/
> 
> Giles devastated Ware and Grudem in this to the point that both had to recant certain teachings. Note, especially, the points he makes about drawing ideas from human relationships and applying them to the nature of the Trinity. This is mdethodoligically they way of the Arians and the Socinians.
> 
> ...


What were the areas that Dr Grudem and Ware have to backtrack off from then?


----------



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

Dachaser said:


> What were the areas that Dr Grudem and Ware have to backtrack off from then?


David,

If you read the item Rich posted, you would have clearly seen the answer:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/11/23/kevin-giles-the-ets-response-to-grudem-and-ware/

Hint: see the Postscript section

Really, brother, you need to follow the links someone provides if you intend to question the poster of said links about content related to the very reason the links were provided in the first place.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 30, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Economic subordination, not ontological subordination.


Is that the same as saying that Jesus submitted to the Father during the Incarnation, but that was only for the purpose of accomplishing the plan of salvation, but once ascended, the subordination went off?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 30, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> If you read the item Rich posted, you would have clearly seen the answer:
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/11/23/kevin-giles-the-ets-response-to-grudem-and-ware/
> ...


I went back to read the article, as I had stopped reading beore the postscript section.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Sad 1


----------



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

Dachaser said:


> Is that the same as sayinjg that Jesus submetted to the Father during the Incarnation, bit thatwas only for the purpose of accomplishing the plan of salvation, but once ascended, the subordination went off?



See point #1 here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...here-are-things-now.92059/page-2#post-1126091


----------



## bookslover (Jul 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Is that the same as saying that Jesus submitted to the Father during the Incarnation, but that was only for the purpose of accomplishing the plan of salvation, but once ascended, the subordination went off?



Yes.


----------



## timfost (Jul 30, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> But if the plan of redemption was arrived at in eternity past, then the Son planned to submit to the Father from eternity past in the work of salvation. Therefore, the submissions was eternal. And since it pertains to the work of redemption and not the being of God it is not ontological but functional or economical.
> 
> But then the opponents of this view say, "Well, if it is from eternity then it MUST be ontological." It seems they are putting words in the mouths of those who support the doctrine of EFS.



Perg,

I'm learning a lot from this thread.

Just wanted to point out that we need to distinguish an eternal plan from an eternal state. John Gill confuses the two in his formulation of the doctrine of eternal justification (he equated an imminent act with an eternal act/state). Similarly, you seem to make the jump from a plan to submit to eternal submission. But if every plan of God was eternal in substance because it was eternally in the mind of God, than you and I are also eternal since we were elect in eternity past. All things are in fact co-eternal with God since they were eternally in the mind of God. Of course, none of us believe this, although the logic seems to suggest this absurdity.

I hope I haven't missed something as I try to comprehend these points. Thanks for bearing with me!


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2018)

timfost said:


> Perg,
> 
> I'm learning a lot from this thread.
> 
> ...



Thanks.

So just as God planned to justify the Elect from all eternity but only did so in time (avoiding the error of eternal justification), we can also say that the Son planned to voluntarily submit for the sake of Redemption from all eternity and yet this submission only occurred in time, avoiding the error of subordinationism or EFS?

Is that the key to my dilemma?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Thanks.
> 
> So just as God planned to justify the Elect from all eternity but only did so in time (avoiding the error of eternal justification), we can also say that the Son planned to voluntarily submit for the sake of Redemption from all eternity and yet this submission only occurred in time, avoiding the error of subordinationism or EFS?
> 
> Is that the key to my dilemma?



You are on the right track. It's similar to how we say that God's decree is not the same thing as God's execution of the decree.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 30, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> So just as God planned to justify the Elect from all eternity but only did so in time (avoiding the error of eternal justification), we can also say that the Son planned to voluntarily submit for the sake of Redemption from all eternity and yet this submission only occurred in time, avoiding the error of subordinationism or EFS?
> 
> Is that the key to my dilemma?



That is a good summary.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2018)

Ok, thanks. I understand better now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 31, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You are on the right track. It's similar to how we say that God's decree is not the same thing as God's execution of the decree.



This is exactly what I alluded to in post 34.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 31, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> This is exactly what I alluded to in post 34.


It may be what you _linked_ to in post #34, but you didn't actually _allude_ to anything. In the interest of those who may not have the time or inclination to open every link without an inkling of what they might find, I, for one, would sure appreciate at least an original line or two summarizing what the linked content will expound upon.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 31, 2018)

Steven,
Forgive me if I didn't dialog; I thought that the titles of the links would have been sufficient. I guess that would all boil down to how u define 'allusion'.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 31, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Steven,
> Forgive me if I didn't dialog; I thought that the titles of the links would have been sufficient. I guess that would all boil down to how u define 'allusion'.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 1, 2018)

The scriptures themselves would not give to us the ESS theology, and we have to read back into them the human relationships in order to develop that theology from the scriptures.
How can God be subordiante to Himself?


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 1, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Thanks.
> 
> So just as God planned to justify the Elect from all eternity but only did so in time (avoiding the error of eternal justification), we can also say that the Son planned to voluntarily submit for the sake of Redemption from all eternity and yet this submission only occurred in time, avoiding the error of subordinationism or EFS?
> 
> Is that the key to my dilemma?


Yes, as you articulated it here would seem to be how scriptures address this issue.


----------

