The view of submission withing the trinity also necessitates by logic a separation of wills in the immanent trinity, which becomes tritheism. Trueman has a good post on it :
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/post...-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism#.V40dP9IrKUm
where he even quotes an article in a book edited by Ware that says "One often overlooked feature of such a proposal [on eternal submission of Son to Father as articulated by Grudem and Ware] is that this understanding of the eternal relationship between Father and Son seems to entail a commitment to three distinct wills in the immanent Trinity. In order for the Son to submit willingly to the will of the Father, the two must possess distinct wills. This way of understanding the immanent Trinity does run counter to the pro-Nicene tradition, as well as the medieval, Reformation, and post-Reformation Reformed traditions that grew from it. According to traditional Trinitarian theology, the will is predicated of the one undivided essence so that there is only one divine will in the immanent Trinity."
This makes sense. So, what actually differentiates the
persons in the immanent trinity? is it just the roles as the economic trinity that do that?
Modes of origination is what differentiates the persons.
Right.
This, after some recent reading, seems to separate many modern Christians from the early Church (and theology that came after it). There was a real understanding of the vast gulf between Creator and creature and they were content with saying: "This is about all we can say about the intra-Trinitarian distinctions between the Persons."
I found it fascinating that the main reason the theologians of Nicea and those who followed (especially Athanasius) even knew they were on dangerous ground to say too much about the Trinity. God was to be adored - Father, Son, and Spirit. God was not an object of speculation or inquiry beyond Revelation.
They took up language primarily to put down heresy. They employed metaphysical language in ways different than used before in many cases to make sure that people they knew had heretical ideas could not affirm something that was true of the Godhead and the Persons.
The Father neither generates nor proceeds. The Son is eternally generate of the Father. The Spirit from the Father through the Son (sometimes called the bond of love in the Trinity).
There is not much more that can be said.
One thing that these Church men were committed to was the full divinity of the Persons. They put down, repeatedly, any notions that any of the Persons were subordinate or submissive or somehow less than possessing the full divinity.
It was even said that the Father is only the Father insofar as He generates the Son so there is no sense in Nicean-Constantinopolitan Theology that the Son is somehow eternally in a place of submission to the Father.
It's interesting to note that the Councils did not write that "it seems good to us" about the Trinity but they firmly believed this was the Apostolic faith they had
received and that the salvation of men depended upon it. It was the Gospel. They clearly understood and articulated the role of Christ as Mediator - as God-Man Whose humanity made it possible for humanity to have communion and analogical understanding of the Godhead. I was struck by how many myths I had about later developments and competing atonement theories are blown out of the water when you read how well these early theologians thought through these things.
In a real sense, I see, again, a breakdown in respect for the Creator-creature distinction. I'm always amazed how often that seems to come up in modern theology - even by those who call themselves Evangelical or Reformed. Theology is supposed to proceed from a place of reverence and awe about the unapproachable Light of the Divine Trinity. It places its hand over its mouth and says: "I am a creature in need of the God-man to mediate my relationship and understanding to my Creator." Instead, I see increasingly men who think they can think their way into God's inner being and make all sorts of theological pronouncements.
) and the "hierarchy of gradations"
down
