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

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
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!
 
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
 
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.
 
lynnie said:
I bet Mr Religion could do it, but respect his humility in preferring not to
Click to expand...
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...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Contra_Mundum said:
https://adaughterofthereformation.w...down-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Pergamum said:
This seems like a huge assumption. How can this be proved or disproved?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
lynnie said:
Here is the official position of Dr. Sproul and Ligonier on the Eternal Subordination of the Son debate:
Click to expand...

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."
 
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 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:
Click to expand...

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.)
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I have found those advocating aggressively for this bizarre in their worldview...
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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, no 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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RamistThomist
  • Locked
John Chrysostom Rebuts Eternal Subordination of the Son
Replies
1
Views
800
Kinghezy
Kinghezy
J
  • Locked
eternal generation of the Son
Replies
4
Views
2K
JonathanHunt
JonathanHunt
N
  • Locked
The Eternal Generation of the Son
Replies
24
Views
9K
natewood3
N
Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
John Owen on the economic subordination of God the Son
Replies
2
Views
779
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
R
  • Locked
Calvin on the eternal generation of the Son.
Replies
9
Views
5K
Scott
Scott
Back
Top