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

[MW]

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

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

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[reaganmarsh]

Hi Jacob,

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Hi Jacob,

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

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

 

[reaganmarsh]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[Dachaser]

Hi Jacob,

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

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

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

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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

The analogy from medicine, theological triage, presumes the dying are already dead, the gravely ill will actually die without intervention, and the wounded will recover without any intervention. Not that I am assuming so, the pragmatism of pastoral approaches should never be taken to replace the actualities of our redemption and walk of faith.

 

[Ed Walsh]

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

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

Ed

 

[reaganmarsh]

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

Ed

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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

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