John Owen and the debate over the Son's submission

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
John Owen has some interesting things to say in relation to the debate over the eternal submission of God the Son. While I deplore the spirit of petty partisanship in which that discussion was carried out, Owen reminds us that the correct view is that Christ submits to God in his economic role as mediator:

In this state, as he is head of angels and of his whole church, so is he in subordination to the Father; and therefore he is said at the same time to receive revelations from the Father, and to send an angel as his servant on his work and employment, Rev. i. 1. [1]

... as mediator, depending on the Father, in subordination to him ... [2]

... Christ in respect of his divine nature is "equal with God," that is, the Father, Phil. ii. 6; but in respect of his mediation he is not equal to him, he is less than he. [3]

[1] John Owen, Vindiciæ Evangelicæ; or, The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined (Oxford, 1655) in William H. Goold (ed.), The Works of John Owen (1850-53; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1966), xii, 387.

[2] Ibid., 388.

[3] Ibid., 391.
 

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Senior
I sure would enjoy hearing some of you discuss this concept on a level Beyond what I am equal to. I want to learn.
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
So what was the story of the spirit of petty partisanship? Curious in that this is a subject of who God is, and understand many Christians think of some type of a thi-theistic God or gods.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
So what was the story of the spirit of petty partisanship? Curious in that this is a subject of who God is, and understand many Christians think of some type of a thi-theistic God or gods.

From what I witnessed, certain parties made rash accusations of Arianism, which is not true as the other side do not affirm ontological subordination. Moreover, their views did seem to have some support in orthodox fathers such as Hilary of Poitiers. I do not disagree, however, that the error of ESS/EFS needs to be nipped in the bud. And the idea of basing gender relations in the Trinity, instead of in nature, is foolish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top