Teaching my son the Trinity. Can you judge my summary - am I a Subordinationist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
For instance, for the Son to eternally submit to the Father, it requires that will is a function of the Person (hypstasis) and this runs into a problem of monotheletism (that the Son of God has one will).

Will belongs to the divine nature, but there is an "I," "Thou," and "He," owing to the personal properties. The second person knows Himself as the Son of the Father, and rejoices in it. Without this personal knowledge He could not have volunteered to make Himself of no reputation.
 
I was reading in Reymond's theology pp.323ff and I appreciate his discussion. I was especially intrigued with how the reformers interacted with and modified patristic language and thinking. I was intrigued that they felt free to do that.

That discussion is not historically accurate seeing Calvin affirmed the Son is eternally begotten. When Reymond's Systematic first came out it was critiqued at this particular point in both the Westminster and Calvin Theological Journals.

The following is an excellent summary of the evidence for Calvin's view: http://www.kerux.com/doc/2501A4.asp
 
I was reading in Reymond's theology pp.323ff and I appreciate his discussion. I was especially intrigued with how the reformers interacted with and modified patristic language and thinking. I was intrigued that they felt free to do that.

Doesn't Reymond misrepresent Calvin's position on the Trinity?
 
I was reading in Reymond's theology pp.323ff and I appreciate his discussion. I was especially intrigued with how the reformers interacted with and modified patristic language and thinking. I was intrigued that they felt free to do that.

Doesn't Reymond misrepresent Calvin's position on the Trinity?

Raymond does more than interact with Calvin - he refers to the reformers in general - and what I was referring to was the simple fact that they felt free to adjust language used by the patristics. In his discussion he cites Hodge, Warfield and others who also speak of the reformers tweaking the verbiage. What caught my eye was not any particular position, but the brute fact that they felt free to adjust the language.
 
For instance, for the Son to eternally submit to the Father, it requires that will is a function of the Person (hypstasis) and this runs into a problem of monotheletism (that the Son of God has one will).

Will belongs to the divine nature, but there is an "I," "Thou," and "He," owing to the personal properties. The second person knows Himself as the Son of the Father, and rejoices in it. Without this personal knowledge He could not have volunteered to make Himself of no reputation.
Thank you for that important qualification!
I was reading in Reymond's theology pp.323ff and I appreciate his discussion. I was especially intrigued with how the reformers interacted with and modified patristic language and thinking. I was intrigued that they felt free to do that.

That discussion is not historically accurate seeing Calvin affirmed the Son is eternally begotten. When Reymond's Systematic first came out it was critiqued at this particular point in both the Westminster and Calvin Theological Journals.

The following is an excellent summary of the evidence for Calvin's view: http://www.kerux.com/doc/2501A4.asp

Thanks for the link! This is a really interesting historical read. The interesting aspect of Calvin's view is that the Aseitas of the Son is a push in the complete opposite direction of any notion of eternal submission. Even if one admits the schoool of thought that Calvin rejects eternal generation and the communication of essence, this would utterly destroy any idea of an ad intra eternal submission.
 
The interesting aspect of Calvin's view is that the Aseitas of the Son is a push in the complete opposite direction of any notion of eternal submission. Even if one admits the schoool of thought that Calvin rejects eternal generation and the communication of essence, this would utterly destroy any idea of an ad intra eternal submission.

That is true with respect to the essence, which is one. But Calvin allowed for subordination of the Son terminating on the person and limited to the order of the persons. Richard Muller makes this point in PRRD 4:80.

The problem with the school that reads Calvin as rejecting eternal generation is that it is not operating within the classical distinctions in which Calvin operated. Calvin affirmed the autotheos of the Son because he was committed to the classical position that there are three divine persons who are distinguished by personal properties. If "autotheos" is taken apart from personal properties one effectively has three theoi, that is, three gods, or tritheism. Calvin's commitment to the Son's autotheos must be counterbalanced by the classical view of personal properties in order to avoid classical tritheism. And, on the other side, the personal properties must be counterbalanced by the autotheoi in order to avoid a form of modalism. It is this latter point that Calvin makes when he affirms the Son is autotheos.
 
Definitely the order of the Trinity has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. It's an order of distinction: the Father subsists in a manner of begetting; the Son in a manner of being begotten; the Spirit in a manner of proceeding. Fathers and sons on earth have a hierarchy, but this should not be read back into the Trinity.

Perhaps the covenant of redemption doctrine is problematic and creates an unnecessary complication. I prefer to go with the Scottish divines who rejected the idea and stuck to the two covenants: works and grace. Perhaps separating the covenant of grace into two covenants, with the so-called covenant of redemption being isolated in eternity creates a problem: by divorcing it from the covenant of grace proper, a covenant concerned with "in time" action, it implies an eternal, inherent subordination within the ontological Trinity.
 
Perhaps the covenant of redemption doctrine is problematic and creates an unnecessary complication. I prefer to go with the Scottish divines who rejected the idea and stuck to the two covenants: works and grace. Perhaps separating the covenant of grace into two covenants, with the so-called covenant of redemption being isolated in eternity creates a problem: by divorcing it from the covenant of grace proper, a covenant concerned with "in time" action, it implies an eternal, inherent subordination within the ontological Trinity.

I also prefer to speak of the covenant of grace as one, but this means the covenant of redemption is the covenant of grace as made with Christ from eternity. Those, like Boston, who affirm a single covenant of grace do not place the making of that covenant in time.
 
To clarify, I didn't mean to speak of the covenant of grace being made in time, rather its being concerned with in time atoning acts (obviously to achieve everlasting salvation). What I was suggesting was by having a separate covenant of redemption, that could imply an inherent subordination; whereas holding to a single covenant of grace keeps the submission of the Son grounded in His role as mediator, rather than suggesting an inherent submission (covenant of redemption) manifesting itself in His work as mediator (covenant of grace).
 
To clarify, I didn't mean to speak of the covenant of grace being made in time, rather its being concerned with in time atoning acts (obviously to achieve everlasting salvation). What I was suggesting was by having a separate covenant of redemption, that could imply an inherent subordination; whereas holding to a single covenant of grace keeps the submission of the Son grounded in His role as mediator, rather than suggesting an inherent submission (covenant of redemption) manifesting itself in His work as mediator (covenant of grace).

I see what you are driving at, but those who teach the covenant of grace is made with Christ maintain that the eternal Son of God voluntarily consented from eternity to be the Mediator between God and men. In fact, even those who reject an everlasting covenant still affirm this voluntary act on the part of the Son, which was personal to Him. He made Himself of no reputation. It was not the Father, nor the Spirit; it was the Son.
 
Helm weighs in on the topic dissecting Warfield's The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity in three parts:
https://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2016/06/warfield-on-trinity.html

1. ‘Son’ and Spirit’ may seem to be obviously subordinate expressions. But this is not the semitic way of understanding these terms.
2. Sonship in 'only begotten Son' is simply ‘likeness’. Whatever the Father is the Son is also. It is thus an assertion of equality with the Father, and not of subordination.
3. So expressions of the ‘begottenness’ of the Son may convey no suggestion of coming into being, but of the Father's priority of existence. And similarly with ‘Spirit’.
4. There are in the NT almost full definitions of Sonship – in John.5.18 – and of Spirit – in I Cor. 2. 10 -11. – that are non-subordinationist.

-----

1. In the NT there is subordination in the ‘modes of operation’ of the persons in respect of redemption, but it is ‘not so clear’ that there is subordination in each person’s ‘mode of subsistence’, the way in which the person’s are related to each other.

2 It may be that the subordination in respect of redemption rests on subordination in modes of existence, but it might equally well be based not on nature but on convention, a one-willed convention of a covenantal character. And it looks that way because of the pervasiveness of the NT teaching on the Covenant of Redemption, on the humiliation of Christ, and on the two-natured character of Christ.

3. But this must be understood as being not at the expense of the NT’s teaching on the ‘complete identity’ of the three persons in their being and powers. The three are one God.

-----

1. The threefold work of God in redemption is echoed and thus borne out in Christian experience.

2. The Christian finds the doctrine of the Trinity underlying and giving their significance and consistency to the teaching of the Scriptures as to the processes of salvation.

3. So the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of redemption stand or fall together.

So if Warfield is correct, what he says affects the theory that the Son is subordinate, being begotten, but subordinate only by a convention, the Persons' co-willingness, the willingness of one eternal will, to take different roles in redemption.
 
H3. So expressions of the ‘begottenness’ of the Son may convey no suggestion of coming into being, but of the Father's priority of existence.

Accepting the "priority" is not of time, but of order, an affirmation of the Father's priority requires the acknowledgment of the Son's posteriority. Not of time, but of order.

I doubt there is a "semitic" way of conceiving of sonship in a way that removes all ideas of subordination. While "dignity" is at the heart of the term, it is such dignity that is "derived" from the relationship with the father. The only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father is an expression of the highest dignity, but it is still a dignity depending upon the dignity which the Father has in Himself. Even if you removed "Sonship," and only spoke of "the second person," the concepts of order and priority would still be present.

It is better to follow the older divines who recognised the order but limited it to the persons and rejected the idea that it pertained in any way to the essence.
 
Another reat article from Mark Jones distinguishing Will from Act: http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/subordination-in-the-pactum-and-the-irony-of-ess

It is important to recognise that the three persons consciously act with one will. That is a step in the right direction.

I am sorry to say, though, that Dr. Jones has misappropriated the quotation from Herman Witsius. That quotation specifically referred to subjection to the law of a superior. As God, the Son was in no way subject to the Father in this respect.

One might consult Herman Witsius' Dissertations on the Apostle's Creed, 1:149ff, for his teaching on the priority of the Father. Especially relevant are his remarks on the order of operation.
 
I am sorry to say, though, that Dr. Jones has misappropriated the quotation from Herman Witsius. That quotation specifically referred to subjection to the law of a superior. As God, the Son was in no way subject to the Father in this respect.
I'm missing how Dr. Jones misappropriated the quote. It seems he's making that point. Spell it out a little bit more in the flow of what you think Mark is arguing for before and after he quotes Witsius because he comes to the conclusion that the Son was not in subject to the Father.
 
I'm missing how Dr. Jones misappropriated the quote.

Going back a paragraph or two in the Economy of the Covenants shows that Dr. Witsius was speaking of subjection to the law of a superior. Dr. Jones concludes from his quotation "the utter folly of speaking in language of subordination with regards to the Son in his relationship to the Father." Dr. Witsius excludes a specific kind of subordination and Dr. Jones concludes from this that it is utter folly to speak in terms of subordination at all. And the complementarians who maintain a kind of subordination do not maintain the type "subjection" which Dr. Witsius was speaking against. They speak more in terms of the order of operation which Dr. Witsius affirmed in his Dissertations.
 
To follow up on Dr. Jones' piece, I've had a look at his material from Dr. Owen, and I think he takes a very large leap in logic when he draws the following conclusion:

Nowhere do we need to posit “submission” or “subordination.” There simply (pardon the pun) is no need to do so. It creates confusion because people then start to think there might be two wills in God when you speak of the Son “submitting” in terms of ad intra necessary or free relations.

First, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, since he has already acknowledged there are "personal" acts of the one "essential" will. Secondly, it would be a poor conclusion to draw from Dr. Owen when he explicitly used the terms "order" and "subordination" to describe the Son's personal relation to the Father. He wrote, "It is true, there is an order, yea, a subordination, in the persons of the Trinity themselves, whereby the Son, as to his personality, may be said to depend on the Father, being begotten of him" (Works, 12:201).
 
I'm missing how Dr. Jones misappropriated the quote.

Going back a paragraph or two in the Economy of the Covenants shows that Dr. Witsius was speaking of subjection to the law of a superior. Dr. Jones concludes from his quotation "the utter folly of speaking in language of subordination with regards to the Son in his relationship to the Father." Dr. Witsius excludes a specific kind of subordination and Dr. Jones concludes from this that it is utter folly to speak in terms of subordination at all. And the complementarians who maintain a kind of subordination do not maintain the type "subjection" which Dr. Witsius was speaking against. They speak more in terms of the order of operation which Dr. Witsius affirmed in his Dissertations.

When you note: "...the complementarians who maintain a kind of subordination do not maintain the type "subjection" which Dr. Witsius was speaking against. They speak more in terms of the order of operation which Dr. Witsius affirmed in his Dissertations."

I might be missing something here but it seems the complementarians are arguing for a necessary ad intra submission of the Son to the Father and not merely that there is an order of the persons as you have articulated. It seems they're arguing for much more than the fact that the Father generates and that the Son is generated and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. You have noted this might be denoted a form of sub-ordination but not in the sense that we sometimes think. If this was all they are saying it seems non-controversial. It seems they are arguing for an eternal (e.g. necessary) submission of the Son to the Father that is then paradigmatic for male-female relationships.

Help me out here.
 
Help me out here.

One of the things I noted on the other thread is that the complementarians are not limiting their idea of subordination to the eternal generation. Eternal generation imposes a conceptual control over subordination. It limits subordination to the person because eternal generation is a personal property. Subordination in such a case is not of the essence. If the complementarians traced subordination to the personal properties they would be confined within the limits of orthodoxy. But they go further, and trace subordination to the ad extra voluntary works of the Son as Mediator, and this introduces a subordination of NATURE because the Son as man was bound by inferior nature to obey the Father. They make qualifications to guard against this but it is difficult not to read this subordination of nature into their meaning because of their appeal to the Mediator's subordination.

If the critiques concentrated on this point it would be helpful towards solving the problem. But as it stands, the idea of subordination itself has been the point of scrutiny. As can be seen from Dr. Jones' posts, all subordination is being rejected. They do not limit it to the personal properties, but reject it out of hand as if it were to be equated to subordinationism. The problem is, the Christian tradition has long recognised a qualified use of subordination in an orthodox sense.

So effectively the critiques are shooting the horse to stop the rider instead of shooting the rider and putting the horse to a good use.
 
Last edited:
So effectively the critiques are shooting the horse to stop the rider instead of shooting the rider and putting the horse to a good use.

To be fair, there have been a few critiques that have noted what you have noted about a proper way to view an order in the Trinity but there have been quite a few different things written by different scholars so it's hard to catch.

At least from what I've discerned, the issue is not so much an outright denial of the order by critics of EFS (e.g. eternal generation of the Son and spiration of the Spirit) but that the subordination/submission of the Son as Mediator is traced back into the ad intra relationship or that this submission/subordination of ths Son as Man/Mediator is attached to the Person of the Son so that it is true not only in His humanity but necessarily of the Son.
 
This has been a great thread! I can't wait to hear how it went when Pergy explains this to his son.
 
My son Noah's (11) response was:

I know that there is one God. And that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Spirit is, too. Each one is not like part of God or 1/3rd God, but each one is totally God even though that is weird to think about. And each one is equal.

And

Even though they are equal, they have different jobs. Like you are dad and I am a kid, but we are equally human, but you are a father and I am a son and so we do different things every day, and I listen to you. And so God sent Jesus and Jesus died. And when we believe the Spirit lives in our heart. But they are all equal...even though the Son did everything the Father said on earth.

and then;

I can't really understand much more than this.
 
Where I am at:

I fell upon this question and became very confused: "Could any of the Three Persons of the Trinity Have become Incarnate?"


Here are Letham's conclusions:

There is something intrinsic in the Son that makes Him the Son. In other words, it wasn't as if any of the 3 Persons of the Trinity could have become incarnate and sent and died for mankind, but that this was appropriate for the Son.

Letham says:

The human obedience of Christ has a basis in the Son of God himself. Avoiding Nestorianism, we affirm that the obedience of Christ as man has a basis in the Son of God himself."

...It was very natural for the Son to unite to himself a human nature that yields obedience to the Father.

The incarnate Son reveals the eternal Son. We see something of the eternal nature of Christ when we see Christ as He was on earth.
And also:

...the obedience of Christ reflects a comparable attitude on the divine level, in which the Son lives in loving submission to the Father.

.....in Barth's thought "Jesus' human actions are never merely the actions of a human being who was not also the eternal Son of God."

Is Letham correct?
 
On why it was the Son who had to become incarnate, Mark Jones has this article where he summarises reasons given by the Reformed:

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517...e-incarnate-because-he-submitted#.V2kftdQrKPQ

I would have to agree that distinguishing between a correct subordination and incorrect subordination probably isn't helpful in the current debate. We shouldn't be giving any more fuel to the fire started by these people. I think it's safer to stick with the fact that there is an order of distinction- the Father must, logically, precede the Son and the Spirit who proceeds from both must, logically, come third- but any talk of subordination should be kept within the bounds of the incarnate Son: the God-man, Christ Jesus, and not the second person of the Trinity. And yes we do distinguish between the persons in terms of their actions, but we also recognise that all three persons act in all acts: there is no situation where only the Father, or Son, or Spirit act. When we talk about one person of the Trinity performing a certain act we mean that that particular act is most prominently situated in that person (e.g. the incarnation terminates on the Son though the act is willed by the three persons of the Trinity) not that the other two are not involved. There is only one will and one act in God, for He is simple. Only the incarnate God-man, Christ, has two wills. As Mark Jones makes the point: it's this crucial distinction which the parliamentarians don't understand.

And while we do have 1 Corinthians 11:3 using Christ's relationship to the Father in the context of male female relations, it is a)specifically the mediator being spoken of, and b)how we understand God being the head of Christ is different from how we understand the man being the head of the woman. Whereas the relationship the Bible most prominently puts forward as the model for male female relationships is Christ's relationship to the church, rather than the second person's relationship to the first (which, in terms of ad intra relations, is never used as a model- I think). Why the analogy given explicitly in Scripture is not sufficient for these people I don't know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top