The Pactum Salutis, the Pre-incarnate Son, and the current Trinitarian debate

[Pergamum]

Many critics who say that EFS (Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son) is unbiblical are saying that for the Son to submit to the Father’s authority from all eternity requires an ontological submission and not merely an economical submission.

And to do so, there must be a distinction between the will of the Father and the will of the Son (otherwise submission would make no sense), such that they are erring against the Creeds which speak of only one will in God.

Therefore, when the incarnation happened, only then could Jesus submit.

BUT...

---Under this logic, how can we even have a Pactum Salutis?

---And also, why mark this point at the incarnation? The Son appeared to many in the OT, too, representing the Father. It would appear that the Pre-incarnate Son, as well, submitted to the Father.

---And also, it doesn't seem like any of the EFS folks like Ware or Grudem affirm that there is any ontological submission or subordination. But their opponents keep seeming to put words into their mouths and say, "you deny it, but you really have to believe in an ontological subordination, too, whether you admit it or not." Is this a bad way to argue?

---And again, was the Pactum Salutis an agreement to submit at some point in the future or did such a posture occur at the Pactum Salutis? For instance, God ordained to justify the Elect from all eternity and yet this actual justification occurs at a point in time and we reject the error of "eternal justification." Is the subordination of the Son similar?

And...must we throw out the concept of a Pactum Salutis entirely since it brings to mind motions of agreement between different wills? One OPC article refers to the Pactum as a "holy conspiracy of Grace." Is there is one will in God, how can there be a covenant among one will? (note: I affirm the Pactum Salutis, since this is the same as God swearing unto Himself).



Please let's stay focused on these particular narrower issues.

[note #2] I use the terms Pactum Salutis and Covenant of Redemption interchangeably. Can and should I do so?]

 

[Philip]

And...must we throw out the concept of a Pactum Salutis entirely since it brings to mind motions of agreement between different wills?

This is the objection that Robert Letham (among others) has to the idea of the pactum salutis.

 

[Pergamum]

And...must we throw out the concept of a Pactum Salutis entirely since it brings to mind motions of agreement between different wills?

This is the objection that Robert Letham (among others) has to the idea of the pactum salutis.

Is it a valid objection?

And is it inconsistent to oppose the eternal functional subordination of the Son on these same grounds while holding to the Pactum Salutis?

 

[MW]

Is it a valid objection?

And is it inconsistent to oppose the eternal functional subordination of the Son on these same grounds while holding to the Pactum Salutis?

Letham's objection to the pactum is in terms of it being an extreme development which leaves out the work of the Spirit. In answer it might be stated that we are called to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, and we are never directed to believe in the Spirit for salvation. The Spirit bears witness to Christ the Redeemer; He does not undertake the work of redemption.

The objection, as stated, is not valid, because whether one believes in the eternal covenant of redemption or not, the fact is the Son submitted to the Father and agreed to make Himself of no reputation for the purpose of salvation. However one construes the plan of redemption, the voluntary assumption of human nature is a vital aspect of it.

As to the OP, there is one will, but there is an I, Thou, and He, which wills indivisibly. The Son, as a Person, is conscious of personal acts of the One divine will. He, as the Son, delights in the Father from all eternity, rejoices that He is begotten of the Father. Beginning with creation, the Son gladly acted as the One through whom all things are made.

The problem (I am sorry to have to say it again) is in transferring the idea of human submission to the intrinsic relations and acts of the Trinity. It is one thing to argue from the order of subsisting to the order of operation; that is orthodox. But to argue back from the subjection of the divine-human Mediator to the order of the Persons in the Trinity is to introduce subordinationist ideas into the Trinity, because the humanity of the Mediator is inferior in NATURE to the Father.

 

[Pergamum]

Is it a valid objection?

And is it inconsistent to oppose the eternal functional subordination of the Son on these same grounds while holding to the Pactum Salutis?

Letham's objection to the pactum is in terms of it being an extreme development which leaves out the work of the Spirit. In answer it might be stated that we are called to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, and we are never directed to believe in the Spirit for salvation. The Spirit bears witness to Christ the Redeemer; He does not undertake the work of redemption.

The objection, as stated, is not valid, because whether one believes in the eternal covenant of redemption or not, the fact is the Son submitted to the Father and agreed to make Himself of no reputation for the purpose of salvation. However one construes the plan of redemption, the voluntary assumption of human nature is a vital aspect of it.

As to the OP, there is one will, but there is an I, Thou, and He, which wills indivisibly. The Son, as a Person, is conscious of personal acts of the One divine will. He, as the Son, delights in the Father from all eternity, rejoices that He is begotten of the Father. Beginning with creation, the Son gladly acted as the One through whom all things are made.

The problem (I am sorry to have to say it again) is in transferring the idea of human submission to the intrinsic relations and acts of the Trinity. It is one thing to argue from the order of subsisting to the order of operation; that is orthodox. But to argue back from the subjection of the divine-human Mediator to the order of the Persons in the Trinity is to introduce subordinationist ideas into the Trinity, because the humanity of the Mediator is inferior in NATURE to the Father.

Ok, thanks. Digesting all of this now......[churn...churn...churn...]...

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Mark Jones talks about the will of God, the Pactum, and submission here:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/subordination-in-the-pactum-and-the-irony-of-ess