What is Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)?

[Binyawmene]

What is Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)? This doctrine teaches that the Son is not ontologically subordinate but is relationally subordinate or a Father and Son relationship. The Son's eternal relationship to the Father has always been an eternal “authority” (on the part of the Father) and eternal “subordination” (on the part of the Son). If the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father, then the Father is not eternally Father and the Son is not eternally Son. And the authority over the Son is relational to the Father, and subordination to the Father is relational of the Son. I will demonstrate one example of this in respect to creation. The Scriptures says that "without him" there would be no creation and no subordination. So, the eternal subordination of the Son is done "for him" and his functional role is "for us and for our salvation."

Here is a basic subordinate framework: From the Father and through the Son

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

Hebrews 2:10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.​

Now in Romans 11:36, the three "Hims" in the first sentence is one-person view in reference to the Son or two-person view in reference to both the Father and the Son? And who is receiving "glory?" Keep in mind that "without him" (John 1:3) there would be no creation. Which bring us to Revelations 4:11, who "the Lord and God of us" is receiving glory credit for creation? The Father or the Son? Or both who is Lord and God?

“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”​

 

[Fred]

Which bring us to Revelations 4:11, who "the Lord and God of us" is receiving glory credit for creation? The Father or the Son? Or both who is Lord and God?

Both.

Revelation 4:11
Thou art worthy, our Lord and our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power: for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are created.

Revelation 5:12
Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive the power, and riches, and wisdom, and might, and honor, and glory, and blessing.

The same attributes are equally, and this time individually, applied unto the Son in worship as seen in Revelation 5:12 above.
glory (doxa),
honor (timē)
power (dynamis)

Both the Father and the Son are once again (just like in Revelation 4:11) worshiped together.
Revelation 5:13-14
(13) And every creature which is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all who are in them, heard I saying, The blessing, and the honor, and the glory, and the dominion, be unto Him who sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever.
(14) And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.

 

[Fred]

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.​

Now in Romans 11:36, the three "Hims" in the first sentence is one-person view in reference to the Son or two-person view in reference to both the Father and the Son? And who is receiving "glory?" Keep in mind that "without him" (John 1:3) there would be no creation.

Both the Father and the Son.

I also think it is important to keep in mind when looking at Romans 11:36 that Paul quotes Isaiah 40:13 in Romans 11:34, and he does so again specifically in reference to Christ in 1 Corinthians 2:16.

Romans 11:34
For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?
1 Corinthians 2:16
For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him?
But we have the mind of Christ.
Isaiah 40:13
Who has directed the mind of the Lord, ------> (Spirit of the Lord)
Or as His counselor has informed Him?

The Septuagint of Isaiah 40:13 reads "mind of the Lord" (νοῦν κυρίου) instead of "Spirit" in many of our English Bibles.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): "But we have the nous of Christ." The statement concludes a section in which reference is consistently to pneuma, and therefore one might have expected pneuma. But Paul is influenced by the preceding quotation from Is. and therefore, equating kyrios and Christ, he writes nous. (2:820, echō, Hanse - the boldface is mine)

 

[Runningman]

What is Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)? This doctrine teaches that the Son is not ontologically subordinate but is relationally subordinate or a Father and Son relationship. The Son's eternal relationship to the Father has always been an eternal “authority” (on the part of the Father) and eternal “subordination” (on the part of the Son). If the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father, then the Father is not eternally Father and the Son is not eternally Son. And the authority over the Son is relational to the Father, and subordination to the Father is relational of the Son. I will demonstrate one example of this in respect to creation. The Scriptures says that "without him" there would be no creation and no subordination. So, the eternal subordination of the Son is done "for him" and his functional role is "for us and for our salvation."

Here is a basic subordinate framework: From the Father and through the Son

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.​

​

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.​

​

Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.​

​

Hebrews 2:10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.​

​

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.​

Now in Romans 11:36, the three "Hims" in the first sentence is one-person view in reference to the Son or two-person view in reference to both the Father and the Son? And who is receiving "glory?" Keep in mind that "without him" (John 1:3) there would be no creation. Which bring us to Revelations 4:11, who "the Lord and God of us" is receiving glory credit for creation? The Father or the Son? Or both who is Lord and God?

“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”​

In creation, Acts 4:24 says the "Sovereign Lord" is the creator of heavens and earth. In this same prayer, verse 27, the referred to Jesus as God's servant. I would suggest the correct way to look at the provided examples is in context of the church, Jesus not being God himself, and not being equal to God as you correctly admitted.

 

[Fred]

In creation, Acts 4:24 says the "Sovereign Lord" is the creator of heavens and earth.

The same Greek word for "Sovereign Lord" is used in reference to Jesus in Jude 4.

 

[Binyawmene]

The same Greek word for "Sovereign Lord" is used in reference to Jesus in Jude 4.

Yes. and Revelations 6:10.
Also, as you already know, Jude 5 says, "Jesus" (Deuteronomy 5:6).
I like to see how Unitarians try arguing against it.

 

[Runningman]

The same Greek word for "Sovereign Lord" is used in reference to Jesus in Jude 4.

The Sovereign Lord in Acts 4 isn't Jesus. That means he isn't God or the creator of the heavens and earth.

 

[Fred]

The Sovereign Lord in Acts 4 isn't Jesus. That means he isn't God or the creator of the heavens and earth.

The Sovereign Lord in Jude 4 is Jesus. That means He is God.

 

[Runningman]

The Sovereign Lord in Jude 4 is Jesus. That means He is God.

Stay on topic. I am pointing out the fact is that in Acts 4 Jesus is not the Sovereign Lord. Jesus is the Sovereign Lord's servant. Therefore he isn't God.

Acts 4
24When the believers heard this, they lifted up their voices to God with one accord. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “You made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
27In fact, this is the very city where Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired with the Gentiles and the people of Israel against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed.

 

[Binyawmene]

Stay on topic. I am pointing out the fact is that in Acts 4 Jesus is not the Sovereign Lord. Jesus is the Sovereign Lord's servant. Therefore he isn't God.

Acts 4
24When the believers heard this, they lifted up their voices to God with one accord. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “You made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
27In fact, this is the very city where Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired with the Gentiles and the people of Israel against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed.

This thread is based on the "Relational" or Economical Trinity, and not based on your assumed Unitarianism or the Hypostatic Union. Here is another scriptural framework before and prior to the incarnation: "the Father sends the Son, the Son is sent from the Father." During the incarnation, "the Father is with the Son." To answer your question is found in the Hypostatic Union, "the Son is equal to the Father according to the Divine Nature, and subordinate to the Father according to the human nature." Go and study what Trinity teaches before you have Trinity discussions. Enjoy your day.

 

[Fred]

Stay on topic.

Which isn't for you to decide because this isn't a thread you started. In any event it is on topic.
A passage you quoted from contains the very same Greek word elsewhere in reference to Christ.

You couldn't refute that, so you made up a ridiculous claim about staying on topic.

 

[Runningman]

Which isn't for you to decide because this isn't a thread you started. In any event it is on topic.
A passage you quoted from contains the very same Greek word elsewhere in reference to Christ.

You couldn't refute that, so you made up a ridiculous claim about staying on topic.

This is a debate thread. The topic is debunking the OP.

Stay on topic.

Acts 4 disproves Jesus is God. What you need to understand is, regardless of the semantics you cherry picked from Jude 4 from the less than 5 versions that use it, it doesn't transfer to Acts 4 in the way you said. For example, if Jesus is the servant of the Sovereign Lord in Acts 4 then there is never a time that this isn't true. The Sovereign Lord is always Sovereign and in relation to Him Jesus is not sovereign because he isn't God.

Jesus is head of the church, but the head of Jesus is God and Jesus belongs to God. When you understand this you'll be set.

1 Corinthians 3
23and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.

1 Corinthians 11
3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

 

[Runningman]

This thread is based on the "Relational" or Economical Trinity, and not based on your assumed Unitarianism or the Hypostatic Union. Here is another scriptural framework before and prior to the incarnation: "the Father sends the Son, the Son is sent from the Father." During the incarnation, "the Father is with the Son." To answer your question is found in the Hypostatic Union, "the Son is equal to the Father according to the Divine Nature, and subordinate to the Father according to the human nature." Go and study what Trinity teaches before you have Trinity discussions. Enjoy your day.

I understand your OP. I am showing you the relation between the Father and Son. The Father is God and Jesus isn't. That's what you need to be seeing as far as their relationship goes. Enjoy your day.

 

[Fred]

This is a debate thread. The topic is debunking the OP.

Stay on topic.

You were debunked and now you are trying to avoid the topic.

Stay on topic.

 

[Runningman]

You were debunked and now you are trying to avoid the topic.

Stay on topic.

This isn't going anywhere.

Jesus isn't God.
Acts 4
24When the believers heard this, they lifted up their voices to God with one accord. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “You made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
27In fact, this is the very city where Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired with the Gentiles and the people of Israel against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed.

 

[Binyawmene]

I understand your OP. I am showing you the relation between the Father and Son. The Father is God and Jesus isn't. That's what you need to be seeing as far as their relationship goes. Enjoy your day.

But the thing is, when you point out verses about the Father being Lord or God. You are affirming what we already believe as Trinitarians. The Father is part of the Trinity framework. And the same goes for pointing out verses about Jesus Christ's manhood. You are affirming what we already believe as Hypostatic Unionist. Jesus Christ is man, form of a servant, and manhood, etc. It's part of the Hypostatic Union framework. What we disagree on is when you make asserted claims that Jesus Christ isn't God based on those type of verses. I have explained this to you many times before. You are affirming what we already believe.

 

[Runningman]

But the thing is, when you point out verses about the Father being Lord or God. You are affirming what we already believe as Trinitarians. The Father is part of the Trinity framework. And the same goes for pointing out verses about Jesus Christ's manhood. You are affirming what we already believe as Hypostatic Unionist. Jesus Christ is man, form of a servant, and manhood, etc. It's part of the Hypostatic Union framework. What we disagree on is when you make asserted claims that Jesus Christ isn't God based on those type of verses. I have explained this to you many times before. You are affirming what we already believe.

Then it would seem Jesus doesn’t possess the exact nature of God. For example, Jesus said this:

Matt 15
19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. 20These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.”

Jesus taught on the spiritual things that defile a person. It isn’t the spiritual things that defile the human body, but the spiritual things that defile someone’s soul and spirit.

In Jesus’ soul and spirit he was tempted in all ways as we are and yet remained without sin.

The hypoststatic union isn’t compatible with what Jesus taught. If Jesus is God it would mean God was tempted to sin. Being tempted to sin isn’t God’s nature. That’s still the problem.

 

[Fred]

This isn't going anywhere.

Because you refuse to stay on topic.

 

[Runningman]

Because you refuse to stay on topic.

You keep trying to unsuccessfully change the topic and you're finding it simply impossible. When you are ready to actually talk about the things I brought up then I am here.

 

[Fred]

You keep trying to unsuccessfully change the topic

Please stay on topic.
See posts 5 and 8.