What is Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)?

[Arial]

It says "through Him" everything was created.

There is a big difference.

What does "through Him" mean?

 

[grace2]

What does "through Him" mean?

God ordered Him to do it.

He is God's right hand.

 

[Fred]

It says "through Him" everything was created.

There is a big difference.

And we are also created in the image of an invisible God.

Through Him includes Him - and yet the Bible teaches the creating was done by God "alone" (Job 9:8; cf. Isaiah 44:24).

 

[Binyawmene]

Those verses do not say He was Son in pre-existence. In fact in John 1, where it is speaking of His pre-existence, He is identified as the Word. And in the OT, before the incarnation, He is evident but not called the Son. In prophecy ---Messiah.

It says, "God sent his Son"

Did the sending occur after the Son incarnated?
Or, the sending occurs before the Son incarnated?

He was known as the Son prior to the incarnation.
Anything before incarnation is known as preexistence.

 

[Josheb]

Why do I want to persuade you for? And your point will be?

Great questions.

Why do people discuss matters in discussion boards? To learn, to teach, to persuade, to waste time? I cannot count the times I've been told "I'm not interested in persuading anyone!" only to receive silence (or ad hominem) when asked, "Why then are you posting if not, in part or whole, to persuade?" Every poster hoping to learn something places him/herself in a position of being persuaded to accept and believe something not previously known or understood. That is predicated on what we might call a "teachable spirit." Alternatively, those who come to teach necessarily assume their posts persuade - otherwise no learning occurs, and the teaching motives and objectives prove fruitless. These two sets of conditions co-exist in every thread. It's a good thing. It's not something to be denied unless there actually is a completely lack of learning and/or teaching motive.

Of course, there are those who post simply and solely to provoke emotional responses from others. They have absolutely no interest in discussing anything, in either learning or teaching. Those are known in internet vernacular as "trolls." Your posts do not provoke. That's appreciated.

Some like to come into forums and post their views because of something they've learned and they believe everyone should know it. That can be a good thing, but it turns toward depravity when the views are posted with tyranny. "I am right and everyone else is wrong! You must all bow to what I posted because I'm older than you, I'm more studied than you, I have an education, I have X years' experience, I'm in the only true church, and I do not care how many faults twenty respondents post I have created a perfect post. Submit!" Of course, they are not usually so honest and forthcoming, or so selfish. It usually comes out in the form of dismissal or attacks, such as, "You haven't studied." "You do not understand," You lack knowledge," and a favorite among many readers the spiritualized appraisal of another's relationship with God, "You lack the Spirit," or "You do not know Jesus."




You seem like a good guy, @Binyawmene. I am simply telling you I do not find the posts persuasive and if they are intended to persuade then something more is necessary.

And I have explained why. The methodology, the exegesis keeps committing the same error repeatedly: Scriptures said in the post-sin world about post sin conditions are being apply to eternity. In more generalized terms, temporal statements are being applied to eternity. The temporal subsets of soteriology and eschatology are being used to explain eternal Christology. The changes in language have been broached, but not acknowledged. Even the words "Messiah," and "Christ" apply to temporal conditions. If we're talking about eternity, then this has to be acknowledged. There is also the problem of inference. There is a huge difference between eisegetic inferences and exegetic inferences. The latter is always built on explicit statement, the former lacks such things. All of this taken together speaks to a lack of good exegesis. Every time the temporal is used to explain the eternal a false equivalence is asserted and, on some occasions, false dichotomies and false causes accompany the false equivalence. It's not just that fallacy never persuades; fallacy is never true, either.

A lot more could be said about the eternal subordination of the Son but the conversation hasn't progress to the points where other matters (like Jesus' role as Creator, or OT Christophanies, for example) naturally arise. No one has to agree with me. If my posts are correct, then accept them. If they are incorrect then show me where and how. That is how I (and perhaps others) learn .

And THE best, "We'll have to agree to disagree" is when the conversation(s) has been polite and respectful. I have expressed my appreciation for your civility. I did that sincerely. I was recently informed by another forum member who rants at everyone but cannot see it that I have been "put on ignore." Ummm... okay. You're amazing, Bin. There is here an exchange of differences - a persisting disagreement - completely void of rancor. Well done. I hope it serves as an example to others.

Why do I want to persuade you for?

Only you can answer that question.


Now....

Have you got something more to prove the subordinate relationship between the Father and Son is eternal? If so, then post it. If not that's okay. Just say so. More could be said but I'm undecided whether to add more to the conversation. What you've posted is very good if applied to the Christ, but Jesus is much, much more than Messiah, and the language of Father/Son is largely New Testament language - not eternal language. Temporal Christology is a subset of eternal Jesusology .

 

[Binyawmene]

Only you can answer that question.

I said everything I wanted to for now in post 57.

I do it for three reasons:

1. Teach. There is always someone who is uninformed on a specific topic.
2. Apply apologetics. Because someone will always come along and try to challenge.
3. Train in apologetics. Learn new arguments while defending.

But, I have no interest to persuade anyone. Believing in both the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union is the result of one who is been regenerated.

 

[Arial]

It says, "God sent his Son"

Did the sending occur after the Son incarnated?
Or, the sending occurs before the Son incarnated?

He was known as the Son prior to the incarnation.
Anything before incarnation is known as preexistence.

Certainly it was known within the Trinity that the second person of the Trinity would come as the Son, in eternity. But that does not mean He was known as Son within the Godhead, before He came as the Son. He is called Son of God as identifying His deity in the incarnation as Son of man. He is God and came from God. He was the One who would come as the Son. All three are equally God, and equal, in regards to subordination which is the topic of the OP. They each do different actions in salvation, and I suppose always and in everything in eternity past and future.

Jesus as Son was not doing the work of Son, in eternity past. He did the work of the Son in the incarnation, and completed that work of providing the means of redemption. Now He has returned to the Father, and we still know Him as the Son, and He is finishing the work of total defeat of evil, and at the assigned time, and in the assigned way, while those appointed to eternal life are gathered in through the preaching of the gospel. His subordination as Son of man is over. One and done, so to speak.

John, when speaking of the Son in eternity prior to the incarnation, did not call Him Son, or even Christ, but the Word, which references straight back to Gen 1. It was when He became flesh that He became known as Son of God, Son of man.

 

[Arial]

God ordered Him to do it.

He is God's right hand.

He ordered a flesh and blood human being who had not even been created/born yet to create all things? When did He create Himself?

 

[Binyawmene]

Certainly it was known within the Trinity that the second person of the Trinity would come as the Son, in eternity.

In respect to God, the word eternity is like yesterday or today, which is an eternal now, and no succession in his being. God is eternal and eternal is an essential to his nature. In the same sense that Love, Divine, Spiritual, Invisible, Light, and Truthful, etc. are essential properties of God and not his attributes.

I'm sure you have read post 57, a snip:

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.​

There is no succession in his Eternal Person of the Son. He has been the same eternally, the "yesterday and today and forever" is an eternal now. Here is another descriptive phrase:

Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?​

The Father and the Son has always been eternally a relationship. It doesn't matter if there is without beginning, everlasting, yesterday, even today [or an hour ago]. According to the Eternal Son, his relationship with the Father is an eternal now.

And as I mention in the OP:

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.​

The difference between what you are saying and from what I am saying is simple. You assumed that the title "Son" is a temporal condition while I believe the title "Son" is a eternal condition. To hold the idea of the title Son is condition upon the incarnation is to apply succession to the Eternal Person, known as the Son. While I believe (which is a clear expression of Deity) the title Son is an eternal now, in the same way, I believe begotten is an eternal now or eternally begotten Son.

But that does not mean He was known as Son within the Godhead, before He came as the Son.

I have given you two verses that he is known as the Son prior to the incarnation.

Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,​

​

Galatians 4:4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,​

He is called Son of God as identifying His deity in the incarnation as Son of man. He is God and came from God. He was the One who would come as the Son.

Correct. He came as the Son because that is what he always been.

All three are equally God, and equal, in regards to subordination which is the topic of the OP. They each do different actions in salvation, and I suppose always and in everything in eternity past and future.

Amen. You just affirmed eternal subordination.

Jesus as Son was not doing the work of Son, in eternity past. He did the work of the Son in the incarnation, and completed that work of providing the means of redemption. Now He has returned to the Father, and we still know Him as the Son, and He is finishing the work of total defeat of evil, and at the assigned time, and in the assigned way, while those appointed to eternal life are gathered in through the preaching of the gospel. His subordination as Son of man is over. One and done, so to speak.

Because he always been the Son. There wasn't a time he was not the Son. You assumed that God has successions, if so, then he is not an Eternal God. This thread is my first time defending the one who is known as the Son is eternal and a eternal now. But I'm sure there is a bigger and larger application to the debate.

John, when speaking of the Son in eternity prior to the incarnation, did not call Him Son, or even Christ, but the Word, which references straight back to Gen 1. It was when He became flesh that He became known as Son of God, Son of man.

I have not taken the time to study or cross-reference the title Son in the Gospel of John. But why restrict it to just John, view it from the whole of Scriptures, and I've already given you two Scriptural examples from Paul.

 

[grace2]

He ordered a flesh and blood human being who had not even been created/born yet to create all things? When did He create Himself?

God created all things including His Son.

Jesus was His helper.

It is talked about in Proverbs.

 

[Arial]

In respect to God, the word eternity is like yesterday or today, which is an eternal now, and no succession in his being. God is eternal and eternal is an essential to his nature. In the same sense that Love, Divine, Spiritual, Invisible, Light, and Truthful, etc. are essential properties of God and not his attributes.

I'm sure you have read post 57, a snip:

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That does not mean that they do not act in different ways within the time that we are bound by. We see God constantly acting in different way in relating to people and creation. He used to speak audible to people, has appeared as a man as He did with Abraham and the two angels. At another time He began to speak through the Law and the Prophets. Now He speaks to us through Christ. He sometimes brings instant judgement and sometimes it is delayed. And of course all of it according to His express purpose. I think what may be missing in your view is that in the Trinity, the Father is God. When we say Father, we refer to God. When we say Son we refer to Jesus. That is what Jesus did in His earthly ministry. This is difficult to wrap the mind around, as are all things in the concept of Trinity. In fact we cannot do so, and must take the Bible at its word---faith. The reason it is impossible is because it is completely outside our experience as finite beings. We have nothing to compare it to exactly.

So the Word became flesh, and in the flesh, Jesus is the Son, and Jesus was begotten of the Father as the redeeming Son.

There is no succession in his Eternal Person of the Son. He has been the same eternally, the "yesterday and today and forever" is an eternal now. Here is another descriptive phrase:

Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?

It is not a succession, it is an addition. And that does not mean that God was added to, it means the relational aspect of God with man was added to.

The difference between what you are saying and from what I am saying is simple. You assumed that the title "Son" is a temporal condition while I believe the title "Son" is a eternal condition. To hold the idea of the title Son is condition upon the incarnation is to apply succession to the Eternal Person, known as the Son. While I believe (which is a clear expression of Deity) the title Son is an eternal now, in the same way, I believe begotten is an eternal now or eternally begotten Son.

No, I am saying the title Son probably came about in time as God's plan of redemption progressed. As I said in my first response, the closest we are given to anything being information on that is in John 1 where in His eternal state preincarnation, John calls Him the Word. Any of the scriptures you have given that refer to the Son, are referring to Him as we know Him. Does He still carry the title of Son? I suppose He does, but that is because of the work He did as Son of man while also being begotten of God, Son of God. In any case, He was never subordinate to the Father in the sense of being lesser than. He was subordinate to God as man, in respect to obedience. Where in your thinking does the Holy Spirit fit in in subordination? As I said, and you have not addressed, there can be no such thing as inequality within the being of God.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in complete agreement, and in complete agreement as to what each does, always, all the time. The Father is not giving orders to the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are one.

Correct. He came as the Son because that is what he always been.

Not correct. You changed what I said by adding to it. You presupposed your own beliefs onto mine.

Amen. You just affirmed eternal subordination.

No, I did not.

Because he always been the Son. There wasn't a time he was not the Son. You assumed that God has successions, if so, then he is not an Eternal God. This thread is my first time defending the one who is known as the Son is eternal and a eternal now. But I'm sure there is a bigger and larger application to the debate.

Well, it is an interesting debate, and I for one appreciate a bit of variety being added. But I do not assume God has successions. That is your way of looking at what I am saying. The second person of the Trinity coming as the Son, was not a change in God, and it was not a succession. And it was not a reduction. It was an addition, and a necessary one for any to be redeemed. The Jews new very well that when Jesus presented Himself as the Son of God, that He was making Himself equal with God, not subordinate. I think in many ways, they understood much better than we do with all our information. They lived it. And though they knew exactly what He was saying, they did not believe He was Son of God who was equal with God, and used it to bring the sentence of death on Him.

I have given you two verses that he is known as the Son prior to the incarnation.

See previous statement above.

I have not taken the time to study or cross-reference the title Son in the Gospel of John. But why restrict it to just John, view it from the whole of Scriptures, and I've already given you two Scriptural examples from Paul.

Because that is the place where His pre-incarnation position is discussed by title.

 

[Binyawmene]

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That does not mean that they do not act in different ways within the time that we are bound by. We see God constantly acting in different way in relating to people and creation. He used to speak audible to people, has appeared as a man as He did with Abraham and the two angels. At another time He began to speak through the Law and the Prophets. Now He speaks to us through Christ.

The Son's functional role by the operation of the Divine Will isn't a hierarchy but relational. Usually, it's from Social Trinity and Hierarchy Trinity, even Kenotic Trinity teaches that the Son having his own personal divine will distinctive from the Father's own personal divine will. They often quote John 6:38 and Matthew 26:39 as if there is two Divine Wills. Then make asserted claims that the Son's own personal divine will is subordinate to the Father's own personal divine will.

The Bible doesn't teach autonomies, autonomy is a Greek word for “self-rule" (autos self + nomos law/rule). If the Father and the Son has autonomies between them, then the Son would have 'a moral individualized personal freedom,' which was either spoken or acted independently from the Father. The Son would be able to make his own choices and go his own direction. Or, thinking for himself and acting on his own accord. There is nothing in Scriptures that teaches the Son has spoken or acted, or to gain personal glory independently from the Father's will and authority.

I'm a historical (creedal) Trinitarian. We believe that there is one Divine Will which is the property of the Divine Nature and not a property of the Persons. And all three Persons operate within that same one Divine Will. And that one Divine Will has one operation to the Persons. There is not three personal divine wills in the Trinity. In the same manner, we don't believe in three omnipresence or three omniscience. The Persons are co-equal, co-eternal, co-will, and co-attributes, etc. The concept of consubstantial brings out that expression.

The Bible teaches two wills of Christ of Divine and human, and not two divine wills of the Father and the Son. But to suggest the idea that the Son has his own personal divine will is subordinate to the Father's own personal divine will. That would be ontological subordination and hierarchical. That Divine Will is not subordinate between the Persons of the Father and the Son. The Son is equal to the Father in Divinity, and subordinate to the Father in his humanity (John 6:38, 5:30, 7:16-18, 8:28, 42, 50, 12:49, 14:10, 24), look at the Scriptural example for the Son's subordinate in humanity:

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.​

⦁ This verse is not teaching two Divine Wills.
⦁ not to do my will (Christ's human will)
⦁ but to do the will of him (Christ's Divine Will)
⦁ (The Father's Divine Will is technically the Son's Divine Will).

Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”​

⦁ This verse is not teaching two Divine Wills.
⦁ Yet not as I will (Christ's human will)
⦁ but as you will (Christ's Divine Will)
⦁ (The Father's Divine Will is technically the Son's Divine Will).

No, I am saying the title Son probably came about in time as God's plan of redemption progressed.

But when speaking about the Eternal God, then the title Son is an eternal now. There is no past, present, and future, the ending is the beginning from God's standpoint. When you read Scriptures from an eternity perspective eyeglass, there wasn't a time the Son was not the Son, he always been and always will be the Son or simply assume succession in God's nature. A person can swear up and down he/she isn't making succession, but that is exactly what is going on. We do know that the New Testament revelations reveals his nature being triune. And Jesus Christ reveals himself in a Father-Son relationship, "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:18) in contrast to "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1). The Word, who is not named carries the title Son eternally.

Well, it is an interesting debate, and I for one appreciate a bit of variety being added.

Absolutely, it's definitely interesting. I honestly would like to see someone who is more advance in this particular topic and to unpack the debate from both sides of the spectrum.

 

[Arial]

The Son's functional role by the operation of the Divine Will isn't a hierarchy but relational.

I know it is relational. It is your view that looks to me a hierarchy. It is relational and equal. Not relational with supremacy and subordination.

They often quote John 6:38 and Matthew 26:39 as if there is two Divine Wills. Then make asserted claims that the Son's own personal divine will is subordinate to the Father's own personal divine will.

I do not believe there are two divine wills and nothing I have said indicates that I do. Jesus as Son of man had a will just as humans have a will, and as the Son of man, Jesus, in His purpose in redemption, obeyed the will of God. Irregardless of what anyone else believes or says. Your conversation is with me.

The Bible doesn't teach autonomies, autonomy is a Greek word for “self-rule" (autos self + nomos law/rule). If the Father and the Son has autonomies between them, then the Son would have 'a moral individualized personal freedom,' which was either spoken or acted independently from the Father. The Son would be able to make his own choices and go his own direction. Or, thinking for himself and acting on his own accord. There is nothing in Scriptures that teaches the Son has spoken or acted, or to gain personal glory independently from the Father's will and authority.

What has this to do with the subject at hand?

I'm a historical (creedal) Trinitarian. We believe that there is one Divine Will which is the property of the Divine Nature and not a property of the Persons. And all three Persons operate within that same one Divine Will. And that one Divine Will has one operation to the Persons. There is not three personal divine wills in the Trinity. In the same manner, we don't believe in three omnipresence or three omniscience. The Persons are co-equal, co-eternal, co-will, and co-attributes, etc. The concept of consubstantial brings out that expression.

Good. I agree. But if they are co-equal why do you say the Son is subordinate before the incarnation. Jesus had two natures. The divine nature and the human nature, the two never comingled or mixed together. His divine nature was never subordinate even in the incarnation. Only His human nature was.

The Bible teaches two wills of Christ of Divine and human, and not two divine wills of the Father and the Son.

I never said any such thing.

But to suggest the idea that the Son has his own personal divine will is subordinate to the Father's own personal divine will. That would be ontological subordination and hierarchical. That Divine Will is not subordinate between the Persons of the Father and the Son. The Son is equal to the Father in Divinity, and subordinate to the Father in his humanity (John 6:38, 5:30, 7:16-18, 8:28, 42, 50, 12:49, 14:10, 24), look at the Scriptural example for the Son's subordinate in humanity:

That is what I have been saying and you have been arguing against when you say the the Son has always been the Son and always subordinate to the Father.

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
⦁ This verse is not teaching two Divine Wills.
⦁ not to do my will (Christ's human will)
⦁ but to do the will of him (Christ's Divine Will)
⦁ (The Father's Divine Will is technically the Son's Divine Will).

I don't know why you keep saying this when I have never, not once, presented Christ as having two divine wills. And you have gone off topic of your own OP. I have not even been discussing "will" but the subordination of the Son from all eternity, as per the OP.

But when speaking about the Eternal God, then the title Son is an eternal now. There is no past, present, and future, the ending is the beginning from God's standpoint. When you read Scriptures from an eternity perspective eyeglass, there wasn't a time the Son was not the Son, he always been and always will be the Son or simply assume succession in God's nature. A person can swear up and down he/she isn't making succession, but that is exactly what is going on. We do know that the New Testament revelations reveals his nature being triune. And Jesus Christ reveals himself in a Father-Son relationship, "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:18) in contrast to "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1). The Word, who is not named carries the title Son eternally.

You have already said that, I have already addressed it, and instead of addressing what I said, you gradually veered way off course.

Absolutely, it's definitely interesting. I honestly would like to see someone who is more advance in this particular topic and to unpack the debate from both sides of the spectrum.

You have to stick to the subject in order for that to happen. The thread is all over the place, and you seem to be all over the place. The OP is in the Trinity board and the title is What Is the Eternal Subordination of the Son. I am not certain how you are connecting this to the Trinity, and it is unclear to me just what the OP is aiming at as to discussion. I cannot see what the subordination of Christ has to do with the Trinity per se. But it is the title and your first statement that the Son is eternally subordinate that I take objection to, and am addressing. You have not demonstrated that this is true.

 

[Josheb]

No. Because it makes no sense according to the Trinity doctrine.

I am Trinitarian and it makes sense to me.

Then we can discuss it. No need for philosophy.

False dichotomy. Theology is philosophy and any philosophy pertaining to any theism is theology. Do not be unduly biased against Philosophy. John quoted Philo and Paul quoted Epimenides.

Present your Scriptural case for "the Father and the Son sitting on the same throne implies the Son is not eternally subordinate."

Okay, but I am going to ask you to pay greater attention because I have already answered this question and it was, apparently, not recognized the first time I did so. It's sort of Theology 101, so I'm surprised the question is asked. I do not want to waste my time explaining it again only to have it ignored again. This time I will start with a question because maybe as the questions are answered the distinction between the eternal and temporal will occur by your own reasoning.


When did the "throne" first exist?

To ask the question in different wording, assuming the throne is acknowledged as a symbol of God's rule, rulership, and sovereignty..... when did God first become sovereign? Was He sovereign only after He created something over which He could be sovereign? Or has He always been sovereign?

 

[Josheb]

Okay. I accept the definition from Wayne Grudem, "Systematic Theology" p. 168 "God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being." I'm not sure you would consider it as proof, but I'll demonstrate it Scripturally.

Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.​

None of which states "everlasting to everlasting" is synonymous with or different from "eternal."

The thing is, you don't see and view the descriptive phrase "everlasting to everlasting" from an eternal viewpoint.

Now you are crossing the line into ill manners and disrespect. You do not know what I think unless and until I post it. Please do not tell me what I think. I will not tell you what you think. I do view "everlasting to everlasting" from an eternal point of view AND THAT IS WHY I SAY IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!

If that's not understood then ask me to explain it. Do not tell me what I do and do not see..

But if you read further from the same chapter, we read in verse 4:

A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.​

LOL!

When did the first year start?

 

[Josheb]

I said everything I wanted to for now in post 57.

I do it for three reasons:

1. Teach. There is always someone who is uninformed on a specific topic.
2. Apply apologetics. Because someone will always come along and try to challenge.
3. Train in apologetics. Learn new arguments while defending.

But, I have no interest to persuade anyone. Believing in both the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union is the result of one who is been regenerated.

If I take that exactly as written the necessary implication, is you do not enter the forum to learn anything other than "new arguments." If that is the case, then are we to conclude any question is NOT asked to learn any previously unknown truth others might post and the question is, instead, only and always an overture intended for you to teach the one being asked or increase your repertoire of arguments?

All of that is asked rhetorically. I don't expect and answer and do not want you to waste your time posting answers. Just think about what you just told us. The more important matters are....

1. Teach. There is always someone who is uninformed on a specific topic.

What do you do on the occasion when you are the less informed partner in a discussion? Or does that never happen?

2. Apply apologetics. Because someone will always come along and try to challenge.

Which is the case here, and as far as I can tell everyone with whom you are trading posts so far finds some degree of imperfection in your apologetic. Are we all wrong and you alone, correct?

3. Train in apologetics. Learn new arguments while defending.

Is the argument I have set forth learned? How about the one @Arial has expressed? I wonder because I have asserted soteriology and eschatology are temporal subsets of eternal conditions, part of the whole and not the whole of Christ. I have submitted to you there is a difference between ontology and teleology* and asked you not to apply temporal scriptures to eternal conditions, but I continue to read the same mistake being made repeatedly with multiple scriptures.

But, I have no interest to persuade anyone.

Good to know . I will, therefore, expect to see the posts reflect that lesser investment.

Believing in both the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union is the result of one who is been regenerated.

Non sequitur.

This thread is not about belief. This thread is about the (supposed) eternal subordination of the Son. Nothing else, nothing more. I subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity and have asserted my position from that context. The language of "Father" and "Son" is New Testament language, and the chief purposes of the NT are soteriological and eschatological, both of which are temporal conditions and not conditions existing prior to creation. Jesus as soteriological and eschatological Lord and Savior are teleologies, not ontologies. They have to do with his work, his purpose INSIDE creation, not his nature prior to the existence of sin and after the problem of sin has been solved. The doctrine of the Trinity completely embraces Jesus being much more than the Savior from sin and Judge of sinners.









*Many a thread in the Trinity board is mucked up because posters confuse or conflate nature with function.
.

 

[Binyawmene]

None of which states "everlasting to everlasting" is synonymous with or different from "eternal."

Let's take a descriptive phrase: "for you alone know every human heart" (1 Kings 8:39), would you conclude that God is omniscient? I'm pretty sure you would come to that conclusion. At least majority of Christians would. The verse is not describing that God knows all things in a larger context, but only in the sense of the human heart. But when you read a descriptive phrase "everlasting arms," (Deuteronomy 33:27), then you don't conclude that God is eternal. It's true that is not describing every detail about God's eternalness. But the conclusion is quite self-evident that God is eternal.

I do view "everlasting to everlasting" from an eternal point of view AND THAT IS WHY I SAY IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!

Regardless of what the Biblical authors and characters view of Eternal God was. Or, if they even had an inside of time or outside of time view of the Eternal God. The author of Genesis intent to the readers is important. Do you think Abraham had the outside of time or inside of time view when he "called on the name of the LORD, the Eternal God" (Genesis 21:33)? It's an argument from silence because you don't know either way.

When we read the Bible, their conceptual descriptions was their way to symbolically represent God's eternalness, for instance: "everlasting to everlasting," (Psalms 90:2, Psalms 41:13), "everlasting arms" (Deuteronomy 33:27), "thousand years in your sight are like a day" (Psalms 90:4), "your years will never end" (Hebrews 1:10-12), "yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8), "You are my Son; today I have become your Father" (Hebrews 1:5), "who is, and who was, and who is to come" (Revelations 1:8), "Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" (Revelations 22:13).

When did the first year start?

If you have the Eternal God outside of time, then there is no time-sequence, no beginning or ending, no succession, no past, present, and future, but only an Eternal Now.

Outside Time
Eternal God __________________________________
Inside Time​

If you have the Eternal God inside of time, then there is a continuous perpetual duration through, all the "ages" of time. You say that it's not the same, but technically, its logically equivalent and the conclusion is the same. It doesn't matter if God is inside or outside of time, he is still the same Eternal God. The phrase "everlasting to everlasting" means eternal because it's ascribed to God and not some mountain or hill that still exist through the ages. It will eventually parish, but God won't and will remain the same since he is eternal.

 

[Binyawmene]

None of which states "everlasting to everlasting" is synonymous with or different from "eternal."

Now you are crossing the line into ill manners and disrespect. You do not know what I think unless and until I post it. Please do not tell me what I think. I will not tell you what you think. I do view "everlasting to everlasting" from an eternal point of view AND THAT IS WHY I SAY IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!

If that's not understood then ask me to explain it. Do not tell me what I do and do not see..

LOL!

When did the first year start?

You still have yet to address post 57. Not your asserted claim in black bold capital letters. Prove it.

 

[Binyawmene]

I know it is relational. It is your view that looks to me a hierarchy. It is relational and equal. Not relational with supremacy and subordination.

Really? Would you like to demonstrate some examples of what I said in this thread that looks hierarchy?

You have to stick to the subject in order for that to happen. The thread is all over the place, and you seem to be all over the place. The OP is in the Trinity board and the title is What Is the Eternal Subordination of the Son. I am not certain how you are connecting this to the Trinity, and it is unclear to me just what the OP is aiming at as to discussion. I cannot see what the subordination of Christ has to do with the Trinity per se. But it is the title and your first statement that the Son is eternally subordinate that I take objection to, and am addressing. You have not demonstrated that this is true.

If that's what you think, then you can leave the discussion. The OP is based on the Son is relationally subordinate to the Father in the act of creation. Why is the subordination relational? Because it's done "for him" and his functional role is "for us and for our salvation." And the Scriptural framework was laid out: "From the Father and through the Son" (1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 2:10, Romans 11:36), which is quite simple. Also, creation isn't finished, there will be an 8th. day, from the Old Earth perspective. That's a different topic for another time.

But, unfortunately, through the course of discussion, there was terms that needed to be defined, like "eternal." If there is an eternal subordination, then what is eternal? There has to be at least a passable agreement before we can move on to, what is subordination? You followed Josheb argument on how eternal relates to the title Son and not to the eternal person/second person in the Trinity. It's all good questions, but not something I can easy answer. And, of course, I was curious about who receives the glory credit for being the Creator.

Do you believe that the Son is relationally subordinate to the Father in the act of creation? If so, why? If not, why? You said: "It is relational and equal." It's true that the Father and the Son are co-creators, but why was it done From the Father and through the Son, and the sending the Spirit? If that wasn't subordination, then what do you call that functionality?

 

[Arial]

Really? Would you like to demonstrate some examples of what I said in this thread that looks hierarchy?

I never would have said that if you had not brought hierarchy in as being my position, for some reason that I cannot fathom. But here you go:

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.

The definition of subordination is being place in a lower order, rank; inferiority of rank or dignity.

The OP is based on the Son is relationally subordinate to the Father in the act of creation. Why is the subordination relational?

Relational subordination is still subordination.

You followed Josheb argument on how eternal relates to the title Son and not to the eternal person/second person in the Trinity. It's all good questions, but not something I can easy answer. And, of course, I was curious about who receives the glory credit for being the Creator.

My posts on the eternal Son were concerning the title of Son/position----in which you said He was always called the Son and I pointed out John referring to His eternity past as the Word.

Do you believe that the Son is relationally subordinate to the Father in the act of creation?

No. I believe He is relationally distinct.

It's true that the Father and the Son are co-creators, but why was it done From the Father and through the Son, and the sending the Spirit? If that wasn't subordination, then what do you call that functionality?

Because that is the way that it is. Why do people have toes on their feet and fingers on their hands and not the other way around? Or why do we think something before the hand puts the thought into an action, even if we are not fully aware of the thought? There is no time within the Godhead between what is done and who is doing it. It is distinction of function and functionality----not subordination.