What is Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)?

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

Is capital "T" Theology, the doctrine of the ontological nature of God, more encompassing than soteriology? Is God more than just a God who saves?

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene

Is Theology more encompassing than eschatology?

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

Is Theology more encompassing than Christology?

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

Is Theology temporal? If so, is it only temporal?

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

Is Christology temporal? If so, is it only temporal?

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

Does the Creator exist prior to and external to that which He creates?

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

Is time something the Creator created?

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

Is "eternal" something the Creator created? (or is it a term used to describe the pre-creation condition where time does not exist and is endless in all directions and God is without beginning or end?)

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

If something has a beginning that began at some in time after the beginning of creation but that "something" never ends, can it be said to have no origin or beginning?

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene

Is everlasting identical to eternity? Is something that has no beginning or end and exists external to and regardless of time identical to something that has a specific beginning but not an end?

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

Is it acceptable and valid practice to take verses from the Bible that were written about sinful conditions and apply them to sinless conditions?

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

Is it acceptable and valid practice to take verses from the Bible that are solely about temporal conditions and say they apply to timeless or eternal conditions?

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

When the above questions have all been answered (and answered succinctly) We - you and me and everyone else reading the thread - will have 1) established areas of agreement and 2) established areas of disagreement. We won't have to discuss the areas of agreement. We can focus the discussion on the (hopefully few) points of disagreement .

When you're done answering these questions feel free to ask me any you would like answered BUT make them questions that can be answered, "Yes," "No," or with very few words.




That being said, by breaking the thread down into several specific questions it is my hope you will see - on your own - where the mistakes in the op lay. You'll do the proverbial slapping of the face with palm and say, "Ah! I see it now! I get it! Yes, yes, Josh, Jesus is much more than just the Son to the Father and there exist aspects to their relationship that are temporal and others that are not. There are also aspects that are subordinate and aspects that are not." But, if the answers to the above questions do not make that clear then, perhaps, we can discuss the specific points of disagreement. Maybe you can persuade me to change my view(s) .

 

[Josheb]

@Binyawmene,

Are you familiar with the Trinitarian analogy of the three-dimensional (3D) sphere intersecting a two-dimensional (2D) plane?

Can you see that in the first example the sphere has NO contact with the plane. Two-dimensional people living in the plane cannot see the sphere and, therefore, have absolutely no knowledge of the sphere's existence. In the second example, the 2D people living in the plane see a point because at the initial contact of the sphere's intersection with the plane all that exists is a single, solitary point. At the third example, however, what the people in the plane observe and experiences is a circle. The space the plane and the sphere share is a circle. People in the plane do not know the Sphere is a sphere. They live in a 2D world and cannot see or experience anything outside of the two dimensions in which they live.

Now suppose there are Three spheres intersecting the plan and all three spheres share the exact same space at the exact same time. To each of the Spheres the spheres would experience their own intersection with the plane but to the people living in 2D Land all the would observe and experience is a single circle. As the spheres pass through the plane a point would first appear and then as the spheres passed through the plan the 2D people would observe a circle and the circle would first grow as the center of the spheres approached and then intersected the plane, and as the spheres passed through the plane the 2D people living in the two-dimensional plane would observe the single circle getting smaller. What they would really be seeing is three separate spheres creating three distinct circles but they would be unable to recognize any of those distinctions because they live in a limited environment that does not allow for the three-dimensional observation, knowledge, and understanding.

Let's say, for the sake of the analogy, one of the spheres is red and one of the spheres is blue and one of the spheres is white. The red sphere can tell the blue sphere apart from the white sphere and both the blue and white spheres apart from itself because the three are not identical in all ways. However, because read and blue make purple and white added to the purple simply lightens the shade, what the 2D people living in the two-dimensional plane would observe and experience is a light-purple circle!

Unless the three spheres somehow explained to the 2D people what they were seeing the 2D people would have no way of knowing what was happening beyond their own finite, very limited observation, knowledge, and understanding. Even if the technical, intellectual information was provided, they'd still have no experiential knowledge of what it means to be a sphere, much less three co-existing spheres all experiencing the same timelessness of eternity that exists outside 2D Land of the plane.



Now, granted, the analogy is imperfect, but it easily, readily explains how the Father, the Son, and the Separate Sacred Spirit ("holy" means separate, and in the context of religious definition it means separate for sacred purpose) can be something different and something much, much greater outside of creation than they are when intersecting with creation.

 

[Binyawmene]

I have read it. I have re-read it more than once AND critiqued it as objectively as I can, done a forensic analysis AND you should never assume otherwise of anyone.

We are having this discussion on the Eternal God because of your dislike about eternal subordination. The verse that was brought up was (Psalms 90:2, 4) and you disagree on the historical interpretation of the eternal now. The Trinity doctrine teaches, there is one God that exist in three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each persons are fully that God, co-equal and co-eternal, etc. Since God is eternal, the second person in the Trinity, the Son, who is eternal in both equality with the Father (ontological) and subordinate to the Father (relational or also known as economical), which is the historical position of the Trinity doctrine.

The truth about the Trinity has sometimes been summarized in the phrase "ontological equality but economic subordination," where the word ontological means "being." Another way of expressing this more simply would be to say "equal in being but subordinate in role." Both parts of this phrase are necessary to a true doctrine of the Trinity: If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently WE DO NOT HAVE THE THREE DISTINCT PERSONS EXISTING as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally "Father" and the Son is not eternally "Son." This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed. (Wayne Grudem, "Systematic Theology" p.251).​

Post 57 is deeply flawed and I have explained to you several times in several different ways how and why it is flawed.

I've seen no critique and exegesis of Psalms 90:2. I have seen your appeal to emotions and ad hominem. Because of your denial and dislike towards the eternal subordination. Which you might go on a epic rant about that instead of the substance of the discussion. You, however, did brought up the temporal conditions versus eternal conditions. Except, the temporal proves that God is eternal. Your point is interesting, but I don't isolate those conditions and take it as a whole. For instance, there are Scriptural examples using temporal conditions to demonstrate that God is eternal. Also, the argument failed and it fell into the Scriptural position. I bought up the idea of God existing in both outside of time and inside of time. You agree with God existing outside of time, but you reject God also exist in our timeframe based on your isolated temporal conditions.

The Son is subordinate to the Father BUT Jesus is much more than the Son to the Father The language of Father and Son is largely New Testament language that overwhelmingly pertains to salvation and end times, but soteriology and eschatology are subsets of the much, much, much larger categories of Christology and Theology. Those subsets are temporal. God/Jesus is eternal, not just everlasting.

I know. You want to claim that the titles Son and Father are language for the New Testament, specifically in the area of Christology, Soteriology, and Eschatology. And I agree there is subordinate frameworks in all three of those particular branch of studies. But that not the point, the issue is based on: the titles Son and Father, their relationship, the Son's relational subordination, and in respect to eternalness. God is eternal (Isaiah 57:15 "who inhabits eternity" by his nature, not a place called eternity). There is no concept of time, but a collect whole of past, present, and future, all at the same moment or eternal now. It doesn't matter if this occurs in the past, or in the present, or in the coming future (Psalms 2:7, Hebrews 1:5). From God's standpoint based on his eternal nature is an eternal now. The Trinity has always existed, even before creation.

The subordinate relationship is not eternal.

The relationship is eternal, so the subordination is eternal.
1. If you deny the Son's eternal ontological equality, then the Son is not fully God.
2. If you deny the Son's eternal economical subordination, then the Son is not distinct from the Father.
3. To deny both 1 or 2, or even one of them, then the Trinity never eternally existed.

Outside of Jesus' role as the Son in salvation and eschatological Judge, he and God are One.

Even inside the Son's role, the Father and the Son is that one God. The Son's role is relationally subordinate, and that's how Trinitarians make the Father and the Son distinction. To assume the Son is not subordinate in his role is saying there is no distinction. That will place your Trinity concept into question. Why don't you show me a Bible verse showing the Father and the Son distinction without the Son's subordinate role? You might want to become a Unitarian if that is the case.

When you're done answering these questions feel free to ask me any you would like answered BUT make them questions that can be answered, "Yes," "No," or with very few words.

I'm not restricted to your demands on how you want the discussion to go. And I'm not going to play a game of 20 questions with you. So far, only thing I'm seeing is denial of historical Trinity.

 

[Binyawmene]

@Binyawmene,

Are you familiar with the Trinitarian analogy of the three-dimensional (3D) sphere intersecting a two-dimensional (2D) plane?

I think you need to brush up on the Trinity doctrine.

The Ontological and Economic Trinity

Eternal subordination (relational and economical) is the historical position affirmed in the Council of Nicea.

 

[Josheb]

We are having this discussion on the Eternal God because of your dislike about eternal subordination.

Can you keep the posts about the posts and not the posters?

I do not "like" or "dislike" anything in the op and have never said any such thing. I just disagree with some parts of the op. I have affirmed many things you've posted so I'm not sure where the idea I dislike ESS comes from. What I dislike is people putting words into my posts I did not actually write.

I think you need to brush up on the Trinity doctrine.

The Ontological and Economic Trinity

Eternal subordination (relational and economical) is the historical position affirmed in the Council of Nicea.

I have read every CARM article Matt Slick has ever written, and no poster should ever assume someone else does not already know what the accuser know. Ask before you tell. This is the second time in this thread you have made things personal and assumed things about me, personally, that cannot possibly be known and should never posted so I am going to ask you to start over again.


Post 135 was a waste of time. There is nothing in it that I do not already know and nothing op-relevant that has not already been addressed. It has all been covered.

I'm not restricted to your demands on how you want the discussion to go.

Never happened. No demands were made an no one has claimed anyone is restricted to my non-existent demands. What did happen is I asked some questions. Never restricted you and never demanded they be answered.

And I'm not going to play a game of 20 questions with you.

Okay. No one said my question as had to be answered. I explained why I took that approach, and I explained the benefits of collaborating. The choice is entirely yours.

So far, only thing I'm seeing is denial of historical Trinity.

Then you are not "seeing" correctly and you are posting in contradiction to what has been posted because I have unequivocally affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity AND expressed views completely consistent with the CARM article.

There's an irony, if not a huge inconsistency with citing Slick's article on the Trinity at CARM. That article states, "Since they have different roles, then the way they relate to each other is also eternal and unchangeable," which is exactly what I and @Arial posted in our own words. We were speaking CARM's definition of the Trinity long before Post 136. The CARM article states subordinationism is an error! It cites the Arian heresy of the Son himself not being eternal as an example of the many misguided forms subordinationism takes.

"This is, of course, wrong and it is in contrast to the Economic Trinity which does not deny the equality of nature and attributes."​

It is the op that is inconsistent with the doctrine of the Trinity and the CARM article! The role is subordinate. The Son himself is not. The Son is equal in nature and attributes. This was expressed in different wording by @Arial and I at the beginning of this thread and you've been disputing it for six or seven pages.

"We can say that there is a subordination of the Son to the Father in role (as a father-son relationship would naturally have), but we also say that subordinationism (difference in nature) is wrong."{/i]​

"....all three divine Persons are identical in essence, the Son is economically subordinate to the Father with respect to his eternal mission and function. The Son is no less than the Father, but has voluntarily submitted himself to the will of the Father"​

Which is exactly what I said (using different words) in Posts 22 and 37.

We are having this discussion on the Eternal God because of your dislike about eternal subordination................. I'm not restricted to your demands on how you want the discussion to go. And I'm not going to play a game of 20 questions with you. So far, only thing I'm seeing is denial of historical Trinity.

I think you need to brush up on the Trinity doctrine.

Can you keep the posts about the posts, or would you like me to start treating you the way I was just treated?


Start over.

 

[Arial]

The truth about the Trinity has sometimes been summarized in the phrase "ontological equality but economic subordination," where the word ontological means "being." Another way of expressing this more simply would be to say "equal in being but subordinate in role." Both parts of this phrase are necessary to a true doctrine of the Trinity: If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently WE DO NOT HAVE THE THREE DISTINCT PERSONS EXISTING as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally "Father" and the Son is not eternally "Son." This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed. (Wayne Grudem, "Systematic Theology" p.251).

https://www.ligonier.org › learn › articles › whats-difference-between-ontological-and-economic-trinity

There is no eternal economic subordination. The economic subordination is in regards to the coming of the Word as the Son, Jesus, to do the work of redemption. Son because He proceeds from God. Subordinate in this role as Son of man, while also Son of God---equal with God, in essence and power, as a Trinity with distinct "persons". His eternal existence within the Godhead, came as temporal, in order to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law, as one of those for whom He is doing the work of redemption, that He might substitute Himself in their place, satisfying the requirement of a sacrifice (the blood of the covenant for the forgiveness of sins), in this making peace with God on their behalf, and taking upon Himself also, the penal demands of God's justice. Atonement. He was not eternally subordinate. He was eternally distinct. Temporarily subordinate.

 

[Binyawmene]

There is no eternal economic subordination. ........ Temporarily subordinate.

Yes, I am aware of Evangelicals position. It's a twist of Christology and historical position of Nicea to support their doctrine Functional Kenoticism. Which I believe that doctrine is rank heresy and incompatible to the Hypostatic Union doctrine. A lot of them reject "eternally begotten" as being part of the "eternal subordination," then claim the subordination is incarnational, but only in a temporary submission perspective.

This is why the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the church’s doctrine of the Trinity since it was first affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which said that the Son was “begotten of the Father before all ages” and that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Surprisingly, some recent evangelical writings have denied an eternal subordination in role among the members of the Trinity, but it has clearly been part of the church’s doctrine of the Trinity (in Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox expressions), a least since Nicea (A.D 325). (Wayne Grudem, "Systematic Theology" p251.)​

 

[Binyawmene]

The “temporary submission” view claims that the Son’s submission to the Father was only for the period of his incarnation and not before time eternal. The concept of eternal has been discussed in this thread already. Now there is plenty passages of Scripture indicate that prior to creation the Son was eternally subject to the planning and authority of the Father with regard to our salvation.

The Father's planning and authority

Ephesians 1:9-11 he (the Father) made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him (the Father) who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,​

Follow up verses of the Son's subjection:

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself (the Father), who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him (the Father) who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.​

​

Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.​

This planning and authority of the Father is before time eternal:

2 Timothy 1:9 He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. The grace was given us in Christ before the beginning of time,​

(πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων or "before time eternal").

2 Timothy 1:9 Greek Text Analysis

This planning and authority of the Father is an eternal purpose:

Ephesians 3:9-11 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his (the Father) eternal purpose that he (the Father) accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

This planning and authority of the Father is before the creation:

Ephesians 1:3-5 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he (the Father) chose us in him (the Son) before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—​

​

Follow up verses of the Son's subjection:

1 Peter 1:19-20 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He (the Son) was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.​

​

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he [the Father] also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.​

​

Revelations 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.​

The Son was already in subjection to the Father's planning and authority eternally, before time and before creation. Read above Scriptures. Which brings us to my one example about creation mention in OP of this thread. To put the Father's planning and authority into action (which the Son was already in subjection to eternally), then you need a creation. From my OP: 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.​