What is Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)?

[Arial]

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.

In what way does it twist the historical position of Nicea? And once again you seem to be talking about one thing---the kenosis of Christ---and at other times the eternal subordination of Christ, and mingling the two things together as though they were one and the same. His kenosis is subordination, but that does not relate to Him having been subordinate in the Godhead prior to His incarnation.

The FKC view cannot be lumped together as all being the same thing for it has a broad spectrum. For instance the some Charismatic preachers and authors have a view of the FKC that is truly heretical. But then they seldom bother with sound theology, doctrine, Christology, or anything else. So in my case, rather than do that, it would be proper to confine it to what I say, when you are responding to me, what @Josheb says when you are responding to him, and what any have said that we quote. Rather than imply that we are presenting a heresy and that it is incompatible with the Hypostatic Union, when we both and the quote from Sproul all presented in accordance with both Scripture and the Chalcedon Creed. If you go by what is being said, you will not be able to find any violation of the hypostatic union, the Chalcedon Creed, or the Nicene Creed. And if you do, rather than just making the statement that it does those things, show exactly how it does.

Jesus as Son of man, did not lose any of His divine attributes, but He did not always use them, kept them veiled as to His divine majesty, submitting to the Father's will in that regard and all regards. A will fully in agreement and willing.

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.)

Grudem is mistaken on eternal subordination in role among the members of the Trinity as being a part ot the Nicene Creed. And you are following after him. "begotten of the Father before all ages" has nothing to do with the Son being eternally subordinate in role, and there is no reason to take it as doing so.

 

[Arial]

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.

Yes it has been discussed. And it has been shown that that within the eternal---no beginning, no end----things of eternity are being played out in redemption within time. Jesus came, in time, and at just the right time. In time He did the work of redemption, culminating in the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. That was His earthly mission. His earthly mission is finished. He returned to the Father with the glory He had before He came to earth to accomplish the work. (John 17:1-5) We see such a distinct submission in this earthly mission in every word that Jesus spoke, ever act that He did, that to think He was in that same subordinate position within the Godhead before the incarnation is frankly, foolishness.

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.

In this section of 1 Cor Paul is dealing with the resurrection as not an isolated event with limited repercussions beyond Christ's earthly Messianic work, and is this verse is referring to the final results. The wording is difficult, but unless the whole counsel of God can support Christ's submission within the Godhead before His incarnation, it should not be used to establish that.

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,

I agree that the plan or Covenant of Redemption was within the Godhead before the creation of our world. That in no way necessitates submission as to role before the role was brought to pass. In that, you have a "council meeting," each party having a separate will within God, but all coming to agreement of who would do what in redemption. They are one! And if there is subordination, they are not one.

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.

I agree. It was accomplished Jesus as Son of God, Son of man, as a man, and as a man, subordinate to the Father. He did what the Father said to do, nothing more, nothing less.

Etc. etc.

 

[grace2]

I agree. It was accomplished Jesus as Son of God, Son of man, as a man, and as a man, subordinate to the Father. He did what the Father said to do, nothing more, nothing less.

Etc. etc.

Jesus has been subordinate since He was created, even now as His Father's right hand.

 

[Binyawmene]

Grudem is mistaken on eternal subordination in role among the members of the Trinity as being a part ot the Nicene Creed. And you are following after him. "begotten of the Father before all ages" has nothing to do with the Son being eternally subordinate in role, and there is no reason to take it as doing so.

I disagree. Because the issue was over Arianism (Arius taught that before creation of the universe, the Father's first act of creating was the creation of the Son, who is a lower god and inferior to the Father, and ontologically subordinate to the Father). Yes, Arius taught ontological subordination and subordinationism is heretical. There is your first clue about subordination and why the Creed suggest eternal subordination. The Scriptures that were often quoted was Proverbs 8:22-31.

22 The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old;
23 I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.​

The Nicene Creed was specifically designed and set up in the way to unify the universal church from Arianism. The context of the creed demonstrates eternal subordination of the Son. When it comes to the phrase "born of the Father before all ages" or eternally begotten. This isn't referring to our timeframe and being born in our conceptual language. But before creation and time itself, the begotten Son is in the eternal sense and relational (John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9). The filioque for instance, "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified." So, the eternal order in Trinity language is simple: The Father is not begotten or proceeding, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit is proceeding. That isn't ontological but relational subordination.

 

[grace2]

22 The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,​

before his deeds of old;​

23 I was formed long ages ago,​

at the very beginning, when the world came to be.​

These verses claim the Son is created.

Jesus was the firstborn of all creation.

 

[Arial]

I disagree. Because the issue was over Arianism (Arius taught that before creation of the universe, the Father's first act of creating was the creation of the Son, who is a lower god and inferior to the Father, and ontologically subordinate to the Father). Yes, Arius taught ontological subordination and subordinationism is heretical. There is your first clue about subordination and why the Creed suggest eternal subordination. The Scriptures that were often quoted was Proverbs 8:22-31.

The Council of Nicea was primarily over the controversy as to the deity and eternality of Christ. Arius' teaching that Jesus was a created being and not God, of course would make Him both not God and not eternal as to His pre-existence, and make Him subordinate to God---not equal with God. But the eternal subordination of the Son before His incarnation was not the issue. Even you acknowledge that it only suggests it, and that is only a result of how some look at it. It is not really there iow. I have to say, that even for me as one single person reading the Creed, it never suggested any such thing. The issue around "eternally begotten, not made" was not subordination but His deity.

The Nicene Creed was specifically designed and set up in the way to unify the universal church from Arianism. The context of the creed demonstrates eternal subordination of the Son. When it comes to the phrase "born of the Father before all ages" or eternally begotten. This isn't referring to our timeframe and being born in our conceptual language. But before creation and time itself, the begotten Son is in the eternal sense and relational (John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9). The filioque for instance, "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified." So, the eternal order in Trinity language is simple: The Father is not begotten or proceeding, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit is proceeding. That isn't ontological but relational subordination.

Yes that is what the Creed was designed for and yet, here we are centuries later deciding to divide in another way through the Creed, as to the Son's eternal subordination, which is not actually even addressed in the Creed. What is addressed is His deity and as such, His eternality as the second person of a Triune God. Of course it is not referring to our timeframe. There is no relational subordination within the Godhead. Equal applies in all ways, not just some ways.

The filioque for instance, "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified." So, the eternal order in Trinity language is simple: The Father is not begotten or proceeding, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit is proceeding. That isn't ontological but relational subordination.

Here I will point out the deep flaw you produce when you separate essence from relation and make them two opposing things existing in the same way at the same time and in the same place. And the contradiction you make in your own statements in attempting to do so. And I would appreciate if rebuttal is given, that you actually refute logically and biblically what I say, rather than simply repeating your position. In other words, consider it as possibly being true, and explore it in your mind and with Scripture, for the sake of what you said long ago about why you posted the OP in the first place.

The title is the Eternal Subordination of the Son. And then, when confronted with scriptural evidence of how that cannot be if all members of the Trinity are equal in all ways, but distinct as to "roles", you inject the concept that it is not ontological subordination but relational subordination. In this you have made the roles subordinate to one another, and not the persons.

But how can roles be subordinate to one another if the persons are not, and the roles are all working to the same end in redemption. (I clarify here in redemption because that is the focus. As @Josheb has pointed out, the Son and the Holy Spirit do much more outside the redemptive work that took place within time, before creation, before the incarnation, now, and in the future.) Not even you have been able to separate the two for though you persist in it being relational subordination as to role, you still express it as subordination of the Son.

To use the example you give above to demonstrate a relational subordination, how is there any subordination of role; if the Father is God, and from God the eternal Word, enters time and space as Jesus, Son of God, Son of man, do to the work necessary for any to be redeemed, and from God, and the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds for the purpose of applying the Son's redemptive work to those for whom He died, sealing them in Christ once and for all, and sanctifying them? And how can the Word of God be subordinate in role in any way shape or form, to God?

As an aside, what is lacking in your posts, and present in most of mine, is the actual gospel of this work that Jesus did, its purpose, its necessity, its accomplishment---atonement, propitiation, justification etc. The only reason I can think that this is so, for I believe that you are firmly grounded in these things in faith, and in accordance with Scripture, from what I have read of your posts, is this. When they are stated, the temporal subordination of the Son in His redemptive acts in purchasing a people for God, is so clear, so indisputable, not to mention logical in connection with His deity and eternal self existence, as to remove completely any other type of subordination within the Godhead.

 

[Josheb]

As @Josheb has pointed out, the Son and the Holy Spirit do much more outside the redemptive work that took place within time, before creation, before the incarnation, now, and in the future.) Not even you have been able to separate the two for though you persist in it being relational subordination as to role, you still express it as subordination of the Son.

Yep.

And what we (you and I have written) is completely consistent with Matt Slick's CARM article. The judgment we're ignorant of the Trinity doctrine is baseless (and off topic disrespectful ad hominem). Roles are not synonymous with nature; teleology is not identical to ontology. The temporal does not measure eternity. God is much greater than everything temporal. The Father and the Son are much more than Redeemer and Savior.

The conversation has not moved on past the problem of conflation and it would be good to do so because we haven't yet gotten to what happens after the end of the end.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

What happens in the divine relationship after every knee bows to Jesus as Lord to the glory of God? What happens after the King of all kings, Ruler of all rule hands all the kingdoms to the Father?

Philippians 2:9-11
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Does the Father stop glorifying the So? Does the Son stop glorifying the Father?

John 13:32
if God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and will glorify Him immediately.

Meh, Calvary's over, done and gone. No mutual glorification anymore. The Son is eternally subordinate.

Revelation 22:1-5
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.

One throne. God and Lamb. One Light. LORD and Lord. Role is not nature.

What is Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)? This doctrine teaches that the Son is not ontologically subordinate...

That's correct. Ontologically, Jesus is not subordinate.

...but is relationally subordinate or a Father and Son relationship.

Role is not nature. Teleology is not ontology. The role the Son has with the Father in the New Testament is soteriological and eschatological and both of those roles are temporal, not eternal. Sin and death have been defeated and one day death will no longer exist. Jesus will move on from those roles, discard them, and continue on with the eternal ontological relationship he ontologically has with the ontology of the Triune Godhead and its three always and everywhere divine Persons.

 

[Binyawmene]

The issue around "eternally begotten, not made" was not subordination but His deity.

I, too, agree. It's easy to conflate ontological with relational. Both the Father and the Son identity is not with each other or the person identical to the person. But the identity is what both persons possesses (subsisting to) in respect to the Divine Nature. The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "of the same essence." Like the Nicene Creed says, "consubstantial with the Father" and not "identical to the Father." Now look at what I've previously said in my post about the eternal relation:

"The Father is not begotten or proceeding, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit is proceeding."​

What I am saying, that the Persons in the Trinity are not identical to each other in their eternal relations. The distinction of the persons is relations. In Trinity language, the word "begotten" is relational to the Father (the Father is unbegotten and the Son is begotten) eternally, while "essential" is identical with the Father (the Father and the Son shares the same eternalness).

Relational
The Father and the Son are asymmetry: If x = y, then not y = x
x = unbegotten Father
y = begotten Son
If something is true of x, and it's not true of y, then x and y are different.

Identical
The Father and the Son are symmetry: If x = y, then y = x
x = eternal Father
y = eternal Son
If something is true of x, and it's true of y, then x and y are the same.

Yes that is what the Creed was designed for and yet, here we are centuries later deciding to divide in another way through the Creed, as to the Son's eternal subordination, which is not actually even addressed in the Creed. What is addressed is His deity and as such, His eternality as the second person of a Triune God. Of course it is not referring to our timeframe. There is no relational subordination within the Godhead. Equal applies in all ways, not just some ways.

You believe that "begotten" is an eternal relation to the Father. Well, scripturally, the eternally begotten Son has a function role in regard to the incarnation and our salvation. Which all the functional roles of the Son are subordinate, relational, and distinctive from the Father. And the identity of "the one and only Son" [Gr. μονογενὴς or monogenés or only-begotten] is in reference to "eternally begotten Son" mentioned in the Creed. So, the eternally begotten Son has existed prior to his incarnation.

Eternally begotten Son came from the eternal Father implies subordination:

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Eternally begotten Son has made the eternal Father known implies subordination:

John 1:18 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​

Eternally begotten Son was given from the eternal Father implies subordination:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.​

Eternally begotten Son was sent from the eternal Father implies subordination:

1 John 4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.​

Here I will point out the deep flaw you produce when you separate essence from relation and make them two opposing things existing in the same way at the same time and in the same place. And the contradiction you make in your own statements in attempting to do so.

Do you even know what "essence" and "relation" is in the Trinity doctrine?

The title is the Eternal Subordination of the Son. And then, when confronted with scriptural evidence of how that cannot be if all members of the Trinity are equal in all ways, but distinct as to "roles", you inject the concept that it is not ontological subordination but relational subordination. In this you have made the roles subordinate to one another, and not the persons.

etc, etc, etc.

Yeah, I know you believe in temporary submission is incarnational only, which is a false doctrine that teaches prior to his coming to earth, and after he returned to heaven, God the Son was equal in authority to God the Father. The Son never was in submission to the Father's plan eternally, in submission to the Father in creating creation, and in submission to the Father in the sending prior to the incarnation. His submission is restricted to the incarnation and only temporary. I suppose you could change your position, but you are on record on post 138 and post 140 refutes temporarily subordinate.

I know, you will rant about that I didn't refute your position and carry-on like nothing never happen. But the thing is, no one denies that the Son is equal to the Father or is subordinate in his incarnation. It's part of the Trinity framework, the Trinity teaches both equality (ontological) and subordination (functional roles), and the Hypostatic Union framework teaches, equal to the Father according to the Divine Nature, and subordinate to the Father according to the human nature.

 

[grace2]

But the thing is, no one denies that the Son is equal to the Father or is subordinate in his incarnation.

Another falsehood about the trinity.

Jesus says His Father is greater than He.

 

[Arial]

Both the Father and the Son identity is not with each other or the person identical to the person. But the identity is what both persons possesses (subsisting to) in respect to the Divine Nature. The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "of the same essence." Like the Nicene Creed says, "consubstantial with the Father" and not "identical to the Father."

Consubstancial means of the same essence. The Nicene Creed nowhere states they are "not identical to the Father." nor does it even discuss it. All along the way you have been effectively rewriting the Creed through your interpretations of it, and your entirely humanistic philosophical reasoning, rather than theological "philosophy." That essence includes all attributes and nature and character of God in three "persons" that make up the One. God is a triune being. All of His being is triune. Is there a relationship within this distinction? Of course there is. "Let us---" They are with each other. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. " "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." The roles in the Trinity are not a subordinate---they are an agreement.

The Trinity doctrine does not describe the three persons as subordinate as to roles---it describes them as distinct as to roles, and this I have mentioned a number of times as is utterly ignored by you. You are confusing distinction for relation.

Relational
The Father and the Son are asymmetry: If x = y, then not y = x
x = unbegotten Father
y = begotten Son
If something is true of x, and it's not true of y, then x and y are different.

Distinction. Not relation. But you have the Father as not being God but a distinction that does not exist and a relation that does not exist.
Father =God Unbegotten. That is, self existent and eternal as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit---a triune being. He calls Himself a Father to Israel, but Israel did not address Him as Father and new covenant Christian's do, just as Jesus did in the incarnation. The Jews called Him YHWH. Father is a covenant name. Another thing I have brought up that goes ignored.

Begotten: describes a unique relationship between God the Father and Jesus, His Son. It clarifies the unique nature of Jesus' relationship with God as a member of the Holy Trinity. It refers to not being created. It is an English translation of the Greek word monogenes. "Monos"--- alone, only. "Ginioai" to become; come into existence' begin to be. Now obviously the second person did not come into being within the Trinity at some point, but always was. What He came into being as, was Son of man, and is called, Son of God, because He came from God, and was God. The SOn did not come. The Word of God came as the Son.

 

[Arial]

You believe that "begotten" is an eternal relation to the Father. Well, scripturally, the eternally begotten Son has a function role in regard to the incarnation and our salvation.

The only person who has presented that view is you. Which you immediately follow with making the same assertion again in saying "the eternally begotten Son---". Then qualify it as a function role in regard to the incarnation and our salvation. The Son of God was not begotten until He was begotten. (See post #150 on "begotten".) In the eternal prior to the incarnation (which takes place within time by the decree of God) He was the Word of God. And the Word of God is never subordinate to Himself, inrole, relation, or otherwise.

And the identity of "the one and only Son" [Gr. μονογενὴς or monogenés or only-begotten] is in reference to "eternally begotten Son" mentioned in the Creed. So, the eternally begotten Son has existed prior to his incarnation.

The Nicene Creed

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten no made, consubstantial with the Father;"

Stop rewriting the Creed to fit your assertions.

Eternally begotten Son came from the eternal Father implies subordination:

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Came as the Son, which implies He was not yet the Son before He came to us. The Son came from God, who Jesus as the Son knew as Father, and now His brothers and sisters know Him as Father too.

Eternally begotten Son has made the eternal Father known implies subordination:

John 1:18 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

He was not eternally begotten. "Came as" implies He came to us as the Son. It implies the incarnation. That the SON (incarnation) who is Himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father and therefore is the One who makes God known, in no way implies subordination.

Eternally begotten Son was given from the eternal Father implies subordination:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Still does not imply subordination. Where is the subordination? Think about Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son, and preparing to do so. That is what the "gave His one and only Son" refers to, and that is why Jesus willingly in His subordinate, incarnate role as the Son, willingly gave His life. He was not eternally begotten.

Eternally begotten Son was sent from the eternal Father implies subordination:

1 John 4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

He was not eternally begotten. The Greek word translated begotten means the only one combined with come into being. The second person of the Trinity did not ever come into being but always was and is and will be. Who was begotten was Jesus. The Son of man came into being within time, He came from God therefore is also the Son of God. Fully God, fully man, without a sin nature as the Holy Spirit fathered Him. Subordination only in the incarnation, and for the purpose of redemption.

Do you even know what "essence" and "relation" is in the Trinity doctrine?

Do you? More often than not, when a person resorts to ad hominem remarks, it is an indication that the person making them has recognized their diversion from Scripture in their assertions by what is being presented from the other side, but stubborn pride will neither acknowledge it or discuss it any further.

Yeah, I know you believe in temporary submission is incarnational only, which is a false doctrine that teaches prior to his coming to earth, and after he returned to heaven, God the Son was equal in authority to God the Father.

I not only believe it but the reason I believe it is because it is what the Bible teaches. Your view however contains much that you cannot support and Scripture will not support, but is the product of the speculations and presumptions, faulty exegesis, and failure to take into account the whole counsel of God, unsound theology, unsound doctrine, that another put forth, you read, and fell for.

The Son never was in submission to the Father's plan eternally, in submission to the Father in creating creation, and in submission to the Father in the sending prior to the incarnation. His submission is restricted to the incarnation and only temporary.

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.

As distinct within the Trinity they submit to one another, always, and in all things. But that is a far different thing than God being subordinate to God.

and post 140 refutes temporarily subordinate.

Well, the refutation was soundly refuted in many ways and by various people, and by the very being of God being presented as it is in Scripture.

I know, you will rant about that I didn't refute your position and carry-on like nothing never happen. But the thing is, no one denies that the Son is equal to the Father or is subordinate in his incarnation. It's part of the Trinity framework, the Trinity teaches both equality (ontological) and subordination (functional roles), and the Hypostatic Union framework teaches, equal to the Father according to the Divine Nature, and subordinate to the Father according to the human nature.

I guess you did not notice in all my "ranting", that I have been saying all along that the subordination is in the functional role of the second person of the Trinity in His human nature? The Word did not have a human nature until the incarnation! That is not where the disagreement lies. It lies in you saying the second person of the Trinity had a subordinate role in the Godhead from all eternity. And still does? Even though the ascension was Him going to His coronation as King of kings and Lord of lords? Still subordinate in role?

 

[Josheb]

Well, scripturally, the eternally begotten Son has a function role in regard to the incarnation and our salvation.

Yep. That is correct, all the Trins here agree, and no one has said any different.

Which all the functional roles of the Son are subordinate, relational, and distinctive from the Father.

That is incorrect. Both God and Jesus are described as creators and assigned the role of creation. Jesus is described in comparable or equal terms, not (only) subordinate ones. Scripture repeatedly makes statements of equality about God and Jesus. Scripture ALSO makes statements of inequality between God and Jesus. The equality and inequality is not either/or; it is both. ALL the functional roles f the Son are not subordinate. Neither are they all eternal.

You are making numerous categorical errors (mistake in category) and it leads to further errors.

In Post 135 you posted, "If you deny the Son's eternal ontological equality, then the Son is not fully God." That is exactly what YOU have done! The inconsistency is, apparently, not yet recognized and several attempts to help make it visible have proved fruitless. Splitting hairs between ontology and function do not solve the problem, the worsen it! If the Son is ontologically equal and fully God then he is not ontologically subordinate or economically subordinate. He is either fully or not fully. Can't be had both ways. Anything fully is not subordinate.

Your own posts contradict one another.

The fact is that Jesus, although he existed in the form of God, and could have considered equality with God something to be grasped he...

• emptied himself,
• took on the form of a bondservant,
• was made in the likeness of man,
• appeared as a man,
• humbled himself,
• obeyed God unto the point of death.

In other words, everything listed in Philippians 2 to is not eternal ontology. It is temporal. He changed himself. Why? To serve God's purpose soteriological and eschatological purposes. Apart from his emptying himself, taking on the form of a bondservant, being made as and appearing as a man, humbling himself and obeying God unto death, he's a completely different fully God Person.

Besides, Bin, just because Matt Slick writes something does not make it true.

Stick with scripture. Scripturally speaking the Father/Son relationship is a New Testament condition that exists solely within the context of God addressing the temporal condition of sin in a sinful world filled with sinful humans. It is temporal, not eternal, teleological not ontological, sinful world, not sinless eternity. Outside of that Jesus is something more, something different. Jesus is, for example the logos that is God. He is not the logos of God that is fully God subordinate to the Father. That would be self-contradictory .

Sort out the categories.

Fullness
Subordination
Ontology
Teleology
Temporal
Everlasting
Eternal
Role(s) - technically any two or more roles always contain some degree of equality of all roles are necessary. Necessity equalizes.
Creator
Soteriology
Eschatology
Theology
Sinful world
Sinless eternity

NONE of these should be conflated and while it looks like the problem of conflation is now recognized, the posts are still full of that mistake.

 

[Binyawmene]

Binyawmene: And the identity of "the one and only Son" [Gr. μονογενὴς or monogenés or only-begotten] is in reference to "eternally begotten Son" mentioned in the Creed. So, the eternally begotten Son has existed prior to his incarnation.


Arial: The Nicene Creed

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten no made, consubstantial with the Father;"

Stop rewriting the Creed to fit your assertions.

The phrase “eternally begotten” was apparently coined by Athanasius to describe the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father. The Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and this begotten never had a beginning. The Son has always existed and has always been fully God even though he is begotten of the Father. The Father has always begotten the Son such that the Son and the Father are both fully God.

Why use the language "begotten" in the Creed? That, I don't know. You would have to do your own homework on that one. I do know that Athanasius attended the Council of Nicea in 325 as a deacon of the Church in Alexandria. I would assume his conceptual term device was color-coded against Arianism. Since Arius used "begotten" in the sense of "created," so the Nicenians accepted and used "begotten" in the sense of "eternal." The Scriptural position for eternally begotten is erchomai (John 8:42, 13:3, 16:27-30, 17:8) being understood in the eternal sense, before creation and time, who was with the Father (John 1:1, 1 John 1:2, John 17:5), and he is sent from the Father as being the one selfsame eternally begotten Son incarnate (John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9). Not two begotten, but one begotten.

 

[Binyawmene]

That is incorrect. Both God and Jesus are described as creators and assigned the role of creation. Jesus is described in comparable or equal terms, not (only) subordinate ones. Scripture repeatedly makes statements of equality about God and Jesus. Scripture ALSO makes statements of inequality between God and Jesus. The equality and inequality is not either/or; it is both. ALL the functional roles f the Son are not subordinate. Neither are they all eternal.

Right. I agree with you one this particular one. Both the Father and the Son are co-creators through the Son's subordination. I say "both equal and subordinate." Even in the incarnation "I am my Father are one" and "Father is greater than I." Do you believe Christ's preeminence is subordinate or equality? I go with subordinate. The Greek proteuo carries the idea of "to be first in rank," not ontologically, but by position or status. (Colossians 1:15-18, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 15:24-28).

 

[Josheb]

Right. I agree with you one this particular one. Both the Father and the Son are co-creators through the Son's subordination.

Not quite correct. Creation is spoken of in a couple of different ways in the Bible. There is the creation of the six days and there the creating or making of new things after creation was created. This is a big stumbling block for non-Trins because later makings are construed to mean Jesus himself was made. Consider this premise: Jesus may have always been the logos but not always the Christ. On the face of that statement it prompts a reflexive denial but the fact is the was no Christ or Messiah, or anointed one for most of biblical history. When we speak of "Christology" we mean to be discussing the ontology or the nature of Christ, but what we should be discussing is Jesusology because Jesus is more than the anointed one of God. The Jews spent centuries waiting for something that did not yet exist. Notice I did NOT say "someone who did not yet exist". Jesus, the logos of God who is God long preceded Jesus as the anointed one.

Furthermore, as I have already stated, there is an multitude of roles played out at the same time. For example, Jesus is said to be the power of God, the wisdom of God, etc. Is God's power different than Jesus'? If the answer is "Yes," then that is an instantaneous conflict with both the God and Jesus both being fully God. The moment the "fully" is accept a lot of the subordination has to be discarded. However, because of the differing roles there can be a wholly equal standing AND a greater/less subordination co-existing. Equality and subordination are not necessarily mutually exlcusive conditions. Equality in some roles (and therefore parts of the divine relationship, can exist while subordination ALSO exists in other roles ANF the subordination can be equal or subordinate in roles they share! Is the wisdom of God by which the universe was created any less than the wisdom of Jesus (we would normally use the word "Christ" in that sentence, but Jesus was not Christ at that "time" before time existed . Any thought that Jesus' wisdom is lesser to God's wisdom is an instantaneous contradiction with the fully-God-Jesus. They would have different omnisciences . The same thing goes for their pre-existent power. Jesus being the power of God does not and cannot preclude either of them having power of their own and the two of them both being all-powerful. However, it is logically impossible to have two simultaneously existing almighty Gods. That is oxymoronic, a contradiction in terms, self-contradictory.

Unless the doctrine of the Trinity is true because those two Persons are so wholly integrated in thought, affect, cognition, knowledge, wisdom, understanding, will, word, and deed so as to be one while possessing their individual Personhood. The same conditions just summarized with Jesus being the wisdom and power of God applies to other mutually assigned qualities or attributes. Jesus being the logos of God that is God is another example worth noting because in Hellenism the logos of the gods was a bestowing of certain knowledge upon humanity and various humans possessed logos in greater or lesser degrees. Humans were god-like, but never gods. The preamble of John's gospel is taken from Philo; a commentary Philo wrote about Alexander the Great being the logos of God and great mediator between the gods (or Jewish God) and man. Philo was Hellenist, but he was also a Jew. John came along and bluntly repudiated Hellenism in Judaism by declaring Jesus was the logos of God, the logos that had been with God in the beginning and Jesus, unlike Alexander, was God - not a specially endowed human, but God. Not a lesser god, but big-G God. To the first century Jew that was a stoning offense. In Tanakh the creation was spoken into existence and Jesus is the word of God that is God by whom, through whom, in whom, and for whom the creation was created. All of that power, wisdom, word, etc., etc., was, is, and will always be eternal, not temporal and not merely everlasting. It existed before there was an ever to last.

 

[Josheb]

I say "both equal and subordinate." Even in the incarnation "I am my Father are one" and "Father is greater than I."

Those are not statements of subordination. Those are statements of equality; those are identity statement. Those are ontological and existential statements of identity. These are statements of unity and wholeness. The echad is not just a single grape but also a cluster of grapes; not just a single Jew but the twelve tribes as a whole. A whole, wholly integrated one of many ones. Jesus' subordinate statements are "I do only what the Father tells me to do," and "I say only what the Father tells me to say." The opening description of the aforementioned second chapter of Philippians is about subordination occurring in a previously existing ontological equality.

Do you believe Christ's preeminence is subordinate or equality?

This has already been answered (probably by every Trin in this thread. Jesus is fully God. I assume you know and understand the word "eminence means "coming or rising in prominence, significance, recognition, or power," or "a newly rising occurrence, condition, or ground." When we speak of the "pre-" eminence of the always-existent.... pre-existent Jesus we are talking about the condition of the Christ before he "became" the Christ, or in the wording I have tried to emphasize, we are talking about the Jesus before his incarnation, before he became the anointed one.

So, to answer the question asked.... Jesus' pre-eminence is equality, not subordination. His eminence is subordinate.

However, that deserves to be parsed out because there are some aspects of his eminence that are eternal and not temporal. For example, Jesus was foreknown prior to creation as the perfect sacrifice. Elsewhere Jesus states "I am the resurrection." There is, therefore, never a time or place in creation when Jesus is not the resurrection. The ontological and existential statement "I am..." transcends his incarnation, death, and physical resurrection. Jesus is both ontologically and teleologically the resurrection. BUT..... care should be taken because it wasn't the Father that died and was buried. It was not the Father risen from the grave. Does that mean Jesus, the Son, is superior to the Father because he is something the Father is not, and has done something the Father did not do? No! More could be said about this because according to Acts 2 it is the resurrection that is the throne promised David . That has a variety of implication for Father and Son sharing a throne and Jesus being the right hand of God and God's throne = three conditions that would necessarily be mutually exclusive in the creaturely realm but thoroughly shared in the Divine.

I go with subordinate.

And I think that is incorrect and incorrect for all of the reasons I have already posted, beginning with the fact it fails to discriminate the ontological from the ontological, the temporal from the eternal, and the various roles inherent to and separate from pre-eminence.

 

[Josheb]

The Greek proteuo carries the idea of "to be first in rank," not ontologically, but by position or status. (Colossians 1:15-18, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 15:24-28).

Yes, and if that's not correctly sorted out it can be made to say the Son is first in rank over the Father. No one here believes that. Notice that the Colossians text explicitly states "of creation." It does NOT state, "prior to creation." Neither does it state, "of eternity." In other words, it is a temporal statement about temporal, or created conditions. The verse cannot be made to say anything about eternity or the eternal nature of Jesus. When you (or anyone else) does that they are making a false equivalence. Those three verses are loaded with this distinction. God is not born. If Jesus is God then Jesus is not born. If Jesus is fully God then he is not born in any eternal way and not in any eternal way that s subordinate to God and his being fully God. Temporally speaking, however, he did have a birth and that birth was planned before a single atom was ever breathed into existence by the Creator (who is God and Christ ).

Not conflating the categories proves critically important.

And as we just saw, you're still having difficulty parsing them out correctly. You can see the categories and know their significance and distinctions. Good! Excellent! Now persevere so they are all handled well. I can't speak for the others, but it's taken me decades to understand this, and I've had lots of help (some worthy and some not so worthy) from others. Most folks have never heard the word "teleology." You seem to have picked that up handily.


Jesus is more than the Son, and he is also more than the Christ, but doctrinally speaking we use the words "Son," and "Christ" to define him and we are, again, doctrinally speaking, somewhat sloppy with the labels. Simplistically, it's easier to say "Christology" than "Jesusology," and Christology has a nicer ring than Sonology . The angel is in the details and the dive into the doctrine does, eventually, sort it out and explain it with an explanation firmly rooted in correctly rendered scripture. The temporal verses are never conflated with the verses speaking of eternity. Jesus is ontologically fully God but teleologically subordinate to God in creation (time and space) especially and specifically when it comes to his roles as soteriological Savior and eschatological Judge. There's no sin in eternity. There is no end to eternity.

I hope this clears some things up instead of muddying them further.

 

[Arial]

The phrase “eternally begotten” was apparently coined by Athanasius to describe the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father. The Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and this begotten never had a beginning. The Son has always existed and has always been fully God even though he is begotten of the Father. The Father has always begotten the Son such that the Son and the Father are both fully God.

Why use the language "begotten" in the Creed? That, I don't know. You would have to do your own homework on that one. I do know that Athanasius attended the Council of Nicea in 325 as a deacon of the Church in Alexandria. I would assume his conceptual term device was color-coded against Arianism. Since Arius used "begotten" in the sense of "created," so the Nicenians accepted and used "begotten" in the sense of "eternal." The Scriptural position for eternally begotten is erchomai (John 8:42, 13:3, 16:27-30, 17:8) being understood in the eternal sense, before creation and time, who was with the Father (John 1:1, 1 John 1:2, John 17:5), and he is sent from the Father as being the one selfsame eternally begotten Son incarnate (John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9). Not two begotten, but one begotten.

OK, now we have moved the conversation from the one that began many pages ago on the definition of eternal needing to be defined, to the need for "begotten" being defined. One way by me, and another by the supposed understanding of how Athanasius defined it. And then given the same definition of eternally begotten that the poster claims this long dead person meant. Presenting an impossibility as an argument. And inserting what is really your definition into the text of the Nicene Creed. Which simply says:

the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages

Followed with an intended meaning by:

God from God Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten no made, consubstantial with the Father;"

So it would seem more likely that by begotten in the Creed is meant, "not created" eternally with the Father and equal with Him in all ways. Which is what I have said and still say, what you say in your post above. Why are you acting like I am a dunce and we are in disagreement? And what does Athanasius have to do with it? It is avoiding the actual disagreement altogether and presenting this as being the disagreement. What is it exactly that you think I am saying? (Athanasius btw was a secretary to Alexander, and likely would not even have been allowed to speak when the Creed was being established. Whatever he had to say/write about it came after.)

You have moved the goal post from being about eternal subordination of the Son to being about eternally begotten. Before your use of "begotten" was about relation to, within the Trinity----that being your argument for eternal subordination. Now, it has become your argument in an argument that does not exist. If the use of "begotten" in the Creed was used as "not created", there you and I are in agreement. And it is not a support for eternal subordination as it is not dealing with that.

So that brings us back to you needing to demonstrate (responding to the meat of my posts instead of peripherals would go a long way in moving the thread forward) that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, was in His very eternal existence, subordinate to God---i.e. subordinate to Himself.

 

[Arial]

@Binyawmene

Meat.

What now needs to be defined by you is "subordinate". I and others have defined it from the very beginning of this thread, so you should know where we are coming from, and respond accordingly. You have not defined where you are coming from as to the meaning you are giving it. You only say it is relational, as to role, not ontological. Which is not a definition.

You have failed to address the fact that it has been shown that there have always been roles within the Trinity, that the roles are an agreement in unity and purpose whatever the purpose may be, and are eternal just as God is eternal. That the eternal can and does enter actively into the temporal (within time and pertaining to humans who are bound by time), and that the roles within the Trinity are performing actions pertaining to the temporal, and for that particular purpose. There became a temporal aspect of the second person of the Trinity and of the third person of the Trinity.

The temporal act of Jesus was becoming one of us in order to do the work necessary for the redemption of any. That being performing perfect righteousness according to the Law. In this there is subordination to the Father (God), doing His will only as at creation all men were commanded and meant to do. It is man who was created and who was created to bear the image of God, and it is man who failed to do this and cannot do it because of sin in us. And having done this in His subordinate role (that is, having emptied Himself of using all His divine glory, coming as a mortal man ---able to die---, but only listening to and obeying the Holy Spirit whom He had without measure) die the death of a sinner as their substitute. And then be raised to life and ascending back to His former glory He had with the Father (God). The temporal work, within time, is done, finished. He is now doing the eternal work of interceding for the saints as High Priest, and as we see in Rev, fighting in a war that culminates in the utter destruction of evil and the restoration of all things. Eternal work in which there is no subordination but duty and purpose.

Meanwhile, the Holy Spirit has been sent by Jesus, not in subordination, but purpose, actively active, within the temporal arena, but not temporal Himself, and in no way subordinate to the Father and the Son, applying this temporal work of Jesus to those for whom He died, sealing them in Christ, and sanctifying them through His word.

Roles in the Trinity are not subordinate, ever. And cannot be if they are ontologically equal. Calling them relational subordination becomes an oxymoron. It separates the relationship from the person and from the role. The Son coming as Son of God, Son of man was temporal. He is not here in bodily form anymore, but He still exists in the same place He existed before He came as one of us, to live and die for us. While He was here in bodily form, as man He was subordinate to the will of God as we are. As Son of God while He was present, He was doing His will as Son of God, and the will of the Father from the perspective of man. He willingly came as Son of man, and as man, willingly obeyed the Father.

 

[Josheb]

OK, now we have moved the conversation from the one that began many pages ago on the definition of eternal needing to be defined, to the need for "begotten" being defined.

Or we leave it out of the conversation because it's unnecessary to prove the difference between temporal and eternal (and other categorical distinctions) and the move could be a red herring.

When it comes to the phrase "born of the Father before all ages" or eternally begotten. This isn't referring to our timeframe and being born in our conceptual language.

Yes, it is.

The word "before" is the clue. There is no "before" in eternity. The word "born" is a temporal word. The word "ages" is a temporal word. I do not want to constantly point out the conflation of the temporal and the eternal, but it's once again occurred. Stop using verses about temporal conditions and events as measures of eternity.