What is Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)?

[Binyawmene]

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.

I pretty much said what I wanted to say on "eternal subordination" and even given the Scriptural stance for the concept. You can carry on with the discussion with someone else or with Josheb. You, both, seem to have the same view, and might learn a few things from the exchange. At this point, my knowledge on the topic is limited, and my time for research is also limited, since I go back to work tomorrow. I won't be back online until the weekend. And I don't want to spend what time I do have on the topic of "eternal subordination" nor is it an essential doctrine, a must believe for salvation. Trinitarians are allowed to disagree over these types of topics. There are other activities I do. With that being said, I will leave the discussion with these final words.

Right, I agree. That's what I always tell Unitarians over definitions like "person" and "being" etc. If you are going to define a terminology in the Creed, then define it according to its historical context. From what I understand by Athanasius of Alexandria writings, "Discourse 1 Against the Arians" was over Arius famous phrase "Once the Son was not" and no one at that particular time era was willing to suggest "a time when the Son was not." But Athanasius did by answering it with the word "eternal." In Chapter 4, he scripturally establishes the based for eternal and for the eternal Son, then in Chapter 5 is what he means by "begotten."

16. Such thoughts then being evidently unseemly and untrue, we are driven to say that what is from the essence of the Father, and proper to Him, is entirely the Son; for it is all one to say that God is wholly participated, and that He begets; and what does begetting signify but a Son?

....therefore that which is begotten is neither affection nor division of that blessed essence. Hence it is not incredible that God should have a Son, the Offspring of His own essence; nor do we imply affection or division of God's essence, when we speak of 'Son' and 'Offspring;' but rather, as acknowledging the genuine, and true, and Only-begotten of God, so we believe.​

CHURCH FATHERS: Discourse I Against the Arians (Athanasius)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

In other words, eternally begotten simply means, "the Father communicated the whole essence to the Son," which is where the word "consubstantial (of the same essence) with the Father" was considered adopted into the Creed. Here is another website that says,

This means that when the Father generates the Son, He does not give a part of Himself to His Son. God does not delegate a portion or percentage of deity to His Son. He gives His entire nature. Far from being a challenge to the full deity of Christ, the eternal generation of the Son entails the total equality of nature between the Father and the Son in God.​

Athanasius on the Simple God And Eternal Generation - The Gospel Coalition | Canada

The doctrine of divine simplicity has been a cornerstone of Christian dogmatics for most of the history of the Church, and it is currently enjoying something of a renaissance. Several...

ca.thegospelcoalition.org

 

[Josheb]

I pretty much said what I wanted to say on "eternal subordination"

Yep

and even given the Scriptural stance for the concept.

Nope.

Not properly dividing the word of God is not "the scriptural stance."

You can carry on with the discussion with someone else or with Josheb. You, both, seem to have the same view, and might learn a few things from the exchange. At this point, my knowledge on the topic is limited, and my time for research is also limited, since I go back to work tomorrow. I won't be back online until the weekend. And I don't want to spend what time I do have on the topic of "eternal subordination" nor is it an essential doctrine, a must believe for salvation.

No worries, Bin. As far as I'm concerned, for the most part you conducted well, especially consider we come from the same doctrine (Trinitarianism) but have some disagreement. Many posters would have started impugning my faculties and attacking the dissenters by now. Your posts stand as a commendable example for how disagreement should be handled.

Trinitarians are allowed to disagree over these types of topics.

Yep

Right, I agree.................................

CHURCH FATHERS: Discourse I Against the Arians (Athanasius)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

In other words....................

Athanasius on the Simple God And Eternal Generation - The Gospel Coalition | Canada

The doctrine of divine simplicity has been a cornerstone of Christian dogmatics for most of the history of the Church, and it is currently enjoying something of a renaissance. Several...

ca.thegospelcoalition.org

There are other activities I do.

Do you understand those two websites do not say what you've posted? It's not a particularly good way to end the exchange. I haven't brought this op previously but one of my concerns has to do with the use of extra-biblical sources to define scripture, dictate to others how they should think and what to believe, and how the sources either confirmed what @Arial and I have posted or don't otherwise bear much consistency with your own posts. To me it looks like there's a lot of confirmation bias. The antidote is to be as critical of our own sources as we are of others' posts.

Take, for example, @Carbon's recent thread on sanctification, taken from the book, "Christian Spirituality." My initial forensic take on the first author's initial set up is very critical but I also tried to overtly affirm what I could. Since then I have been thinking about the rest of the author's case because a lot of excellent content on justification is present. I've been thinking about it for two or three days now and hope to return to the thread to comment accordingly...... before moving on to each of the next authors in the book. My own thinking has prompted me to get out my Bibles and study materials and measure my own thinking BEFORE I post again. That, in turn, will (I hope) aid my reading of the other positions. It'll probably be days, maybe two weeks, before I get through the book with an examination of scripture (even though my initial reading of the book will take only two or three days).

As far as this op goes, I recommend you give Ron Nash's book "The Concept of God" a read, along with Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace." Most of our doctrinal statements about the nature of God were formed when we still thought time was linear and constant everywhere and always.

With that being said, I will leave the discussion with these final words.

Big hug. We'll see you in the next op.

 

[Arial]

At this point, my knowledge on the topic is limited, and my time for research is also limited, since I go back to work tomorrow.

It is fine with me that you are finished with the conversation. It had pretty much come to an impasse anyway and at that point it is just repetition. I will say this though, that I am puzzled that you base your knowledge of the topic being limited on research. In the end, it does not matter who says/said what, in a person's research of historical or contemporary sources. That can give a person insights as to various views, so one has a road map, so to speak, of where to look in the scriptures and what needs to be considered. But the answers as absolutes, that is, the very truth of God from His mouth, are in the Scriptures. Everything must be examined through them.

And in this topic, as in most being discussed on the forum, the first thing to be considered is "Who is God?" That is the fountain from which all truth will be in agreement. So every argument or view presented must match perfectly with His self revelation, and the ways in which that is expounded on within the scriptures.

 

[Ladodgers6]

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.

Excellent insights. Precisely correct! For those reading or following along should also reference Aquinas & Calvin on the matter as well. Well done, Binyawmeme.​

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.​

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

Great question! Everyone must know to distinguish essence and relation.

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.

WoW, spot on! I am glad to see people who understand how the essence of the Trinity is unison, and the relation is in distinguishable roles or modes. Great job!

 

[Runningman]

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

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

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

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

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

That certainly flies in the face or orthodox Trinitarianism and may be what is called Social Trinitarianism. It implies there are three gods even more than regular Trinitarianism does. Same thing the Mormons believe in. Are you Mormon?

 

[Binyawmene]

That certainly flies in the face or orthodox Trinitarianism and may be what is called Social Trinitarianism. It implies there are three gods even more than regular Trinitarianism does. Same thing the Mormons believe in. Are you Mormon?

No. I'm reformed and I don't belong to any particular denominations. I am a historical creedal Trinitarian and Hypostatic Unionist. What is your reason and purpose for asking the question? Besides, Ontological/Economical Trinity is not Social Trinitarianism. Although using the word "subordination" (which was not by best choice of word to use) which has caused reactions. Probably because the word is associated with a heretical view of ontological subordinationism. Maybe a better choice of words could of be "relational" or "economical" and probably no one would respond to the thread. But the main point is that I've learn from the discussions and good for my spiritual growth in Trinity doctrine. My position was repeated many of times in this thread but often ignored.

Are you still BU?

 

[grace2]

That certainly flies in the face or orthodox Trinitarianism and may be what is called Social Trinitarianism. It implies there are three gods even more than regular Trinitarianism does. Same thing the Mormons believe in. Are you Mormon?

Mormons are non-trin too. But I dont recommend any organization though.

We ought to get all the information from the Bible. It is the best source to get to know God and Jesus.

the Bible we see now is not perfect but good enough not to be led astray from the true simple gospel.

 

[Runningman]

Mormons are non-trin too. But I dont recommend any organization though.

We ought to get all the information from the Bible. It is the best source to get to know God and Jesus.

the Bible we see now is not perfect but good enough not to be led astray from the true simple gospel.

I thought that too, at first, but they call Jesus the eternal God one time in the Book of Mormon, but never again anywhere else.

2 Nephi 26
12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

 

[Runningman]

No. I'm reformed and I don't belong to any particular denominations. I am a historical creedal Trinitarian and Hypostatic Unionist. What is your reason and purpose for asking the question? Besides, Ontological/Economical Trinity is not Social Trinitarianism. Although using the word "subordination" (which was not by best choice of word to use) which has caused reactions. Probably because the word is associated with a heretical view of ontological subordinationism. Maybe a better choice of words could of be "relational" or "economical" and probably no one would respond to the thread. But the main point is that I've learn from the discussions and good for my spiritual growth in Trinity doctrine. My position was repeated many of times in this thread but often ignored.

Are you still BU?

I ask because what you said sounds like Social Trinitarianism. It's not creedal Trinitarianism because you point out an inequality between the Son and the Father and you're absolutely right they are not equal in every way. That's a step forward for you, but it isn't an orthodox belief, just saying. Creedal Trinitarianism says this in the Athanasian Creed:

"But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,​

their glory equal, their majesty coeternal."​

​

"Nothing in this trinity is before or after,​

nothing is greater or smaller;​

in their entirety the three persons​

are coeternal and coequal with each other."​

​

"He is God from the essence of the Father,​

begotten before time;​

and he is human from the essence of his mother,​

born in time;​

completely God, completely human,​

with a rational soul and human flesh;​

equal to the Father as regards divinity,​

less than the Father as regards humanity."​

 

[grace2]

I thought that too, at first, but they call Jesus the eternal God one time in the Book of Mormon, but never again anywhere else.

2 Nephi 26
12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

Oh, I guess they don't know what they are talking about.

Every Mormon I encountered told me they didn't believe in the Trinity, so I assumed they didn't believe Jesus is God.

what a mess.

 

[Binyawmene]

I ask because what you said sounds like Social Trinitarianism. It's not creedal Trinitarianism because you point out an inequality between the Son and the Father and you're absolutely right they are not equal in every way.

So, you are not going to answer my question?

Straw man. I've done no such thing, nor would you find anywhere that I've made ontological inequality between the Father and the Son. And I am well aware of what the Creed says since it was already pointed out here. The Creed is referring to ontological and not economical. Do you know the difference?

Another thing I want to mention is from Athanasian Creed: "...And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal."

The eternal subordination framework has this particular order:

In Creation: From the Father, through the Son, and sending the Spirit (Psalm 104:30, Genesis 1:2).

Through Incarnation: The Father sends the Son, and the Son is sent, but the Father is with the Son (John 8:29).

After Ascension: Both the Father and the Son sends the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 16:7).

But there are certain Scriptures that doesn't go by that particular order, for instance:

The Son "came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).

Grace and peace comes "from" both the Father and the Son (Revelation 1:4-5).

Or, you might say that the titles "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiri." As if the Father is always mentioned first and the Son is always mentioned secondly. Here is example of the Son being placed before the Father (2 Corinthians 13:14).

 

[Runningman]

Oh, I guess they don't know what they are talking about.

Every Mormon I encountered told me they didn't believe in the Trinity, so I assumed they didn't believe Jesus is God.

what a mess.

Honestly it might not be a mainstream doctrine in their church because the LDS website makes zero mention of Jesus being God.

 

[grace2]

Honestly it might not be a mainstream doctrine in their church because the LDS website makes zero mention of Jesus being God.

that is strange.

That is the world of confused religions.

 

[Runningman]

So, you are not going to answer my question?

Yes I am still a BU.

Straw man. I've done no such thing, nor would you find anywhere that I've made ontological inequality between the Father and the Son. And I am well aware of what the Creed says since it was already pointed out here. The Creed is referring to ontological and not economical. Do you know the difference?

Your thread is about Jesus being subordinate to God. Yes you are correct. The word subordinate means lower in rank and position, i.e., not equal. God is not less than God, but in your theology God is lesser than God. That means one is God and the other is't.

Another thing I want to mention is from Athanasian Creed: "...And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal."

Yes, that is creedal Trinitarianism which is not something your OP is about.

The eternal subordination framework has this particular order:

In Creation: From the Father, through the Son, and sending the Spirit (Psalm 104:30, Genesis 1:2).

There is nothing about the Son creating in the Old Testament.

Through Incarnation: The Father sends the Son, and the Son is sent, but the Father is with the Son (John 8:29).

John 17:3 says the Father is the only true God who sent His Son. Same as John 3:16.

After Ascension: Both the Father and the Son sends the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 16:7).

He was taken to heaven and not on his own power, a cloud carried him up. It doesn't say, but presumably an act of God or perhaps an angel.

John 14:26 clears up it. For Jesus must ask permission from God. Jesus isn't calling the shots here.

John 14
16And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever—

But there are certain Scriptures that doesn't go by that particular order, for instance:

The Son "came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).

It doesn't mention the Son, it mentions the Word.

Grace and peace comes "from" both the Father and the Son (Revelation 1:4-5).

Or, you might say that the titles "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiri." As if the Father is always mentioned first and the Son is always mentioned secondly. Here is example of the Son being placed before the Father (2 Corinthians 13:14).

You seem to show awareness that even though God is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 13:14 that God is the Father, but when Jesus isn't called God you keep on calling him God anyway. Why?

 

[Binyawmene]

Your thread is about Jesus being subordinate to God. Yes you are correct. The word subordinate means lower in rank and position, i.e., not equal. God is not less than God, but in your theology God is lesser than God. That means one is God and the other is't.

Another straw man. This thread isn't about ontological subordination. I don't believe in it, nor have I ever taught it. Did you not read the OP page 1 in this thread?

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

Just some Trinitarians don't hold to Relational/Economical Trinity.

 

[Runningman]

Another straw man. This thread isn't about ontological subordination. I don't believe in it, nor have I ever taught it. Did you not read the OP page 1 in this thread?

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

Just some Trinitarians don't hold to Relational/Economical Trinity.

This part has an issue: "If the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father, then the Father is not eternally Father and the Son is not eternally Son."

I believe that Jesus, the Son, did in fact have his own will (Luke 22:42) which means Jesus had the ability to make his owns decision. He could have disobeyed God's will had he wanted to. He was also tempted in the wilderness and temptation refers to something one desires according to James 1:14.

I find this illogical because it suggests that if the Son decided to not obey the Father then the Father would cease being God and Jesus would ceases being his Son. I think the premise doesn't follow to a right conclusion. If Jesus had sinned, he couldn't have been the Messiah, but he could restore his relationship with God through repentance like all others. The Father would not have ceased being the Father though. I suppose God would have simply chosen a different Messiah.

 

[Binyawmene]

This part has an issue: "If the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father, then the Father is not eternally Father and the Son is not eternally Son."

Arius would agree with you. But Arianism is closer to Jehovah Witnesses instead of Biblical Unitarianism.