The Highway
Posted By: Tom Eternal Subordination of the Son - Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:39 AM
I hope this thread goes better than my last one on the Open Forum. giggle
I recently came across an article about a subject that to be honest I don't know a whole lot about. But recently found that I need to understand the matter better (long story).

I would like to get some feedback from the following link, that I came across while researching the topic.
Please try to refrain from commenting about the person who wrote the article, please. I am interested in the topic in question.
http://www.dennyburk.com/a-brief-response-to-trueman-and-goligher/

Tom
Posted By: Anthony C. Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:05 AM
This one is a bit over my head but if I reading it right it may be an overreaction by Trueman & ultimately much ado bout nothing. This is definitely Pilgrim territory in terms of clarification however.
Posted By: Tom Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:05 AM
Originally Posted by AJ Castellitto
This one is a bit over my head but if I reading it right it may be an overreaction by Trueman & ultimately much ado bout nothing. This is definitely Pilgrim territory in terms of clarification however.

BigThumbUp That is my take on it as well, hence why I thought I would give this one over to others who are a little more knowledgeable than I am.
If this matter had not become personal (long story), I might be inclined not to put much effort into this one.

I did find out that some claim the Eternal Subordination of the Son, was not held by the Reformers (egalitarians among this group). Yet those who believe in this teaching, say it was held by the Reformers.
I have not had time to check into these claims however.

Tom
Posted By: Anthony C. Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:40 AM
Interesting, usually the concern is about the motivations of the perspective more than just the legitimacy of it.... but I'm still not sure I get it in this case.... confused
Posted By: gotribe Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:49 PM
Good morning, Tom!

I'd love to read Truman and Goligher's stance on the Trinity that sparked this whole controversy. Can you direct me to the source of all this?

Thanks,
Kim
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Sun Jun 12, 2016 1:37 PM
Since God does not change, i.e., neither in His dealings with men nor and especially in His nature/essense, then it cannot be postulated that the Son was at one time not subordinate to the Father. EVERYTHING about God exists eternally, including His decrees.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Sun Jun 12, 2016 1:40 PM
Hiya Kim!! thewave

Ditto on your question. It would be very interesting to actually read their argument for their position. BigThumbUp
Posted By: Tom Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:26 AM
Originally Posted by gotribe
Good morning, Tom!

I'd love to read Truman and Goligher's stance on the Trinity that sparked this whole controversy. Can you direct me to the source of all this?

Thanks,
Kim

Kim

In the opening sentence of the article I provided, if you click on the name Truman, I think you will find what you are looking for.
But I have taken the liberty to copy the link for you.
Would love some feedback on the article itself.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/fahrenheit-381#.V137YLsrLIU

Tom
Posted By: John_C Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:08 PM
Kim, I think this is it.

http://theaquilareport.com/fahrenheit-381/
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:05 PM
John,

Thanks for the link. I read through Trueman's article and found it quite good but wanting more. So, I found another article by Carl Trueman here: Continuing Down this Path, Complementarians Lose. This one really turns the lights on and explains in much better ways, IMO, than the first article what the issue is. I can summarize it simply, and I hope not too much so:

1. Historic creedal Christianity: God is one and three persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are eternally equal in essence, power and authority. This is a statement concerning the ontological/immanent Trinity, i.e., what is God in His very being.

2. Historic creedal Christianity also affirms that there is a "functional subordination" within the three equal persons. This statement concerns the "Economic Trinity", i.e., how God functions and the relationship between the three persons of the Godhead.

Now, this new teaching, to which Trueman is criticizing, seems at best to be confusing the ontological Trinity; God as He is with the economic Trinity, and in the end destroys the very essense of God's essense. grin Again to put the matter as simply as I can, eternally God is one consisting of three persons who are eternally and infinitely equal in ALL things. There is NO subordination BY NATURE in the Trinity. This is what the Nicene, Anathanasian, and Chaldeconian creeds affirm and to which I personally embrace wholly. This other group is at least in danger of denying this truth and in doing so, whether they intend to or not, introduce inferiority/non-equality, within the Godhead. I suspect that those whom Trueman is taking to task would categorically deny this charge. But the issue is not their intention but the result of their teaching.
Posted By: Tom Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:45 AM
Pilgrim
I am confused, are you saying you are agreeing or disagreeing with Trueman?
Your next post seems to indicate you disagree with Trueman?
Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:42 AM
Originally Posted by Tom
Pilgrim
I am confused, are you saying you are agreeing or disagreeing with Trueman?
Your next post seems to indicate you disagree with Trueman?
Tom
I thought I wrote that I was in 100% agreement with Trueman regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, which as he wrote is found in the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds. I do not agree with the ontological subordination view, i.e., I disagree with the view that says there is a subordination of the Son to the Father inherent to His nature (ontological). But there is "functional subordination" by mutual agreement within the Godhead.

Are you clear on that now? grin
Posted By: Tom Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:03 AM
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by Tom
Pilgrim
I am confused, are you saying you are agreeing or disagreeing with Trueman?
Your next post seems to indicate you disagree with Trueman?
Tom
I thought I wrote that I was in 100% agreement with Trueman regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, which as he wrote is found in the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds. I do not agree with the ontological subordination view, i.e., I disagree with the view that says there is a subordination of the Son to the Father inherent to His nature (ontological). But there is "functional subordination" by mutual agreement within the Godhead.

Are you clear on that now? grin

Pilgrim
Ok thank you for clearing this up. As you put it, that is actually my view as well. However, I must have missed the point that issue was about ontological subordination view. Perhaps I did this because when reading these kind of things, it stretches the grey matter in my brain. giggle


Tom
Posted By: gotribe Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:10 PM
Thanks for the link, John!
Posted By: gotribe Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:15 PM
Thanks for the link, Pilgrim!

I've read through the various links and found that this sums it up for me:

"there is considerable damage done both to our understanding of the Trinity and also to our understanding of men and women and how we relate to each other. ESS has a trickle down effect on doctrine in many areas. Despite its claims to the contrary, it makes the Son inferior to the Father and misinterprets aspects of the work of redemption."

I think this gets down to why this is not just a friendly, in-house debate. It is a grave matter and one worthy of a vigorous public challenge.

(Also, am I correct in assuming that Big Eva is a term coined by Trueman to represent the New Calvinist's evangelical presence on the web?)

Posted By: John_C Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:02 PM
I wonder,too, about who is referred as the Big Eva. Would Wayne Grudem and Dennis Burke be considered New Calvinists? Seems as if the New Calvinists according to Trueman are folks like those with The Gospel Coalition.

I might be totally confused on who are the players.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Tue Jun 14, 2016 4:02 PM
Originally Posted by gotribe
(Also, am I correct in assuming that Big Eva is a term coined by Trueman to represent the New Calvinist's evangelical presence on the web?)
Originally Posted by John_C
I wonder,too, about who is referred as the Big Eva. Would Wayne Grudem and Dennis Burke be considered New Calvinists? Seems as if the New Calvinists according to Trueman are folks like those with The Gospel Coalition.

I might be totally confused on who are the players.
From what I've gathered, albeit little, Carl Trueman seems to be the one coining the phrase, "Big EVA". And from some other writings of his, "Big EVA" is a very broad group which includes New Calvinists and The Gospel Coalition. However inclusive it may be, the term is used in a pejorative sense, if I have it right.

Now to be sure, there are some major 'players' in The Gospel Coalition, e.g., Tim Keller, who are also part of the nebulous New Calvinist movement. Whether Grudem and/or Dennis Burke belong to either I don't have a clue. giggle My practice is to dismiss without malice anyone who belongs to any of those groups. evilgrin
Posted By: Mckinley Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:37 PM
Im not sure as well about those players highlighted here,.. but the Gospel Coalition is a very loose group in my opinion especially with Keller,.. each time I hear him in a Q&A I'm always left with a frown on my face,.. trying to figure out what he is saying and what he is not saying,.. very interesting post as I have never heard of the Big EVA, before.
Posted By: Tom Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:09 PM
I think loose is the right word.
There are speakers at some of their conferences that are very Reformed in their doctrine.
I have listened to a few over the years who have made it very clear that they dislike liberal views on things like the creation. In fact they point out how not holding to the 6 24 hour (which Keller doesn't hold to) is a very slippery slope.
Yet try to get to the bottom of why they would be in the same organization as men who are not orthodox and chances are you will not get a response.
I have written to a few of them over the last few years and have not even received one response. Some of these same people I have received responses from before on other matters. I also know people who have tried to find out the reason for this, without any response either.
Tom
Posted By: Anthony C. Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:27 PM
Could Big Eva Face a Trump Moment?
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/post...big-eva-face-a-trump-moment#.V2B2UJApBJ8
Posted By: Tom Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:14 PM
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Since God does not change, i.e., neither in His dealings with men nor and especially in His nature/essense, then it cannot be postulated that the Son was at one time not subordinate to the Father. EVERYTHING about God exists eternally, including His decrees.

Pilgrim
Just to let you know, some of my earlier confusion stems from your quote above.
It appears (at least to me) like you were saying that Christ's subordination to the Father, was ontological, not just functional.
Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Eternal Subordination of the Son - Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:52 PM
Originally Posted by Tom
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Since God does not change, i.e., neither in His dealings with men nor and especially in His nature/essense, then it cannot be postulated that the Son was at one time not subordinate to the Father. EVERYTHING about God exists eternally, including His decrees.

Pilgrim
Just to let you know, some of my earlier confusion stems from your quote above.
It appears (at least to me) like you were saying that Christ's subordination to the Father, was ontological, not just functional.
Tom
nope There is no mention of 'ontological' in the quote. The statement was meant to be UNIVERSAL in scope. The issue of ontological vs. functional re: subordination wasn't brought up. So, as far as I'm concerned, the statement is accurate albeit some, such as yourself, might be confused if that is all one read. grin

So, once again... Subordination of the Son to the Father does not apply to God's essense (ontological Trinity). The subordination of the Son to the Father is strictly functional which exists eternally since God is not subject to time.
© The Highway