In the last post, Scott Gordon garnered 233 comments surrounding the subject of Egalitarianism. Those commenting followed the usual lines; What about Deborah, Lydia, Phoebe, Priscilla? It seemed that some believe that submission is a bad word. Today, as in many cases, the words are changing because the biblical word has been so perverted. Submission, it seems, has been used as a curse word by feminist agenda advocates aligning those who advocate submission with wife abusers. It seems now that subordination is being substituted for the term of submission.
Is there a Difference in “Eternal Subordination” and “Submission“?
I say there is! It seems that some desire to argue that the eternal subordination advocated by the The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood is the same as submission of the woman to the man in a marriage. Please do not get me wrong. I understand that the CBM&W is arguing this as an example, but I do not believe I have read where they advocate the woman’s creation is inferior to the creation of a man. The CBM&W merely gives an example as to the proper theological basis for the husband and wife relationship and how they are to function. Orthodox teaching is that the Father is the source (1 John 1:1) of the Son and the Spirit. The Son is eternally generated by the Father (John 3:16; Heb. 1), and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son (John 15:26). The Father is therefore correctly identified as the First Person of the Trinity.
Moreover, the economic Trinity (how the Persons work) indicates the essential Trinity (who the Godhead is). Consider the working relations (economics) of the Trinity. We know that the Son submitted Himself to the Father (cf. Gethsemane). We also know that the Spirit is sent by the Father and in turn by the Son (John 14:26, 15:26). The economic priority of the Father thus also indicates that there is an essential priority of the Father that does not violate the equality of the Son and the Spirit. The Son’s submission to the Father does not make Him less than who He is, it means that He willingly surrendered to the economic structure of the Godhead.
It seems that the Bible is full of clear teaching that Jesus submitted to direction within the Godhead structure. Mark 3:12 should be fully researched for those who would argue that Jesus, while fully man and fully God, made decisions on His own as God. Jesus clearly submitted himself within the subordinate structure of the Godhead. There seems to be a “slight of hand” that some use as a redefinition of the word “subordination.” When it comes to the relationship of the husband and wife I will always use the term “submission“. That way the “equality of being yet willing to yield” is properly maintained.
Maybe you disagree. That is alright because as Dr. Pete Schemm has clearly researched there is room for a view within Christian Orthodoxy that is different from the “Eternal Subordination” view. When using the word “subordinationism“, the word strictly refers to the Son being subordinate in relationship, thus it refers to the economy of the relationship of the Trinity. But others have taken the word “subordinationism” and have tried to place this teaching in a relationship with Arius’ heretical teaching. The huge difference in using “subordinationism” and Arius’ teaching centers on what Arius taught about Jesus. Arius taught that Jesus was created by the Father which is not what “subordinationism” teaches. “Subordinationism” merely follows the economy of God in directing the various actions of each Person of the Trinity. Would one believe that each person in the Trinity would act according to it’s own will? I think not!
As you disagree let me ask that you do me a favor. We can all agree the Bible tells us in the Ephesians 5:32 passage on the husband and wife is a direct illustration of Christ and the Church. With that in mind, as you debate here, identify what you believe the relationship between the three Persons of the one Godhead is. Exactly how do you see them relating to one another? Also, in that relation how does the submission of Jesus to the Father relate to the submission of the wife to the husband?
First off, I don’t believe the term “subordinate”, meaning “placed in or occupying a lower class, rank, or position : inferior”, applies to Jesus in relationship to His Heavenly Father. The Second definition … ” submissive to or controlled by authority…” comes closer, perhaps. But if Jesus is God, He’s God.
The only direct analogy with man, IMO, is the reference to how husband and wives should relate to each other. And if you believe the whole passage about that, then the husband’s “headship” of the wife MUST BE completely analogous to Jesus’ Headship of the church, including His making Himself “of no reputation” and sacrificing completely His own personal desires to the good of those He came to save.
A few examples don’t prove scripture, but I’ve yet to see that model fail.
WRT men having authority women, in general, I think that’s a flawed example. Bigtime.
Brother Bob,
Would you say there ever was a time that Jesus’ role was subordinate to the role of the Father?
Blessings,
Tim
the concept of “submission” automatically implies ontological equality. being instructed to “submit” proves the beginning assumption is equality, therefore the instruction is needed.
Brother Bob,
One more thing. You ascribe a definition to “subordination” that is not the same as has been ascribed to “Eternal Subordination”
Dr. Bruce Ware defines Eternal Subordination as follows: The eternal subordination of the Son means that Jesus Christ is eternally the Son of God, equal in essence and in eternal divine nature with the Father, that the Father exercises eternal authority over the Son in function, and the Son eternally submits to the authority of the father.
Dr. Jeff Robinson articulates this definition as seen in scripture as such: intra-trinitarian authority/submission structure in Scripture
I would encourage you to read Dr. Robinson’s four part article explaining this doctrine here, here, here, here, & here
This series certainly places this doctrine in a tight scriptural, historical, and pastoral context.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Two things:
1. Jesus is not “sub ordo,” or of a lesser order. You are obviously not advocating this. However that is what the latin phrase means. For more effective communication, I DO think the word should be abandoned and replaced with something like “eternally submissive.”
2. I have asked this question on another blog and am still waiting for an answer. But since you posted this thread, I would like to hear your opinion: In your understanding of “eternal submissiveness” of the Son to the Father, do you think the Son’s divine will is or is not in 100% agreement with the Father’s divine will?
His grace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Brother if,
You posted before I could further respond to Brother Bob. Please see Dr. Bruce Ware’s definition. I believe you will find that neither he, nor anyone else that holds to this doctrine, is advocating anything less that what you have just defined ontologically.
Brother FME,
I also refer you to Dr. Ware’s definition. I could agree that the term of “Eternal Submissiveness” would work and do not quite understand why the term “subordination” was chosen. However, according to Dr. Ware’s definition, there is nothing theologically suspect about using this term in accordance with defining the roles of the Trinity.
I have admitted that I would rather have seen the term “submission” used. However, remember the national outcry the last time that term was advanced?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Thank you for the reference.
Do you think the Son’s divine will is or is not in 100% agreement with the Father’s divine will?
His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Middle East,
The Son is always submissive to the Father, and the Father is always well pleased with the Son. And, yes, the Son’s will is 100% in agreement with the Father’s will. They agree 100% on everything, and they are made of the same substance, or essence. They are also the same in character.
But, for someone to say that the Son is not submissive to the Father is very dangerous. If they are saying that the Son does not always do the will of His Father, then are they not getting dangerously close to denying the Trinity, and suggesting that the Son sins(goes against the Father’s will)?
I mean, for someone to suggest that Jesus is not always submissive to the Father, just to try to make a point about women not being submissive to their husbands, or to make some other radical feminist point, is very dangerous ground…is it not?
David
From the Middle East,
You write “Jesus is not “sub ordo,” or of a lesser order. However that is what the latin phrase means..” FME, while the Latin can mean that, it is not necessary that it does mean that, anymore than From the Middle East can mean Israel but that it is not necessary that it does mean Israel. You may very well mean Boston.
Further, when language switches disciplines, the words often lose their hold on literalness and take on different nuances. But who am I to be giving you a language lesson? I’m quite sure you see the point.
We have to allow the theology under question some bit of slack to see precisely how they employ the term. Are these theologians–Boyce, Dagg, Mullins, Shedd, Hodge, Strong, Bloesch, Erickson, Geisler, Ware–employing the term with your literalistic definition when they speak explicitly of the “subordination of the Son to the Father”? I think not.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Peter,
I do see your point and even agree that “when language switches disciplines, the words often lose their hold on literalness and take on different nuances.”
However, after re-reading comment #5, it seems clear that my point was not that Tim, or anyone else, is using the term subordinate in the traditional sense of the word. Rather I was simply voicing my opinion that “for more effective communication” the term should be dropped for one that is more accurate in this day and time. There are two basic reasons I would still hold this opinion.
1. Subordinate, the way I have heard it used in conversation, normally implies less importance either in function or essence while submissive implies a volitional act on the part of the one submitting. Maybe this is not a shared experience.
2. “Of a lesser order” is not only the literal meaning of “subordinate,” but also the historical definition with regard to Church history. While Subordinationism does differ from Arianism, it is nonetheless considered heresy by most Christian traditions.
Again, I was not attempting to imply Brother Tim or anyone else (including the authors in your list) are referring to heresy in their use(s) of the term. However, it would seem to me that using language which implies inferiority in common language and is associated with a heresy in Church history would not be the best choice of language when defending a concept to other Christians. But who am I to give you a lesson in communication or Church History ;^)
God’s mercy be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
(not Boston or Israel)
brother Tim,
I have never met or heard of a complementarian who does not understand the fundamental and complete ontological equality of men and women.
I guess the danger that ocurs when the economic trinity is denied (that there are different functions and relationships within the trinitarian natrure of God) is that the ontological tri-unity is soon denied, and one descends to tritheism.
Steve
Brother Tim,
Good article…. I will give my two cents concerning the use and understanding of these words.
The context of the Ephesians passage demands that the Spirit of God is about the gifting of His body and that He has done something significant and with purpose for “all” the hearers. “Submission”, “subordination” and the like do appear to provide English translations with some directive as to the meaning of such a word, although the Apostle Paul has something more significant to inform as we see Christ in one another (at Ephesus) as the church (stones) continue to understand the relationship and responsibility to those that have been called out to serve. An Americanized type of understanding of the word “submission” is not the precise teaching of the passage, and is probably the reason the term does not occur in most formal equivalent translations of Holy Scripture.
I believe the key to understanding the precise use of hupatassomai in relationship to each individual stone of the body of Christ (the church), is to understand the relationship of “each” with respect to the purposes of God in Christ in the gifting of each newly birthed stone in the Spirit. The “subordination” as some like to assert of Christ to the Father seems to define the eternal purpose to realize the relationship for the church (stones, called out ones) as well,., yet in the context of “service”, not “positional order” revealing ontogenic substance. The context here is how the Spirit has made Himself available to direct the will of the individual to obey for the edification of the church, and that fact is essential to the understanding of “hupatassomai” in relationship to husband and wife. Such that, it is not the “positional order” that is the loci of meaning (although there is an eternal basis of order in ontological relationships), but the focal meaning is “service” to the body (called out ones) as Christ is for His church.
Ephesians 5:17-33 “So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (18) And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, (19) speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; (20) always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; (21) and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. (22) Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. (24) But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. (25) Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, (26) so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, (27) that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. (28) So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; (29) for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, (30) because we are members of His body. (31) FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. (32) This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. (33) Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.”
You see, Christ was serving, sanctifying, presenting, loving, nourishing, etc. to supply meaning to hupatassomai. This is where we must understand the Apostles encouragement in our relationship to our Spouses for the benefit of the individual stones that are called out to form the body of Christ. That is the will of the Lord.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
How come I’m left scratching my head after every post that you write? Brother, talk clearer. When I read your comments I feel like I’ve just stepped into a Presidential debate where neither candidate wants to say what he really thinks, so they dance all the way around the issue with a lot of talk.
Or, maybe I’m just dumb, and I cant understand the stratosphere that you’ve reached….
David
We hear a lot about the woman’s place of submission and little about the command to the husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church. Which command do you suppose is broken most often? I’m willing to bet it is broken by husbands even though it is the wife’s command to submit that is spoken of most often. Ironic.
Also. If Christ’s will is 100% in line with the Father’s, then submission is a meaningless term. The incarnate Christ’s will was not always in line with the Father’s, which is why His earthly submission has meaning. That’s why I don’t agree with the doctrine of eternal subordination.
FME,
Thank you for your courteous reply. And I am happy to know from whence thou art not, even though understandably I cannot know from whence thou art…
Not to belabor the point–for I think I understand why you object still–your two points are not convincing still.
First, FME, you assert the “way [you] have heard it used in conversation, normally implies less importance either in function or essence…” (italics mine). While the former is readily admissible, the latter is not.
About what, may I ask, was the content where subordination was employed to suggest “less importance [in] essence”? For me, it surely must have been converse not of theology proper.
Secondly, you mention again the raw definition of “subordinate”: “Of a lesser order” is not only the literal meaning of “subordinate,” but also the historical definition with regard to Church history.”
I’m sorry to say, FME, I’m not convinced the Latin bears the “literal” meaning you suggest, nor with the apparent finality with which you speak.
For example, McKim’s Westminster Dictionary of Theology says, under the entry “subordination”:
Interestingly, while the The American Heritage Dictionary, in the etymology entry for “subordination” does mention the Medieval Latin as “to put in a lower rank” it also equally records a very prominent second nuance: “Latin sub-, sub- + Latin ?rdin?re, to set in order (from ?rd?, ?rdin-, order.”
Thus, to insist on “the literal meaning” of subordination seems, at least the way I see it, to suffocate the term.
All this aside, it still makes little sense to insist that, because of the way one employs terms in casual conversation–which is the way I understood your first point–that one must, consequently, drop a word from more technical discussions. That seems to do severe injustice toward nuanced theologians who ought to possess every right to discourse in technical language as does the medical profession, for example.
Just because “digit” is employed by the masses in common discourse to refer to 0-9 Arabic numbers, surely gives no reasonable motive for medical physicians to discontinue using “digit” to refer to fingers and toes (which interestingly, is the primary usage of the term, as well as its literal definition).
Still I am concerned that no one has engaged to date–either here or elsewhere I’ve mentioned this–that a hefty chorus of evangelical theologians have, without embarrassment or hindrance, embraced the very term “subordination” when referring to interpersonal relations between the Persons of the Triune God, theologians of such caliber including James P. Boyce, John L. Dagg, E.Y. Mullins, A. H. Strong, A.A. Hodge, C. H. Hodge, Millard Erickson, Donald Bloesch, and Norman Geisler.
It seems to me, at bare minimum, this catalog of theologues demonstrates definitively that this is not a new understanding of subordination–not to mention a confused understanding of subordination–a subordination of function, but never of being.
With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Peter,
Thank you for your courteous reply as well. I must admit that I do prefer common language to nuanced theological language as the former is easier to my simple mind to comprehend.
That being said, I do understand the need for nuanced theological language. The discussion between you and me is, literally, just semantics ;^)
Regarding your first question, you are correct in your assumption. I assure you that during no conversation I have had, in recent memory, was the essence of the Logos considered less important or subordinate to the essence of the Father.
Regarding your astute research on the etymology of “sub ordo,” very well done. Since the desire to delve deeper into the sordid history of latin words does not exist within my simple mind, I humbly plead ignorance and grant that, like most words, this word/phrase can be properly used in a multitude of ways. However, I continue to question the insistence of using a word, in a theological discussion, that has strong ties to heresy in Church history when there is a completely valid alternative available.
I did hear your request for someone to deal with the “catalog of theologues” who have, and continue to, employ the term “subordination.” Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I will not comment on my view of the “eternal submission (subordination)” of the Logos to the Father until Tim returns with an answer to my question in comment #7. Not that anyone is waiting with bated breath for my opinion on the matter.
His peace be your brother,
From the Middle East
Bill,
great point. When my pastor preaches on this subject he tells the men to tune out when he is discussing the submission issues as the scripture is not speaking to us at that point. He also tells us that we have enough problems with the loving our wives as Christ loved the church – that is total and complete sacrifice.
IF the men would commit to that total and complete sacrifice for thier wives – do you think we would be having these discussions. I submit no.
Brother Vol,
You and I know you are not dumb at all…. (I think you may have hurt my feelings)
But,…. I was just trying to bring out the view that the “word” (hupatassomai) used by the Apostle at this juncture in Ephesians is better described as “subject” which delivers a better illustration for how husbands and wives serve each other in marriage….I’ll put my point into a “Living Translation” but not using those translators type of exegesis.
Hupatassomai is best understood as “subject”, not submission (as in the Living Translation). “Subject” better describes how Christ loved the church and it is also a distinct portrayal of His obedience to the Father and His being servant to the church. “Submit” is a word that depicts order where “subject” is a word that presents obedience to a God ordained reality for the church. This also provides a clearer view of the relationship of the persons of the Trinity being coeternal and coequal.
Blessings,
Chris
Sadly:
This discussion will change few or no minds.
For some it can be said as follows–
women-submission-good
men-submission–no way
Maybe Scott can chime in with some comments and then we may end up with more than 233 comments.
Chris,
I hope that I didnt hurt your feelings. If so, I apologize.
The word, “submit,” is a good word.
Tom, the next time a policman pulls you over, tell him that you dont submit…see what he says. :)
David
David:
I will gladly submit to the police person if he or she stops me–wink-wink.
David:
You said to me–”Tom, the next time a policman pulls you over, tell him that you dont submit…see what he says. ” I ask you if a woman police person pulls you over will you submit?
Brother FME,
I apologize for my absence, but I am sure you understand when the call of ministry is more important than monitoring the comment section of SBC Today. :)
Because I have to answer a question so far back in the discussion I will copy it here then answer it.
Do you think the Son’s divine will is or is not in 100% agreement with the Father’s divine will?
That depends on one’s belief of where Jesus’ statement; not my will, but thine be done came from. Did He respond out of his fullness of humanity, or did He respond out of his fullness of Divinity? That statement alone clearly reveals a submission to the Father’s purpose. Oh, it also clearly reveals a subordinate of relationship decisions.
So to answer your question allow me to just punt. I believe the Father is the source of the Son and the Spirit. The Son is eternally generated by the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son. Anything further, such as trying to determine if the Son’s will is the same as the Father’s borders too close to heresy for me to give an answer.
To All,
I presented this article just as a follow-up to Brother Scotts. I have referenced us to the material that I used as a basis for this article in comment #4. I would encourage us all to follow that material as that is the definition of subordination that I am using.
As we continue this dialog, I must admit it is very interesting. As Dr. Philip Cary states in an article; It is still rather common for evangelicals to pray “in the name of God,” for instance, without mention Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. This makes it increasingly common for the younger generation of evangelicals–my students–to talk of a “personal relationship with God” without mentioning Jesus Christ. A non-Trinitarian experience of personal relationship with God, in other words, is abstract and generic and not quite Christian. His words are something worth considering as we delve into the importance of understanding the Trinity. Will we ever understand it? No! Can we further understand it? Probably. As you know, trying to define the Trinity is a dance on the edge of heresy. I encourage us all to be very careful.
Blessings,
Tim
FME,
Thanks. I’ll give you the last word.
As for your query to Tim, I think David Worley became the sacrificial lamb there. He vicariously responded in Tim’s stead.
I’m curious as to the significance of the answer and its anticipated consequence; just from reading it, I cannot tell.
Are you familiar with the Medieval controversy “Monothelitism”? Is this that about which you are inquiring?
With that, I am…
Peter
Tim,
Sorry, my brother. I posted virtually the same time as you. The comment above actually assumed ministry duties (in my mind).
Additionally, it by no means assumed you were stalling nor that David was replacing you because you could not answer for yourself.
Grace, my brother. With that, I am…
Peter
Brother David, (Vol)
I was only kidding about hurting my feelings….no apologies necessary. I was simply trying to be more precise with what Paul wrote in Ephesians which helps us understand the relationship of the husband and wife.
The relationship that the Apostle is speaking of is far more than “submission”. The word “submit” is a poor translation for the current context. My point is that some translations are better than others in getting to the precise meaning of what the Apostle is trying to teach us. The word “submit” is a less precise understanding in this section and some translations have picked up on it…. and yes, I too, would submit to the policeman that has pulled me over for speeding, but the policeman has not pulled me over because “I was loving him”. Christ was never pulled over by the Father, …He “willingly” served and made himself “subject” to the will of the Father. That is the meaning of this passage. There is an important distinction in “submission” and “subject” especially in the context of this portion of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.
I believe that if you ignore the distinction, you miss an important opportunity to teach the church how to “walk in love”.
Ephesians 5:1-2 “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; (2) and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma”.
That’s the reason I started out with the “head scratcher”, trying to illustrate a bit of the distinction that Paul has allowed us to know in this portion of the letter that Tim has presented to us. I was not trying to be vague at all,…but more precise.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Tim,
Figured you were out comforting the hurt or proclaiming the Good News. Definitely much more productive than this conversation!
With all due respect, I do not think, in light of what you have written here, you have the luxury of punting on this one brother. Unless, that is, you can articulate how it is submission might occur in the absence of disagreement. An example if you do not mind: If my will (desire) is to use some extra money our family has to buy a fishing pole and my wife’s is the same and we do so, there is no submission. However, if my will is buy a fishing pole and hers is to buy a book and we buy a book, I have submitted my will to hers.
Illustrations aside, the reason this question is so significant to this discussion, from my perspective, is that it brings to light our concept(s) of unity within the Godhead. The position you have articulated here implies there is disagreement within the Godhead. I do not agree with that view, but do want to hear your explanation of how there could be 100% agreement within the Godhead and still be a need for submission (subordination). I do not understand this and realize it is very possible I am missing something here. Help?
Before bouncing the ball back into your court, I would like to make one very important note. It seems some, not necessarily you, are using Jesus’ earthly statements where he submits his will to the Father’s to prove eternal submission. Though I have yet to see anyone in the blogosphere arguing for Jesus’ lack of submission during his earthly ministry, if someone is, I disagree. The “hypostatic union” is the orthodox position held by most traditions since Chalcedon. It is clear from Scripture that his human nature was submitted to the Father as he is just like us, yet without sin. He fully submitted his humanity to the Divine Will. We agree on this point.
To sum up this rather disconnected comment:
1. You have punted on the question of whether or not Jesus’ divine will is in 100% agreement with the Father. My simple mind does not understand how would it be possible for you to hold one of the options (that of 100% agreement) given your position of eternal submission (subordination) since your position implies disagreement. Why is the option of 100% agreement still on the table as far as you are concerned?
2. If you do not mind, I would prefer we keep Jesus’ human nature out of this, we agree he submitted (subordinated) it to the Father.
His peace be your in abundance,
From the Middle East
Brother Peter,
See my comment #28 for my concerns here.
I will respond to Brother 007 soon, but wanted to hear Brother Tim’s input prior to responding.
Yes, I am somewhat familiar with Monothelitism, though it is difficult to spell. My understanding is that it is simply a re-packaged version of, or at least closely related to, Monophysitism, but may be wrong here.
His peace be yours,
From the Middle East
Brother Peter,
Just looked up Monothelitism… couldn’t help it!
Two nature yet one will? Sounds like saying two natures yet one nature to me. Apparently few, if any, Eastern traditions and none in the West accept the position as valid anyway… good call from my perspective.
May His face shine upon you,
From the Middle East
Brother 007,
You said:
The Son is always submissive to the Father, and the Father is always well pleased with the Son. And, yes, the Son’s will is 100% in agreement with the Father’s will. They agree 100% on everything, and they are made of the same substance, or essence. They are also the same in character.
It would seem to me, given your affirmation that the divine will of the Son is in 100% agreement with the Father’s will, that eternal submission is actually impossible. If they are already in agreement, how is there ever submission?
His grace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Brother FME,
If you are not going to allow me to punt, let me answer it this way.
Do you think the Son’s divine will is or is not in 100% agreement with the Father’s divine will? Yes, but not necessarily.
The reason is that each will within the Trinity is unique to each person of the Trinity. Our problem rests in the fact that we are using “Will” to describe three different issues. “Will” can be used to describe the seat of choice, it can be used to describe desires (those options from which one chooses), and it can be used to describe that which is already chosen.
I would argue Biblical evidence abounds that there are three different seats of choice corresponding to the three different Persons of the Trinity. The Bible tells us that Jesus was “led” by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. I would also argue the Bible reveals there is agreement within the Trinity as to the things already chosen. However, the Bible is silent on the desires part of the “Will“. Unless, as I have done, pointed to Jesus’ incarnate desire to ask the Father to allow the cup to pass from Him.
I told you I wanted to punt. :)
Blessings,
Tim
Middle East,
You are trying to take this into an area that we really dont know, cant know, nor will we know this side of Heaven. You said,”do want to hear your explanation of how there could be 100% agreement within the Godhead and still be a need for submission (subordination). I do not understand this and realize it is very possible I am missing something here. Help?”
The point is….as the Bible teaches us….that the Son is always submissive to the Father…always. Could He have been unsubmissive? Again, We’re diving into areas that we really cant be sure of, here. But, I would say, yes, He must have that opportunity…especially when Jesus lived down here in a fleshy body in this sinful world. But, the point is….Jesus always did what the Father wanted. And, the Father was and is always well pleased with His Son. But, according to the Bible…Jesus does submit to the will of the Father. Just like in the Garden of Gethsemane….Jesus prayed,”not my will, but yours be done.”
Tom, I submit to the police…whether they are male or female….because they are the authority. The Bible teaches me to submit to authority, just like it teaches women to submit to their husbands. :)
Chris, I now understand where you’re going, and I agree that as we love the Lord that men and women should be on the same page with the same hearts and with the same mindset….and, if husbands loved the Lord and loved their wife like they should, then it might not be a question of submission, or not. But, we do not live in a perfect world. And, the Bible does teach that the husband should lead his family. The husband has been given that responsiblity. Under God, he should be the leader of his home. Thus, if the husband and wife cant agree on something…due to whatever might be keeping one of the other from knowing God’s will in the matter….the wife should submit to her husband. If he believes that they should not buy a new car, but she really, really, really wants one….then she should submit to her husband and not buy one. Of course, you’d hope that they could sit down and talk it over and come to some sort of mutual agreement and understanding….but alas, we dont live in a pristene, perfect place.
Well, I’ve gotta go….I’m fixin to go and preach for the Methodist Sr. Adult meeting this morning. I’m preaching on eternal security and baptism by immersion. wink wink
:)
David
David:
So tell me really, is a wife to submit to her husband. Can you not see how dangerous that could be.
David:
So tell me really, is a wife to submit to her husband. Can you not see how dangerous that could be.
David:
So tell me really, is a wife to submit to her husband. Can you not see how dangerous that could be.
Brother Tim,
Glad you did not punt!
Please define “seat of choice” as I am not familiar with this terminology.
His grace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Brother 007,
I hope you had great fellowship with our Methodist brothers and sisters and that iron sharpened iron. I know I am being sharpened today in the blogosphere!
A few notes and a couple of questions:
1. If you do not mind, I would prefer we keep Jesus’ human nature out of this, I agree with you that he submitted it to the Father. The discussion concerns his divine nature.
2. The question is not whether or not he had the opportunity to disobey the Father. The question is not even whether or not he had the opportunity to disagree with the Father. Both of these questions are like asking whether or not God can make a box than he cannot get out of – they are nonsensical questions since God (every aspect of him) is always true to his nature. Rather, the question is whether or not one aspect of the Godhead (Jesus’ divine nature in this discussion) desired a certain decision at some point in eternity, saw another person of the Godhead’s will (the Father’s) was not the same. Subsequently one (Jesus’ divine nature) submitted to the other (the Father). If so, does that not compromise the divinity of at least one aspect of the Godhead – in this case Jesus’ divine nature?
3. If we are “diving into areas that we really can’t be sure of,” why are you so certain of the doctrine of “eternal submission?” wink wink
To think of the vastness of God and how this is discussion is simple and basic to him causes me to feel honored that he would lower himself to take on human nature. What an infinitely merciful and gracious God we serve!
His wisdom be your in abundance,
From the Middle East
Brother FME,
Each Person of the Trinity has the ability to independently make a choice. We are speaking of ability not options.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Vol,
You see, my points are not really anything new or “stratospheric”, they simply point to the fact of the obedience and perfect will of Christ seen in the light of the Fathers perfect will. Obedience is a distinct reality when compared to submission,… especially in light of the passage in Ephesians and its implications on a husband and a wife.
That is why Paul can say that a wife is to be “subject” to their husband and it “makes sense” to those in the church. If the Apostle meant to teach this in relationship to living in an imperfect world, instead of in relationship to Christ who is perfect, then he would have led us to believe the expression to mean submissive in order,…. but that does not seem to be the Apostles point.
Paul’s point is that Christ has obeyed because of purpose and will of which he makes clear in his introduction.
Ephesian 1:9-12 “He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him (10) with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him (11) also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, (12) to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.”
So the relationship of a wife being subject to her husband is maintained only by the perfect work of Christ to the praise of His Glory. When the teaching is expressed as order and that type of teaching becomes our understanding of the word sometimes translated to “submission”, we lose the importance of Christ and the purpose of obedience.
Blessings,
Chris
Middle East,
I’m back from my time with the Methodist. I am now munching on a tasty tuna on wheat with all the fixin’s from Subway. It’s really good.
I can be sure of eternal submission because it’s taught in the Bible. I dont really think that we can answer your #2, because that’s just not something that we’re told in the Bible; is it? All we’re told is that the Son always does the will of His Father. He always does it. This does not make Him less divine, no more than a wife submitting to the will of her husband makes her less valued. It’s just the way it is.
Tom,
Why in the world would it be dangerous for a woman to submit to her husband?
David
David:
How about your’re answering this question–”Why in the world would it be dangerous for a woman to submit to her husband?”
I think you know the answer(s) but I’ll give you a chance to answer the question first. And if you can not think of one reason-ask PP.
Tom,
Ask PP? Why?
I will say this Tom…even though I dont know what you’re talking about with Dr. Patterson….that a wife should be submissive to her husband…in the Lord.
IOW, I dont believe that if a woman’s husband tells her to rob a bank, that she’s under obligation to rob a bank. She does not have to submit to things that would go against the will of God. God’s laws are higher than man’s laws. God should be obeyed over man. So, if a man tells his wife to not go to Church, then she should tell him to stick a sock in his mouth and count to ten, and then she should go to Church.
David
Now Vol,…
That is a little mean spirited for the wife to tell him to “stick a sock in it and count to ten”.
…don’t you think.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Tim,
How do you see that the expression Paul is using in Ephesians 5:32 is different for Christ and the Father vs. husband and wife? Are you arguing that there is a difference?
I take it that you are carrying this forward from ….
Ephesians 5:23-24 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. (24) But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
…….. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
This is aiming at the one flesh teaching just previous to 32…. But what is the difference? Are you advancing that Paul is making a distinction here…. by putting Christ into one category “subordination” and Man/Woman into another category “submission”?
If so, where do you see him making that distinction in the passage?
Maybe I’m reading your entire article from a different point of view….not sure now after reading the other comments.
Blessings,
Chris
Tom,
Are you married? If so, are there ever times in your marriage where there is disagreement? (A silly question, I know, but I have to ask). If so, how do you handle it?
If you are single, but plan on marrying, how do you see yourself handling disagreements with a future wife?
Brother Chris,
Thank you for returning us to the original thesis of the post. I have always said that I believe “submission” is the better term. I do not disagree with the CBMW in their use of the word “subordination”. I understand their use is in the economy of the Trinity.
How do you see that the expression Paul is using in Ephesians 5:32 is different for Christ and the Father vs. husband and wife? Are you arguing that there is a difference? I see the CBMW using the Eternal Subordination doctrine as only an example to express a basis for the equality of the woman. In the way that Jesus was equal to the Father but the Father is the first person in the Trinity. So, the woman is equal to man though the Man is the head of the marriage relationship.
Blessings,
Tim
David:
The sad thing is you do know what I am talking about as it relates to pp.
Tom,
The sad thing is that you do know the thing about PP, and you continue to bring it up.
Why should I know everything that has ever happened to Dr. Patterson? I have enough trouble keeping up with my own life.
David
David:
“The sad thing is you do know what I am talking about as it relates to pp.”
Why are you being so evasive. I’m sure you read various blogs and you know the recent one that deals with pp and submission and how dangerous submission can be and the very poor advice he gave the woman that came to him for help.
Would you have given her the same advice as pp?
Thanks Tim,
I thought that may have been the direction of thought. I am still pushing for more of a connection with “subject” and “obedience” than “submission” in this context. But I do see where these terms can survive in the same arena.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Tim,
Thank you for the definition, I’ll go with “desire.” Now that I understand the three different definitions for “will,” here are my thoughts on your analysis in comment #32:
You said:
I would argue Biblical evidence abounds that there are three different seats of choice corresponding to the three different Persons of the Trinity.
My response:
Agreed. The ability to make a decision is what indicates one has a will (distinct desires). If Jesus did not have this ability, he would not be distinct from the other persons of the Godhead.
You said:
I would also argue the Bible reveals there is agreement within the Trinity as to the things already chosen.
My response:
I really do not know how to respond to this one as you are speaking in terms of time and the Godhead (including the divine nature of the Logos) exists independent of time.
You said:
However, the Bible is silent on the desires part of the “Will“. Unless, as I have done, pointed to Jesus’ incarnate desire to ask the Father to allow the cup to pass from Him.
My response:
First, the incarnate desire is just that, in flesh. Again, no one is arguing his human nature was not tempted with unholy desires – defined as anything not in unity with the divine will.
Second, the Bible does not explicitly state “The wills (desires) of all aspects of the Godhead are always in complete unity.” However, if all aspects (persons) of the Godhead are righteous, just, holy, loving, etc, then they should be in perpetual unity in all things. Their respective wills are consistent with their nature, which is divine. Oh, that the community of God on this Earth would attain the standard of unity set for us by the Godhead!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother 007,
Gotta love Subway! How was your time with our Methodist brothers and sisters?
Getting back on topic… You said you “can be sure of eternal submission because it’s taught in the Bible.” Please direct me to the passages which teach this concept as I have not noticed them in my studies.
You also said:
I dont really think that we can answer your #2, because that’s just not something that we’re told in the Bible; is it?
My response:
Maybe the point of my #2 was not clear. Please allow me to re-word it.
1. Jesus has a divine nature which is 100% good in every way.
2. Jesus’ will (desires) is (are) consistent with his nature.
3. The Father’s nature is divine and 100% good in every way.
4. The Father’s will (desires) is (are) consistent with his nature.
5. If Jesus desires something not consistent with the Father’s desires, this indicates one of their desires is not 100% good.
6. Therefore it is revealed that one of the two is not divine.
You also said:
All we’re told is that the Son always does the will of His Father. He always does it. This does not make Him less divine…
My response:
I agree that Jesus’ divinity is not in question due to him submitting his human nature to the Father’s divine will (which must, by definition, be consistent with Jesus’ divine will as well). Again, where in the Bible is it stated, or implied, that Jesus submitted his divine will to the Father’s divine will anytime prior to the incarnation?
His mercy be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Brother FME,
Let us agree that we are trying to argue how many angels dance on the head of a pin. :)
I believe the word “submission” is the better word. However, God the Father is the first person in the Trinity and thus I can agree with the doctrine of Eternal Subordination.
Blessings,
Tim
FME,
It seems you continue to push buttons, my brother (or sister), and I can appreciate that. If I could just jump in for a comment or two.
In the first comment to David, you insisted the question at issue was:
First, to refer to the Eternal Second Person of the Triune God as an “aspect of the Godhead”, FME, may win the most unbiblical phrase of the thread. Nor is it better to say “Jesus’ divine nature.” The problem with that is, it splits up God’s eternal deity into so much kindling wood. There’s definitively notthree divine natures in God but one.
Yet, this division is obviously carried further in your comment: “one aspect of the Godhead…desired a certain decision at some point in eternity, saw another person of the Godhead’s will (the Father’s) was not the same.” For me, this sounds very much like introducing disharmony into the infinite Trinity.
Nor is your question, inevitable, FME: “Subsequently one… submitted to the other… If so, does that not compromise the divinity of at least one aspect of the Godhead?…” Not unless you assume that there actually existed this “disagreement” in the Godhead which led to one “aspect” telling the other “aspect” to take a hike.
My question is, how do you ask such a question toward the position of someone who embraces the ETERNAL functional subordination of the Son to the Father? If it is eternal, there is no “time” when one looked at the other and said ‘get on board’ which would be absurd.
While I appreciate your very visible attraction for logic, I have to confess that your position–or perhaps query is a better suited term–is becoming increasingly uncomfortable in the way I personally speak about our blessed Lord.
Frankly, your logical syllogism posted later about the inter-personal relations of the Triune God is strange to me, FME.
First, you presume that Divine Infinite Being is subject to mathematical certainty. Do you posses proof for such a bold assumption? What evidence could assist me in evaluating such an assertion since our gracious Lord has chosen not to reveal that His personal yet infinite psyche is or is not subject to my pea-brained logic?
If there is a Scripture to help me here, know I’m all ears, my FME. Yet, unless you’re prepared to argue such a proposition, what is the point of your logical syllogism? What truth or error are you attempting to address through, at best, sheer speculation?
Secondly, the syllogism is riddled with problems, FME. Again, the first very clear problem is splitting the nature of “Jesus” [Actually, a much more Biblical title here is Son] from the nature of the Father, when, in fact, there are not two natures in God, but one [Again, accuracy would demand speaking of Trinity but you've chosen to address only Father & Son]. For my part, FME, while I’m sure you do not embrace such, the way it is presented could be mistaken for tritheism.
Following from that, you proceed the very same route with will/desire, but oddly leave open once again the possibility for disharmony in the Godhead: “If Jesus desires something not consistent with the Father’s desires…” Sorry, FME, I am just not getting it.
At this juncture, the best thing you could do to clear thing up is drop the query and simply state as succinctly as possible what you believe Scripture to teach about the interpersonal relations of the three Person of the Triune God.
With that, I am…
Peter
Brother FME,
Are you saying that the Son of Man has subjected himself to the Father in time, relative to the purpose of Love which existed before time? And that this love is not diminished in any way by a notion of order, yet in purpose makes subject His “will” consistent to all persons of God revealed in scripture known as the Trinity.
14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself”
Since God’s purpose is never confusing among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, …the Son of Man in all His remarks are consistent with the purposes of God, being the same.
As I read your comments it seems that is where you are leaning. Is that close?
Blessings,
Chris
I get frustrated reading about submission, nd always directed in the womans direction. I commented above in response to Bill’s comment, and I will say again. The biggest problem we have here is NOT woman’s submission but MAN’s requirement to love his wife as Christ loved the Church.
I have a suggestion for the the writers on this blog – do an indepth study on what that means, and what the results of a man loving his wife as Christ loves the church.
I would submit to you all that NO man will have an issue with his wife if he first followed that commandment. And that NO woman should be expected to submit to thier husbands if he does not live up to his commandment from God. Submission will follow Love, and it wont be noticed by either. It will just be there as a natural outflowing of a Godly marriage.
If we are displaying this type of Love that was modeled to us, then there is no worry about eternal submission or just earthly. Christ did not so much as submit himself to the Fathers will while on earth as to Love the church so much that he gave his life for it. So instead of talking about a wife submitting, I would love to see what you all think it means for a man to love his wife as Christ Loved the Church
If a man were ever to come to me and complain that his wife was not submitting to him, after I quit laughing at him, I would ask how he demonstrates his love to her, how has he died for her, what sacrifices has he made for her. Is coming home from work so tired that he cant help her, is he a woraholic that has no time for her, is he a lazy bum that wont get off the couch and help her.
Brother Peter,
I am not sure if pushing your buttons is a good thing or not. It is usually a good thing for me as it causing me to pray, read and think through my theology and that usually impacts my life. I do, however, offer my sincere apologies if I have offended you with my comments, questions or position(s).
There are several questions in your comment #53. I will attempt to cover them all, but may miss one or two. Please bring it to my attention if something is not clear – though my availability will be limited today.
First, as to the nature of the Godhead, I agree with the orthodox evangelical view. One essence, three eternally existent persons. With regards to the the nature of Jesus (the Son as you prefer), I again agree with the orthodox evangelical view. He is fully man and fully divine (the hypostatic union).
Second, the issues you have with some of my comments seem to have more to do with Brother Tim’s position, or my description of it. Let’s look at those:
First, you take issue with my splitting “up god’s eternal deity into so much kindling wood.” That is exactly the issue I have with the idea of eternal subordination. The three persons of the Godhead are of the same essence (or nature), thus are in UNITY. They do not disagree because it is against their nature. The next couple of questions you ask are in the same vein.
You then question how there can be disagreement within the eternal Godhead at some point in time. Good question. I would recommend you direct that question to Brother Tim as it seems to me there is eternal unity within the Godhead.
With regard to whether or not God is subject to our logic, please allow me to offer an apology as I absolutely did not desire to imply this. I do not assume our infinite God is subject to our understanding or mathematical formulas. The syllogism was a simply an attempt to show what happens when we imply there is disagreement/disunity within the Godhead. It seems you agree there is perfect unity within the Godhead, do you not?
You further questioned the splitting of the nature of the Son from the Father in the syllogism. Again, I agree with you that there is one divine nature and three persons who share it. Would this not imply that all persons who share this divine nature have the same desires? Do the desires of a being not reflect his nature? Is there disunity among the persons of the Godhead? My answers are yes, yes and no. However, it is not I who is promoting disagreement between the persons of the Godhead in the comment stream.
Finally, with regards to the use of the term “aspect,” I cannot imagine why it is you do not like this term. Unless it is because of its association with the heresy of Modalism. Please do not concern yourself with this association as I do not mean it in that way, rather I mean it in the sense of “person.” wink wink… but don’t worry, I do not hold too tightly the terminology employed and am more than willing to cease using the word for another that may be more appropriate, perhaps “person” would be the better choice for effective communication.
Thank you again, brother for the conversation
His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Brother Tim,
We may very well be discussing something out of our (humanity’s) league. However, I cannot agree with the doctrine of eternal subordination as it brings into question the unity of the Godhead from my perspective.
His mercy be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Thanks Jim. Interesting that no one picked up the question of which command they think is broken more, the one to the husband or the one to the wife. We sure talk about the command given to the wife a lot.
We also don’t hear much about mutual submission, which the bible also speaks of. Can none envision an instance where the husband can and should submit to the wife? Where he might defer to her greater experience or wisdom, even in spiritual matters?
Brother Chris,
I am not sure I completely understand what you said. This is what I am saying:
The divine Godhead has always been in 100% unity. At the incarnation, one person of the Godhead took on human nature while retaining his divine nature. He was tempted just as we are, but submitted his human nature to THE divine nature. His struggle was never between his divine nature and the Father as they are in unity. His struggle was between his human nature and divine (Gethsemane, “came to do my Father’s will,” etc). He not only did what we could not do in living in obedience to the divine will, but is also our model for the struggle between our human nature and the Spirit who lives in us.
and/or
The Son, the Father and the Spirit all desire the same things because they are all of the same divine essence (nature). The Son became flesh, out of an incomprehensible love, and submitted himself fully to the unified will of the Godhead. Submission was only needed due to the human nature which was tempted to break the unity of the Godhead. He is our model.
What do you think?
His peace be yours my brother,
From the Middle East
Tom,
Refresh my memory about Dr. Patterson and the situation you’re tallking about. I think I know, but I’m not sure. And, did you read what I wrote in comment #41. I think I know what you’re talking about, and I believe that my comment in #41 will answer that.
If not, let me say it this way….if a man is beating a woman, I’d tell her to get out and report him to the police, and then press charges. Do not back down. Press charges. Let the authorities take care of that lowdown creep.
So, no, I dont think that submission means to keep letting a man use a woman as a punching bag. There are authorities to take care of this abuse of authority by the creep that beats his wife.
David
JIm,
When you said,”If a man were ever to come to me and complain that his wife was not submitting to him, after I quit laughing at him, I would ask how he demonstrates his love to her, how has he died for her, what sacrifices has he made for her. Is coming home from work so tired that he cant help her, is he a woraholic that has no time for her, is he a lazy bum that wont get off the couch and help her.”
That was a good one. So true. If a man would love his wife like he should, then she’d have no trouble following him. It’s how women are made. They respond. Of course, with all things….we cant say that all women would respond with submission; because women have a sinful nature just like the man has. And, some women want to usurp authority….they want to be the boss.
But, generally, if a man would love his wife like he’s supposed to, then she would love to follow his lead.
David
Middle East,
I, like Peter, think that you’re trying to split things that cant be split. And, you’re delving into realms of logic that we just cant know for certainty. Peter says things way better than I do. We’re both from TN, but he’s Andy Griffith, and I’m Ernest T. Bart Barber is Gomer, and I think that Tim Rogers is Barney Fife. Robin Foster is Aunt Bee. :)
But, some things that we can know, Middle East, is that Jesus always submits to the will of the Father, and the Father is always well pleased with His Son.
David
Brother 007,
Then I will assume you agree with Brother Peter when he says the three persons share the same nature and there is never disharmony within the Godhead. The conclusion is that there is no need for submission apart from the Son’s human nature. I agree.
Peace to you my brother,
From the Middle East
David:
Thank you for your comment #60. It is a miracle–you and I actually agree for once–wink-wink.
David:
Thank you for your comment #60. It is a miracle–you and I actually agree for once–wink-wink.
David:
Thank you for your comment #60. It is a miracle–you and I actually agree for once–wink-wink.
Brother FTME,
I think we are in sync here….
I would probably be more bold to say that Jesus (Son of Man) was “subject” to, increasing the thought of submissive relative to the passage in Ephesians (definitely splitting hairs, but I think “subject” leads to a better understanding of love) ….Subject is “Being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority…in other words this was the eternal plan…. Where submission is “ To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority, may give the impression of unnecessary tension within the Godhead.” All in all, both are extremely close concepts.
I think Jim Champion has focused on the reason that “subject” (obedience) holds more value to love as he explained in his earlier comment.
Another great example is Abigail (1 Samuel 25), being a Godly woman, she made decisions consistent to be “subject” to God and her husband.
Blessings,
Chris
Middle East,
No, you’re trying to put words into my mouth. What I said was…to the effect of….you cant divide Jesus into human and divine…He’s both. He was submissive to the Father always….always. That’s what we can know.
And, you’re right…there’s never disharmony in the Godhead….Jesus always submits to the will of the Father, and the Father is always well pleased with His Son.
Why do you want to go with “no need for submission” on this? It’s what the Bible teaches us, whether we can understand it, or not.
David
After reading too many of the comments several times and then reading other posts, I am left wondering why there are those who say that to state that Jesus was submissive to the Will of God, is to lower His diety?
“not my Will, but thine be done”.
Why is this so hard to grasp and why does this cause some to think the diety is being lowered?
Jesus would not be God if He did not submit. It is the beauty of the Trinity.
Honestly Tim,
I thought the question in the post was about the Son being subject to the Father as the wife is to the husband with respect to those called out by God….. as the Apostle exhorts…Ephesians 5:2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
This is simple obedience for those who are born again…..at least in my mind.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim G:
Putting aside the issue of women pastors–do you support the firing of Dr. Kloud?
What is your position on women in leadership positions in the SBC?
Tim G:
Putting aside the issue of women pastors–do you support the firing of Dr. Kloud?
What is your position on women in leadership positions in the SBC?
Tim G:
Putting aside the issue of women pastors–do you support the firing of Dr. Kloud?
What is your position on women in leadership positions in the SBC?
Brother 007,
Apologies if you feel as if I was trying to put words in your mouth. This was not my intent.
With regards to the Son “always” being submissive to the Father, you will will have to show me, outside of the Incarnation and the Son’s human nature, where this is indicated in the Scriptures.
You also said:
And, you’re right…there’s never disharmony in the Godhead….Jesus always submits to the will of the Father, and the Father is always well pleased with His Son… Why do you want to go with “no need for submission” on this?
My answer:
Because submission cannot exist apart from disharmony. It makes no sense. If we agree on a matter there is no need for either one of us to submit to the other because we are in agreement. Submission is only possible when there is disagreement. Hopefully this clarifies my understanding of the unity of the Godhead.
Peace to you my brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Tim,
You asked “why there are those who say that to state that Jesus was submissive to the Will of God, is to lower His diety?”
If you are referring to his human nature, it does not lower his deity as he was tempted, just as we are, to rebel against the Divine, but did not give in to the temptation.
If you are referring to his divine nature (shared with the Father & Spirit), then it is my opinion this indicates disharmony (rebellion) within the Godhead.
Again, the issue is not with Jesus’ submission to the Father, but with the concept of ETERNAL submission (subordination).
May His face shine upon you,
From the Middle East
Tim: I think you are missing a main point. No one is arguing that Jesus was never submissive. It is the question of whether God the Son is eternally submissive or subordinate. At the time of the incarnation, Jesus’ will (to not be crucified) was not the Father’s will (for Him to be crucified). Therefore Jesus submitted to the Father’s will rather than His own. But I (and others) do not believe that submission is eternal, for that would imply a disharmony of the wills of the persons of the Trinity.
We should also keep in mind that if Jesus had cried out to be saved, the Father would have submitted to Jesus’ will and sent legions of angels to rescue him.
It should be obvious that we are all trying to grasp something that is somewhat out of our reach. Therefore I think it is unwise, as some have done, to take a doctrine as difficult as the eternal subordination of the Son, of which there is hardly unanimity even within orthodox Christianity, and use it to provide support for the earthly subordination of women.
Brother Chris,
Splitting hairs eh? Language and the meaning of words is fun!
But you and Brother Jim do bring up the application side of this theology. According to what I am arguing here, the application is unity within the marriage. Why? Our model for community is the Godhead which knows no disharmony – my understanding is that all sides agree on this issue. I should act out of pure love for my wife within our marriage. How does this play out…
If Mrs. FME and I are in disagreement over a matter, one (or both) of us is out of line with the divine will. We need to both be in line with the divine will prior to acting. Our decisions should be made in unity not in submission. This will require us to re-examine our desires to see if they come from the Spirit within or the “old man.” When they come from the “old man,” we must allow the Spirit to rule and transformation to occur.
In submitting (or subjecting) my “flesh” to the Spirit, I will consider her “desires” as more important than mine. In doing this we will be in line with the the unified, self-sacrificial, selfless, loving Godhead who created us and we will bring glory and honor to him by reflecting the healthy relationship he has created us and modeled for us.
And may I add that while this is demonstrated more intensely within the marriage relationship, it is not limited to the marriage relationship alone. Rather, this is how we should conduct ourselves within all relationships. It applies to my relationship with you as a brother, your relationship with Brother Tim, my relationship with others in our local community of believers, etc, etc.
Orthodoxy begats orthopraxy.
God’s peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Christ went to the Cross willingly. It was not a matter of subordination, it was Christ’s will for Himself.
Brother FTME,
Exactly! (#73) That is the Apostles exhortation in the Ephesian 5 passage.
As we say around our congregation. That’s good stuff!
Blessings,
Chris
FME,
Thanks. May I be candid and simply request it be put aside that I either expected an apology since you felt I may be “offended” or that my metaphor about “pushing buttons” was a personal allusion to myself. I assure you neither is the case.
If I am offended, it is more probable my problem than another’s—at least that’s the way I try to proceed with it. If I think I deserve an apology, it is only right that I request an apology.
One thing more along the line of conversation, FME: you mentioned to another the funness of “splitting hairs.” Well I can appreciate tight logic/distinctions as much as anybody, my brother/sister. But honestly, I’m swamped presently. If what you’d enjoy in an exchange with me is to be entertained by “splitting hairs”, I’d kindly request you spit that one out in the open asap. You’ll save me a lot of time, loving your neighbor as yourself in the process.
I will engage anyone for as long as necessary for him/her to understand, as best I can, what I’m trying to say and/or to understand the position from the other side. But I assure you, I have no time to spare in funning around with sophistry—at least not right now.
So, now that that’s tidied up, I find the response you gave me remarkable and wonder precisely what it is, from your perspective, about which we disagree. In fact, to hear you tell it, it is Tim & I who are at odds with one another and my questions should be addressed to him.
I defer, however, and question your wisdom in dropping the query as I suggested and just say it out in so many plain, succinct words what it is you think the Scripture teaches and why.
Instead, I am charged with confusing “your description” of Tim’s view with your own, which, in my view, substantiates quietly nicely in fact the confusing nature of your comments. I tried to put them together, making sense of them but was never really satisfied. And know I rarely, if ever, say that to someone who is as obviously studied as you appear to be and I mean that sincerely.
Nonetheless I will suggest again—it would be best to drop the sophistry pursuit and spell out what it is you’d like to say about the nature of the interpersonal relations of the Triune God and precisely what you think flawed about the view which embraces the eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father.
I understand fully if you feel you do not need to do such. And I am perfectly willing to leave the conversation as is. There’s always another day, our Lord willing.
Grace.
With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Tom,
I have taken your comment #74 out of the comments as it does not accentuate the argument. You seem to desire to attack a person not the differences in the argument. If you would like to reword your comment in order to address the argument, it will stand.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother’s Tom and David,
I have removed both of your comments #78 & 79. The reason? They do not reflect the thesis of this post. In the future, if we discuss the issue of Dr. Klouda, you will be welcome to state your views. However, until then they are removed from these comments. I ask that you remain on topic as to the post of Eternal Subordination of the Son.
Blessings,
Tim
Sister Debbie,
Christ went to the Cross willingly. It was not a matter of subordination, it was Christ’s will for Himself.
When Jesus said; “Not my will, but Thine be done“. was He just using words to fill up space? I don’t think so. It seems that your statement advocates that Jesus Incarnate had two wills. That would be, I believe, illogical.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim Rogers:
Wow! I ask you two legitimate questions that have every thing in the world to do with the thesis of this post and you censor my comments. How many other posters to this blog do you censor?
Tim Rogers:
Wow! I ask you two legitimate questions that have every thing in the world to do with the thesis of this post and you censor my comments. How many other posters to this blog do you censor?
Tim Rogers:
Wow! I ask you two legitimate questions that have every thing in the world to do with the thesis of this post and you censor my comments. How many other posters to this blog do you censor?
Brother Tom,
Please do not be offended by my moderation of your comments. It is not my desire to offend you or anyone. This is the second time that I referenced you to the thesis of this post. Dr. Klouda is not the thesis, neither is your false statement about her being fired. I ask that you abide by the guidelines that we have established.
If you are wondering why I have done this please note the following statement from our Commenting Policies section.
Unity, not uniformity, is our goal We do not expect everyone to agree. The resource managers do not agree on everything. However, we do demand respectful dialog and will not tolerate sniping just to get a negative response from someone.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim: Even in the passage that you keep repeating, Christ was 100% human and 100% God. That is difficult for anyone to understand. But I believe the Bible teaches that Christ had a human will that was distinct from, but not contrary to His divine will.
His divine will was never contrary to God the Father. He is God. God The Son.
“Thy will be done” was also in agreement with his will as God the Son.
I really hate to go too deep because it’s so beyond comprehension that there doesn’t need to be a further explanation, it’s one of those things we must just believe because it’s in scripture.
Sister Debbie,
You are now advocating a dichotomy of “wills” with Jesus. However, let me follow your argument for a moment.
I believe the Bible teaches that Christ had a human will that was distinct from, but not contrary to His divine will. is what you said.
First, where does the Bible teach this? Second, are you attaching will to the essence of Jesus or are you attaching will to the personhood of Jesus?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim:The Father, Son and Spirit have one will. There can be no ordering, no obedience. Christ was even obedient as a human. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not divided in power, work, or being. Scripture? All through scripture from Genesis to Revelation.
With what you are advocating, and which Wayne Grudem made even more popular with the release of his book in the 1990′s, you have to be going to his personhood, even if you would deny it. Christ on earth was 100% God, 100% human. He went through the same temptations we did but without sin. He couldn’t sin. He was 100% God. Scripture interprets scripture Tim. He is no longer human but 100% God, fully equal in all ways. What God the Father is, Christ is, the Holy Spirit is. All are God, all are equal. Period. Now you cannot subordinate God. To try and explain it further than that goes beyond anyone’s comprehension.
Bob Cleveland made a good point in that you are trying to explain something fully that can never be fully explained. You can’t have the answer. And this certainly isn’t it. Your view is straight out of Grudem, but it is neither historical, at least in orthodoxy, nor is it Biblical. In fact history when read through with a fine tooth comb shows that those who have been said to agree with this doctrine, were in fact opposed to it.
I have never said that before, as I have always been an agree to disagree person. But this is questioning the equality of Christ, even if you say it doesn’t and on that I cannot be a agree to disagree person. This doctrine has no place in any Christian church or organization.
This one doctrine the Egalitarians have right.
Brother Peter,
It seems to me that my position on the matter is clearly spelled out in comment #56. I do accept that, since it is my own writing, there may be some concepts there which are vague to others. If this is the case, please feel free to ask me direct questions. You might also see the two comments addressed to Brother Chris (#59 and #73) as they might assist you in understanding my position.
Finally, clarity is my goal. While I may have a strange way of asking questions prior to stating my opinion, I have found it most beneficial in understanding another’s position prior to considering whether I agree with it or not. I do however understand how my dialogue with Brother Tim could be confusing. I will be the first to admit my writing is lacking greatly but no sophistry was intended.
May God’s power, love and grace be yours,
From the Middle East
Sister Debbie,
You write; The Father, Son, and Spirit are not divided in power, work, or being. Scripture? All through scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Quote the references that reveal The Father, Son, and Spirit are not divided in work.
You also write; Christ on earth was 100% God, 100% human. He went through the same temptations we did but without sin. He couldn’t sin. He was 100% God. Scripture interprets scripture Tim. He is no longer human but 100% God, fully equal in all ways. So, you are now advocating a spiritual resurrection?
You even write; What God the Father is, Christ is, the Holy Spirit is. All are God, all are equal. Period. No one has ever argued that Jesus is not God. That is the spin the egalitarians are trying to place on this argument.
You finally write; Now you cannot subordinate God. Please tell me where the Bible says that Jesus’ rightful place is now located? Or, are we back to this non-human Jesus that was spiritually raised from the dead? Maybe you know where his body is now located? You could write a book on that. No, you probably need to not do that, as there already is one. ;)
Blessings,
Tim
Brother FME,
You write; I do however understand how my dialogue with Brother Tim could be confusing. That is because I am as confused over this subject as everyone else. :) This is a very confusing subject to approach that is why I agree with Dr. Peter Scheem in the critique that I referenced from the main article.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
The review by Schemm of Giles book was very interesting. This debate is certainly an old one, but it appears the teaching implications are important for the church. One important thought that Schemm brought forward in Giles thesis was….
“Giles ignores the accepted distinction between these terms (subordination and subordnationism). Instead of offering an objective assessment of the possibility of the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son, Giles ignores the very helpful categorical distinction made between subordination and subordinationism (337, 339, 340, 342, 345, 347). Grudem, Kovach and Schemm, and Letham all affirm the ontological equality of the Son with the Father and in so doing reject the heresy of onto-logical subordinationism.8 Furthermore, those who authored the 1999 Sydney Doctrine Report argue for an ontological basis of the subordination of the Son (335), yet another expression within the bounds of orthodoxy. They also affirm the complete equality of being/essence of the Son even if it is expressed in a more Eastern (derived) sense.9 In short, most of the theologians cited in this chapter have been unfairly represented, if not misrepresented.”
One of the underlying themes of the review by Schemm is the importance of actually looking to what scripture says with respect to “subordination” and his encouragement is not to look to extra biblical tradition to set the definition. That is good advise and seems to be where the difficulty for both sides of the argument rests. On one side you have many that say “let the men rule”…on the other side you have those that say “women will never be subject to men”. The Ephesian passage helps rescue our floundering minds and focuses us on the real context, which is “the church”, and the work of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the plan of God. Where the church is the context,…obedience in love provides for us a better definition than “subordination”. So Christ was acting precisely as planned, not dependent upon order,..meaning that the purpose of God is never a matter of order (secondary), it is always a matter of being (primary).
Hebrews 9: (11) “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; (12) and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”
The Hebrew writer proves that the incarnation of Christ was not to prove order, but it was to show, proclaim, or reveal to us… that “eternal redemption” is not of this creation.
Have a wonderful Lord’s Day.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim: You are focusing on Christ’s earthly ministry where His humanness(if that is even a word) was submissive to the Father. His being God , His will was in harmony with God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. He came to earth willingly to die for you and I. He could not sin, even in His humanness. Genesis to Revelation points to Christ. That is what I believe the Bible teaches.
He is no longer human, but 100% God. I hope that you think about what that Biblically entails. That is where my comment is focusing. He is not subordinate. He is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
Sister Debbie,
He is no longer human, but 100% God. You err in that you do not know the Scripture. There never was a time that Jesus was not 100% God.
Blessings,
Tim
And Tim you are twisting what I am saying and I believe you know this. This is a serious issue, not a debate to see how I can take a statement and twist it around. I am concerned and heartbroken that the doctrine of eternal subordination is being believed. It’s wrong Tim. End of story.
Sister Debbie,
This is a serious issue, not a debate to see how I can take a statement and twist it around. You are correct it is a serious issue and that is the reason that our words must be chosen for preciseness. I have twisted nothing. I have merely stated what you have to reveal the difficulty in debating this issue. If you will read Dr. Schemm’s article that I have linked you will see this doctrine is not a “new” doctrine as some claim.
I am sorry for your heartbroken situation, but the fact remains that it is a doctrine that has been around for hundreds of years. Now we have your pastor bringing a charge of heresy on Godly leaders because they dare take this doctrine and express the truthfulness of it. And you seem to believe that your statement, It’s wrong Tim. End of story. trumps all of the scholarly dialog and debate trying to work through this doctrine. I am not that arrogant as I have said in the opening article I believe “submission is a better word. However, I will not state; “This is what I believe and if you differ, then you are wrong. End of story.” That is arrogance and ignorance on parade.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Just a quick point. The following is a quote I posted at my site from gender egalitarian, Craig Keener. It is important because of its clear admonition to folks who continue to yell “You’re wrong!” “Heretical teaching!” “Unitarian!” “You make Jesus less!”
With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Peter,
Thanks for the insightful quote. You are correct, Dr. Keener is an egalitarian, but as you notice with the good Dr. he is also very level headed when approaching this difficult subject.
Blessings,
Tim
No Tim, submission is not even the word to use. You may deem me arrogant and ignorant if that pleases you, although my comment would surely be deleted if I said the same to you, with a long explanation as to why. But, I am simply taking scripture as it reads without placing logic in it, which as a former Fundamentalist, I know is how many of the doctrines believed are reached. Sometimes too much discussion is bad. It’s kind of like the story in Lancelot where he is injured by a javelin, and there are three doctors standing around for hours discussing which way it should be pulled out. It’s ridiculous. Just pull it out. Which is exactly what Merlin did.
The doctrine of the Trinity is beyond logic. That is why it has been discussed for hundreds of years. But to discuss it like this is to lower Christ and that is something that is not a agree to disagree issue. It’s a issue of throw this doctrine out, or separate from those who hold it. At least for me. I do consider it heresy. And if that’s ignorant, just remember God uses the foolish to confound the wise. Check your history, many creeds have rejected and many theologians have Biblically refuted it.
Debbie,
I think you may have missed the very good approach to this by one of your own, Craig Keener. Why not at consider what he admonishes us to consider?
With that, I am…
Peter
Tim,
In you comment #79 to Debbie, you say, “Christ went to the Cross willingly. It was not a matter of subordination, it was Christ’s will for Himself. When Jesus said; “Not my will, but Thine be done“, was He just using words to fill up space? I don’t think so. It seems that your statement advocates that Jesus Incarnate had two wills. That would be, I believe, illogical.”
This is a variation on an argument from silence. Because you do not see a logical alternative to why Jesus may have said this except as proof that His will needed to be subordinated to God’s, you are (in effect) saying there is no other reason why He said this except to prove that His will needed to be subordinated to God. Two points: first, as Debbie and others have said, there could have been other reasons (i.e., that Jesus was affirming the Divine will without meaning that His will was different), and two, you are using human logic as a presupposition. I would suggest that God is not necessarily bound by that, and I would cite as evidence Isaiah 55:8, “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord.”
Modern Biblical scholarship, especially the more conservative and fundamentalist branches of, it seems to me, have fallen victim to using science and philosophy (i.e., logic) to extrapolite unspoken “truths” from the Bible. And what so many fail to realize is that by putting science and philosophy in that position, science and philosophy become arbitors of Bible truth. In effect, they (you?) are granting science and philosophy power and authority over God’s written Word. I know that the the last thing they (you?) intend, and that they (you?) would not do so with any degree of intentionality, but as I see it, that is exactly what has happened.
John,
I am not our Brother Tim, I understand, and trust I am not presumptuous in responding but I could not help notice in your comment a glare that I cannot resist. Forgive me ;^)
You make the second objection to Tim’s point your major concern, I think; especially it is the second on which you elaborate in the bulk of your comment. Number 2 states:
My first response is, what else may one presume, John, when attempting to make sense out of difficult passages of Scripture? Would you prefer human illogic as a presumption?
There are times when formal logic can very much hinder understanding. I mentioned earlier in the thread about logical syllogisms being obstacles, for example. Yet, Tim surely was no where close to such in his interpretation as I can tell.
But my second response happens to be the glare that pulled me here. Critiquing Tim’s conclusion, you write: “This is a variation on an argument from silence.” May I ask you, John, what specifically is “and argument from silence”? Is it not straight out of a textbook on Logic? Indeed I will buy you a Starbucks if you can show me a credible college textbook which does not list the classic argumentum ad silentio or “argument from silence” as one of its focus in understanding logic.
Given such, how it is that we (i.e., conservative and fundamentalist branches) must buy a ticket but you get to ride the pony free.
Grace, John. With that, I am…
Peter
Debbie, John Farriss, and all who cringe at the phrase “eternal subordination,
If Christ is not functionally submissive to the Father, then in what sense can He be called “the Son”? In other words, Why is there a Son and a Father if there is no submission in function?
Or again… what exactly makes Christ “the Son”?
Debbie,
Is Christ “non-human” now following the ascension?
Peter,
If you will review my various exchanges with others (including yourself), I think you will find that I seek honest dialogue. And as for a “glare”? You’ll have to explain that one to me.
You seem to be interpreting my comment as “either/or,” either you use logic or you use illogic. That is hardly my point, and if I failed to make that sufficiently plain, my appologies. What I was trying to express is that one can take logic too far, and I believe that is what our friend Tim was doing. Logic taken too far beyond its foundations is dangerous. My grandfather’s blacksmith shop was built as a temporary building back around 1900. Consequently, it had no 2X4′s in it, only a 4X4 about every 4 feet. And when the foundations–which were also wood–deteriorated over time (about the mid-1960s), the building began to lean. My father and I went in and replaced the foundation blocks; and because his father used wooden blocks, my father insisted on replacing them with wooden blocks. Well, they didn’t last 10 years. Grandaddy used the virgin, heart, long-leaf yellow pine that he was harvesting at the time, and Daddy only could get fast-growing loblolly pine, very susceptible to insects and rot, especially if in direct contact with the ground. The construction was “logical” so to speak; but it exceeded the “logical” foundation and eventually collasped. That is the danger when we take a logical construct too far beyond its foundation: it leans, gets ricketey, and eventually collapses. That is the danger I see to Tim’s argument. I hope you’ll pardon my homespun analogy, but that’s just how I think, and after all, you use a “pony and ticket” analogy.
And I suspect that you well know what an argument from silence is. But anyway my take on it is is this: it’s when, because of a lack of (obvious) contradictions, one assumes that there is no contradiction. Now I don’t know Latin (except for a few words and phrases I have picked up here and there–how much have you taken?), but I concede that the old dictum of English common law is, “Silence implies consent,” but we all all know that silence can come from any of several sources, and consent is only one of them. I may not have majored in logic/philosophy in college (actually, I took only Intro to Logic, and majored in Phyics), but I know that arguments built on the premise that silence implies consent are neither foolproof, waterproof, nor always sound. I suspect you do too.
FYI, I consider myself to be theologically conservative and I am an SB pastor, although I do not feel bound to accept every “conservative” construct that comes down the pike.
Because He lives,
John
John Mann,
First: I’ll have to give that some thoughtful prayer.
Second–and this is strictly shooting from the hip: I take the perspective that the “father-son” terminology refers to a relationship between God the Father and God the Son which is not 100%analogous to a human father-son relationship. Consequently, the “subordination” issue, which at least theoritically exists between human fathers and sons, at least during the son’s early years, may not apply the same way (if at all) within the Godhead.
Good question though!
Because He lives,
John
John,
Thanks. First, no hidden message in ‘glare’ (promise!). Just an image that came to mind suggesting ‘caught my eye’. I am unsure how that is connected with the your claim for honest dialogue, however. Nothing I wrote suggested otherwise, I trust.
I think you are getting sidetracked from what I was getting at. Your critique of Tim was your main point and that point was about Tim’s alleged flirtation with an excessive use of logic: “two, you are using human logic as a presupposition.” Yet, you based your critique of Tim with “human logic as a presupposition.” That was my point, John.
Nor did I actually desire a definition of “argument from silence.” Those were rhetorical questions (obviously failed rhetorical questions) designed to show your own use–in this case, formal use–of logic in constructing interpretation.
As for logic that exceeds the “logical foundation” I don’t have a clue what that means.
Hope that helps. With that, I am…
Peter
John (Mann)
Dr. Voluminous has this to say in his treatise on Personal Relations:
Without this the doctrine of the Trinity can never be supported… for without this, the distinction of Persons in the Trinity can never be maintained; and, indeed, without this, there is none at all; take away this, and all distinction ceases… “
Oops
Sorry for the hiccup on the format of the last comment!
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
Your “glare” statement sounded–I don’t know, a little strange, almost as if you took me to suggest I was baiting someone. I’ll take you at your word that it was not meant that way. Such is the failure of written communication when it attempts to convey things usually communicated easily by voice inflections, facial expressions, and the like.
Logic is one thing; logic taken to an extreme, without adequate foundations, is another.
Sorry you don’t understand my explanation. But you know something: you are a smart guy. And if I were a betting man (and I wasn’t even back before I was a Christian), but if I was, I’d bet that if you take a little time, and think and pray on it, you’ll understand my point, even if you do not agree with it.
Because He lives,
John
John Mann: That is a good question. But once again, we can’t go by logic. I keep repeating this, but it’s important. The Trinity is beyond anyone’s comprehension. It’s as beyond comprehension in that the Trinity always were with no beginning and no end.
John Fariss gave a good answer and I agree. To go further, Christ said when you see Him, you see the Father. Both are the same in every way. Their wills are one, therefore one cannot be “obedient” to another. Christ in his humanity was obedient according to the NT.
When did He shed his humanity? I do not know. I believe it could have been at the resurrection. His body was the same body, but I don’t believe He was human any longer due to His appearing and disappearing along with other signs. On this I could be wrong, but I do know He is no longer 100% human, 100% God, but God.
I gave an illustration on my blog when writing on this very subject which may help further explain. I looked at the history at the time the Bible was written. I wrote this in “Jesus is God Pt. 2″
So how do we reconcile these passages? By understanding the time period in which the Bible was written, and the fact that Christ is God. In the culture of Biblical times, a son was equal in every way to his father. For example, a king’s adult son would enjoy the same exact privileges and stature as his father the king. He would be afforded the same respect, treatment, and rights as his father. He was looked upon as equal in every way. So when the people of that time period would read or hear that Christ was the Son of God, this is how it was understood by the people. It’s why the Jews were so angry and wanted to crucify Christ, because Christ was claiming to be equal with the Father God.
The words “beget”, “begotten” that are used in scripture proves his equality to God the Father. These words tells us that He is of the same essence as God the Father.
John 4:34….”Jesus said unto them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work.”
John 5:30…”I can of mine own self do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who has sent me.”
Colossians 1:19…”For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell.”
John (Mann),
I am afraid, my brother, you are destined to have no answer, at least one I am confident you will be able to understand.
My point is still lost to our Brother John (Farriss) but not even close to our sister’s response. How it is that it can be maintained in one statement that “we can’t go by logic. I keep repeating this, but it’s important. The Trinity is beyond anyone’s comprehension.” and no more than a couple of statements later boldly assert “Their wills are one, therefore one cannot be “obedient” to another” (italics mine) clearly escapes me.
The only way it can be concluded that “therefore one cannot be” is through logical deduction. But logical deduction is the very perp condemned! I am open to other suggestions, but I do not think there’ll be any success stories to tell.
What is obvious, it seems to me, is that our sister is giving the old two-step. Common sense is something that is treasured until it works against one’s position. When that takes place, a shout from the mountains is heard–”It’s beyond comprehension! We can’t know! We should not be trying to figure this out by human logic!”
How tragic we did not hear this passion for mystery sooner. For example, when charges of heretical teaching were being cast toward professors in the seminary, where, under the heavens, were these despisers of logic and lovers of mystery? The only way it seems to me that heresy can be shown to be heresy is comparing such with Scripture and logically deducing the consequent–heresy.
Furthermore, if one supposes it cannot be known how the eternal relations within the Triune God eternally operate in unity and distinction, why not just say that is one’s position and that perhaps those who move in that direction may be involved in a bit of speculative theology. Honestly, I think that position is one of integrity and, arguably may stand up to a formidable challenge.
On the other hand, to suppose, as now some who have been in this conversation, that the eternal relations between the Persons of the Trinity is best left to mystery and incomprehension, but do so only after they have publicly charged others not with a bit of speculative theology; rather only after they have definitively and publicly accused named professors of teaching godless, heretical teaching; to now claim we need to leave this in mystery’s care is perhaps the purist form of unmitigated nonsense I have encountered in quite a while, I assure.
The charge of heretical teaching Wade Burleson & Co. hurled toward SBC professors tacitly assumed they had the truth and knew the truth about the eternal relations between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. Consequently, what those men taught about such was a lie–heretical teaching
To now possess the strange audacity to cite divine ignorance after the fire they themselves set has burned to a crisp, smacks of toying presumptuously with our gracious God’s patience.
I have all but given up on this acid of nonsense. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
You addressed your last remarks to John (Mann). But since they were on a public forum rather than in a private e-mail. . . I don’t know, somehow I get the impression (feeling?) they were intended for Debbie & myself. Am I right or wrong?
I still maintain that you can understand my point if you try. Is there anything wrong with saying, “I understand, I just disagree?”
Because He lives,
John
John (Fariss)
The answer, of course, is no. There is nothing wrong at all with saying one disagrees what one understands. Good old S. Covey of 7 Habits fame said “Seek first to understand and then to be understood.” Not bad advice for a Mormon.
I made clear (I thought) that I hadn’t a clue what was meant by logic which exceeds ‘logical foundations’ (or something similar). Nothing’s changed.
Thus to continue citing for me to think real hard about it, John, and because I’m a “smart guy” I’ll presumably get it, is really an endeavor that goes to the back burner actually.
Now, for the record, I mentioned both you and Debbie by name in the comment, so of course I expected you’d read it. But it was intentionally addressed to John (Mann). Nor does that mean you are out of order to respond. I agree. This is a public thread. And, I am glad you did!
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Hey…. Good to see you here John Mann,
It seems Paul was having this same type of dilemma when he was addressing those reading the Galatians letter concerning the Law. He seems to put forth that God has made a promise, using the agency of man (typified in Abraham), to Himself.
(18) For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. (19) Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. (20) Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.
God’s perfect plan included a perfect sacrifice of Himself to appear in history. So, in history our minds are in the process of being renewed so that we may some day understand more clearly the viability of God in three persons as one. God is Spirit, not ordered in a sense that we are to pretend there are differences in the three persons He reveals, but He has appeared in history to reveal the truth of His promise to those being saved to Himself. So that obedience and love can be distinct from any diminishing order or difference of being.
1 Peter 1:20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you.
Rom 5:6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Ephesians 1:9-10 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him (10) with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.
Hebrews 10:11-14 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; (12) but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, (13) waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. (14) For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
God is kind to His eternal family.
Blessings,
Chris
Peter,
Glad I could make your day. But in all candor: when I want to say something to you, I address it to you; I find it neither necessary nor beneficial to triangulate (which is what you did, and what your last comment proves), even in print. I hope that in relationships in your church, you do not do that. It is emotionally and spiritually unhealthy, and leads to a dysfunctional way of relating. Any Christian counselor will tell you that. And. . . I’m pretty sure it isn’t Biblical either. If you can suggest any verses that prove otherwise, please share them with me.
Because He lives,
John
Peter,
You’re just making too much, cotton-pickin’ sense! Thank you, Brother.
David
John (Fariss),
If you have a point toward an idea I raised I’d be more than willing to continue the exchange. However, if you simply want to tit-tat about either the way I communicate or, worse still, imply the way I choose to write is unbiblical, you are welcome to continue; but do not expect me to continue to respond.
That said, first, I wrote as clearly as language could make it–or more precisely, as clearly as my vocabulary could make it–that I addressed the comment to John Mann. Did you not read my response?
Allow me:
Does that say “it was intentionally addressed to John (Mann) but in a triangulate way to John Fariss and Debbie Kaufmann.”? Not from my side of the street.
Also, I further said I mentioned both you and Debbie by name, presuming, of course, since I did so, I’d expect you to read such, if you were reading the thread. It is that simple, at least from my side.
Unfortunately, for reasons strange to me, you press the issue as if I’ve unbiblically breached a sacred trust by suggesting it’s “neither necessary nor beneficial to triangulate” which, according to you, is “emotionally and spiritually unhealthy, and leads to a dysfunctional way of relating,” going so far as to say “Any Christian counselor will tell you that.”
In addition, John, you’re “sure it isn’t Biblical either” and request I “suggest any verses that prove otherwise.”
So let me get this straight. Because I:
that therefore, I:
Well, all I can say is, John, unhappily but deservedly, because of these many evil breaches in trust I have so wickedly committed, there must be irrevocably reserved for me, in Dante’s Hell, an eternal position as the condemned footstool for the burning pope.
More seriously, as I said in the beginning, if you’d like to raise a point about the post I offer, I’d be willing to exchange. But if you want to work this thread–or another for that matter– primarily as a way to strengthen psychologically-driven group dynamics, you are free to do so, John. Nonetheless, I do not anticipate joining in the fun.
I trust you have a wonderful evening.
With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Tim,
This concept of Trinitarian subordination could be argued from many different views. Some might say that the Father in His drawing the elect could not close the deal, so he had to have the help of the Son and the Spirit. Some might say that the Spirit was given last because the power of Christ was not effective to meet out sanctification in those being saved. Some might also try to say that Christ was submissive to Father, in order that he is able to be the sacrifice for sin, as if the Father was wringing His hands in hope that Christ would make it to the end. All of this pretense of order seems to lead to confusion as to the purpose and plan of God and goes against the proposition fact of scripture that ….
2 Corinthians 5:18-19 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, (19) namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Why do you believe it is important for anyone to believe that subordination is real within the Trinity? What would be the purpose in that type of belief or understanding?
Brother Peter, if you have some thoughts…I would like to hear those as well…
Blessings,
Chris
Debbie (#110)
How does one define ‘humanity.’ In other words, when Jesus “shed His humanity,” as you say, what exactly was it that he ‘shed’?
Chris and others,
With Tim’s indulgence, perhaps I could offer an answer to your last question: “Why do you believe it is important for anyone to believe that subordination is real within the Trinity? What would be the purpose in that type of belief or understanding?”
The very nature of the Trinity is relational… what has been referred to as the “perichoresis” in days of old. That is, the internal relationship between the 3 Persons of the Godhead. As has been so wonderfully explained in this thread, as in others, there is a divine and intimate relationship that the Trinity has lived in from all eternity. One could argue (and has) that being “created in the image of God” entails a relational desire. That is, in the image of God, we desire relationship because God is ultimately relational within Himself (the Trinity). If indeed the Son is WILLINGLY submissive to the Father, as I hold that He is, then for one person to be submissive to another person is by no means denigrating.
I hold (in reference to my comments 100-102 above) that the reason the language of “Father” and “Son” is used in Scripture is intentional and not accidental. That is, these titles were revealed by God because they convey something about God for us to learn. Why did God not reveal Himself as Triune by using other titles? Because He was revealing Himself as relational. Why did He choose Father and Son over and against some other designation, ie, Brother and Brother? Because, not only was He revealing a relational nature, but He was revealing how that nature operates. In other words, He was revealing that One Person functions as a Father and the Other as a Son. The only other forseeable reason would be to say that the Father “produced” the Son. That is obviously not a viable answer (Arianism anyone?).
Simply put, the reason the Father/Son relationship is used is to demonstrate the internal function of the perichoretic relationship.
ILLUSTRATION ONLY:
Before his death, my father was the one who was my absolute most trusted friend, save my wife. Even as I become an adult I found great delight in seeking the approval (pleasure) of my dad. This did not imply that he was better or more important than I, it is simply a reflection of our relationship. I honored my father by doing things that pleased him. My will was do his will. Again, FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY.
Finally, what this means is that the will of the Father is to glorify the Son and the will of the Son is to honor the Father. This reflects the Father’s desire for the Son’s glory and the Son’s desire for the Father’s pleasure.
Imagine, if one’s marriage could truly be defines as such. That is, the husband desires for the wife to be seen in a glorious light and the wife desires for the husband to have pleasure in her. Notice that the onus is on the one performing the action. The will of the Father is for the exaltation of the Son and the will of the Son is for the pleasure of the Father. Therefore, when the Son submits to the will of the Father, He Himself is glorified. The will of the husband and the wife become one in that they seek each other’s pleasure, just as does the Father and Son. In other words, a lady is never more Christlike than when she is submissive, and a man is never more in the image of God than when he seeks the “glory” of his wife. And all of this is an outgrowth of a proper understanding of the Trinity.
Now, I have to go to a funeral, so will unavailable for follow up for a little while.
Brother John Mann,
Thank you for explaining the concept, because it is helpful to understand the meaning that is poured into the word submissive. That is the reason I asked the question the way I did, because many people will define submissive in many different ways.
That is also the reason I like to think of “subject” in terms of obedience and love, where submission “can” relate that same concept, but at least in my mind “subject” is a more determinative term based in plan and purpose.
I think what you have described in “relationship” is helpful to understanding more of how God has created man and woman to be pleasing to Him and ultimately glorify Him, which is the emphasis of Ephesians 5.
Thank You,
Chris
Chris,
I can add little to what our brother John has just penned. Thanks John! Great summary.
I will say, the “send” passages in the NT, where the Father “sends” the Son or the Son is “sent” by the Father is indicative of at least an implicit subordination.
Again, not sent because He was lowest on some type of divine totem pole. Only fools and heretics entertain such monstrosities.
Rather sent because God, in His Triune essence, eternally willed it functionally so.
Nor does it seem to me to suggest, as some do, that the Son was subordinate exclusively as the Son of Man or as they put it, when and only when He took on humanness. To the contrary, Scripture says the “Father sent the Son.” The sending took place outside of time and temporalness; this is in eternity.
There is a sense, I suppose, in which it may not be too much too say, the Son was eternally sent; though obviously the NT does not put it quite like that. At least, that’s my present take on it.
Grace, Chris. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2.
Sounds like I struck a nerve.
John Fariss
Brother Peter,
Thanks for the additions. These are important distinctions and the discussion helps everyone to see where they land on the surface without getting to close to a heretical line.
Arius, Athanasius, are two folks to read through and try to understand this theological brain teaser,…one was thought of as heretical the other giving good definition to defense of the persons of the trinity.
Apollinarius taught something close to what some think today in that the Logos assumed the human nature of Christ as its soul. …further meaning that the Logos dwelt in the person of Jesus but was not the person of Jesus in some respect….certainly stepping across the line to heresy.
Good teachers should try to think through these things ….because it brings in many other areas of doctrine that are important.
Blessings,
Chris
Show me ONE place in the OT where Jesus Christ is subordinate to God. You can’t. Because Jesus Christ has always been God. For 33 years he became fully human but still fully God.
Where is Jesus Christ in the OT?
What is He referred to as? That is KEY to all of this.
What you all are trying to do is take His ‘Incarnate’ passages and put them into eternity past and future. Yes, he submitted as Incarnate Son. He ‘emptied’ Himself of Glory. He ‘humbled’ Himself to come. How can someone subordinate do that?
Ware is preaching a JW Jesus. What is different about Ware is that he will admit that Jesus is God then go on to make statements that make Jesus subordinate and lesser than God for all eternity past and future.
The sad part about it is that the drive to have authority over others and make sure women know their place is driving this doctrine that teaches our Savior is LESS than HE is. The need for a ‘chain of command’ on earth is driving this ‘chain of command’ in the Trinity for all eternity past and future.
You should all tremble because this whole doctrine is about having POWER over others. The only way you can do it is to elevate yourselves and lessen Jesus Christ.
Keep in mind Grudem teaches that God is ‘subordinate’ to us when He ‘helps’ us. This is from his systematic theology book. I am amazed you all do not see this for what it is. Have you been blinded?Are your carnal desires for power so blinding you cannot see this for what it is?
Wanda,
I’m surprised anyone is reading this thread now. I happened to have linked to it via email when it was hot. Guess that link is still active.
Sadly, Wanda, rather than make a rejuvinating contribution to a now abandoned thread, you instead come in wildly slinging a stick toward a dozen pinatas, predictably hitting nothing in particular.
If you possess a serious question about anything specific I may have written here, I’d be delighted to engage you about it.
With that, I am…
Peter
P.S. To charge Dr. Ware with “preaching a JW Jesus” is both provocative and grave. If you are correct–though I am quite sure you are not, for I am mildly familiar JWs’ view of Divinity–then your duty is done. If you are incorrect–about which I am certain you unfortunately are–you are a slanderer who needs to repent. Please consider carefully, my sister, before flinging the heresy connection around…
“Sadly, Wanda, rather than make a rejuvinating contribution to a now abandoned thread, you instead come in wildly slinging a stick toward a dozen pinatas, predictably hitting nothing in particular.”
Abandoned? Why not close comments, then?
“If you possess a serious question about anything specific I may have written here, I’d be delighted to engage you about it. ”
You are much too taken with yourself, Peter.
Anything that is meant to elevate man and lessen Jesus Christ is heresy. Just because YOU do not recognize it means nothing. I would not expect you to as your comments communicate much about you.
Wanda,
Why the comments are not closed is something I cannot address. It is the discretion of the bloghost.
At my site, comments close automatically after 10 days–a spamming precaution.
Nor can I address, Wanda, why you would read such a non-provocative statement I made–offering to be fully accountible for my possible guilty part in the vague but universal “what-you-all-are-trying-to-do” accusation you levelled against us here–with immoral overtones, suggesting I am “much too taken with [myself].”
When being candid and verbal about one’s desire for accountibity in what one particularly writes, explicitly avoiding the presumption of speaking for another–which is really all that I intended by my statement–when such is immediately concluded as being unbiblical pride, a seriously condemned sin in Scripture, there is obviously something very twisted at play.
Once again, however, it is hard to avoid the temptation to strike one more up for accusing without the least bit of evidence to convict. That, of course, Wanda, is sadly what you did with Dr. Ware in the first comment.
With that, I am…
Peter
P.S. I sure wish I knew how to break the email link to this post!
Brother Peter,
It may follow the doctrine…”once linked, always linked”.
:)
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Funny! Hope your day is well, my brother. With that, I am…
Peter
Tim and Peter,
Wow Tim, you know how to stir up a good bit of discussion. (He writes quite late to the game.) :)
In comment #9, Peter, you noted a few theologians willing to use subordination. I do not have all of them on my shelves but I do have Erickson. Indeed Erickson does use the term subordination and at the same time asserts it as a temporal relationship – the Incarnation.
To the point of your post Tim, after notified of this rather interesting conversation by a friend, I would contend the issue is not over the word subordination as much as it is the qualifier “eternal.” As to “generation” it may be the semantic nuance of the word that implies a coming into being rather than a pre-existent reality that causes some of the reticence to employ that phrase. Those of an older era may have immediately understood the term differently than we who have modern heresies about Jesus with which we must contend.
What’s more to work backward from a prefaced statement/post on/against egalitarianism toward the Trinity appears to be the wrong way to work toward the matter. I know this is not your doing. But, it does seem that to move from something of a secondary matter (male/female relationship in terms of order) toward a first order matter (the Trinity) is an out of order move. What do you think?
In the end, I am wondering if what Chris argues for in terms of the use submit, or submission is a good way forward. The Ephesian 5 passage which sets up our quick move to chapter 6 sets submission as the order for our human relationships in the community of faith. The manner of mutual submission may well be better to grasp before posturing on men loving and women submitting.
One thing is for sure. Baptists and Southern Baptists should have more conversations on the Trinity. Historically we tend to be quite fearful of the subject lest we fall into the charaismata or worse some sort of “tri-theism” in our attempts to understand quite a mysterious doctrine of the Godhead.