Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Eternal Functional Subordination, Barrett Simply Trinity 21-22 - Coggle…

- - - - 20th Century Trinitarianism (Social Trinity - typically liberal bent)
        
        Response: Social Trinitarianism of the conservative bent (EFS)
        
        Thesis
        
        Is the Son's submission to the Father seen in the pages of the New Testament descriptive of the incarnate Son, or is it descriptive of the Son's submission to the Father from all eternity?
- - - - Wayne Grudem
        
        Understands passages of the Son being sent and obeying the Father to imply eternal subordination due to the immutability of God. What one sees in the economy, must be traced back to the immanent Trinity. (Grudem 1994 251)
        
        Grudem points the subordination of the Son by stating "the role of commanding, directing, and sending is appropriate to the position of the Father." He then shares "the role of obeying, going as the Father sends, and revealing God to us" is what is "appropriate" to the Son. (Grudem 1994 ST)
      - Bruce Ware
        
        "An authority-submission structure marks the very nature of the eternal Being of the one who is three." (Ware FSHS 71)
        
        In referring to 1 Peter 1:18-21 Ware states, "The Son submits to the Father... and the Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son... [a structure that] marks the very nature [of God]." (Ware FSHS 21)
        
        Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance
        
        He speaks of the names "Father" and "Son" as denoting authority and submission when he states "Certainly these names carry connotations of authority and submission." (82-83)
      - They often claim that they have the support of early Church Fathers and Scripture. However, this simply is not the case.
        
        Shortly consideration will be given to some of the Scriptural passages the EFS camp uses to support their cause, and it will be demonstrated how they employ a poor hermeneutic.
        
        As it relates to the Church Fathers, proponents of EFS fail to read the Church Fathers from the Father's original perspective and instead read their position into the Father's writings.
        
        Butner provides three rules that he believes people like Ware and Grudem are failing to keep when examining the Scriptures, creeds, and Church Fathers. First, the denotation of a text must be aligned with grammatical and lexical aids. Second, it should be studied in the context of the narrative or argument. Third, one should be able to locate canonical or historical parallels for the meaning one asserts the sources are making. (Oliver Anti EFS 2)
        
        Therefore, a EFS proponent might point to Tertullian and how in Adversus Praxeam he compares the authority of the Father over the Son and Spirit to the Roman Empire that delegates its power to a second and third person. However, two things must be taken into consideration. First, this is a pre-Nicene text, and must be understood as such. Second, if one looks at the complete scope of Tertullian's work, one will see that he should be considered ant-EFS. (Oliver Anti EFS 4)
        
        They are often charged with conflating procession with submission. (Butner EFS 139)
      - George Knight
        
        W.H. Oliver traces the EFS movement back to 1977 when George Knight published New Testament Teaching on the Role and Relationship of Men and Women. In his book, he speaks about the "chain of subordination" and of the eternal subordination of the Son as it relates to role and authority structure. (Oliver AF 136)
        
        This wasn't the first use of subordination language employed in describing the Son, but it marks the shifting of EFS proponents to use this language to no longer speak of the taxis (functional order), but of the essence. (Oliver AF 136)
        
        In other words, prior to this point, if one spoke of a subordination of functional order (taxis), they meant that the Father is first, the Son is second in his eternal generation, and the Spirit is third in his procession from the Father and the Son.
  - - - Those in this camp would assert that both sides believe in the immanent Trinity being comprised of three persons who are equal in essence . The disagreement comes about over whether or not the Father has supreme authority while the Son and Spirit are subordinate. Therefore, EFS would claim that there is agreement in the ontological (theologia) Trinity but disagreement in the economical (oikonomia) Trinity.
        
        Grudem arrives at this conclusion by stating that the distinction between the three persons is based on function, or the economy of the Trinity. (Gruden 1994 248)
        
        He charges the egalitarians with making the mistake of understanding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as having the same attributes, being, and essence so that they are guilty of losing the distinction of persons. He says that by this camp's logic, one would have to refer to each of the persons of the Trinity as Person A, Person, A, and Person A. (Grudem 1994 433)
        
        Scripture
        
        A major hermeneutical problem EFS proponents make is failing to realize the distinction between Scripture describing the eternal relations of God, and the relationship between the Father and the incarnate Son. (Holmes 266)
        
        John 10:30 - I and the Father are one, is an example of the eternal relationship.
        
        1 more item...
        
        John 5:19,30)
        
        1 more item...
        
        1 Corinthians (Peeler)
        
        1 more item...
        
        Wayne Grudem asserts that there are at least 31 verses that teach the authority/submission of the Father/Son role in Scripture prior to his incarnation and after his ascension. Yet the Greek word for submission, hypotasso, in only used in one of those verses prior to his incarnation and after his ascension; 1 Corinthians 15:28. All the other verses use other terms, such as the Father's foreknowledge and election (taxis) and confuse them with concepts of authority/submission. (Butner 143-144)
        
        Hebrews 1:2
        
        1 more item...
        
        Philippians 2:6-9
        
        1 more item...
        
        Grudem uses language that speaks of the Son sitting at the right hand of the Father as another proof for subordination. However, if that is the case, he must answer why God is then taking on a position of subordination to man when in passages such as Psalm 16:8, 110:5, 121:5, Isaiah 41:13, and 45:1 show Yahweh at the right hand of human kings. Grudem is incorrect in using the right hand as representing subordination, when intimacy is a better connection. One could also interpret those passages Christologically, but then you still have the Father at the right hand of the Son. (Butner NfN 724-725)
        
        Pactum Salutis
        
        1 more item...
        
        The names of the persons reveal authority submission categories, but only because the human paradigm of the father/son relationship is imposed upon the divine.
        
        Imply Division of the will
        
        Grudem states "if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, the the Father is not eternally, 'Father' and the Son is not eternally 'Son.' (Grudem 1994 251
        
        The real problem belongs to Grudem because creation is not eternal. That being the case, the persons of the Trinity must be distinguished by something outside of time. Second, creation is accidental to God. He could have chosen to never create, and that shows the weakness of Grudem's proposed model. (Butner NfN 721)
        
        Proponents of EFS state that they believe in the equality of the immanent Trinity, but this claim does not seem to match their teaching of the eternal subordination of the Son.
        
        Grudem and Ware claim that the Father has an essential attribute of supremacy (it is not accidental), while the Son likewise has the non-accidental attribute of submission. M.J. Erickson claims that the essential attributes belong to the essence so that one is left with a subordination of essence, and God's nature is split because the Father and Son has different natures. (Butner EFS 131)
        
        This destroys classical homoousios understanding.
        
        Barrett comments on this problem saying " If the persons are subsistences of the essence, what is to keep subordination from the essence? Inventing a division between ontological and functional is a farce. The essence subsist in the Son by means of his mode of subsistence (eternal generation), and that modes of subsistence, according to EFS, is littered with subordination. (Barrett Simply 236)
      - A misstep that leads to this conclusion is what appears to be a failure to grasp the appropriations of the economic Trinity. A classical understanding of the economic Trinity is that each person is involved in every work. Appropriations means one member can be understood to have a more prominent position, but it does not allow for one member of the Trinity to be at work to the exclusion of the other. EFS tends to create "roles" where specific actions are allocated to a particular person, while excluding the other two.
- - - - Athanasius stresses that eternal generation points to the fact that there is both order and equality in the godhead. Yet, this order is not one of inferiority, which is presupposed by Neoplatonic thought. Instead, the conclusion for eternal generation is that the Son is not the Father, but he is also not less than the Father.
        
        Gregory of Nazianzus states "From him [the Father] flows both the equality and the Being of the Equals." (Nazianzen)
    - - Their denial put them at odds with Classical Trinitarian Theology. There reshaping of the meaning and significance does not bring them any closer in step with the historic teaching of the church.
        
        Instead, if these men want to make the case that subordination summarizes the role of the Son receiving the singular divine will from the Father, it makes no sense to create this new category of submission, because eternal generation already implies that concept without the interjection of non-classical Trinitarian terms.
  - - - Herein lies the problem for the EFS camp: Ontologically, God is one and equal, but on the economic side, there is hierarchy. This means that the Son is at the same time equal to the Father and subordinate to him. (Oliver Anti EFS 5)
    - - Not only that, but Chalcedonian Christology requires the understanding that the will is a property of nature. DYOTHELITE
    - - John Damascus states "Their having the same essence and energy and will and concord of mind, and then being identical in authority and power and goodness." He then concludes "there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority." (Damscus)
        
        If the will were tied to personhood, it would begin to look like tritheism.
        
        The subordination argument from the EFS camp stems from their defense of the complementarian view. However, when one looks at the submission of a wife to her husband, it requires one person's will being moved by the other. This analogy can only be read back into the Trinity if each member has his own will (Epps 108)
        
        This is why those who hold to classical Trinitarian views believe it impossible for the Son to eternally be subordinate to the Father.
        
        Put succinctly, the will that the Father and the Son share is one, but nonetheless it is also a personal will. This will finds its origin in the Father, but this same will is eternally generated with the Son. (Boyer 265)
        
        The Father wills in a way that reflects his person as on who begets, and the Son wills in a way that reflects his person as one eternally begotten. (Boyer 265)
        
        It is therefore better not to understand the Son as eternally submitting to the Father's will as if he was inferior, but rather to understand that it is the will of the godhead that the Son receives the Father's will as his own.
        
        So, when the Father sends the Son in John 3:16, and the Son is willing to go, rather the being about subordination, it should be understood as to ways of the same will being expressed.
        
        Because the Father and Son partake in the full divine essence including omniscience and goodness, it is logical to assume that both persons, exercising the divine will would, would be in harmony regarding the taxis that best matches the processions and origins of the Trinity. This leaves no room for subordination.
        
        BDAG defines the Greek word for submit "hypotasso" as meaning "obey" in the passive and "to bring someone to subjection" in the active. Meanwhile, the Oxford English Dictionary defines submit as to "accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person." (Butner 135-137)
        
        Robert Letham defines submission as "Free action chosen willingly by the one who submits." (Letham Reply to Kevin 344)
        
        Since the Father and the Son share the same will, the Son desires to be sent by the Father to the same degree the Father desires to send the Son. The logical conclusion to draw is that the one will of the godhead is equally demonstrated both by the Father's sending and the Son's going. (Epps 109)
    - - Might belong with appropriations and dhyothelite
  - - - The classical understanding from the 4th century is that the persons are distinguished by their relations of origin. The Father is paternal, for he is the unbegotten one. The Son is filial, because he is eternally generated by the Father. The Holy Spirit is spirated, because he proceeds from both the Father and the Son. There has never been any understand of and eternal and ontological subordination of the Son in classical Trinitarian theology.
        
        Athanasius, who stated as much in his work "Against the Arians III, was one voice among many making this claim.
        
        The Council of Chalcedon made clear that the persons in the Trinity are consubstantial and void of any ontological hierarchy. (Oliver Anti EFS 2)
        
        The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks to principle of differentiation by stating "These three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties." (LOOK UP REFERENCE)
        
        Subordination
        
        This language is sometimes used, but up until 1977 it does not seem to be applied to the essence of the godhead.
        
        3 more items...
        
        Therefore, the proper understanding of a link between the immanent and economic Trinity is through the prepositions. All things are out of the Father (ek), though the Son (dia), and in the Spirit (ev). (Oliver AF 137)
        
        à Brakel provides five ways in which the persons are distinguished in Scripture. First, he points to the classic distinction from relations of origins, and he comments that this is foundational. Second, he points to the very names imply difference, and then third he points to the order in which Scripture portrays them. Fourth, a distinction can be made from the processions, and fifthly, is the manner of operation in which all things come out of the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit. (Epp 102-103)
        
        Appropriations
        
        One never witnesses a member of the Trinity at work to the exclusion of the other two members. Yet, there is unique work designated for particular persons of the Trinity. For instance, all members share in the work of salvation, but only the Son becomes incarnate. The Father does not die on the cross. Likewise, the Father sends the Son and not the other way around. The Spirit is the one who regenerates us, not the Son. All three are at work in salvation, but each person has his own work within that activity.
        
        3 more items...
        
        Likewise, the Athanasian Creed is explicit that Jesus was only inferior regarding his manhood. In addition, the Athanasian Creed as well as the Chalcedonian and Nicene Creed communicate that Jesus remained equal to the Father during his incarnation. (Oliver anti efs 5)
        
        Fifteenth-century Council of Florence emphasized the unity of the persons except for opposition of relationship. (Boyer 263)
  - - - The view compliments the classical understanding of the unity of essence of the godhead. If the Trinity only has one nature, then there can only be one will.
        
        This is why someone like Basil of Caesarea stated in De Spirito Sancto that the Father and Son have an identical will. (Oliver Anti EFS 7)
        
        This view is also supported by the sixth ecumenical council (Constantinople III), and by the first Lateran Council of 649. (Butner 135)
      - A composite will in God leads to a composite nature. Thus, the Father and Son eternally share the same will as they are of the same ousia. However, since Jesus took on the nature of man, he must have a will belonging to that human nature as well. If one refuses that he took on a human will, one has to refuse he took on human nature (Butner EFS 134)
        
        Of course, consenting to this has implications on the Satisfaction Theory. (Butner EFS 141) In other words, one loses Christ as standing in man's place as his second Adam.
      - Some in the EFS camp argue that it is convenient to look at the submission of the incarnate Son and imply that only pertains to his human nature. They argue that the actions of Christ must belong to his human and divine nature. If that is so, what is to be said about the divine nature when Jesus is said to weep and sleep?
        
        The unity of Christ cannot be achieved by demanding that all human acts are equally attributed to the divine and human nature of the Son. (Butner NfN 712-713)
        
        It is important to embrace the extra Calvinisticum principle which states that though Christ's human nature is always in sync with his divine nature, the inverse is not the case. His divine nature exceeds the limits of his divine nature. (Butner NfN 713-714)
        
        What is taking place is what Harrower has referred to as selective strict realist reading (SSRRT), where EFS proponents project some, but not all, of the economic roles and actions onto the ontological (Parkison 735)
  - - - One can look at God's action in creation and understand how the three persons have decreed to work, but it would be a mistake to think that the action was based off of ontological necessity. He would still be God if he had not created the world.
        
        EFS makes the mistake of looking at the works of God, and then trying to read that back into the immanent Trinity.
        
        Rahner's Rule
        
        The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.
        
        Yet, it shouldn't take long to realize the danger of trying to read every action of the incarnate Jesus back in the ontological Trinity. Does Jesus' dependence on Mary as an infant mean that God eternally depends on his creation? Should the fact that Jesus needs to eat and sleep in his incarnation be read back into the ontological nature of God? (Butner NfN 726)
        
        This does not mean that nothing in the economic is related to the ontological, far from it. It simply means one is not given a blank check to take any action observed in the economy and cash it in on the ontological Trinity.
        
        1 more item...
- - - - Throughout the majority of Christian history a hierarchical structure has been understood which has necessitated a defense of the equality of persons in the Trinity. However, in more recent history, the championing of equality in culture has led to a need to defend the order. (Boyer 256) EFS attempts, but fails to accomplish the latter goal.
        
        Conservative
        
        Solution (could be a part of the conclusion)
        
        Keith Johnson helpfully points out that Christians are better served not to imitate the immanent Trinity, but instead, to imitate the divine character of the divine persons expressed to his creation through his communicable attributes. (Johnson IT 325)
        
        Additionally, one should seek to pattern one's life off of the conduct of the divine persons as carried out in the economic Trinity. (Johnson IT 326)
        
        One distinguishes the danger of exalting the pattern of how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to each other, versus the benefit of imitating the way the divine persons relate to humans. (Johnson IT 327)
        
        Problems with social Trinity models
        
        No consideration for the fact that the immanent Trinity is not impacted by the Fall.
        
        Projection
        
        Creaturely observation is projected onto the divine, and then reflected back onto creation.
        
        Father/Son submission understanding
        
        they apply a post-Enlightenment definition to "person" so that each member of the Trinity is understood as a conscious and willing subject. For the Trinity, this means there are three centers of cosciousness and will. (Johnson IT 324)
        
        They are highly selective. The Holy Spirits, who is the coeternal and coequal member of the Trinity, is selectively left out of the husband/wife paradigm.
        
        They fail to take into account the Creator/creature distinction.
        
        Inseparable operations
        
        1 more item...
        
        The Father is eternally Father and never Son, likewise the Son is eternally Son and never Father. Surely the fact that these two offices can coexist in one person as a creature presents a problem.
        
        How is one to imitate the perichoresis (mutual indwelling) found in the divine life?
        
        Keith Johnson questions why we should not model our ecclesiology after the Trinity by having three branches of government in the church with each brand corresponding to the role of a particular person in the Trinity. (Johnson IT 322)
        
        For the vast majority of the reign of classical Trinitarian Theology, Christians have held to a complementarian viewpoint. Nonetheless, it is quite interesting that none of them have ever used to Trinity to justify that belief.
        
        The complimentarian view was always supported by a proper understanding of Creation and redemption (Parkison 753)
        
        Sanders states that EFS depicts a relationship where three distinct persons, each with their own "center of willing over and against each other," where they must configure "their distinct wills such that they align with each other." (Sanders 439)
        
        In this system we see a conservative hierarchy where the Father has authority and the Son and Spirit are to submit/obey.
        
        Just as God the father has authority over the Son, though the two are equal in deity, so in a marriage, the husband has authority over the wife, though they are equal in Personhood. (Grudem ST 459-460)
      - This is an immediate misstep as our approach to the Trinity should be based first and foremost on worship, and never on trying to be shaped and fashioned in a way that cheapens it to a mascot like status, merely a means to get to a greater end.
- - - - The Son is ontologically inferior to the Father.