Surprised that some famous Theologians Agreed with Dr Grudem on the ESS

[Dachaser]

I fully agree that we cannot press the analogy too far, as the Trinity has but 1 Will, exact same attributes among Them, while we as humans do not.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Picking up on something that has been commented on in passing in this thread is the issue of ESS advocates basing complementarianism on the Trinity. Basing gender relations on the Trinity has always struck me as strange, because, for one thing, all the persons of the Godhead are male. Instead, it is better to ground gender relations in nature.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Dr. Lane Tipton of Westminster:

"Built into the idea of the pactum salutis are three distinct self-conscious persons (not separate self-conscious persons since that would be tritheism) within the unity of the Godhead undertaking the decrees of creation and redemption, and doing so freely and voluntarily. That moves us into the idea that even though we want to affirm without compromise that there is one God and one essential will in the Godhead, there are nonetheless also three self-conscious distinct persons hypostatically, personally willing certain things. The Father wills to send the Son; the Son wills to be sent; the Father and Son will to give the Spirit; and the Spirit wills to be given."

I have read this quotation a couple of times. Forgive my slowness, but how does it help us with respect to the debate over ESS/EFS?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Picking up on something that has been commented on in passing in this thread is the issue of ESS advocates basing complementarianism on the Trinity. Basing gender relations on the Trinity has always struck me as strange, because, for one thing, all the persons of the Godhead are male. Instead, it is better to ground gender relations in nature.

As I have stated at least twice, Complementarianism is not based on the roles of the persons of the Trinity but on the teaching of Scripture regarding that matter.

I have read this quotation a couple of times. Forgive my slowness, but how does it help us with respect to the debate over ESS/EFS?

Opponents of ESS/EFS argue that the eternal subordination of the Son is contrary to the simplicity of God.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I think everyone agrees, probably Grudem included, that complementarianism does not depend on the doctrine of ESS, nor is it disproved by the negation of ESS. The trouble with Grudem is that he seeks to use the trinity to establish complementarianism, and thus introduces troubling concepts into our understanding of the trinity. In this sense, he actually serves to obsfucate a far more important doctrine in seeking to bolster a lesser one. We should reject this effort as misguided and destructive, and frankly unnecessary. Complementarianism can be competently argued for from scripture without mangling the trinity in the process.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

As I have stated at least twice, Complementarianism is not based on the roles of the persons of the Trinity but on the teaching of Scripture regarding that matter.

I recognise that that is your position, but I do not think that is correct in relation to all complementarians (which is a fairly broad church). As you note, however, the truth or otherwise of complementarianism is not contingent on the analogy with the relations between the persons of the Trinity.

Opponents of ESS/EFS argue that the eternal subordination of the Son is contrary to the simplicity of God.

So, would you argue that the pactum salutus is liable to the same objection as the anti-ESS/EFS people make against eternal submission?

 

[RamistThomist]

So, would you argue that the pactum salutus is liable to the same objection as the anti-ESS/EFS people make against eternal submission?

That is the only reason I don't completely dismiss the question out of hand. Yes, the arguments of Grudem and Ware are horribly bad. But still, the pactum salutis is biblical and we need to give coherent reasons why the persons of the trinity can "pact" together and that not be polytheism.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I mentioned this in another thread this evening and it is appropriate for this one, too:

https://adaughterofthereformation.w...down-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/

Worth a read.

 

[Grant]

I mentioned this in another thread this evening and it is appropriate for this one, too:

https://adaughterofthereformation.w...down-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/

Worth a read.

Excellent article that is charitable to all sides, yet clear(with evidence) that Grudem has erred.

 

[Dachaser]

I think everyone agrees, probably Grudem included, that complementarianism does not depend on the doctrine of ESS, nor is it disproved by the negation of ESS. The trouble with Grudem is that he seeks to use the trinity to establish complementarianism, and thus introduces troubling concepts into our understanding of the trinity. In this sense, he actually serves to obsfucate a far more important doctrine in seeking to bolster a lesser one. We should reject this effort as misguided and destructive, and frankly unnecessary. Complementarianism can be competently argued for from scripture without mangling the trinity in the process.

Agreed, as we can show that the roles and distinctions that God has made for Man and Woman are not dependent upon trying to be established via the relationship among the Trinity Themselves.

 

[Dachaser]

That is the only reason I don't completely dismiss the question out of hand. Yes, the arguments of Grudem and Ware are horribly bad. But still, the pactum salutis is biblical and we need to give coherent reasons why the persons of the trinity can "pact" together and that not be polytheism.

Therer still seems to be some type of assigned/agreed upon roles with the Trinity though.

 

[Dachaser]

I mentioned this in another thread this evening and it is appropriate for this one, too:

https://adaughterofthereformation.w...down-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/

Worth a read.

Very interesting, as to me it seems that Both Dr Ware/Grudem are trying to have the subordination that Jesus agreed to having while here on earth has to be extended into eternal relaionship between Jesus and the Father, and not just confined to that tempoary period of time.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Very interesting, as to me it seems that Both Dr Ware/Grudem are trying to have the subordination that Jesus agreed to having while here on earth has to be extended into eternal relaionship between Jesus and the Father, and not just confined to that tempoary period of time.

Now you are cooking on the front burner, David.

 

[Grant]

Very interesting, as to me it seems that Both Dr Ware/Grudem are trying to have the subordination that Jesus agreed to having while here on earth has to be extended into eternal relaionship between Jesus and the Father, and not just confined to that tempoary period of time.

 

[RamistThomist]

Therer still seems to be some type of assigned/agreed upon roles with the Trinity though.

None of which necessarily entails what Grudem is saying.

 

[Dachaser]

None of which necessarily entails what Grudem is saying.

Because all members of the Trinity are still functioning within their roles as being equally in authority?

 

[Aco]

Nope. That's polytheism.

Why is that polytheism?
How could then the mutual necessity of Tri-personality and Uni-personality of the godhead be posited by some reformed theologians, to avoid ouisa being a mere impersonal abstraction?

 

[Dachaser]

Why is that polytheism?
How could then the mutual necessity of Tri-personality and Uni-personality of the godhead be posited by some reformed theologians, to avoid ouisa being a mere impersonal abstraction?

Each One would have their own personailty, correct?

 

[Aco]

Each One would have their own personailty, correct?

Yes, but the mutual necessity of tri-personality and uni-personality means that God is three person while also being one person. So my question is could not a kind of paradox be posited in the case of God‘s will having one will while each person having a will?

 

[RamistThomist]

Why is that polytheism?
How could then the mutual necessity of Tri-personality and Uni-personality of the godhead be posited by some reformed theologians, to avoid ouisa being a mere impersonal abstraction?

will = essence. Three wills = three divine essences

 

[Aco]

will = essence. Three wills = three divine essences

How ought then the voluntary submission and acceptance of the Son to the work of redemption intended by the Father be explained in light of that?

 

[Grant]

How ought then the voluntary submission and acceptance of the Son to the work of redemption intended by the Father be explained in light of that?

The will for the son to voluntarily submit was the will of all three persons of the Godhead ...... so 1 will.

 

[Aco]

The will for the son to voluntarily submit was the will of all three persons of the Godhead ...... so 1 will.

Could that then the issue of submission of the Son to the Father be extrapolated into eternity, Taking the position of ESS/EFS?

 

[Grant]

Could that then the issue of submission of the Son to the Father be extrapolated into eternity, Taking the position of ESS/EFS?

No....Not according to my own brain power. I would like to avoid using confusing word play (much like the proponents of ESS/EFS use). Again that is why it is so easy to fall into a heretical ditch (on either side) when going beyond scripture to understand the Godhead.

Rather than “poke” possibly explain if you are for or against ESS as Grudem explains it and maybe respond to the OP. That might save the thread.

in my opinion Grudem is wrong and he apparently also misquotes more than a couple reformers (not surprising).

Alan Strange and Mr. Religion have handled this matter sufficiently (in my opinion). Between this thread and the below linked thread:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/how-does-the-son-submit-to-the-father.96020/

Time to move on.... before this thread serves better to confuse than to edify.

 

[RamistThomist]

How ought then the voluntary submission and acceptance of the Son to the work of redemption intended by the Father be explained in light of that?

Person doesn't equal nature. While the Son has the same will as the Father, the Son is not the Father. So there isn't an outright contradiction. Difficult to understand, perhaps, but no contradiction.

 

[earl40]

Person doesn't equal nature. While the Son has the same will as the Father, the Son is not the Father. So there isn't an outright contradiction. Difficult to understand, perhaps, but no contradiction.

More than "difficult" but impossible.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes, but the mutual necessity of tri-personality and uni-personality means that God is three person while also being one person. So my question is could not a kind of paradox be posited in the case of God‘s will having one will while each person having a will?

Each one of the trinity would all be having the same will then, the Will of God.

 

[Dachaser]

Could that then the issue of submission of the Son to the Father be extrapolated into eternity, Taking the position of ESS/EFS?

Per Paul in Phillipians though, would not that voluntary subordinate submission happen just during the time of Jesus Incarnation here on earth though?

 

[Dachaser]

Person doesn't equal nature. While the Son has the same will as the Father, the Son is not the Father. So there isn't an outright contradiction. Difficult to understand, perhaps, but no contradiction.

Jesus and the Father have the same essense, would they not have same natures, that of being God?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Jesus and the Father have the same essense, would they not have same natures, that of being God?

Yes, all Persons of the Godhead co-inhere the one and only indivisible, divine essence (ousia, essential, being) of God. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons, see John 6:27, Romans 1:7, 1 Peter 1:2, John 1:1, 14, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8, 1 John 5:20, Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:16.

All Persons of the Godhead possess a divine nature. The nature of the one divine being, God, is inclusive of all the attributes of His being, which is to say, God is His attributes. Statements in Scripture about God’s nature are statements about God’s essence.

God is a simple and uncompounded spiritual being. We can say the same by stating, God is a simple and uncompounded spiritual essence. Essence is that by which something is what it is, that is, its nature. Generally speaking, essence and being are interchangeable in most discussions of God. Some also use nature and essence interchangeably.

Again, God’s essence is common to the three Persons in God, not communicated from one to another; each of the three Person partake of the essence, and possess it as one undivided nature—“as all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ”, so in the Holy Spirit; and of the Father. One God who eternally exists in three different persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal (Romans 16:26; Revelations 1:17; Matthew 28:20; Acts 17:28-29; John 14-16).

If you want a more detailed discussion, my debate with an anti-Trinitarian might be worth a careful read:
https://www.puritanboard.com/resources/trinity-of-god-debate.29/

So, how does this impact what you are asking?