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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Surprised that some famous Theologians Agreed with Dr Grudem on the ESS.

I was surprised that some prominent theologians of the past and present actually seemed to be in agreement with Dr Grudem, regarding the ESS view on Jesus and the Father.
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.ph
David,
The link you provided is dead. It looks like you left a p off the end of it. Here is the full URL: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php

Most of the theologians referred to do not hold to any kind of essential subordination of the Son to the Father. That's clear in the quotes provided, even. It seems to me that there is a lot of equivocation going on here.
 
Surprised that some famous Theologians Agreed with Dr Grudem on the ESS.

I was surprised that some prominent theologians of the past and present actually seemed to be in agreement with Dr Grudem, regarding the ESS view on Jesus and the Father.
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.ph
David,

I corrected the broken link in your OP.

As noted previously, please see this post, and the overall thread in question which discusses Grudem, et al:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...here-are-things-now.92059/page-2#post-1126091
 
Most, especially the Reformed do not. Even some of the quotes, had Grudem actually read a tad further, would have seen it undermined his position. It was intellectually sloppy and lazy on Grudem's part.
 
They don't agree with him. The church has usually posited a taxis of the Trinity without hardening that order into quasi-ontological distinctions.
 
Even some of the quotes, had Grudem actually read a tad further, would have seen it undermined his position. It was intellectually sloppy and lazy on Grudem's part.

That's a bold claim. Would you care to substantiate it by citing the relevant sections of those Reformed Theologians that back it up? Failing to do so would be both lazy and unkind.
 
That's a bold claim. Would you care to substantiate it by citing the relevant sections of those Reformed Theologians that back it up? Failing to do so would be both lazy and unkind.

It's been document numerous times by everyone from Baptists like Erickson to Catholics like Michel Barnes. Grudem sees the "order" or taxis of the persons of the Trinity and reads in semi-ontological distinctions between them.
 
David,
The link you provided is dead. It looks like you left a p off the end of it. Here is the full URL: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php

Most of the theologians referred to do not hold to any kind of essential subordination of the Son to the Father. That's clear in the quotes provided, even. It seems to me that there is a lot of equivocation going on here.
Is it wrong to hold to Jesus being in a subordination state to the Father while Incarnated here upon the earth, but no longer in that condition once ascended again?
 
That's a bold claim. Would you care to substantiate it by citing the relevant sections of those Reformed Theologians that back it up? Failing to do so would be both lazy and unkind.
Some of those quotes attriubted to them seemed to be leaning towards supporting ESS in some fashion.
 
Most, especially the Reformed do not. Even some of the quotes, had Grudem actually read a tad further, would have seen it undermined his position. It was intellectually sloppy and lazy on Grudem's part.
The position taken by the Zovdervan NIV study bible edited by DA Carson seem also to take Dr Grudem take on this issue.
 
From what I have read of Hilary of Poitiers and the discussion of the issue in Philip Schaff, it does appear that what is often called EFS has a respectable pedigree. I say that as one who has no sympathy for the position. It is also debatable if EFS fully conforms to Dr Grudem's view, but I am not sure.
 
That's a bold claim. Would you care to substantiate it by citing the relevant sections of those Reformed Theologians that back it up? Failing to do so would be both lazy and unkind.
The Edwards quote practically speaks for itself. Right after the bolded section is the whole thing for which Grudem, et al are arguing and Edwards denies.
When I have more time over the weekend I will get back you. Others, like Mark Jones have shown Grudem to be in err.
 
Is it wrong to hold to Jesus being in a subordination state to the Father while Incarnated here upon the earth, but no longer in that condition once ascended again?
It would be wrong to claim that there is any principle of subordination intrinsic to the Trinity. The Son submits to the Father in the covenant of grace before his incarnation, in his earthly ministry, and forward to eternity. As long as he is the last Adam, he is in submission; but this submission is not a property of Divine Sonship.
 
Here is a thought--the Spirit "drives" the Son out into the desert, so that would make the Son in submission to the Spirit. Yet the Spirit proceeds from the Son. So the Son is in submission to him from whom he proceeds? But wait, it gets better.

In John 15 Jesus says he will send the Spirit. How can he do that, if given the functional models, he is already in submission to the Spirit via the desert temptations.

This is why we don't use the Trinity to make models for complementarian politics and then read those complementarian models back into the essence of God.
 
It would be wrong to claim that there is any principle of subordination intrinsic to the Trinity. The Son submits to the Father in the covenant of grace before his incarnation, in his earthly ministry, and forward to eternity. As long as he is the last Adam, he is in submission; but this submission is not a property of Divine Sonship.

That post perfectly sums up my own position. The Son's submission to the Father is in his role as the mediator of the covenant of grace. All other talk of submission or subordination is, at best, confusing.
 
From what I have read of Hilary of Poitiers and the discussion of the issue in Philip Schaff, it does appear that what is often called EFS has a respectable pedigree. I say that as one who has no sympathy for the position. It is also debatable if EFS fully conforms to Dr Grudem's view, but I am not sure.

Unfortunately, a partisan spirit dominates the discussion of this topic making any thoughtful engagement with points like the one you are making impossible.
 
Unfortunately, a partisan spirit dominates the discussion of this topic making any thoughtful engagement with points like the one you are making impossible.
Chris,

I disagree, I think PB (specifically this thread) is an environment where we all desire fruitful and thought provoking discussion (at least at heart).

What thoughtful engagements would you like to make other than criticizing others attempts to speak to the OP?

Where do you stand regarding Grudem's article? Answering this question might better serve the OP and the general audience watching this thread (myself included).

I have gleaned a lot from the teachings of Grudem (especially his Systematic Theology Book). He is a writer that has a gift for explaining difficult doctrinal positions in an easy to understand manner (in my opinion). So even though i disagree with him on several things, he is a gifted teacher and a valued brother in Christ.
His position of ESS, in my opinion, threatens an Orthodox view of the Trinity (simply put).

It would also appear, from the opinion of others, that Grudem misrepresents some of our reformed forefathers on the matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I can make that argument because:
1) It conveniently matches his argument for complementarianism.
2) It compromises what the church has always said about one will in God.

Well, you would need to flesh that out a bit for idiots like myself. But your comments appear to assume two things. First, they assume Complemntarianism is somehow dependent on ESS. It is not. The Danvers Statement makes no mention of it at all. And second, you seem to think that Grudem has adopted his position for no other reason than to shore-up Complentarianism. That is simply an unkind aspersion. And its one that makes no sense given the fact that the doctrine of ESS is of no consequence to Complematarian teaching.

For whatever reason, a concerted effort has been made by those opposing ESS to make it the sine qua non of Complentarianism. In so doing, they have effectively labeled Complemarianism as heresy and those espousing it as heretics. It is a troubling development.
 
Well, you would need to flesh that out a bit for idiots like myself. But your comments appear to assume two things. First, they assume Complemntarianism is somehow dependent on ESS. It is not. The Danvers Statement makes no mention of it at all. And second, you seem to think that Grudem has adopted his position for no other reason than to shore-up Complentarianism. That is simply an unkind aspersion. And its one that makes no sense given the fact that the doctrine of ESS is of no consequence to Complematarian teaching.

For whatever reason, a concerted effort has been made by those opposing ESS to make it the sine qua non of Complentarianism. In so doing, they have effectively labeled Complemarianism as heresy and those espousing it as heretics. It is a troubling development.
I will have to dig deeper but, I am fairly certain, germain to the first point, both Ware and Grudem have said it is the reason they are defending ESS.
 
From what I have read of Hilary of Poitiers and the discussion of the issue in Philip Schaff, it does appear that what is often called EFS has a respectable pedigree. I say that as one who has no sympathy for the position. It is also debatable if EFS fully conforms to Dr Grudem's view, but I am not sure.
Daniel,
What does EFS stand for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top