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

[Reformed Covenanter]

Wouldn't that make the submission of Jesus only for when He was here in human body, and was done when He ascended back to heaven?

He continues to be God and man in one person forever. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that "the head of Christ is God." I would presume that God is the head to whom Christ submits, not in an ontological sense as the second person of the Trinity but in his economic role as mediator of the covenant of grace.

As Jacob has indicated, there seems to be some tension is asserting that God the Father and God the Son are ontologically equal if we also argue for an eternal subordination of God the Son in anything other than his role as the mediator of the covenant of grace. I realise that ESS guys such as Wayne Grudem are not denying the full deity of Christ, but I think that their terminology is confusing.

I have heard it said that the EFS people would not go as far as Dr Grudem (Mark Thompson of Moore Theological Seminary in Sydney told me that the last time he was in Northern Ireland), yet I am not sure how that position avoids the same problems as ESS raises. Regretfully, as Christopher noted, the partisan nature of this debate has generated more heat than light.

 

[Dachaser]

No one denies that Grudem believes he holds that. We are saying that his conclusion (Jesus is God) is somewhat in tension with what he has written.

How so? As His position on Jesus being subordinate to the Father does not refer to Him being in essense leass than God, but that He has chosen to submit to the father as being supreme one over Him in the Trinity.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I think most of the opponents of ESS would argue that it seems to contradict divine simplicity, as it is incongruous to argue both that God is simple and that the persons of the Trinity have more than one will, which is what they think is implied by arguing that the Son submits to the Father as the second person of the Trinity.

 

[Dachaser]

He continues to be God and man in one person forever. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that "the head of Christ is God." I would presume that God is the head to whom Christ submits, not in an ontological sense as the second person of the Trinity but in his economic role as mediator of the covenant of grace.

As Jacob has indicated, there seems to be some tension is asserting that God the Father and God the Son are ontologically equal if we also argue for an eternal subordination of God the Son in anything other than his role as the mediator of the covenant of grace. I realise that ESS guys such as Wayne Grudem are not denying the full deity of Christ, but I think that there terminology is confusing.

I have heard it said that the EFS people would not go as far as Dr Grudem (Mark Thompson of Moore Theological Seminary in Sydney told me that the last time he was in Northern Ireland), yet I am not sure how that position avoids the same problems as ESS raises. Regretfully, as Christopher noted, the partisan nature of this debate has generated more heat than light.

Dr Grudem is always speaking on how the Trinity interact among Themselves, and not as to how they are somehow not all equally God, correct?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Dr Grudem is always speaking on how the Trinity interact among Themselves, and not as to how they are somehow not all equally God, correct?

I have seen no evidence that Dr Grudem denies the full deity of Christ, so that appears to be correct.

 

[RamistThomist]

How so? As His position on Jesus being subordinate to the Father does not refer to Him being in essense leass than God, but that He has chosen to submit to the father as being supreme one over Him in the Trinity.

Is the Father eternally "over" the Son? Eternal moves the discussion back into ontology, which is running very close to Arianism.

 

[Dachaser]

Is the Father eternally "over" the Son? Eternal moves the discussion back into ontology, which is running very close to Arianism.

Would that not be seen as Jesus being the eternally begotten of the Father though? Of being the same essense, so not a created being?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Do you see Jesus as being subordinate to the Father while just here upon the earth, or from all Eternity?

Not an ontological subordination but an economic one.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I think most of the opponents of ESS would argue that it seems to contradict divine simplicity, as it is incongruous to argue both that God is simple and that the persons of the Trinity have more than one will, which is what they think is implied by arguing that the Son submits to the Father as the second person of the Trinity.

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."​

 

[Dachaser]

Not an ontological subordination but an economic one.

He would be equally Goda as the father, but willing to submit and defer to the Father then?

 

[Dachaser]

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."​

That quote appears to be very close to what I posted earlier on this OP.

 

[RamistThomist]

Would that not be seen as Jesus being the eternally begotten of the Father though? Of being the same essense, so not a created being?

Here's the problem. Begotten necessarily conveys "same essence." "Being over" does not.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Dr. Lane Tipton of Westminster...

Is the quote from the discussion around the 39 minute mark here:
https://reformedforum.org/ctc445/ ?

I doubt that Lane Tipton is implying three independent centers of self-consciousness existing in the Persons of the Godhead.

 

[Dachaser]

Here's the problem. Begotten necessarily conveys "same essence." "Being over" does not.

My Father was over me when I was a child, but we were both fully human though.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That quote appears to be very close to what I posted earlier on this OP.

Where? You posted several times, then revisited a post to be more clear, which I think was to say there is but one will of God.

Do you recall how to include links to posts you refer to?
See:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/baptism-new-covenant.95547/page-4#post-1168742

In any event, an important point to keep in mind: will is a property of nature, not Person.

 

[Grant]

My Father was over me when I was a child, but we were both fully human though.

What????
What are you getting at?

#1-Our human relationships cannot be compared on the same terms as the Trinity.

You and your father are 2 separate people....your comparison leads to heresy at best. Please clarify.

 

[Dachaser]

Where? You posted several times, then revisited a post to be more clear, which I think was to say there is but one will of God.

Do you recall how to include links to posts you refer to?
See:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/baptism-new-covenant.95547/page-4#post-1168742

In any event, an important point to keep in mind: will is a property of nature, not Person.

So it would be taht the Will of God is same to all of the Trinity, as God Himself cannot subdivide that Will?

 

[Dachaser]

What????
What are you getting at?

#1-Our human relationships cannot be discussed on the same terms as the Trinity.

You and your father are 2 separate people....your comparison leads to heresy at best. Please clarify.

I was speaking to the fact that I was subordinate to Him as in function, as he was the boss growing up over me, but both were still exactly human, so in essense the same.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

My Father was over me when I was a child, but we were both fully human though.

The word "though" you continue to add to posts implies disagreement with what you are responding to, so explain that disagreement you see rather than expecting the reader to tease it out from your posts.

Is your essence identical with that of your Father?

 

[Dachaser]

The word "though" you continue to add to posts implies disagreement with what you are responding to, so explain that disagreement you see rather than expecting the reader to tease it out from your posts.

Is your essence identical with that of your Father?

I was just saying that I can function as subordinate towards my Father, as he is in authority over me, but both of us are still same in Humanity.

 

[arapahoepark]

I was speaking to the fact that I was subordinate to Him as in function, as he was the boss growing up over me, but both were still exactly human, so in essense the same.

In order to save their complementarianism they are reading modern notions of the Father and Son human categories of parent and child into the Trinity. The analogical use of the terms are meant to convey ideas of sameness, the King sends an heir apparent that represents all of him and his kingdom. Granted even that analogy breaks down but, that's how our ancient readers and ancient fathers would understood it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So it would be taht the Will of God is same to all of the Trinity, as God Himself cannot subdivide that Will?

God is will, strictly speaking so as to not slide down a slope denying His simplicity (not dim-wittedness, rather God is not decomposable into parts comprising the whole). But we can say God's nature includes the property of willing to move forward in the discussion.

Will is a property of nature. God has a nature (divine). Apropos, God "has" a will. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God. All have a will...one will...God's will. This cannot be otherwise (per your "subdivide") else the eternal, exhaustive, perichoretic interpenetration between the Godhead is undone.

Spoiler: Trinity Essentials

1. There is in the divine Being (God) but one indivisible essence (ousia, essential, being), see Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4, Galatians 3:20, 1 Timothy 2:5.
2. The nature of the one divine being, God, is inclusive of all the attributes of His being, that is, God is His attributes, see God, as above.
3. In this one divine Being (God) there are three personal distinctions (what the church throughout history calls persons), or individual subsistences (personal modes of existence) Father, Son and Holy Spirit, see Genesis 1:1, 26, 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1, Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14.
4. 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.
5. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order, see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, 1 John 4:14, John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, John 16:13-14.
6. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished, see 1 Corinthians 8:6, Revelation 4:11, Revelation 1:1, John 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, John 1:1, 16:12-15, Matthew 11:27, Revelation 1:1, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Matthew 1:21, John 4:42, Genesis 1:2, Job 26:13, Psalm 104:30, John 16:12-15, Ephesians 3:5, 2 Peter 1:21, John 3:6, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:2, Isaiah 61:1, Acts 10:38.
7. The church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the full comprehension of man . There are absolutely no human analogies that can be made to capture the mystery of the Trinity, see Romans 11:33-34.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I was just saying that I can function as subordinate towards my Father, as he is in authority over me, but both of us are still same in Humanity.

If that is what you are "saying" then you need to actually say it explicitly. Moreover, drawing analogies between humanity and the Godhead will inevitably lead to error.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

In order to save their complementarianism...

Would I be right to conclude by this statement that you are disassociating yourself with complementarianism?

 

[RamistThomist]

My Father was over me when I was a child, but we were both fully human though.

Arius's view of God the Father was "over" the Son, but they weren't of the same essence. And your above view of "fully human" is a generic essence, not a numerical one.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Yes, the human analogies are unhelpful in this discussion.

 

[Grant]

Yes, the human analogies are unhelpful in this discussion.

Agreed... Next thing you know someone will be giving the same analogy that the Mormons tried to give me one fine Sunday evening “the trinity is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich”

 

[arapahoepark]

Would I be right to conclude by this statement that you are disassociating yourself with complementarianism?

Off topic but, yes. The earlier Trueman, Byrd, Miller stuff and then the infighting about the Trinity made me rethink some things. And no I am not on the way the liberalism. Back to the OP

As for analogies, I have to agree, they are not good.

 

[Grant]

Off topic but, yes. The earlier Trueman, Byrd, Miller stuff and then the infighting about the Trinity made me rethink some things. And no I am not on the way the liberalism. Back to the OP

As for analogies, I have to agree.

Maybe your not on the way. Maybe you are already there?

 

[Dachaser]

Is Point 5 speaking to subordination then?