Teaching my son the Trinity. Can you judge my summary - am I a Subordinationist?

[Pergamum]

My son Noah (11) asked me what I was reading hunched over at the laptop yesterday. I was reading up on this current Trinitarian controversy, and he asked for an answer.

And so below was my concise attempt at an answer to this controversy for him:

"The Covenant of Redemption happened in eternity past whereby God, the Persons of the Trinity, were involved in the work of salvation; the Father agreeing to pick out an elect people, the Father agreeing to send the Son to save that elect people, the Son agreeing to take on human flesh and die to procure salvation for the Elect, and the Father and the Son agreeing to send the Spirit to apply the work of salvation to that elect people. These economic aspects of the Trinity (this division of labor which assumes subordination, not in being, but in work and function in salvation) has always existed because the Covenant was made from eternity past.

Therefore, the Persons of the Trinity are always ontologically equal and there is no subordination in the inner life of God, but there was also always an economic subordination of the Son to the Father. There was never a time in which the Son did not exist as the Son and the Father did not exist as the Father.

Of course, if you don't believe in a Covenant of Redemption, this definition may be unsatisfying."

So, does my simple summary stand up?

Or did I just teach my son Subordinationism?

But doesn't the heresy of Subordinationism require the false teaching that there is also an ontological subordination of the Son to the Father (a subordination in the inner life of God) and not merely an economic subordination made in eternity past due to the Covenant of Redemption?

How would you tweak my statement or what should I add in order to teach my son the true doctrine of the Trinity?



And what do we do about the Covenant of Redemption? This Covenant of Redemption was made in eternity past, whereby the Persons of the Trinity agreed to their roles in the work of salvation?

Do you affirm a Covenant of Redemption and, if so, when did this happen? In time, or in eternity past? And if this Covenant of Redemption did , indeed, happen in eternity past, then though we affirm that there is no subordination in the "inner life" or being of God (the Ontological Trinity) how can we NOT speak of an eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father due to the Covenant of Redemption made in eternity past? There never was a time in which it did not exist.

When we speak of the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity, we cannot then say (right?) that there was a time in which there was an Ontological Trinity but there was no Economic Trinity, due to the eternal "division of labor" made in the Covenant.

Please help me. I am drowning.

 

[earl40]

I will never forget when I was in the fourth grade Monsieur Nugget came into our class room to explain the doctrine of The Trinity. What stuck with me is how he explained God is one but three in persons and said this is a mystery along with how Jesus is both God and man. I say this to suggest teach first the above as prime importance and do not be afraid to empathize the real mystery that many try to bridge unsuccessfully. From this the Christology flows and I am to this day amazed by the mystery of the incarnation.

 

[Pergamum]

Obviously Nicene in 325 and Constantinople in 381 go further than the simple "One in Three" formulation. I am trying to explain how Jesus and the Father are one and equal even as Jesus says "The Father is greater than I." And I am also trying to summarize the two sides to the current debate to an 11-year old and give him a biblical simple answer.

 

[BGF]

I don't know if I can but Donall and Conall might judge.

https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw

 

[Pergamum]

I don't know if I can but Donall and Conall might judge.

https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw

Can you explain?

And don't the Lutherans believe in the omnipresence of Christ's physical body anyhow in order to defend their errant view of consubstantiation? Thus Donall and Conall might not be the best authorities on the Trinity if they are Lutheran (plus, who can trust Irishmen who criticize Patrick of Ireland, after all)?

 

[Philip]

And don't the Lutherans believe in the omnipresence of Christ's physical body anyhow

That's true, but that's an error with regard to the two natures, not in Trinitarian theology as such. The relevant councils would be Ephesus-Chalcedon, not Nicaea-Constantinople.

 

[Jack K]

Pergy, I think you're asking great questions. Certainly, the answers will take us deeper than we can go with Donall and Conall, as much as I do love those guys. I am hoping some of the great minds on this board can explain it not only for your sake but also for mine, perhaps even in child-friendly language. That would be wonderfully helpful.

I have dealt with this issue when teaching, but have never fully answered it. I have affirmed that God is one being and there's no hierarchy within his being. I've explained that the Father and Son are equal in glory, power, etc. I say they're separate persons who can make agreements together as persons do, yet there's no disagreement or infighting or power plays within God; he is one. I will say that the Father and Son are Father and Son eternally, which means each has always been Father-like and Son-like, even before the Son became the man Jesus. I have said this suggests there's some way in which the Father gives direction and the Son takes direction, even before the Son was Jesus, but without the Son being in any way less than all-supreme God. And then I say I don't quite understand exactly how that all works, and that theologians far smarter than me sometimes have deep discussions about it.

You brought up John 14. I've addressed both that and passages in chapter 5 in this regard. I've said I can't be sure how much Jesus is talking about the Father being greater eternally because, at the point in time of the gospel of John, Jesus is speaking not only as eternal God but also as a human man and as the Christ. As the best-ever Prophet, Priest, and King he certainly must adopt a stance of submission to the Father. He would be a bad Prophet/Priest/King if he did not do this. So I mention that his humanity and his office get mixed into the discussion and that, again, I'm not sure how to sort out every detail.

So I too would love a succinct, clear, child-friendly answer (if one exists), as well as gentle correction if there's something I'm not phrasing quite right.

One observation that may be helpful: I often point out that to submit is not always to be lesser. There is greatness and glory in submission (if it is submission to God) just as there is in order-giving. This we learn in the Trinity. This is important to understand not only as an encouragement in our own submission, but so that we may see the submission of Christ and, in it, more fully appreciate and praise the full glory of God.

 

[BGF]

I don't know if I can but Donall and Conall might judge.

https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw

Can you explain?

And don't the Lutherans believe in the omnipresence of Christ's physical body anyhow in order to defend their errant view of consubstantiation? Thus Donall and Conall might not be the best authorities on the Trinity if they are Lutheran (plus, who can trust Irishmen who criticize Patrick of Ireland, after all)?

Just a moment of levity. But it does illustrate some of the trouble we can get into when trying to grasp and illustrate the Trinity. The best we can do is describe the biblical teaching, even if we cannot understand it fully.

Here's the succinct description of the Trinity from the WLC

Q. 9. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.

Is this exhaustive? No, but it's a place to start. Then moving to the early creeds that shaped our doctrine can add. However, none of these things are sufficient to make us understand. They just teach what the Bible says about God.

 

[Pergamum]

I was hoping to go a little beyond this.... but perhaps I ought to stay in the wading pool for awhile more. Noah replied, "Yes, me and you are the same as humans, equal, but we have different jobs and you send me to do things and I obey..." So, not bad for an 11-year old as a start to understanding the ontologic versus economic aspects of the Trinity.

But I would LOVE a child-like summary how the Son can be seen as proceeding from the Father and as eternally-begotten, and yet not inferior in hierarchy or subordinate in the inner life of God.

 

[bookslover]

Pergy, I think your explanation is fine (although maybe too many big words for a typical 11-year-old).

Ontological subordination: no. Economic subordination: yes.

 

[Pergamum]

Pergy, I think your explanation is fine (although maybe too many big words for a typical 11-year-old).

Ontological subordination: no. Economic subordination: yes.

He seemed to understand the analogy between me and him: We are both equally persons and of equal worth as persons. But I have a job and send him to do it and he obeys me and does it. Although, I told him that in human affairs the Father is born first and then the Son but in the Trinity all have always existed and there never was a time when the Son was not (in the beginning the Word already was).

I still fail mostly to explain the Spirit to him if anybody has an analogy.

 

[johnny]

I will never forget when I was in the fourth grade Monsieur Nugget came into our class room to explain the doctrine of The Trinity. What stuck with me is how he explained God is one but three in persons and said this is a mystery along with how Jesus is both God and man. I say this to suggest teach first the above as prime importance and do not be afraid to empathize the real mystery that many try to bridge unsuccessfully. From this the Christology flows and I am to this day amazed by the mystery of the incarnation.

I remember having the same discussion in catholic school at around the same age, and the mystery of the Trinty being presented by Monsignor Marley who didn't often come to our class. It left an impact on my life and somehow has stayed with me as a reference point. I understood that I couldn't understand.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

When explaining the Trinity to my son when he was around five years old, I used the tricycle he loved as a starting point.

One What (the tricycle, God the being), three Whos (the wheels, the persons all inhering the one essence; the tricycle, and persons (wheels) acting in complete agreement having individual roles, yet all fully God, the tricycle).

Obviously, it is easy to misuse the analogy and fall into errors regarding modalism, God having parts, mistaken assumptions given that one wheel is bigger than the other two, etc., but I think I got the point across at the time.

 

[KeithW]

I am trying to follow the terminology here. Please help me if I am wrong.

Economic subordination - the persons of the Trinity have different roles and responsibilities, including things which are reserved to the prerogative of the Father alone. In John chapter 17 the Son declares many things which belong to the Father or which the Father instructs the Son to do. Also places like Matt. 11:25-27; Matt. 16:17; Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32; John 6:37,40,44,65-66.

 

[Peairtach]

I am trying to follow the terminology here. Please help me if I am wrong.

Economic subordination - the persons of the Trinity have different roles and responsibilities, including things which are reserved to the prerogative of the Father alone. In John chapter 17 the Son declares many things which belong to the Father or which the Father instructs the Son to do. Also places like Matt. 11:25-27; Matt. 16:17; Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32; John 6:37,40,44,65-66.

Economic (the "Economic Trinity") subordination refers to roles and hierarchy in relation to God's works of creation, sustenance, providence and redemption.

"Ontogoloical" (the "Ontological Trinity') refers to God as He is in Himself and His internal relations without reference to the creation. The "dispute" is about whether there is subordination in the ontological Trinity from all eternity, that is the Son being subordinate to the Father, the Spirit being subordinate to the Father and the Son, and if that is compatible with them being equal in power and glory.

Here's an article which cites Warfield, but uses the expression "immanent" - or imminent (sic), typo - for "ontological", which I had not come across before. Warfield does not come to the conclusion that the doctrine of eternal subordination is justified by the language of Scripture.

http://philgons.com/2011/08/warfield-on-eternal-subordination-in-the-trinity/

The doctrine of eternal subordination was anyway rejected by the ecumenical council of Nicea, which strictly-speaking puts it beyond the bounds of orthodox Catholic Christian teaching.

 

[Peairtach]

This from a debate in 2008 is quite enlightening:

Yandell backed McCall's argument with a series of philosophical proofs. He contended that Ware and Grudem held doctrine that cannot be argued exegetically from any biblical text. He worked toward a climax that argued Ware and Grudem's view of subordination actually undermines the Trinity with a form of Arian heresy, though he did not employ that loaded term. The Arians, defeated by Athanasius at Nicaea in the fourth century, believed that Jesus was created a little lower than the Father. In Ware and Grudem's view, Yandell said, "The Son has as an essential property being subordinate to the Father and of course the Father lacks that property. So the Father has an essential property — a property that is part of the Father's nature — that the Son does not have as part of the Son's nature, and the Son has an essential property — a property that is part of the Son's nature — that the Father does not have as part of the Father's nature. This entails that the Father and the Son do not share the same nature after all."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/141-53.0.html

 

[Pergamum]

I am trying to follow the terminology here. Please help me if I am wrong.

Economic subordination - the persons of the Trinity have different roles and responsibilities, including things which are reserved to the prerogative of the Father alone. In John chapter 17 the Son declares many things which belong to the Father or which the Father instructs the Son to do. Also places like Matt. 11:25-27; Matt. 16:17; Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32; John 6:37,40,44,65-66.

Yes, economic subordination does not mean there is any difference in the inner life of God or that the Son is inferior to the Father. That would be ontological subordination, a difference in the Being of God, and in the ancient church was called the heresy of Subordinationism. Not all who speak of the subordination of the Son (economically) are subordinationists.

 

[Toasty]

This from a debate in 2008 is quite enlightening:

Yandell backed McCall's argument with a series of philosophical proofs. He contended that Ware and Grudem held doctrine that cannot be argued exegetically from any biblical text. He worked toward a climax that argued Ware and Grudem's view of subordination actually undermines the Trinity with a form of Arian heresy, though he did not employ that loaded term. The Arians, defeated by Athanasius at Nicaea in the fourth century, believed that Jesus was created a little lower than the Father. In Ware and Grudem's view, Yandell said, "The Son has as an essential property being subordinate to the Father and of course the Father lacks that property. So the Father has an essential property — a property that is part of the Father's nature — that the Son does not have as part of the Son's nature, and the Son has an essential property — a property that is part of the Son's nature — that the Father does not have as part of the Father's nature. This entails that the Father and the Son do not share the same nature after all."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/141-53.0.html

Wouldn't Grudem and Ware say that submitting to the Father is something that Jesus does, but it is not an essential property?

 

[SolaScriptura]

In my own mind, it is difficult to say "when did the Son submit to the Father, and when did the Spirit submit to the Son and the Father" because we order things temporally. But how do you do that with eternity? Is eternity endless time or is it timelessness? Those who say there was no submission up until the moment of the incarnation are, in my mind, way off base. Indeed, at "whatever point in eternity" the decrees were ordered - which when ordered clearly entail submission within the Godhead (so much as agreeing to submit in actual history is itself a form of submission), and certainly when the Covenant of Redemption was entered into, there was submission to the terms of the covenant. All this took place "in eternity." But does that mean that the Son is "eternally submissive?"

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I would say that eternity is God's timelessness, and is distinct from aeviternity (everlasting) in the created realms (which includes heaven). There is "before" for creation, including time; but there is no "before" for God. That's why there is no "eternity past". God alone is eternal, and eternity is one of His incommunicable attributes. But time had a beginning. An inception. So there is only aeviternity (everlasting/ness) going forward from that initial creation of time; hence, no "eternity past".

God's eternity is not indefinitely extended time, but something essentially different, of which we can form no conception. Some have proposed that God's eternity may be defined as that perfection of God whereby He is elevated above all temporal limits and all succession of moments, and possesses the whole of His existence in one indivisible present.

God inhabits something vastly qualitatively different from time, what we know as eternity: "For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: "I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite." (Isa 57:15). In other words, the difference between the creature and the Creator is an immensely vast difference, for God exists in a fundamentally different order of being. It is not just that we exist and God has always existed; it is also that God necessarily exists in an infinitely better, stronger, more excellent way. Eternity differs essentially, not merely accidentally. Eternity is an essential, changeless state of being that transcends moment-by-successive-moment reality.

Bavinck wrote of God’s eternality by saying, “eternity is identical with God’s essence; hence, it implies a fullness of essence. Not only is God eternal, but he is even “his own eternity.”

 

[tangleword]

In my own mind, it is difficult to say "when did the Son submit to the Father, and when did the Spirit submit to the Son and the Father" because we order things temporally. But how do you do that with eternity? Is eternity endless time or is it timelessness? Those who say there was no submission up until the moment of the incarnation are, in my mind, way off base. Indeed, at "whatever point in eternity" the decrees were ordered - which when ordered clearly entail submission within the Godhead (so much as agreeing to submit in actual history is itself a form of submission), and certainly when the Covenant of Redemption was entered into, there was submission to the terms of the covenant. All this took place "in eternity." But does that mean that the Son is "eternally submissive?"

Not sure I agree, my understanding is that the submission is related to the human nature, that is what Mark Jones seems to argue (using the councils) as well, to me at least. I find it hard to see how there is submission in the divine nature where there is one will. There was not two wills in Christ (his divine and human) until the incarnation, so there was not an ability to submit until then, since it was his human will that submits (and it submits even to his divine will). Even if the decrees were ordered in eternity , they were ordered by all you could say, so the son was not really submitting to the decree he was also decreeing them.

 

[SolaScriptura]

In my own mind, it is difficult to say "when did the Son submit to the Father, and when did the Spirit submit to the Son and the Father" because we order things temporally. But how do you do that with eternity? Is eternity endless time or is it timelessness? Those who say there was no submission up until the moment of the incarnation are, in my mind, way off base. Indeed, at "whatever point in eternity" the decrees were ordered - which when ordered clearly entail submission within the Godhead (so much as agreeing to submit in actual history is itself a form of submission), and certainly when the Covenant of Redemption was entered into, there was submission to the terms of the covenant. All this took place "in eternity." But does that mean that the Son is "eternally submissive?"

Not sure I agree, my understanding is that the submission is related to the human nature, that is what Mark Jones seems to argue (using the councils) as well, to me at least. I find it hard to see how there is submission in the divine nature where there is one will. There was not two wills in Christ (his divine and human) until the incarnation, so there was not an ability to submit until then, since it was his human will that submits (and it submits even to his divine will). Even if the decrees were ordered in eternity , they were ordered by all you could say, so the son was not really submitting to the decree he was also decreeing them.

I get it; but most (all?) commentators understand Phil 2:6 "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," as referring to an attitude that Christ had in his preexistent state. Anyway, the decrees - and especially the CoR - call for functional submission, the act of agreeing to submit is itself a form of submission and in no way implies ontological inferiority. So many Reformed fathers have acknowledged functional subordination that to me it is absurd to deny it. (Even Batzig, though he disagrees with it, acknowledges it appears to have been taught in Vos.) Of course, the opposing side disagrees and a few pretty much take it upon themselves to anathematize Grudem and Ware.

Anyway, I don't claim to know for sure, but I do have impatience with some of the attackers.

 

[earl40]

All this took place "in eternity." But does that mean that the Son is "eternally submissive?"

My thinking, which cannot comprehend such things thinks that maybe this would fall into some type of accommodation of God speaking to us in baby talk that may mean "as if" The Son took on a role which to us appears to happened in time before time began. I say this of course because God is outside of time and The Son was always outside of time with The Father and Holy Spirit.

 

[Pergamum]

In 1 Cor 15 where it speaks of Jesus putting all things under his feet and then turning it back over to the Father, I've always assumed this to be an eternal thing.

 

[MW]

Any subordination/submission which related to the covenant of redemption was voluntary, not essential; and as a part of the "economy" of salvation falls under the economical as distinct from the ontological Trinity. This includes 1 Cor. 11 and 15.

Part of the problem with the Ware-Grudem position is that it uses economical relations and acts to explain the ontological relations and acts. In so doing they naturally import the idea of inferiority into the Godhead, because the work of redemption required Christ to assume the nature of man which is inferior to God.

 

[Pergamum]

Something can be eternal without it being ontological, right? Especially if there never was a time in which the Pactum Salutis wasn't in existence. Is that correct?

Do you agree with Millard Erickson's book on Tampering with the Trinity, where he seems to speak only of a temporary economical subordination?

 

[MW]

Something can be eternal without it being ontological, right? Especially if there never was a time in which the Pactum Salutis wasn't in existence. Is that correct?

Do you agree with Millard Erickson's book on Tampering with the Trinity, where he seems to speak only of a temporary economical subordination?

Ontos is being. So if the "something" is eternal it is ontologically eternal.

The decree and the covenant of redemption are eternal in a different respect to the eternity of God. The decree and covenant are "free" acts of God's will, whereas the begetting of the Son is a "necessary" act. Although we cannot mark a time at which God decreed, we can differentiate the decree from God Himself. This means God may not have decreed, and the covenant of redemption may not have been enacted, in which case the Son would not have voluntarily submitted Himself to do the will of the Father for the salvation of the elect. This means His mediatorial subordination to the Father is not ontological, but only economical.

The Son, though, is necessarily begotten of the Father. As a necessary, eternal action this means the Son is necessarily "God of God," and maintains an ontological "order" in relation to the Father. While this order is not inferior as to the Godhead, there is a dependence which terminates on the person. I would conclude from this that a restricted form of sub-ordination is ontological, but I would qualify that it is different in NATURE from the sub-ordination which is voluntarily assumed for the purposes of redemption. Such is the difference that many reformed theologians omit the word "subordination" so as to avoid confusion. They prefer to speak only of the "order;" and that seems wise when the term is open to misunderstanding, but it should also be acknowledged that the term has been used in the restricted sense without being labelled subordinationism.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I was reading in Reymond's theology pp.323ff and I appreciate his discussion. I was especially intrigued with how the reformers interacted with and modified patristic language and thinking. I was intrigued that they felt free to do that.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If you haven't read these articles yet then they are very helpful:

This one relates the number of ways that are sought around historical defintions that run aground in other areas. For instance, for the Son to eternally submit to the Father, it requires that will is a function of the Person (hypstasis) and this runs into a problem of monotheletism (that the Son of God has one will).
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/eternal-submission-and-the-sto.php

This article is a good reminder that Reformed hermeneutics is not a "me and my Bible" enterprise. The rejection of metaphysical categories is actually a trajectory in the direction of Socinianism. It's also a good reminder that these so-called "scholastics" were a lot better at both theology *and* exegesis than we were. There's a lot of "seems to me on the surface of this text" that is dismissive of the theological richness that has come before that many casually dismiss:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/...-and-arid-scholasticism#.V2CSfSmPfsM.facebook

For my part, I'm not going to let this board be a place that simply dismisses longstanding orthodoxy. How many Patristic scholars and other theologians have to line up against Ware and Grudem before they'll take a pause and say: "Maybe I ought to reconsider this...." I really don't think this is just men being mean-spirited. We're generally very intellectually lazy about a lot of these core thoelogical issues (myself included) and this debate has been very useful for me to sharpen and clarify the "why" of these debates.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Perg: This article also addresses some issues with respect to how we think about redemption: http://www.donaldmacleod.org.uk/dm/subordinationism-out-of-the-blue/