EFS

[McCree79]

What is your view on the EFS position?
Is Christ Subordinate on function only(at incarnation), while maintaining equal value, worth, authority, divine substance, etc...??? Or does this view teach that Christ is a lesser "g"od as some claim? Or is this really just a fight between complinetarians and egalitarians and really have nothing to do with treating the doctrine of the Trinity fairly?

Some Observations On The ‘Eternal Functional Subordination’ Debate

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Rob_BW]

I definitely don't see where that belief makes Jesus lesser. But it does appear that the fight between complimentarians and egalitarians has subsumed this debate.

I admit to not studying much on this topic, so my initial question would be to ask what's the relationship between incarnation and immutability.

 

[HankD]

NKJV Philippians 2
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

These two clauses are 3rd person aorist active indicative.

Whatever "subordination" is imagined does not exist because He did these things to Himself.
The scripture dies NOT say that the Father made Him of no reputation or that the Father humbled Him - that would be subordination.

This is "agreement" not "subordination".

HankD

 

[Rob_BW]

NKJV Philippians 2
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

These two clauses are 3rd person aorist active indicative.

Whatever "subordination" is imagined does not exist because He did these things to Himself.
The scripture dies NOT say that the Father made Him of no reputation or that the Father humbled Him - that would be subordination.

This is "agreement" not "subordination".

HankD

Isn't that conflating domination with subordination? One can willingly subordinate themselves, right?

(I fear this conversation will hinge a great deal on semantics.)

 

[HankD]

Isn't that conflating domination with subordination?

No, I don't accept that.

One can willingly subordinate themselves, right?

It might appear that way, but no.
I have sometimes used a military scenario;
The Logos and the father AGREED for the Logos (7 star general) to take on the rank of a private (wear the uniform of flesh - born of a woman) on His mission to save mankind, agreeing to obey the orders of the Father.

Jesus lost NOTHING in the incarnation else He could not be worshiped.

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Matthew 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshiped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him.


HankD

 

[Rob_BW]

I'm still not seeing it.

If we want to use military analogies, what about two captains in the cockpit. One will be pilot, the other copilot. The mission plan will dictate who serves in what role. But they are still the same substance.

Sproul's thoughts on the end of Luke 22 seem to sum it up for me:

It is important to see what Jesus prays here. He says, “Not My will, but Yours, be done.” Jesus was not saying, “I don’t want to be obedient” or “I refuse to submit.” Jesus was saying: “Father, if there’s any other way, all things being equal, I would rather not have to do it this way. What You have set before Me is more ghastly than I can contemplate. I’m entering into My grand passion and I’m terrified, but if this is what You want, this is what I’ll do. Not My will, but Your will, be done, because My will is to do Your will.”

If It Be Your Will

 

[JohnDeereFan]

What is your view on the EFS position?
Is Christ Subordinate on function only(at incarnation), while maintaining equal value, worth, authority, divine substance, etc...??? Or does this view teach that Christ is a lesser "g"od as some claim? Or is this really just a fight between complinetarians and egalitarians and really have nothing to do with treating the doctrine of the Trinity fairly?

Some Observations On The ‘Eternal Functional Subordination’ Debate

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

You scared me. I thought you said EF 5, which, being from Alabama is something I never want to see.

 

[HankD]

I'm still not seeing it.

If we want to use military analogies, what about two captains in the cockpit. One will be pilot, the other copilot. The mission plan will dictate who serves in what role. But they are still the same substance.

Sproul's thoughts on the end of Luke 22 seem to sum it up for me:

It is important to see what Jesus prays here. He says, “Not My will, but Yours, be done.” Jesus was not saying, “I don’t want to be obedient” or “I refuse to submit.” Jesus was saying: “Father, if there’s any other way, all things being equal, I would rather not have to do it this way. What You have set before Me is more ghastly than I can contemplate. I’m entering into My grand passion and I’m terrified, but if this is what You want, this is what I’ll do. Not My will, but Your will, be done, because My will is to do Your will.”

If It Be Your Will

Agreement of roles is not subordination of persons but agreement of roles.

the Father did not make Him of no reputation He made Himself of no reputation.

The Father did not humble Him, He humbled Himself.

Obviously there was an agreement of obedience of rank to do the Father's will.
Still not subordination but an agreement between the Father and The Son (to me anyway) as to roles and the rules of engagement.

This He did for a little while here on earth for the benefit of mankind.

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

Brethren please don't accept the doctrine of the Subordination of the Son.
This is the first step on the way to Arianism, the last step is the denial of His deity.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

What is your view on the EFS position?
Is Christ Subordinate on function only(at incarnation), while maintaining equal value, worth, authority, divine substance, etc...??? Or does this view teach that Christ is a lesser "g"od as some claim? Or is this really just a fight between complinetarians and egalitarians and really have nothing to do with treating the doctrine of the Trinity fairly?

Some Observations On The ‘Eternal Functional Subordination’ Debate

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

There is no eternal subordination of Jesus to the father, as that was on a temp time while here upon the Earth..
Dr Grudem has stated that he will revise his ST to reflect that is not true, as he has changed his mind on issue!

 

[rsr]

Dr Grudem has stated that he will revise his ST to reflect that is not true, as he has changed his mind on issue!

Has he done so? Last I looked, he'd doubled down. At the ETS last November he presented a paper, "Why a denial of the Son’s eternal submission threatens both the Trinity and the Bible," that argues that ES is not only an acceptable doctrine, but a vital one.

Rob is partially correct in that this is a very technical area in which definition of terms is critical. However, I don't see that the modern proponents are using the same language as those who hammered out the definitions centuries ago. I could be wrong on that.

My own opinion, which I admit is not worth much, is that ESS is, flat out, heretical and that EFS, while it might be intellectually debatable on some plane, opens so many cans of worms that it's best not to go there.

On the positive side, you can argue that creating a framework to explain subordination addresses some issues in the New Testament that do not admit of easy answers. My opinion is that EFS is using a cannon to kill gnats; it goes much further than is necessary with unwelcome ramifications.

My other concern is why this has become a "thing." Nicea is already under attack by liberals, so why would modern "conservatives" want to reopen the settled formulation?

My suspicion is that some complementarian theologians want to bolster their case about "functional subordination" of women by showing "eternal subordination" applies to the Trinity.

 

[Rob_BW]

I don’t know, I'll standby to hear from others. And I am certainly not wed to EFS.

But my understanding of the word subordination sure is different than some of y'all's.

 

[McCree79]

Isn't that conflating domination with subordination? One can willingly subordinate themselves, right?

(I fear this conversation will hinge a great deal on semantics.)

That is exactly Grudem's point. In the role of executing the plan of redemption, Christ and the Holy Spirit are in full 100% agreement with the Father on the roles all 3 persons play.

Many who have a hard time understanding the difference between person and being have a hard time with EFS. All 3 persons play a different role.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

Sure sounds like the Son has decided to submit to the will of the Father.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

*of course their will is 100% in accordance with each other....seeing how they are the same being.

 

[HankD]

he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

Sure sounds like the Son has decided to submit to the will of the Father.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

*of course their will is 100% in accordance with each other....seeing how they are the same being.

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Grk root submit - hupotasso Is never used of the relationship between the Son and the Father except in this one passage
1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

In the passage you gave he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

Remove this cup from me
It is in the Imperative mood - a command.

The Imperative mood is the mood of command or entreaty - the mood of volition. It is the genius of the imperative to express the appeal of will to will.

A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, pg. 174.

Jesus did not say that He submitted to the will of the father but rather He would choose His will (the Father's) over His own will.

That is not subjection.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

Sure sounds like the Son has decided to submit to the will of the Father.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

*of course their will is 100% in accordance with each other....seeing how they are the same being.

He did, as he agreed to be in subordination while here on earth at that time.

 

[McCree79]

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Grk root submit - hupotasso Is never used of the relationship between the Son and the Father except in this one passage
1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

In the passage you gave he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

Remove this cup from me
It is in the Imperative mood - a command.
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, pg. 174.

Jesus did not say that He submitted to the will of the father but rather He would choose His will (the Father's) over His own will.

That is not subjection.

HankD

"Jesus did not say that He submitted to the will of the father but rather He would choose His will (the Father's) over His own will.

That is not subjection."

In the sense of EFS usage it is

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[HankD]

"Jesus did not say that He submitted to the will of the father but rather He would choose His will (the Father's) over His own will.

That is not subjection."

In the sense of EFS usage it is

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Believe what you will.

Jesus Christ was is and always will be equal to the father in all ways.

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Never subordinate. That is Arianism!

HankD

 

[McCree79]

He did, as he agreed to be in subordination while here on earth at that time.

I have zero issue with that. However in the grand scheme of things, the plan of redemption was determined before the foundation of the earth. So he agreed in FUNCTION and function only.....at the stage of incarnation to submit in role, before it actually happened.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

I find it funny how so many reformed people have went after Ware and Grudem for This, yet they give Calvin and Sproul a pass. I trust the reformed brethren who have attacked Grudem and Ware, will denounce Sproul as well? See "Essential truths of the Christian Faith". Specifically the chapter called "The Subordination of Christ".

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

* as far as Calvin goes-- his second book of the institute establishes Calvin's view here. The clearest passage I recall is 2.16.5 where he speaks of Jesus and says "This indeed, he did not do without struggle, for he had assumed our infirmites also, and in this way it behooves him to prove that he was yelding OBEDIENCE to his Father."

 

[Rob_BW]

@rsr , can I ask where exactly in the Nicene Creed do you see subordination causing a conflict?