The human Christ?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
EFS
- Thread starter McCree79
- Start date
Christ as pertains to His humanity not as pertains to His divinity
there's no biblical warrant for dicing up the person of Christ
there's no human versus divine, because the word of God was made flesh without static
Two Natures in one Person. That's always been the orthodox position.
Only problem with that is that the Historic view of Christ nature states that the two natures are perfectly united with no mixture, confusion, separation, or division. Based on the historic teaching of the Chalcedonian Council, we can not say He is Subordinate in FUNCTION in one nature, but is not in the other.
But the issue with EFS is not in nature, but in function. Function not an indicator of essence, worth or value.
Or as James White says, "Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature."
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Yes, but not "sometimes human and sometimes God"
Agreed: always 100% human and 100% God
I do. As far as I know, those mentioned did not violate His divine equality nor His divine immutability. Put simply, the role of the son to a father is (in Scripture) one of subordination. It is the same with the Father and the Son (I think we agree here) but also with God and the Word (the term "logos" speaks of a subordination, of carrying from a source).
Just for the record, again, I don't like the word subordination in any relationship between the Father and the son.
In my own view, the essential relationship of the Son with the Father is one of eternal co-equal begotteness.
Subordinate is in my view a word leaning toward Arianism.
Neither do I like the word "divine" or "divinity" as a substitute for the phrase "the deity of Christ".
It is a signature word of Neo-Orthodoxy.
Words are important - a contemporary political statement.
Realizing that Christians use these words though they are neither of Arian or Neo-Orthodox persuasion doesn't make me like them any better.
HankD
In my own view, the essential relationship of the Son with the Father is one of eternal co-equal begotteness.
Subordinate is in my view a word leaning toward Arianism.
Neither do I like the word "divine" or "divinity" as a substitute for the phrase "the deity of Christ".
It is a signature word of Neo-Orthodoxy.
Words are important - a contemporary political statement.
Realizing that Christians use these words though they are neither of Arian or Neo-Orthodox persuasion doesn't make me like them any better.
HankD
I don't like either of those words (subordination, divinity) either.
I'm not sure subordination necessarily leads to Arianism, because as was earlier noted (JonC?) the Arian view of Christ is that He was created.
I see it treading on polytheism, though, along with any notion of 3 "co-eternal" Persons. I see too many who perceive 3 distinct divibe beings conversing around a table or standing shoulder-to-shoulder.
The Father, His Word, and His Breath - the 3 are One as scripture says (the Athanasian Creed states plainly there are not 3 Eternals, but 1 Eternal.
Then, "divinity" is almost always used in a way that it makes a modal Jesus, sometimes acrimg as a human and sometimes acting as one of the three Gods
I agree that different roles are present within the economy of the Trinity, but I think such as thing as "eternal submission" really belongs to the being of the Godhead, not its economy.
To clarify Sproul's position:
This was posted as an answer to a question on another board:
"Thank you for contacting Ligonier Ministries. The denial of the Eternal Subordination of the Son in the statement we provided and The Word Made Flesh Christology statement is responding to the idea that the one simple essence of God can be conceived of as possessing different levels of authority. The essential properties are the same (WLC Q&A 9). All of the attributes of the one divine essence belong equally to all three Persons.
In the quote you provided from page 71 of Truths We Confess, Dr. Sproul is changing the subject from essential properties to personal properties of the three Persons of the Trinity. The discussion of personal properties is meant to be read within the context of the prior discussion of essential properties.
The subordination that Dr. Sproul speaks of in the latter discussion has to do with the order of procession/relation and the economic subordination of the Son in the incarnation. No one denies an order of relations (the personal properties). No one denies the subordination of the Son in the Incarnation in the temporary state of humiliation. What is denied is the tritheism inherent in any view that divides the essence/ousia of God." emphasis added
This was posted as an answer to a question on another board:
"Thank you for contacting Ligonier Ministries. The denial of the Eternal Subordination of the Son in the statement we provided and The Word Made Flesh Christology statement is responding to the idea that the one simple essence of God can be conceived of as possessing different levels of authority. The essential properties are the same (WLC Q&A 9). All of the attributes of the one divine essence belong equally to all three Persons.
In the quote you provided from page 71 of Truths We Confess, Dr. Sproul is changing the subject from essential properties to personal properties of the three Persons of the Trinity. The discussion of personal properties is meant to be read within the context of the prior discussion of essential properties.
The subordination that Dr. Sproul speaks of in the latter discussion has to do with the order of procession/relation and the economic subordination of the Son in the incarnation. No one denies an order of relations (the personal properties). No one denies the subordination of the Son in the Incarnation in the temporary state of humiliation. What is denied is the tritheism inherent in any view that divides the essence/ousia of God." emphasis added
Last edited:
AwesomeMachine
Member
I look at it this way. God is all truth. Therefore, God is correct. So, for Jesus to be obedient to the Father, He had to become correct, and therefore attain equality to the Father, because both then know all truth. The Son is truth in the form of a man.
So, The Father is the mind of God. The Son is the heart of God. The Holy Spirit is the soul of God. The mind that knows all truth will love His own heart that knows all love, and it is this love that is the soul (Holy Spirit).
The object of man's mind is truth (God The Father; mind of God). The object of man's heart is love (God The Son; God's heart). By seeking God we become like God, and our minds will love our own hearts, and our souls will become like the Holy Spirit (God's soul). Guilt for sin blocks the mind from loving the heart, and therefore kills the soul.
Faith in Christ makes atonement for sin, and restores the soul to its immortal state. If a person is going to heaven when (s)he dies, (s)he can feel it in every fiber of his/her being. It's the love that burns in the heart at all times.
So, The Father is the mind of God. The Son is the heart of God. The Holy Spirit is the soul of God. The mind that knows all truth will love His own heart that knows all love, and it is this love that is the soul (Holy Spirit).
The object of man's mind is truth (God The Father; mind of God). The object of man's heart is love (God The Son; God's heart). By seeking God we become like God, and our minds will love our own hearts, and our souls will become like the Holy Spirit (God's soul). Guilt for sin blocks the mind from loving the heart, and therefore kills the soul.
Faith in Christ makes atonement for sin, and restores the soul to its immortal state. If a person is going to heaven when (s)he dies, (s)he can feel it in every fiber of his/her being. It's the love that burns in the heart at all times.
Everything I have seen from Grudem makes clear that divine essence is identical. He always seems to be addressing personal attributes. Making sure we do not conflate personal attributes/properties of the Father and Son.
It does seem there is some disagreement in the EFS camp and Ware has modified his position. His new postion is the only one I am familiar with and it seems very orthodoxy. Albert Mohler agrees. The fact that different people have provide different support and positions within the EFS camp maybe why there is so much talking past each other. I feel at times.....lokking back, I presented Grudem(still seems to hold same view) and Ware 2.0. Other may have been using Statements from Ware' s orginal stance.
"In his presentation, “The Nature of the Father’s Priority within the Trinity,” Ware announced he had modified his positions since the controversy started. He said he now affirms the “eternal generation of the Son” as found in the Nicene Creed based on the Greek New Testament word monogenes."
ETS 2016: Ware defines Trinity view; Mohler urges conviction and compassion on transgender issues - News - SBTS
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Pardon me if I don't consider Ware's agreement with the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son to be a significant development. John MacArthur was taken to the woodshed on this and finally admitted he was wrong. Wasn't Ware paying attention?
And why would Mohler "congratulate" someone on agreeing with Nicea? Unless I'm missing something, that has been the constant stance of Southern Baptists.
On the positive side, perhaps Ware will finally move toward a more orthodox Christology.
And why would Mohler "congratulate" someone on agreeing with Nicea? Unless I'm missing something, that has been the constant stance of Southern Baptists.
On the positive side, perhaps Ware will finally move toward a more orthodox Christology.
"On the positive side, perhaps Ware will finally move toward a more orthodox Christology". His position as well as Grudem is an orthodox postion. But perhaps by saying "more orthodox " you are not denying that....you would like it to be a little different.
Mohler, while not defending their view as his own, does defend it as orthodox.
"Recent charges of violating the Nicene Creed made against respected evangelical theologians like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware are not just nonsense — they are precisely the kind of nonsense that undermines orthodoxy and obscures real heresy. Their teachings do not in any way contradict the words of the Nicene Creed, and both theologians eagerly affirm it."
"These charges are baseless, reckless, and unworthy of those who have made them."
I agree with Mohler here. One does not have to agree with Grudem or the new postion of Ware, but to call it hetrodoxy is uncalled for.
[URL)Heresy and Humility - Lessons from a Current Controversy - AlbertMohler.com[/URL]
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Last edited:
The reason I find it problematic to view "eternal submission" as an ontological quality is this would seem to diminish equality within the Godhead. I also find it unnecessary. If we view the Godhead as eternal (rather than the Trinity coming into being at some point in time, perhaps at Creation or the Incarnation) then we are forced to view the economy of the Trinity as eternal. If this is true then it belongs to the economy of the Trinity even if it is also an ontological quality (which I believe it is not).