EFS

[rlvaughn]

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?

I have not paid much attention to this doctrine or debate. To me it seemed like something of a semantic argument that some complementarians and egalitarians enjoy -- and at times at least provides fodder for some of one to call some of the other heretics.

[Edited to add words left out of a sentence. Just noting this since I did so after McCree quoted me (below)]

 

[McCree79]

While I generally like Mohler, I cannot see but that Eternal Subordination is not at least a serious cause of concern.

Yes, they all endorse Nicea.

But they want their own proclamations to trump the Nicean formulation.

Well, I don't think Grudem is attempting Trump the Nicene creed, but trying to add clarification of the person of The Son. Much like the Athanasian Creed did on defense agaisnt Sabellianism. Grudem positioning, while is being used in defense of complimentarism --- is also used in defense(and perhaps more importantly) agaisnt Modalism that plagues our churches. A lot of people will say 3 persons, 1 God(being). But ask them to describe the Trinity, they will give you a Modalistic definition. One of Wayne's concerns has been clearly identifying the persons of the God head from each other. Which we do a horrible job in the church at doing. Modalism plagues the SBC churches of Western Kentucky and Southern Illinois. I believe Modalism to be a much bigger issue than EFS. If we are unable to define the persons of the Trinity, that is a problem.

Wayne also uses EFS to defend the immutability of the Son.

I have posted this video before, but here is some of Grudem's motivations.

Video: Wayne Grudem Responds to His Critics | LogosTalk





Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

I have not paid much attention to this doctrine or debate. To me it seemed like something of a semantic argument that complementarians and egalitarians -- and at times at least provides fodder for some of one to call some of the other heretics.

.....you assessment is likley spot on

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

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.

Can you expand on why you believe it would apply to being and not persons?

*I also assume you are using the term economy in the sense of distribution of roles. Sorry I have misinterpreted.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[HankD]

No heretics yet, but we might have to sing the Te Deum before too long.

HankD

 

[Bro. James]

Jesus was I AM long before Nicea. There are some out here who do not subscribe to the so-called church councils. The religious world has been wrestling with who Jesus is ever since He told the Jews He is I AM that I AM. This statement got Him indicted on blasphemy charges--He makes Himself to be God. This is a pivotal point: If Jesus is not I AM, Lord God Jehovah, from Mt. Sinai, He is an imposter. It cannot be all of the above.

Why do we keep trying to describe God to the nth degree? There is no way to describe Him short of: Holy, Holy, Holy. We have not a clue of what Holy might mean?

Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[HankD]

Jesus was I AM long before Nicea. There are some out here who do not subscribe to the so-called church councils. The religious world has been wrestling with who Jesus is ever since He told the Jews He is I AM that I AM. This statement got Him indicted on blasphemy charges--He makes Himself to be God. This is a pivotal point: If Jesus is not I AM, Lord God Jehovah, from Mt. Sinai, He is an imposter. It cannot be all of the above.

Why do we keep trying to describe God to the nth degree? There is no way to describe Him short of: Holy, Holy, Holy. We have not a clue of what Holy might mean?

Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Brother James He gave us His word and described Himself.

Yes we will never even at eternity's end know "to the nth degree" what Holy, Holy, Holy means but we love to try. To His great glory of course, always and forever.

HankD

 

[rsr]

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).

Can you expand on why you believe it would apply to being and not persons?

It seems to me that relationships within the Trinity are ontological; how the three persons function outside the Trinity are economic. Probably too simplistic, but that's how it seems to me.

 

[rsr]

I believe Modalism to be a much bigger issue than EFS. If we are unable to define the persons of the Trinity, that is a problem.

Well, I'm in total agreement on that. I've often said it would shock most preachers to know how many functional Modalists there are in the pews.

I just do not see the necessity of ESS as a tool to remedy that.

 

[JonC]

It seems to me that relationships within the Trinity are ontological; how the three persons function outside the Trinity are economic. Probably too simplistic, but that's how it seems to me.

Can you expand on why you believe it would apply to being and not persons?

I understand the submissiveness of the Son to be external to the Trinity only in that it expresses an eternal and internal truth - that the subjective functions within the Godhead (both in the act of creating and throughout redemptive history) reveal the eternal nature of God. In this way, you could say this subjection is ontological – but ONLY in terms of it being ontological to God (to the Godhead) and not to the nature of individual persons (Father, Son, and Spirit).

I think the way this would be expressed is that eternal subordination is ontological to God as God is eternally triune. But when we speak of eternal subordination as an association within the Godhead as between persons of the Trinity, then we speak of the economy within the Trinity rather than ontological properties of each member.

The term “Trinity” and “Godhead” implies a difference in roles, but not of nature. If we consider the Godhead to be eternal, rather than an expression of God through the dispensation of redemptive history, then I cannot help but see the functions that define the Trinity to be just as eternal.

 

[Bro. James]

It may also surprise some regarding the number of unregenerated on the rolls, as well as the staffs of these LLC's, aka: churches. Ecumenism and easy believism have filled the pews by the hands of wolves dressed like sheep.

The Lord knows them that are His.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[HankD]

It may also surprise some regarding the number of unregenerated on the rolls, as well as the staffs of these LLC's, aka: churches. Ecumenism and easy believism have filled the pews by the hands of wolves dressed like sheep.

The Lord knows them that are His.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Not to worry brother

Matthew 13
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

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

yes, but the issue seems to be whether that subordination was just during His Incarnation here, or else is to be eternal.

 

[Yeshua1]

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."

calvin limites that to while on earth, not eternally though!

 

[McCree79]

yes, but the issue seems to be whether that subordination was just during His Incarnation here, or else is to be eternal.

For you perhaps. For others it is a matter of the Son could never be subordinate

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

For you perhaps. For others it is a matter of the Son could never be subordinate

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

He was clearly that as per Philippians, but again, difference is was of a temp, nor eternal basis!

 

[HankD]

I believe there is a close English word for the Son's relationship to the Father's will.

Not subordinate or submissive but - compliant.

HankD

 

[Rob_BW]

I believe there is a close English word for the Son's relationship to the Father's will.

Not subordinate or submissive but - compliant.

HankD

Yeesh, compliant sounds worse than subordinate, at least to my ears.

Wittgenstein would love this thread.

 

[HankD]

Yeesh, compliant sounds worse than subordinate, at least to my ears.

Wittgenstein would love this thread.

I like it better - to me it has a nuance of free will - to do or not to do the will of His father as His equal.

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

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.”

Disagree, vehemently. Our Saviour was not trying to circumvent the cross:

7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, Heb 5

He was heard. His supplications were answered. God saved Him from death. He didn't leave Him in the grave. He raised Him from the dead. Period.

The whole premise that Christ was attempting to avoid the cross is seriously defect.