• 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!

Evangelical Misunderstandings of the Person of Christ-

A

a SATS prof

Member
argument #4 for the eternal role subordination of the Son & my response to it. Church history shows that the vast majority of Christian scholars have taught the Eternal Subordination of the Son , JETS 42 (3).(Kovach and Shemm( A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal subordination of the Son, JETS 42 (3) . Doing a literature review-4th yr SATS students painfully learn-- is prior to asserting a thesis. So, let;s do one: (1) John of Damascus--the Son is NOT obedient in His Godhead-only as man (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith) no eternal obedience here! (2)Hilary-AS MAN He subjected Himself (De Trinitate; De Synodis ) no eternal obedience here (3) Gregory Nazianzen --It was NOT as the Word that Christ was obedient (4th Theological Oration). no eternal obedience here. (4) Augustine--It is in His humanity that the Son is subject (On the Creed). no eternal obedience here (5) Anselm--only as Man did Christ supplicate and suffer(On the Incarnation of the Word) no eternal obedience here.
 
A

a SATS prof

Member
#4 continued: (5) Aquinas-- Only Christ's human nature is subject, not His divine nature (Summa PT 1)--no eternal obedience here, (6) Chemnitz--Only the human mind and will of Christ are subject (The 2 Nature in Christ,59). no eternal obedience here. (7) Calvin--Doing the Father's will applies entirely to Christ's humanity (Institutes II) no eternal obedience here. (8) Jonathan Edwards--Christ has ABSOLUTE sovereignty; the decrees of God ARE CHRIST's decrees. (Works,vol 1) no eternal obedience here. (9) RA Torrey--subordination passages only refer to the incarnated Christ (What the Bible Teaches). no eternal obedience here. (10) BB Warfield--subordinative passages refer to the incarnated Christ (Biblical Doctrines) no eternal obedience here (11) Chas Hodge--none of Christ's obedience occurred in the divine nature (Systematic Theology 1:395). no eternal obedience here. (12) AB Bruce--In the HUMAN nature Christ became obedient (Humiliation of Christ, 20-21). no eternal obedience here. (13) Erickson --role subordinating the Son is confusing eternal Trinal relationships with economic ones (Christian Theology 2000 ed. , 90) So, I do not see argument 4 as convincing.
 
A

a SATS prof

Member
argument #5 for the eternal role subordination of the Son & my response to it. [with apologies to non Greek readers, I'll try with my limited linguistic ability to make this clear; as my response is my own, I take responsibility for any grammatical error in it] . The articulated infinitive in Phil 2:6 [i.e., "the to be equal"] has the force of separating "form of God" from "equal to God." So, the Son is not the relational equal.( Burke Jr, The Meaning of Harpagmos in Phil 2:6: An Overlooked Datum For Functional Inequality Within the Godhead, http://www.bible.orgdocs/soapobox/scholars/harpogmos .htm--accessed 2002. BUT, while Burke is aware that many NT Greek experts do not see the articulated infinitive (having article "the" ) as a grammatical wedge between the phrases form of God and equal to God , but rather see the latter as qualifying the former (eg NT Wright (Harpagmos and the Meaning of Phil 2 :5-11JTS 37) , Burke rejects that interpretation arguing that in this text, the 2nd lexeme (equal to) is not identical to the first (form of ). Let's weigh the virtue of Burke's grammaticism.
 
Last edited:
J

JamesL

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Are you at all interested in discussion, or are you content to shove your thesis through?
 
A

a SATS prof

Member
#5 continued: Burke, I think, is assuming a conclusion in his argument. It would seem best to first prove that having the "form of God" is not identical in concept to "being equal to God" before he should argue that their disimilarity supports his grammatical conclusion. But morphe (form) regularly includes the notion of qualities (Braumann, Morphe in NIDNT,vol 1 ; O' Brien in Philippians, 207).Furthermore, both ancient and modern experts have interpreted the text as meaning that because Christ is in God's form,He has equality with God. Those who read the Greek fathers--those Fathers having Greek as their mother tongue--may know that both Athanasius (De Synodis:Against the Arians) and Chrysostom (Homilies on Philippians) say that Phil 2:6 MEANS THE SON IS EQUAL TO GOD! Should Burke, despite being Dan Wallace's (of DTS) good student,presume to know more about interpreting NT Greek than do those Fathers who had Greek as their mother tongue--I think not! Further moderns as Barth , Fee, Feinberg , and Hawthorne in their respective commentaries on Philippians , all see it that the SON IS EQUAL according to Phil 2:6. IF Burke's datum is overlooked, I think I know why! The context on Phil 2 shows that since Christ as Man became role subordinate, the equality in 2:6 has relational equality as a --at least a partial-- referent-IMO .I do not see argument 5 as convincing. I'll start up again with #6 in a day or two. So happy to have this chance!
 
Last edited:
A

a SATS prof

Member
JamesL said:
Imo, this is one of the biggest hindrances in discussions like this, but most people don'tseem capable of catching it.

The very first word - SINCE assumes universal agreement with the notion of "Eternal Sonship", a doctrine which is not universally accepted. John MacArthur may be the most prominent figure of late to have denied this doctrine. He does espouse it now, but has not always. This notion of Eternal Son must be considered.

Are the three - Father, Son, Holy Spirit - accurate designations for the essence of God?

Or are we better off with Father, Word, Spirit ?

I have read somewhere that the Word became flesh, tented among us. Have I ever read that the Son became flesh? See John 1:14, Romans 1:3-4
Click to expand...
---
I will refer to four quite different Evangelical understandings of why/how/when Christ is Son in one of the arguments I eventually will respond to. I am not trying to ignore you ! I just would like to interact with your ideas after I've finished sharing mine.
 
A

a SATS prof

Member
JamesL said:
I'm somewhat content with that, but I can assure you that 98% of your audience has lost interest by the 50th post.

By 60 I'm out
Click to expand...
-----------
Is that right? Then I'll stop now sharing my views here since it takes up much of this 75 yr old's Prevagen Power, and I don't wish to be the cause of boredom

So, adios..

Thanks James for the tip.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Well, there's always us 2% that had been sticking around to see your full argument
 
J

JamesL

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
a SATS prof said:
-----------
Is that right? Then I'll stop now sharing my views here since it takes up much of this 75 yr old's Prevagen Power, and I don't wish to be the cause of boredom

So, adios..

Thanks James for the tip.
Click to expand...
It's not that you bore people, or that your subject matter is disinteresting.

It's just that the majority of the people who have the wherewithal to follow, also want to express themselves. And like to do so in bite-sized pieces. There have been many here who have expressed exasperation over the length of posts, number of posts to get to the point, etc.

I love the subject matter, for sure. And I'm familiar enough with the various views and such to already know many of the arguments and rebuttals

Although I have not made it my life's work, to where the men, councils, dates, etc are all fresh in my mind, I remember enough to where I don't feel the need to trudge through all the ins and outs of who said what and why
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
a SATS prof said:
--- Kind of you.

If you like, search the web for a journal article I wrote-- Part 2: Eternal Relational Subordination of the Son.../Bill Grover
Click to expand...
Thank you. I've found the article (I've parts 1 and 2) and look forward to taking my time reading and researching your conclusions. I will say that in these brief interactions you have brought to mind some aspects that I have not previously considered.
 
A

a SATS prof

Member
JonC δοῦλος said:
Thank you. I've found the article (I've parts 1 and 2) and look forward to taking my time reading and researching your conclusions. I will say that in these brief interactions you have brought to mind some aspects that I have not previously considered.
Click to expand...
----
Jon

The 3rd article on the South African Theological Seminary Journal, Conspectus, written 7 yrs ago was on Incarnational Christology dealing with issues as God's immutability when interfaced with God "becoming human" and the qualities of the humanity of Christ. It is still on the SATS' site (Mar 2009-I think) to download.

The first article, as you now know, argues against the eternal generation doctrine.

Of course, my views expressed in Conspectus are not necessarily those of SATS . Even some local (Oregon) theologians I've discussed issues with in an Evangelical Theological Society event at Multnomah Seminary yrs ago , and my friend, Wayne House, and my local dissertation reader in 2004, Gary Derickson find causes to disagree with me. The subject is compound with many debatable issues in it.

Yet, I am so voraciously interested in the SUBJECT , I may attempt next week to post some new--much shorter-- opinions for others to evaluate. But l leave this thread as --I guess- I expected to be able to finish my thoughts before defending them or losing readers. I remain very glad to be here and to share.

Bill
 
B

Bluefalcon

Member
a SATS prof said:
I remain puzzled as to why my six years of undergrad theological work at Linda Vista (now a defunct school) two years spent at Point Loma Nazarene , four years at Western Seminary in Portland, did not prepare me content wise to address the subject in the four year Unizul dissertational project from 2000 through 2004.
Click to expand...

Hmm...not sure why you are puzzled...unless you think those schools stand at the perch of intellectual rigor.
 
A

a SATS prof

Member
Bluefalcon said:
Hmm...not sure why you are puzzled...unless you think those schools stand at the perch of intellectual rigor.
Click to expand...
---
Hello Blue:

NO I think Linda Vista Baptist, Point Loma and Western Seminary (Portland) in general all had rigor equal to the programs they offered. BUT I took no course where the issue of a hierarchy of authority in the Trinity was ever covered. IMO, the current interest of it in theological literature arises from the issue of gender roles in marriage and church leadership. It is argued that since one Trinal Person is submissive to the Other, that is an example for gender role subordination in those two human relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top