This topic has been on my mind recently. I've settled on that I will not understand the Trinity better until I am in the afterlife. I get a bit sad when I find people who believe like I do but they reject the doctrine of the Trinity. They claim it's just another Catholic invention when I can read it in the Bible for myself. Oh and very good discussion.
I can only imagine how difficult it would be, to explain who I am to someone from another world, as they meet and build a relationship with a human. I am a physical being with a mind, soul, spirit, heart, conscience, emotions, and so forth who believes in an invisible God; yet, others understand. Our language is limited in its expression of a knowing Trinity - so much is based in Grace and Faith.
Grudem & Ware commit heresy when he says that the Father chooses to involve the Son and the Spirit in Creation and Redemption but He could have chosen otherwise. There is one will in God, not three. If there are three wills then you have three gods and not One.
I believe Grudem is pretty squared away theologically and his language is careful concerning this topic. Can you provide a source for where Grudem states that "the Father chooses to involve the Son and the Spirit in Creation and Redemption"? He constantly affirms that there is one will in the Godhead and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are coequal and coeternal.
I have heard that those who believe in the eternal subordination of the Son say that the Son's eternal submission to the Father has to do with the Son's function, not His essence or nature.
I agree with the earliest writers like Martyr, Ignatious , Tertullian who was who help define the Trinity in history for us . The modern Protestant's have redefined the Trinity in history over time as did others in church history. God has eternal order in my view . I believe in EFS as a Trinitarian but not as the Arians in subordinationism . My Dad was Greek Orthodox though I grew up as a Holiness Pentecostal. Now apart of the ECC a Lutheran Piety group. Appreciate this conversation. It is a nuance debate and mystery either way Lol.
The term “one’’ in the Hebrew can also mean one in unity, not just one in individuality. Too, Jesus spoke of His Father from the standpoint of being the son of man, not just the son of God. No one is good but God is an example. As man, Jesus could rightly say so. It was at another time when Jesus let men know that He was the “I am” . Here he expresses his divinity.
Hello Jesus is the Messiah The Son of God The Son of David The Son of man The man God has chosen to be his anointed king The man God will judge the world through The man God raised from the dead Jesus has a God There is no triune god in scripture Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
If the Son has been submitting to the Father for all of eternity, does this mean that the Father has more authority than the Son? If the Father has more authority than the Son, would this mean that the Father has a divine attribute to a greater degree than the Son?
Lopsided degrees of authority is an excellent observation of what speculative positions of theology, namely eternal subordination of the Son and Holy Spirit leave one logically stuck with.
Perhaps if we understand that there are 3 individuals in the Godhead and one of them stepped off his throne and took on humanity then there would be need to theorize about it all. If we believe Jesus became God’s son 2000 years ago then there becomes no problem with understanding his sonship. Is this simplifying things too much?
All of it is economic not ontological. Three centers of consciousness = tritheism. Or at least be open on either side of oneness/trinity debate and not sit so strong. Every argument on the contrary is going too far and is at best economical wrongly arguing for ontological.
The one host's comment or more to the point, admonishment, that all we have to do to escape "gutter" thinking, is think theologically all day about the competing positions of Triune relationship theology is absurd. Folks in the pew, have to attend to things like children, spouses, jobs and everything else ivory types might have the luxury of out their discussion agenda. So, whatever "gutter thinking" means or is, suggesting some 24 hr a day academic theological thought experiment will elevate all the people in the pews to some new nirvana doesn't comport with reality on innumerable points. I hope the academy has more to offer the church than said suggestion.
I wish you guys use 'eternal functional subordination' only, instead of entitling it as 'eternal subordination' and cause confusion with the Arian heresy.
They said, show us the Father and Jesus said, have I been so long with you and you do not know Me? If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father for the Father and I are ONE. The Father is in Me and I AM in the Father. To me that is very easy and very simple and answered it for me.
Me too. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (KJV) 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 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. 1 Timothy 1:17 (KJV) Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. Hebrews 2:9 (KJV) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. The plan of God the Father was to indwell Jesus and all those who believe in Him.
@@robinq5511 Amen . Very nicely put 👍🏻 the Abiding presence to make us sons ! By comfort and discipline hebrews 12 . So that the nature of God will be all in *ALL* 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Peter 1:2-12 WWCofG....type ?
The prophet Moses is also called God exodus7:1, also the angels psalms8:5. I hope no one is going to argue that this makes them coequal members of the Godhead. Only the the God and Father of Jesus is ever called the God (ho theos). Thus only the God and Father of Jesus is the Lord JEHOVAH.
Could it be that the Son is in some sense eternally subordinate, but that the Son perpetually receives equality from the Father as his source? Like John 3:35 says, "The Father loves the Son and has placed everything into his hands," or in John 16:15, "All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” So this would make sense of the verse, "the Father is greater than I," and yet maintain equality. Because if the Father eternally gives all of himself to the Son, then the Son would be continually co-equal and the full expression of the Father. Maybe this is the opposite of eternal functional subordination, which I understand to be that he's equal in nature and yet subordinate in function or position. This would be more like saying that the Son by himself is unequal and yet eternally equal with the Father (both in nature and position) because of the way that the Father gives himself to the Son. This seems to make sense to me. That the Son receives his equality from the Father. Or have I just stated some ancient heresy?
No. It's about the immanent and economic Trinity. Jesus is equal to the Father, he is divine. He humbled himself in the incarnation and in THAT context was subordinate to the Father. This subordination is NOT part of the eternal Trinity but is ONLY within the economy of salvation.
@@Mrm1985100 I get that he is equal and divine. But what makes you say no to my question? I know it's different than the view put forth in the video. But I'm saying biblically why not? Many of the church fathers, like Athanasius, spoke of the Son as having his source in the Father. To me, this means that the Son has his divinity from the Father, not from himself. For some scriptural examples, "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself." (John 5:26) And, "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He(the Holy Spirit) will take of Mine and declare it to you." (John 16:15) Maybe some will say this was just during his lifetime. But why would the Holy Spirit be the same, not having humbled himself into the form of man. But just like the Son, "he will not speak on his own authority. But whatever he hears he will speak." (John 16:13) To me this all comes back to the Father being the source, and divine of himself, whereas the Son and the Spirit have their divinity eternally from the Father and their equality comes from him. But I'd include the caveat that it could not have been otherwise, that the Son and Spirit could never have been not divine, because they have eternally proceeded out of the very nature of the Father. Therefore their existence or divinity was never in question, but as solid as the Father's divinity and existence.
@@collin501 I think saying the Son was "eternally subordinate" is wrong, that's why I said "no". The second part of what you said is closer to what some Eastern theologians said and is more about procession; the Son proceeds eternally from the Father: "Monarche" in the sense of origin or source.
@@Mrm1985100 Your answer here to the poster's comment, is my position. Speculating about the ontological status/ nature of the Trinity "during" eternity before the incarnation of Christ is just that--speculation. You may call your theological theory of the nature of the Trinitarian relationships the "eternal subordination of the Son," just make sure you add the word "speculation" to the title as well.
belajb: there are people at Dts who are not cessationist. I know some of them personally, I cannot necessarily “out them” because they might get in trouble with their school. Suffice it to say, we should not right off everyone at Dts because the school holds a secessionist position. Furthermore, i’m certain that everyone is wrong about something. I might be wrong about so soteriology, I might be wrong about eschatology, I might be wrong about complementarianism. But just because I may be wrong in one area does not mean I’m wrong in every area. Our brothers at Dts our Christian brothers. Even though they’re wrong about the gifts😉. There’s a wealth of knowledge there at that school, we shouldn’t write them all off because they disagree with us in one area.
@@TheRemnantRadio I agree, you could be wrong on eschatology, as its very difficult to come to a clear interpretation scriptually, but your complementarianism. You cant be wrong on that , because its so very clear biblically.
John Warren: I mean dr Craig keener the president of the evangelical theological society is egalitarian. He is a brilliant man with a faithful hermeneutic. I just disagree with him.
articles 12 0f DTS doctrinal statement...We believe that some gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues and miraculous healings were temporary. We believe that speaking in tongues was never the common or necessary sign of the baptism nor of the filling of the Spirit, and that the deliverance of the body from sickness or death awaits the consummation of our salvation in the resurrection (Acts 4:8, 31; Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 13:8).....sad.
trinitarians dont fundamentally understand the bible. John chapter 1 says "In the beginning was the Word" not the Son. The Son is John 1:14 in the Word becoming flesh. Jesus is the Word made flesh. The Word didnt become the Son till he was born of mary. The nicene creed claims the Word was begotten before being born on the earth. that is creation and heresy
Psalms 83:18"That men may know that thou,whose name ALONE is JEHOVAH,art the most high over all the earth." Note please that there is but one named JEHOVAH. Note also this one alone is the MOST HIGH. Thus if ones God is associated with two equals (e.g the trinitarian Jesus.) He is not the Lord JEHOVAH.
This topic has been on my mind recently. I've settled on that I will not understand the Trinity better until I am in the afterlife. I get a bit sad when I find people who believe like I do but they reject the doctrine of the Trinity. They claim it's just another Catholic invention when I can read it in the Bible for myself.
Oh and very good discussion.
WOW, such graciousness handling of the diverse views on this topic. Great job!!
I can only imagine how difficult it would be, to explain who I am to someone from another world, as they meet and build a relationship with a human. I am a physical being with a mind, soul, spirit, heart, conscience, emotions, and so forth who believes in an invisible God; yet, others understand. Our language is limited in its expression of a knowing Trinity - so much is based in Grace and Faith.
Great topic! I done my Masters dissertation on this very topic. Very excited to hear what is said! 🤩
Would love to see your dissertation and respond to it!
Grudem & Ware commit heresy when he says that the Father chooses to involve the Son and the Spirit in Creation and Redemption but He could have chosen otherwise. There is one will in God, not three. If there are three wills then you have three gods and not One.
I believe Grudem is pretty squared away theologically and his language is careful concerning this topic. Can you provide a source for where Grudem states that "the Father chooses to involve the Son and the Spirit in Creation and Redemption"? He constantly affirms that there is one will in the Godhead and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are coequal and coeternal.
You guys are awesome. Thanks for all the great content! Spiritual Meat! 🍖
I have heard that those who believe in the eternal subordination of the Son say that the Son's eternal submission to the Father has to do with the Son's function, not His essence or nature.
I agree with the earliest writers like Martyr, Ignatious , Tertullian who was who help define the Trinity in history for us . The modern Protestant's have redefined the Trinity in history over time as did others in church history. God has eternal order in my view . I believe in EFS as a Trinitarian but not as the Arians in subordinationism . My Dad was Greek Orthodox though I grew up as a Holiness Pentecostal. Now apart of the ECC a Lutheran Piety group. Appreciate this conversation. It is a nuance debate and mystery either way Lol.
The term “one’’ in the Hebrew can also mean one in unity, not just one in individuality. Too, Jesus spoke of His Father from the standpoint of being the son of man, not just the son of God. No one is good but God is an example. As man, Jesus could rightly say so. It was at another time when Jesus let men know that He was the “I am” . Here he expresses his divinity.
Nice how you helped Todd to Say things right. But I like hearing his own views too.
Verse about the preincarnate Jesus. He is the Angel of The Lord in the Old testament.
Agree
Hello
Jesus is the Messiah
The Son of God
The Son of David
The Son of man
The man God has chosen to be his anointed king
The man God will judge the world through
The man God raised from the dead
Jesus has a God
There is no triune god in scripture
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
If the Son has been submitting to the Father for all of eternity, does this mean that the Father has more authority than the Son? If the Father has more authority than the Son, would this mean that the Father has a divine attribute to a greater degree than the Son?
Lopsided degrees of authority is an excellent observation of what speculative positions of theology, namely eternal subordination of the Son and Holy Spirit leave one logically stuck with.
Not even a necessary implication! Stick to clear scripture
yes it does, this is why it's false.
Perhaps if we understand that there are 3 individuals in the Godhead and one of them stepped off his throne and took on humanity then there would be need to theorize about it all. If we believe Jesus became God’s son 2000 years ago then there becomes no problem with understanding his sonship. Is this simplifying things too much?
All of it is economic not ontological. Three centers of consciousness = tritheism. Or at least be open on either side of oneness/trinity debate and not sit so strong. Every argument on the contrary is going too far and is at best economical wrongly arguing for ontological.
The one host's comment or more to the point, admonishment, that all we have to do to escape "gutter" thinking, is think theologically all day about the competing positions of Triune relationship theology is absurd. Folks in the pew, have to attend to things like children, spouses, jobs and everything else ivory types might have the luxury of out their discussion agenda. So, whatever "gutter thinking" means or is, suggesting some 24 hr a day academic theological thought experiment will elevate all the people in the pews to some new nirvana doesn't comport with reality on innumerable points. I hope the academy has more to offer the church than said suggestion.
Heb 1:9 is a problematic verse when trying to reconcile the trinity..
I wish you guys use 'eternal functional subordination' only, instead of entitling it as 'eternal subordination' and cause confusion with the Arian heresy.
They said, show us the Father and Jesus said, have I been so long with you and you do not know Me? If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father for the Father and I are ONE. The Father is in Me and I AM in the Father. To me that is very easy and very simple and answered it for me.
Me too.
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (KJV)
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
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.
1 Timothy 1:17 (KJV)
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Hebrews 2:9 (KJV) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
The plan of God the Father was to indwell Jesus and all those who believe in Him.
@@robinq5511
Amen . Very nicely put 👍🏻
the Abiding presence to make us sons ! By comfort and discipline hebrews 12
.
So that the nature of God will be all in *ALL*
1 Corinthians 15, 2 Peter 1:2-12
WWCofG....type ?
The prophet Moses is also called God exodus7:1, also the angels psalms8:5. I hope no one is going to argue that this makes them coequal members of the Godhead. Only the the God and Father of Jesus is ever called the God (ho theos). Thus only the God and Father of Jesus is the Lord JEHOVAH.
Could it be that the Son is in some sense eternally subordinate, but that the Son perpetually receives equality from the Father as his source? Like John 3:35 says, "The Father loves the Son and has placed everything into his hands," or in John 16:15, "All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” So this would make sense of the verse, "the Father is greater than I," and yet maintain equality. Because if the Father eternally gives all of himself to the Son, then the Son would be continually co-equal and the full expression of the Father.
Maybe this is the opposite of eternal functional subordination, which I understand to be that he's equal in nature and yet subordinate in function or position. This would be more like saying that the Son by himself is unequal and yet eternally equal with the Father (both in nature and position) because of the way that the Father gives himself to the Son. This seems to make sense to me. That the Son receives his equality from the Father. Or have I just stated some ancient heresy?
No. It's about the immanent and economic Trinity. Jesus is equal to the Father, he is divine. He humbled himself in the incarnation and in THAT context was subordinate to the Father. This subordination is NOT part of the eternal Trinity but is ONLY within the economy of salvation.
@@Mrm1985100 I get that he is equal and divine. But what makes you say no to my question? I know it's different than the view put forth in the video. But I'm saying biblically why not?
Many of the church fathers, like Athanasius, spoke of the Son as having his source in the Father. To me, this means that the Son has his divinity from the Father, not from himself. For some scriptural examples, "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself." (John 5:26) And, "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He(the Holy Spirit) will take of Mine and declare it to you." (John 16:15) Maybe some will say this was just during his lifetime. But why would the Holy Spirit be the same, not having humbled himself into the form of man. But just like the Son, "he will not speak on his own authority. But whatever he hears he will speak." (John 16:13) To me this all comes back to the Father being the source, and divine of himself, whereas the Son and the Spirit have their divinity eternally from the Father and their equality comes from him. But I'd include the caveat that it could not have been otherwise, that the Son and Spirit could never have been not divine, because they have eternally proceeded out of the very nature of the Father. Therefore their existence or divinity was never in question, but as solid as the Father's divinity and existence.
@@collin501 I think saying the Son was "eternally subordinate" is wrong, that's why I said "no". The second part of what you said is closer to what some Eastern theologians said and is more about procession; the Son proceeds eternally from the Father: "Monarche" in the sense of origin or source.
@@Mrm1985100 Your answer here to the poster's comment, is my position. Speculating about the ontological status/ nature of the Trinity "during" eternity before the incarnation of Christ is just that--speculation. You may call your theological theory of the nature of the Trinitarian relationships the "eternal subordination of the Son," just make sure you add the word "speculation" to the title as well.
he teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary...they are cessationists...how can he teach on the Holy Spirit if they dont believe the whole bible?
belajb: there are people at Dts who are not cessationist. I know some of them personally, I cannot necessarily “out them” because they might get in trouble with their school. Suffice it to say, we should not right off everyone at Dts because the school holds a secessionist position.
Furthermore, i’m certain that everyone is wrong about something. I might be wrong about so soteriology, I might be wrong about eschatology, I might be wrong about complementarianism. But just because I may be wrong in one area does not mean I’m wrong in every area.
Our brothers at Dts our Christian brothers. Even though they’re wrong about the gifts😉. There’s a wealth of knowledge there at that school, we shouldn’t write them all off because they disagree with us in one area.
@@TheRemnantRadio I agree, you could be wrong on eschatology, as its very difficult to come to a clear interpretation scriptually, but your complementarianism. You cant be wrong on that , because its so very clear biblically.
John Warren: I mean dr Craig keener the president of the evangelical theological society is egalitarian. He is a brilliant man with a faithful hermeneutic. I just disagree with him.
@@TheRemnantRadio Yeh i get you brother. I love Dr Craig Keener, but he's wrong on egalitarianism. Love your channel guys, great dialogue.
articles 12 0f DTS doctrinal statement...We believe that some gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues and miraculous healings were temporary. We believe that speaking in tongues was never the common or necessary sign of the baptism nor of the filling of the Spirit, and that the deliverance of the body from sickness or death awaits the consummation of our salvation in the resurrection (Acts 4:8, 31; Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 13:8).....sad.
trinitarians dont fundamentally understand the bible. John chapter 1 says "In the beginning was the Word" not the Son. The Son is John 1:14 in the Word becoming flesh. Jesus is the Word made flesh. The Word didnt become the Son till he was born of mary. The nicene creed claims the Word was begotten before being born on the earth. that is creation and heresy
Psalms 83:18"That men may know that thou,whose name ALONE is JEHOVAH,art the most high over all the earth." Note please that there is but one named JEHOVAH. Note also this one alone is the MOST HIGH. Thus if ones God is associated with two equals (e.g the trinitarian Jesus.) He is not the Lord JEHOVAH.