;)
Jesus is Eternally Subordinate to the Father!
Posted by Dave Miller in Bible & Theology
My first annual SBC meeting was in 1979, the year the Conservative Resurgence began. I was a seminary student then, and my first decade of service in SBC churches was marked by the great denominational battle over the Bible. I am now 52 years old and have (if all goes well and I lose some pounds) 15 or 20 active years of ministry left (maybe more?). I believe those years will be marked by another battle; a battle over gender roles at home and at church.
I am making no pretense of dispassionate objectivity in this debate. I have come to a conviction based on study of scripture and I believe this issue is crucial. My purpose today is to argue on behalf of the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son. I am also not a scholar like Bruce Ware, Jeff Robinson, Wayne Grudem and others who have written on the topic. Anyone deeply interested in this subject should read their writings. I want to write a simple, introductory statement of the issues and a brief explanation of what I believe and why I think it is important.
I believe that God’s Word teaches that the Father and Son (and Spirit) are of equal essence – they have an ontological equality that must be maintained by all orthodox Christians. However, I also believe that there is a relational subordination within the Trinity. Though equal in essence with the Father, Jesus submits his will to the will of the Father and seeks the Father’s glory in all that he does.
Because of that, I believe that a husband should be a servant leader in his home and that the authoritative leadership roles in the church (pastor, elders, etc) are reserved for men as well. Women are of equal value and worth as men in God’s eyes, but that he created us with different roles in mind. This world finds this view heinous, Neanderthal and oppressive. But I do not believe that it demeans women. The Son submits to the Father but is equal in essence. If that is so, then submission to another human does not necessarily demean women. We cannot let culture dictate truth.
For this essay, I will present ten assertions that I believe to be true and give what evidence that space allows.
1) The Eternal Subordination (ES) of Jesus is a key component of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity
The “Eternal Subordination of the Son” (ES) is the belief that Jesus, while equal in essence with the Father, submits himself to the will of the Father and works to glorify him. Subordination does not imply oppression or the demeaning of another, but the idea of rank or authority. The Father does not oppress the Son, but simply holds a higher rank of authority in the workings of the Trinity.
The issue at stake is whether this doctrine demeans Jesus Christ. “Egalitarians” (those who oppose this doctrine) maintain that it does precisely that. We who support the doctrine hold that it is possible for one to hold a lesser rank without diminution of essence. Egalitarians have made accusations about the denigration of the Savior inherent in our doctrine.
This is a false and unfair accusation. The Bible clearly asserts the equality of Jesus Christ and the Father. That is not at issue here. The only question is whether one can hold this doctrine without diminishing the glory of Christ. Christ’s glory is not diminished because he obeyed the Father or served the Father’s eternal plan. Jesus gave glory to the Father and thus was glorified himself. It is a distinctly modern sentiment that submission to another is demeaning. I believe that egalitarians are reading their modern prejudice onto a biblical truth. Jesus chose to submit himself to the Father and glorify him. He did not demean himself at all in doing so.
I must be clear here. I believe that Egalitarian denial of ES is a serious misinterpretation of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. On the other hand, I do not call those who believe this heretics. This is a more serious error than simple differences on ecclesiology or eschatology, because it strikes at the nature of God. I would put it in the same category as Open Theism. These are serious doctrinal errors held by Christians who still maintain the biblical doctrine of salvation.
2) The passion attached to ES is largely because of its implication for the gender debate.
I am convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity is not the source of the passion behind this debate. The real issue, as I have already mentioned, is the effect this doctrine has on the issue of biblical gender roles. Paul based his teachings on the roles of husband and wife on the relationship of the Father and the Son (and the Son with the church).
1 Corinthians 11:3 says, “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of the man and the man is the head of the woman. To me, this clearly teaches that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father. They are equal in essence but different in rank. Because of that, I believe that husbands should be the “head” of their wives (more on the word “head” later). Ephesians 5:23-24 backs this idea up. “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”
This forms the basis of the complementarian (men and women have equal value but different roles) view. It is also why egalitarians (who maintain men and women must have equal roles to have equal value) oppose ES. Subordination of roles is diminution of value in their eyes. It must be opposed in both the Godhead and in marriage.
3) There are three significant positions related to ES (each of which has a corollary in the gender debate.)
There are three views that have been prominent at times in church history. Each of these has a corollary position in the gender debate. I am not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg. Does our view of gender roles color our view of the Trinity or vice versa?
In early church history, a prominent doctrine, called Subordinationism, gained a large following. Subordinationists (Origen, Arius and many others – at one time, it may have been a majority view) held that Jesus was lesser not only in role, but in essence as well. Origen held that Jesus was distinct from and of a different essence than the Father. This doctrine was clearly and soundly rejected by the early church, after much debate. The Athanasian and Nicene Creeds refuted it forcefully.
Even though the orthodox creeds denied Subordinationism, they did not deny that the Father and Son had different roles, the basis of Eternal Subordination. The historical doctrine of the church has been that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit), while equal in essence also have different relational authority. This is the underpinning of the complementarian view of gender roles.
With the advent of the feminist movement, there was also a rise in feminist reinterpretation of key biblical passages about gender. Egalitarians maintain that the equality of the Trinity extends not just to essence, but also to role and authority. They claim that people like me have been blinded by our prejudice and failed to see the true meanings of these passages. I believe that they have employed shoddy hermeneutics and subjective interpretations of history and doctrine, being blinded by a desire to make the scripture fit with cultural norms. As a part of this movement, there has been a reinterpretation of the historic doctrine of the Trinity to eliminate ES.
Subordinationism, a heresy of the early church, maintained that Jesus was lesser than the Father in both role and essence. ES, the historic doctrine of the orthodox creeds and theologies, maintains that the Father and the Son have ontological equality but differences in relational rank. Egalitarians believe that the unity of the Trinity require both ontological and relational equality.
4) Egalitarians err by confusing Subordinationism and ES.
Egalitarians lay a claim that goes against the evidence of history – that the early church clearly rejected ES. Generally, they do that by confusing Subordinationism or by maintaining that there is no difference between the doctrines.
Clearly, the ancient creeds rejected the doctrine that Jesus was distinct from and of lesser essence than the Father. They point this out as proof that ES was rejected. But this is a false comparison. ES maintains passionately the equality of essence of the Godhead. We simply hold that Scripture teaches both sides – ontological equality and relational rank.
Egalitarians cannot nullify ES by simply demonstrating that Subordinationism was rejected by the church in history.
5) Orthodox Christians agree that Jesus was subordinated to the Father during his earthly sojourn.
With very few exceptions, both ES and Egalitarianism admit that Jesus was submissive to the will of the Father while he was on earth. Philippians 2:6-8 makes it abundantly clear that Jesus humbled himself and took a form that was foreign to him; the God of heaven was incarnated and became a servant.
The issue is whether that subordination predates the Incarnation and whether it continued after the Resurrection.
6) The Bible supports the relational subordination of Christ prior to his Incarnation.
The primary description used in scripture to describe the relationship of the First and Second Persons of the Trinity demonstrate that this is an ongoing, eternal relationship. Jesus is the Son of God. Father and Son – a relationship that implies both essential equality and relational rank. Father and Son share identity, but the Father has authority over the Son. Psalms 2:7, a passage applied to Christ in Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4 and Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, would seem to demonstrate that this Father-Son relationship predated the Incarnation.
Over forty times in the John’s gospel, Jesus mentions that he was sent by the Father to earth to do his work. The one in greater authority sent the one in the subordinate position to accomplish the work assigned to him. Jesus never acted as if this was demeaning. He rejoiced in doing the Father’s will. John 3:16 tells us that because of the great love of the Father for the world, “he sent his only begotten Son.” In John 8:42, Jesus asserted, “I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.” John 12:49-50 makes it very clear. “For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.” Jesus made it clear that he came to this earth on the orders of the Father to accomplish the Father’s work. Those orders preceded the incarnation.
7) The Bible supports the relational subordination of Christ after his Resurrection.
Did the subordination of Christ end at the resurrection? Certainly, Philippians 2:9-11 tells us that Jesus was exalted to the highest place and that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Yet, in spite of that truth, Scripture still maintains a subordination of rank that extended even beyond the Resurrection and exaltation of Christ.
The most powerful of these passages is, perhaps, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘all things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.”
How could it be any clearer than that? Jesus will deliver the kingdom to God the Father, who has put all things (except himself) under subjection to Christ. Verse 28 seals the deal. When all things have become subjected to the Son (at the eschatos) the “Son himself will also be subjected to him (the Father) who put all things in subjection under him (the Son).” Why is this? So that God (the Father) may be all in all. All that the Son does to the very end of time is done for the glory of the Father. The Father glorifies the Son that the Son may glorify the Father. Essential equality with relational rank.
Fifteen times the New Testament describes Jesus being at the right hand of God (which clearly implies a secondary authority). In Romans 8:34, Jesus is at God’s right hand interceding for us. “Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” The very act of interceding implies appealing to one of superior rank. Ephesians 1:20-23 describes this entire process. “(T)hat he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” Note that the exaltation of Christ and the placing of him in authority is done completely by the Father. He is in charge and the Son serves his purposes. This picture is not isolated in the New Testament. Jesus continued to serve the Father’s purposes for the Father’s glory, even after his Resurrection and exaltation.
An accurate reading of church history demonstrates that ES was the predominant orthodox view of the Trinity during church history.
Both sides in this debate have maintained that their view represents the historical and orthodox view of the Trinity, and accuse the other side of innovation. I was, frankly, shocked the first time I read someone who claimed that eternal subordination was a recent innovation. That claim is made regularly by advocates of egalitarianism. They say that eternal subordination is a reaction to the cultural changes we have seen in the last generation. As women have gained greater equality in society and church, some have reacted by reinterpreting the doctrine of the Trinity to include ES, thereby justifying complementarianism, which they see as the subjugation and demeaning of women.
This is a uniquely bold reinterpretation of church history. The treatment of the Trinity in all the standard, orthodox systematic theologies of the post-reformation era consistently reveals the key assertions of ES – equality of essence but relational order within the Godhead.
Egalitarians tend to point to two things to buttress their view of church history. First, they point to the rejection of the subordination of Origen and those who followed after him by the ancient creeds (Nicene, Athanasian, etc). They refuse to accept the fact that ancient subordinationism is a significantly different doctrine from eternal subordination. Subordinationists held that Jesus was separate from and a lesser being than the Father. ES rejects that view just as the egalitarians do. We affirm Jesus’ place in the Godhead – his essential equality with the Father. We only hold that was the Trinity relates, there is an order of rank or authority. We deny that this demeans Christ or denies his equality of essence with the Father. The point is that egalitarians cannot simply demonstrate the early church’s rejection of subordination and take that as a rejection of ES. They are two different things. In fact, those who denied subordination demonstrated an understanding that the Father held a place that the Son and Spirit do not.
Egalitarians also point to affirmations of great theologians of the equality of Jesus to the Father. This, again, is a false proof. We do not deny the equality of the Father and Son. We affirm it. In fact, you can go to the theologies of those who affirm ES most strongly and cull statements about the essential equality of the persons of the Godhead. We believe that, just as the egalitarians do. To prove that someone affirmed the equality of essence of the persons of the Godhead proves nothing. Both sides do that.
What egalitarians neglect is the clear evidence that great theologians of Christendom have almost uniformly, until recent years, seen the Trinity as essentially equal with order of authority. Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” is one of the standard works. He is one of the vocal advocates of ES. On page 252 of his opus, he gives the following quotes from some of the great theological minds.
Charles Hodge was one of the theological luminaries of the 19th Century, serving as principal of Princeton seminary from 1851-1878. He made the following comments in his Systematic Theology. .
“The Nicene doctrine includes, (1) the principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority.”
“The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation.”
“The Creeds are nothing more than a well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son and Spirit…and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and operation. These are scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense that they have been accepted by the Church universal.”
Now, if nothing else, we see here that ES is no modern innovation. It was clearly affirmed in the 19th Century by Charles Hodge, an eminent theologian.
Augustus H. Strong, of Rochester Seminary, one of the preeminent Baptist Theologians of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries made the following statements in his Systematic Theology. These quotes also are culled from Grudem, pages 252.
“Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office and operation.”
“The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father, or in other words an order of personalty, office, and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority.”
“We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father,but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office and operation ,not a subordination of essence.”
Stephen Kovach and Peter Schemm, in the September 1999 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, wrote a skillful defense of eternal subordination. It is available on the internet. In that scholarly treatment, they review the history of theology and give a devastating blow to those who hold that ES is not the historical and orthodox position of the church. Their thesis, which they carefully and convincingly demonstrate, is represented in the following quote.
“It cannot be legitimately denied that the eternal subordination of the Son is an orthodox doctrine and believed from the history of the early church to the present day.”
They also decribe the findings of preeminent church historian Philip Schaff that the Nicene Fathers believed that the Father, Son and Spirit “have the same divine dignity but in an order of subordination.” Schaff said that
“…all important scholars since Petavius admit subordination in the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity.”
Kovach and Schemm survey history and reveal the consistent presence of the doctrine of ES throughout church history. Hilary of Poitiers (291-371) in his “De Trinitae” made clear statements of the rank and order of the equal Persons of the Trinity. Athanasius’ “Orationes contra Arianos” gave three proofs of the Son’s eternity. While his chief aim was to prove equality of the Son, he also affirmed an eternal order in the Godhead.
They track the statements of the Cappadocian Fathers, Augustine, and the Reformers that support the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son. They did not clearly develop this doctrine, as has been done in more modern times. The modern gender battles have drawn us all back to sharpen our grasp on Scriptures. Their main purpose was to prove the deity of Christ and his essential equality with the Father. But even though their focus was on the eternal equality of Christ, they also clearly delineated (if they did not emphasize) the rank and order of the Persons of the Trinity.
Again, I would encourage anyone with greater interest to find and read Kovach and Schemm’s article.
History does not prove truth. What an objective review of church history does prove is that ES has been (in one form or another) the historical and orthodox position of the Christian church. There is no validity to claims made by some that ES is a modern theological innovation.
9) The Greek word kephale implies authority, contrary to egalitarian assertions.
In both 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23, the word head (kephale) is used. The following statements are clearly made. God is the “head” of Jesus. Jesus is the “head” of the church. Jesus is the “head” of man. Man is the “head” of woman. The husband is the “head” of the wife. The traditional interpretation of these passages has been to see “head” as a reference to authority. God has authority over Jesus. Jesus holds authority over the church and the man. The man holds authority over his wife and men hold authority in the church.
Feminist interpreters in recent years have questioned that translation of kephale. They claim that its primary meaning is “source” and that the concept of authority is not inherent in the word. So, who is right?
Again, I cannot give a full treatment to this discussion here. But I would refer the reader to Wayne Grudem’s devastating response to the arguments of Catherine Kroeger in her article “head” from the “Dictionary of Paul and His Letters.” She argues for kephale being interpreted as “source” and he demonstrates the fault in her argument and the weakness of her scholarly methods. CBMW and other sites have information to give help on this issue.
Based on my studies, I would make the following observations. First, it seems clear that in Ephesians 5:23, authority is at issue. The husband is the head of the wife and the wife submits to the husband. The word submission, held in opposition to “head” clearly implies authority. Colossians 2:10 clearly relates the concepts of “head” “with rule and authority.” Ephesians 1:22-23 is unmistakable. “And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” All things were put under subjection to Jesus and he was made head over all things. Authority here is undeniable. Even in those passages in which “source” is an acceptable translation, authority is often also a component. Advocates of the “source” interpretation need to demonstrate not only that source is a possible translation, but that it is the presumptive meaning of the word. Paul’s usage makes it clear that authority is implied in his use of the word.
Second, the LXX gives testimony to the inherent concept of authority in kephale. Kephale translates “rosh” (Hebrew for head) 18 times (some are variants). The concept of authority is well evidenced in this and there is no instance of kephale meaning source.
Grudem identifies extrabiblical usages of kephale used metaphorically and demonstrates that the idea of leadership or superior rank is well demonstrated in those.
The most normal and natural interpretation of each of these key passages requires the idea of authority. Too often, feminist interpreters are put in the position of trying to convince us that what the Bible seems to say is not what it really says; that we must filter out our prejudices to see what they see. I am convinced that their interpretation of this word is flawed by their cultural prejudices.
10) Only the ES/Complementarian view adequately explains John 10:30 and 14:28
In John, Jesus makes two straightforward and seemingly conflicting statements. He says, in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” John is the clearest of the gospels on the deity of Christ and his equality with the Father. But, in John 14:28, Jesus also says, “the Father is greater than I.” How can both be true? How can Jesus be one with the Father, yet also assert that the Father is greater? Only the ES position adequately explains this. The Subordinationists denied the former statement.
The Egalitarians are left with the task of explaining away the clear meaning of the latter statement. The Complementarian view explains both. Jesus was referring to his ontological equality in chapter 10. In chapter 14, he refers to his submission to the Father because of their relational rank. ES allows us to balance both verses without ignoring either.
Conclusion
The Eternal Subordination of the Son is the clear teaching of Scripture and is backed up by the consistent testimony of church history. It is an essential component of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. While those who deny ES are not denying the faith, they are adopting a seriously flawed view of God that must be opposed.
I have argued my side forcefully, and I expect others to do the same. Let’s play nice, though, folks.
I could go into the Biblical misinterpretations that come with this view, but my first question actually begins if women are not seen as lesser why are we treated as lesser and have been for a very long time by the church. Society also treated women as lesser. To deny that would be to deny history. I lived a lot of that history.
2) “The passion attached to ES is because of its implication for the gender debate.”
You lose me right there, as you are sitting in judgment of those who disagree with you, and denying that their passion might be based on scripture, which tacitly implies yours is.
I find that sad.
Bob: I agree, that is another good point that I had in my mind.
Dave Miller:
You said–”My first annual SBC meeting was in 1979, the year the Conservative Resurgence began. I was a seminary student then, and my first decade of service in SBC churches was marked by the great denominational battle over the Bible.”
Many of us would argue that there never was really a Battle over the Bible. But it allowed the takeover of the SBC because many did not understand it was not really about the Bible.
But this issue greatly divided the SBC and the divisions still continue.
Now you say there is going to be a battle over the role of Women.
Wow, something else to make the SBC even a smaller group of people.
And I know you and I do not agree about the CR. I remember 1979 for Bold Mission Thrust.
You firmly believe it was necessary and I firmlu believe it continues to contribute to the downfall of a once great denomination.
I believe many lost people in this world no longer listen to us SB because we are always battling about something.
Also, in the SBC I do not think there is going to be a battle over gender roles at home and church.
The 2000 BF&M settled that issue if one wants to have an active role in the SBC. To even attempt to go against the 2000 BF&M is to cause one to lose their jobs, etc. Don’t most people have to sign off on this document?
30 years later and the Battles in the SBC continue.
When do they stop?
Many good Bible-believing people have moved on to serve the Lord in places where they do not have to constantly be involved in Battles because they are tired of the my way or highway approach.
The SBC left me not the other way around.
Just a few random thoughts to throw out there….
1. I suspect there are many non ES-ers out there who are also some sort of complementarian. They are not necessarily hand in hand.
2. If Jesus is one with the Father, and the Father is greater than Jesus, and this relationship models marriage, then is the husband greater than the wife?
3. Jesus did say that He had all authority in heaven and earth.
4. If ES is true, then is gender subordination equally eternally true? Will women forever be subordinate to men, even in the life to come? If not, why not?
I would say that I am not one who holds to ES, although I give it little thought and am persuadable. I do suspect that everything we know of Christ, even of the eternal Christ is filtered through the lens of His earthly incarnation. I don’t think that necessarily means that ES is untrue, but I think it could explain why people think it is true even if it isn’t.
Debbie,
I know that you asked your question to Dave, but if you asked the question to me, then I think you would have to define what you mean by “lesser”.
In other words, if your definition of lesser and my definition of lesser are not the same definition, then I would not share an assumption in your question in the first place.
Now, I think Dave has made it clear that he does not believe that “submission implies demeaning and thus lesser”. However, if you believe that, then obviously the two of you do not share the same belief.
Grace to you,
Benji
Bob,
I was not directing that point at one side or the other. My point was that the renewed interest in this doctrine is because of its implications for the gender debate. Do a search of ES on google. Do you think that the interest in this doctrine is because of the interesting implications for the interconnectivity of the Trinity?
You will have a hard time finding a single article (I did not find any) that dealt with ES separate from its implications to the gender debate.
*that is true on both sides of the argument.
*I do not consider that an insult to either side, but simply a fact (as I see it) explaining why this doctrine is crucial and why so much is being written about it today.
I do think [again I'm playing my one string banjo here] that hermeneutics is key [THE key?] on this issue and, well, I would think every other issue as well.
Here is where I am at.
1. I do think there is a place for interpreting the Old Testament in its own context without bringing in the New Testament.
2. BUT I also think that we must NOT stop there but go on to see how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament.
3. The TENSION I can see, however, is that some people can have such rigid interpretations of the Old Testament that they do NOT let the New Testament speak.
4. THEREFORE, I think it would not be a bad practice to hold our #1 interpretations with a loose grip.
BOTTOM LINE–Let the New Testament Speak!!!
This is how I can see this working out on this issue. My concern is folks already arriving at very R I G I D interpretations concerning gender before they even get out of Genesis chapter 3. And if folks do this, then I think they are just asking for it [i.e., NOT allowing the New Testament to rule the roost on what is right doctrine].
Bill, as to your points,
1) I do not deny the possibility you suggest, but I think that in general, the ES positions and the gender debate positions line up pretty clearly.
2) As I stated in my essay, the Father is greater than the Son in authority and rank within the equal trinity. The husband holds an authority in the marriage. that does not make him a greater person. Equality of essence and diversity of order.
3) Yes, Jesus said that, Bill. And 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 tells us that Jesus places all that authority back in the Father’s hands.
I hope that this debate will focus on scripture and the ideas I have presented. I lay no claim to being impartial here. I have a position that I believe and am attempting to advocate.
I will attempt to deal substantively with any substantive arguments. I actually hope that some who oppose my view will attempt to deal substantively with those points – historical and scriptural.
I am planning to ignore accusations that my motivation is somehow to oppress women or the such. I believe what I believe is biblical. My motivation is to proclaim what I believe is biblical truth. You can believe that or not. If you do not believe that, I cannot convince you, so I will not try.
But I will try (as my schedule allows) to deal with substantive questions or comments.
Tom, I used the CR as a point of introduction. As my ministry in the SBC began with the CR, it will finish with the Gender Debates. You and I and others have gone round and round about the CR.
I know that you think the SBC was healthy and thriving when the CR began. I believe it had a cancer that was eating it away – a theological cancer. We are not going to agree on that here. I’m going to change my mind about what happened. Are you? It is a pointless debate and is not the intent of this post.
I hope you will comment on the subject of the post – the Eternal Subordination of the Son.
Benji,
I am interested in how your hermeneutical rubric apply to this debate? Can you apply it to the discussion more specifically?
As you say, every issue really comes down to hermeneutics.
Dave,
You said “Did the subordination of Christ end at the resurrection?…Jesus will deliver the kingdom to God the Father, who has put all things (except himself) under subjection to Christ. Verse 28 seals the deal.”
I think you’re right.
What implications does this have for the unmarried woman or man?
Dave,
My first response to your post was “he does like to live dangerously!” Some of the comments here have already reflected that – though others seem seriously to engage the issue.
I had honestly never heard of a non-ES position until just a few years ago – not from within the SBC anyway, and I attended one of the most liberal Baptist colleges in Texas! Yes, they dealt with the Subordinationism heresy but they flatly reject it. However, most of my professors were in favor of equal roles for women in the church, though they never used the argument of Trinitarian equality as the bases for their position. My professors just always denied the trustworthiness of the Bible on issues they disagreed with (regardless of what some others have implied).
I do agree with you, however, that much of the passion (and please place emphasis on the word “passion”) that we see in the non-ES position today is motivated by the gender role issue. That is not to say that every non-ES is also an egalitarian. It does appear, however, that more often today, those arguing for egalitarianism come at it from the standpoint of a non-ES position and understanding of scriptures. Those who promote an egalitarian position will often re-translate Greek words so as to “prove” their point (as you have demonstrated) which, whether they want it to or not – leads to undermining the ES of Jesus to the Father.
Good post brother. It is one of the best short works which discusses the current debate. Thanks for the work you have put into it. I hope it will actually lead to a discussion – and not just rank platitudes.
Grace,
Wes
Dave,
Well, when it comes to egalitarianism, there seems to be this idea that goes something like this [I am writing off the cuff and so I welcome any egalitarian to correct me if I am wrong].
Adam and Eve were created the rule over creation with equal authority. Then, after the fall, we find that unequal authority comes into the picture with the statement that woman would desire her husband, but the husband would rule over her.
Therefore, God “originally” created man and women with equal authority, but the fall hacked things up.
Sooooo, in the light of the redemption that God in Christ has brought about, we should “return” to that pre-fall state of man and women having equal authority.
Now, if someone *rigidly* holds that interpretation through their study of Genesis 1-3 in *only* its Old Testament context, then you can forget them letting Ephesians 5 speak in my opinion.
In other words, I think they will bring their Old Testament interpretation to Ephesians 5 and thus view Ephesians 5 through the lens of their Old Testament interpretation.
And that, in my opinion, is a no no. In short, I think we must view the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament and not the other way around.
Beth,
I believe that scripture limits the authority of man to two places. Biblical roles of pastor/elder/deacon are for men. And men are given leadership (to be operated like Christ – servant leadership) with their wives in the home.
I do not believe the scripture teaches that “men” have authority over “women” except in the church and at home (divinely ordained institutions).
Wes, thank you for joining in. I, as you said, hope the debate can be substantive.
Benji, thanks for clarifying. Now I understand where you are coming from. It is always bad hermeneutics when someone uses one passage to negate the meaning of another. Thanks for helping an old man understand.
Dave,
Now, I do want to make one thing clear. I am not saying that the Old Testament and New Testament contradict each other. However, what I am saying is that since the New Testament obviously interprets the Old Testament correctly, then I think it is a good idea to have a “humble” approach, if you will, when we are engaged in doing #1 in comment 8.
The New Testament, in my opinion, can have some rather “surprising” interpretations of the Old Testament–Matthew 2:15 for example.
Dave Miller:
You said–”As my ministry in the SBC began with the CR, it will finish with the Gender Debates.”
What do you mean that “it will finish with the Gender Debates.”
My thanks in advance.
Tom, in the first decade or so of my ministry, the CR dominated our denomination.
I believe that in the next 20 years or so, the gender debates will heat up and issues like the one I raised here today will become hot-button, even more so than they are today.
Bill,
“1. I suspect there are many non ES-ers out there who are also some sort of complementarian. They are not necessarily hand in hand.”
I are one.
Dave, I appreciate the explanation. My passion in this stems from scripture, and not from any implications as respects egalitarianism and its implications. That seems contrary to your point #2.
But not a problem. I love people who disagree agreeably, when they’re sticking to scripture, as both sides are affirming what they do believe. I think there’s too much of a lack of that, perhaps coupled with a shallowness of belief, in the SBC. At least the evidence I see, locally, suggests that.
Bob, I probably worded that point wrong. Maybe “interest” might have been better than passion.
My point was really just an observation, one that I think is verifiable. If one searches ES on google, he will find many articles on both sides. But I have yet to find one that solely deals with ES and its implications for the Trinity. Every one deals with its implications for the gender debates.
That was all I was trying to say.
And I agree with you. We need to learn to debate scripture without recrimination and accusation.
Benji: I think our definitions would be the same. The word speaks for itself.
Benji: I think our definitions would be the same. The word speaks for itself.
I might also add what Dave did not put in his post, or at least I didn’t read it. ES believers such as Bruce Ware, who was mentioned, also teaches that prayers are to be made to God the Father only and not to Jesus Christ. That is an important point I think.
I’m not sure what the point of that is. In the New Testament, prayer is to the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, with the Spirit helping us. Both Jesus and the Spirit intercede for us.
I don’t know that anyone would say that a prayer addressed to Jesus is de facto nullified.
But the pattern for prayer given to us by the Savior starts, “Our Father.” We pray in Jesus’ name to the Father.
Dave: Praying to the Father or to Christ doesn’t matter. Both are God, both answer prayer.
By the way the point is that it is a wrong teaching. It’s simply not true.
I realize I sound curt in my answers and for that I apologize, but I am not only against this teaching and do not interpret the passages as you do Dave, but I absolutely despise this teaching as much as some despise Calvinist teaching. And I realize that this shows in my comments.
“Our Father in heaven…”
Mt 6:6 “But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret.”
Col 1:3 “We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you…”
There is a pattern for prayer – to the Father, in the name of Jesus, with the assistance of the Spirit.
I am not sure anyone, as I said before, would say that a prayer is invalidated because it is addressed to Jesus, but there is a pattern in prayer that I try to follow.
Is there no more substantive issue than this that we could discuss?
But Debbie, the question is not whether you like it. It is whether it is biblical – which I believe it clearly is.
You are a Calvinist and believe it true regardless of the emotion of some who condemn it. You say that Calvinism is true even though another hates the doctrine.
I believe ES is true because of my study of scripture. Your hatred of the doctrine does not sway me. Only reasoned and sound exegesis will do so.
I am willing to engage anyone who argues the issues substantively. But your visceral reaction, while you are entitled to it, is not a factor in this discussion.
As a Calvinist, I’m sure you understand my position.
It seems to me that, for one’s will to be subordinated to another, the wills must differ. If your will is for me to go to Dairy Queen, there ain’t gonna be no subordination. Just enthusiastic cooperation!
Seriously, I can understand how the Son might not have wanted to leave the Father and come to earth as a Man. That would be worse than one of us becoming a worm (and that analogy is woefully inadequate).
I can understand how He might not want to die an excruciating death on a cross.
I can understand how He might not want to submit to enduring the agony of separation from His Father by becoming sin.
But now, He is in heaven with the Father, and I don’t see anything that will be required of Him, where His desires would differ from the Father’s will. So where is the necessity of subordination? Or the opportunity for it?
Perhaps it is what will happen at Armageddon .. where souls will be forever condemned. But after that, I cannot think of anything, nor am I familiar enough with scripture to know what it might say about it.
I think this subject very substantive. Prayer is important is it not? It should be what our Christian life consists of. The New Testament speaks of Jesus as God in several places. John 1:1, John 20:8, Romans 9:5 and Hebrews 1:8. I know that you are not denying that Jesus is God, but what does being God mean? God is not subordinate to anyone.
The best way I know how to explain what I believe is that the Godhead is in mutual submission. They seek to glorify and obey each other.
Jesus said “I and the Father are one” and “if you have seen me you have seen the Father.” I don’t see any type of Eternal Subordination in these passages. Scripture interpreting scripture.
Jesus said if we will ask him for anything in his name he will do it.(John 14:14). That tells me I can pray to God the Father or Christ. We could even pray to the Holy Spirit because He too is God.
1 Corinthians 1:9 says “God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” The Greek word used for fellowship is translated communion. One on one communion as in prayer.
That is an excellent point, Bob.
Perhaps Jesus is modelling submission for us. Certainly, he has never been a rebellious son who had to be forced to submit, even at Gethsemane. But the issue of subordination is more than just the submission of will. It is also order of rank. Jesus is given all authority by the Father, then in 1 Cor 15, gives it all back.
Horrible illustration- I am the senior pastor. My associates work under my authority. If we disagree, there may come a point in which I assert my authority and demand that they submit. It happens very infrequently. But even when we are in full agreement, I still hold the position of authority.
I know there are holes in that illustration, but I think there is a point to be made from it.
The Father holds authority, even when he and the Son are in agreement.
I think, though, that you raise a fascinating point, Bob. I’m going to have to go back and think that one through a little more.
I will come back with what I am sure will be a witty and devastating response later!
Debbie, I would encourage you to read my last point in the original article in which I dealt with that verse, “I and the Father are one.” I’m sure you will disagree, but it might give us a point of discussion at least.
On the surface at least, I do think Debbie has a valid point concerning John 14:14. Also, in Acts 7:59 Stephen called on Christ who, of course, had already ascended.
I also think Debbie has a valid point concerning mutual glorification and John Frame mentions this in His book “The Doctrine of God” [Pg. 694-696].
However, mutual submission is another matter. I simply do not see that in Scripture.
These are some of the immediate thoughts that come to mind concerning this: The Father sends the Son. The Father and the Son send the Spirit. The Son of God. The Spirit of God. The Spirit of Christ. NEVER–The God of Son. The God of Spirit. The Christ of Spirit.
As you can see we do disagree on the interpretation. John 14:11 was interpreted by Athanasius to mean that the trinity works in cooperation of each other. You will never find him speaking as though the Father were commanding and the Son obeying.
As for the church history Dave, everyone wants to claim that their view is orthodox church history. Even I would and to a point do. For example:
The Council of Nicaea dealt with this subject which had gone even further in it’s Creed.
Augustine didn’t write with Eternal Subordination as the theme. He wrote “Just as the Father and Son are inseparable, so do they work inseparably.”
John Calvin said that the trinity “cannot be unequal ontologically or functionally when thought of as “being in relation. ” He repeatedly warned against diving the Godhead.
Herman Bavink brought up all forms of submission and repudiated all of them.
Cornelius Van Til said “A consistently Biblical doctrine of the Trinity would imply a complete rejection of all subordinatinism.
Brother Dave,
Always an interesting subject!
Along the way I have come to the same conclusion as you do, but through slightly different means. I’ll try to explain. Although I do not think there is anything wrong with using terms like subordination or eternal subordination (since most try to understand what is implied), I like to use the term “eternal manifestation”. Where that, in the EM of Christ, Jesus the Son of God is obedient to the will of the Father to carry out the purpose and plan of the God. His obedience is not subordinate in the sense of separation, but is coordinate in the realm of accomplishment.
Hebrews 1:1-4 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, (2) in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. (3) And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (4) having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
Since, I do not use the terms “subordinate” within the functional distinctions of how God is working to bring about His purpose, I also do not build such a tight correlation between what we understand as the ontological purposes that exist when comparing God with mankind (man and woman)..in that the created man and woman were made without sin and in an order. In other words, in the perfected state of Adam and Eve (before the fall), God had established an ontological order to their benefit and for the benefit of all humankind after the fall with respect to salvation. Yet we are distinct from God in our being (ontologically), since God is a being not created.
Genesis 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 2:18-25 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” (19) Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. (20) The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. (21) So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. (22) The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. (23) The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” (24) For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (25) And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
So, the man and the woman were ordered perfectly, and that order has not been abolished. Rich and I were having a similar discussion about this earlier. Even as sin entered the relationship, the order remained,…and as Christ fulfilled the law, the order remained. Only in heaven will we not be given to that order since the purpose will have been exhausted by the resurrection.
Matthew 22:29-30 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. (30) “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
The use of “eternal manifestation” seems to be more in line with the language of scripture to me at this point, since we will be with Him (Christ) throughout eternity.
2 Timothy 2:11-13 It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; (12) If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; (13) If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
Even though “eternal subordination” is well understood by most,… it can create some confusion because of the differences in the ontological understanding imposed by us finite beings when compared to the “being” of God which is not created. There is little doubt that God has created order for man and woman until the resurrection, and all for the benefit of those he has called to Himself. But, I would not correlate that so tightly with the “eternal subordination” discussion in order to lay a foundation for the God created order of man and woman because that order is not abolished in Christ….I’m not sure why it is even required as such.
Just some thoughts…..
Blessings,
Chris
Benji: Mutual submission was the only words I could think of to give a picture thought to what I believe. I agree with Bob who said it better than I did. As usual.
Debbie,
* One day I hope to learn how to italicize on the internet:)
“You will never find him speaking as though the Father were commanding and the Son obeying.”
I don’t think that is true:
John 10:18. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This COMMANDMENT have I received of my Father. (caps mine)
It’s the same word in the Greek as when Christ spoke of a new “commandment” in John 13:34 [for example].
Could you give me the reference where Van Til said the above quote? I’m not trying to say that he did not say that, but I think I would like to see that quote in context.
Dave,
“Clearly, the ancient creeds rejected the doctrine that Jesus was distinct from and of lesser essence than the Father.”
I’m wanting to understand you here. On the surface I think you are right. However, if I made this into 2 sentences would you still agree with it?:
1. Clearly, the ancient creeds rejected the doctrine that Jesus was distinct.
2. Clearly, the ancient creeds rejected the doctrine that Jesus was of lesser essence than the Father.
The reason why I am asking is that I believe the Father and the Son can be “distinguished”, but not separated.
Debbie, the question I would raise about your points related to history is whether it properly distinguishes the heresy “subordinationism” from the traditional teaching of “ES”. Subordinationism maintained that Jesus was “distinct from of a different essence than” the Father, while ES is very careful to maintain the equality of the Father and the Son.
the church did, in fact, clearly reject subordinationism. And yet those figures who rejected subordinationism (as taught by Arius, Origen, et al) continued to recognize rank within the Trinity.
That is the focus of the historical argument.
Debbie,
My suspician is that the “subordinationism” Van Til was talking about was Arian Subordination and not what Dave is referring to.
At some point, Benji, those kinds of distinctions about the Trinity sprain my brain.
The early fathers fought against the idea that Jesus was a lesser being than the Father. They argued that he was of the same essence as the Father. They focused on that half of the equation, because that is what they battled against.
They still maintained distinction in roles.
All that to say, Benji, I think I agree with you.
Benji, if you learn how to italicize and format in comments, could you share it with me?
Chris, I see the motive to change the terms.
I think that the words “Eternal Subordination” do have some emotive effect on us – implying oppression or denigration to some. Not trying to pick a fight with Debbie, but I suspect that explains the visceral reaction she described above – the idea that this word inherently insults the glory of our Savior. It is, of course, not my purpose to do that.
I just used the term as it has been used over time and in its non-emotive sense of “order of authority.”
I haven’t thought through your suggestion for a new terminology, but my suspicion is that we would find in time that there are problems with it as well.
I guess I’m inclined to try to accurately define the traditional term. It is unfortunate for my position, though, that it shares the name of an early heresy clearly rejected by the church.
Dave,
Here is how I understand it. Maybe in part, at least.
The same Hebrew word for “one” in the passage concerning the two becoming “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24 is the same word for Yahweh being “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4.
Jesus, in the New Testament, quotes from Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19 and says that the husband and wife are no longer two, but one and that this unity is not to be separated.
In other words, I think believers would agree that the husband and wife can be distinguished, but they are no longer two, but one.
In the same way, the three persons of the Trinity can be distinguished, but not separated. They are Tri-[Unity].
I think this is a point that one can bring up to Jehovah’s Witnesses for example.
If the two can be one, then why can’t the three be one? It’s the same word in Hebrew.
Dave,
Very good post. And, you are exactly right about anyone not believing that the Son is always obedient to the Father has serious flaws in thier theology…flaws that could lead to some very damaging teachings.
And, we are taught to pray to the Father. We are taught all thru the NT to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus.
Debbie, what do you do with the passage of Scripture where Sarah even called Abraham “lord?” It says that she obeyed him. The NT teaches a very complementarian position…very clearly; and Sarah was an example given in the NT.
I will go so far as to say that if anyone does not hold to ES, and to the husband being the head of the home; then they are either ignorant of the Scriptures, or else they are liberals who are denying the clear teachings of the Bible in an attempt to fit into the culture of our day.
Have a great night!
David
“then they are either ignorant of the Scriptures, or else they are liberals who are denying the clear teachings of the Bible in an attempt to fit into the culture of our day.”
Unnecessary [my opinion]
Dave & Bob (and everyone else)
I’ve been watching the conversation and have been blessed. Bob, you raised a point that has always intrigued me. That is the question: “Can one’s will be subordinated to another’s will if both wills are in agreement?” That’s not your exact question, but it was what came to my mind in reading your post #32. That, I think, is really the issue – and it makes the point for the equality of being and the subordination of roles.
Paul writes: “Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had come as a man in His external form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death – even to death on a cross,” (Php. 2:5-8, HCS).
It seems to me that our problem with subordination of one’s will to another is found in the idea of “control.” We think that because Christ’s will was subordinate to the will of the Father, that means He is less than the Father (in our finite thinking) or that the Father had some type of control over the Son (thus the objections raise by those of the more egalitarian persuasion). But scripture clearly teaches otherwise. I do not see this as an argument of “wills” but of “roles.” Jesus never considered His divinity or equality with the Father as being in jeopardy (by His becoming flesh, or subordinate to the Father). Nor did He consider His divinity or equality with God as something to use to his own purposes. He was equal as God in every way – but willingly took up the subordinate role so as to accomplish the Divine will (of Father, Son and Holy Spirit). As God never changes, so Jesus, as God, never changes in His role of Son, Messiah, Redeemer, Savior and Mediator. In being and essence He is every bit equal to the Father. In function or role, He has willingly taken upon Himself the subordinate role.
Chris J., you’re rubbing off on me!
Grace,
Wes
Thanks, Wes,
I, too, thought Bob’s point was excellent. But I like your differentiation between control and obedience. I think that is the answer to Bob’s question.
David W,
You don’t need to be involved in blogs. You have the responsibility of seeing that the Vols beat Bama tomorrow. Do your job! I’m counting on you.
Benji:
007 said-”“then they are either ignorant of the Scriptures, or else they are liberals who are denying the clear teachings of the Bible in an attempt to fit into the culture of our day.”
Unnecessary [my opinion]”
I agree with you. But this is standard fare for him.
Brother Dave,
I am with you on the terms… it does not really make that much difference.
The point am trying to make though…. is to press for a “fundamental difference” in the operation within the Trinity as distinct from the “operation and order” established within the creation of man and woman.
For instance, God created man and woman; their order,….and their finite beings are used by God as a means to an end, until the resurrection of the dead. After the resurrection, that order is no longer needed. But until the resurrection, the order is needed in the church for its edification.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not like us,…and continue eternally with us. Their being does not cease.
So therefore, the order established for man and woman in the church is with us until the resurrection of the dead, regardless of the analogy of Christ’s headship used by Paul to the church at Corinth, …..this is noticeable since the context of Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians is to bring order in the church, not to argue eternal order. I believe Paul was simply pointing the church back to the order established in creation so that the church would return to edifying one another and return to her first love which is Christ.
Brother Wes,
I think it is the other way around my friend…. Will I see you in Louisville in 2010?
This is a fascinating subject….
Blessings,
Chris
Well stated, Chris. I especially like your distinction between the created order between men and women and the eternal order in the Godhead.
“I will go so far as to say that if anyone does not hold to ES, and to the husband being the head of the home; then they are either ignorant of the Scriptures, or else they are liberals who are denying the clear teachings of the Bible in an attempt to fit into the culture of our day.”
Unfortunately, this is what it always comes to. If you were as smart, or as holy, or as biblically astute as I am, you would believe as I do. Otherwise you’re ignorant or a liberal. This had the potential of being a fruitful discussion. Not quite so likely anymore.
Not trying to pick a fight with Debbie, but I suspect that explains the visceral reaction she described above – the idea that this word inherently insults the glory of our Savior.
You are 100% correct Dave, that is my objection.
Benji: We have to distinguish between Christ’s voluntary subordination while on earth(he gave up his rightful place to lower himself for us) and Eternal. It’s the eternal I am speaking of and it’s the eternal that I am arguing against. I have no quibble and agree that Christ was subordinate while here on earth. He is not now however nor is it eternal. That is what I believe I have shown. Jesus is God.
I also have a problem with the “formula” prayer.
To all, we’ve had a productive discussion here, lets keep it focused.
Simply stated, it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain the true relationship of the Trinity. Because they are dual or triple comparitive they can only exist in an eternal environment. We debased humans cannot place them in any written explaination. The trinity must exist in the form they are in simultaniously which we cannot connect mortally. Our God is an awsome God and we cannot place Him within a description that fits our human understanding. I can believe both explainations and, yet, one explaination at a time. We better realize God cannot be place on paper for our understanding. Neither can our salvation be placed on paper to understand without the Spirit giving us the insight of the kingdom. Our thinking must be stretched beyond human understanding so we can comprehend the Holy. That is where we are effected and changed.
Great post, Dave. I like thinking about the God we serve. Great post.
“Simply stated, it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain the true relationship of the Trinity.”
True dat, Bruce. True dat!
Debbie said, “We have to distinguish between Christ’s voluntary subordination while on earth(he gave up his rightful place to lower himself for us) and Eternal.”
But, on what basis do you do that? The verses I listed above show that the subordination of Christ to the Father exists until the eschatos. (1 Cor 15)
I will accept that there was certainly a kenosis that took place at the Incarnation. But it does not follow that there is no form of subordination prior to the incarnation or subsequent to the Resurrection.
Can you explain the passages I listed above that seem to indicate a pre-Incarnation and post-resurrection subordination of Christ?
Chris,
I think I see what you are saying when you write: “The point am trying to make though…. is to press for a “fundamental difference” in the operation within the Trinity as distinct from the “operation and order” established within the creation of man and woman.” If I understand you correctly, you’re stating that one cannot argue for egalitarianism between men and women from the operational unity of the Trinity. I would agree, but I also believe that even the Bible uses the subordination of the Son to the Father as an example of the roles between men and women in the home. Of course, as you point out, the big difference is in that the relationship and roles of the Trinity are eternal whereas the role relationships of men and women – whether in the home or church – are only temporary.
Yes, I am planning on being there in 2010 – already have my reservation at the conference. I am trying to get a couple of buddies of mine to come with me. Still working on that though. The theme looks fantastic!
Bruce,
I would add my amen your thoughts brother. Surely we serve an amazing God who is infinitely beyond our thoughts or imaginations. However, God has also spent a great deal of time and effort in revealing Himself to us. He wants us to know Him and proclaim Him in the revelation He has given us. Therefore, while we will never know all there is to know about God, I do believe that He expects us to know what He has revealed. As Benji has pointed out, it is dangerous to become really entrenched on some matters, but we should, as Dave has done, take the scriptures and preach what we know. We certainly cannot explain the depths of the Trinity – but we can dive into the depths of what is revealed – and there we may give glory, honor and praise to the God who Is.
Man, this is good stuff guys.
Grace,
Wes
God says we can have joy unspeakable. And Peace that passes understanding. My guess is that, when it comes to the infinite things of God .. and I include the trinity in that .. we are never ever going to find words to describe it, when we can’t really even explain or understand the joy & peace He gives us.
But this sort of discussion is good, inasmuch as it will, perhaps inexplicably, sharpen our iron. I need all that I can get, and I guess it’s understandable if a few sparks fly.
That happens when you sharpen iron, right?
Thanks for the discussion.
Sorry, shoulda capitalized Trinity. Must have been “devastated” (see #34).
No, Bob, I haven’t finalized my devastating response yet! I will be working on it late into the evening.
“The Father God, and the Word God; Abraham man, and Isaac man: but Abraham one man, Isaac another man; not so the Father one God, and the Word another, but the Father and the Word both the same God.”
–Augustine
Brother Wes,
That is exactly the point. This type of distinction allows for, and does not handicap the analogy of the relationship that the Apostle describes to the church, but only enhances the already established roles and relationship of the man and woman in creation, as progenitors, and in the edification of the church. By maintaining a consistent trajectory from creation through to resurrection the order of the creation (man and woman) remains intact (without any change in order) and a consistent hermeneutic is employed.
Whereas the eternal manifestation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit operate relationally to effect so great a salvation, not so much in what we understand as subordinate, but more of perfecting obedience (in Christ), and perfected guidance (in the Holy Spirit). This work is above us, yet this work is in us both to will and work for His good pleasure.
Philippians 2:12-13 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; (13) for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
We serve a marvelous God!
Blessings,
Chris
Btw…we will have a total of about 12-15 men and sons at the conference…..
Benji,
Maybe it was unnecessary, but it’s still true.
Also, I noticed that everyone passed over the Abraham and Sarah illustration???? This example given to us in the NT is complementarian way beyond what some people are willing to entertain. And, I’ve noticed that a lot of the people who dont want to accept that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father, tend to be egalatarians. So, do the two go hand in hand?
DAvid
Dave:The Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot have separate wills. We serve One God in three persons. Not three Gods. There can be no separation in works, will or power.
Christ was 100% human and 100% God while on this earth. He lowered himself to become human. The human side was subordinate to God the Father.
To suggest that the Son or the Holy Spirit are subordinate makes them lesser in rank(for lack of a better word) than God the Father. That isn’t true. You cannot say the Son is subordinate for eternity and then in the same breath say that He is still equal to God the Father. That is an oxymoron statement.
Dave:The Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot have separate wills. We serve One God in three persons. Not three Gods. There can be no separation in works, will or power.
Christ was 100% human and 100% God while on this earth. He lowered himself to become human. The human side was subordinate to God the Father.
To suggest that the Son or the Holy Spirit are subordinate makes them lesser in rank(for lack of a better word) than God the Father. That isn’t true. You cannot say the Son is subordinate for eternity and then in the same breath say that He is still equal to God the Father. That is an oxymoron statement.
All things have been placed at Christ’s feet. Now. This happened when Christ defeated hell and death. This happened with his ascension.
David Vol: The only passage that Sarah called Abraham lord is in Genesis 8:12 and it was not in a leader follower way. Read it and see the context of the passage.
Sorry I meant 18:12.
Chris said, ‘Even though “eternal subordination” is well understood by most’
Who is most? I don’t think anyone actually understands it at all. Least of all me.
The problem is that the words submission and subordination have very definite meanings in the English language. As Debbie has repeated many times now this doctrine and these words are continually used to demean women. The response here has been either, no it doesn’t or get over it. These are not adequate responses. Ephesians 5 has been brought up but typically this chapter begins at vs. 22, verse 21 and previous apparently not existing in most preacher’s Bibles. But I jest. To be serious I have a couple of points to make.
One, I am a big fan of the differences between men and women. We are blessedly not the same.
Two, Any relationship based on love must be one based on mutual submission- I Cor 13 is clear that love does not insist on its own way. Submission must be offered in order to have a loving relationship. Anytime submission is demanded it is unloving- therefore ungodly. Too often we claim to be have a biblical doctrine of submission and then act in a worldly way. This must be repented of if we will be in right relationships.
Three, it is very interesting to me that ES folks use Gen and the curse to support their view. We do not fight for the curse in any other context. There are no preachers railing against the evils of herbicides that kill the God-ordained thorns and thistles. It seems to me that if the woman is cursed to submit to men then the loving thing would be to fight to liberate her as hard as the farmer fights to liberate himself from thorns, weeds, and hard ground.
Fourth, David 007 has a good point about Sarah addressing Abraham as lord. I think that women should esteem men – in fact, it is a major theme with me these days that we do not esteem each other near enough. We do not treat each other with a fraction of the love and respect that Almighty God shows us. He calls us friends, heirs, and colaborers. We call each other names that are not fit for the sons of God to be called.
Having said all that I continue to struggle with the egal/comp issue. I am not happy with the language of either camp at this point. Until 1 Cor 13 is a major definer of terms for this issue I think we will continue to misunderstand and disrespect each other.
Brother Strider,
When I used the phrase “eternal subordination is understood by most”…I was playing off of the history of the church (all of it), this concept is not spoke of so much now, so your right to say not many have a sense of the argument.
I like the way you bring up submission…there is a lot to be said for submitting one to another in the man/woman relationship.
Also, the Genesis account illustrates the perfection of God’s design for man and woman, ….then the fall. In other words, the order God established for man and woman did not occur because of the fall, it was perfectly purposed and planned by God for His people (now known as the church). Submission (or as some term subordinate) is simply a fact of the order God has created for our (the churches) edification. The order has not changed, how the order works in submission is much more difficult because of the fall though. That is why I believe that the Godhead is distinct from the conversations of egal or compli, because God is not effected by the fall,…He is the redemption. Additionally, He has no order other than His purpose… He simply is (I AM), but manifests Himself according to His purpose and plan.
Blessings,
Chris
I really appreciate your response Chris. The problem remains one of semantics. To subordinate carries a specific meaning in our language and culture.
sub·or·di·nate (s-bôrdn-t)
adj.
1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary.
2. Subject to the authority or control of another.
n.
One that is subordinate.
tr.v. (s-bôrdn-t) sub·or·di·nat·ed, sub·or·di·nat·ing, sub·or·di·nates
1. To put in a lower or inferior rank or class.
2. To make subservient; subdue.
Jesus does not belong to a lower class, nor do women. Inferior is equally out of the question. But those meanings exists in this word.
Submit has a better meaning but is still problematic.
sub·mit (sb-mt)
v. sub·mit·ted, sub·mit·ting, sub·mits
v.tr.
1. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.
2. To subject to a condition or process.
3. To commit (something) to the consideration or judgment of another. See Synonyms at propose.
4. To offer as a proposition or contention: I submit that the terms are entirely unreasonable.
v.intr.
1. To give in to the authority, power, or desires of another. See Synonyms at yield.
2. To allow oneself to be subjected to something.
I like the picture of yielding and surrendering voluntarily. This is a much more biblical concept. But unfortunately the word submit continues to carry its latin origen of to ‘place under’. This is again not acceptable when talking about either Jesus or women. I suppose the solution would be for our actions to speak louder than our words but as per Debbie’s comments I am afraid they already have!
In the eternal, two (2) things can exist simultaneously. Humility and Superiority are on each end of the spectrum; however, both exist in Jesus Christ. The way we have to think here on earth is on one characteristic at a time. Mortals are not capable of thinking of two (2) things simultaneously. Kingdom thinking is the ability to allow two (2) thoughts to exist because God’s Word says so; God is one, God is three; Grace and Man’s will; Prayer and God’s Sovereignty. We know we will be neither man nor woman in the Kingdom and, yet, here, we have a structure; a chain of command, if you will. (Servants, Man, Woman and Children) Each one has a responsibility and a response to one another here on earth. The law has not changed and we still operate under the law or the way God has structured His creation. Men are to love, Women are to submit and children are to obey. All are to submit to each other. Each of our functions does not change until we are changed in a moment in a twinkling of an eye. Once we are living in God’s Kingdom we will be given further instructions that we will clearly understand.
When Jesus came in the form of man He had to submit to the Father’s will and to the law under God here on earth just like man. That is the only way He was able to capture the sin debt that was on us and pay it freely. He loved like He commands men to love their wife, He submitted just like He commands women to submit to their husband and He obeyed just like He commands children to obey their parents. Jesus had to pray, “Not my will but Thine be done.”
Dave, I wholeheartedly agree with what you have said. This is the subject of subjects to discuss. I do not like bumper stickers, however, if I had to place one on my car it would read, “Expand your mind, think about God.”
God said that Jesus didn’t see equality with God as a thing to be grasped. The only meaning I can attach to that is that He didn’t grasp it. If so, then His temptations were extremely meaningful, His miraculous deeds were done in submission to, and in accordance with, the will of the Father.
In heaven .. with the resurrection body and all, I don’t see where the “grasping equality” thought would apply.
That not only sheds a new light on what He did while here; it also sheds light, for me, on whether there’s a “difference” in their essences when in heaven. If there isn’t, then the Father’s will IS the Son’s will.
Hmm…..
007:
You said to Benji in comment 68:”Maybe it was unnecessary, but it’s still true.”
Same song verse 1000.
I hope when I get your age my mind will be as clear about things of the Bible as yours appears to be, but I really hope not.
Benji: In response to your question concerning the quote from Cornelius Van Til. It can be found in “The Christian Theory of Knowledge” by Cornelius Van Til, page 104.
Dave: You said that although these theologians stated the statements that I have quoted, they saw a rank in the trinity. I disagree. They saw all as one God. All equal. When I read their writings I get a clear sense that this is their view.
Good thoughts Bob,
Thank you,
-Chris
Brother Bob,
You write: “God said that Jesus didn’t see equality with God as a thing to be grasped. The only meaning I can attach to that is that He didn’t grasp it. If so, then His temptations were extremely meaningful, His miraculous deeds were done in submission to, and in accordance with, the will of the Father.”
I agree that Jesus, while in the nature of man, Jesus walked as a man (while still remaining 100% God) in the power of the Holy Spirit. His temptations were real and very meaningful – and the miracles were the works of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. However, the context of Philippians 2:6 is eternity. Jesus didn’t consider His equality with God to be in danger (something He had to hold on too) nor did He consider it to be used to His advantage (avoiding the role of Son). This was not simply His temporal attitude (while here on earth). It is His eternal attitude – which is demonstrated in His actions of becoming flesh and dying on the cross.
The very nature of the Trinity – as Bruce has so beautifully stated – is something that takes us beyond ourselves and our capabilities. God is One – God is Three and the “three” is seen in three separate persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each of these are distinct in their respective persons and yet One in essence and being. Otherwise we enter into the realm of Modalism. Which is another error which has been rejected by the church – but some today are again embracing.
Grace,
Wes
On John 10:30 and 14:28
John Gill says this on 10:30
I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, “I and my Father”, εσμεν, “we are one”; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father’s hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father’s, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him. The Jew (p) objects, that
“if the sense of this expression is, that the Father and the Son are one, as the Nazarenes understand and believe it, it will be found that Jesus himself destroys this saying, as it is written in Mar_13:32, for saith Jesus, “that day and that hour, there is knoweth, not the angels, nor the Son, but the Father only”; lo, these words show, that the Father and the Son are not one, since the Son does not know what the Father knows.”
But it should be observed, that Christ is both the Son of God, and the son of man, as the Christians believe; as he is the Son of God, he lay in the bosom of his Father, and was privy to all his secrets, to all his thoughts, purposes, and designs; and as such, he knew the day and hour of judgment, being God omniscient; and in this respect is one with the Father, having the same perfections of power, knowledge, &c. but then as the son of man, he is not of the same nature, and has not the same knowledge; his knowledge of things was derived, communicated, and not infinite; and did not reach to all things at once, but was capable of being increased, as it was: and it is with regard to him as the son of man, that Jesus speaks of himself in Mar_13:32; whereas he is here treating of his divine sonship, and almighty power; wherefore considered in the relation of the Son of God, and as possessed of the same perfections with God, he and his Father are one; though as man, he is different from him, and knew not some things he did: so that there is no contradiction between the words of Christ in one place, and in the other; nor is he chargeable with any blasphemy against God, or any arrogance in himself, by assuming deity to himself; nor deserving of punishment, even to be deprived of human life, as the Jew suggests; nor is what he produces from a Socinian writer, of any moment, that these words do not necessarily suppose, that the Father and the Son are of the same essence; since it may be said of two men, that they are one, end yet are not the same man, but one is one man, and the other another; for we do not say they are one and the same person, which does not follow from their being of one and the same nature, but that they are one God, and two distinct persons.
And this on John 14:28
for my Father is greater than I: not with respect to the divine nature, which is common to them both, and in which they are both one; and the Son is equal to the Father, having the self-same essence, perfections, and glory: nor with respect to personality, the Son is equally a divine person, as the Father is, though the one is usually called the first, the other the second person; yet this priority is not of nature, which is the same in both; nor of time, for the one did not exist before the other; nor of causality, for the Father is not the cause of the Son’s existence; nor of dignity, for the one has not any excellency which is wanting in the other; but of order and manner of operation: these words are to be understood, either with regard to the human nature, in which he was going to the Father, this was prepared for him by the Father, and strengthened and supported by him, and in which he was made a little lower than the angels, and consequently must be in it inferior to his Father; or with regard to his office as Mediator, in which he was the Father’s servant, was set up and sent forth by him, acted under him, and in obedience to him, and was now returning to give an account of his work and service; or rather with regard to his present state, which was a state of humiliation: he was attended with many griefs and sorrows, and exposed to many enemies, and about to undergo an accursed death; whereas his Father was in the most perfect happiness and glory, and so in this sense “greater”. That is, more blessed and glorious than he; for this is not a comparison of natures, or of persons, but of states and conditions: now he was going to the Father to partake of the same happiness and glory with him, to be glorified with himself, with the same glory he had with him before the foundation of the world; wherefore on this account, his disciples ought to have rejoiced, and not have mourned.
Sorry for the length. I felt it important to address it fully.
Dave,
I appreciate your attempts to keep SBC Impact focused on discussions of issues and practices that are impacting us and the SBC. This is certainly one of those topics. I am not going to argue the theology of ES or complimentarianism at this time since you and others have made strong arguments for you positions. I would like to raise some practical questions of interpretations of complemenatrianism. David Rogers post on a Hill on which to die mentioned complimetarianism and tied it to belief in inerrancy. I admitted that even though I have tended to lean in that direction, complimentarianism is not a hill on which I am prepared to die. One reason is the way it has been interpreted by leaders of the CR. I asked some questions and would like for you or others to give me your thoughts. I am sincere in saying I want to understand what the Bible says about these issues.
I have heard complementarianism defined as a woman cannot be a senior pastor of a church. You mentioned the verses that say the man is the head of the woman and the husband is he head of the wife. Paul says I do not permit a woman to teach a man. In view of these points do you agree as we have seen at SWBTS that a woman should not be allowed to teach Hebrew or Church History? If so should a woman be allowed to teach music or is music not related to theology? Why would Paige Patterson not allow a woman to teach Hebrew but allow his wife to serve on the BFM 2000 committee that seems to me to be a function of teaching theology to all the men in the SBC. Should we have hymns in our hymn books written by women such as Fanny Crosby since hymns teach theology? Can a woman be ordained as pastor of administration or children’s ministry if she is not the senior pastor? How far does complementarianism extend?
Ron, the CR is not the focus of this discussion.
Ron, the CR is not the focus of this discussion. On the other hand, I will say that I think that the Klouda matter went beyond what I think is necessary for obedience to the scripture. However, I am not in the administration of SWBTS, so my opinion is of little consequence.
Bruce, I think that you err in your understanding of superiority and humility. They are not two ends of a spectrum. When our terms are defined by either the world or the Word they line up just fine. It is when we mix them that we get into trouble.
Earthly submission is a matter of force and power. I am stronger than you therefore you must obey me. Authority in God’s Kingdom is very different. Submission here means that though I have the right and power to take 12 legions of angels and crush the universe I will withhold, lay down my rights, and die.
The history of the Church is filled with examples of us claiming the one definition and then doing the other. It is currently in fashion to do just this with the gender issue. There are lots of men claiming to have a discussion of Jesus and His submission and humility all the while the church is beating women down with worldly intent.
We should not continue to discuss this until our actions firmly reflect our motives to love women well. Once we are perceived to be lovers and protectors the currently hollow claim of biblical roles will be much better understood and received.
Concerning Ron’s last comment, I think he has a point here. If we are complimentary then that means that the woman HAS a role. We need to stop telling women what not to do and start calling them into the battle with us doing the things they need to be doing.
Debbie, it seems to me that you start with assumptions and only accept that information which supports those assumptions. there is a two-sided equation in both scripture, and in the history of the church. It seems to me that you are looking at one side (the essential equality of the Godhead) and assert that is the only side. You have to deal with two things, in my opinion. 1) The scriptures that seem to clearly assert an order in the Trinity (detailed above). 2) The statements of historical theology that maintain that assertion.
But Dave, As I have tried to illustrate- and have done so poorly- order in the Trinity is chosen in perfect harmony. Men and women roles are being demanded and brutally enforced. This is not a Biblical understanding of submission. We are taking biblical concepts and lording it over others and that is something that Jesus opposed the most vociferously.
Debbie,
“The human side was subordinate to God the Father.”
I don’t think you can “divide” Jesus like that.
While the Athaneasian Creed does say “Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood” it goes on to say “Who although he be God and Man; yet he is not two, but ONE Christ. ONE…by taking of the Manhood into God. ONE althogether; not by confusion of Substance: but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is ONE Christ; Who suffered for our salvation:” (Caps mine)
If I followed your logic, I would have to say that only the human side was subordinating itself/Himself when Jesus suffered for our salvation in obedience to the Father. That sounds a lot like the heresy that said “The eternal Son of God left Jesus on the cross so that only the man Jesus died.”
I don’t think you want to go there. It was not just the human side of Jesus who submitted to the Father, but the “God-man” who submitted to the Father.
Jesus is One. Let us not divide Him.
I believe I have dealt with both of those Dave, but show me where I am inadequate. When it comes to the Trinity I hate to dwell further than my knowledge of it which is small. I believe all our understandings of the Trinity are small, because it could easily develop further than the Bible does. Eternal Submission being a prime example.
I would like for you to deal with what I have given so far. Then if necessary I will attempt to go further. I am treading lightly however when it comes to the Trinity.
Benji: I don’t believe I am, and can you adequately explain that He was 100% human and 100% God? I can’t. Eternal submission(and I have to be careful because my blood boils when I even say the words) does more than divides Christ, it takes Him to a whole new level. He is not another God who submits, all three are one God. One God, three persons.
Strider,
“ES” is a specific theological term. While some do not understand it (sometimes willfully – desiring to morph it into a term of oppression, as you have tried to do) it has a specific meaning. It asserts that while the essence of the Godhead is united, there is an order of authority in which the Father’s glory is primary and the Son serves his purposes. Equality of essence with rank of authority. Its pretty specific.
You asserted, “Any relationship based on love must be one based on mutual submission- I Cor 13 is clear that love does not insist on its own way. Submission must be offered in order to have a loving relationship. Anytime submission is demanded it is unloving- therefore ungodly.” That flies in the face of scriptural evidence. Authority is not, de facto, unloving. That is a very common modern idea, but it has no basis in scripture.
*In the Old Testament, over and over again, God demanded obedience from his people. Was he unloving to Israel?
*The key assertion of the NT is that Jesus is Lord. Jesus died and rose again so that he could be Lord of all and the one to whom we give account. Is he unloving for that?
*Parents are told to raise their children, and even to discipline them. Is a father’s assertion of authority unloving? to the contrary. Scripture asserts that a father disciplines out of love. Proverbs says that to spare the rod is to hate your son.
You accused me and those who agree with me of ignoring everything before Eph 5:22. I think that is grossly unfair. It is my experience that many use Ephesians 5:21 to deny the clear teaching of Ephesians 5:22 and following. Yes, we are to submit to one another. Agreed. But you cannot ignore the clear teaching of the rest of the passage. It says that wife must submit and that the husband is the head of the wife. It does not tell the husband to submit and does not say that the wife is the head of the husband. Mutual submission means to obey God and accept the role he has given you – husband and wife, parents and children.
Next, I do not think your accusation of oppression is fair. I have no desire to oppress women, and do not think I have done so. My concern is with obedience to God.
What the Bible commands is that we lead in love “as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her.” My headship flows from Christ, but so also does my responsibility.
If you read what I wrote above, you would have seen the three positions, and read the point I made about their relationships to positions in the gender debate.
Subordinationism says: Jesus is distinct from the Father and lesser in essence and glory.
Egalitarians say: Jesus is of the same essence and rank as the Father (which is essentially what you argue for when you assert that authority is unloving).
ES says: Jesus is equal in essence and yet places himself under the Father’s authority.
These have their corresponding positions in gender.
Subordinationism says: women are less than men and must be kept in their place. Are there subordinationists in the church? Yes.
Egalitarians say: any differentiation of roles is oppression of women (as you have argued).
Complementarians say: Men and women are equal in value but have been created different and assigned different roles in the home and at church.
Egalitarians consistently refuse to distinguish between positions 1 and 3, both in the Trinity and in gender roles. You have made that same correlation – assuming that ES/completarianism roots in a desire to oppress women.
One more thing. You said that ES roots itself back in Genesis. In none of the articles I read in preparing for this essay did I find anyone making the arguments you claim that we make.
We believe that God created order in the home (wife as helper). We believe that the fall corrupted that (men oppressing women instead of being loving servant leaders).
1. That the Word was “with” God [Jn. 1:1] implies distinction.
2. That the Son and the Father are “One” [Jn. 10:30] implies they cannot be separated.
If we do not maintain #1, then we go against the first part of the Athanasian Creed #4–”Neither confounding the Persons”.
If we do not maintain #2, then we go against the last part of the Athanasian Creed #4–”nor dividing the Substance”.
Debbie,
Comment 79: “Dave: You said that although these theologians stated the statements that I have quoted, they saw a rank in the trinity. I disagree. They saw all as one God. All equal. When I read their writings I get a clear sense that this is their view.”
Have you reviewed the historical evidence I linked to above? You are asserting a conclusion that I do not think matches the evidence.
I believe, in general, that egalitarians take one side of a balanced equation (equality and authority) and claim it as the whole. That is what I meant.
Strider, I do not doubt that there are some (subordinationists in both trinitarian issues and gender) who oppress women.
I just do not think it is fair to critique ES/Comlementarianism on the basis of Subordinationists.
Complementarianism (rightly stated) assumes that women have a valuable role in the church. We just assert that it is not the same role as men, in at least certain offices and instances.
I believe some take this principle too far, at both church and home. But it is still a biblical principle.
Debbie,
“Benji: I don’t believe I am, and can you adequately explain that He was 100% human and 100% God? I can’t.”
You don’t give any explicit reason for your assertion [i.e., I don't believe I am]. However, you seem to imply [and I am open to correction] that you don’t have to since you seem to think I can’t explain that He was 100% human and 100% God.
But you have already explained THAT He was 100% human and 100% God. And I agree with you.
What you did not explain was HOW He was 100% human and 100% God. I don’t think I can explain the “how”.
In the same kind of way, I have no problem saying THAT the God-man submitted Himself to the Father in suffering and death. However, I don’t think I could explain “how”.
“The human side was subordinate to God the Father.”
But if you followed your logic here, I do think you would have to say THAT only the human side of Jesus subordinated to God the Father in dying on the cross.
Again, I don’t think you want to go there. I think better of you than that.
Regarding comment 93 Benji, Strider rightfully pointed out that Ephesians 5:21 is in there. Mutual submission and he also rightfully pointed out that there were no breaks in the chapter. Tell me how do you read John Gill’s explanation of the chapters and verses that I gave?
Dave: I gave several examples of those who disagree with Eternal Subordination and that was in an effort to deal with the sources you gave. They were also church history.
Benji: The Bible says He lowered himself to become like us except that He could not sin. He felt the very same things we felt. It is how He understands us so well. He is also 100% God. I don’t know how to explain it any better than I have. He gave up all that comes with being God, that included submitting to the Father. Humbling himself.
Dave, Thanks for the Submission, Egal, comp, comparison. That is very helpful in understanding the complimentary position. I said in the beginning I am not happy with the language in either camp so don’t assume I am an egalitarian. From my perspective here in Middle Earth I am a man who has seen many- not a few, but many- men belittle women in the Church and cripple our effectiveness in reaching the majority of humanity. Looking over your last comment I can live with the things you said the way you said them. But the bigger issue is how do we go forward? With the vast majority of women on this planet marginalized and abused does the church continue with its primary message being, “Women need to stay in their place and one woman pastor is three too many!” or while that view may be valid, does our major message need to be that there is freedom in Christ for women and men to become all that God has created them to be?
I think emphasis matters. To repeat what I said before, I am all for men and women being in complimentary roles but this means that women have roles and we need to be promoters of the many much louder than denouncers of the few.
Oh, and back to the main point of the post, I am still not satisfied that subordination does not mean lower in rank and even value as defined by the dictionary and our culture. This word to me does not describe Jesus in any way.
A good article by John Piper states this:
There are five main truths with which the creed of Chalcedon summarized the biblical teaching on the Incarnation.
1. Jesus has two natures — He is God and man.
2. Each nature is full and complete — He is fully God and fully man.
3. Each nature remains distinct.
4. Christ is only one Person.
5. Things that are true of only one nature are nonetheless true of the Person of Christ.
How Can Jesus Be God And Man
Debbie, look at your Gill quote.
His strongest words are for the equality of essence in the Godhead. But, even within that context he argues for a differentiation of roles that seems to not be completely limited to Jesus’ earthly sojourn.
My point is that even one you use to argue against ES makes statements that support ES.
“Father is not the cause of the Son’s existence; nor of dignity, for the one has not any excellency which is wanting in the other; but of order and manner of operation:”
Notice the word “order?”
The point is that this common thought, while often undeveloped, has permeated theology throughout history.
With Calvinists why is it always five?
Debbie, here is the point.
Can you marshal quote after quote that demonstrate that Christian theologians throughout history affirmed the unity and equality of the Godhead? Of course. That is Christian orthodoxy.
But that is not sufficient to prove your point. Did these same theologians not also maintain a difference in order? The predominance of Christian theologians did (I refer you again to the links above).
That is what I mean when I say you are only looking at one side of it. Providing quotes about the equality of the Trinity does not disprove ES. We AFFIRM that.
Nor does providing early quotes of the rejection of subordinationism disprove ES. That is a different animal than ES.
We maintain the unity and equality of the Trinity and yet the authority of the Father. And i believe that is the predominant orthodox view of the Trinity throughout church history. And it is certainly demonstrated in the systematic theologies of the post-reformation era.
Strider – that’s funny!
Strider,
I share your concern for those who use the Bible’s teaching to oppress women. I have seen it among so-called complementarians. I have seen pastors chase women out of any position of responsibility in the church – almost obsessive about not letting women lead.
People who know me know that is not my habit. I worked for nearly 15 years with a woman music director/worship leader. Every church I have served has had women in key positions of leadership.
However, I do not think we can get around what are clear teachings of scripture – that men are given leadership/authority in their homes – to be used in a servant manner. And that men are to be pastor/elder/deacon positions in churches.
I think the key is to teach what Jesus said about greatness and leadership – serving the needs and seeking to bless those you lead, not using them for your own purposes.
I’m off to do a wedding. I will check back and try to answer questions or responses.
Dave: In response to 105 yes. I have, I think more than once. Augustine,Calvin, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. I not only see them as dispelling Eternal Subordination, but of telling us what the central theme is(the most important theme) and how to interpret the Bible.
The Nicene Creed states that the Son is one with the Father, the Athanasian Creed states that they are co-equal. Romans 10:9 states that Jesus is Lord. A God that saves and rules. So I would include Paul in that as well. That is the central and primary message of the Bible. It is the central and primary message of the Creeds.
Phil. 2:6 says Christ is equal with God the Father. It is what I believe Jesus was saying in John 10:30 “The Father and I are one.” and in John 14:9 when Christ said If you see Him, you see the Father.
The subordination of Christ was temporal not eternal as it is used in 1 Corinthians 15:28. Scripture interpreting scripture.
This is probably more than you asked for, or less depending on how you look at it.
However, I do not think we can get around what are clear teachings of scripture – that men are given leadership/authority in their homes – to be used in a servant manner. And that men are to be pastor/elder/deacon positions in churches.
The words however and but usually mean ‘pay no attention to what I have said before however or but.’
And it is also why those who believe in Eternal Submission have to, it always comes around to this. No matter how you word it, the meaning is that women are to be treated less than men. Yet, I read the scriptures to teach Genesis 3:18 as more of a prophecy than God’s design. It was the result of the fall. Christ changed all of this while on earth and his death at the cross where all things were made new. The curse broken.
Bruce, I think that you err in your understanding of superiority and humility. They are not two ends of a spectrum. When our terms are defined by either the world or the Word they line up just fine. It is when we mix them that we get into trouble.
Earthly submission is a matter of force and power. I am stronger than you therefore you must obey me. Authority in God’s Kingdom is very different. Submission here means that though I have the right and power to take 12 legions of angels and crush the universe I will withhold, lay down my rights, and die.
The history of the Church is filled with examples of us claiming the one definition and then doing the other. It is currently in fashion to do just this with the gender issue. There are lots of men claiming to have a discussion of Jesus and His submission and humility all the while the church is beating women down with worldly intent.
We should not continue to discuss this until our actions firmly reflect our motives to love women well. Once we are perceived to be lovers and protectors the currently hollow claim of biblical roles will be much better understood and received.
Strider,
I don’t think it is err. I think we cannot comprehend the Holy. We build thoughts upon what we have been given in scripture, however, we can err if we only see and look at one side or one concept. God is not what we can comprehend with a fallen mind. Even when we are saved and have the Spirit of understanding we cannot place anything about God in words that man can truly comprehend. Even we cannot comprehend God with thoughts of the created mind, even the created mind that is fallen. Concepts of God go awry and we can only expand our small comprehension of God. He is much bigger, compared to the universe, than we can even comprehend. We are only placing a fingerprint on the glass of the universe compared to the complexity of God. One day we will be given the capacity to know Him as we are known. He will be supreme to all our thoughts and comprehension now. All we will be able to do is fall at His feet in total submission and wonder.
I hear you and agree that what is said is truly err compared to the truth of God. I can only view one or two sides of an infinate God at at time. Maybe we can agree that God is incomprehensible. Thank you.
Debbie, it is not “less than” it is “different than.”
I grow weary of being accused of oppressing women, but am well aware that as long as I hold to what I believe the Bible teaches, you are going to continue to level that accusation.
I believe it not to be the case, but only God knows hearts. Fortunately, you are not my judge.
The issue here is not what you like or what I like, but what the Bible says. And I see no other way to read scripture than that God created men and women with equality of worth but with different roles in church and home.
If you choose to read that as oppression, I cannot do anything about that.
Debbie, You said,
And it is also why those who believe in Eternal Submission have to….
I am ok with eternal submission. I find this to be the key to loving relationships. It is the word Subordination I have a problem with. This word at its core means of lesser worth or value. It is unacceptable to talk about Jesus or women in this way. It seems that we can never have this conversation without women being demeaned and that is a huge frustration for me as we belong to a people who follows one who did more to empower and esteem women than anyone else in history.
Yes, there are verses in the Word that point out men’s responsibility in the Church and I can not understand Paul’s instruction any other way than to conclude that men are to be Elders. But, and hear me all, if we will do the task that we were commanded to do then both men and women must go and share, serve, proclaim, disciple, mentor, love, and even teach just as men and women did on the teams that Paul himself directed.
Dave Miller:
Ron West posted “I have heard complementarianism defined as a woman cannot be a senior pastor of a church. You mentioned the verses that say the man is the head of the woman and the husband is he head of the wife. Paul says I do not permit a woman to teach a man. In view of these points do you agree as we have seen at SWBTS that a woman should not be allowed to teach Hebrew or Church History? If so should a woman be allowed to teach music or is music not related to theology? Why would Paige Patterson not allow a woman to teach Hebrew but allow his wife to serve on the BFM 2000 committee that seems to me to be a function of teaching theology to all the men in the SBC. Should we have hymns in our hymn books written by women such as Fanny Crosby since hymns teach theology? Can a woman be ordained as pastor of administration or children’s ministry if she is not the senior pastor? How far does complementarianism extend?
Your response to Ron–”Ron, the CR is not the focus of this discussion.”
I do not see a single question in the above paragraph that has to do with the CR.
I would love to see your answers to Ron West’s questions.
They are going to be eventually answered by the SBC. What say you as the answers to these questions at this point in time?
My thanks in advance to your responses.
Tom, in comment #85, I gave pretty much all the answer I intend to give.
Dave Miller:
What answer? He asks several questions and you do not answer a single one of them and not a one of them had to do with the glorius and wonderful CR. Do you have a problem with Ron West? Do you have a problem with Tom Parker? I could be wrong but we are not stauch CR guys, so we are disqualified.
Our names pop up and immediately anthing we have to say is dismissed, even legitimate questions. Is that the way it works? Just be honest and tell us that then. We are big boys.
I really hope you do not spend the next 30 years on this issue as you have with the CR, because you will be wating something might good years on a battle that is already one by you guys. Because as Ron West asked:”Ron West posted “I have heard complementarianism defined as a woman cannot be a senior pastor of a church. You mentioned the verses that say the man is the head of the woman and the husband is he head of the wife. Paul says I do not permit a woman to teach a man. In view of these points do you agree as we have seen at SWBTS that a woman should not be allowed to teach Hebrew or Church History? If so should a woman be allowed to teach music or is music not related to theology? Why would Paige Patterson not allow a woman to teach Hebrew but allow his wife to serve on the BFM 2000 committee that seems to me to be a function of teaching theology to all the men in the SBC. Should we have hymns in our hymn books written by women such as Fanny Crosby since hymns teach theology? Can a woman be ordained as pastor of administration or children’s ministry if she is not the senior pastor? How far does complementarianism extend?.”
These questions are going to be answered and to not answer them right now is a cop out, but hey you are in charge so have it your way.
The CR won and they will answer these questions your way. Your mind is made up, why even ask for the other side as you are not going to change and neither are most other people.
But aint it fun to battle about such issues?
The decline will continue for the SBC because you never seem to worry about the extreme positions that end up being held by those in charge now in the SBC. And yes I used the word extreme.
Dave Miller:
BTW I knew you would not answer mine or Ron West’s questions before you even (answered) them.
Debbie,
Only the *GOD*-man related Himself to the Father in any way.
Jesus is not the “man minus God” relating to the Father at any point and in any way.
Benji: You didn’t answer my questions to you at least to my satisfaction. I’ll add to that what do you think of John Piper’s article on this subject. I don’t agree with them because it’s John Piper or John Gill, they more or less agree with what I believe. You also may be misunderstanding completely what I am saying. It is a subject that is so complex it makes one tongue tied. Either way I stand by what I have said no matter how you interpret it, which I will admit I am confused as to what exactly you are saying.
Dave: No, I don’t think you believe you oppress women,or at least you don’t mean to. but Eternal Subordination or submission is designed to just that. But even forgetting that, it makes Christ less than He is.
Strider: I have a problem no matter what name you put on it. Except for the comment that you have no problem with Eternal Submission(which is the same thing I think) I have agreed with you.
Debbie,
I tried to post earlier where I addressed your question, but they did not go through. My thoughts concerning the Ephesians passage can be found in the Post entitled “Question Authority” [I think] on the Grace and Truth to You blog.
I am simply saying that there is no such thing as only the human side subordinating Himself to God because no one can divide Jesus.
Therefore, if Jesus subordinated Himself, then the one Jesus–God & man–subordinated Himself.
Tom, my intent is not to avoid answering. But as soon as we get into Klouda or other questions like that, we will divert the stream.
If you email me at pastordave@cableone.net, I would be glad to enter any dialogue you wish.
I am just trying to keep things focused.
Benji, I don’t see any comments that are in holding on the site. Don’t know what happened. I guess the Halloween Pumpkin got it.
Dave:
Ok, let’s not get into the Klouda situation, but what about the other questions?
Dave,
I understand. Nothing accusatory. Go SBC IMPACT! [one of the best SBC blogs in my opinion].
Email me, Tom. I’d be glad to talk.
Tom, here is a link to a lengthy discussion Ron and I had on another post at this site (its on the most commented list below). http://www.sbcimpact.net/2009/08/11/a-view-of-the-church-i-cannot-share/
From comment 81 to 101, Ron and I discussed the CR and issues related to being conservative in the SBC. Read through that. Ron and I have pretty much hammered all this out. I consider him a friend (though we’ve never met and we disgree on the CR).
See if your questions are answered there.
I apologize to everyone for commenting while logged in to administration. It prevents my Yankee gravatar from showing up, and I know how much everyone loves that!
Benji, I actually did find your comment in the Spam Filter. I tried to “approve” it, but I’m not sure it happened. I guess the administrators have to do that. I don’t know if it is because of the link or what. But I did find the comment.
Dave Miller:
I can see you are not going to answer mine and Ron’s questions on this blog so I guess we will just have to wait and see what you CR guys do with this issue. I think I already know but since you want answer them publicly, I guess we will find out the answers soon enough.
Thanks for not answering even the basic questions. Nice tactic.
Tom, I offered you a conversation, but have stated repeatedly my desire to keep this comment stream focused on the issue at hand – ES. You have my email. I will answer any question you have. I am neither afraid of discussion nor of your questions. I am just not planning to allow you to push the conversation where you want it to go.
One of the privileges of writing for a site like this is that I get to pick the topic I wish to talk about. People get to come and talk about what I wrote about, if they so desire.
I’m not trying to pick a fight, but if you want to discuss the CR, then start a blog and write about it. I’ll probably discuss it there.
This is going to sound horrible, but if you want to control the discussion, write a blog!
Strider, Chris et al, I found an interesting quote from one of the links above. The excellent article by Kovach and Schemm (linked under point 8 in the original article) contains this quote defining “subordination.” They are referring to Stephen Clark’s “Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Man and Woman in the Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences”
“Stephen Clark asserts that subordination is difficult to understand because it is a cultural expression foreign to modern Western society. Subordination simply refers to a relationship in which one person, the subordinate, depends upon another for direction. is Clark identifies three types of subordination (domination, mercenary and voluntary) and three different ways in which subordination is conducted (oppression, care and unity). Clark also notes that subordination and inferiority have no necessary conceptual link. The head and subordinate can be of equal worth, and furthermore, it is even possible for the subordinate to hold a greater rank or dignity.”
The word is based in a cultural setting foreign to modern society.
Note the key meaning of “subordinate” – “the subordinate depends upon another for direction.”
There are different types of subordination and different ways in which it is conducted.
Perhaps that description will solve some of the issues we have discussed about the term.
A summary quote from the same article:
In summary, then, the idea of subordination does not necessarily entail inferiority. As applied to the Trinity, the term subordination does not always amount to a heretical distinction of worth and dignity between the Father and the Son. While evangelical feminists may believe that an eternal difference in role between the Father and Son is heretical, the plain meaning of the word and its use in church history shows that the Son can be voluntarily subordinate for the purpose of a higher cause without being inferior in being or essence. As John Thompson has pointed out, both Karl Barth and P. T. Forsyth affirm the idea of “obedience in God” and they do it in such a way as to answer both “the charges of inferiority and authoritarianism in one.” As Forsyth puts it, “subordination is not inferiority, and it is God-like. The principle is imbedded in the very cohesion of the eternal trinity…. It is not a mark of inferiority to be subordinate, to have an authority, to obey. It is divine.” Voluntary subordination is always necessary to the establishment of genuine community. This is true for the Godhead as well as people.
Dave,
My post was a desire to keep this focused on the issue at hand and not the CR. I mentioned the CR in one sentence that could just as easily have said many pastors interpret complementianism this way. The CR is not relevent to my post unless you feel it somehow defines the CR. Klouda is not the issue execpt for one particular situation I mentioned. What I would like to have is an answer to my questions. I am sincere in saying I don’t know how far we should carry complementarianim. These questions are some that come up in SBC life. I would like for David Rogers or someone else to give their thoughts if you do not wish to. It is nice to discuss this issue in generalities but I am more concerned with specific instances where it is applied.
Here they are again. I have heard complementarianism defined as a woman cannot be a senior pastor of a church. You mentioned the verses that say the man is the head of the woman and the husband is he head of the wife. Paul says I do not permit a woman to teach a man. In view of these points do you agree as we have seen at SWBTS that a woman should not be allowed to teach Hebrew or Church History? If so should a woman be allowed to teach music or is music not related to theology? Why would Paige Patterson not allow a woman to teach Hebrew but allow his wife to serve on the BFM 2000 committee that seems to me to be a function of teaching theology to all the men in the SBC. Should we have hymns in our hymn books written by women such as Fanny Crosby since hymns teach theology? Can a woman be ordained as pastor of administration or children’s ministry if she is not the senior pastor? How far does complementarianism extend?
Debbie,
1 Peter 3:6 (New King James Version)
6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.
This is in the NT, not just in Genesis.
David
Vol, you are not allowed to comment on this site until you apologize for that missed field goal. You and your guys broke my heart. I want a public apology or you are banned for 24 hours, young man.
Did you see the end of the Hawkeye game? Another miracle. We played badly and won.
A woman should not be an ordained Minister, or Elder, of the Church. There are so many verses that could be used to show this, that it seems silly for me to even take the time to look them all up and print them here.
This is so clear that to deny it is to turn away from the clear teachings of Scripture.
And, even the names of the Father and the Son show an eternal subordination. The Father is the FATHER. The Son is the SON. Father’s are to heads of the family over thier children. The Father is always pleased with the Son, and the Son is always obedient to His Father. To deny this is to deny the Biblical teachings of the Trinity.
David
It broke your heart??????????????? I’m the Vol fan. It broke my heart. But, we played the #1 team in the nation, on thier turf, and nearly came out with a win. This shows me that Kiffin has the team heading in the right direction.
Congrats to your Hawkeyes, too. Being undefeated this late in the season is a special thing, no matter where you play on Saturday.
David
Ron, I don’t mind answering your questions pertaining to this subject.
The Klouda questions I answered above, Ron. I do not think that teaching Hebrew at a seminary classifies as a violation of scripture. But I am not Dr. Patterson and so my interpretation is not important. He has to lead by his convictions in line with his board.
I expressed my disapproval of the Klouda decision fairly openly.
Essentially, I think there are certain absolutes (well, at least to those of us who are ES/Complementarian.)
1) Men have a role as servant leader in the home.
2) The roles of pastor/elder is limited to men. Deacon really depends on the definition of the office and how you interpret a couple of scriptures. In my church, we do not have women deacons.
Everything else is the process of applying this to specific situations. My youth pastor and I had a disagreement (pleasant, but we disagreed) about how to apply these principles a week ago.
I had a woman music director for many years and had no problem with that. some people did not join the church because they felt that was improper and I respect their choices. But she worked under my authority and was really good at the job. We put her on staff, but did not ordain her.
Personally, I would not ordain women to ministerial staff.
We do not have women teaching adult men in Sunday School, but I know that many strong complementarians do this regularly.
My point is this – on the basics (male headship patterned on Christ in home and at church) we tend to agree. On many other issues, even we who are complementarians disagree. We are not monolithic in any way.
I think the BF&M should reflect that complementarian consensus, but should not be any more specific than that.
That’s how much I dislike the Crimson Tide, David! You guys had the chance! I think repentance is completely appropriate here.
David W – look at your comment 136. I think you may be wanting to restate your position. I think you let a “not” out.
Ron West,
All that above was to make a specific point. Complementarianism is not monolithic. We do not all think alike, even within the position. So, even if we all agreed to “complementarianism” (which the majority do now) we are going to continue to disagree on issue after issue.
*what teaching responsibilities should women have in mixed groups?
*what staff positions should women be allowed to have? Is “Senior Pastor” the only prohibited position – as some have said. (That’s a difficult one, since Senior Pastor is not really a biblical office.)
My philosophy is this: the burden of proof is on exclusion. In other words, I ONLY exclude women from positions in which I am clearly convinced that the Bible excludes them (pastor/elder positions). I do not advocate prohibiting women from service if there is any gray area at all.
I don’t think my answers are really much of a help.
Dave,
Yes, I definitely left a “not” out. Please add it in for me and I will be grateful. I dont want anyone thinking I’m a liberal.
David
Done!
Your conservative standing is preserved.
Dave: The context of what John Gill wrote suggests that the word order is not talking of hierarchical order, but order as in God(Father), Christ(Son) and The Holy Spirit. If put next to other writings that John Gill has concerning the Trinity, he is plain to point out that they are co-equal.
Benji: Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. [NRSV] Phil. 2:5-11
Dave: Reformed Dogmatics, Heppe, p111f:
“Accordingly the three personae are equal to each other (1) so far as each of them has the same nature of God as each of the other two–they are homoousioi to each other; (2) so far as each of them possesses the same divine majesty as each of the other two, so that the Father holds no advantage over the other two persons; and (3) so far as each of the three persons exists in the nature of each of the other two. On the other hand the three persons are distinct in name; in the order of their being, in the mode of their action, in their external effects; which indeed proceed from the entire Trinity, in which nevertheless the separate persons are active in a different way; and finally in the special attributes which belong to each person.”
This is basically the same wording that John Gill used. It speaks not of hierarchal order but of diversity. There is diversity in the order and works of the Trinity.
I think you are making my point, Debbie.
“On the other hand the three persons are distinct in name; in the order of their being, in the mode of their action, in their external effects; which indeed proceed from the entire Trinity, in which nevertheless the separate persons are active in a different way; and finally in the special attributes which belong to each person.”
Look at the quotes I put on comments 131-132. They might explain it a little more clearly.
Thanks Dave I appreciate you answers and that may be as far as you can go. At the beginning of this post you stated gender issues were going to be a major issue in the decade ahead. That is why I am asking these questions. There seems to be a big range of beliefs on what complementarianism means among Southern Baptists and many who do not support complementarianism. Another question is can someone be an inerrantists who sincerely believes the Bible does not support that position, at least in regard to the teaching that a woman cannot be a pastor. As I said to David Rogers and he did not respond, there are issues such as the virgin birth, deity of Christ, salvation by faith and trust in Jesus Chrst alone that you cannont deny and claim to be an inerrantist. I am not sure that applies to complemenarianism. I recall Al Mohler hired a few professors at Southern in the beginning of his presidency because of their inerrancy credentials but after hiring them he discovered they did not support complementarianism and he had to get rid of them over this issue.
Volfan, what about deacons? Can a woman be a deacon? I recall a few years ago many leaders of the SBC were saying that having women deacons was a sign of liberalism. That is not mentioned any more now that churches such as Capital Hill Baptist in DC and others have major rolls in the SBC and also have women deacons. Did the Bible change or did the SBC?
Dave, I don’t understand who this guy is or what he is trying to say.
‘Stephen Clark asserts that subordination is difficult to understand because it is a cultural expression foreign to modern Western society’
But I grew up in the military- my father was a pilot- and subordination was a daily used word with a very definite meaning. I hate to be insubordinate but this word is offensive to me when used to describe Jesus who is King of Kings and Lord or Lords. To say that ‘hey we are using this word but we really don’t mean it’ is not on. That is the same as a group using a swastika and saying ‘hey, we are not really racist! This is an old symbol we mean something else by it.’ Doesn’t matter what you mean by it, society has a reaction and it is very negative. Subordination carries the same baggage. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and relate to each other in a way that human language fails to describe- even the descriptor of Father and Son have limitations. But getting past the idea of subordination itself your article infers that since Jesus is eternally positionally in submission-subordination so also women are to men. I am all for biblical submission. It is a good word with eternal consequences for loving relationships. But I think that the ES concept is flawed and is having negative consequences to relationships in the church.
Dave,
I appreciate your desire to keep the blog on subject but you betray your own intentions when you start your blog paying homage to the CR by saying, “My first annual SBC meeting was in 1979, the year the Conservative Resurgence began. I was a seminary student then, and my first decade of service in SBC churches was marked by the great denominational battle over the Bible.” It is as though you and others must use the Battle over the Bible statement as your shibboleth in order to prove your loyalty each time you write. You must understand that this is like waving a red flag in the face or people like Tom Parker and I who know it was not a battle over the Bible.
I was also at the 1979 convention. I was a newly appointed FMB missionary excited about Bold Missions Thrust and proud to be serving with a denomination that was committed to the authority of the Bible and the Great Commission. It was with great disappointment that I observed a group of people there whose conduct and attitude towards others I thought to be unchristian and carnal. Were you able to look up to the sky boxes and see Paul Pressler and his friends sending instructions down to his soldiers as they began to employ secular political tactics that helped their takeover. Were you in the Astrodome on the last night when Billy Graham spoke as part of our FMB program and several hundred missionaries walked out on the field? If so, you may have seen me. I was out there with the other missionaries. Little did we know that this convention would be the beginning of an all out assault on the integrity of our missionaries and our leaders. I will believe the CR was about theology and not control when you can convince me that the battles you told me about on the FMB board when your father was a trustee was over theology and not over control. Ron Wilson and Bill Hancock were referring to those missionaries you knew when you were in Taiwan including your father when they said they were controlled by liberals and were spreading heresy. Is that what you support when you say you support the CR? The thing that is most disappointing about the CR is that so many who claim to be CR supporters and believe in inerrancy did nothing while these attacks on our missionaries and others were taking place. That is the true cancer that is eating away at our denomination and has for 30 years. We are now reaping the results of 30 years of CR appointments.
This last week I spoke at the funeral of the wife of a friend. She was not a Christian and in fact the funeral was Buddhist. I had to go into a room full of Buddhist and tell them that Jesus Christ is the only hope of salvation. Putting your faith in any other religion is hopeless. I had to do this because I want them to know the truth and Buddhism is based on a lie. I also have no problem with going before CR apologists and telling them that the conservative resurgence is based on a lie. It was not about theology. It was about power and control. If it had been about theology, many of us would have been happy to join the effort. Saying that there were theological problems at that time is not an excuse. Evil done in the name of a good cause is still evil. At the end of WWII there was a corrupt government in China. The Communist Part used that as an excuse to take control of China. I don’t think you would believe the corruption in the KMT justifies the years of rule of the communist party in China through the Cultural Revolution and the suppression of Christianity. Dave, I have too much respect for your integrity and common sense to not try and help you know the truth.
Dave: Where does it say that they are obedient to God the Father?
Again, Debbie, it is not enough to just show that historical figures in the past affirmed the unity and equality of essence (the homoiousia) of the the Godhead.
We ALL agree on that.
And it is not enough to show that historical theologians rejected the subordinationism of Origen and those who followed him.
We all agree on that.
What Kovach and Schemm demonstrate, and what I delineated above, is that in history, those who held to equality within the Godhead also recognized a relational rank.
You continue to present people who affirm the unity of the Trinity. Amen. No one who is orthodox disgrees. But the people you are mentioning almost uniformly also recognize an order of rank within the Godhead while maintaining that unity.
You keep setting up an either/or when it is really a both/and.
above should read “homoousia”
Charles Hodge (Great Theologian of 19th Century – Princeton luminary) said: “The Nicene doctrine includes, (1) the principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority.”
“The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation.”
“The Creeds are nothing more than a well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personalty of the Father, Son and Spirit…and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and operation. These are scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense that they have been accepted by the Church universal.”
(Quoted by Grudem in Systematic Theology, page 252 – below, same)
AH Strong (late 19th, Early 20th Century Baptist Theologian) “Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office and operation.”
(The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father, or in other words an order of personalty, office, and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority.)
“We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father,but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office and operation ,not a subordination of essence.”
I may cull some other quotes. But the purpose of these is to demonstrate the ES has been the historical doctrine of the church.
Those who argue against ES should not try to maintain that history is on their side. Church history within orthodoxy clearly holds to the eternal subordination of Christ.
It was only with the rise of feminist hermeneutics that the questioning of ES began.
Ron, so what is your opinion about the CR?
Dave, I am not impressed with more than 1000 years of biblical scholars proclaiming the infallibility of the Pope and I am not impressed with the misuse of the word subordination no matter who has done it, Charles Hodges? Really? Darn. It means lower rank and value and you can count me as one of the ‘feminist’ who wont use it. You guys- ok, maybe just volfan- are concerned about the slide into liberalism, well friend you don’t slide faster than when you demean the person of Christ. Today He is subordinate, tomorrow, lesser than that, soon He loses His divinity, then I stop capitalizing his pronoun, and the next thing you know a bunch of guys are making up all kinds of rules that you have to follow in order to be saved because the sacrifice of some guy on a cross couldn’t be enough. Just ask the JWs and the Mormons. If I err, and I obviously don’t think I do in this case, I will err on the side of exalting my savior.
Debbie,
5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8And being found in fashion as a man, he [the God-man] humbled himself, and became obedient [as the God-man] unto death, even the death of the cross.
* Once the incarnation took place, then whatever the God-man did, the “One” God-man did.
“For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation…”
Debbie,
John 8:29.
I think you would say that Jesus submitted Himself to the Father in everything He did in His earthly ministry. However, you seem to claim that only the “human side” of Jesus was in submission.
If that is the case, then the Jesus I read about in all four of the gospels was only the human side of Jesus! The God side was somewhere else.
Debbie, I think this is serious stuff and I hope by God’s grace you will be shocked out of it.
May this not be about some ego trip “I win, you lose” stuff over the internet for any of us.
This is about the Trinity.
Father, grant us the grace to deal with this doctrine with fear and trembling.
Strider, the point is that the feminist interpreters have claimed that ES is the new interpretation, not the standard. That is the point.
And it is wholly offensive to me to say that I am denigrating Christ. I find that a false and unfair accusation.
I stand with thousands of Bible scholars throughout church history who have asserted the absolute equality of the Trinity, while maintaining an order of authority within it.
For 2000 years, this has been done by scholars without denigrating Christ in any way.
And the progression you suggest has no basis in history. Since the Nicene Creed people have held this distinction without that happening. It is a fantasy of your own creation.
Those who have held to the orthodox view of the Trinity have not slid off into extreme subordination. We value Christ and exalt him. For you to suggest the opposite is unworthy and offensive.
Benji: You act as though I am denying that Christ is God. I am the one fighting for the fact that he is God. How in all good conscience can you believe that Christ is subordinate and yet fight for the fact that He is God. I have been putting that one to light all through this discussion. I know it’s serious. It’s serious enough that I am against Eternal Submission.
Christ is 100% human. 100% God. I believe he had two wills. Not to separate people. But I think from debating me that you know that, if not you know that now. You cannot explain how he could be both adequately and neither can I. But to say that I am dividing him up into two people is ridiculous and strawman.
Benji: You act as though I am denying that Christ is God. I am the one fighting for the fact that he is God. How in all good conscience can you believe that Christ is subordinate and yet fight for the fact that He is God. I have been putting that one to light all through this discussion. I know it’s serious. It’s serious enough that I am against Eternal Submission.
Christ is 100% human. 100% God. I believe he had two wills. Not to separate people. And wills may not even be the right word which is why I linked to John Piper’s article.
But I think from debating me that you know that, if not you know that now. You cannot explain how he could be both adequately and neither can I. But to say that I am dividing him up into two people is ridiculous and strawman. And by two wills I am not saying anything other than as a human he grew tired, he hurt, all the things we feel he felt. He was under submission to God until the cross. Then he went to his former glory. I disagree that he was submissive from the beginning of time and for the reasons Strider has already mentioned.
It’s not I who is bringing Christ to a lower level. It is those who believe in the doctrine of Eternal Submission.
Debbie,
I agree that Piper’s article is worth reading. However, I would also recommend reading this as well:
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Office%20of%20the%20President/Did%20all%20of%20God%20die%20in%20Christ.pdf
It starts off stating this: “Question: ‘Did the entire, whole complete God die in Christ on Good Friday?’”
Dave Miller:
I have never heard of the term “feminist hermeneutics”
Is that basically a term for anyone that might believe that God could use a woman to minister to men- as a pastor, deacon, sunday school teacher, music director, teacher of Hebrew, etc.
Lottie Moon would not even qualify as a missionary today in the SBC but we’ll use her name to raise money!
Dave,
I have enjoyed this thread a lot . It is always valuable to gain insight on the position of others from a point of view that is opposite to what I would have previously considered obvious.
You said: “… if you learn how to italicize and format in comments, could you share it with me?”
If you see italics in this post then I have succeeded and I will share it with you.
Ray
It apparently did not succeed …
never mind.
Still enjoyed the thread.
Ray, it worked, but I want a button or something. You know me.
Feminist Hermeneutics is a term used to describe the reinterpretation of scriptures to meet a feminist purpose. For instance, the reinterpretation of the word kephale above.
Feminist interpreters claim we have been blinded by our cultural bias to read things into scripture that are not there.
I would say that feminist interpreters take great liberties and use very shoddy hermeneutics to deny the clear teaching of scripture – that God created men and women equal in value but with different roles and responsibilities in divinely-ordained institutions of home and church.
I am quite offended myself. I wrote a really witty, funny comment and you didn’t laugh. So much for my high opinion of my own writing skills!
I am sorry Dave, that you worked hard on a post to explain something that you believe in only to be hounded by intractable people for 169 comments. I would not like that very much. But this is my dog in this hunt, namely that I don’t think that ‘feminists’ jumped on the subordination doctrine and started decrying it out of nowhere. I have labeled myself as a complimentarian for over 20 years but the stuff I have seen over the last few years has made me want to drop the moniker altogether. It seems to me- and from out here in Middle Earth I am not exactly in the mainstream of things- that it is those who are advocating the subordination of women under the guise of complimentarianism who have taken up this doctrine to support their claim. In our language and culture subordination means what it means and women have heard this. Some are militantly subordinate. There are blogs out there written by SBC women who are scary to read. They teach men that women can not teach men and woe to the man who would disagree with them. There are many other women- Debbie labels herself as one- who feel disrespected and demeaned by the label. You seem to agree with me that this is wrong and that there are what you call ‘subordinationists’ out there who are wrongfully doing this. My solution is to abandon this word subordination to its original meaning and stop saying things like ‘Jesus is subordinate to the Father but that does not mean lesser rank even though that is the clear meaning of the word subordination.’
Nuff said. I hope and trust that my intractable attitude toward this word has not damaged our relationship.
Benji, can’t get the link to work. Sounded interesting.
italics in a post. Simply place
The first i at the beginning of the word you want italicized, and the second i at the end of the word you want italicized. Same if you want to make it bold
I can’t believe it doesn’t show. Well let me figure out how to show you.
Its harder than it seems, isn’t it, Debbie?
I am too old to learn brackets and such stuff. Ray knows that. He is just trying to torture me with things he knows I won’t remember.
I need a doggone button!
WordPress, git-r-done!
A final clarification from Strider. I apologize to Dave for accusing him of demeaning our Savior. In comment 157 I gave a slippery slope scenario that I know full well he and others who hold his position have not gone down and will not go down. It was verbiage, meant to be humorous in the midst of debate. In comments 160 and 161 Dave said he was very offended. This was not my intent and I apologize for this. I maintain that subordination is the wrong word to use to describe the relationships we are talking about but I do not believe that Dave or others are using this word to denigrate Jesus. I will stop writing now before I get into any more trouble.
Thank you for that, Strider.
I hope you will not stop commenting. David Worley cannot be the only intractable one.
I’m still sticking with the term eternal subordination. I am aware it has some emotional connotations in our society. However it is a term that has had a precise theological meaning for centuries, so I’m not sure how to improve on it.
It is probably a term I would not use in a sermon, but in a theological discussion, I hope we can use it in its intended theological framework.
I will stick with the very clear teachings of Scripture, and hold to ES. I believe in the Trinity as taught in the Bible. And, yes, a lot of this rejection of the Father and Son relationship has a direct line to the rejection of Biblical roles of men and women(egalatarian), which comes from the radical, feminist agenda that is sweeping the USA and spilling over into the rest of the world in our day and time.
I will just stick with the Bible.
David
007:
In the famous words there you go again with your ever present phrase–”
I will stick with the very clear teachings of Scripture. Beginning of your discussion and end of your discussion. Your position is right and anyone who disagrees with you is a Liberal. Your act is a mighty old one.
“Thank you for that, Strider.
I hope you will not stop commenting. David Worley cannot be the only intractable one.”
Sure he can, just watch him.
ihopei ithisi iworksi
I meant that as a joke guys! Be nice to Vol – he’s still dealing with that missed field goal.
I was mad at him about that, but the Yankees won and are in the World Series, so I was able to put the Bama victory behind me.
Let’s all play nice folks.
Tom, you can be “intractable” yourself, young man.
Aren’t we sometimes a convention pots calling the kettles black.
Benji, You have to do these bracket thingamajigs.
I did it, Ray!!
Benji, I’m going to forward the info from Ray’s email to me that showed me how to do it.
You use brackets
Inside the brackets you type the letter i (no spaces) where you want to start the italics, and then another set of brackets you type /i to end it. It just worked above. I think if you use a b, it makes it bold.
Let’s see if that works.
Uh, don’t think that worked
How bout this:
That might get it.
Help!!!!
#184 refers to #180
Alright Dave, I’m goin’ ta try it:
[iDavei] [iwilli] [inoti] [ileadi] [imei] [iastrayi]. [iThisi] [iwilli] [iwork]. [iGoi] [iDavei]!
Great post Pastor Dave…….Good to see the Yankee’s are still cheating!!
[i]Dave[/i]
[i]Dave[i]
[/i]Dave[/i]
Dave:
You said to me–”Tom, you can be “intractable” yourself, young man.
Aren’t we sometimes a convention pots calling the kettles black.”
Some truth to your statement. But David Worley, Volvie, 007 is the most intractible and obnoxious blogger that I have ever come across. You have to agree with him on all things or he will start all of his tactics. I think you would be suprised how much you and I agreed upon if we ever fleshed it out.
[iMiller][/i]
[/iMiller][/i]
[iMiller] [i]
Tom,
I know you feel that way, but I am going to tell you what I think. If he is as intractable and and unyielding as you say, I have one suggestion for you.
Just drop it. Don’t argue with him. Don’t insult him.
God is my judge, and yours, and David’s. You made some strong statements about David’s blogging. If you are right, God will deal with him. If you are wrong, you have no right to insult him.
Just let it go.
That’s my 2 cents.
Joe, that hurts a little. The Yankees win the right way – we buy the best players available every year!!
Maybe there is a spiritual lesson in all this. I see bold and italics in some of the comments, even though others tell my by email they are not seeing them.
Somehow, from my perspective, they show up. You make the point.
On the other hand, Benji, you are just not getting it, dude! I sent you an email (the info from Ray) that will explain it.
You are using the wrong brackets, and you don’t have to do every word, just one at the start and one at the end.
I think Benji is just joking around….
obviously the wrong brackets….
-cj
<–! italics –>
(i)How about this Dave?(/i)
(/i)How about this Dave?(/i)
(i)How about this Dave?(i)
* Please send the e-mail to the e-mail given for this particular comment.
It’s late in the conversation to make suggestions, but in the interest of civility let me offer a couple.
1. We need to stop using slippery slope arguments, on both sides. The fact that a doctrine may “lead” to the oppression of some group, liberalism, fulfilling the feminist agenda, etc is unfortunate, but irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether a doctrine is true. We all know that a true doctrine may be misused and “lead” to something unpleasant. We can’t help that. The use of slippery slope arguments are de facto accusations against the holder of whatever doctrine we don’t like.
2. We need to learn to acknowledge what while other people may hold a “wrong” doctrine, that their error may be a sincere mistake of hermeneutics, translation, tradition, etc, rather than simply a stubborn denial of what is true. When we say things like baptizing infants is a denial of the clear teaching of the bible, then we are claiming infallibility in our understanding. We don’t like it when the Pope does it, we shouldn’t do it ourselves. I think paedobaptism is wrong. I don’t think paedos are bible denying heretics. There is a difference.
Good word Bill, I don’t believe in slippery slope either- in spite of my or because of my failed 157 comment.
David W reminds me of me in some ways. I can say really obnoxious things in the comment stream of a blog- not as good as he but I try- but he loves SBs, he loves missions (big plus with me), and he loves Jesus. For me his Church’s missions giving covers a multitude of sins and shows me a heart that most of his blog comments fail to convey. We are all much more than our on-screen monikers!
Benji,
Your first sentence:
“(i)How about this Dave?(/i)” was right. Just use these things instead of the parentheses.
For the record I have not seen anyone write anything in italics yet.
Odd, the “these things” didn’t show up. They are the “greater than” “less than” characters (SHIFT+,) and (SHIFT+.). Or, as my 2nd Grade teacher-wife says, “alligator mouths.”
I see them, Strider, when someone does them correctly – thus the “different perspectives” comment above.
If someone wanders upon this discussion, they are going to say, “Those people are a bunch of morons.”
In an attempt to reengage the discussion, I would confess that I am feeling a little like the wallflower at the dance. I spent all this time writing this massive opus on ES, and we have really not discussed it much. So, let me call out point 6 from above and ask this question:
Does the evidence I present here demonstrate that the relational subordination existed before the Incarnation? That would be an important component of the discussion.
6) The Bible supports the relational subordination of Christ prior to his Incarnation.
The primary description used in scripture to describe the relationship of the First and Second Persons of the Trinity demonstrate that this is an ongoing, eternal relationship. Jesus is the Son of God. Father and Son – a relationship that implies both essential equality and relational rank. Father and Son share identity, but the Father has authority over the Son. Psalms 2:7, a passage applied to Christ in Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4 and Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, would seem to demonstrate that this Father-Son relationship predated the Incarnation.
Over forty times in John’s gospel, Jesus mentions that he was sent by the Father to earth to do his work. The one in greater authority sent the one in the subordinate position to accomplish the work assigned to him. Jesus never acted as if this was demeaning. He rejoiced in doing the Father’s will. John 3:16 tells us that because of the great love of the Father for the world, “he sent his only begotten Son.” In John 8:42, Jesus asserted, “I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.” John 12:49-50 makes it very clear. “For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.” Jesus made it clear that he came to this earth on the orders of the Father to accomplish the Father’s work. Those orders preceded the incarnation.
***
So, folks, does the fact that Jesus came because he was “sent” by the Father demonstrate a relational subordination? Why, or why not?
Andrew,
You said “Odd, the ‘these things’ didn’t show up. They are the ‘greater than’ ‘less than’ characters”.
That is what happened to me in comment 184. In that comment I said “How bout this:”, but what I put after that [using the "greater than" "less than" characters] did not show up.
So, after comment #184, I started using “other” characters:)
Dave,
Thanks for the e-mail.
I can see it when I do it right, but Strider says he can’t, and Ray emailed me and said the same thing.
Hard to know, Benji, if the problem is something with our competence, or with WordPress, or what.
I just feel like I have been inducted into a new club, knowing how to do these things – even if they do not show up on someone else’s computer!
People dont have to agree with me over every, little thing. In fact, I just preached on that last nite. I’m preaching thru 1 Corinthians at my Church at the moment. But, if someone does not believe the essentials of the faith, then I doubt very seriously that they are saved. And, if they dont believe second tier doctrines, then I believe that they are in error, and in such error that I could not join with them to do certain things. We can disagree on true, third tier doctrines all day long, and still start Churches together, worship together, teach in the Seminaries, etc.
So, just thought I’d let yall in on some truth about me.
David
Vol: I don’t disagree. But wouldn’t it appear that ES is a third tier doctrine? Our confession of faith doesn’t mention it, and clearly the SBCers posting here don’t agree on it.
David, I fully agree with that statement. The only place we might differ is in placing doctrines in categories. But your point is well made.
I have said this to you before, but it bears repeating. On many of the things that we blog about, David and I have ended up on opposite sides of the blog debate – sometimes fairly strongly so.
But blogging creates a false sense of division. David and I agree on probably 95% of doctrine. We disagree on some of the so-called “BI” issues. I’m not sure exactly where he is on Sovereign Grace (Calvinism issues), but we agree on most things.
We blog about divisive issues – and I think that is okay – iron sharpens iron and all that. But we must remember that we are focusing on our differences and remember that on what matters, we stand together.
The inerrancy of the Word of God.
the Trinity
Jesus as the only sacrifice for sin.
The need to proclaim the Word of God accurately and follow its teachings.
etc. etc. etc.
I want us to keep talking about the tough issues, but with a grace toward those we disagree with and with the realization that our differences are (generally) not nearly as big as blogging makes them seem.
Brother Dave,
I am re-engaging, but not in italics….
The Hebrew writer proclaims that…Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Also Matthew affirms the relational promise given by Christ….
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (19) “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
One of the most outstanding statements by the Apostle Paul asserts the immensity and immutability of God in Christ concerning “all the fullness”….
Colossians 2:8-9 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (9) For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
It is kind of interesting that the first century churches stumbled upon Jesus’ true humanity (not divinity) realized by what records we have of docetic, Gnostic, and Marcionite origination…..which didn’t turn the other direction until the fourth century. Today, we seem to be concerned about Jesus’ immense divinity, which is quite the opposite of the first century believers approach.
Hebrews 1:8-12 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. (9) “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” (10) And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; (11) THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, (12) AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”
Jesus Christ is the same, ….other things change, but He has never been anything but the same in all His (God’s) fulness.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, that is an interesting point – Jesus doesn’t change, “yesterday, today and forever.” I hadn’t considered that verse in this light.
Since Jesus was obedient to the Father on earth, does that mean he was prior to the Incarnation and after the Resurrection?
How does Philippians 2 and the kenosis affect that verse?
Brother Dave,
As we think about the significance of Christ’s deity, one theologian has put together eight theological reasons for His divinity. These reasons demonstrate the mediatorial work of God purposed in Jesus, the Son of God. I believe it helps us see the devine nature and work of God and the relationship of the Godhead previous to the incarnation and through eternity.
(1) Christ’s divinity was necessary to bear the force of the atonement. The weight of the wrath of God, for the sins of the world, is so great that no mere mortal could have borne it. It was Christ’s lot to drink that cup to its bitter dregs. Only a divine Savior could have survived it.
(2) Christ’s divinity was necessary to imbue his mediatorial labors with limitless value. An almost infinite satisfaction was due God in view of the sins of humanity. No finite being could pay such a price and thus answer the full requirements of strict covenantal justice.
(3) Christ’s divinity was necessary to quit God’s punitive wrath. The covenant of works required perfect and personal obedience, upon penalty of death. The consequent defection of Adam and Eve from their covenantal obligation plunged the whole race into an age-long rebellion against God. Only the Father’s costly sacrifice of his beloved only begotten Son was adequate to fulfill the just sentence due us all from the Almighty.
(4) Christ’s divinity was necessary to secure the Father’s favor. Not because God had to be forced or coaxed to love his people. Not at all. Indeed, the atonement did not “make” God love us, but rather is the expression of his love and indispensable condition of his covenantal favor towards us. Nevertheless, once God set his love on us to redeem us, an infinite penalty and positive righteousness was required to secure his eternal benediction. Such an accomplishment required the divine Savior.
(5) Christ’s divinity was necessary to redeem a people for himself. The divine Christ literally purchased his people and Christ earned our salvation. We are saved by works: his works! Only a divine savior could have paid the costly purchase price for redeeming us from our bondage to sin and death.
(6) Christ’s divinity was necessary for the pouring out of the Spirit on his people. It was essential that our salvation be both accomplished and applied. Christ told his disciples that it was necessary that he ascend to the right hand of the Father in order to send the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:7). Only the eternal God-man holds the right to send the Spirit where he will, that his salvation might be applied to all his people.
(7) Christ’s divinity was necessary for the conquest of all his people’s enemies. Our Lord, the Captain of our Salvation, not only made satisfaction for the condemning power of sin, but also decisively destroyed the might of Satan, the world, and death. This destructive work of redemption required the infinite capacities of the divine Captain of the Hosts of the Lord.
(8) Christ’s divinity was necessary to accomplish our everlasting salvation. Our eternal blessedness essentially consists in the enjoyment of our Savior. He is not only the author of our redemption, he is the matter of it. He is not merely the means of our salvation, he is the goal of it. In glory we are not only made happy by him, but in him. Only a divine savior could serve as the great fountain of blessedness for all redeemed humanity.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Dave,
I believe the clue is given to us in verse 8…..
Philippians 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
His (Jesus) appearance is to demonstrate obedience to the point of death.
Philippians 2:9-13 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, (10) so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, (11) and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (12) So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; (13) for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
The reason for the exaltation was His (Jesus) obedience, which was caste in purpose before time began. Consequently,… this Christ (God) is at work in us, to will and work. Thank goodness.
Blessings,
Chris
I’m currently taking a seminary course and we’re on the topic of the doctrine of God. One piece I just read about was balancing our understanding of God’s transcendence and his covenant presence. One piece, if I recall rightly, was God’s immutability. The book I’m reading is by Bruce Ware and he mentions God’s “relational mutability.”
Basically what it means is that we are under God’s wrath as sinners, but Jesus’ atonement paid the price and God changes stance against us (no longer full of wrath). Relational mutability means that God can change in his relationship with us, though his essence never changes. If I have this wrong, let me know.
Bruce Ware is for ES, I believe, but if one of God’s attributes is relational mutability, could that also extend to the relationship between the Father and Son? What I mean is, could Christ’s submission to the Father be linked only to his first and second advents?
I haven’t studied up on this, and I lean more towards the ES position, but I’m just interested in what y’all think about relational mutability in this sense. If I used the wrong words or misrepresented these ideas, please let me know.
I like that (Chris, comment 210). Might incorporate that into a sermon sometime.
However, I may be a little dense (wouldn’t be the first time that has been posited). Is there a relationship between this and the discussion of ES?
Whether there is or not, it was a comment worth reading!
Andrew, its an interesting theory.
Almost everyone agrees (with the exception, perhaps, of some of the more radical feminist interpreters) that Jesus submitted to the Father on earth.
The question I posed above (Comment 202) is whether that submission extends pre-Incarnation and post-Resurrection.
The scriptures I spelled out seem to indicate that it does. I haven’t read Ware’s treatment of relational mutability, but it is a concept worthy of further study.
Brother Andrew,
Bruce has put forward a few new terms in the last few years. “Relational Mutability” works off of his work done by him and others at Southern to better define Molina’s principles of middle knowledge.
I might let him continue his theory, before unleashing it on the congregation.
Just some thoughts…..and I respect Bruce’s work a lot.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I guess my point is that this seemed to be another example of paradox/antinomy – two things asserted as true that seem to be exclusive. maybe that is a part of the ES discussion as well.
God is One. God is Three.
God is Sovereign. Man is Responsible.
Jesus is God. Jesus is Man.
There are so many of these conundrums in Scriptures.
Scripture affirms that Jesus does not change. (Yesterday, today and forever).
Scripture also affirms that Jesus changed. (Phil 2 – emptying himself of his heavenly glory to take the form of a servant.
Maybe this is another one of those both/and issues. Jesus always holds the full glory of the Godhead, yet he submits to the Father. Jesus never changes, yet he exchanged his glory for the form of a servant.
I have a working theory that almost every doctrine in the Bible is held in tension with another doctrine that seems to conflict.
We are held by Christ (eternal security) yet we are commanded to persevere.
We are holy in Christ, yet we are commanded to be holy.
Maybe this concept has some application in the ES debate.
Brother Dave,
Yes (to a few posts up), I believe the relationship is that the divinity of Jesus pre-incarnate is not to “be lowered”, but was “made for a while lower than” (Hebrews 2:7). The pre-incarnate
Christ, being the same, was “made for a while”, in other words,..placed into our world, to do only as He could do by the shedding of blood. Certainly the lamb was in place before the foundation of the world. Thus the reasoning in His divinity (8 reasons).
John 1:35-36 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, (36) and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!”
1 Peter 1:17-21 If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; (18) knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, (19) but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (20) For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you (21) who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
Blessings,
Chris
Andrew, I’m not sure how it relates to ES, but there is clearly a sense of relational mutability in the way God relates to human beings.
In Gen 6:6, he was “sorry” he had made man.
In 1 Sam 15:11 he said, “I regret that I made Saul king.”
2 Sam 24:16, the Lord “relented” from the calamity he was bringing.
There are other scriptures that seem to indicate God changing his mind.
Yet we know Numbers 23:19 “God is not man, that he should lie,or a son of man, that he should change his mind.”
Another conundrum/paradox/antinomy?
David M:
You said to me–”Tom,
I know you feel that way, but I am going to tell you what I think. If he is as intractable and and unyielding as you say, I have one suggestion for you.
Just drop it. Don’t argue with him. Don’t insult him.
God is my judge, and yours, and David’s. You made some strong statements about David’s blogging. If you are right, God will deal with him. If you are wrong, you have no right to insult him.
Just let it go.
That’s my 2 cents.”
ok
Brother Dave,
“Scripture also affirms that Jesus changed. (Phil 2 – emptying himself of his heavenly glory to take the form of a servant.”
I’m not convinced that He has changed. I am more convinced that He made himself of “no reputation” (kenoō).
Mark 6:3-4 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (4) And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.”
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, I do not believe his essence, or divine nature changed. But there does seem to be some sort of significant change taking place.
He “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant.” That would imply some sort of change. Yet he is eternal as well.
And, I think the question applicable to ES is whether the sum-total of the change was his becoming obedient to the Father.
He certainly obeyed the Father here on earth. But did he obey the Father’s command to come to earth (implicit in the idea of being sent)? Is continued obedience after the Resurrection also implied?
So, another question from the post which no one has interacted with.
Look at 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘all things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.”
Jesus delivers the kingdom to God the Father after conquering all other authority (earthly and satanic, it seems).
Jesus reigns until he puts all his enemies under his feet (other than the Father).
Then, it says, “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him…”
Doesn’t this kind of settle the issue. How do you interpret this passage if not that at the end of all things, Jesus will take authority over all other entities and then deliver that authority to the Father?
Brother Dave,
I agree with you and I think I understand considering the substance or essence, yet it appears the context of Philippians 2 is describing a confidence afforded to the hearers that… Philippians 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
The Apostles analogy is wrapped in exhortation and for the benefit of the hearers. I do not think the Apostle has in mind a suborder within the Godhead (pre or post) for the confidence he puts forth to the hearers. His exhortation simply explains the now, where God in Jesus, the Son of God is obedient to death on a cross in a form (morphe) consistent with that lot (real flesh, real blood, real sacrifice).
Certainly Jesus form changed (morphe) as glorified, yet sameness continues in His divinity pre and post. He is the same eternally. He sustains us eternally as well, echoing Jude’s closing remarks….
Jude 1:24-25 Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, (25) to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
These are great things to think about…. thank you for the continued dialogue. You da man…
Blessings,
Chris
Dave,
A very interesting post.
You may be the contemporary Gregory of Nyssa and you, Vol and Chris Johnson may be the new Cappadocian Fathers.
Dave, I need to clear up a personal matter here if I may with Tom Parker.
Tom Parker,
You said of Vol, that he “is the most intractible and obnoxious blogger that I have ever come across.”
Tom Parker, you recently gave me the privilege of holding that position in your life.
Tom Parker, you are going to have to make a choice. Either it is going to be me or Vol. It can’t be both of us.
The Bible teaches that a “double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.”
Now, Tom Parker, you are going to have to choose between me or Vol as the “most….obnoxious blogger….” or we will have no choice but to consider you as “unstable in all your ways.”
cb
Maybe, CB, we should take a poll.
However, right now, after your comments about the Hawkeyes, you KNOW who I vote for.
And that sounds like a good name for a really cheesy gospel quartet:
“The New Cappadocian Fathers”
Dave,
The under thirty crowd will call you guys: “THE CAPPS”
I’ll start warming up my mellifluous bass voice.
I want to clarify a few things and add other things.
I believe that Christ has always been the Son of God from eternity. This didn’t just occur during his time on earth. It always was and always will be. That has never been an issue with me.
But, if you will look at the culture at the time the Bible was written, being a son meant being equal in stature and privilege to the father. John 5:18 brings this out as the reason the Jews charged Jesus with blasphemy and wanted to kill him. The Son of the King was equal with the King in every way. In fact the Bible states that Christ is of the same essence as God the Father. The confessions I have mentioned also state this.
I also think it’s dangerous to try and dig too deeply into understanding the Trinity. I disagree with David Volfan that those such as myself who do not agree with Christ’s Eternal Submission are not saved. That is a statement I would not make of Dave or him. That is a dangerous statement to make because what if(and I believe you are seriously wrong)you are wrong. This is not a doctrine that is salvic, but it is a doctrine that shapes our view of Christ and how we interpret scriptures, so from a growth standpoint it is important. As for a salvic standpoint, it means nothing.
It is a new doctrine, because in the form presented I do not find it in church history, but I do find a fight against a doctrine that states the same thing yet presents Christ as having been created. That is not what Dave or others who believe in ES believe.
I do think that it is a doctrine that strongly takes away from the glory and stature of Christ even though those who believe this doctrine do not intend to convey this nor do they believe this, yet that is what this doctrine does. We cannot look at Christ or the Trinity through human models, nor can we take the Trinity and apply them to convey submission of women and especially eternally to men. We are all to be submissive to God. To Christ, to the Holy Spirit.
Also, I did deal with the passage Dave gave in 1 Corinthians. I said that Christ does have all at this feet. This was accomplished by his ministry here on earth, and at the Cross where he defeated Satan and death. He is reigning right now. His kingdom not on this earth.
Also, Strider I italicized several times in my comments. I do it all the time, but had a hard time explaining to Dave how to do it as it would not show up on the comments.
Just had to throw that one in. 
Isaiah 9:6: “For to us a child is born…and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
There was a debate on this subject which was reported in Christianity Today
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/141-53.0.html
i note the civility of the debate, which many baptists, southern and otherwise, could learn much from, but also i note how important the debate may become because of the fundamental Christological questions being raised. my two personal points are
it is i think unfortunate that some seem to espouse this idea to bolster a particular position on a belief (the role of women at home and in church) which simply cannot be considered as important as the person and work of Christ.
i do think that this return to subordinationism (which it is) will inevitably lead to a denial of the true divinity of Chris. Several southern baptist friends have mentioned in the past how there is already a tendency towards functional binatarianism in the SBC as the Holy Spirit is downplayed and ignored, and now the doctrine of the trinity is undermined on a second front.
I have heard more than one southern baptist pastor in the US baptising someone without making explicit reference to the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” – is such a baptism valid?!
is true orthodox trinitarianism fundamental for a church to truly be a church?
Robert,
When it comes to a debate about the nature of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, it is important to remember that what we say is just as important as how we say it.
You state that ES is a return to subordinationism. That is not correct. Subordinationism was a view proposed and defended by Arius, stating that Christ was subordinate both in essence and relationship with the Father.
I am not familiar with binitarianism being an issue within the SBC. We most certainly affirm the trinity in the Baptist Faith and Message. Some may “downplay” the Holy Spirit out of a response to certain charismatic sects, but I’d be hardpressed to find a church that actually ignores the Holy Spirit entirely. I do agree though, that Southern Baptists should give more focus to the third person of the Trinity (for those of you who are egalitarian, I’m referring to the Holy Spirit
.
About your question on baptizing without specifically saying “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” I refer you to the recent post by David Rogers on this site, “Hills on Which to Die?” That issue is brought up in the discussion. Suffice it to say that many believe you have to say it exactly. Others say baptism just has to be done under the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This has more to do with accepting new members from non-SB backgrounds and SB pastors should probably be saying it exactly.
Your last statement is most troubling to me. You said, “Is true orthodox trinitarianism fundamental for a church to truly be a church?” While the doctrine of the Trinity is not required for salvation, it is important and should be embraced by Christians and churches alike. Denial of the Trinity is heresy and should not be tolerated by Christians. Indeed, a church that teaches false doctrine will not be a church for long, at least in the true sense of what a church is.
Robert and Debbie,
All Southern Baptists Pastors that I know believe strongly in the Trinity. And, the belief that the Son is the SON, and is eternally obedient to His Father, who is and has forver been and forever shall be the FATHER, is nothing new. It’s sound theology. It’s what the Bible teaches. It’s part of the Trinity. They are equal, yet have separate roles. They are all the one, true God; yet, they are all separate beings. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all made of the same substance, are of the same essence, yet they are all different in the roles they carry out. The Father is always pleased with His Son, and has made Him ruler of the Universe. The Son always does what pleases His Father. He is always obedient to His Father. They are also one in purpose. They feel the same way. They think the same way. They have the same will….like no others. And, Robert, most Southern Baptists believe this, and have believed this for centuries.
Andrew, your prof was exactly right when he said that God is unchangeable in His character and nature, but He does change His mind sometimes. The Bible says that God has repented of certain things. And, Dave gave you a whole list of things that God changed His mind about. Also, we do go from being under His wrath, to being one of His chosen servants, when we get saved. God does change His mind about things. But, He is always God. And, as such, He is always loving….always merciful…always gracious…always just…always righteous….always powerful….always keeps His Word and His promises. God does not change in that way…that He is always who He is, and always keeps His Word. I think your prof was spot on in this matter.
Oh, and one more thing, Robert, I am firmly convinced that this new thing to not believe in the eternal subordination of Jesus to the Father is rooted in some people’s quest to make the Bible fit into todays feminism. I am seeing that more and more and more everytime this subject is brought up in all the different places that I’ve seen it.
Oh, and one more thing, CB, I hope you win that contest.
David
Debbie,
I’m never ceased to be amazed, dear Sister, how you do not comprehend what was written, or else you look at what was written, and in your mind, you add to it what you think someone was saying. When you said,”I disagree with David Volfan that those such as myself who do not agree with Christ’s Eternal Submission are not saved. That is a statement I would not make of Dave or him. That is a dangerous statement to make because what if(and I believe you are seriously wrong)you are wrong.” Where did I say that someone who believes wrongly about the Trinity is lost? is not saved? I have looked back at all the comments that I made in this thread, and I do not see it.
Now, I do think that it is a grave error in theology. I do believe that it could lead to some very damaging beliefs. I do believe that either someone that does not hold to ES is either ignorant of Bible teachings on this matter, or else they are liberals who are trying to make the Bible fit with feminism. But, Debbie, where did I say that someone who does not hold to ES is lost, or not saved?
David
Robert Dando asked:
“is true orthodox trinitarianism fundamental for a church to truly be a church?”
The foundational doctrines of Christianity rest upon the reality of the Trinity. It is primary to the Christian faith.
A local body that denies the reality of the Trinity is not a local body of believers. It is not a New Testament church.
It is Anathema. It is cursed. it is without biblical foundation. It is hopeless and to be, in total, treated as prospects for the biblical gospel.
cb
And, I agree with CB, if someone denies the Trinity, then they are not saved. To deny the Trinity would have to be saying that Jesus is less than God. To do so is the declaration of a lost, unregenerate sinner.
David
Debbie, I never saw David say that anyone who denied ES was not saved. Had I seen that, i would have surely called him on it. I made it clear in my post that I consider the Egalitarian view to be a serious mistake among orthodox Christians. In other words, I believe it is a more serious doctrinal error than differences on baptism or ecclesiology, but not an error that puts one outside the boundaries of orthodoxy. That is the position I hold and advocated.
David will tell you, Debbie, that I am not afraid of disagreeing with him or even confronting him. We’ve gone toe to toe several times.
But I think you misunderstood or misrepresented his position.
Robert,
I would make the following observations about your comment.
1) I don’t know if you were implying it, but I do not think this debate has been uncivil. I think I know the debate you referenced, and it was very direct and forceful. Perhaps a few of our comments have crossed a line of civility, but I do not think the general debate has been unkind or harsh. The whole point of a post like this is to focus debate, and we have done so.
2) I am reminded of the conversation between Tom Sawyer and Alfred Temple – “your saying so don’t make it so.” It seems that the only way some are willing to critique ES is by using the unfair method you did.
*This IS subordinationism (it is not).
I have spelled that difference out dozens of times, so I can only conclude that you are unwilling to hear it. We affirm the equality of Christ and do not deny it. We affirm the glory of Jesus Christ.
One might conclude that the inability to deal with ES biblically and historically would lead you to twist it into a straw man that is easily knocked down. Regardless, you need to deal with the doctrine that IS, not the doctrine that you imagine.
3) You seem to imply that it is only Complementarians who deal with this doctrine and how it relates to the gender debates. I cannot say I have read every resource, but I can say this – I have seen treatments of ES that deal with it on the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity (Strong and Hodge, above, for instance) but I have yet to see a treatment of ES from an Egalitarian position that did not emphasize its effect on the gender debate.
4) Your statement that this doctrine is going to lead to the denial of Christ’s divinity is as absurd as it is offensive. For centuries, the great theologians have made a clear distinction between the equality of essence in the Trinity and their relational roles. In the early church, even during medieval times, in the Reformation and in many systematics theologies since then, this distinction has been maintained.
Never has maintaining that distinction led the church to deny the deity of Christ, and it will not do so now. Those who hold ES love Christ, honor him, worship him, and glorify him.
David and CB,
I would agree in general with what you are saying – that Trinitarianism is a necessary and fundamental doctrine that is necessary for the true gospel to be preached.
I only might say that it could be possible that someone might find the grace of Christ before their false view of the Trinity is straightened out. In other words, a person might have a flawed view of the Trinity and still be saved.
However, one who denies the Trinity will be preaching a false gospel that does not have the power to save.
Does that make sense?
Let me reiterate, that while I do not think Egalitarianism is right and I think the error is serious, I am not accusing Debbie or Mr. Dando or anyone else of denying the Trinity.
Debbie, while I have disagreed with most of your comments, and I just told you that I think that you misinterpreted Vol’s comment (went back and looked – still can’t find anything about people not being saved if they deny ES), I do affirm the way you have debated here. I appreciate you coming here and presenting your case as you have. It is never easy to debate on the other person’s home field.
Thank you. (I still think you’re wrong, though. Sorry, just can’t help it sometimes. )
sorry for my delayed response
as to the reason why the ES idea is a slippery slope into the denial of the true and full divinity i quote from the seminar at Trinity i referred to earlier
“The Son has as an essential property being subordinate to the Father and of course the Father lacks that property. So the Father has an essential property — a property that is part of the Father’s nature — that the Son does not have as part of the Son’s nature, and the Son has an essential property — a property that is part of the Son’s nature — that the Father does not have as part of the Father’s nature. This entails that the Father and the Son do not share the same nature after all.”
if this is true then how are the of the same nature?
>I will go so far as to say that if anyone does not hold to ES, and to the husband being the head of the home; then they are either ignorant of the Scriptures, or else they are liberals who are denying the clear teachings of the Bible in an attempt to fit into the culture of our day.
OK I’ve been corrected, David said this. So take out the words not saved in my comment, and replace it with Liberal or denying the clear teachings of the Bible. It’s not much different. I would have the temptation of saying the last part to this doctrine, but fact is I believe those who hold to ES have studied and studied the passages they use for this argument even if I disagree with the final interpretation.
Yes, it is hard, which is why I try and make it as easy as possible for those who comment in my blog. I appreciate you allowing me to be free to speak here as well as others including David. I may disagree, but David has always been honest in his thoughts as well as not too abrasive. Just a little and that is ok.
Robert, after looking at your quote, I wonder how you would answer this:
The argument you present basically says that the Son cannot BE subordinate to the Father because that would mean his essence (BEING) was different, and hence, not the same. You argue that this apparent non-sameness means those who hold the ES view will eventually birth followers who deny the essence of the Father and the Son are the same, since ES inherently points down that path.
I am not going to pretend to have the answers to this. God is infinitely more complex and higher than anything I could hope to understand. But I think we can come to a better conclusion than what your quote would have us to believe.
The fallacy of the argument is that the argument implies that the Son can’t do something the Father doesn’t do (i.e. be subordinate). But would you deny that the Son died on the cross and the Father raised him? Would you argue that the Father must have died on the cross too? And that Jesus raised the Father? After all, doesn’t the Son have an essential property being the mediator between man and God the Father? Doesn’t the Son have the essential property of being the propitiation for our sins? Here is your same quote rewritten with this in mind:
“The Son has as an essential property being the atonement sacrifice to the Father and of course the Father lacks that property. So the Father has an essential property — a property that is part of the Father’s nature — that the Son does not have as part of the Son’s nature, and the Son has an essential property — a property that is part of the Son’s nature — that the Father does not have as part of the Father’s nature. This entails that the Father and the Son do not share the same nature after all.”
Do you see the fallacy of the argument? Either the argument mistakenly assumes “role equals essence” or it is a thinly veiled attempt to support modalism.
So it took me an hour to catch up. Y’all really need to think about shorter replies. Debbie, I appreciated your brevity towards the beginning, but come on people. I guess that is what I get for being out of the loop for a few days. On, and for all of you seeking for do italics or bold, just google HTML reference.
Ok, to the subject. I am amazing at how many times the same argument has come full circle. I am also amazed at the amount of philosophy that has interjected itself at the same level as scripture. Because you can’t see how it works, or don’t like that it works, or because the church has screwed it up doesn’t invalidate a Biblical truth. The arguments are circular at best, and Debbie, I’m afraid you have most of the strawman arguments. You stated:
“To suggest that the Son or the Holy Spirit are subordinate makes them lesser in rank(for lack of a better word) than God the Father. That isn’t true. You cannot say the Son is subordinate for eternity and then in the same breath say that He is still equal to God the Father. That is an oxymoron statement.”
Let’s look at this hocus pocus. First, the definition of subordinate in the dialogue must be consisted with the definition set in the posting before the statement. Otherwise, we all come in with our own definitions, which is clearly the case here. Your definition then leads to a logical outcome that the idea of ES is wrong, but using your own definitions, in this case saying that subordinate is unequal or lesser. It was clearly stated that subordinate means subject to in function, not form. There is some serious twisting to present a logical fallacy to manipulate meaning to make a point.
Yes, Jesus is God, in essence and in divinity. He is part of the Trinity, and his function in the Trinity is to be subject to the Father. Why? Because God did it that way, and our inability to fully comprehend it doesn’t mean we can dismiss it’s evidence in scripture. My concern is that when we begin to make scripture fit our view and not allow our view to be changed by scripture. The ability to comprehend something makes it valid or not, and if it leads us to a place we don’t want to go, then we should just do some “deeper hermeneutics” to find “the truth”. I have read the ‘new perspective on Paul”, let’s not go there.
Now look what you made me do, I wrote a big, long post.
but He does change His mind sometimes. The Bible says that God has repented of certain things
David you said this in comment #232, but I do not find this to be true in scripture. Remember that scripture is written for us to understand and metaphors are used. Scripture interprets scripture, this is something too many in the Baptist churches forget or simply do not know.
Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man. that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promised and not fulfill?”
I also disagree that there are many Baptists who believe this doctrine. That argument is usually used to try and add weight that this doctrine is true. Also the final authority is scripture not how many believe it. I would ask for solid proof that many Baptists believe this.
Dan: I believe you have the strawman(and your comment was not very short). Subordination, obedience, there is no dancing around what it means. You can try and change it but then you end up saying what I have said that all are God, all are equal. It’s either or.
As for brevity. I cannot and will not be able to be brief on this subject. There is just too much material and I usually do the opposite of what someone tells me to do who has no authority.
It’s just the stubbornness in me.
It seems to me that the real issue with Christ subordinating Himself to the Father [in relation to Egalitarianism] is not so much whether the Son subordinated Himself pre-incarnation and post-resurrection, but whether “God the Son” subordinated Himself to the Father *at any point*.
It seems to me that the idea that “submission necessarily means lesser” is a fundamental tenet for egalitarianism.
Therefore, “if” God the Son submitted Himself at any point, then that would knock egalitarians’ foundation for egalitarianism right out from under them in my opinion.
Hence, it seems to me that they will have to articulate Christ’s submission to the Father by saying *only* His human nature submitted, but not His Divine nature.
So, I don’t think the *eternal* submission is so much the issue as whether God the Son has ever submitted to the father.
In fact, I don’t think they can even give up that the eternal “Son of God” submitted to the Father.
I think they can affirm:
1. The human nature of Christ submitted.
I think they have to reject:
1. God the Son submitted.
2. The Son of God submitted.
QUESTION: Are there any verses in the gospel of John that specifically communicates that “the Son” submitted to the Father?
Benji: God has not been incarnated. He nor the Holy Spirit have not submitted. There wills are the same. Going the same direction.
We could also turn the argument around to say that if ESS is wrong, then the foundation for husband/wife submission fails. It works both ways Benjie.
Debbie, i do enjoy the jest. The hard reality is that words and language are dynamic. Let’s use the LDS church for an example. Both Southern Baptist and LDS say that you must trust Jesus Christ for Salvation. For us, it means for forgiveness of sin, reconciliation to God, to be. . . well saved. For an LDS, it means to be presented with the opportunity for resurrection and therefore have the ability to enter Heaven. Language is a tool, and such being, can be manipulated.
Your comment “Subordination, obedience, there is no dancing around what it means” is flawed. There is no dancing around what YOU THINK it means. What it implies to you in this context is a deal breaker for you. It’s clear that many do not hold your definition, just as I don’t agree with the LDS definition of Salvation.
That, my dear, is the straw man. The basic assumption that the value and definition you ascribe is universal, when it fact, it is not.
Dan: But the LDS would agree with a lot of ESS. In fact many religions believe that after death females will always be subordinate. Some teach that we will still be “birthin babies.”
We are all to be submissive. To God to each other. The Godhead is in perfect harmony. There is no need to submit given the attributes that the Godhead possesses. Which are what Dan?
There would be no other definition(even in the first century) for subordination or submission. In scripture the slave is to submit to his master. We are to submit and our subordinate to God etc. The definition cannot be changed. Sorry but there you have it.
I do not think that the Trinity should be used for either the complementarian or Egalitarian view. It is not anything I have or will ever use to promote my view, which in fact I am neither complementarian or Egalitarian. I am a little of both.
We tend to go off of the deep end when we try and use it for our model. We are not Gods or little gods, so to use the Trinity makes me mighty uncomfortable.
I do think Benji asked a good question at the end of his last comment.
First Debbie, lets say I give you specific examples, would it help? If submission were not a function, but a relational understanding, would it change your view? If we take the relation of men to women out of the formula, would it change? If society treated women with respect and dignity, if men did not lord their authority over women, would we have this discussion? How do we reconcile the Biblical texts that Jesus is subject to the Father? Because the LDS church has taken some scriptural ideas and perverted them, do we abandoned them? Make me uncomfortable to consider.
Benji said: QUESTION: Are there any verses in the gospel of John that specifically communicates that “the Son” submitted to the Father?
This question that Debbie seems to like asks us to think of Christ in an odd and unnatural way the gospel writer did not intend in relation to the question Christ’s submission to the Father’s will. When Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), John is not intending for us to say, “Now, was this Jesus the man speaking or Jesus the God speaking?” That type of thinking is referred to as gnosticism and has been treated as heresy since it arose (cf. 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7).
To argue that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father as a man but that he has never submitted as God, you essentially deny the unity of the person of Christ, which is even more heretical than questioning the unity of the Trinity (which, by the way, ES does not, as we’ve tried to defend).
“those who rule are to be as those who serve (Luke 22:25-27).”
Let me ask you this Dan. Would God go against what He has set down in scripture? If ESS were true, wouldn’t he be the servant in reality? Wouldn’t He then have to be all those things that He said a leader is supposed to be? Is the Trinity a military relationship? These are the questions to begin to ask and this is why Christ’s glory and power and who He is which is Lord, God, all the things that God is, are compromised by this view. He is equal in the Godhead.
The word submit was most times used to convey a military status under a leader. Is this the Godhead? No and many times no. It is not a military relationship any more than marriage is.
In answer to your question, no it would not make one iota of difference. This is about Christ and demeaning him. Nothing to do with women being submissive. I have a problem with the Trinity being used at all to promote either view. It’s wrong in my opinion. Very wrong.
I disagree with this statement.
“These are the questions to begin to ask and this is why Christ’s glory and power and who He is which is Lord, God, all the things that God is, are compromised by this view.”
You finish the Statement with “He is equal in Godhead.” Yes. He is equal in Godhead. There is no oppressed. He is no subservient. He is not dictated. He has submitted Himself, which was an argument made about 50 or 75 posts back, so I am hesitant to do so again.
Here is the issue. You are speaking Newtonian physics, and I believe this post is Astrophysics, to use an analogy. In the Godhead, can something be a seeming contradiction yet be true. Yes. Is Jesus equal with the Father. Yes. Is Jesus less than divine? No. Is Jesus the full incarnation of the entire deity of God, being of the same substance. Yes. Can God be subject to Himself . . .
Here is the argument, here is the issue. Can God be subject to God because part of God is God the Father and part of God is God the Son. Does the Son know the Father? Yes. Did the Son say He was subject to the Father? Yes. Why? Cause He willed it to be so. Can God exist in a way that seems to contradict, yet the scripture states it to be fact? Apparently so, cause I feel like we are talking about 2 different things in all of our comments. So much so, that you assume I am arguing for ES, and in reality, I am simply arguing the point that we need to let scripture dictate our view, and not our view or understanding dictate scripture.
Dan, did you skip lunch today so you could write that lengthy comment? The Wings were fantastic!
I ate a few extra in your honor.
Thanks Dave. I’ll fill you in on the missing lunch later, I know how testy you get about hijacked blogs.
Dan is on staff at another Southern Baptist church in our association. They are equal to Southern Hills in essence, but lesser in rank, right Dan?
What was that about the older will serve the younger?
Debbie,
“I do not think that the Trinity should be used for either the complementarian or Egalitarian view.”
Well, I think the hard reality is that we *are* running into the reality of systematic theology. No, we should not “over systematize” in my opinion, but it is true that one doctrine affects another doctrine.
And that is what is happening here in my opinion. I do not think you can absolutely “compartmentalize” comp/egal doctrine from the doctrine of the Trinity.
I think egalitarianism is basically against “one sided” submission [think of a one-sided conversation where only one is doing the talking]. Egalitarianism wants “equal” submission with both genders submitting to each other. What it does not want is one-sided submission to the male gender in a marriage relationship [for example]. That is where the “submission necessarily means lesser” kicks in I think.
So, if the there is a “one-sided” submission going on anywhere in the Trinity, then the “submission necessarily means lesser” idea is proved wrong.
Andrew,
Earlier in this comment stream I was arguing that Debbie could not “divide” Jesus. I was arguing that since the incarnation, the “One” God-man named Jesus related to the Father.
However, if you read the Piper article that Debbie brought up, Piper argues that when “one nature” of Jesus did something, it was the the “Person” of Jesus doing it.
Well, honestly it seems like either language or logic is starting to break down at this point. Maybe we are entering the realm of mystery if what Piper is saying is correct.
Think of the language used: When one nature [God or man] did something, the Person [God and man] did it.
When it comes to the cross, I don’t think I agree with Piper who argues that the Divine nature did not suffer/die [I can't remember which one he specified]. I think the Divine nature did in some sense. I would encourage you to read the article I mentioned in #164.
Anyway, it is in the light of our previous discussion that I asked the question that I did. Maybe it still is unnatural. I’m not sure. However, I think the bottom line is that “if” the Divine Son of God submitted, then I think egalitarianism falls to the ground.
Benji,
I think I understand what you’re saying, and since I jumped in a little while after comment #164, I didn’t have that article in mind.
The article did mention that when Christ died on the cross, neither God the Father nor the Holy Spirit died. I agree, and this stands in contrast to Robert’s argument in #240 and my response in #242 explains the fallacy of that aspect of the egalitarian view.
I also agree that the Bible does leave us with some mystery as far as Christ’s dual nature being the God-man on the cross. I also recognize the importance of recognizing the distinctive characteristics of that duality and how it relates to the physical and metaphysical qualities of Christ (such as when Jesus slept, died, or forgave sins).
However, Debbie looked at your question as some kind of evidence supporting her egalitarian position. My point was that John doesn’t call his audience to question if it was Jesus the man or Jesus the God who said “the Father is greater than I” because, for John, you can’t separate the two in that declaration. You can’t argue that it was only Jesus’ humanity speaking here.
The point was, to use your words, the whole person of Jesus was speaking here. Therefore, Jesus was showing himself subordinate to the Father, which the extreme egalitarian view denies in its entirety because they cannot comprehend submission/subordination without inherently being of lesser essence (except in the case of submitting one to another).
I find that to be yet another fallacy of the egalitarian argument. If submission automatically proves a non-equality and a higherarchy of essence, why is that not true when they quote “Submit yourselves one to another” from Ephesians 5:21.
Andrew,
Now that I think about it…even if we assume, for argument’s sake, that Piper is correct, then all that would mean is that “sometimes” Christ’s Divine nature and “sometimes” Christ’s human nature was on display.
What egalitarianism can not give up, I think, is that both the Divine and Human nature were “ever” on display in submitting to the Father.
Therefore, it comes out looking like this to me:
1. The “entire” earthly ministry of Christ was in submission to the Father as seen in the gospels.
2. Therefore, the Divine and Human nature of Jesus were “never” on display as seen in the gospels.
Andrew,
I better specify what I said in comment 261:
“Therefore, it [egalitarianism] comes out looking like this to me:”
Benji, could you reiterate what you mean in #261 on point two?
Andrew,
Let me make sure I am being clear here. I disagree with point #2 personally. However, I think that would be where “consistent” egalitarianism would take someone.
In other words, if “one-sided submission implies lesser” then egalitarians cannot have the dual nature of Jesus submitting to the Father in the gospels.
Debbie [who admittedly says she is not fully egalitarian] said “Christ was 100% human and 100% God while on this earth. He lowered himself to become human. The human side was subordinate to God the Father.”
Well, if only the human side submitted to the Father, then that would mean that we “never” see the human and divine nature of Jesus submit to the Father and those all of Christ’s actions displayed only His human nature.
Now, Debbie might claim that what I am saying is a straw man. However, I would like to see a reason for that assertion instead of just an assertion.
Andrew,
*Better English*
“Well, if only the human side submitted to the Father, then that would mean that we ‘never’ see the human and divine nature of Jesus submit to the Father and thus all of Christ’s actions display only His human nature.”
Benji,
I didn’t think you were for that view. I just wasn’t sure if you were referring to Christ’s submission to the Father in your second point, that’s all. I’m on the same page now.
Andrew, Benji: You have completely misrepresented my position. When Christ spoke, He was always speaking with authority and as God. Always. That is not what I said, and in reading my comments no person would think that is what I said. Please stick to what I believe and not what you need me to believe to support your position.
Jesus was 100% God, 100% man. Period.
Debbie, what did you mean when you referenced Benji’s question: Are there any verses in the gospel of John that specifically communicates that “the Son” submitted to the Father? If Jesus was 100% God when he submitted to the will of God in going to the cross, why does subordination imply a demeaning of essence?
What is your response to my comment #242? How about 251?
Dan: I am not using anything more than scripture. You are going in the direction of how many angels can fit on a pin. I am not going in that direction. I am simply taking scripture and quoting it along with the interpretation that I see. Pretty simple really.
Debbie,
“When Christ spoke, He was always speaking with authority and as God.”
I understand what you are saying, but “everything” Christ did was in submission to the Father. Therefore, when Christ “spoke”, He spoke in submission to the Father.
Hence, when Christ spoke as God, He was “submitting” to God the Father.
John 5:30; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10.
Andrew: He was 100% God, 100% man. Now can even the best minds explain it? Not without taking a position of going further than scripture does. I think John Piper has answered my position on this subject quite well. I don’t know how to do better.
You are asking me to go further than my mind, and I believe yours, can fully understand. My position is simple. Christ incarnate submitted to God the Father. The Bible says that God sent Christ who went willingly(their wills were the same). After the cross I believe scripture is clear that he went to his former position in the Godhead which is equal with the Father. If as Benji asks you can show where Christ as part of the Godhead no longer on this earth, has submitted to the Father, we have something to build on. If not, the answer is clear in my study of scripture. He does not submit to the Father.
Benji: I agree with you, and was answering Andrew who said we don’t go through the Bible asking is this the human Jesus talking or is this Jesus as God talking. I understand what you are saying in this and agree. While he was on earth, Christ submitted to the Father. No argument here.
I think our view of the Godhead is a very lofty one. If we carve them into something that cannot mix we have placed too much flesh into this thought. If anyone is asked, commanded or requested to do something they “submit” to the other person no matter what the rank. Even if I ask the President to pick up my fork that I drop, he submits to my request whether he picks it up or has his servant pick it up for me. Subordination is simply responding to the other person. We are commanded to submit to one another.
Debbie is right about Jesus being 100% God and 100% Man. The think is that he was both simultaneously or at the same time. Only the Divine can do that.
If we are going to equate human relationships as marriage to the Godhead. Or if we are going to get a human example of the Trintiy, Let’s look at the beginning of Genesis before the Fall. There was no submission between Adam and Eve. It was not God’s original design. Eve was to reign over the animals, plant life, the fowls of the air etc. with Adam. Equally. Together. God is our helpmeet as Eve was Adam’s helpmeet. The two words used in the same way. This is a picture of the Trinity as I see it in scripture. The Fall came and God’s words that men will rule over their wives, etc. was more of a prediction than a statement of the original design. Submission/leadership roles in marriage, were the result of the Fall, the curse.
That changed with Christ’s ministry and the Cross.
I would challenge that assertion, Debbie. I think the Genesis story clearly shows that God created Adam and Eve with roles in the home. Thge fall corrupted those roles, but did not create them.
Eve was created from Adam side as a helper for him. In Paul’s teachings on male headship at home and at church, he often roots his teachings in created order, not in the fall.
I think it is very shaky exegetical ground to claim that male leadership was not part of the original created order. I don’t think scripture supports that assertion.
Dave is right. I would just leave out “I think” and what he said would be correct.
Dave,
I agree with the following:
“I only might say that it could be possible that someone might find the grace of Christ before their false view of the Trinity is straightened out. In other words, a person might have a flawed view of the Trinity and still be saved.”
When I was born of the Lord, I knew nothing of the Virgin Birth, The Trinity, OT, Israel, NT, Church (Local and Universal:-)
) or anything else. I had only read two verses of Scripture and heard some gospel singer sing about the Amazing Grace of Jesus and a few other songs.
God convicted me of my lostness and I cried out to Him to save me in the name of Jesus. He did.
During the following year I have no idea how many times I read the Gideon Bible I had stolen from a hotel six months prior to the night I was saved. The Bible literally fell apart.
During that year the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to biblical truths about such things as the Virgin Birth and the Trinity and other truths of the faith.
Dave, I believe that when a person get saved and begins to read the Word and allows the Holy Spirit to teach them it is impossible to deny some doctrines such as the Trinity and the Virgin Birth unless that person was either not saved in the first place or if the person is very impressionable and some teacher (liberal seminary professor, pastor, etc.) leads them astray for a season.
I also believe that if a person have been subjected to the study of the Scripture and comes to the conclusion that the Trinity is not a reality or the Virgin Birth is not real that person will not be saved as long as he or she holds those convictions.
cb
Debbie, we know how many angles will fit on the head of the pin. I wonder if it’s as clear to everyone as you think it’s clear to you. I see Dave using a lot of scripture that you are no interacting with, just the scripture that seems to fit your position. I really think this is one conversation we are at an impass on.
Debbie, we know how many angles will fit on the head of the pin. I wonder if it’s as clear to everyone as you think it’s clear to you. I see Dave using a lot of scripture that you are not interacting with, just the scripture that seems to fit your position. I really think this is one conversation we are at an impass on.
Debbie said, “After the cross I believe scripture is clear that he went to his former position in the Godhead which is equal with the Father. If as Benji asks you can show where Christ as part of the Godhead no longer on this earth, has submitted to the Father, we have something to build on. If not, the answer is clear in my study of scripture. He does not submit to the Father.
After reading your post in #274 it sounds like the term “submission” carries a lot of baggage for you. We’ve been trying to explain that submission is good. We aren’t assuming authoritarianism, machismo, or anything like that. While you may hold some of the necessary conclusions from the doctrine of ES to be negative, that is only because of that baggage. You said that if I can show where Christ, as a part of the Godhead no longer on this earth, has submitted to the Father, we’d have something to build on. I can’t think of any other scriptures off the top of my head besides the ones you choose to ignore. Besides the many passages stating that Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, here’s just one passage about a post-resurrection Jesus you’ve yet to explain:
1 Cor 15:24-28 “Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.“
CB,
I think that is what I was trying to say. Those who deny the Trinity end up proclaiming a false doctrine. I’ve yet to see someone who denied the Trinity and still preached salvation by grace through faith.
On the other hand, someone doesn’t have to understand the Trinity to accept the gospel. that comes later.
Dave,
Agreed.
cb
CB,
We’ve agreed so much recently. Can we agree on the Yankees over the Phillies?
Dave: Paul approached this subject on the basis of culture. In the first century when the scriptures were written, women were property. Christ on the other hand royally shook things up by talking to women, treating them as equal to men. Teaching them as in teaching Mary(of Mary and Martha). Paul also wrote the passage in Galatians where there is no Jew, Greek etc. and contrary to the interpretation you would have, he is not speaking of just salvation, but of God’s original intent before the Fall.
Andrew: Mutual submission is not bad, but one sided submission, I am human and the only time I see one sided submission is in the work place where I am subject to my boss and am paid a wage. Otherwise, it gets real old real fast, so good for who? Christianity is different, yet if you go to most countries such as the Middle East for example, or China possibly, women being nothing is natural, it’s a natural state. In other words, it is the sinful state. Yet, women are submissive there too.
Dan: I have interacted several times over with the scripture Dave has given. I really wish that you would state the honest truth about my responses rather than attempt to twist facts to have supposed leverage to your view. I believe I have been honest, I wish you would be too.