Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
In these debates we are told that...
“..if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another,” such that, if we reject eternal functional subordination (EFS), “we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity.”
Src: Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1994) p. 251.
Further, from Grudem's same cited work and page above, those who reject EFS are said to be “condemning all orthodox Christology from the Nicene Creed onward” because the Nicene Creed affirms that the Son is eternally begotten.
In Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance, Bruce A. Ware, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005) p. 21 we find the EFS claim that the Father and the Son are eternally distinguished by an “authority-submission structure” such that the Son eternally submits to the Father and the Father eternally has authority over the Son.
The above is the 50,000 foot view of the current EFS debate.
Given the issues, one naturally asks, how can these issues be resolved?
In rejection of the EFS put forth by Grudem, Ware, and others, I answer that it is resolved in the understanding that...
(1) the subordination of the Son and the Spirit is temporary and functional, for the period and purpose of their special ministry in the accomplishment and application of salvation to the human race;
(2) the Father's authority cannot be taken in isolation from the authority possessed by the Son and the Holy Spirit;
(3) Scriptures that speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying are to be understood as referring to the time of the Son's earthly ministry;
(4) the Father's will, which the Son obeys, is actually the will of all three members of the Trinity, administered on their behalf by the Father;
(5) for those claiming eternal functional subordination, the difference of role within the Trinity requires that one person have authority—per an assumed ranking over the other—has yet to be substantiated, rather merely stipulated as a new definition for personhood which requires a ranking, and ignores the possibility of a jointly decided covenant between members of the Trinity before creation;
(6) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son was never equal to the Father, the matter of the humiliation of the Son in the Incarnation as to exactly what He gave up requires a demagnification of Scripture's teachings concerning The Son's present glorification;
(7) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son could not do otherwise, then the Son's coming was not really a free act, nor, with respect to this one action, was God free;
(8) given the assumption by the eternal subordination proponent that the Son's subordination is similar to that of human sons to human fathers, then the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father—proceeding from both Father and Son—is either something akin to a second son or a grandson;
(9) given that each action of the members of the Trinity is an action by all members of the Trinity, the substitutionary penal view of the atonement is not laid open to charges of injustice for the punishment of an unwilling innocent;
(10) if the Son is eternally subordinate, then prayers directed to Jesus, such as the maranatha prayer asking His return, ought logically to be directed instead to the Father, since the Father sent the Son the first time, and prayers should be for the Father to send the Son the second time;
(11) if the Son is eternally subordinate, praise and worship of the Son is penultimate, not ultimate as that given to the Father; and
(12) if the Father is eternally and necessarily supreme among the persons of the Trinity, if the Son eternally is subordinated to the Father, then the Son is essentially, that is, not accidentally, subordinate to the Father. Therefore if there is a difference of essence between the Father and the Son—that the Father's essence includes supreme authority—while the Son's essence includes submission and subordination everywhere and always, then there is an ontological difference between members of the Trinity which would lead us back to Arianism.
“..if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another,” such that, if we reject eternal functional subordination (EFS), “we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity.”
Src: Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1994) p. 251.
Further, from Grudem's same cited work and page above, those who reject EFS are said to be “condemning all orthodox Christology from the Nicene Creed onward” because the Nicene Creed affirms that the Son is eternally begotten.
In Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance, Bruce A. Ware, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005) p. 21 we find the EFS claim that the Father and the Son are eternally distinguished by an “authority-submission structure” such that the Son eternally submits to the Father and the Father eternally has authority over the Son.
The above is the 50,000 foot view of the current EFS debate.
Given the issues, one naturally asks, how can these issues be resolved?
In rejection of the EFS put forth by Grudem, Ware, and others, I answer that it is resolved in the understanding that...
(1) the subordination of the Son and the Spirit is temporary and functional, for the period and purpose of their special ministry in the accomplishment and application of salvation to the human race;
(2) the Father's authority cannot be taken in isolation from the authority possessed by the Son and the Holy Spirit;
(3) Scriptures that speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying are to be understood as referring to the time of the Son's earthly ministry;
(4) the Father's will, which the Son obeys, is actually the will of all three members of the Trinity, administered on their behalf by the Father;
(5) for those claiming eternal functional subordination, the difference of role within the Trinity requires that one person have authority—per an assumed ranking over the other—has yet to be substantiated, rather merely stipulated as a new definition for personhood which requires a ranking, and ignores the possibility of a jointly decided covenant between members of the Trinity before creation;
(6) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son was never equal to the Father, the matter of the humiliation of the Son in the Incarnation as to exactly what He gave up requires a demagnification of Scripture's teachings concerning The Son's present glorification;
(7) if the eternally functionally subordinate Son could not do otherwise, then the Son's coming was not really a free act, nor, with respect to this one action, was God free;
(8) given the assumption by the eternal subordination proponent that the Son's subordination is similar to that of human sons to human fathers, then the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father—proceeding from both Father and Son—is either something akin to a second son or a grandson;
(9) given that each action of the members of the Trinity is an action by all members of the Trinity, the substitutionary penal view of the atonement is not laid open to charges of injustice for the punishment of an unwilling innocent;
(10) if the Son is eternally subordinate, then prayers directed to Jesus, such as the maranatha prayer asking His return, ought logically to be directed instead to the Father, since the Father sent the Son the first time, and prayers should be for the Father to send the Son the second time;
(11) if the Son is eternally subordinate, praise and worship of the Son is penultimate, not ultimate as that given to the Father; and
(12) if the Father is eternally and necessarily supreme among the persons of the Trinity, if the Son eternally is subordinated to the Father, then the Son is essentially, that is, not accidentally, subordinate to the Father. Therefore if there is a difference of essence between the Father and the Son—that the Father's essence includes supreme authority—while the Son's essence includes submission and subordination everywhere and always, then there is an ontological difference between members of the Trinity which would lead us back to Arianism.