Why would I object to brilliant, timeless literature? And I’m fascinated by your other problem.
ah, yes, a concept which I (along with such notable heretics as Jonathan Edwards, J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, Louis Berkhof, and many other stalwart orthodox theologians mentioned elsewhere) wholeheartedly embrace.
in another news flash, I also embrace the concept of the “eternal sonship of the son”, if you can believe that.
And neither doctrine is in any conceivable form or fashion a challenge or disagreement whatsoever to the ancient historic orthodox formulation of trinitarian doctrine as established by any of the historic creeds our councils.
1 Like
How can your Eternal Subordination of the Son be less unorthodox than the eternal subordination of the Son espoused by Arius?
I really do not care who agrees with it. If it is wrong, it is wrong. Why do you think that the Son is not God?
I respectfully disagree with you over E.S.S., and I understand many others do also. I do not see any problem with the eternal sonship, although you have not explained it to me. Sons are not by nature inferior to fathers. They are of the same nature.
God, being God, cannot be subordinate to anyone or anything. The Son can defer to the Father, but that is not surrendering His Will to the Father, which He cannot do without ceasing to be God, to be Sovereign.
1 Like
Realizing i am in danger of being excessively pedantic, but I’m still troubled by the language used.
Jesus didn’t simply say some things that “referenced” some kind of trinitarian thought, he revealed trinitarian truth and revealed himself to be one of the three members thereof. this to me is categorically different than stating he “did say things that referenced a trinitarian thought.” Talk about an understatement.
Now, i would of course be the first to acknowledge the hints of God’s complex nature, and hints of the plurality within unity, even throughout the Old Testament, such that what Jesus said ought not be seen as utterly brand new without any precedent whatsoever, But I object to the idea that Jesus was simply inheriting, or interacting, and perhaps adding his own minor twist of a preexisting tradition. He was revealing himself to be that second person of the trinity.
It is like taking Jesus’s most striking claim, “before Abraham was, I Am”, and describing it as Jesus “saying some things that referenced God’s eternality.” It is far, far more than that, no?
Before I offer an explanation, I beg to ask…. Are you actually asking because you would truly
Like to know and understand my position?
I ask because your immediate following question…
Is a complete straw man, putting words in my mouth that I would adamantly deny.
If you are interested in a genuine dialogue and would like to understand the distinction wherein it would quite obviously be logically consistent that I deny arianismnin the strongest terms, I would be delighted to explain.
But If this will be an exercise in my being accused of things I adamantly do not believe, and having words put in my mouth that I would just as adamantly deny, then I will pass.
1 Like
Wow. That’s brilliant! “What problem?” eh? Unspoken! Genius.
Of course I truly want to know and understand your position, but of course I must warn you that I was very surprised that one who took the position the Trinity was based on the revelation of Jesus the Messiah and not some human speculation would agree with ESS.
Please defend your position the best you can, but I am very skeptical for the reasons I have tried to explain. You are not responsible to me, but you are to God and we are all responsible to each other to be a good witness to God’s Truth.
Maybe you missed @Daniel_Fisher’s multiple references to multiple renowned historical theologians that do, as well?
That’s not a Jewish concept. The Jews use Father as a metaphor for the one intrinsic and extrinsic, absolute, monotheistic, single, simple person God.
Klax, What are you trying to pass off as knowledge. That Jews did not believe that God was and is literally the Father of all Jews. Whoopty-do! Brillant strawman.
That they acknowledged and acknowledge still God their Father is a Jewish concept reaching back in time, to wit:
- Barbra Streisand - Avinu Malkeinu (Our Father ’ Our King)
- John 14:28 You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
- Wisdom of Solomon 2:16. “We are esteemed of him [the righteous] as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.”
“Aveinu Malkeinu”, which means “Our Father, Our King”, is sung in synagogues everywhere for a darn good reason: Judaism esteems highly the Jewish Concept of God the Father, as highly as the Jewish Concept of God the King. Your tripe becomes blatant when I point out, following your ridiculous reasoning, that if God the Father is not a Jewish concept, then God the King is not a Jewish concept and that “King” is a metaphor for what? … the one intrinsic and extrinsic, absolute, monotheistic, single simple person God." LOL!
P.S. Show me, clever fellow, where Muslims also acknowledge God the Father.
Can you clarify for me, exactly, the difference between deferring and surrendering one’s will? Of course i would agree that no being who is God could in any way surrender or otherwise cease to have his own will.
But can I suppose, then, that you would not take issue with the idea that the Son “willingly” defers to the Father?
1 Like
That is rather an oxymoron, isn’t it.
1 Like
Show me ‘God the Father’ in non-Christian monotheism.
That is indeed what I am trying to figure out… I’ll let Roger speak for himself and clarify, but what I think he’s getting at is that the Son of God never “lost” his will, ceased to have his own distinct will or desire, or in some way ever became some kind of automaton, wherein his will was somehow negated or subsumed by the will of another.
If so, then of course this is happily granted… but a rather irrelevant point, as no one in the current debate to my knowledge would claim such.
It may become a more semantic dispute, if @Relates Roger simply prefers the term “defer” to the will of another over and against “submission” or “subordination” to the will of another when speaking about Christ’s deferring or deference to the Father.
If so, then i would happily grant it for the sake of discussion… and we could then speak about whether the Son is “eternally deferent” to the Father…?
OK, you say that submitting to the will of another does not mean that you surrender control of oneself. If submission does not mean that, what is the word that does?
The way that I have always heard the word the word “defer” used is with “respect,” as in I defer to X out of respect to his age and experience not his legal authority. The suggestion of defer was an attempt to find a middle way between freedom and submission, but you do not seem to be interested seeking a middle ground.
Also I was conversing with @LM77 Liam who rejects ESS. He says that submission of the Son is only temporary and conditional, and while I really don’t agree with this, I think the right word here would be defer.
So we two issues.
- Submission. Can God submit, which I take to mean to become dependent on another?
- Eternal Submission. If the Son did submit to the Father, could this condition be Eternal without denying the common independent divine nature of the Father and the Son?
1 Like
To what end? To prove that no non-Christian monotheistic group ever called their God “God the Father”? [content removed by moderator] you’ll have to do better than that to prove your point, speaking of which: what is your point? that you’re a “self-appointed authority” on Jewish concepts and that there is no Jewish concept of God as “the Father” but that Judaism does have a “metaphor”–which you apparently deny is a concept–which Judaism uses to refer to its non-Christian monotheistic God as “Father” and “our Father”.
We’re done and you’re dismissed.
I’m always wondering what “nevertheless not my will, but Yours, be done,” means. I am not sure anyone really knows. What do you think? Thanks. (Luke 22:42)
Dear @Randy,
Thank you for your question. I am sure that you know that the answer to that question is not simple or easy. It goes deep into the meaning of the Incarnation and the meaning of the death of Jesus the Messiah.
I am reminded of the whole purpose of Lent and Holy Week which is to prepare and reflect on Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I am reminded of the 7 Last Word services on Good Friday, Easter Sunrise services, Ash Wednesday services, and many other special services in Lent and Holy Week.
I am extremely saddened.to think that this drama is reduced to the Eternal Subordination of the Son for many of my fellow believers.
Mark 8:29-33 (NIV2011)
29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.
31
He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
32 He spoke plainly about this, and **Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. **
33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
We can surmise from this excerpt that Jesus there was a plan for salvation of humanity, that Jesus was very much informed of this plan, most assuredly He participated in the planning and agreed to it, that this plan meant the Jesus had to die on the Cross, and while He assented to the plan, he did not relish the intense physical, mental, and spiritual pain it would entail as revealed by His anger at Peter after he said that God would not permit that to happen.
Muslims, JW’s and other attack the reality of the Cross, while ESS plays it down by saying that Jesus had no choice, but the fact is that the Cross is very real. more real that we can imagine.
Luke 22:42-43 (NIV2011)
42 “Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.”
43 An angel from heaven appeared to Him and strengthened Him.
The cup is the ordeal of the cross. No one in his right mind would want to go through this. Jesus agreed to it because there was no other way, as verified by the Father, to obtain salvation for you and me except to drink its poison of sin and be separated from the Father. Jesus did it out of His Love for you and me, and no other reason.
1 Like
ESS? What’s that?
Sorry. The Eternal Submission of the Son [to the Father.]
1 Like