Another Thirteen Evangelical Theologians Who Affirm the Eternal Submission of the Son to the Father

on this one, I agree with Grudem et al

I’m a bit confused I guess. Isn’t it is so that eternal submission and eternal generation are two different things and that the original controversy was over denying eternal generation?

As far as those two issues go, there would be four possible views:

1. Eternal generation and submission

2. Eternal generation but not eternal submission

3. No eternal generation but affirm eternal submission

4. Affirm neither

I would line up at #2 because of Philippians 2, though I can’t say I see how it matters a whole lot whether submission is eternal or not. While I’d be the first to affirm that “ideas matter” and “theology matters” I would also be the last to suggest that every idea matters and all theology matters. There are implications of these positions, but the reasoning involved in drawing the implications can take many routes and land at the same place.

Eternal generation, on the other hand, has been central to sound Christology for a very long time.

I think MacArthur caused quite a stir in the IFCA about 25 years ago by suggesting that the roles played by the Father, Son, and Spirit were just for the plan of salvation (he challenged “eternal sonship”). MacArthur never denied the Trinity, nor the equality of the Persons, nor the deity and personhood of neither the Son nor the Spirit. I remember at least one conference called to address it, as though it were a great heresy. I personally thought such a reaction was ridiculous.

If individuals acknowledge One God in Three Persons, all of Whom are of one substance, co-eternal and each Person with all the attributes of deity — and does not confuse the Persons of the Godhead — that is enough.

We can never know for certain the exact nature of the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity in the infinite past (actually, before time was created). Although I agree with Grudem — if his view is considered a working theory and not a fact — I disagree in one point: an explanation of eternal generation is not unknown.

The Greek word “monogenes” was understood by its constituent parts, “mono” meaning “only” and “genes” meaning “begotten” or “generated.” Most — and perhaps all the top — Greek scholars now understand the term as referring to “unique.” In a sense, all the Greek scholars who embrace this translation (and those of us who agree with the scholars) are disagreeing with the original intent of the Nicene Creed when it comes to the generation of the Son.

The old paradigm, embraced commonly (Lenski in the 1930’s still embraced it) is that the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity are: The Son is eternally generated (begotten in a constant sense; He is always being begotten) of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds in a constant sense from either the Father (Eastern Orthodoxy) or the Father and Son (Roman Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism). Generation and Procession describe how the Persons relate, and is stated in the Nicene Creed. If Grudem means we cannot understand this, well, he is right. But it was defined. There are a number of things about the Trinity that we do not understand but merely define.

Critics of Grudem and those on his side can rightly claim that he (and others who agree with him, like me) do not embrace the Nicene Creed AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED BY THE CREED’S AUTHORS. And, in this regard, the critics are right. We have altered the understanding of what “only begotten” means. Let us be honest. We have redefined the term “only begotten” in the Creed, and thus we have altered the creed, if not verbally then in its meaning. I am unaware as to any challenges to the idea of the “procession of the Spirit,” but this relationship is likely to be re-examined in time, perhaps decades down the road.

Which brings us back to a choice —one that especially creed-oriented churches are tempted to deny. We have to choose: do we embrace the ancient creeds above our understanding of Scripture or revise them based on a honed understanding of God’s Word? The same issue arises when people embrace the idea of “one baptism for the remission of sins.” That’s why I personally prefer doctrinal statements to creeds, although I embrace accurate creeds. But if I have to dance around inaccuracies and ambiguities, I am not so interested in their use. That’s why we should consider writing our own, like this ONE.

We are in the realm of speculation, much like when a 5 point Calvinist says, “Christ had the elect IN MIND when He was dying on the cross.” When we try to read God’s mind — or probe into areas the Bible does not address with speculation — we are SPECULATING. We should at least be honest about it. Deuteronomy 29:29 discourages us from embracing speculation as truth.

Aaron, the link I posted at the end of the other thread I think helpfully defines the issues at hand.

First, I also appreciate Grudem’s article. The Biblical data he presents for eternal submission is compelling. For further context, Andy Naselli has several articles on his blog related to this issue:

http://andynaselli.com/trinity-debate-ware-grudem-vs-mccall-yandell

http://andynaselli.com/trinity-husbands-wives

And on Phil Gons website:

http://philgons.com/2014/08/one-god-in-three-persons-unity-of-essence-d…

Second, regarding monogenes and the eternal generation of the Son, I tend to think of monogenes as more than just unique, or only. To me, one of the most helpful verses in this regard is Heb 11:17, where Abraham is said to have offered up his monogenes son. Isaac was not Abraham’s only son – there was also Ishmael. Maybe you could say Isaac was unique in some way but really I think the more appropriate connotation is something like special or precious. Genesis 22:2 helpfully explains, “take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love.” So, I see in this term monogenes an emphasis on a precious relationship. I don’t know if that puts me out of step with current Greek scholars or not. Consequently, though, I see in the idea of eternal generation, this idea of an eternal precious relationship. It’s not that the Father gives the Son origin or divinity but that there is this relationship that eternally proceeds in some sense from the Father. I think that aligns me with at least the spirit of the Nicene Creed as originally conceived.

Third, I believe the eternal submission of the Son does impact our view of the distinct roles held by men and women in the home and in the church. Robert Letham, in his The Holy Trinity, devotes an entire appendix to refute the egalitarian views that Kevin Giles espouses in his The Trinity and Subordinationism.

Randy, “unique” is the short, one word translation of monogenes, but the idea of precious — and the example of Isaac in Hebrews — is how the term is generally understood. Eternal generation, however, is something else.

Well, I have no time to go into it here, but I for one do not agree with Grudem et al. Many if not all of the texts he uses refer to the work of the triune God on behalf of the sinner, not to the eternal relationship of Father to Son. Gerald Bray speaks for me when he says,

The key point is that [the Father and the Son relate in this way] voluntarily and not because there is some inner structure inside God that obliges the Son to defer to the Father as being inherently superior to himself. - God is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology, 190

The function of the Son soteriologically, and even anthropologically cannot establish eternal functional subordination. Neither do the terms “Father” and “Son” necessitate it, any more than “Holy Spirit” necessitates functional subordination.

Tyler,

the difference between 3 and 4 is that the functional subordination relates to creation, not to every and all Divine activity. That is, functional subordination is not necessary to the Trinity.

Things can get difficult because of the doctrines of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession, but those are ontological and not economic truths.

1 Cor 11:3 - God is the head of the exalted Christ.