Now, you may ask, what could the debate be on, if all parties involved are evangelical believers, which they are? The topic of the debate is the question; Is the Son eternally submissive to the Father, or was the submission aspect of the Trinity inaugurated at the incarnation of Christ?
First of all, this is not one of those silly theology debates that does not mean anything, this is actually incredibly important. I think it would be edifying and enjoyable if we all put our heads in on this one and offered our own thoughts on what the answer to the question is and why it matters. For that reason, I won't be telling us, yet, which theologians are on which sides. You can guess if you want.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts!!! I love you guys.
4 comments:
Ok, I'll be the first to weigh in on this one. I may have to supplement this one fundamental reason latter, but here, I think, is one of the core issues.
The very nature of God is Trinity. Trinity is not an attribute of God, but is rather the very essence of who God is. It seems that natures do not change. I cannot change my nature. And, I think, we can Biblically confirm that God does not change his either.
If the Son is not eternally submissive to the father, but rather became so at the incarnation there seems to be a shift the very nature of God; the economy of the Godhead was shifted.
This is a problem. I think this more than opens the door for open theism. If God, in his nature, changed at the incarnation, when else has he changed? Is he still the God testified to in the Scriptures? There cannot be a change of nature without that change resulting in reverberating consequences. What are those consequences? How do they affect how we relate to God?
There are a number of other problems with the position that the Son was not eternally submissive to the Father that have come to my mind since beginning this post, but they must wait for another time.
I'm interested in your ideas and feedback on this one. This is not an issue to be taken lightly, and is, in my opinion, very clearly an issue to be fought over. It is fundamental to who God is, and it is vital that we are of one accord on these basic issues of the Christian faith.
I love all of you guys.
I am currently in agreement with Jeremy. I thought of Ephesians 1 when Paul is elaborating on God's redemptive plan. The Holy Spirit specifically states that "[God] chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world." Throughout verses 3-10, God the Father is described as the planner, and God the Son the executer. I think this identifies submission prior to Creation, and therefore Christ would have been eternally submissive to the Father.
I also think of an argument Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 11, where he states that "the head of Christ is God" in verse 3 when beginning to elaborate about the implications of the hierarchy that he establishes in verse 3. At this point, we still have no clue as to whether this passage indicates this was always so, or whether it began at the Incarnation.
However, later in the passage he explains that women were created by and for man. Paul's argument for submission for women is generated from how things were in the beginning. I realize this is a stretch, but it would seem reasonable for us to conclude that it worked the same with God: Christ was also submissive to God (the Father) also because in the beginning (i.e. eternity ago). I realize this may be a stretch since the human argument addresses their creation, and we know that the Father did not create the Son (as long as we reasonably interpret Colossians 1:15). But, it came to mind, so I thought I'd throw it out there.
I apologize for two very poorly written sentences in the comment above. Remember: math major.
First of all, I agree with both of you on all points. I believe that the son has, forever, been in submission to the Father, as far as role is concerned.
I think it is crucial recognize that the Son's eternal submission to the Father in function does not imply that the Son is ontologically inferior to the Father. They both share the same essence; they are God. The Son is ontologically equal to the Father, that is in His being, but he is distinct from the Father in his role. Similarly, the Holy Spirit seems to function in glorifying the Son, but this does not imply inferiority.
Now, in evangelical circles today there is great dispute over the statement; "submission in role does not imply inferiority in ontology, that is being." Many say that role and essence cannot be separated. This, however, is not a biblical view. The Bible teaches that husbands and wives share an equal essence. They are both human, created in the image of God, and completely equal as heirs of Christ. Still, God has ordained that they have different roles; husbands lovingly lead and wives respectfully and helpfully submit. Marriage, here, clearly images the character of God. The submission of a wife to her husband is not some random deal that God whimsically instituted. Rather, the leadership/submission in a godly marriage is supposed to image forth the character of God.
We see this role distinction/identical ontology everywhere. My boss is not ontologically superior to me. He is a human being and I am a human being. Still, there is no question that we have different roles at work.
Lastly, if the Son and the Father are eternally identical in role, then what in the world happened at the incarnation? Was there a cosmic coin-toss and the Son lost? This is completely illogical. Role distinction must be part of the essence of the Triune God.
Now, let us worship...
Post a Comment