Featured Evangelical Misunderstandings of the Person of Christ-

argument #4 for the eternal role subordination of the Son & my response to it. Church history shows that the vast majority of Christian scholars have taught the Eternal Subordination of the Son , JETS 42 (3).(Kovach and Shemm( A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal subordination of the Son, JETS 42 (3) . Doing a literature review-4th yr SATS students painfully learn-- is prior to asserting a thesis. So, let;s do one: (1) John of Damascus--the Son is NOT obedient in His Godhead-only as man (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith) no eternal obedience here! (2)Hilary-AS MAN He subjected Himself (De Trinitate; De Synodis ) no eternal obedience here (3) Gregory Nazianzen --It was NOT as the Word that Christ was obedient (4th Theological Oration). no eternal obedience here. (4) Augustine--It is in His humanity that the Son is subject (On the Creed). no eternal obedience here (5) Anselm--only as Man did Christ supplicate and suffer(On the Incarnation of the Word) no eternal obedience here.

 

#4 continued: (5) Aquinas-- Only Christ's human nature is subject, not His divine nature (Summa PT 1)--no eternal obedience here, (6) Chemnitz--Only the human mind and will of Christ are subject (The 2 Nature in Christ,59). no eternal obedience here. (7) Calvin--Doing the Father's will applies entirely to Christ's humanity (Institutes II) no eternal obedience here. (8) Jonathan Edwards--Christ has ABSOLUTE sovereignty; the decrees of God ARE CHRIST's decrees. (Works,vol 1) no eternal obedience here. (9) RA Torrey--subordination passages only refer to the incarnated Christ (What the Bible Teaches). no eternal obedience here. (10) BB Warfield--subordinative passages refer to the incarnated Christ (Biblical Doctrines) no eternal obedience here (11) Chas Hodge--none of Christ's obedience occurred in the divine nature (Systematic Theology 1:395). no eternal obedience here. (12) AB Bruce--In the HUMAN nature Christ became obedient (Humiliation of Christ, 20-21). no eternal obedience here. (13) Erickson --role subordinating the Son is confusing eternal Trinal relationships with economic ones (Christian Theology 2000 ed. , 90) So, I do not see argument 4 as convincing.

 

argument #5 for the eternal role subordination of the Son & my response to it. [with apologies to non Greek readers, I'll try with my limited linguistic ability to make this clear; as my response is my own, I take responsibility for any grammatical error in it] . The articulated infinitive in Phil 2:6 [i.e., "the to be equal"] has the force of separating "form of God" from "equal to God." So, the Son is not the relational equal.( Burke Jr, The Meaning of Harpagmos in Phil 2:6: An Overlooked Datum For Functional Inequality Within the Godhead, http://www.bible.orgdocs/soapobox/scholars/harpogmos .htm--accessed 2002. BUT, while Burke is aware that many NT Greek experts do not see the articulated infinitive (having article "the" ) as a grammatical wedge between the phrases form of God and equal to God , but rather see the latter as qualifying the former (eg NT Wright (Harpagmos and the Meaning of Phil 2 :5-11JTS 37) , Burke rejects that interpretation arguing that in this text, the 2nd lexeme (equal to) is not identical to the first (form of ). Let's weigh the virtue of Burke's grammaticism.

 

#5 continued: Burke, I think, is assuming a conclusion in his argument. It would seem best to first prove that having the "form of God" is not identical in concept to "being equal to God" before he should argue that their disimilarity supports his grammatical conclusion. But morphe (form) regularly includes the notion of qualities (Braumann, Morphe in NIDNT,vol 1 ; O' Brien in Philippians, 207).Furthermore, both ancient and modern experts have interpreted the text as meaning that because Christ is in God's form,He has equality with God. Those who read the Greek fathers--those Fathers having Greek as their mother tongue--may know that both Athanasius (De Synodis:Against the Arians) and Chrysostom (Homilies on Philippians) say that Phil 2:6 MEANS THE SON IS EQUAL TO GOD! Should Burke, despite being Dan Wallace's (of DTS) good student,presume to know more about interpreting NT Greek than do those Fathers who had Greek as their mother tongue--I think not! Further moderns as Barth , Fee, Feinberg , and Hawthorne in their respective commentaries on Philippians , all see it that the SON IS EQUAL according to Phil 2:6. IF Burke's datum is overlooked, I think I know why! The context on Phil 2 shows that since Christ as Man became role subordinate, the equality in 2:6 has relational equality as a --at least a partial-- referent-IMO .I do not see argument 5 as convincing. I'll start up again with #6 in a day or two. So happy to have this chance!

 

---May I first finish, then try to field your criticisms???

 

---
Neither am I shoving; I simply am offering.

 

---
I will refer to four quite different Evangelical understandings of why/how/when Christ is Son in one of the arguments I eventually will respond to. I am not trying to ignore you ! I just would like to interact with your ideas after I've finished sharing mine.

 

-----------
Is that right? Then I'll stop now sharing my views here since it takes up much of this 75 yr old's Prevagen Power, and I don't wish to be the cause of boredom

So, adios..

Thanks James for the tip.

 

--- Kind of you.

If you like, search the web for a journal article I wrote-- Part 2: Eternal Relational Subordination of the Son.../Bill Grover

 

----
Jon

The 3rd article on the South African Theological Seminary Journal, Conspectus, written 7 yrs ago was on Incarnational Christology dealing with issues as God's immutability when interfaced with God "becoming human" and the qualities of the humanity of Christ. It is still on the SATS' site (Mar 2009-I think) to download.

The first article, as you now know, argues against the eternal generation doctrine.

Of course, my views expressed in Conspectus are not necessarily those of SATS . Even some local (Oregon) theologians I've discussed issues with in an Evangelical Theological Society event at Multnomah Seminary yrs ago , and my friend, Wayne House, and my local dissertation reader in 2004, Gary Derickson find causes to disagree with me. The subject is compound with many debatable issues in it.

Yet, I am so voraciously interested in the SUBJECT , I may attempt next week to post some new--much shorter-- opinions for others to evaluate. But l leave this thread as --I guess- I expected to be able to finish my thoughts before defending them or losing readers. I remain very glad to be here and to share.

Bill

 

---
Hello Blue:

NO I think Linda Vista Baptist, Point Loma and Western Seminary (Portland) in general all had rigor equal to the programs they offered. BUT I took no course where the issue of a hierarchy of authority in the Trinity was ever covered. IMO, the current interest of it in theological literature arises from the issue of gender roles in marriage and church leadership. It is argued that since one Trinal Person is submissive to the Other, that is an example for gender role subordination in those two human relationships.