Heresies: Subordinationalism – A Lesser Christ

Your analogies aren’t comparable to the Trinity because a husband and his wife are not the same being. By comparing members of the Trinity to multiple people (kings/subjects, policeman/public, husband/wife) you are in effect making them into three Gods, each with their own individual substance and not a shared substance.

True and thanks for noticing that!

However, my analogy is not one of the Trinity, but how relationships can be subordinate even though the beings are of equal value and dignity.

Here is Augustine on this topic,

“In such wise that, whereas four things are to be considered in every sacrifice—to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, for whom it is offered,— the same One and true Mediator Himself, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, might remain one with Him to whom He offered, might make those one in Himself for whom He offered, Himself might be in one both the offerer and the offering. 8

He was not sent in respect to any inequality of power, or substance, or anything that in Him was not equal to the Father; but in respect to this, that the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son; for the Son is the Word of the Father, which is also called His wisdom. What wonder, therefore, if He is sent, not because He is unequal with the Father, but because He is “a pure emanation (manatio) issuing from the glory of the Almighty God?” For there, that which issues, and that from which it issues, is of one and the same substance. For it does not issue as water issues from an aperture of earth or of stone, but as light issues from light. For the words, “For she is the brightness of the everlasting light,” what else are they than, she is light of everlasting light? For what is the brightness of light, except light itself?”

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm

I don’t think that this presents a view of two separate people of differing authority. There is NO disparity of power/authority.

One cannot adequately address this subject without reading Millard Erickson’s Who’s Tampering with the Trinity in which he takes on the likes of Grudem and Ware showing that “functional subordinationism” makes little philosophical, biblical, or historical sense.

Seems that C. Michael Patton has committed the same errors here that Erickson points out.

“Tampering with the Trinity” in the mode of Millard Erikson at least assumes that doctrine is biblical in general. I have been increasingly impressed with the way in which almost every distinctive aspect of the doctrine is based on arguments beyond scripture, as apparently even Athanasius acknowledged. It seems as though the Apostles themselves couldn’t have thought to present the arguments themselves, so some putative “church father” has to bring them himself, or collectively themselves. C. Michael does basically the same thing, mounting arguments and analogies to conclusions that the Apostles didn’t find necessary, or more likely, appropriate. Kevin Giles argument as referred to by Millard Erikson is one that tacitly affirms the necessity of relying on tradition to show us what the scripture says is true. In other words, orthodoxy is what orthodoxy says orthodoxy is.

As concerning the question of subordination, however conceived or stated, I’ve recently been struck with the implications (though I’m unwilling to bring strongly tendentious arguments along with it!) of Paul’s conclusion of the matter: I Cor. 15:27b, f.: “Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” Distinguishing God from Christ seems of no small significance in these questions. Merely functional? “Heresies,,, correction”? Hummmm? A weighty obligation and task. So, may God bless, and forgive, those called by Him to such tasks.
All the best to all in Christ.

Hi Michael, I found this post excellent. You really have a way of clearly articulating complex issues very succinctly, so that even a simple mind such as my own can grasp the concepts…no easy task.

Anyway, I’d like to request permission to cross-post, and if acceptable, also your upcoming post on modalism, as these are important issues in my mind that need to be addressed widely.

No worries if not acceptable…..

I have some questions for comps who are willing to answer.

In 1 Co 11:3 the term “God” is used. The question is does it refer to the Godhead or the Father?

Throughout the rest of the passage when Paul uses “God”, how is he using it? Does the context support Paul using “God” for the Father or the Godhead? And why?

1) Is Christ the Creator and all things come from him or is he excluded? All things come from only the Father?
2) Do the churches not belong to Christ? Do they belong alone to the Father?
3) Was Paul speaking of women only praying to the Father?

“3…the head of every man is Christ,”
“7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;”

4) Is Christ also God in this passage or not?

I’ve another question to add to comment #8.

5) Where does Paul show his usage of “God” to mean “the Father” in 1 Co 11, like he does in 1 Co 15:24?

6) How come Paul speaks of God and Christ and also the Son and Father relationship in 1 Co 15, but not in 1 Co 11?

I find it helpful to remember that it took our Lord almost 200 years to teach the Church about His divinity.

Without the co-equal, co-eternal Trinity, there is no Gospel.

I am confused.

You make the statement, “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all equal in essential power, authority, and dignity.”

You then use the example of a police officer and a member of the public and explicitly state that the police officer “has greater authority and power than you”.

This completely negates the first statement.

Are you saying that the different parts of the godhead are pretending to have greater authority and power than each other when they are actually identical?

To use your own analogy – are they playing cops and robbers?

You’ve honestly lost me.

Paul: Erickson’s hardly the first to attempt that! I’m quite sure he won’t be the last. From the reviews I’ve read and from Kevin Giles’ own characterization of the book in a recent article in the Trinity Journal it doesn’t seem that Erickson has provided anything substantially new to the debate. I’ll reserve final judgment on the issue until I’ve read the book though but from what I do know about it I feel confident that I can adequately address the subject without having read Erickson’s book.

Richard: Distinguishing God [the Father] from Christ [the Son] is exactly why Trinitarians are Trinitarians and not Modalists. It’s of huge significance! Without this distinction we have no doctrine of the Trinity!

pinklight: Unless there’s reason to think differently (like in Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13) Paul usually uses “God” as his designation for the Father and “Lord” as his designation for the Son.

Pinklight,
You are asking questions that have been bugging me for a long time. I am a trinitarian and I have asked a number of trinitarians why the NT writers often used the word ‘God’ to refer exclusively to the Father when mentioning both the Father and the Son in the same sentence. For example:

No immoral, impure or greedy person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (Ephesians 5:5)

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God . . . (2 Cor.13:14)

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ . . . (James 1:1)

By this usage, the NT writers seemed to imply that they did not believe Jesus is included in the being of ‘God’. Why didn’t they speak of “the Father and Jesus” or “God the Father and God the Son” instead?

But no trinitarian can give me an answer. I sure hope someone here can offer some help with this.

This is the same argument you guys use to oppress women.

Not buying it

functional subordination is subordination

Phil: If you’re asking why the NT writers commonly refer to the Father as “God” then the best answer you’ll get from anyone (Trinitarian or not) is “because they did and because he is.” From this you can’t get that they didn’t believe Jesus to be God. To start, being God entails more than simply being called God; but even Jesus is called God a few times in the NT (e.g., John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; 2Pet. 1:1; et al.). But look at the manner in which certain NT authors apply OT YHWH texts to Jesus (e.g., Rom. 10:13 cf. Joel 2:32 [3:5 MT/LXX]; John 12:38-41 cf. Isa. 6:9-10; Phil. 2:10 cf. Isa. 45:23; et al.) or the many “I Am” (εγω ειμι) statements of Jesus in John’s Gospel that correspond to YHWH’s many “I Am” (אני הוא/εγω ειμι [LXX]) statements in Isaiah (e.g., John 4:26 cf. Isa. 52:6; John 13:19 cf. Isa. 43:10; John 8:24 cf. Isa. 43:10-11; et al.). Jesus is depicted as the recipient of worship which is alone reserved for God (Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:13-14; et al.); he’s prayed to (Acts 1:24; 7:59; 1Cor. 1:2; et al.); he creates (John 1:3; 1Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2); YHWH’s various titles such as “Lord of lords” (Deut. 10:17 & Psalm 136:3 cf. 1Tim. 6:15 & Rev. 17:14; 19:16) and “First and Last” (Isa. 44:6 & 48:12 cf. Rev. 1:11, 17; 2:8) are applied to Jesus. These are just a few lines of evidence but I think you get my point.

JohnCW: Yes, functional subordination is subordination; the functional kind! Jesus being subordinate to his Father in some way has no bearing on the oppressing of women.

Michael,

Where I think you err is in placing “authority” as part of the essence of God. I believe Biblically that authority is part of the role, not essence. Just as Christ is the Redeemer so is the Father the “sender”. Humanly we see the issue of authority as given to the Apostles and Elders in the church. But they are not greater in essence, just role.

Comments?

Rick, how would you define authority for this discussion.

I guess some people want to talk about this topic without subordinating women.

However, it does seem that Michael wants to use this discussion in order to justify the functional (but life long and across all domains) subordination of a woman to her equal in the privacy of the home. Very poor taste.

I would love to see the discussion broken into components. I don’t see Augustine relating the Father-Son dyad to marriage. I don’t think we can look at the church fathers as comparing the trinity to marriage. Why would they?

I would love to see a discussion of this topic without referring to women.

I have not read many of the comments here. However, I just read Sue’s. Although I could not understand it (maybe some typos?), I could tell that it was going in the comp/egal direction.

Folks, please don’t spoil this thread by turning it in that direction. If you are not a comp, then don’t regard the illustration I gave and use the others.

Let me put it another way.

1. For Persons A and B to be ontologically equal, they both must share in the same essential attributes.
2. The Son’s essential attributes include being eternally subordinate [so goes the classical argument].
3. Therefore the Son and the Father are not ontologically equal.

Problems? Uh…YEA!!

However, if the Son was temporally subordinate to the Father, then he may indeed be ontologically equal to the Father, since his subordination was an accidental rather than essential attribute during his Incarnation only.

Granted Erickson may not add anything new to the arguments, but he nicely summaries of the issues and shows the absurdity of Grudem and Ware’s positions. Giles requires a careful, thoughtful reading for depth and breadth.

Michael,

No typos that I can see. As I said, I would love to discuss this issue without referring to women.

You suggest then that I ignore your clear reference to a complementarian marriage and focus on your other illustrations.

We don’t have monarchies anymore, so the illustration that is left is comparing the father – son dyad in the trinity to the relationship between a police officer and a wrong-doer. Is that correct?

You suggest that I have made a typo –

Dyad:
a. two persons involved in an ongoing relationship or interaction.
b. the relationship or interaction itself.

Sorry Sue. I just read it too fast originally.

You said, “I would love to see a discussion of this topic without referring to women.” Good. The comment was merely illustrative and qualified as being only for those who are comps. All non-comps can ignore it.

All Trinitarians accept some form of functional subordinationalism. Whether it is eternal or not is a very very small issue? It is unfortunate that people have turned it into something significant only for the gender “political” purposes. I have been very sicked by how all that has played out in the last ten years personally. Please don’t extend that to this blog! Please. 🙂

TL,

I think that the use of the word in regards to government or military is appropriate. It is directive by nature and others are only subordinate to it in its sphere. From John 6-8 and others it is clear that God the Father gave direction to the Son to be carried out – “not My will but Thine be done”. Essence is equality. Authority is role or function specific.

It is clear Christ became “obedient” (Phil 2) which means He submitted His will to a higher Authority.

Michael:
“All Trinitarians accept some form of functional subordinationalism. Whether it is eternal or not is a very very small issue?”

Agree that all Ts accept some form of S. However, are you asking whether it is a small issue? [apologies for my thickness, here]. If so, I would argue it is NO small issue as would Erickson who appeals rather strongly at the end of Tampering. Moreover, logic necessitates that either a) Christ is eternally subordinate or b) he is temporally subordinate. He cannot be both. As I laid out, if Christ is eternally subordinate, that is tantamount to him not being ontologically equal with the Father. So….[if you’re asking] it is VITALLY IMPORTANT.

P.S. Sincere appreciation to you, brother, for posting such provocative topics! I pray they’re useful to all in building up Christ’s Body.

Michael,

I would not have brought up gender if you had not introduced it. But when I read that marriage is like a police officer giving an offender a ticket, it feels humiliating to be a woman. It is hard to ignore. But I will try.

Earlier I provided a quote from Augustine which had nothing at all to do with gender. I find his discussion of light from light, rather than water from water to be interesting and NOT to do with gender. He is really saying that they are not two separate beings in the way that two people are. He calls Christ the emanation of God.

Paul: Re. comment #21 — The problem is with your second premise. Why should the Son’s subordination (I much prefer to speak of his obedience given the negative connotations that the word subordination carries) be viewed as an essential attribute rather than a personal property? I recently criticized this line of argument when reviewing Tom McCall’s Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism?. As McCall sees it, if the Son is subordinate to the Father at all times and in all possible worlds then the result is a denial of the Father and Son being homoousios because the Son would necessarily (= essentially on McCall’s reading) have a property that the Father doesn’t have. But if personal properties and essential attributes are conflated in such a way then even the person who denies eternal functional subordination runs into problems since the Father, Son, and Spirit are Father, Son, and Spirit from all eternity, i.e., each person has a property that the others don’t. I suppose the solution to this is to say that there is a possible world in which the Father could be the Son and the Son could be the Spirit and the Spirit could be the Father but that’s tantamount to modalism and I doubt many would find that an attractive solution to the problem.

BTW, I’ve read both of Giles’ books and a few articles that he’s written on the subject and if I never read him again it will be too soon. I have to imagine that Erickson is much less polemical than Giles. Can you confirm this? And for what it’s worth, I disagree with Ware and Grudem’s application of the doctrine of the Trinity to the gender debate, but I still believe that they’re on firm footing when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Putting aside the gender debate, are we to dismiss Augustine on the topic of the trinity? What do we do with his work on this topic.

Augustine says that,

“He was not sent in respect to any inequality of power, or substance, or anything that in Him was not equal to the Father;”

Power here is the same word as “authority.” If there is no difference in authority between father and son, according to Augustine, then do Grudem and Ware have a different position than Augustine, or an adaptation of Augustine’s position?

Nick,

Do you generally hold to Augustine’s position as a trinitarian? Or could you point out for me where he is not orthodox? Thanks.

Paul – It seems to me that the issue of subordination (obedience) was that the second person of the Godhead temporarily took a role that required submission (subordination). This is not an issue of essence. It is an issue of role.

A clumsy human example might be twin brothers who ran a family business as equal partners. They also play football together. One brother is the QB, the other a tight-end. The tight-end, in this football role is subordinate to his brother. But in all other activities (roles) in life they are equal.

Clearly Christ “did not consider equality with God (the Father) “a thing to be grasped”. In His role as Redeemer He became (volitionally) subordinate. It had nothing to do with essence.

Sue: I can’t speak for Grudem or Ware although I’d imagine that they’d make a distinction between power (δυναμις) as an essential attribute and authority (εξουσια) as a personal property (I don’t know if Augustine’s Latin term is the equivalent to one, the other, or both of these terms). I’d have to look through their books to be sure.

As for me, I understand Augustine to be making his case from the causal personal relationships. The Father sends the Son not because he’s greater in power or being but because he is the Father of the Son. The Father begets while the Son is begotten; the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. I’m in complete agreement with Augustine here as I think most Patristic Trinitarian theology is. In fact, my personal view of eternal functional subordination is rooted precisely in this eternal Trinitarian taxis. The Father sends the Son and the Son obeys the Father in coming precisely because the Son is from the Father and not the other way around.

As for Augustine not being orthodox, well, I could point out some stuff that I have problems with but that wouldn’t be related to this post! Oh, but he’s orthodox, even if not always as like-minded as I’d like him to be. 😉

“I can’t speak for Grudem or Ware although I’d imagine that they’d make a distinction between power (δυναμις) as an essential attribute and authority (εξουσια) as a personal property (I don’t know if Augustine’s Latin term is the equivalent to one, the other, or both of these terms). I’d have to look through their books to be sure.”

Thanks Nick,

Augustine’s Latin was potestas, which is the term in the Latin Vulgate which is used exclusively as a translation for εξουσια, and never for δυναμις. So we must understand Augustine to be saying that the son has no disparity in εξουσια (as a personal property?) from the father. This appears to conflict with Grudem and Ware.

So I am open to having someone explain how

a) the father and son are equal in all ways in authority (Augustine)

b) the son is under the father’s authority (Grudem and Ware)

I do see that one emanates from the other. One is able to come into the world and the other is not. But I understand from Augustine that they had one will. It was not a case of command and obedience, but of sending and being sent, with only one will motivating this action.

Sue: I just saw that Ware discusses the very passage in Augustine that we’re discussing in his chapter “Tampering with the Trinity: Does the Son Submit to His Father?” in Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (ed., Wayne Grudem; Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 246-47. I know that this chapter has been published elsewhere but I can’t recall if it was changed in any way. You might want to check that out. If you don’t have access to it then let me know and I’ll email it to you.

If Augustine conflicts with Grudem and Ware then so be it; I’m not personally bothered by that one way or the other. Also, Augustine was a great theologian, but he takes a backseat to Scripture. Scripture shows us the Father’s authority in the Father-Son relationship so that has to be our basis for judging this issue. With regard to sending & being sent vs. command & obedience I think it’s just semantics. The Father sends the Son and not vice versa, right? I’m sure everyone agrees on that. So from this how can we imagine that the Son did not obey the Father in coming?

Nick,

Thanks for a thoughtful response. I am familiar with Ware on this topic. He does not, however, respond to the fact that Augustine says that there is no disparity in authority between the Father and the Son, as far as I can remember.

I don’t see that Augustine has to be considered correct on this topic, in any case. It would not bother me if anyone rejected what he wrote.

However, Augustine distinctly describles the Son as light and not as water. That is, the Son is ONE essence with the Father, not a separate but equal essence. So in that sense, the Father-Son relationship can never be applied to a relationship between two human beings.

For example, if we look at Michael’s post, could we say that the subject is the WISDOM of the king, or the offender is the WISDOM of the police officer, or is the wife the WISDOM of the husband? We couldn’t easily relate Michael’s illustrations to Augustine’s description of the relationship.

At some point, this breaks down, for me, earlier rather than later. I don’t think we can take a human relationship of authority and submission, even one in which the submissive never expressed an independent thought in his or her life, and compare that to the Son as an emanation of the Father. The Son is one essence with the Father, rather than a separate but obedient individual. Or perhaps he is not. I don’t know.

“describles” – okay, that was a typo!! 🙂

Sue: I’m not fond of any analogy of the Trinity since God’s uniqueness really renders them all useless so I’m with you on finding fault in the analogies drawn from human relationships.

I agree Nick. When it come to describing the Trinity proper, analogies only serve the purpose of negation. However, I do think that what I did in the post was proper since it is merely showing how two individuals can have equal dignity and power in their essence yet have roles that regulate the usage.

Stuart. U r more than welcome to repost.

Michael,

“two individuals can have equal dignity and power in their essence yet have roles that regulate the usage.”

Are the Father and Son two “individualals?” I would argue that according to Augustine they are not. He says explicitly that there is no disparity in their authority, so the “roles” only refer to the fact that the Son is the emanation of the Father.

The notion that the Son is to the Father as the offender is to the police officer poses an additional moral problem. When Christ stands in for sinful humanity, is he really a sinful offender?

And are you also arguing that police and offender, king and subject are both cases of two individuals with equal authority, like Father and Son?

In brief, do Father and Son have equal authority, or differing authority? Are they two individuals or one essence? I feel that there should be some clarity on this.

Yes, equal in authority in their essence, but subordinate in their roles.

Michael,

You mean that authority is both of one’s essence and of one’s function. There are two different ways of having authority. Is this doctrine articulated anywhere?

Is the Son equal to the Father in essential authority, but not equal to the Father in functional authority? Are these two specific kinds of authority. Or does the Son simply not function in accordance with his essence?

If this were compared to humans, would this mean that some humans function according to their essence, like a king, but other humans, the subjects, do not function according to their essence?

Sue,

exactly. That is phil 2. Equal with God yet took a subordinate role.

Sue, do u believe in the doctrine of the trinity? I don’t know u so I am trying to figure out where u r coming from.

I always was taught about Christ that he was God in the sense that light is from the sun. That is, according to the wave/ particle duality. That is, certain concepts from physics were always used to explain how Christ was one essence with the Father, but separate in action.

However, this framework was never used for two discrete human entities. The comparison of the two persons of the trinity were never compared to two human beings in a relationship before the 1970’s to my knowledge. We can see in Augustine how foreign this would be. And some people, now, like Nick, for example, are committed to a study of the trinity without making any comparison to humans or using this concept to subordinate one class of human beings.

Going back to physics, I felt comfortable, and I am sure many others did as well, holding two separate models in tension. It was not necessary to understand how two beings, the Father and the Son, both were, and were not, two separate beings. That was considered a concept which would be veiled to the finite human mind.

But, regarding humans, the king and his subject, simply are two discrete concrete entities. If the king executes his subject, then the dynamic cannot be compared to the Father sacrificing his Son. The subject is a human life, deprived of life by a tyrant. This is immoral.

I simply feel that comparing the Father Son dyad to two human beings poses a very serious moral dilemma. I don’t see this ever done in theology throughout history until very recently, certainly I was an adult before I ever heard of this doctrine.

So, in short, I don’t know if I believe in the trinity in the same way that you do, because I always used the wave/particle analogy as a framework, and not the king/subject analogy.

My belief in the trinity did not impinge on my ability to believe in the law of Christ, that other human beings are to be our neighbours, and not our masters or subjects.

Well, the sun illustration is bad when speaking about the Trinity proper. In fact, no illustrations are good when the Trinity is the direct object of the illustration. I have written about this before. The ancient church used the Spirit, soul, body. They also used a crowd of people. The sun was another. These all present Tritheism.

Again, my illustrations are not
about the trinity proper, but about how we have conceptions that allow
for equal power yet subordinate roles.

Sorry to keep asking, but do u believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?

One other illustration is that I have authority over people with regard to their posts here on the blog. Does not mean I am, in my essence more powerful than anyone here!

My point is that these type of relationships are very common and we should not have trouble grasping it.

Michael,

I have asked some very factual and straightforward questions from someone who has taught theology for over ten years. I sense that you are now trying to change the subject. I don’t think that is beneficial to this discussion.

In fact, I would suggest that you are trying to use an ad hominem attack on me. Thanks for your little dialogue box off to the right of the post for making me realize how you are trying to shift the focus.

I think we ought to return to discussing the evidence or the substance of the argument as your little box suggests!

If we now agree that the Son is equal to the Father in essential authority, and only different in functional authority, is this clearly taught in most theology classes. Do you teach this?

And if your human illustrations are not about the trinity, then why would they influence our Christian behaviour?

“One other illustration is that I have authority over people with regard to their posts here on the blog. Does not mean I am, in my essence more powerful than anyone here!”

Of course, the blog owner is always more powerful in essence than any commenter! 🙂

Sue,

Directly speaking to the subject of the post, do u believe that christ yeilded to the will of the Father, surrendering his own will, while on the earth?