Heresies: Subordinationalism – A Lesser Christ

CMP,
While Jesus was on Earth were God and Jesus’ wills ever necessarily opposed?? I mean there is the passage in the Garden, but this could easily be explained away by various two wills theories or even just competing desires (i.e. I wish I didn’t have to mow the lawn, but I will mow the lawn because it is required under city code to own and house and I desire to own a house more then I desire to not mow the lawn = I don’t want to go to the cross, but will because it is the only way to redeem humanity which I desire more).

The essence of Christ’s surrendered will is seen in the Abraham and Isaac story. The father sacrifices the son, the fruit of his own life.

Somehow, it seems okay to us that God sacrifices his Son, but it would not be appropriate for any human to sacrifice or demand sacrifice on the part of another human being. It only seems okay to me that God offers his son as a sacrifice if I believe what Augustine wrote,

“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.”

Sue, it is hard for me to have a conversation when basic questions bring such accusations. This is a blog that has a very wide variety of people. I don’t know where people are coming from so I ask questions to better know how to engage.

When christ says “the father is greater than I” what does he mean? Is the father greater in essence or in role. If u say in essence then u are falling outside of Christian orthodoxy with regard to the trinity. This is ok, it just helps to know where u r coming from. If you say that the father is greater in role then u have fallen in line with traditional understanding, no matter what illustration u use.

I like what Augustine wrote. This quote seems to express the essential beliefs very well. I just don’t know how this carries over to essence and role.

Christ is an emanation of God. God is the one from whom Christ emanates, so in this respect the Father is greater than the Son. But I am not sure that emanation is a “role.”

I also do not see how this can ever be compared to two human beings. A subject does not emanate from a king, nor does a wrong-doer emanate from a police officer.

So, there is a framework of belief about the Father and the Son which falls within historic orthodoxy and does not relate at all to how two human beings interact.

Sue,
Just going to be honest here. Never thought I’d see you quoting, much less agreeing with Augustine (I’m personally not a fan of him – I think he created more problems then he solved theologically – though he at least was right about Pelagius being wrong).

I have a lot of sympathy for the guy. He quit teaching in his 30’s since he couldn’t discipline his students, his mother sent his partner packing, he couldn’t bring himself to marry the teenager she picked out for him, his teenage son died, and then he wrote some disgruntled stuff about women mixed in with his very worthy thoughts on prelapsarian sex. Why shouldn’t I cite Augustine – especially on the trinity?

Michael, are you sure you are not trying to change the subject? 😉

[…] Cross-post by C Michael Patton of Parchment & Pen: […]

This is off topic:???

“When christ says “the father is greater than I” what does he mean? Is the father greater in essence or in role. If u say in essence then u are falling outside of Christian orthodoxy with regard to the trinity. This is ok, it just helps to know where u r coming from. If you say that the father is greater in role then u have fallen in line with traditional understanding, no matter what illustration u use.”

CMP,
I think she was talking to me not you about changing the subject.

Here’s how one person emanating from another relates to the the role of men and women (if you take this view): The woman is taken out of the man. She is a part of his essence and is brought forth from it. The difference, in this view, therefore, might be one of finite versus eternal persons. The one being brought forth from the other, however, creates a distinct role for each within the relationship. Of course, any finite analogy is going to fail at some point. Does the love of a man for a woman really approach the depth of the love of Christ in every way? Probably not, but it gives us some picture of it nonetheless.

I don’t necessarily ascribe to this view, but it is relevant.

“I think it is definitely pathological if one human says to the other, “I will play God to your Christ.””

How about, “I will play Christ to your Church”?

The relationship of the human couple is compared to Christ and the Church, not the godhead. Michael’s point is that what we know takes place within the godhead concerning the nature of equality and role tells us that one can have equality in essence, but have a role subject to the other. This is clear, Sue. You just don’t want to give an inch because you don’t want a single point made against your egal position. But this isn’t appropriate. You might as well deny that there is any biological difference between the man and woman if you are going to try and nip every concept that contradicts egal in the bud. I find it interesting that you have to mess with the godhead in order to get what you want out of it. You can say that it was His human person that was in subjection to the Father, but you are confusing person and nature. His nature isn’t in subjection to the Father. His Person, which has two natures, is. So the divine Person of Christ is in subjection to the Father on earth. Either way, you get a subordination of the divine Person of Christ at some point (whether from eternity or temporarily).

Phil: “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.”

The answer is simple, and really obvious when you mull it over. “God” was the normal term for YHWH, the one true god of the OT. (This name or title could also be used of others, in various contexts – but this is the dominant usage.) They used the term interchangeably with “the Father” because they assumed them to be one and the same (numerically identical). When mentioning the Father/God they use another term for the Son, because they assumed him to be numerically distinct from the Father, and normally, we try to give things unique names, to avoid confusion.

Is this consistent with trinitarianism? Depends. If the trinitarian identifies God with the whole Trinity, then no – because the Father is not identical to the whole Trinity. But 2nd-3rd century trinitarians or proto-trinitarians (if they are rightly so called – maybe just, “catholic theologians” is better) are what we’re wondering about, they all identified God with the Father. They held Christ to be divine in various senses that fell short of being numerically the same as God. And when people objected that this isn’t monotheism (two beings which are in some sense divine), they didn’t argue that there’s one Trinity (which is id to God) or even, in many cases, that Father and Son shared numerically one nature/essence. Instead, they argued that there’s only one Father – only one being with that ultimate status – being the ultimate source of all else (including the Son), being divine-in-himself (not because of another), being along “Almighty”, and so on.

That doesn’t go through all the options, but I hope it is helpful.

Dale,
Isn’t that basically subordationalism?? Also who all among the Early Church writers held this?? I know Origen did for instance, but I’m not sure who else did.

Hodge,

A few thoughts.

First, Augustine wrote,

“Himself might be in one both the offerer and the offering. ”

This is what “emanation” refers to. The one who offers is sacrificing the one who is the emanation of himself. The purpose in Christ being sent is for God to become human, to lower himself to human mortality and to die as a sacrifice.

There is no way to use this as an analogy for the wife and husband unless the husband remains in safety sending the wife into the world, to be lowered, to die, to be sacrificed? Or to put it differently, is the wife the word of the husband and the wisdom of the husband. Is she the logos of her husband?

I am having logical difficulties with this comparison.

Second, you wrote,

“The relationship of the human couple is compared to Christ and the Church, not the godhead.”

This seems more clear. But in this case, there is no equality. Christ is divine and the church is human. In what sense is the husband greater than the wife? At that time, in financial and legal power, the husband was stronger.

But in nature, the argument seems to be that both people in the relationship are equal in essence. I would take this to mean equal in nature. Surely you and Michael P are saying then that the man and woman are equal in nature, equal in essential authority. Surely the wife is equally equipped with the intelligence to make decisions, and bear full responsibility.

But you say that the husband is to fulfill the role of authority, acting in accord with his essential authority, but the wife is to fulfill the role of submission, not living in accord with her essential authority, since her essential authority is equal to that of her husband? Isn’t this what you and Michael have agreed is so?

Christ fulfills the submissive role, as a sacrifice for our sins, and this is appropriate because he is the emanation of God. But among humans, the husband cannot offer the wife as a sacrifice.

No more talk about the complementarian issue. I will not let this thread get hijacked due to an agenda that is ancillary (at best) to the subject of the post.

I am now exercising my deligated (not essential!) authority and deleting posts that smell of comp/egal stuff.

From Hodge, # 61 above: His Person, which has two natures, is. So the divine Person of Christ is in subjection to the Father on earth. Either way, you get a subordination of the divine Person of Christ at some point (whether from eternity or temporarily).

I Corinthians 15:28 says this, When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

From that verse, it sounds to me like Jesus will have a subordination of roles to the Father for all of eternity.

Cherylu,

Yes, my comment about temporality and eternality was in terms of the past. The Son has eternally placed Himself under the Father to unite humanity with God forever. So it is everlasting. I was simply pointing out that the divine Person of the Son is subject to the Father whether one believes this is from eternity past or has come about since creation for the purpose of saving mankind.

Sue, I’d answer you’re comments, but Michael has made the executive decision on that one, and he has that authority (although equal in nature with us). All I can say is that your main problem is that you don’t know how an analogy functions. It’s never complete. It’s always to some degree partial. Hence, your objections miss the mark.

“your main problem is that you don’t know how an analogy functions”

Let’s work on the policeman and the speeder in that case. Is the speeder Christ and the policeman God? Is that analogy close enough?

Let’s work on the policeman and the speeder in that case. Is the speeder Christ and the policeman God? Is that analogy close enough?

Seems reasonable. The motorcyclist wants to travel at 200 km/h to enjoy wind thru his hair and the acceleration of the curves. The officer informs him that the roads are used by others and this would add unnecessary risk to their lives. The cyclist obliges and stays within the limits.

Even though the cyclist and officer are equal in their humanness, the cyclist is obedient to the law enforcing of the officer.

It seems similar to Christ when he was hungry but submitted the pleasure of eating to reaching the lost which was his Father’s will.

Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought him something to eat?” Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work. (John 4)

But the motorcyclist does not encounter the officer in Michael’s scenario unless he has committed a transgression. The interaction between the officer and the cyclist is brought about by the cyclist speeding. Otherwise they do not have to interact.

The laws which the cyclist obeys are not made by the officer. As law abiding citizens they are both equal. As transgressor and officer they enter into a relationship of sorts. It is this relationship of transgressor and officer which Michael used.

I shall, however, relish the analogy of the motorcyclist going 200 K down the freeway without a helmet on his head! 🙂

Is isn’t necessarily “subordinationism” to hold that the Father and Son numerically differ. Why couldn’t they numerically differ, and be qualitatively equal in every way?

But the other stuff, e.g. the idea that Jesus was divine because of the Father (even if this is an eternal dependence) – yes, that’s subordinationism, at least as I use the term. On these views, the Son exists because of the Father.

“Also who all among the Early Church writers held this?”

In different ways, all the logos theologians – Justin, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Tertullian.

It is not only that they are equal in every way, like identical twins who can both bench 250 and have an equal iq. The members of the Trinity share in the exact same substance. Their substance is one and the same. Otherwise, you have tritheism. That is why they are NECESSARILY equal in their ontos.

Hi Michael,

My comment has been deleted. I was wondering if you are saying that since God and the Son are of the same substance, they are reversible. Could they trade places, as your twins could?

Same substance, different hypostasis (person). Substance is one and the same, therefore to speak of reversal of substance is not relevant. There has to be more than one to reverse. Very important point as a failure to recognize this lies at the heart of Ontological Subordination.

Can their persons be reversed? No. Can their roles change and the subordination reverse? I don’t know. Debatable. Some argue for eternal subordinationism. Some for temporary. All orthodox Christians accept some form of functional subordination. It is not really debated since the Bible seems so clear on the subject.

Point being once again: Equal in power, authority, dignity. Distinct in function (temporary or not).

Michael,

The Father and the Son cannot reverse since they participate in one single divine essence. But the twins can reverse, and the officer and the speeder could also, presumably.

Could the relationship of subordination in the trinity reverse? I would say absolutely not. The Son is always the logos of the Father, for eternity. But the Son is not a discrete essence from the Father.

The Father and Son are distinct in function in that they are eternally of the one essence, or substance. But two individual humans are never of the same substance. There are always two separate physical entities.

I am wondering if there are examples in the church fathers of a human analogy for the Father and Son.

I thought that Gregory of Nyssa said that there could be no human analogies of the trinity since human individuals enact separate actions but the works of the trinity are indivisible.

Sue, if you are asking for analogies to the Trinity, I got none. If you are asking to explain how something can be one in essence, yet distinct in person, I got nothing. Hence the mystery of the Trinity. Yet there are all kinds of necessary mysteries that are true yet transcend comprehention. The most readily available is creation ex nihilo. No way to comprehend it or illustrate it, yet it is necessary.

Here is what I wrote about trying to illustrate the Trinity: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/08/the-trinity-is-like-3-in-1-shampoo-and-other-stupid-statements/

However, as I have said over and over, the illustrations in the post above is not an attempt to illustration the Trinity proper, only how we have parallels in our everyday world where two individuals can be equal in essence, yet distinct (and sometimes subordinate) in function.

Thank you, Michael,

I agree with you on this. I feel that it is disrespectful to the trinity to use human analogies.

“we have parallels in our everyday world where two individuals can be equal in essence, yet distinct (and sometimes subordinate) in function.”

But in the trinity they are not two individuals, they are God and logos, two persons, one essence.

I have no doubt that there are relationships of equal individuals where one is subordinate to the other. The question is whether this is parallel to God.

For example, Christ the logos, always enacted the will of God. He never enacted a separate action. But if two individuals lived like this, would it be honourable. What if a master had a slave that never enacted a separate action in his life, would that be moral?

Sue, I cannot debate the synonyms used for “person.” Individuals, consciousnesses, hypostasis, modes (Barthian version), substantia (early Western version), or even persona. All do their job and all fail to some degree. All can and have been debated. I, like Calvin, am satisfied when one says that all three members of the Trinity are one God, yet they are not each other.

I understand. But Gregory of Nyssa was adamant that you could not compare three men to the trinity. And I also do not believe that you can compare the officer and speeder, or the king and subject to the trinity. Christ is not God’s subject, he is God’s manifestation. Quite different.

I think, Michael, that no progress can be made without defining the terms. The word “person” (for persona) may appear to be a synonym for “individual” but it is not. “Persona” was a translation of either prosopon or hypostasis. It means either “face” or “role” or “manifestation.” The trinity is not comprised of three “individuals” That would be a heresy.

Therefore, comparing the trinity to two or three human individuals could be, IMO, heretical. I think this is what the church fathers taught.

Again, no need to debate the legitimacy of any of those terms. They are all good and bad. “Person” in English is really not what it meant before. Stick with the definition I gave and you will be good in applying it to any of the above terms.

However, no reason for this post to go in that direction as it is way too tangential. If you don’t think it is, fine. But for this post it is.

I never think that defining terms is tangential to a post. However, looking back, I see that Carol in #2 has basically said it all. Its taken me this long to get to where she started.

Me: Sue, you’re a peach.

Sue: But peaches are a fuzzy piece of fruit and I am a human being. Hence, I’m not a peach.

Me: I meant that you’re sweet like a peach.

Sue: But peaches are sweet because they have a high amount of glucose. My glucose level is notoriously low.

Me: The analogy is a loose one to demonstrate a point.

Sue: But this analogy can’t work because I’m not exactly like a peach in every way. Hence, it is disrespectful to call me a peach because it takes away my human dignity and distinctiveness.

Me: (Slaps hand to forward).

Sue wrote:

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

Might I suggest, Sue, that you do a little more research in your Greek word studies. Your understanding of dunimis and eksousia is faulty. It is evident in this comment of yours.

Vladimir

Further thoughts –

The use of the word ’emanates’ is inadequate to describe the “sending” of the Son. It is only used by heretics. The word “proceeds forth from” is used to describe the ‘sending’ of the Holy Spirit.

The analogy of the sun’s rays is used by Calvin to describe the real union with and reception of the means of grace found in the partaking of the Lord’s supper of believers. It is not used to describe the ‘essential’ (ousia) relationship of the persons of the Trinity in orthodox Christianity.

It should be remembered that God is incomprehensible, yet knowable. Yet, He is knowable only in so far as He himself has revealed himself.

God will not make himself into a lier so that you can be right in your surmises and conceptualizations. The Trinity still remains a mystery, yet an objective reality of the Christian faith.

Vladimir

Oh wow, all my usual flirts are back. Hodge, I can tell that you would be quite soured by my denying that I am a peach so I won’t say how objectified I feel by this comment. 😉

Vlad,

“Your understanding of dunimis and eksousia is faulty.”

My claim is that when Augustine wrote the following, he used the Latin word potestas, which at the time was a translation for εξουσια and not for δυναμις in the Latin Vulgate.

“For he was not sent in virtue of some disparity of power or substance or anything in him that was not equal to the Father, but in virtue of the Son being from the Father, not the Father being from the Son.”

“non secundum imparem potestatem uel substantiam uel aliquid quod in eo patri non sit aequale missus est, sed secundum id quod filius a patre est, non pater a filio.”

What correction would you like to make regarding this?

Vlad,

Augustine wrote,

“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?”

Does this make him a heretic? I am being honest here. Is there some way to tell when Augustine is a heretic and when he is orthodox. Is there some way to tell when words like “emanate” and “person” and “power” mean what they normally mean in English, and when they mean only what the original Latin meant.

I’d like to get back to C. Michael’s original post, and in particular his comment: “One may ask how it is that one can be subordinate in role yet equal in essence.”

I am asking. Rather than try to come up with human analogies for this subordinate-yet-equal question (I don’t want to risk offending Sue!) can someone attempt an answer that does not entail considering Father and Son to be two individual entities? I’ve read through this thread’s predominant focus on the subordination side; I’d like to see more discussion of the equality side. So let me try to recast the question: Does the concept of “equal” require there to be two distinct entities?

I fear the answer might be Yes. What do people think?

Two things can be the same; can one thing be “the same”? As what? As itself? That’s rather uninteresting! Two things can be equal; can one thing be “equal”? To what? To itself? That’s rather uninteresting too!

So here’s the functional subordination challenge as I see it: come up with a non-human analogy that illustrates a common essence yet distinct functions.

Help!

I fear that my observations are going to be lost to the camel. Augustine is not a heretic. However, I do not accept all of his musings. In Latin and addressing a Latin speaking audience, St. Augustine’s use of manatio is not a heretical perversion of the biblical teaching – especially in the larger context of knowledge of St. Augustine’s writings themselves (including his retractions). He could have and probably should have simply quoted St. Paul ‘s “in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead (i.e. essence not persons) bodily,” or more simply quoted the Scripture “God with us.” The incarnation of God is what St. Augustine is highlighting.

However, in ante (pre) Nicene Greek speaking theology the use of emanation or emanates is avoided and even anathematized due to the confusion and perversion with its association with foreign pagan Greek philosophies and their conceptualizations.

Since we speak English here, perhaps the use of responsibility, ability and capacity would be more suitable than either the Greek or Latin counterparts.

Since both present day Pentecostal theological conceptualizations and even Egalitarian ecclesiological expressions have difficulties with both, if not all conceptual expressions involving these terms we still need to be crystal clear in our own understandings. Why? Did not Christ himself say: Unless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins.”

Vladimir

Further:

When God the Son became Jesus of Nazareth, He did not become two persons, but remained one individual – i.e., the second person of the Trinity in unity, the God man Christ Jesus. He was and is still very man and very God.

When the Holy Spirit regenerates and indwells a believer, that person does not become another person, but remains that self same individual although now partaker of the divine nature (essence) itself (2 Peter 1:3).

Vladimir

One further remark compliments of Charles Hodge:

“If we take away the properties of a spirit, we no longer have a spirit.”

Vladimir

Vlad,

It is my humble opinion that no one should be labeled as unorthordox unless the interrogation takes place in either Latin or Greek.

Frank,

“Does the concept of “equal” require there to be two distinct entities?”

The trinity is considered to be indivisible. To me, this suggests that the trinity is one individual and cannot be divided. However, we do say that the trinity is composed of three “persons” but this does not relate to the word “person” in contemporary English. The trinity is not made up of three “people”.

“Persona” in Latin, meant mask or face, and was a translation of prosopon, “face.” However, the word hypostasis, seems to drift in meaning from subtance to person.

I am suggesting that in order to remain within historic orthodoxy, one cannot talk about the trinity as being divisible into two or three “individuals” or “people.”

I hope that this is germaine to the post.

Sue,

Nor should anyone think that persona means mask or face in the sense of modalism. God is not one being with three faces. He is one being consisting in three persons (i.e., distinct personhood–the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, etc.).

Frank,

What exactly does a non-human analogy look like? We’re discussing beings and persons. The only analogies we have are human and angelic, and both of those do not compare exactly to God (e.g., “To Whom/What shall you compare Me?”). God uses human analogies of Himself all throughout Scripture. There is nothing degrading of His nature to use one, since God gave us revelation and minds to know that analogies have only singular and limited value. God is a father, but isn’t He better than a father? God didn’t really cohabit with anyone like a father does to get a child, so He’s not exactly like a father. Human analogies, because they use living, thoughtful beings and persons are the best analogies we’re going to get. If you want the best inanimate object analogy, then you can use the pie analogy that will fail on more fronts than human ones will (i.e., one pie made up of the same ingredients, indented at the top to show three distinct pieces, one piece adds whip cream to itself). I suddenly feel hungry for dessert.

Biblically speaking: distinct and subordinate to the Father, equality with God–

John 5:18 For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal (isos) with God.

Son – Father analogy of subornination
Equality with God — of the same nature as God (since He is the Son of God)

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 (ho pater meizon mou estin).

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with (pros, i.e. a relational preposition of some sort) God and God was the Logos.”

The text then goes on to speak of His subordinate position in creation (through Him all things came to be). Both equal in essence and subordinate in role.

Hodge,

I agree that it is hard to find a point that falls between modalism and tritheism. But I do want to establish that the Latin and Greek in which this trinitarian belief was originally written is not well understood to most English speakers.

It is interesting that the one human analogy which the early church fathers did use was that of Abraham and Isaac. Isaac was the seed of Abraham, and in a patriarchal society, the sacrifice of Isaac would compare to the sacrifice of one’s own self. There is a symbolic analogy.

However, this analogy breaks down if one ever thinks that it is just for a father to kill his child. This is surely the most heinous human crime imaginable. This human analogy can never be a model for human behaviour.