Mark

Frank,
First I want to thank you for giving the time to respond to me. It may well surprise you and others here on this blog that I too disagree with the terminology of the ESS doctrine. I have a big issue in using the term ‘subordination’ in relation to Jesus and the Father, as you are indeed correct in stating that it was condemned by many in the early church. However, as with most Trinitarian debates it is far more beneficial to look behind the terminology to the actual theology to establish ones position. I therefore have no doubt that some comps may have labelled you as a modalist or unitarian. I do disagree with the terminology of the ESS doctrine, but not the actual doctrine, and so now I will respond to you to show why I hold this, and show why I feel I need to respond to your claims that this is another ‘arianism’ or ‘subordinationism’. To do this I will sketch a quick historical overview. Before I do that I think it is vitally important when understanding history to look at it in its context i.e. the debates raging and again to look beyond terminology to the core doctrine.
1. Athanasius- was indeed one of the earliest most influential thinkers in the Trinitarian debate. To put him in context is to show how he was responding to Arian claims that Jesus was an intermediate being between the absolute God and mankind, thus he was less God and subordinate. Athanasius strongly rebuked this showing how Jesus was equally divine. Due to Athanasius’ opponents, when one reads him, he could easily mistake that Athanasius put too much importance on the unity of God and not enough on the distinction of person. Justo L Gonzalez puts it like this “The main weak point in Athanasius’ Trinitarian theology is his lack of a fixed terminology that could serve to express the multiplicity as well as the unity in the trinity.” (A History of Christian Thought p. 308). So when one uses Athanasius in the Trinitarian debate they must be careful to remember the context of his theology. None the less, he was monumental in creating orthodox teaching on this subject.
2. 3 Cappodocian fathers- Basil went beyond Athanasius in affirming and defending the orthodox teaching: one ousia and three hypostases (one essence, 3 pesons) to quote him “If we have no distinct perception of the separate characteristics, namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification, but form our conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot possibly give a sound account of our faith.”( Ep 236.6), Gregory of Nazianzus went beyond Basil again showing further the relations between the three persons of the trinity “ For the Godhead is one in three, and the three are one… Excesses and defects we will omit, neither making the unity confusion(sebellianism), nor the division a separation (arianism). His theology that the father is not begotten, the son is begotten and the spirit is the procession was accepted by both the east and west church. Gregory further enhanced, one ousia, three hypostases. Gregory of Nyssa was fundamental in establishing that the distinctions cannot be established on the basis of external relations. Thus he rejected subordination that posits a difference of power or glory (again arianism). Therefore the only grounds for distinction for him was to understood on inner relations. To summarise they were influential in fleshing out the ‘seperateness’ of each member mean while condemning subordination that lead to loss of power or glory( this is vital to understanding the ESS doctrine)
3. Augustine- was again influential in rounding orthodox theology in the west. He rightly believed in the distinctions of the members of the Godhead, although each is equally divine. Terminology was a big issue with Augustine as he found our words inadequate to show the trinity properly. The main point Augustine gave to Trinitarian theology was the real or ‘subsistent’ relations in the Godhead. He did this to combat the Arians who insisted that division was in the ‘subsistence’ or essence of being i.e. divinity.
4. John Calvin- was pretty much repetitious of Augustinian theology on this issue “By person I mean, subsistence… Now, I say that each of the three subsistence’s while related to the others is distinguished from it.” (Institutes 1:13:6) Also “On the other hand, the scriptures demonstrate that there is some distinction between the Father and the Word, the Word and the Spirit…” (Institutes 1:13:17) again “Moreover, this distinction is so far from interfering with the most perfect unity of God…In each hypostases the whole nature is understood, the only difference being that each has his own peculiar subsistence.” (Institutes 1:13:19) and finally “But if we hold, what has already been demonstrated from Scripture, that the essence of the one God, pertaining to the Father, Son, and Spirit, is simple and indivisible, and again, that the Father differs in some special property from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit, the door will be shut…” (Institutes 1:13:22)
What does all this show? True orthodox is one God in three persons. One God equal in essence although distinct in three persons. Now the question is this. Does the ESS doctrine make Jesus subordinate in essence, the answer no. Frank you seem to realise this, therefore I am perplexed at how you claim this is another form of Arianism- could you explain this for me? It is clearly not. Arius taught that Jesus was not equally God. ESS does not do this. They are rightly making the necessary distinction in roles between each member of the Trinity. Frank with your view, where does the distinction lie?
Frank you also make the bold claim “First, prior to the 1980’s no theologian had ever spoken of the Son’s subordination in “role” only. This use of the term, as well, as the idea of the permanent role subordination apart from personal subordination, came from the woman debate, where it appeared for the first time in the mid-1970’s.” I will show you one simple example to dismiss this ridiculous claim. It is from Louis Berkhof’s systematic theology written in 1939. “There is a certain order in the ontological Trinity. In personal subsistence the Father is first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. It need hardly be said that this order does not pertain to any priority of time or of essential dignity, but only to the logical order of derivation. The Father is neither begotten by, nor proceeds from any other person; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son from all eternity. Generation and procession take place within the Divine Being, and imply a certain subordination as to the manner of personal subsistence, but no subordination as far as the possession of the divine essence is concerned.” So the claim you make is not only false, but what Berkhof’s is saying sounds remarkably like the ESS doctrine.
Conclusion- I believe that the doctrine of the ESS is true orthodox teaching regarding the Trinity. However I do disagree with using the term subordination as it has had many uses throughout this historical debate and should be avoided in my opinion. Frank, I pose this to you, that you look beyond the terminology and look at the doctrine. Then you will see who is the orthodox view.
Finally I want to address the sources you used in your argument. 3 of them were from ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’ so it is hardly surprising that they dispute comp teaching. One was from Bishop Damasus which was condemning Arianism- that Jesus was less God. I have shown and infact I think you know that ESS does not teach this, so I don’t see how this supports your view. T.F.Torrance’s quote again had nothing to do with true orthodoxy nor the condemnation of ESS doctrine but rather that when discussing the trinity, our human analogies are always flawed. I totally agree with this. In fact I said above that this is precisely the problem Augustine had with human words. This reference again does not support your argument at all. Finally I want to discuss Chrysostom-
1 First it is important to note that what he is debating doesn’t seem to be Arianism. He saids that his opponents don’t dispute the equal essence of the son so this is again not what ESS is teaching.
2. Lets look what he further saids in this same homily: regarding 1 Cor 11:7 “For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.
This is again another cause. Not only, so he speaks, because he has Christ to be His Head ought he not to cover the head, but because also he rules over the woman. For the ruler when he comes before the king ought to have the symbol of his rule. As therefore no ruler without military girdle and cloak, would venture to appear before him that has the diadem: so neither do thou without the symbols of your rule, (one of which is the not being covered,) pray before God, lest you insult both yourself and Him that has honored you.
And the same thing likewise one may say regarding the woman. For to her also is it a reproach, the not having the symbols of her subjection. But the woman is the glory of the man. Therefore the rule of the man is natural.
Again 1 Cor 11:9 “For neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.
This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us.
Again 1 Cor 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.
For this cause: what cause, tell me? For all these which have been mentioned, says he; or rather not for these only, but also because of the angels. For although thou despise your husband, says he, yet reverence the angels.
It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience.
Again: the man is not compelled to do this; for he is the image of his Lord: but the woman is; and that reasonably. Consider then the excess of the transgression when being honored with so high a prerogative, you put yourself to shame, seizing the woman’s dress. And you do the same as if having received a diadem, you should cast the diadem from your head, and instead of it take a slave’s garment.
Again 1 Cor 11:11 Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Thus, because he had given great superiority to the man, having said that the woman is of him and for him and under him; that he might neither lift up the men more than was due nor depress the women, see how he brings in the correction, saying, Howbeit neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. Examine not, I pray, says he, the first things only, and that creation. Since if you enquire into what comes after, each one of the two is the cause of the other; or rather not even thus each of the other, but God of all. Wherefore he says, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.
So Frank I think it is clear, that Chrysostom actually supports my view of this passage not the egalitarian view. Also your references actually hinder your view rather than support it.
I apologise for the extreme length, but such issues need to be addressed.