Mark

Frank this is what I believe about the trinity,

“That we worship one God in trinity
and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.” (Athanasian Creed)

I firmly hold to this. Where do you NOT blend their persons?
Frank your research is no doubt extensive and you continue to pursue the idea that the early church denied distinction in roles somehow- I disagree. The whole battle the early theologians faced was a subordinationism of essence. I think you are wrong to read back into that debate a subordinationism of function. It simply was not an issue in their debates. Their focus was on the divinity of the son, not his role or function. You have constantly said that to say one is subordinate in function must mean subordinate in essence likewise. But you have not provided any evidence to prove such a claim. Any reference to early theologians MUST be understood in relation to their debates which dealt with- subordination of essence. I believe you are wrong to make the bridge that you do about roles.

If Jesus was raised as a physical human man, and is now seated at the right hand of the father, what now is his ‘role’ in your opinion? If Jesus still has his humanity now and according to egalitarians, that is the ONLY thing that makes him subordinate, how is he not then eternally in that position? Maybe you think his humanity is now insignificant?

There are obvious flaws in the argument. Perhaps someone can explain for me. My position however is firm. Jesus is God, is equal to the father in essence. His role however is to be subject to the Father demonstrated through his incarnation and resurrection.