There is an order in the mode of subsistence of the Three Persons, which cannot be reversed, and properties that cannot be interchanged, an order of relationship. This is not to be construed as subordination, however. These distinctions between the Persons are not distinctions of essence, but of person. They are “the same in substance, equal in power and glory.” The essence of God involves infinite, eternal, and unchangeable being and perfection. The fact that we recognize each of these persons as deity implies that there can be no subordination of essence.…
1 Corinthians 15:28 ‘When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.’
Donald MacLeod refers to the ‘formidable difficulty’ contained in these words.
‘They seem,’ he writes, ‘to teach blatant subordinationism: the Son himself will be subject to the Father. Does this not place him very clearly on the side of creation rather than on the side of the Creator?’…
Here are extracts from a paper given by Kevin Giles at the plenary forum on the Trinity at the Evangelical Theological Society annual conference, 15th November, 2016 at San Antonia. The other speakers were Dr Bruce Ware, Dr Millard Erickson and Dr Wayne Grudem; Dr Sam Storms presided.
Giles’ main focus was on the Nicene Creed. In fact, although he mentioned the Bible (or Scripture) over fifty times, and insisted on its primacy, he made relatively little actual appeal to the biblical text itself.…
Eternal subordination of the Son ought to be (but is not always) distinguished from the heresy of subordinationism.
Subordinationism has been defined as,
‘A doctrine that assigns an inferiority of being, status, or role to the Son or Holy Spirit within the Trinity.’ (R. C. and C. C. Kroeger, “Subordinationism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1st and 2nd editions)
This, however, is a little too broad, because (setting aside the word ‘inferiority’) it implies that any kind of subordination is to be regarded as heresy.…
Critics of the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (such as Liam Goligher) are very ready to assert that it is a novel doctrine: it is inconsistent with the historic creeds of the church, and whenever, in the past, it has reared its head it has been summarily rejected. This has led Goligher and others to accuse those who subscribe to this doctrine of heresy, and of having disqualified themselves from teaching office in the church.…
I found the following extracts helpful, particularly in relation to discussions about the ‘eternal subordination of the Son’.
The reason we know the Father-Son-Holy Spirit distinction is because the Father sent the Son and the Holy Spirit. The distinctions among the three persons were revealed in the act of the Son and Spirit coming to be among us for our salvation.…
God the Father spoke, Genesis 1:3 “And God said, Let there be light.”
God the Son was the Word spoken, John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word.”
God the Holy Spirit moved upon the face of the waters, Genesis 1:2; Job 26:12,13.
2 in the Incarnation
God the Father gave His only Son, John 3:16.
God the Son was born into the world, Luke 2:11.
God the Spirit came upon Mary to cause conception, Luke 1:35.…
Challenged by a Jehovah’s Witness heckler to defend the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, J.I. Packer argued along the following lines:
endorsed Old Testament monotheism (Mark 12:29), yet,
regarded himself as ‘the Son’ in a unique sense (Matt. 11:27; Mark 12:1-12; 13:32), and prescribed and accepted worship of himself as Son of God, treating this as a proper expression of faith (John 5:23; 9:35-38; 20:28); and,
promised the Holy Spirit as ‘another Comforter’ in succession to himself, to carry on his own manysided ministering role (John 14:16); and,
bracketed Father, Son and Spirit together as the triune ‘name’ (singular, note, not plural) into which — that is, into a relationship with which — future disciples were to be baptized (Matt.
Compared with the sensuous and graphic promises of Islam, the biblical vision of heaven seems positively chaste. See, for example, Matthew 22:30. But there is, perhaps, more to be said.
Sex as both a picture and a taster of divine love. Although people will not marry each other in heaven, marriage itself will be by no means absent: there will be the one marriage between Christ and his church. And this picture of heaven, although not the only one, is remarkable deep and powerful. …