Eternal submission of the Son – key texts
Key texts include:
Category Archives: Disputed Doctrines
Aimee Byrd: confused, or what?
Perusing the 2nd edition of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (Zondervan Academic, 2020), I was struck by his complaint that his (and Bruce Ware’s) position on the Eternal Submission of the Son has been ‘seriously misrepresented’ by Aimee Byrd (in her book, Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, published earlier in 2020 by Zondervan).
Byrd, writes Grudem,
‘falsely claims that Bruce Ware and I, in advocating the doctrine of “eternal relations of authority and submission,” are making a serious doctrinal error because “this doctrine teaches that the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is subordinate to the Father, not only in the economy of salvation but in his essence,” and we are therefore “unorthodox teachers that are not in line with Nicene Trinitarian doctrine.”’
…Kevin Giles: Trinitarian orthodoxy according to the Nicene Creed
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.…
Trinity: unity AND diversity
Trinitarian orthodoxy teaches that the members of the Godhead are equal in nature but distinct in their roles.
In the recent debate about the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son, critics are in danger of over-emphasising the first of these, whereas advocates are at risk of placing too much stress on the latter.
This is not, of course, the only area in theology where a tension has to be maintained between two (or more) truths that human reason cannot fully reconcile. …
Eternal Submission of the Son: the main issues
Early on in the debate which erupted in mid-2016, Andrew Wilson attempted to tease out the main issues at stake.
Here are headlines:
- Is the Eternal Functional Submission of the Son (EFS) taught in Scripture?
- Is the Eternal Functional Submission of the Son novel?
- Is the Eternal Functional Submission of the Son heterodox, or even heretical?
- Is there a separation of the divine will?
- Does the Eternal Functional Submission of the Son imply that Christ only had one will?
Grudem: the case for eternal submission of the Son
Wayne Grudem states that
there are no differences in deity, attributes, or essential nature between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God and has all the attributes of God. The only distinctions between the members of the Trinity are in the ways they relate to each other and to the creation. In those relationships they carry out roles that are appropriate to each person.
(Systematic Theology, 1st ed., p251; 2nd ed.,…
Eternal subordination not a novel doctrine
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.…
Was ‘the wrath of God satisfied’ on the cross?
‘In Christ alone’ (Stuart Townend and Keith Getty) is a fine Christian song.
But what about the words that stick in the throats of many:-
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied.
Please don’t tell me you won’t sing these words because you unwilling to think or speak of God’s wrath, and wish to sing only of his love. The song as a whole does a great job in exploring the various dimensions of Christ’s death and resurrection. …
The intermediate state
By ‘intermediate state’ we mean the state of the believer after death but before the final resurrection.
Calvin wisely cautions:-