This entry is part 5 of 9 in the series: Eternal Submission of the Son
- Grudem: the case for eternal submission of the Son
- Eternal submission: Liam Goligher says “No”
- Eternal subordination not a novel doctrine
- Some theses on the Father and the Son
- Eternal Submission of the Son: the main issues
- Subordinationism: what is it?
- Trinity: unity AND diversity
- Aimee Byrd: confused, or what?
- Is the Son eternally subject to the Father?
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?
- Does the Eternal Functional Submission of the Son involve denying the Eternal Generation of the Son (EG)?
- If the answer to 4, 5 and 6 is “yes,” then should those advocating it resign from their posts?
- Is the language of the eternal “subordination” of the Son helpful?
- Should Trinitarian relations be used in the debate about the roles of men and women?
- Is the analogy between eternal Trinitarian relations and sex roles unhelpful to women?