Posted                       

quote:

---

In most orthodox Christian theological circles, Arian subordinationism is treated as heresy, while "relational subordination" is not.[citation needed] In other circles, subordinationism is seen as biblical middle ground between extremes of Modalism and Unitarianism. (Christology has been the source of many (but not all) hot disputes and subsequent divisions of Christianity since the 1st century AD)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:


And why would anybody want to go down this road anyway, unless it is some kind of stalking horse for other issues? That's the real question. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:


And why would anybody want to go down this road anyway, unless it is some kind of stalking horse for other issues? That's the real question.

---

The stalking horse is the dead horse of gender relations but I'm not wanting to stray into dead equine territory, genuinely interested in the Trinity and orthodoxy.

LC the theory is definitely not about mutual submission, the theory is the father never submits to the son but the son is sent to do the father's will. [/QB]

---

I have no idea about stalking horses, so won't go there. But as far as the Father never submitting to the Son--

I'd like to throw out that word "submit" completely from this conversation, at least when we're speaking of intra-Trinitarian relations outwith the Incarnation.

You realize there's a problem talking about submission when all three Persons are already and always of the same heart and desire. The word "submit" only makes sense where there is at least the bare possibility of conflict. And there isn't here.

We're discussing intra-Trinitarian relations now per the OP, not the unusual situation that occurred when the Second Person took on humanity and thereby acquired the bare possibility of a conflicting will (not that he did in fact conflict with the Father, but "submit" actually means something when you are experiencing real temptation to do otherwise).

What I mean is that the Trinity is a consensus--a Unity, in fact. To speak of submission between three persons who never disagree nor have any real prospect of ever disagreeing is IMHO to misuse the word.

You can speak of honoring, yes; the Son honors the Father as Father, and the Father honors his Son as Son. You can speak of glorifying, you can even speak of honoring one another above the self. The Spirit glorifies Christ, Christ glorifies the Father, the Father is concerned for the glory of the Son, etc. etc. An exchange of courtesy and love. You can even get positional if you please and note that the term "Father" is "higher" in glory than "Son," and argue that the Son delights in that fact, and the Father accepts it, and all three are glad together. I could go that far. It still doesn't contradict "one in essence" and "of Majesty co-equal" or the biblical "I and the Father are one."

You mention the Son being sent. That is perfectly possible between those who are by nature co-equal and does not require submission unless the Son has any desire NOT to be sent. (It is also related to the Incarnation, which begins to muddy the waters immediately with the human will there introduced.)

I and my husband are co-equal in human nature. He is not greater than I nor I than him. Those who think male humanity is somehow intrinsically better than female humanity are full of horseshit. Mr. Lamb is not one of them.

Positionally there is a difference between us; for certain intents and purposes he is the "head of the household" and we honor him as such. But at no time does that mean he denies me full agency (he's no fool ) nor does it mean that he fails in any way to honor me equally.

In practice he is "greater than I" only in the sense that I have chosen to have it so in certain areas, almost wholly ceremonial ones.* The day-to-day living responsibilities are divided up not by gender but by aptitude. (He cooks better than I and does a mean load of laundry too, though he's crap at folding and hanging up stuff.)

* example of ceremonial role: If we had been playing the Khan family's role at the DNC, I would certainly have let my husband do the speaking just as Mrs. Khan did--not because I have no tongue of my own, but because that is my way of honoring him in a ceremonial situation. He in turn would quickly recognize that his accent is so thick you could cut it with a knife and would turn to me to finish off the speech, a decision made on the basis of aptitude (I'm a native English speaker) and not on rank. We've done dog-and-pony shows together at conventions, churches, etc. and it always goes that way. He speaks first, he hands it off to me, and the rest of the presentation is Mutt and Jeff time.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posted                       

quote:

---

If a good marriage reflects the trinity, how does the Holy Spirit fit in there?

---

Three way?

[ 09. August 2016, 06:13: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
If a good marriage reflects the trinity, how does the Holy Spirit fit in there?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

I've decided that invoking heresy involving the Trinity is a sort of last-ditch nuclear option to attempt to defend indefensible views. It's intimidation, not argument. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
If a good marriage reflects the trinity, how does the Holy Spirit fit in there?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
If a good marriage reflects the trinity, how does the Holy Spirit fit in there?

MT, how do you differentiate your position from Arianism?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Do you mean accusing somebody of heresy against the trinity is intimidation

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the Deity subsisting in act, or the Divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's Infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct Persons.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
, but either way I think it's puerile to reach for the doctrine of the Trinity to defend unrelated subjects. [/QB]

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
if you are going to do that, then both your attempt to use the theory AND the theory must be subject to challenge, surely?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
if you are going to do that, then both your attempt to use the theory AND the theory must be subject to challenge, surely?

---

It's true that a refresher course in the historic views of the Trinity and related heresies can't do any harm, but with regard to the context in which you place the debate (and I knew at once from your physical location which Dead Horse the OP was going to relate to!) I think there's a huge danger of it being a ginormous red herring.

As PaulTH says, it's not as though some major theologian suddenly came along and challenged prevailing doctrines of the Trinity. It's that the proponents of a DH went looking for impressive and intimidating ways of defending it and thought the Trinity might fit the requirements. It sounds as if some people on the other side have taken the bait.

Your local argument is not really about the Trinity at all, it's about power in relationships and in the church, and I myself would be dragging the debate back there rather than duking it out as though we were at the Nicene Council.

(In my own journey on this DH issue, reading The Trinity and Subordinationism was the last nail in the coffin of my complementarianism, rather than the Damascus road point).

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
There is also a minor issue of showing how far these 'truth tellers' will go tying themselves in knots and some veering at times into intellectual dishonesty to defend their position.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Holy crosspost! Well, now I think I understand what you all meant by stalking horses, and I suppose I've answered without having a clue at the time of writing what y'all were hinting at.

I really do loathe the word "submission" except in very specific contexts because it's been so badly misused. IMHO any man who has to insist on (or even mention) his own "headship" is already in trouble, and so is the marriage. It betrays a total misunderstanding of what a good marriage ought to be--and yes, I do think that a good marriage is in some sense a mirror of the Trinity.

---

Amen

Clever how folk often bring the 'nature of God' on to their side in any argument.

Ho-hum. How do atheists manage to get the upper hand without this useful tool?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
Subordination doesn't come into it. The three Persons are eternally engaged in a ceaseless and joyful dance about each other. To seek to deconstruct this is pointless and dangerous.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
Subordination doesn't come into it. The three Persons are eternally engaged in a ceaseless and joyful dance about each other. To seek to deconstruct this is pointless and dangerous.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
Subordination doesn't come into it. The three Persons are eternally engaged in a ceaseless and joyful dance about each other. To seek to deconstruct this is pointless and dangerous.

---

This.

It strikes me that the image of the Trinity we're given means we're all supposed to be subordinate to each other all the time. I think it's called love. So I'm not sure what the complementarians call what they have.

---

Another


--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I have to admit I've not met this argument before. Perhaps we're all too theologically illiterate in the dear old CofE - or just thick - to have picked this one up. Do those that are advocating this also insist on single progression?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I still quite like this from Jonathan Edwards on the Trinity:

quote:

---

The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the Deity subsisting in act, or the Divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's Infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct Persons.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
How do atheists manage to get the upper hand without this useful tool?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I still quite like this from Jonathan Edwards on the Trinity:

---

That sounds thoroughly like modalism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It sounds to me like it's saying the Father is God as source, the Son is God as thought, and the Spirit is God as action.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

The subordination of the Son to the Father is not only used as an argument in favour of male headship, but the Moore College group use it as support for Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The dance as Eirenist sets it out is a powerful case against that doctrine. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
A single piece of wood (one essence!) in three distinct, distinctly identifiable, yet indissociable parts

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
A single piece of wood (one essence!) in three distinct, distinctly identifiable, yet indissociable parts

---

Strictly the persons of the Trinity are not parts of a whole. But as you say all images have limits.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

..in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and each is God, whole and entire

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It sounds to me like it's saying the Father is God as source, the Son is God as thought, and the Spirit is God as action.

---

Firstly, I think the final sentence of the quote is explicitly warding off any purely monist or modalist view of God.
Secondly, being, thought, and act or love aren't modes, since they co-exist. There's no act without also being and thought. There's an irreducible threeness there, which there isn't in modalism.
It is of course only an approach, since in finite agents being, thought, and act aren't persons, nor each contain the whole of the essence; and as I said Edwards says that in God they are so.

---