Doctors Ware and Grudem wiped the floor with their opponents. They were able to present a positive, biblical affirmation of what they believe. Their opponents did not present a positive, biblical affirmation of what they believe. Basically, all they said was, “You don’t have to conclude what they do,” without using Scripture to establish an alternative.
Josh Peterson As someone who is relatively uninformed on this issue, I disagree. I actually thought Grudem and Ware were less compelling. Idk the names of the other guys, but the younger one (at around 1:43:00) clearly outlines his argument: we all agree the son is subordinate, we all agree the son is divine (which he doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, which it seemed like Grudem did at times, by citing a bunch of texts regarding the subordination/divinity of the son. It's assumed for brevity, but Grudem and Ware's understanding of the former undermines the latter. Thus, he suggests we consider a different reading of the texts marshalled by Grudem and Ware. I agree, he doesn't provide much on that other than Php 2.5-11. But the issue is that he thinks Grudem and Ware are misreading texts so as to unintentionally deny the divinity of the son.
In the introduction of Dr. Yandell the speaker says, "He is a present member of the Trinity community" which is just hilarious given the subject matter of the debate.
[1 hour 52 minutes] Mr Yandell says, “Let me put once more the argument: If the Son is necessarily subordinate, then He is essentially subordinate If the Son is essentially subordinate and the Father is not, then the Son is of a different essence than the Father If the Son and the Father are different essences, then the Son has a different essence than the Father And that denies the equal divinity of the members of the Trinity (Conclusion) RS entails ontological subordinationism” ------------------- [2 hours 2 minutes] Audience question for Mr Yandell: “If the Son is necessarily the Son, and the Father is necessarily not the Son, then the Son is essentially the Son and the Father is essentially not the Son. Thus the Son is essentially different from the Father. (Conclusion) You must deny homousian on the basis of your premises.” Yandell responds: “Why?? Why?? Why??” *Laughter from crowd* Bruce Ware chimes in “We can tell you.” Yandall responds, “Well I’m sure you can from the lens of Greek philosophy.” Yandell then goes on to give a lengthy explanation....but as far as I can tell he never actually answers the question.
The logic isn’t sound. The Son isn’t “necessarily” the Son. The Son is the Son in relation to the Father. The Father is the Father in relation to the Son. And neither exists without the other. This isn’t a matter of attributes like the above quote. This is a matter of relative properties. So this is not a sound argument.
I was hoping to hear more from the guys on the right about what the eternal distinctions are. He just kept answering with postulations that he thinks apply to anything. The question was simple, “Are there any eternal distinctions within the Godhead? And if so, what are they? And how do you know what they are?” Maybe they did answer it. I just didn’t catch it.
If the Triune Persons possess identical choices of the will in their nature (essence), why does the Father eternally will to beget the Son while the Son does not will to beget the Father?
@@savedchristian4754 Because there are not any. That the father wills the begetting of the son does not require that the son wills the begetting of the father unless the father wills the begetting of the father also. Your point is a non-sequitur
I listened again Nomosowicz, and I think I have a sufficient understanding of the question, and can explain it more clearly, and in such a way that it doesn't refute the one being questioned. Let it be known that a five lined syllogism is difficult for me written down, much less hearing it and being asked to respond. 1. The Son is necessarily the Son 2. The Father is necessarily not the Son 3. The Son is essentially the Son 4. The Father is essentially not the Son Therefore the Son is essentially different from the Father and must not be homoousion "one in being" I do not think that 4 follows, or is even true. We would hopefully all agree that the Father and the Son are the same in essence, yet here Phil tries to say that the Father is essentially not the Son. If essential doesn't refer to the essence, to what does it refer? Nowhere do they state that the Father and the Son are essentially different, and this is the posit of Phil.
@@TangoFoxtrotRando I think you missed Phil's point. He was repurposing a syllogism Yandell introduced himself during his opening and repeated at least once during the debate. Yandell said something to the effect of, "If the Son is necessarily subordinate to the Father, then the Son is essentially subordinate to the Father." If your logic is added into the mix and any subordination of role occurs within the eminent Trinity then not only is the Son essentially subordinate to the Father, but the Father is also essentially subordinate to the Son. For that matter, by your logic, the Son is essentially subordinate to Himself! Yandells intention, I think, was to argue that despite their objections to the contrary, Grudem and Ware distinguish the Son from the Father ontologically. Phil was making the point that if Yandell's syllogism was correct a belief in the eternallity of the 3 persons as Father, Son, and Spirit (which Yandell affirms) itself was making a similar distinction. Phil pointed out that Yandell torpedoed a boat while standing on that very boat's deck.
Two questions: 1. If Jesus became the Son only for and during the incarnation, when did the incarnation begin? 2. If God became incarnate in order to reach and save humans, how will the Trinity and saved humans relate to each other after the second coming/translation and in eternity, if there isn't any form of God incarnate that humans can relate to?
1) depends what you mean by "began" the incarnation was determined from eternity in the covenant of redemption but occured at the conception of the son in Bethlehem. 2) I think we still relate through the son as in the incarnation he not only took on human nature but eternally continues therein...
1:41:19 he spoke that verse incorrect , correct me if I’m wrong , was speaking the sons equality something he didn’t grasp ( equality to the father ) , I’ve never understood it to mean the father grasping it Great job men, I see no issue with es
What is the distinction between Functional and Incarnational? Could you not say Eternal Functional Subordination vs Temporal Functional Subordination? I've been asking why it seems ok for the Son to be subordinate for the incarnation but not eternally. How do the same problems not apply? The response I keep getting is the incarnation was Economic and not Ontological. It seems this is just an arbitrary category to posit to not have to address the same reality they want to deny for the EFS guys? Any help on this would be appreciated
@@chrismatthews1762 The incarnation had two wills, and so you can say that while God has not submitted eternally Jesus in his Humanity submitted in the incarnation.
22:00 “The consistent uniform testimony of scripture is that the father by virtue by virtue of being father eternally has authority to plan, initiate, command, and send. Authority, that the son and spirit do not have.” Wow, that was so over the line. Does he have any concept of Christ being the image of the invisible God? The Holy Spirit being the specific presence of the omnipresent God? This concept of being able to understand specific details of God’s state in eternity past is kinda bonkers.
@@CasperLCat In the verse, 'for my Father is greater than I (John14:28)', you seem to say Jesus speaks from his human nature. But in the verse, 'I and my Father are one (John10:30)', you say that Jesus speaks from His divine nature. Why adopt double standards in interpreting the term 'I'?
@@CasperLCat Why are you begging the question? Are you denying Jesus said the Father is greater than Him? Why did you quote Churchill etc irrelevantly?
@@savedchristian4754 Oh brother. If this were the 16th Century, the next step for someone like you would be to burn me at the stake, like your buddy Calvin did. Regarding Jesus words, many theologians who don’t subscribe to ESS, might point to Philippians 2, that Jesus CHOSE to be subordinate to the Father during His Incarnation, so that this need not be an eternal relation. After all, Phil. 2 teaches Christ ALREADY HAD “equality with God” (meaning Yahweh) but laid it aside. As for Churchill, if you can’t understand such a simple analogy, you might be cognitively impaired. I’d go get a CAT scan and have yourself checked out.
I'm not all the way through the debate yet, however one thing that comes to mind - which perhaps they will address - is the matter of "one mind". Jesus tells us repeatedly that he and the father "are one", meaning "of one mind". "I do always, and only, that which I see the father do". Because they are of like, in fact identical, in fact literally "one mind". Given that.... given a case where two persons think identically in every and all situations, I do not see how the words "Authority", and "Submission" even have any meaning. If two people think exactly alike, they will agree exactly alike, and act exactly alike, and be in complete agreement in all things. The notions of "Submission" and "obedience" are only possible where there is a *difference* of mind. So, to me, the idea of the Son submitting to the Father, and the Son obeying the Father seem to suggest that there is a difference between the mind of the Father and the mind of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And since this is not so, talk of submission and obedience are literally meaningless. For the Son to "obey" his Father implies the possibility of a difference between them in which the Son has to "submit" to the authority of the Father and obey. Again, when there is no possible way for the Son to differ from the Father, no obedience is necessary.
Robert Zeurunkl i think your point is really interesting. I do wonder, though, how Jesus' prayer that the cup of suffering would pass relates to the unity and submission.
My comment is directed at the three persons of the Trinity, in their deity. Jesus incarnate in the flesh is another matter altogether. Being veiled in the flesh of man, that's a different relationship, and Jesus, for that short period of time, was subject to the doubts and fears that all men are subject to. THERE, it required obedience and submission. But only there - in the relationship between the Son in the Flesh on Earth, and the Father in heaven, again, making Jesus our perfect role model. We are in the exact position he was in in the Garden. We face the fear of death, just as Jesus did also. He did it perfectly, and we take strength from seeing him do it, and hearing him tell us, we can do it too. But once he put off our corruptible flesh, and returned to the Father, that perfect unity was restored, and I see no meaning in the words "submission" and "obedience", again, as our role model showing exactly how WE also will abide in heaven after we also put off this corruptible flesh and become in every way like Jesus in heaven also - no submission, and no obedience necessary because we then also will be of one, perfect, unified mind with the Father, just as the Son and Holy Spirit are. I am *not* a trained or schooled theologian, so this is all my own, highly subjective opinion. And you should take it as nothing more than that. OK?
@@robertzeurunkl8401 In the verse, 'for my Father is greater than I (John14:28)', you seem to say Jesus speaks from his human nature. But in the verse, 'I and my Father are one (John10:30)', you say that Jesus speaks from His divine nature. Why adopt double standards in interpreting the term 'I'?
Would love to see a debate between Grudem and Greg Stafford . Just as Stafford trumped James White, it would be a pleasure to see Stafford do the same with Grudem!
Very good debate, to see that the son of God Jesus, manifests his divinity ( the divine attributes) under the submission of the father. And likewise the spirit in submission to both the son and the Father. So yes there is a relational difference which accounts for the economic revelation of God in creation and redemption. Father, son and spirit are not in relationship to the incarnation but essentially to the being of God and the way God deigns for us to know him, So that we can worship father, son and spirit as distinct in their work but as the true God in all the unique worship given to each according to their work/role. Another element is how each glorifies the other, the father glorifies the son as the son of God, and son the father as God the father, then the spirit the son and Vice versa. Each person gives glory to each other as God in their distinct functions and role.
50:00 He tried to say the Son only submits to the Father in His human nature in 1 Corinthians 15:28. That's a copout though, and a dangerous one at that. Once Jesus ascended and was exalted by the Father, we can no longer say aspects of His humiliation are true. For example, Jesus was not functionally omnipresent during His humiliation, but He is functionally omnipresent in His exaltation. Jesus was not functionally omnipotent in His humiliation, but He is functionally omnipotent in His exaltation. Jesus was not functionally omniscient in His humiliation, but He is functionally omniscient in His exaltation. What's the point? Once Jesus was exalted, all limitations upon how He functioned were removed. This presents a problem though for this debater. He says Jesus submits to the Father in 1 Corinthians 15:28 post-exaltation in His humanity only. We can't affirm that though. If the Son only submits to the Father in His humiliation in the incarnation (as proposed by this debater), and if the Son continues to submit to the Father in 1 Corinthians 15:28 only in His humanity, then by logical necessity he must believe that Jesus is not exalted, not fully at least. He must affirm that Jesus is still humiliated, which is a dangerous doctrine indeed.
You make a good point that Jesus' human nature submitting to the Father during the incarnation vs post exaltation would be the same scenario so it would beg the question, what is the difference between these two states? As you said it's that there are no functional limits to Jesus' partaking of the divine essence. So, is Jesus' submission to the Father a functional limit? If yes, then eternal submission is invalid. If it is not a limit, then eternal submission is valid though there is more continuity between pre and post exaltation than comfortable.
I'm curious for those who feel submission is only in the incarnation How do you separate out the Son's submission in the temporal acts of redemption from his submission in the eternal covenant of redemption in which he was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world? Does this not suggest a submission that occurred in eternity and was worked out in time? (This isn't a gotcha question, I'm genuinely interested)
Hi Michael-thanks for your question. It's a complicated and important issue, and there's been plenty of theological writing about it in the past ten years or so. Here's a helpful introduction to some of the issues: credomag.com/2019/07/does-the-son-eternally-submit-to-the-father-methodological-considerations-part-1/
47:35, "The Son is sent by the Spirit." No, no, a thousand times no. The Spirit never "pempos" the Son in Scripture. Do a word study on "pempō," and that will be self-evident. The closest you'll get to that assertion is the Spirit leading the Son into the wilderness, but that applies to the incarnation. The Son was functionally lower in authority to the Spirit (and angels) during His humiliation. That has no bearing on the EFS debate though.
Can the eternal role subordination (RS) position of Ware/Grudem be expressed or articulated without presupposing time making it economic only? For example, how can subordination be expressed without movement in time? To choose, predestine or plan all presuppose time. To move from a moment of counsel to a moment of conclusion. Grudem in his opening statement says such things with no awareness of this fact. Seems to me that one should not project into eternity past revelations sensible only in time. Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Psa.131:1
The metaphysics professor presented a trinity of clones… I would have asked how that does not make two of them redundant. Additionally there is no approximate human analogy to this horror as even identical twins raised in the same house are distinct in many measurable ways.
46:45, he rejects the notion that someone being sent requires functional submission to the one sending. Do a word study of the word "pempō," meaning "send," and you'll see that without exception when the NT uses that verb, and when the subject and object are both persons, the sender has authority over the sent. Without exception. So, he can say, "I reject the premise," but then he has to deal with Scripture, which us unanimously against him.
49:00 His attempt to address 1 Corinthians 15 is embarrassing. He knows it's embarrassing too. You can see it on his face and in how he speaks. Statements like, "We're not told how long this submission will go on" is such a bad example of begging the question that it really undermined his entire rebuttal.
1:57:29 I reject this claim completely, that is one divine intervention that is not the begining of or the coming to, anthropomorphic language shouldn’t confuse us, but understand the explanation , loved his speech but reject what was said lol
1st camp: Grudem defends position with primarily the Bible. 2nd camp: seems to be relying on philosophy far more than scripture. I'm sticking with Grudem's responsible defense.
Pharisees: “But the scriptures say this!!!” Jesus: “You do not understand the intent of the scriptures” (paraphrase obviously) Though I agree that the 4th speaker’s presentation was way too philosophical and not-relevant.
after listening to the discussion a couple of times---I came away thinking Grudem and Ware sure sounded a lot like the Arians. Prof. Grudem misrepresented the position held by Arius. Arius, simply stated "before he was, he was not" he believed the Word/Jesus, came into existence, prior to 'TIME'. It was very informative.
The word GODHEAD is not a koine Greek word. It is an attempt to create a TRINITY. Three different greek words translated twice as Godhead in the KJV is deceptive. The three texts often referred to simply mean DIVINE. JOHN 17:3 is quite plain!
Doctors Ware and Grudem wiped the floor with their opponents. They were able to present a positive, biblical affirmation of what they believe. Their opponents did not present a positive, biblical affirmation of what they believe. Basically, all they said was, “You don’t have to conclude what they do,” without using Scripture to establish an alternative.
Josh Peterson As someone who is relatively uninformed on this issue, I disagree. I actually thought Grudem and Ware were less compelling. Idk the names of the other guys, but the younger one (at around 1:43:00) clearly outlines his argument: we all agree the son is subordinate, we all agree the son is divine (which he doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, which it seemed like Grudem did at times, by citing a bunch of texts regarding the subordination/divinity of the son. It's assumed for brevity, but Grudem and Ware's understanding of the former undermines the latter. Thus, he suggests we consider a different reading of the texts marshalled by Grudem and Ware. I agree, he doesn't provide much on that other than Php 2.5-11. But the issue is that he thinks Grudem and Ware are misreading texts so as to unintentionally deny the divinity of the son.
@@MP-sy4zc
How do they deny the divinity of the Son? Is not the Father who eternally beget the Son greater than the Son who didn't beget the Father?
In the introduction of Dr. Yandell the speaker says, "He is a present member of the Trinity community" which is just hilarious given the subject matter of the debate.
[1 hour 52 minutes]
Mr Yandell says,
“Let me put once more the argument:
If the Son is necessarily subordinate, then He is essentially subordinate
If the Son is essentially subordinate and the Father is not, then the Son is of a different essence than the Father
If the Son and the Father are different essences, then the Son has a different essence than the Father
And that denies the equal divinity of the members of the Trinity
(Conclusion)
RS entails ontological subordinationism”
-------------------
[2 hours 2 minutes]
Audience question for Mr Yandell:
“If the Son is necessarily the Son,
and the Father is necessarily not the Son,
then the Son is essentially the Son
and the Father is essentially not the Son.
Thus the Son is essentially different from the Father.
(Conclusion)
You must deny homousian on the basis of your premises.”
Yandell responds: “Why?? Why?? Why??”
*Laughter from crowd*
Bruce Ware chimes in “We can tell you.”
Yandall responds, “Well I’m sure you can from the lens of Greek philosophy.”
Yandell then goes on to give a lengthy explanation....but as far as I can tell he never actually answers the question.
Yes Yarnell conjures up a modal fallacy.
The logic isn’t sound. The Son isn’t “necessarily” the Son. The Son is the Son in relation to the Father. The Father is the Father in relation to the Son. And neither exists without the other. This isn’t a matter of attributes like the above quote. This is a matter of relative properties. So this is not a sound argument.
I sometimes get the feeling that opponents of EFS go there because they can't/won't address the scriptural arguments EFS proponents raise...
I was hoping to hear more from the guys on the right about what the eternal distinctions are. He just kept answering with postulations that he thinks apply to anything. The question was simple, “Are there any eternal distinctions within the Godhead? And if so, what are they? And how do you know what they are?”
Maybe they did answer it. I just didn’t catch it.
If the Triune Persons possess identical choices of the will in their nature (essence), why does the Father eternally will to beget the Son while the Son does not will to beget the Father?
@@savedchristian4754 That is an egregious misunderstanding. This would only be a problem of the father eternally willed to beget himself.
@@MaD-hp9hq
Why do you deny the differences in the will of the Father & the will of the Eternal Son in the issue of eternal generation?
@@savedchristian4754 Because there are not any. That the father wills the begetting of the son does not require that the son wills the begetting of the father unless the father wills the begetting of the father also. Your point is a non-sequitur
@@MaD-hp9hq
The Eternal Son could will to beget the Father but the Son didn't will. So there still is difference in their wills.
The question raised by Phil Gons was rather helpful I thought. I wish it had been addressed, but it seems it was either not heard or misunderstood.
I think you're right on this matter. He used their own argument against them, and they scolded him for it.
I listened again Nomosowicz, and I think I have a sufficient understanding of the question, and can explain it more clearly, and in such a way that it doesn't refute the one being questioned. Let it be known that a five lined syllogism is difficult for me written down, much less hearing it and being asked to respond.
1. The Son is necessarily the Son
2. The Father is necessarily not the Son
3. The Son is essentially the Son
4. The Father is essentially not the Son
Therefore the Son is essentially different from the Father
and must not be homoousion "one in being"
I do not think that 4 follows, or is even true. We would hopefully all agree that the Father and the Son are the same in essence, yet here Phil tries to say that the Father is essentially not the Son. If essential doesn't refer to the essence, to what does it refer? Nowhere do they state that the Father and the Son are essentially different, and this is the posit of Phil.
@@TangoFoxtrotRando I think you missed Phil's point. He was repurposing a syllogism Yandell introduced himself during his opening and repeated at least once during the debate. Yandell said something to the effect of, "If the Son is necessarily subordinate to the Father, then the Son is essentially subordinate to the Father." If your logic is added into the mix and any subordination of role occurs within the eminent Trinity then not only is the Son essentially subordinate to the Father, but the Father is also essentially subordinate to the Son. For that matter, by your logic, the Son is essentially subordinate to Himself! Yandells intention, I think, was to argue that despite their objections to the contrary, Grudem and Ware distinguish the Son from the Father ontologically. Phil was making the point that if Yandell's syllogism was correct a belief in the eternallity of the 3 persons as Father, Son, and Spirit (which Yandell affirms) itself was making a similar distinction. Phil pointed out that Yandell torpedoed a boat while standing on that very boat's deck.
@@TangoFoxtrotRando
Is not the Father who eternally beget the Son greater than the Son who didn't beget the Father?
@@ArchDLuxe Oh brother, it's been so long I can't remember. 😕
Two questions:
1. If Jesus became the Son only for and during the incarnation, when did the incarnation begin?
2. If God became incarnate in order to reach and save humans, how will the Trinity and saved humans relate to each other after the second coming/translation and in eternity, if there isn't any form of God incarnate that humans can relate to?
1) depends what you mean by "began" the incarnation was determined from eternity in the covenant of redemption but occured at the conception of the son in Bethlehem.
2) I think we still relate through the son as in the incarnation he not only took on human nature but eternally continues therein...
1:41:19 he spoke that verse incorrect , correct me if I’m wrong ,
was speaking the sons equality something he didn’t grasp ( equality to the father ) , I’ve never understood it to mean the father grasping it
Great job men,
I see no issue with es
Eternal Functional Subordination vs Temporal Incarnational Subordination
What is the distinction between Functional and Incarnational?
Could you not say Eternal Functional Subordination vs Temporal Functional Subordination?
I've been asking why it seems ok for the Son to be subordinate for the incarnation but not eternally. How do the same problems not apply?
The response I keep getting is the incarnation was Economic and not Ontological. It seems this is just an arbitrary category to posit to not have to address the same reality they want to deny for the EFS guys?
Any help on this would be appreciated
@@chrismatthews1762 The incarnation had two wills, and so you can say that while God has not submitted eternally Jesus in his Humanity submitted in the incarnation.
@@JosephRios_doulos_en_christos
Where does the Bible say that Jesus had two wills?
The incarnation never ended
22:00 “The consistent uniform testimony of scripture is that the father by virtue by virtue of being father eternally has authority to plan, initiate, command, and send. Authority, that the son and spirit do not have.”
Wow, that was so over the line. Does he have any concept of Christ being the image of the invisible God? The Holy Spirit being the specific presence of the omnipresent God?
This concept of being able to understand specific details of God’s state in eternity past is kinda bonkers.
@@CasperLCat
Is not the Father who eternally beget the Son greater than the Son who didn't beget the Father?
@@CasperLCat
So you deny the Eternal Son obeyed the Father?
@@CasperLCat
In the verse, 'for my Father is greater than I (John14:28)', you seem to say Jesus speaks from his human nature. But in the verse, 'I and my Father are one (John10:30)', you say that Jesus speaks from His divine nature. Why adopt double standards in interpreting the term 'I'?
@@CasperLCat
Why are you begging the question? Are you denying Jesus said the Father is greater than Him? Why did you quote Churchill etc irrelevantly?
@@savedchristian4754 Oh brother. If this were the 16th Century, the next step for someone like you would be to burn me at the stake, like your buddy Calvin did.
Regarding Jesus words, many theologians who don’t subscribe to ESS, might point to Philippians 2, that Jesus CHOSE to be subordinate to the Father during His Incarnation, so that this need not be an eternal relation. After all, Phil. 2 teaches Christ ALREADY HAD “equality with God” (meaning Yahweh) but laid it aside.
As for Churchill, if you can’t understand such a simple analogy, you might be cognitively impaired. I’d go get a CAT scan and have yourself checked out.
I'm not all the way through the debate yet, however one thing that comes to mind - which perhaps they will address - is the matter of "one mind". Jesus tells us repeatedly that he and the father "are one", meaning "of one mind". "I do always, and only, that which I see the father do". Because they are of like, in fact identical, in fact literally "one mind".
Given that.... given a case where two persons think identically in every and all situations, I do not see how the words "Authority", and "Submission" even have any meaning. If two people think exactly alike, they will agree exactly alike, and act exactly alike, and be in complete agreement in all things.
The notions of "Submission" and "obedience" are only possible where there is a *difference* of mind.
So, to me, the idea of the Son submitting to the Father, and the Son obeying the Father seem to suggest that there is a difference between the mind of the Father and the mind of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And since this is not so, talk of submission and obedience are literally meaningless.
For the Son to "obey" his Father implies the possibility of a difference between them in which the Son has to "submit" to the authority of the Father and obey. Again, when there is no possible way for the Son to differ from the Father, no obedience is necessary.
Robert Zeurunkl i think your point is really interesting. I do wonder, though, how Jesus' prayer that the cup of suffering would pass relates to the unity and submission.
My comment is directed at the three persons of the Trinity, in their deity. Jesus incarnate in the flesh is another matter altogether. Being veiled in the flesh of man, that's a different relationship, and Jesus, for that short period of time, was subject to the doubts and fears that all men are subject to. THERE, it required obedience and submission. But only there - in the relationship between the Son in the Flesh on Earth, and the Father in heaven, again, making Jesus our perfect role model. We are in the exact position he was in in the Garden. We face the fear of death, just as Jesus did also. He did it perfectly, and we take strength from seeing him do it, and hearing him tell us, we can do it too.
But once he put off our corruptible flesh, and returned to the Father, that perfect unity was restored, and I see no meaning in the words "submission" and "obedience", again, as our role model showing exactly how WE also will abide in heaven after we also put off this corruptible flesh and become in every way like Jesus in heaven also - no submission, and no obedience necessary because we then also will be of one, perfect, unified mind with the Father, just as the Son and Holy Spirit are.
I am *not* a trained or schooled theologian, so this is all my own, highly subjective opinion. And you should take it as nothing more than that. OK?
@@robertzeurunkl8401
A very apt opinión.
Is glad submission not really submission then?
@@robertzeurunkl8401
In the verse, 'for my Father is greater than I (John14:28)', you seem to say Jesus speaks from his human nature. But in the verse, 'I and my Father are one (John10:30)', you say that Jesus speaks from His divine nature. Why adopt double standards in interpreting the term 'I'?
Would love to see a debate between Grudem and Greg Stafford . Just as Stafford trumped James White, it would be a pleasure to see Stafford do the same with Grudem!
Are you a Jehovah's witness? Read John 1:1.
Round and Round and round ~~~cant get out of words
Very good debate, to see that the son of God Jesus, manifests his divinity ( the divine attributes) under the submission of the father. And likewise the spirit in submission to both the son and the Father. So yes there is a relational difference which accounts for the economic revelation of God in creation and redemption. Father, son and spirit are not in relationship to the incarnation but essentially to the being of God and the way God deigns for us to know him, So that we can worship father, son and spirit as distinct in their work but as the true God in all the unique worship given to each according to their work/role. Another element is how each glorifies the other, the father glorifies the son as the son of God, and son the father as God the father, then the spirit the son and Vice versa. Each person gives glory to each other as God in their distinct functions and role.
Main point from the EFS perspective @ 21:30. Seems irrefutable from a Biblical perspective
Heretic
Yandall seems to be confused about what and when in terms of begotten. Was it Jerusalem, was it at the incarnation? He doesn't seem to be clear on it.
50:00
He tried to say the Son only submits to the Father in His human nature in 1 Corinthians 15:28. That's a copout though, and a dangerous one at that. Once Jesus ascended and was exalted by the Father, we can no longer say aspects of His humiliation are true. For example, Jesus was not functionally omnipresent during His humiliation, but He is functionally omnipresent in His exaltation. Jesus was not functionally omnipotent in His humiliation, but He is functionally omnipotent in His exaltation. Jesus was not functionally omniscient in His humiliation, but He is functionally omniscient in His exaltation. What's the point? Once Jesus was exalted, all limitations upon how He functioned were removed. This presents a problem though for this debater. He says Jesus submits to the Father in 1 Corinthians 15:28 post-exaltation in His humanity only. We can't affirm that though. If the Son only submits to the Father in His humiliation in the incarnation (as proposed by this debater), and if the Son continues to submit to the Father in 1 Corinthians 15:28 only in His humanity, then by logical necessity he must believe that Jesus is not exalted, not fully at least. He must affirm that Jesus is still humiliated, which is a dangerous doctrine indeed.
You make a good point that Jesus' human nature submitting to the Father during the incarnation vs post exaltation would be the same scenario so it would beg the question, what is the difference between these two states? As you said it's that there are no functional limits to Jesus' partaking of the divine essence. So, is Jesus' submission to the Father a functional limit? If yes, then eternal submission is invalid. If it is not a limit, then eternal submission is valid though there is more continuity between pre and post exaltation than comfortable.
I'm curious for those who feel submission is only in the incarnation
How do you separate out the Son's submission in the temporal acts of redemption from his submission in the eternal covenant of redemption in which he was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world?
Does this not suggest a submission that occurred in eternity and was worked out in time?
(This isn't a gotcha question, I'm genuinely interested)
Hi Michael-thanks for your question. It's a complicated and important issue, and there's been plenty of theological writing about it in the past ten years or so. Here's a helpful introduction to some of the issues: credomag.com/2019/07/does-the-son-eternally-submit-to-the-father-methodological-considerations-part-1/
47:35, "The Son is sent by the Spirit."
No, no, a thousand times no. The Spirit never "pempos" the Son in Scripture. Do a word study on "pempō," and that will be self-evident. The closest you'll get to that assertion is the Spirit leading the Son into the wilderness, but that applies to the incarnation. The Son was functionally lower in authority to the Spirit (and angels) during His humiliation. That has no bearing on the EFS debate though.
Agreed - in the incarnation the God man is led by the Spirit as our example but it is the Father and not Spirit who sends and gives the Son...
Can the eternal role subordination (RS) position of Ware/Grudem be expressed or articulated without presupposing time making it economic only? For example, how can subordination be expressed without movement in time? To choose, predestine or plan all presuppose time. To move from a moment of counsel to a moment of conclusion. Grudem in his opening statement says such things with no awareness of this fact. Seems to me that one should not project into eternity past revelations sensible only in time.
Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Psa.131:1
The metaphysics professor presented a trinity of clones… I would have asked how that does not make two of them redundant. Additionally there is no approximate human analogy to this horror as even identical twins raised in the same house are distinct in many measurable ways.
46:45, he rejects the notion that someone being sent requires functional submission to the one sending. Do a word study of the word "pempō," meaning "send," and you'll see that without exception when the NT uses that verb, and when the subject and object are both persons, the sender has authority over the sent. Without exception. So, he can say, "I reject the premise," but then he has to deal with Scripture, which us unanimously against him.
Yes, the FATHER CREATED THROUGH THE SON.
THE FATHER IS THE INITIATOR of creation.
49:00
His attempt to address 1 Corinthians 15 is embarrassing. He knows it's embarrassing too. You can see it on his face and in how he speaks. Statements like, "We're not told how long this submission will go on" is such a bad example of begging the question that it really undermined his entire rebuttal.
1:57:29 I reject this claim completely, that is one divine intervention that is not the begining of or the coming to, anthropomorphic language shouldn’t confuse us, but understand the explanation , loved his speech but reject what was said lol
1st camp: Grudem defends position with primarily the Bible.
2nd camp: seems to be relying on philosophy far more than scripture.
I'm sticking with Grudem's responsible defense.
Jhon 10:18 shows that eternal subordination is wrong.
He wills to die on his own, he was not forced.
Pharisees: “But the scriptures say this!!!”
Jesus: “You do not understand the intent of the scriptures” (paraphrase obviously)
Though I agree that the 4th speaker’s presentation was way too philosophical and not-relevant.
Satan “knows” scripture too
I only clicked on the video because the speakers names are Bruce and Wayne. This proves so much. Batman IS god.
Só faltou uma legenda em inglês.
after listening to the discussion a couple of times---I came away thinking Grudem and Ware sure sounded a lot like the Arians. Prof. Grudem misrepresented the position held by Arius. Arius, simply stated "before he was, he was not" he believed the Word/Jesus, came into existence, prior to 'TIME'. It was very informative.
Is not the Father who eternally beget the Son greater than the Son who didn't beget the Father?
Read the Creeds that establish the Trinity folks
The word GODHEAD is not a koine Greek word. It is an attempt to create a TRINITY. Three different greek words translated twice as Godhead in the KJV is deceptive. The three texts often referred
to simply mean DIVINE. JOHN 17:3 is quite plain!
God the Almighty is the Father of the Son! The Father and God of the Lord Jesus. The Trinity doctrine is NOT BIBLE DOCTRINE.