Why should evangelicals reject eternal functional subordination? Michael Bird & Matthew Barrett

Подписаться 2,6 тыс.

Просмотров 8 тыс.

50% 1

This is a series of conversations between major theologians and Matthew Barrett on the doctrine of the Trinity based on his new book, Simply Trinity: The Unmanipulated Father, Son, and Spirit (Baker, 2021).
In this video, Michael Bird and Matthew Barrett discuss the problematic theological method that leads to the conclusions of EFS (eternal functional subordination of the Son). Instead of a narrow biblicism, Bird and Barrett suggest reading the Bible with the Church through a trinitarian lense. As Bird states, “The Trinity is not a proof text, it is a hermeneutic. It is what you need to make sense of Scripture.” But this leads to further questions. For example, how should the scriptures be read if we reject the hermenuetic principles of EFS - what Bird calls the “sausage maker” method? How can we avoid presenting our social agenda as the “imago trinitatis”? Barrett and Bird discuss these topics along with Nana’s poisonous mushrooms, the Wizard of Oz, and the differences between Rahner’s rule and Augustine’s rules.

Опубликовано:

25 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 44

@David-il4ct 3 года назад

Thank you for this conversation. Appreciate it!

@andrewsanford3320 2 года назад

Wonderful discussion. Extremely helpful. The part of the discussion about the role of the Spirit in the economy of salvation breaking the logic of EFS was really insightful. Thank you both for your contributions to the Church as Teachers of the flock.

@paulsemakula8600 3 года назад

Great interview. I done my MA dissertation back in 2016 on this very topic and in particular as it relates to the egalitarian/complimentarian debate. I came to the same conclusions as both of you. God bless

@TorrinCooper Год назад

Great interview!

@transparentzwindows 3 года назад

Thank you for discussing this.

@RoyalClothMinistries 4 месяца назад

Thank you for the conversation

@maranatapalle 3 года назад

This would do very good as a podcast. Me, personally, I don't have the time to sit by the computer for an hour - but could listen to this kind of conversation for hours at work or when I'm out on a walk.

@doingthingscheap7911 2 месяца назад

Good discussion. Jump to 18 min for the actual discussion.

@RoyalClothMinistries 4 месяца назад

We are made in his image. We should refer back to the pattern for understanding…seeing as all life is based on the signature of this creator

@felixguerrero6062 3 года назад

If I recall correctly Bird at one time defended EFS and even quoted Rahner rules in its defence. 🥴

@jaspin555 4 месяца назад

On the obedience of the Son to the father understood as order instead of authority and the danger of saying authority...someone should have warned Paul when he says that every man is the head of his wife, as christ is the head of the man, and God is the head of christ.

@tonywolfemusic5920 2 года назад

Except in your analogy with the mushroom, if you even think that your nana, who happens to bear a lot of questionable fruit and gives you loads of awful nutrition advice, might be giving you some more terrible advice about the mushroom, she’ll burn you alive at the stake before you can even eat it. But hey, tradition, right?

@joshpeterson2451 2 года назад

Funny that he mentions the Spirit in the discussion of EFS. I wonder if he realizes that the Spirit is the ace in the hole for the EFS debate, because as the Son functionally submits to the Father for all eternity, the Spirit submits to the Father and the Son for all eternity, and you can't appeal to the incarnation as the basis of His submission. We know this because the Father and Son pempō the Spirit, a verb that always denotes authority and submission when the subject and object are persons. We also the Spirit submits to the Son because in John 16:13-14, the incarnate Jesus says that the Spirit doesn't speak on His own authority, but speaks by the Son's authority and reveals what the Son tells Him to reveal. That's submission in the Godhead.

@christopherskipp1525 2 года назад

Because such a position is mere speculation?

@thomasglass9491 2 года назад

@Christopher Skipp Is clear that eternal generation is biblical, and efs is nowhere in scripture.

@dpastor6631 2 года назад

There is but one true, eternal, immutable and living God. He is one in being - pure, simple, impassible, omnipresent and eternal spirit. God is also three in person. The persons of the Triune Godhead are not thirds of God, are not modes of God, are not three Gods, none are adopted or created, greater or less than for each person of the Trinity is coequal and co-eternal. Also, the Father is not the Son and is not the Spirit. The Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit. The Spirit is neither the Son nor the Father. And yet, to see the Son is to see the Father and so on. And yet, it was not the Son who sent the Father. The Father sent the Son, the Father and Son sent the Spirit. The Father was not incarnate, the Father sent the Son. When thinking of authority and submission we must be very careful not to perceive those categories according to what we see in creation nor should we extrapolate from creation our understanding of authority and submission as if God were just a higher version of man. IMHO, it is not necessary to reject eternal authority and submission within the Triune Godhead in order to preserve eternal equality and oneness of the Triune Godhead as if one necessitated the rejection of another. I think there are some wrong assumptions. First, if there be authority and submission within the three persons of the Trinity we must reject any notions of "greater than" or "less than" when thinking of authority and submission among the three persons. That is a creaturely and created aspect of authority and submission within creation which is nevertheless not true in God Himself. In other words, the presence of greater than or less than in matters of authority and submission in the creation could not be reflective of what would be a mystery in the Triune Godhead - an authority and submission that does NOT necessitate greater than or less than. Also, if there be authority and submission within the Triune Godhead this does not mean that this indicates any sort of complimentarianism such as we see in the relationship between a man and a woman. Again, this would be to make the mistake of extrapolating these aspects of authority and submission in the created order and assume the same be true only to a greater degree in God. No, eternal authority and submission in God would not necessitate some form of complimentarianism. In fact, complimentarianism in God should be positively rejected. I would argue that authority and submission may well be present among the three persons of the Trinity WITHOUT necessitating either the concept of greater than and lesser than OR complimentarianism (which are both creaturely qualities), but that authority and submission within the Triune Godhead is a mystery not to be explained or explained away by any earthly illustration or comparison....for the same exact reason we do not accept illustrations to explain the Trinity in general (because all "illustrations" of the Trinity are futile because God alone is unique. So, I would argue, in divine mystery, for both egalitarianism and authority and submission while rejecting all notions in this authority and submission derived from the creation such as greater than/less than or complementarianism. So that God is one being (pure and eternal and simple spirit) and three persons (co equal and co eternal, not greater or less than nor complimentary) but a divine and mysterious authority and submission that cannot be rightly understood by illustrations from creation, much like the Trinity itself, this is a kind of authority and submission that is unique to God. Wherein would we see this? In such passages as Psalm 2, John 17 in that there is an eternal aspect of the Father possessing and then giving a people to the Son, in that the Son was to be sent by the Father (as determined in eternity) and not just an historical event of history. It is the Father who determines to enthrone the Son (even before the incarnation - Psalm 2). It is the Father who sends the Son...and not the other way around. This is not to reject the Triune works of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, only to recognize biblical distinctions of the works of the persons, distinctions which reflect mysterious aspects of authority and submission. In other words, I think it is a mistake to conclude that eternal, immutable equality among the three persons of the Trinity negates the concept of authority and submission or requires some sort of ranking or complimentarianism. Rather, co-equal, co-eternal, non complimentarian, non-greater than/less than authority and submission in a way utterly unique to God and not adequately understood by any creaturely categories, but divine mystery. To put it another way, rejection of authority and submission to sustain egalitarianism is no more necessary than rejecting the Trinity altogether to avoid Tri-theism or some other heresy. I think there is a category error such that in being and perfection there is absolute eternal and immutable equality which includes a mystery of authority and submission un like anything seen in the creaturely realm AND that the relationship of Father and Son in the incarnation is, to some degrees REFLECTIVE IN but in no sense CAUSED BY the incarnate condition. So, I would argue for eternal egalitarianism and eternal authority and submission completely detached from creaturely categories or greater than/less than or complimentarianism or the incarnate state is the biblical model. I think to reject this is rejecting a mystery simply because we cannot understand it by creaturely/creation comparison. In think this egalitarian AND authority and submission, an equality of being and persons but some distinction role and function (unrelated to creaturely categories). Else, you end up with it not mattering in any sense if the Son had sent the Father to be incarnate. That the Spirit could have an inheritance to give to the Father and so on.

@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 3 года назад

Hebrews5:7NASB" in the days of his humanity,He offered up both prayers and pleas with loud crying and tears to the ONE able to save him from death,and He was heard because of His devout behavior." Galatians1:1NASB" Paul,an apostle (not sent from men nor through human agency,but through Jesus Christ..." Don't apostle's words indicate that the resurrected Christ is the post incarnate Christ. The super/transhuman Christ?

@mikeschmoll7762 3 года назад

I have a question :) God is self-sufficient, not dependent on anything and anyone. How can we then say Jesus is God if he derived his essence from the father in eternity past? I know otherwise we would have three gods but I'm struggling to understand how I can say Jesus is God but his essence is dependent on the derivation from the father. I really appreciate any help!

@thomasglass9491 2 года назад

@Mike Schmoll Because he is begotten, but is not dependence, is by necessity. If you read begotten as human then you will think like the arians, Jesus is created. But as John 1:1 says the Word is eternal. The Father eternally begets his Son by necessity in such a way that the substance (divine essence) of God is not divided. There is a communication of the whole, indivisible substance of the Godhead so that God the Son is the exact representation (or express image) of God the Father. There is still one divine essence that eternally exists in two persons through eternal generation. Because if that is not true, then we will have 2 different gods with the Father and the Son.

@jodyel Месяц назад

@@thomasglass9491 Hardest thing I have ever tried to wrap my brain around...truly. Thanks for that explanation. Whew!

@clopez6819 2 года назад

48:26 if you can see here that proponents of EFS say Jesus is the same in essence but then use his person, his identity as Son, to subordinate him, then ironically they inadvertently subordinate him ontologically. If you can see that, and you point it out yourself, then why can you not see that kind of inconsistency in the husband wife relationship in the complementarian doctrine of equal in value separate in role. If you have the ability to deconstruct the fallacy of the argument concerning the Trinity then you ought to be able to see the incompatibility in the complementarian doctrine. A woman/ wife cannot be equal to her husband and subordinate in role because her subordination is rooted in her person and is immutable. I’m not asking for the Trinity to settle the debate on gender roles, I’m begging for consistent reasoning. Either reject complementarianism and hold to patriarchy’s historic confession of the inferiority of women or fully accept women as equal in all areas of life, authority and spirituality. The way EFS is dismantled at this point demands a rejection of complementarianism for the sake of consistency. We deny that *separate but equal* is logically consistent for people of color. We deny that the Son *equal in essence subordinate in role* is logically consistent for Jesus. We must deny that women are *equal in value subordinate in role*, it is logically inconsistent. Either hold to patriarchy and the inferiority of women or release them from such psychologically manipulative restraints as fully equal members of the royal priesthood and family of God.

@joshpeterson2451 2 года назад

Why do you assume that the functional relationship of the eternal Son submitting to the eternal Father logically demands ontological subordination? The Son is eternally generated by the Father. That logically requires ontological equality but functional submission. Just as sons are the same essence as their fathers yet submit to them, so too is the Son the same essence as the Father, yet He submits to Him. That's why they are Father and Son, not brothers. Brothers have the same essence but equal authority relationally. That's not an accurate reflection of that relationship between Father and Son.

@clopez6819 2 года назад

@@joshpeterson2451 the Father son relationship in fallen humanity does not and cannot mirror the relationship in the Trinity Even Earthy Fathers only have temporary authority over their sons. God the Son is as eternal as God the Father, as mature as God the Father, completely one with God the Father in such a way that they are one divine mystery. Human relationship simply doesn’t translate when you have finite human beings that going through separate developmental stages that the Trinity never experiences whatsoever. Again humanly speaking a Son ages out from under parental authority, but say that wasn’t the case, say 80 year old sons were to submit to their 100 year old fathers authority over them. Just because the son is a son he must always obey his father about every personal matter, dad makes all the desions and has the final say over his sons life. We would conclude the inferiority of the son to the father. We would admit the seniority of the Father. Agains if this translated to the Trinity Then they are not equal and they can never be one and therefore God the Son would be a lesser God always under the authority of a great God. Taken to its logical conclusion functional subordination on the basis of personhood or relationship -who that person is, their core identity, their fixed and unchangeable state- necessarily communicates inferiority and lower status. I’m definitely not saying that the Son never submits to the Father we know that’s not the case but to subordinate Jesus even just functionally is to make him a lesser god and all christians polytheists.

@joshpeterson2451 Год назад

@@clopez6819, "The father-son relationship in fallen humanity does not and cannot mirror the relationship in the Trinity." Then why did they reveal themselves as Father and Son? Seriously, why not "brothers"? Brothers have the same ontology and the same authority, so why not? Fathers have functional authority over their sons and the same ontology as their sons, so this relationship is a perfect description of the Father-Son relationship. The difference is the Father and Son are eternally Father and Son, whereas human fathers precede their sons in time. "Even earthly fathers only have temporary authority over their sons." Not true. They are always functionally higher on the totem pole. "God the Son is as eternal as God the Father, as mature as God the Father, completely one with God the Father in such a way that they are one divine mystery." As long as if by "one with God the Father" you're referring to them having the same divine essence, I agree. "We would conclude the inferiority of the son to the father. We would admit the seniority of the father." Just like Scripture says. Jesus says the Father is greater than Him. Paul says the Son will give the kingdom to the Father and submit to Him for all eternity, so that the Father will be all in all. The Father, Son, and Spirit are equal in intrinsic glory, but they receive varying levels of ascribed glory. Jesus says the Holy Spirit glorifies Him, and He says He glorifies the Father. "Then, they are not equal, and they can never be one, and therefore God the Son would be a lesser God always under the authority of a great God." You are confusing ontology and function. To say the Son submits to the Father relationally does not mean the Son is not equal to the Father ontologically. They are one because they have the same essence. That's what the Nicene Creed says, and, more importantly, that's what Scripture teaches. They are both Yahweh (as well as the Spirit too). Therefore, they are one. This does not make the Son a lesser god, however. You are conflating categories and getting worked up for no reason. "Taken to its logical conclusion, functional subordination on the basis of personhood or relationship, who that person is, their core identity, their fixed and unchangeable state necessarily communicates inferiority and lower status." It depends what you mean by "inferiority" and "lower status." Scripture tells us that there is a hierarchy of ascribed glory. The Holy Spirit causes creation to glorify the Son, while the Son causes creation to glorify the Father, while the Father causes creation to glorify the Son, while the Son gives everything to the Father, so that the Father would be all-in-all. That has nothing to do with intrinsic glory though, which is equally present in the Father, Son, and Spirit. Also, you are acting as if the roles of the Trinity were not assumed and agreed upon in eternity. You're acting like the Son was forced into being submissive, rather than voluntarily and gladly assuming that role. "I'm definitely not saying that the Son never submits to the Father. We know that's not the case. But to subordinate Jesus even just functionally is to make Him a lesser god and all Christians polytheists." You started out great, then veered hard at the end there. If Jesus submits to the Father, then He is subordinate to the Father. Those words are synonyms. It's all hupatasso in Greek. You just admitted that the Son submits to the Father. That makes Him functionally subordinate in that moment. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you think Jesus being subordinate to the Father is polytheism, then you are a polytheist, because you just admitted that the Son submits to the Father. However, I disagree with the conclusion. Agreeing that Jesus submits to the Father in eternity does not make you a polytheist. It makes you biblical.

@clopez6819 Год назад

@@joshpeterson2451 recommending “The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity” by Kevin Giles. You make a lot of great points and I’m positive I’m not being 100% articulate as I could be and probably failing to make my points completely. Your style of writing, breaking apart my paragraphs and dismantling them tell me you enjoy this sort of thing. Lol I do not. Thank you for your input I still walk away in disagreement but seek out where my points are contradictory and try to make them more clear next time.

@Bible33AD 7 месяцев назад

Can you share scripture verses that Jesus God is eternally subordinate to the Father? Also, from early church fathers? Who were students of the apostles who studied under Christ?

@ronl514 3 года назад

Post Ascension Christ sat down at the Father's right hand (a place of authority and rule) who does Jesus the now/forever God-man make intercession to?? (on our behalf) acc to Rev 13:8 KJV or NIV Jesus (the Son) the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world (from all eternity) not the Father not the Spirit! I am no Arian, but I do find/see some degree/kind of authority and order within the Immanent Trinity and I would suggest that authority and order do not rule out equality.....seems to me that that is a "supposition" of modern western egalitarianism

@thomasglass9491 2 года назад

@Ron L As Matthew Barrett said in his book, you’re confusing the eternal plan of salvation with the immanent trinity. God doesn’t depend to be God if the Lamb of God is slain or not. That’s not the immanent trinity, that’s a eternal plan of God in creation, not his essence.

@collin501 2 года назад

@@thomasglass9491 But are there many verses describing the relationship of Father and Son outside of that context? And if the answer is no, then how do you disprove EFS out of biblical revelation? I definitely hold to the persons of the trinity being of the same essence, and that essence could not be less than the perfection that it is. And yet, the Son was submissive during His incarnate state, and He did not cease to be God at that time, right? I suppose you could say the part of Him that was divine was not in submission, but how could that be because the part of Him that was divine took on flesh, right? And if submission makes one lesser, how is it possible that the Son of God incarnated? He would cease to be God! Or is this somehow not the case? Also, I think it works with a single will and consciousness within the triune God as well, since it would be that one will of God that is adhered to by the Son who carries out that will. The Son might say that it is very will even if that will came from the Father through the Son. Why would that make the Son lesser or lead to tri theism if He indeed had the will?

@joshpeterson2451 2 года назад

In 1 Corinthians 15:28, it doesn't say "Christ" is hupatassō to the Father for all eternity. It says "The Son." They're the same person, but the title "The Son" is important. It's God the Son submitting to the Father, not just the human nature of Christ. Furthermore, these men just denied the exaltation of Christ. They think that Jesus is still in a humbled state, like in His incarnation on earth pre-ascension. After all, they say Jesus submitted to the Father in the incarnation because He wasn't exalted. Well, if Jesus submits for eternity because of His status as the human Christ, then I guess He isn't exalted yet. Yikes. Or, you can just be biblical and affirm EFS.

@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 3 года назад

One does not need the trinity to make sense of Jesus' being call ed god any more than one needs it to make sense of Moses' being called god see exodus7:1 or the holy angels being called gods psalms8:5. Or Hebrew nation's rulers being called gods see psalm82:1-6,john10:34.

@Eloign 3 года назад

Moses was not called God. Actually read the passage. The angels are elohim not the Most High. I really encourage you to listen to some Michael Heiser to clarify some of the stuff.

@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 3 года назад

the Lord JEHOVAH himself called Moses a God at exodus 7:1that is far more glorious than being called a God by men . And I never claimed that anyone other than the God and Father of Jesus is the most high God. If you consult your copy of strong's you will see that God (elohom/theos)can also be used in the sense of the vicegerents of God whether earthly of heavenly see psalms82:6,John10:34.

@Eloign 3 года назад

@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 go ahead and post the quote. He did not call Moses GOD. He said he would be like God to Pharaoh. Huge difference.

@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 3 года назад

Exodus7:1KJV"1And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet" Note I never said Moses or the angels were the most high God.

@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 3 года назад

Like in Greek there is no indefinite article in Hebrew.

@Bolagh 2 года назад

It’s not a trinitarian revelation unless it’s imposed on the text. Bird’s book on ‘7 things every Christian should know’, goes against everything they’re claiming when it comes to the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible teaches GOD IS ONE, and the Son of GOD is the Incarnation of that ONE INDIVISIBLE GOD.

@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 3 года назад

Psalms83:18KJV"That men may know that thou,whose name ALONE is JEHOVAH,art the MOST HIGH over all the earth." Note please that there is but one named JEHOVAH. Note also that this one is THE MOST HIGH. Thus if ones God is associated with two equals (e.g the trinitarian Jesus). He is not the Lord JEHOVAH.