Is the Son Subordinate to the Father in Heaven?

 

My attention was drawn to the above video on Twitter<X>, in which Doug Wilson and James White are having a conversation about the doctrine of the Trinity. The Twitter<X> post can be seen in the following screenshot image (click to enlarge):

And here is the transcript:

“For the dozen or so folks left in social media who are actually honest. Here’s my discussion with DW [Doug Wilson] on the Trinity, EFS [Eternal Functional Subordination] etc., wherein I affirm the Son as αυτοθεος, reject EFS (without then attempting to burn all those who hold it at the stake), etc. It is, of course, tiring to have to correct the constant misrepresentation, but, it truly seems many on social media are only concerned about looks, not truth.”

EFS (Eternal Functional Subordination) relates to the question of whether God the Son continues eternally to be subordinate to the Father within the Trinity, in eternity in heaven; or whether that subordination relates only to his earthly ministry, during his mortal experience? I found an article in Wikipedia about it which explains it as follows:

“Eternal functional subordination or Eternal subordination of the Son is a Trinitarian doctrine which proposes a hierarchy within the Trinity, where though the Son is ontologically equal to the Father, He is subordinate in role, obeying the Father in eternity. … Eternal Subordination is contrasted with the view held by Augustine, where the obedience of the Son to the Father is only by virtue of His human nature.

• • •

“Wayne Grudem holds that the Son eternally submits to the Father, arguing that authority is not an attribute of God but of relationship. Grudem however denies that the doctrine of eternal subordination implies three wills in God, instead saying that God has one will but three distinctive expressions of that will. However, its critics have argued that Wayne Grudem’s view of the divine will is contradictory.”

The Greek word αυτοθεος (autotheos) is defined in English lexicons to mean “very God”. It is an expression of the so-called “aseity” (self-existence, self sufficiency) of God. Doug Wilson and James White evidently hold to that view. Here is a quote from that conversation, starting at 11:34 minutes into the video (emphasis added):

Doug:

“Everybody agrees that the Incarnate Son obeyed his Father; everybody agrees that Jesus in his humanity was submissive to the Father; and so a proof text that shows that the Incarnate one obeyed his Father, is neither here nor there in this discussion. The issue is not, Did God the Father send his Son to the cross at Jerusalem; the issue is, Did God the Father send his Son into the world? So the decision for … the Second Person in the Trinity to become incarnate; the question is whether that was a “sending”? So all the “sending” in [within] the human life of Christ is immaterial to the point under discussion. So we are talking about, is there Authority and Submission at any level of any kind within the Godhead, apart from a world even having been created?”

James:

“Right, so in other words, when we talk about the Eternal Covenant Redemption; the idea that the Father, Son, the Spirit—and we don’t say this temporally, but logically at some point in time—chose to create in such a way as to bring maximum glory to to the Godhead; and each of those divine Persons took the roles they took—was there a necessary hierarchy of relationship prior to that, that would have marked the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit in their relationship to one another—so the eternal subordination, not just to a temporal.”

Doug:

“Such that when the Incarnation happened, it was not conceivable that the Father would be the one who would become incarnate.”

James:

“That is one of the issues that comes up, exactly.”

Doug:

“Right, so now the problem—I would go back, and we both used that term for our viewers, talking about God in his essence, apart from the Incarnation, apart from the world. We are talking about the relationships of this Persons of the Trinity odd intra, within himself, without reference to the outside world, you know.”

James:

“And creation, and anything that comes from how he acts in time. This is God considered simply as God.”

Doug:

“Right, the way he is now. So the argument is, the people who are concerned about the economic, the eternal subordination of the Son, will say, this necessitates two wills; because I have never seen a command, and an obedience to that command, that didn’t entail two wills—which you do have in the garden [of Gethsemane]. So Christ says, Nevertheless not my will, but your will; so you have two wills there; but again, that is the Incarnate Christ saying that. So if you say ESS [Eternal Subordination of the Son] requires that you stipulate that the … Godhead has two or three wills, then that would be heretical; that really is heresy proper. But the issue is, how much of this is us trying to get operate above our pay grade; so when we get into the inner workings of the Trinity before the world was created, I like to think of it as junebugs trying to do quantum physics!”

Well I have good news for these folks (or bad news, depending on how they want to look at it!); all of that painful philosophical and hypothetical speculation can be avoided by simply staying close to the word of God. Firstly, the Bible certainly does teach that God the Father sent The Son into the world—contrary to Doug Wilson’s false assumptions and speculations:

John 3:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 4:

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1 John 4:

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

John 5:

37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

That alone is sufficient to negate Doug Wilson’s argument completely (and James White’s also, who is agreeing with him). But there is more. In the following verses, the Son is made subordinate to the Father in his divinity, not just in his humanity. The Father is God over the Son now, in his divinity, not just in his humanity:

John 20:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jesus spoke those words after his resurrection and glorification, not in his mortality. In other words, God the Father is God over the Son now in heaven, in their triunity, not just in his mortality.

Matthew 28:

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The same here. Jesus spoke these words after his resurrection, glorification, and ascension into heaven. When he says, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth,” it implies that there was someone greater than him, or above him, who gave all of that “power” unto him—after his glorification and ascension into heaven. And the following verses further confirm the above:

Romans 15:

6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:

31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Ephesians 1:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

• • •

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.

Ephesians 5:

20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Colossians 1:

2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

1 Peter 1:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

These refer to the Deity of the Father over the Son in their current state within the Trinity or the Godhead. Indeed, Inherent in the idea of “father” and “son,” is seniority and subordination. A son is always junior and subordinate​ to a father. The very fact that concepts of “father” and “son” are employed in the description of the Trinity, necessarily implies seniority and subordination. In his final prayer to the Father Jesus says:

John 17:

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

That refers to Jesus Christ in his divinity, not humanity. And in case anyone should still have any doubts, the following verses nails it down completely:

1 Corinthians 15:

27 For he [the Father] hath put all things under his [the Son’s] feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him [the Son], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [the Father] that put all things under him, that God [the Father] may be all in all.

The Bible teaches that God the Father elevated Jesus Christ “Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.” (Ephesians 1:21-22) The implication of that is that God the Father is, and continues to be, and will forever remain, higher and greater in dominion and authority over the Son. 

But there is still more. Doug Wilson raises a question: are there two “wills” in the Father and the Son, or one will? Do the Father and the Son each have their own independent “wills” (in eternity, in their divine triunity); or do they have one will? The Bible talks about the “unity” of the Father and the Son, that they are “one”. Does that mean that they have one identical “will;” or does it mean that they each have their own independent wills—but voluntarily choose to harmonize their wills, so that they act in perfect harmonious unison with each other? Doug Wilson evidently thinks that they have one identical will. But the Bible says something different:

John 17:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

• • •

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

What that tells us is that the “unity” that the Father and the Son have is, or will be identical to the unity of the Saints with them—no difference. It even goes so far as to say that they will have the same identical glory that the Father and the Son have—in order that they may be made “one” with the Father and the Son, as the Father and the Son are one with each other. There will be no difference between the “oneness” of the Father and the Son; and the “oneness” of the Saints with them. So there can only be one conclusion: their Calvinistic or Reformed theology is heretical, unbiblical, and false—from start to finish, from the beginning to the end—and the sooner they ditch it, the better it will be for all concerned.

Discovering the Truth About the Church!

 

I came across the above video in which Angela Erickson interviews Jeremy Christiansen about his story of conversion from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the Catholic Church, and a book that he has written on the subject. I had previously discussed Jeremy Christiansen’s story in earlier blog posts, and my aim here is not to get into any further discussion about that. But Angela Erickson comes across to me as a reasonable kind of person, and my advice to her is that if she really wants to learn the truth about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, her best bet is not to talk to Jeremy Christiansen. That would be like trying to find out the truth about Catholicism by talking to Martin Luther! My advice to her would be to read the Book of Mormon for herself, impartially and prayerfully, with an open mind, and a sincere desire to know of its truth. The Book of Mormon is a book of ancient scripture like the Bible; and contains a promise within it, that those who study it in faith, with a sincere desire to know of its truth, and ask God in faith, the truth of it will be revealed to them by the power of the Holy Ghost. Here is the quote:

Moroni 10:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.

And the testimony of the Holy Ghost is not the same as “feelings”. Jeremy Christiansen likes to dismiss that as “feelings”. Well it is not. The Bible teaches that the Holy Ghost reveals truth:

John 14:

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 16:

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1 John 2:

20 But ye have an unction [anointing] from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

• • •

27 But the anointing [Holy Ghost] which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

That is what the Bible teaches. That is how St. Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God:

Matthew 16:

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven [i.e. by the Holy Ghost].

Peter knew something. He wasn’t just grassing, or having a nice “feeling” about it. That is how the testimony of the Holy Ghost works. If Jeremy Christiansen doesn’t believe that, why is that our problem? That is his problem, not ours. By the testimony of the Holy Ghost one can know that the Book of Mormon is true, and is the word of God; not just have nice “feelings” about it. My advice to Angela Erickson is to read the Book of Mormon for herself, impartially and prayerfully, and with an open mind, and an honest desire to know of its truth; and the promise of the Lord is that the truth of it will be made known to her by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things. That is what the Bible teaches (John 16:13).

Voddie Baucham on the Sovereignty of God!

 

I found the above sermon by Voddie Baucham preached at the G3 Ministries National Conference held in November 2023. The general theme of the conference apparently is the “sovereignty of God;” and his particular speaking assignment is to talk about the “sovereignty of God and the sanctity of marriage”—which is a strange kind of assignment, because those are two separate subjects, and it is difficult to talk about both in the same context—which explains why he is having a hard time combining them together; or preaching about both at the same time. He solves the problem by trying to portray the current “sexual revolution,” and the attempt at dismantling the traditional Christian sexual and moral ethics, and the sanctity of marriage etc., as a “war against the sovereignty of God”. After the initial introductory remarks, at 1:03 minutes into the video he begins his sermon as follows:

“Well, couple of things: my assignment today is to address ‘the sovereignty of God, and the sanctity of marriage’ … If I had to title this message, it would be not ‘the sovereignty of God, and the sanctity of marriage;’ but ‘the sexual revolution as a war against the sovereignty of God;’ … and particularly, ‘a war against the sovereignty of God and the sanctity of marriage’. And what I want to do is, I want to look at a couple of passages of scripture. I want us to start in Genesis, and then we are going to go to Romans 1; and we are going to look at Romans 1 in light of what God has done, what the sovereign God of the universe has done in creation, as it relates to man and woman, and marriage and family.”

Then skipping down to 24:28 minutes into the video, he develops his theological perspective as follows:

“The sexual revolution as a war against the sovereignty of God begins with a war against God as creator; because if God is creator, then God is sovereign; if God is creator, he has the right to rule his creation. So if you are going to go to war against something that God has made, God has designed, and God has given; the first thing that you have to do is, you have to somehow negate God’s right to rule, in whatever sphere it is that you are trying to rebel; and that is where we begin—not with disagreements about whether or not the text truly says what we think that the text says. We may start off with that, but at the end of the day where we are going is—there is no God—not just, ‘God has not said;’ but, ‘There is no God to even say.’”

The problem with that theological analysis of the subject is that it does not square with his own Calvinistic understanding of the “sovereignty” of God; because according to his theology, “sovereignty” means that God has meticulously predestined and predetermined everything that comes to pass—including all the thoughts, desires, motivations, intentions, aspirations, and actions of man (good or bad). So if there is a “war” currently going on against the “sanctity of marriage,” or against the “marriage and the family” etc.; it is because God has predestined, predetermined, decreed, and foreordained it to happen—according to his own Calvinistic and Reformed theological thinking. God is directly responsible for it happening. So it looks like in reality, he is the one who is “fighting against the sovereignty of God;” because he is going against that which God has decreed, predestined, predetermined, foreordained, and caused to happen! He is warring against “something that God has made, God has designed, and God has given,” to borrow his own phraseology! LOL! Calvinism is the biggest theological joke on the planet. Do these guys really not see how ridiculously absurd, meaningless, and nonsensical their own theological position is; or are they deliberately trying to hide it?

Pastor Jeff on LDS Baptism

 

Pastor Jeff has been rather quiet lately, on his YouTube channel about LDS. He has just put out a new video, however, discussing the LDS doctrine of baptism, which he begins with the follows question, from a Church member presumably:

“@StevesterAmos: Curious to know your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 15:29, where the practice of baptism for the dead is mentioned, and the LDS look to as the basis for it?”

That is not an accurate expression of the LDS theological position on that subject, however. The LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead is not derived from 1 Corinthians 15:29; it is derived primarily from modern revelation (Doctrine and Covenants sections 124, 127, 128, 138). 1 Cor. 15:29 simply adds biblical confirmation to the LDS doctrine; but it is not the main source of the doctrine. Then he continues as follows (emphasis added):

“Hello Saints, my name is Jeff, I am a pastor in Utah, exploring everything I can about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I think it is time for us to revisit again the topic of baptism. And there is a couple reasons why I think it is a good idea. First of all, I just went through the temple down in St. George, Utah. It is only my second time going through a temple; and naturally as I am being taken through the temple, and the tour guide is explaining the baptismal font, and the various ordinances, baptism is just on my mind, I am just seeing how critically important it is, and how central it is to a lot of Latter-day Saint belief; and secondly, the topic of baptism is one of the most common topics that people will ask me about. So what I am going to try to do in this video is respond to a lot of the comments I get in the YouTube comment section; and hopefully that can clarify where the Latter-day Saint view is similar, but also different from a more common Protestant Evangelical view; so let’s dive in.

“Now the backdrop of this first question is the various times that I have communicated, that the common Protestant Evangelical belief is that baptism is a command, but it doesn’t save us; in other words, just because someone isn’t baptized, doesn’t mean that they are going to miss out on heaven, or that they are going to go to hell; which is probably why @pushaving is saying, ‘It is interesting to hear you speak of baptism as optional. I think that Jesus was pretty clear that everyone (non-children) needed to be baptized, when in Matthew 28 he commanded his disciples to: ‘19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am With you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.’ Now one thing I want to clarify right off the bat is, just because we don’t believe baptism saves us, doesn’t mean that Protestant Evangelicals look at baptism as optional. It is clearly a command. Jesus commands that we should be baptized, and that we should baptize others, as he is referencing here in Matthew 28, during the Great Commission. So how can we say that baptism doesn’t save us but it is still a command?”

I see some inconsistencies there. Firstly, nobody claims that “baptism saves us”. We are saved by God when we do what he says—which is not the same thing. Secondly, he acknowledges that baptism is a command; but then he goes on to say that it is not required for salvation, which doesn’t make sense. If baptism is a command, as he admits, what happens if somebody disobeys that “command”? Nothing? What is the point of God giving us a “command,” if it makes no difference whether we obey or disobey that “command”? The Bible says that we are saved by God when we do what he says:

Matthew 7:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

And baptism is one of things that God has said; it is one of those commands. There can only be one conclusion: There can be no salvation without submitting to baptism. Now that is not the same as saying that “baptism saves us”. It is God that saves us when we do what he says—which is not the same thing. He is trying to dodge the issue by calling it “baptism saves,” which is not what is claimed. He repeats that obfuscation in the rest of the video, therefore there is no need to add more. And the words of Jesus carry more weight than the words of Paul. When Jesus says something that is unambiguous and clear, we take it as it is, we don’t modify it by an ambiguous statement of Paul. When Jesus says that no one can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless they do God’s will, or do what he says, we take that as it is, we don’t modify it with something else.