Why a denial of the Son’s eternal submission threatens both the Trinity and the Bible Wayne Grudem ETS: San Antonio: Nov. 15, 2016 I. E vidence for the Son’s submission to the Father prior to Incarnation A. Submission indicated by the eternal names “ Father ” and “ Son ” And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29) – before creation 1. The names Father and Son indicate both equality in being and differences in relationship 2. Objection: Today in an adult f-s relationship - no longer one of authority/submission answer: in ancient world, father clearly had authority while he lived 3. Conclusion: The names Father and Son indicate an eternal relationship of authority and submission 4. What is the eternal generation/ begetting of the Son? a. Nicene Creed: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten (monogenēs) Son of God, begotten (gennēthenta) of the Father before all worlds , Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made ( gennēthenta, ou poiēthenta ), being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made b. Five NT vss. wher e Christ is called “only begotten” or “only”: John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18; 1 John 4:9 c. Previously, in my Syst. Theol.: monogenēs means “unique, one of a kind” (Same as most modern Bible translations, BDAG lexicon, 658, D. Moody, JBL (1953)) I concluded that “only begotten” in Nicene Creed referred to F-S relationship, Said: what important: “that we insist on eternal personal differences in the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that the Son eternally relates to the Father as a son does to his father” (ST, 1234). [this is clear from names F and S] If monogenēs meant “unique, only,” I didn’t see any biblical basis for saying more than this. And I thought that the language of “begetting” was more confusing than helpful. d. More recently: Forthcoming Lee Irons paper on monogenēs as “only begotten” – extensive TLG search – persuasive analysis e. My conclusion on eternal generation: I am now willing to affirm the “eternal generation of the Son,” based on John 1:14, 18, etc., as something mysterious, not implying creation of the Son (“begotten not made”), and somehow analogous to a human father-son relationship. And: gennaō verbs do tend to carry implication of some kind of origin Therefore: “begotten of the father before all ages, begotten not made” in Nicene Creed, etc. should not be used as a direct indication of eternal submission of S to F (as I have in past) But: still provides the ontological basis for eternal submission of S to F-- shows why it is appropriate Augustine, in De Trinitate : “If however the reason why the Son is said to have been sent by the Father is simply that the one is the Father and the other the Son , then there is nothing at all to stop us believing that the Son is equal to the Father and consubstantial and co-eternal, and yet that the Son is sent by the Father. Not because one is greater and the other less, but because one is the Father and the other the Son . . . For he was not sent in virtue of some disparity of power or substance or anything in him that was not equal to the Father, but in virtue of the Son being from the Father, not the Father being from the Son .” St. Augustine, The Trinity , trans. Edmund Hill, Vol. 5, The Works of St. Augustine (Brooklyn: New City Press, 1991), IV. 27 What I see is a pattern: S is from the F: Heb 1:3: He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature; 1:3 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ John 1:1-2: S is eternally the Word of the Father; John 5:26: For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. - I still want to guard zealously against greater ontological power – greater attribute – for Father B. Authority and submission prior to creation (this is not just during Incarnation – eternal!) 1. Ephesians 1:3-5: he [the Father] chose us in him [the Son] before the foundation of the world , Not: F and S chose us. Rather, in the eternal councils of the Trinity, there was a role of planning, directing, initiating, and choosing, that belonged specifically to the Father. [Other verses: Romans 8:29 “he predestined to be conformed to the image of his son” ; Ephesians 1:9-11; 3:11; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Peter 1:19-20] -- “ everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain ” (Rev 13:8). C. Authority and submission in the process of creation (long before Incarnation) John 1:2-3: He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him , and without him was not any thing made that was made; Hebrews 1:2: but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 1
Recommend
More recommend