Kevin Giles responds to Mark Baddeley on a number of points. One which I think needs to be pursued (because Kevin has made it several times and obviously regards it as important) is this;

“Can Jesus be ‘Lord’ if he is subordinate?”

Kevin’s answer is “no”; a Lord is by definition not subordinate. I agree that a Lord cannot submit to the authority of that which he is Lord of. But I have two questions:

1.  Can’t someone be Lord of one person yet subject to another?
2.  Must “Jesus is Lord” include his relationship to the Father?

It seems to me that the answer to 1. is obviously yes. A vassal king for example would be Lord of his own kingdom yet still under the rule of another monarch. A noble is traditionally “Lord of his domain” (and the British house of Lords contains many “lords") yet the noble is still under the rule of his monarch.

(nb. this is a logical point - not an attempt to argue that Jesus is a vassal in any extended sense).

Secondly (and more importantly) the answer to the second question must be “no”. If “Jesus is Lord” includes his relationship with the Father then he cannot be EQUAL with the Father he must be LORD of the Father. Otherwise he is not Lord. In other words Kevin’s argument proves too much.

I would welcome a response on this issue.

Andrew M

I actually dragged myself through the article and I think the thing that was most obvious to me is how poorly the things revealed about the trinity fits our earthly models of kingship and subordination.  I don’t think we should be that surprised to learn that our language of speaking about authority breaks down when we look to the trinity.  There isn’t a heirachy in the trinity, yet there is submission and reverence.  The problem dosen’t lie with the trinity, rather the problem lies with the boxes and models we try to use to understand their relationship.  Of course God isn’t like an earthly king.  Of course God submits in a different fashion to humans.  it’s not that big a surprise really..

I guess my question on this debate is if the model dosen’t fit the revealed facts, do we need to finess the model until it’s semantically correct, right down to the number of angels on the head of a pin?  or do we accept the facts as revealed in spite of the fact they don’t fit our model?

Hi Andrew,

Thought you (and others) might find this useful if you haven’t already seen it. It’s an online version of an essay published in April’s briefing in which Robert Doyle responds at some length to Kevin Giles’ book The Trinity and Subordinationism.

Looking forward to hearing others thoughts (since my brain is too fried to think for itself at the moment!)

analogies

Rowen raises a v imp point.

I think you can object to eternal relational subordinationism (ERS) on two grounds.

i. You can object to the relational part and say that separating the persons into a society where there is giving and receiving and communication breaks up the Godhead.

ii. You can concede a social trinity but argue that ordering the persons is (to quote Dr Giles) demeaning to the Son and contradicts his divinity.

The traditional attack has come from i., moderns like KG tend to use ii because they envisage the trinity as egalitarian and social.

(Actually I think KG switches from i to ii in an unclear way but he better speak for himself)

Processions Ad Intra and Operations Ad Extra

Peace Y’all,

I’m a Roman Catholic, and though I haven’t any strong feelings with regard to the issue of women’s ordination nor the ‘role of women in the Christian home’ (aside from the firm conviction which can be summarized by this statement: “Always listen to the woman :-)"), I’m keenly interested in the contemporary controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity as it is being played out in Australia.

I find my sympathies lying with both parties, but I believe that the party represented by Andy affirms a more foundational doctrine (though I don’t follow the manner in which he describes it :-)). 

I agree with Giles that analogies such as a husband and wife (with the wife obeying her hubby’s commands even though she’d rather not, personally; or a boss and an employee, both of whom are “fully human” yet only one of which “gets to call the shots"), are inappropriate.

On the other hand, I agree with Andy that the particular actions of the divine persons are appropriate to the particular divine person who performs them.  The Incarnation tells us not simply something about “the one God,” but rather, it tells us something about the one God by virtue of the immediate revelation of the Son, specifically. 

But I don’t believe that it would be safe to act as though this warrants our seeing in the immanent Trinity the “submission” of the Son as it is played out in the Incarnation. 

The Son became Incarnate because the Son is the Expression and Radiance of the Father; just as the sun cannot but dazzle us with its rays if and when it is to express itself towards those of us on Earth, so too the Father, if he is going to reveal himself, will do so by, through, and in his Logos.

So the Son became man because he is the Image and Radiance and Word of God, but he “submitted” (i.e., e.g., “not my will, but yours be done") because it was entailed by that particular modality of expression; becoming human.  There is no “not my will but yours” in the immanent Trinity because there are not two wills (thus adios to the hubby-wife analog); there is no “commanding” in heaven because the persons are immediately present one to another (thus adios to the boss-employee analog).

I firmly believe in the monarchy of the Father, but I believe that the perfection of the Father is to be found in his being father of the Son; the Son is the presupposition of everything that the Father is and has.  And if the Son gladly realizes the Father’s will, I cannot but believe that this “gift-movement” originates in the Father.  This is not to suggest “mutual submission” (which I think is quite wide of the mark), for the movement begins in the Father, specifically. 

That’s all I have time for for now.  Peace and all the best.

Hi Matt

Your explanation sounds just like the position that Kevin Giles argues. So, for example,

So the Son became man because he is the Image and Radiance and Word of God, but he “submitted” (i.e., e.g., “not my will, but yours be done") because it was entailed by that particular modality of expression; becoming human.

Here the division between different aspects of Jesus’ life (because he is Word of God, because he is human) makes us ignorant of God. We will be left with thinking ‘perhaps this aspect is not part of the immanent trinity.’ And anyway, Jesus is still the man who is God. We can’t divide humanity from divinty because God did not do so.

I actually think that, in this case, it’s not really possible to have “sypathies lying with both parties,” as you stated. Can you explain a bit more what you meant by that?

Good contribution

I think Matt’s response raises exactly the kind of issues we need to be talking about here (and haven’t been). Is the Father Son relationship like a process (light-source/radiance) or like people?

** Say hey Chris,

Your explanation sounds just like the position that Kevin Giles argues.

** If you only knew! :-) Actually, I’ve just written a 120 page monograph on Athanasius’ theology of the Father and Son, in which I several times contradict Giles--not to mention an 18 page appendix on the issue of “subordinationism,” in which I offer an extended criticism of many of Giles’ claims.  (I have sent the work to Giles - we’ll see how he responds.)
So, Chris, I fear that I gave the wrong impression on my previous post.  As I said, my leanings are more towards the view advanced by Andy (and this because Andy’s view doesn’t posit a dichotomy between the immanent and economic, and clearly affirms the monarchy of the Father).  I just don’t think that the analogies used to expound this doctrine are especially appropriate, and I further think the word “subordination(ism)” has run its course.
you then quote me . . .

So, for example,

So the Son became man because he is the Image and Radiance and Word of God, but he “submitted” (i.e., e.g., “not my will, but yours be done") because it was entailed by that particular modality of expression; becoming human.

** . . . and go on to say . . .

Here the division between different aspects of Jesus’ life (because he is Word of God, because he is human) makes us ignorant of God. We will be left with thinking ‘perhaps this aspect is not part of the immanent trinity.’

** But of course, we have to do this with regard to at least some points, wouldn’t you agree?  Is a physical body an essential component of Christ’s divinity?  Is Christ’s not knowing the day or hour indicative of Christ as divine?
I hardly think you’d answer either in the affirmative.  The Son, the eternal Word of God, is essentially spirit; he became flesh at a particular moment and place in space and time.  The Son, being the very Wisdom of God, knows all things; when he “emptied himself” he didn’t exercise his divine prerogatives to the utmost capacity. 
I’m not advancing any strange doctrine, nor am I positing a dichotomy between the immanent and the economic.  The Incarnation reveals the Son as divine by virtue of the fact that the Son is that which is expressed and revealed by the Father: the Father could not become Incarnate because the Father generates the Son and is himself generated by none.
So, in summary:
Only if I claim that any of the divine persons could fittingly become, e.g., Incarnate, can you claim that I don’t do justice to the economic’s capacity to reveal the immanent.
And,
Only if you are willing to answer “yes” to the 2nd and 3rd questions asked above (regarding Christ’s physical body and state of not-knowing vis-a-vis his Incarnate state) - which is clearly impossible - can your complaint against my not allowing a distinction between the economic and immanent stand.
In other words, I don’t think your case against me has any force.

And anyway, Jesus is still the man who is God. We can’t divide humanity from divinty because God did not do so.

** Nor can we collapse the distinction between the two, unless we are willing to bid farewell to the definition of Chalcedon and the three ecumenical councils which followed, not to mention the fact that if we didn’t distinguish between the two, we’d need to claim that the Son didn’t exist until the Incarnation - which is absurd.

I actually think that, in this case, it’s not really possible to have “sypathies lying with both parties,” as you stated. Can you explain a bit more what you meant by that?

** Like I said above: I believe 1) Giles is wrong to deny the asymmetrical nature of the relations between the persons (i.e., e.g., Giles is wrong to reject the monarchy of the Father); 2) Giles is wrong to imagine that any form of order between the persons is bi-conditionally related to “subordination(ism)” in a heretical sense; 3) Giles is wrong to claim that the fact that it was specifically the Son who became incarnate doesn’t tell us anything in particular about the Son with regard to the manner in which the Son is related to the Father.
On the other hand, I think that the preferred analogies offered by (what I presume to be) your party are misleading and inappropriate.  The Son “submits” to the Father?  Well and good, but what exactly do you mean? Does the Son wait around to be ordered by God the Father what to do?  Does the Son have a wholly discrete conscious life, complete with an autonomous will, which is interrupted when and if the Father tells him what to do, and more importantly, is it possible that what the Father “tells him to do” could frustrate the will of the Son (e.g., “But Father, I don’t want to create the cosmos”, etc.)?  Furthermore, you grant that the Son is the Image of the Invisible God, and that the Son reveals the Father?  Very well, is there not then reason to suppose that the kenosis of the Son is the Expression of something true of the Father himself?
To make a long story short, I’m against the use of analogies such as “a husband telling a wife what to do” or “a boss commanding an employee to do this or that” for the simple reason that the very point at which they offend - the imposition of one individual’s will upon another such that the other’s will is frustrate - cannot be true of the Trinity.
And I would think that I’d have some support in saying this, for such as the above can be true only if the Trinity is tri-theism.
I affirm both the monarchy of the Father and the Son and Spirit’s being the presupposition of the Father’s perfection; I affirm both that the Son and Spirit are intrinsic to the Father and that they are dependent upon the Father in a manner in which the Father is not dependent upon them (his aseity is active; theirs is passive, if I may so speak); I affirm both that the Father is the source of any operation ad extra and that the Son and the Spirit are intrinsic to the realization of the Father’s will; I affirm both that the manner in which the Son fulfills the Father’s will is as fluidly natural as shine proceeding from the sun and that every such activity is posited within the interpersonal communion between the three divine persons.
But enough for now.  Hopefully this has cleared things up somewhat.
Adios and all the best Chris.

Re: Good contribution

** Say hey Andy :-)

Is the Father Son relationship like a process (light-source/radiance) or like people?

** Could it not be like both?  The only reason to say “no” would seem to be that we haven’t experienced such a relationship in our experiences in this imperfect world; but I’m aware of no reason for supposing that there is any a priori argument which could be successfully offered.  Furthermore, if both aren’t true, then we’re left with either modalism (in which case the analogy of sun and shine is given exclusive favor) or tri-theism (in which case the analogy of a community is given exclusive favor).  Scripture speaks of the Son as both the Radiance of God and the “beloved Son” who is the source of the Father’s “delight”.  But as far as I can tell, the analogy of the “husband and wife” and that of “the boss telling the employee what to do” cannot but suggest something like tri-theism (for what are the specific points of correlation between these latter and the Trinity?  As you know, I find the modern notion of the “individual” as an “autonomous self-realizing entity bound by nothing except itself” to be hideous, and it is not this which I’m concerned with, with respect to the Trinity; and my proclivities for becoming a monk - poverty, chastity, and obedience - are, I trust, evidence enough that I personally believe submission to be a rather great thing. 
Rather, my concern is that such analogies presuppose a separate-ness which I don’t believe exists to a degree great enough which could warrant the use of such analogies.  Hence (in my opinion) your side errors in using such analogies to describe what “subordination” is like, and the side of which Giles is representative errors in using such analogies to show that which is the consequence of not affirming an absolute symmetry between the persons such that all three get to “call the shots”.  One side seems to lean to the left, and the other to the right, with neither going upward.

So Matt, is this what you are saying:

that there is a eternal immanent relationship (EIR) between Father and Son which you would not describe as “obedience"/"submission" etc but which is somehow congruent with it such that this eternal immanent relationship (EIR) *becomes* obedience submission when Jesus *becomes* man.

In other words:
the EIR is to obedience
as
divine Sonship is to Christ’s humanity

I realise I may be projecting what I want to hear from you!

** Say hey Andy,

that there is a (eternal immanent) relationship between Father and Son which you would not describe as “obedience"/"submission" etc but which is somehow congruent with it such that this eternal relationship *becomes* obedience submission when Jesus *becomes* man.

** That seems to be in the ballpark. 

In other words:
begotteness is to obedience
as
Sonship is to humanity

** I’m not sure I’d go this far.  All sides agree (I hope!) that the Son as pertains to his humanity was ontologically less than the Father (and himself, as pertains to his divinity).  And the form of the Son’s obedience as man was indicative of his humanity (who could believe otherwise?  “Not my will but yours be done” with respect to God’s own Word and Wisdom and Logos??) Hence the comparison would seem to indicate an ontological distinction and inferiority of the Son to the Father (obediance is to Sonship as begotteness is to humanity).
I’d rather say that
IF God will reveal himself to the world via an Incarnation, THEN it will be the Son who becomes Incarnate;
And
All humans owe God obedience by virtue of their being contingent and wholly dependent upon God;
Therefore;
The Son as man will be obedient to God in that manner when he becomes man.
Does this imply a sort of “submission” on the Son’s part in order to become man (e.g., the Father: “I will to save man and reveal myself to them”; the Son: “If you say so!")?  At this point, I’d suggest that the Son’s kenosis is the fitting response to the Father’s love himself.  It is expressed by each in a manner confluent with the manner they are related to the world by virtue of the manner in which they are related one to another.  It would seem to do injustice to the fact that the Son is the Image of the Father, were we to imagine the Son dragging the cross to Golgotha, and the Father simply “pointing” and telling him what to do, as though the Father himself doesn’t love us in a manner corresponding to the Passion.  The analogy of one person commanding and the other obeying is too simple in my opinion. 

I realise I may be projecting what I want to hear from you!

I will have to think more about this!
but I have a couple of questions;

1. Does the Son actually become ontologically less than the Father with the incarnation? I would have thought that he remains equal yet adds an inferior nature. This of course rams us straight into Chalcedon and makes our heads explode since what is predicated of the incarnate is supposed to be predicable of the divine (hence theotokos). This is unclear, sorry!

2. You seem to follow the fathers in making Word/Wisdom literal (I’m sorry that’s a crude word but you see what I mean) categories. Doesn’t that (quasi) psychological image mitigate against relationship. The Father loves the Son and plans a kingdom for him. But if the Son is (literally) his Wisdom then the distinction necessary for giving is complicated. The plan for the Son comes from the Son!

** Say hey Andy,

1. Does the Son actually become ontologically less than the Father with the incarnation? I would have thought that he remains equal yet adds an inferior nature.

** I agree with what you say here.  Thus to say “the Son of God has dark brown hair,” while no doubt true while he was on earth, is clearly indicative of his human nature; to say “the Son of God is Almighty” is indicative of his divine nature.

This of course rams us straight into Chalcedon and makes our heads explode

** Goodness, I know!  I’d rather just worship.

2. You seem to follow the fathers in making Word/Wisdom literal (I’m sorry that’s a crude word but you see what I mean) categories. Doesn’t that (quasi) psychological image mitigate against relationship.

** Check pages 49 - 54 and 60 - 63 of the monograph I sent you for more on relationship (I’m comfortable with what Athanasius taught in this regard), and pages 72ff. for how the Son’s being Power/Word ties into his operations ad extra (see also n. 219, though it should read “cf. Ath-CG . . . “ rather than “cf. Ath-DI . . . “)

The Father loves the Son and plans a kingdom for him. But if the Son is (literally) his Wisdom then the distinction necessary for giving is complicated. The plan for the Son comes from the Son!

** I’d rather say that the plan comes from the Father and is immediately communicated to the Son and conceived within the communion of the Father’s love for the Son.
Surely you wouldn’t rather suppose the Father’s conceiving a kingdom for the Son to be done without the Son’s knowing about it?  We can’t imagine the Son and Spirit to be waiting outside in a room, when suddenly the Father comes in and announces, “Okay, here’s the plan!”? 
So, I posit the Father as the source of everything, but such that there is complete communion between the persons at every “moment”, such that the will of the Father is complemented and perfected and confluent with the processions ad intra.
But goodness man, go easy on me!  Thinking about this is enough to make my head split :-)
Adios and all the best.

I like what you say a lot and think we are very much in agreement. I am looking forward to reading the monograph.

There seem to be shades of opinion here. There’s Rahner who wants to say the Son is from the Father IMMEDIATELY with no passage (sorry if that makes you bristle) which makes relationship almost inconceivable (and “from” incomprehensible?)

Then there’s Basil who has his mirror analogy and seems to allow just enough space between the Son and Father for a relationship (maybe).

Then there’s Hilary who seems to actually use obedience and response type language.

(and I’m sure there are others too!)

But let’s note and agree that practically EVERY orthodox authority defines Fatherhood ans Sonship in terms of the Son being “from” the Father in a complete, eternal, natural and asymmetrical way (whether through time or before time).  This is the orthodox conception of the first two persons which I think Kevin Giles rejects. At least I think he does!

Yours in Christ.

** Say hey Andy,

There seem to be shades of opinion here.

** Aye--"person" is something that is hard to define, even with regard to human persons.

There’s Rahner who wants to say the Son is from the Father IMMEDIATELY with no passage (sorry if that makes you bristle) which makes relationship almost inconceivable (and “from” incomprehensible?)

** I’m not sure I follow you here.  It is true, however, that Rahner’s Trinitarian theology was inadequate with regard to the personhood of the divine persons - he was terrified of tri-theism.

Then there’s Basil who has his mirror analogy and seems to allow just enough space between the Son and Father for a relationship (maybe).

** I think that Basil definitely affirmed a relationship - but just as with us (!), he couldn’t give an exhaustive and exact articulation of it.

This is the orthodox conception of the first two persons which I think Kevin Giles rejects. At least I think he does!

** Aye, agreed.  And I also am left with the impression that Giles rejects the fatherhood of the Father and sonship of the Son - it almost seemed as though he viewed these as “metaphors” which simply indicate that both of them “have qualitatively equal being”.  I have no idea what he means by affirming both that the monarchy of the Father is false AND that the Son is begotten of the Father.  Hopefully I’m simply misreading him, or he’s seeing something that I’m not.
Adios and all the best,
Matt

Hi Matt and welcome.

Thanks for all your learned words, though most of them fly above my head! ;-) I definitely echo St Basil (I think) when he said something along the lines of if you try and understand all about God you are liable to go insane!  I often find investigations into the Trinity far beyond my ken, but they do give me a new appreciation for the majesty and wonder of God.

I’ll stick with the Quicunque vult which gives me cause enough to ponder the Trinity for the rest of my life on earth! ;-)

But I wanted to say Hi and wanted to say thanks for your insights into the mystery of the Trinity.  I have learnt a grat deal.

God bless,
Ian.