16.7.07

Mr Deity, Divine child abuse and Eternal Subordination

This Sunday we looked at Philippians 2 and as a starter I showed ep2 of Mr. Deity.



Now this tends to lampoon our evangelical understanding of the Cross. It also seems to be close to the whole “divine child abuse” idea when it comes to penal substitution.

I would like to add just one little bit into the mix here….

If the “Trinity” is Co-Equal and not eternally subordinate (as some people tend to think these days) then for Jesus to submit to Death even death on the cross, means that he willing submitted to a plan that was developed by the co-equal trinity!

But if cross was but only the “Fathers will” and not a plan of the co-equal trinity then it does seem to be close to “divine child abuse”

How then do we explain the fact that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father? It is stated time and time again in scripture...

Well I think that Phil 2:6-8 and Kenotic Theory gives us the answer. That he gave up that equality for his earthly ministry and then submitted to death as being the plan that the Co-equal trinity had come up with.

Well that is my half assed attempt at this whole idea, you can also catch my talk from Sunday on the podcast.

Comments? I’m sure there will be…

Labels: , , ,

8 Comments:

At 9:35 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for dropping by my blog.

Firstly lest my comment disappoint, let me say up front, my comment will not answer your question. Nor will it go into detail as to why I believe what I believe, you will have to go to other well known orthodox sources for that. Indeed again, upfront, let me state that in seeking to answer such questions we are moving into the dangerous area of speculation, note the corporate we. If I can go through your post point by point.

Firstly you say,

If the “Trinity” is Co-Equal and not eternally subordinate (as some people tend to think these days)…..I’m assuming the parenthetical phrase is related to the “eternally subordinate” and not the “co-equal” as the Church has through much discussion and study agreed since the early centuries of the Church that the Trinity is indeed Co-Equal and not eternally subordinate in essence. The Trinity is a mysterious, incomprehensible doctrine and we must be careful in dealing with it. The church has historically rejected any view that supports anything other than co-equality, all the persons of the Trinity are equal in being and attributes yet there is some diversity in function. I assume that by eternally subordinate, you mean that prior to creation in eternity, the Son in essence was subordinate to the Father in the sense of being under the Father’s authority - the church historically has rejected that notion. The remainder of that paragraph, where you state that such co-equality necessitates that Christ willingly submitted to a plan developed by a co-equal Trinity is I believe exactly what the Church has agreed and is what the Bible teaches. This “plan development” is called the Covenant of Redemption and all three persons of the Trinity “agreed” roles in that Plan of Redemption and covenanted (promised) to fulfil those roles.

The next paragraph states,

But if cross was but only the “Fathers will” and not a plan of the co-equal trinity then it does seem to be close to “divine child abuse”

Correct which is no doubt part of the reason why the Church has historically rejected any doctrine other than co-equality.

You then ask the question,

How then do we explain the fact that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father?

I think you have asked a question that cannot be answered from Scripture. We cannot in our finite, corrupt, Fall-stained minds fathom the relationships between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, therefore we are dependent on God’s revelation of Himself to us in the Scriptures. The Church has historically accepted that God has NOT revealed the full nature of the Trinitarian relationship to us. So, if we answer the question you have asked from anything other than Scripture, we will almost certainly, personally I would say absolutely certainly, be wrong and perhaps sinfully so. All we know is that the Trinity is co-equal yet in some unfathomable way The Son voluntarily agreed to take on a subordinate role to the Father in relation to the redemption of His people. That subordination involved many elements which we cannot go into now.

However, you proceed to offer an explanation from Scripture. Your explanation has historically been rejected by the Church.

The Kenosis theory has been rejected as erroneous by many councils of the church, and by all orthodox denominations throughout history because in effect it teaches that Christ gave up some of His divine attributes while on earth and especially at the time of His crucifixion.

Well I think that Phil 2:6-8 and Kenotic Theory gives us the answer.

This is your assertion which I understand to be further explained in the next sentence.

That he gave up that equality for his earthly ministry and then submitted to death as being the plan that the Co-equal trinity had come up with.

If Christ was once co-equal with the Father and Spirit which gladly you assert, then it is patently impossible that He could give up His divine attributes. God is perfect, unchangeable, holy, pure and infinite in all His ways.

Is Christ God? If He is then He is unchangeable and unchanging. So if Christ “gave up” divine attributes then He was no longer God….God is God, should he ever change in whole or in part He would not be God, and so if Christ was God but changed when He got to earth, He was no longer God, rather he was some strange semi-god being, and if He was not both fully God and fully man on that cross, then we are all uniformly doomed to a lost eternity in Hell.

The Kenotic Theory is NOT the way to answer your question, indeed it is a devastatingly dangerous way to answer your question. I will grant you that Christ does appear and speak at times AS IF He has relinquished some of His divine attributes, but this cannot be so IN FACT because then He would not be Divine.

Here is a typical confessional explanation of the Godhead,

The Lord our God is but one only living, and true God; whose 23subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being, and perfection, whose Essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto, who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, Almighty, every way infinit, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the councel of his own immutable, and most righteous will,

I believe this and this only is what Scripture reveals and we do well not to go beyond it. As for the Philippians passage, orthodox Christianity has explained this has describing Christ voluntarily “concealing” His divinity. Christ sometimes in His earthly life did not do this, such as perhaps when he passed through crowds unseen and certainly so post-Resurrection as he passed through walls or doors into locked rooms, likewise when He walked on the water and most clearly we get a magnificent yet slight view of His majestic divinity at His Transfiguration. All this points to the error and speculative nature of the Kenosis Theory. The evidence points to a life long characteristic of concealment not emptying.

How do I then explain how Christ submitted to the Father’s will, I can’t but I’m very glad He did!

JP

(apologies for length)

 
At 10:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess we shouldn't be surprised at people misunderstanding Trinitarian dynamics and relationships - seeing as no one understands the Trinity.

 
At 9:49 am, Blogger andy said...

thanks for a great comment :) wow i don't even make my posts that big:P

I think just one point where i would like to clarify where i come from on this thinking. Here in sydney there has been debate in some "reformed" circles about Eternal Subordination... it has stemed from what i think is a need to justify the strong stance on Female subordination.... (i think you will know where i am comming from here)

I belive that in that skewing our View of the Trinity we then throw the atonement out of whack...

I do admit the Kenosis (in the classical form) doesn't really give the full picture and that there is still much mystery..

I appreciate that you agree that to hold onto a "non-co-equal" view of the trinity does lead to the "Divine Child Abuse" thinking... and i suppose when we present the Gospel to not yet christians we must stress the co-equality of the Trinity so that they will understand the cross...

 
At 2:59 pm, Blogger Sarah said...

And here I was thinking penal substitution was a lesbain thing .. go figure

 
At 7:04 pm, Blogger andy said...

thanks for always takeing us to the gutter sarah ;)

 
At 1:25 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Kenosis in classical form", a genuine question: is there a progressive form and what is it?

Kenosis is a good explanation of these things, but it is still wrong, it does not harmonise all the data we have in the Scriptures.

The skewed view you speak of is indeed a skewed view, the subordination of women does not depend on on the eternal subordination of the Trinity there is clear and explicit teaching on this without building on such a mysterious foundation as the Trinitarian inter-relationships. Though of course we have much to learn as to what real submission is from those Trinitarian relationships.

Apologies again for the length of the previous :-)

JP

 
At 3:19 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i can't get my head around this topic - but damn - jesus is cute in that clip...

 
At 8:26 pm, Blogger Alex Abecina said...

Hey Andy,

Phil 2:6-8 does not need to be read kenotically, nor as if it is kenotic. It begins, "who being in very nature [Gk. morphe] God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." In other words it is the very nature of the trinitarian God not to grasp at being God. It follows then that the very nature of God is to be a servant (vs. 7) and to die on a cross (vs. 8). This is not kenosis or divine child abuse going on here but the very nature of God revealed to us in Christ.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home