Article that Explains Mutual Submission in the Trinity

[FireDragon76]

The Athanasian Creed would deny hierarchy within the Trinity. The east might disagree, but that's kind of a big deal in the west...

I'm familiar with that creed and I don't see it denying the arche or headship (what the word literally means) of the Father. Please understand I am not talking about the subordinationism that I have seen some complimentarians use, which would be considered heretical. Each person of the Trinity has an equality in nature, however, the divine nature of the Son and the Spirit comes from the Father alone (He births the Son and breaths the Spirit)

 

[Paidiske]

It does talk about the Son as begotten and the Spirit as proceeding, but I think the key thing is this:

"And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal."

Which denies any ongoing hierarchy of relationship.

 

[robert skynner]

This may be a lot more than most would like to read, but the gist is this:

Thoughts on this?

I don't think it's a case of the Father being superior to the Son, rather than Son derives his essence (being) in eternity from the Father (monogenese i.e. at John 3:16, also Hebrews 1:3).

 

[robert skynner]

It does talk about the Son as begotten and the Spirit as proceeding, but I think the key thing is this:

"And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal."

Which denies any ongoing hierarchy of relationship.

Actually the Bible speaks of each of the Son and Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father.

 

[Dave-W]

Actually the Bible speaks of each of the Son and Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father.

Actually not. That was a bone of contention a millennium ago in the split between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. The verse in question is this:

John 15:26 When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

The text says the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Rome added "and the Son" to the Nicean Creed. Then they accused the Eastern patriarchs of heresy by removing it. It was never there in the first place.

The Son was "begotten" by the Father, which is different than "proceeding from" Him.

 

[robert skynner]

Actually not. That was a bone of contention a millennium ago in the split between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. The verse in question is this:

John 15:26 When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

The text says the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Rome added "and the Son" to the Nicean Creed. Then they accused the Eastern patriarchs of heresy by removing it. It was never there in the first place.

The Son was "begotten" by the Father, which is different than "proceeding from" Him.

Thank you for this excellent post. However, I have read of the Son, in a passage in John (I forget where) that he proceeds (i.e. from the Father). Sorry I cannot find this verse, it's in my notes at home.

 

[Dave-W]

Thank you for this excellent post. However, I have read of the Son, in a passage in John (I forget where) that he proceeds (i.e. from the Father). Sorry I cannot find this verse, it's in my notes at home.

You probably mean this verse:

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

That is not speaking of HIS essence proceeding from the Father; it means the Father sent Him to Earth.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think it's a case of the Father being superior to the Son, rather than Son derives his essence (being) in eternity from the Father (monogenese i.e. at John 3:16, also Hebrews 1:3).

Yes, that is how it is understood. With that ontology, there is also a natural headship that comes with that. It doesn't mean the Father has authority over the Son: all authority is given to him. There isn't an absolute equality, if this is understood as sameness, the Trinitarian relationships represent something real and distinct within the divine nature. That's why I think focusing on "mutual submission" potentially confuses Trinitarian relations, and at any rate, just is not necessary.

 

[robert skynner]

Yes, that is how it is understood. With that ontology, there is also a natural headship that comes with that. It doesn't mean the Father has authority over the Son: all authority is given to him. There isn't an absolute equality, if this is understood as sameness, the Trinitarian relationships represent something real and distinct within the divine nature. That's why I think focusing on "mutual submission" potentially confuses Trinitarian relations, and at any rate, just is not necessary.

Thank you Fire Dragon76 for this excellent and insightful reply. By the way I am now a humanist and I have rejected the Evangelical Christian faith, as it is extant locally to me, due to partly the Trinity and secondly partly due to the New Covenant. After professing Christ in 1985, I've come to realize that the evangelical Churches here in Devon in the UK, I formally attended are the most zealously anti-Trinitarian, even if they say: "Yes we believe in the Trinity," in practice it is usually defined as either modalism or tritheism, in 2012 I was told that "Jesus was the Father" at Plymouth Christian Center (an Elim and nominally Trinitarian Church), oh and I was also told that Jesus did not make a full and complete atonement on the cross, on the Alpha course I was told that he made his atonement in hell (to the devil), which I pointed out contradicts John 19:30! I wrote to Jance (Alpha leader), Liz (head of the PCC Alpha Course), Pastor Lee (PCC Pastor) and John Glass (Elim General Superintendent but nobody wanted to discuss this). Here is a video of me outside this Church, speaking as a non-Christian humanist, and arguing against fundamentalist Christians that the Bible teaches the Jesus is the Son OF the Father (2nd John 3), and that Jesus is not God the Father according to the Bible. Obviously they did not want to listen to me, you can see seven of them denying the Trinity and then calling the Police in an attempt to shut me up.

With regard to the new covenant, I reject that too (as it is taught by local Churches here in Devon in the UK), as many of these churches local to me actually teach that our own good works can and do earn us justification, and that under the new covenant, Christians are still bound to obey the old covenant laws, such as those on tithing (amongst other things), such as Malachi 3:8-10. Obviously I strongly disagree with the claim that Christians are still under the Mosaic law, but hey, after so much abuse and even a local pastors wife telling me to commit suicide, I've decided to abandon what calls itself Christianity, you can't question or even talk to church leaders, the Armour bearers stop you from doing that.

 

[FireDragon76]

Calvin argued that each Person of the Trinity was autotheos (God-in-himself). I can see if you believe that, you'ld be prone to believing there is a mutual submission within the Trinity. It's not an idea I accept, though (neither would Catholics, Orthodox, or Lutherans), and to my knowledge it's something only the Reformed tradition grapples with.

 

[robert skynner]

You probably mean this verse:

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

That is not speaking of HIS essence proceeding from the Father; it means the Father sent Him to Earth.

Thank you Dave for this insight, yes the context as you have stated is the Father sending the Son, thumbs up, thanks for this excellent post.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thank you Fire Dragon76 for this excellent and insightful reply. By the way I am now a humanist and I have rejected the Evangelical Christian faith, as it is extant locally to me, due to partly the Trinity and secondly partly due to the New Covenant. After professing Christ in 1985, I've come to realize that the evangelical Churches here in Devon in the UK, I formally attended are the most zealously anti-Trinitarian, even if they say: "Yes we believe in the Trinity," in practice it is usually defined as either modalism or tritheism.

That doesn't surprise me. Honestly evangelicalism has a poor appreciation for this doctrine . "Deeds not creeds", etc. One thing about Lutheranism is that there is a creative tension between knowing God and letting him remain a mystery. The mystery bit is important, it is almost like a form of mystical contemplation, though Lutherans are far more practical minded in general, that isn't to say mysticism is done away with altogether. On the other hand, some forms of evangelicalism have no mystical theology. Hence the modalist/tritheist tendency. But then the grace bit tends to get squished in the process of trying to fit the biblical God into such a scheme.

 

[robert skynner]

Calvin argued that each Person of the Trinity was autotheos (God-in-himself). I can see if you believe that, you'ld be prone to believing there is a mutual submission within the Trinity. It's not an idea I accept, though (neither would Catholics, Orthodox, or Lutherans), and to my knowledge it's something only the Reformed tradition grapples with.

I see, perichoresis teaches the mutual indwelling of the three persons, who cannot be separated although they are still distinct! Thus a God-in-himself attitude might lead one to incorrectly regard the persons as separate from the other. The Alpha course I had attended at Plymouth Christian Center, Devon, UK in 2012 taught this on the 3rd or 4th video, I wrote to Nicky Gumball and although he never acknowledged or replied to my letter, he did change the Alpha videos at that particular point, I watched the new Alpha video at that point on Youtube a year or so ago, and now it is solidly Trinitarian; previously it had undermined perichoresis.

 

[Dave-W]

Calvin argued that each Person of the Trinity was autotheos (God-in-himself).

Which is actually a form of tri-theism (3 separate gods) and not true trinitarianism.

 

[robert skynner]

Which is actually a form of tri-theism (3 separate gods) and not true trinitarianism.

Would either of you have the relevant reference, I can then look it up. Thank you by the way, an interesting subject.

 

[FireDragon76]

I see, perichoresis teaches the mutual indwelling of the three persons, who cannot be separated although they are still distinct! Thus a God-in-himself attitude might lead one to incorrectly regard the persons as separate from the other. The Alpha course I had attended at Plymouth Christian Center, Devon, UK in 2012 taught this on the 3rd or 4th video, I wrote to Nicky Gumball and although he never acknowledged or replied to my letter, he did change the Alpha videos at that particular point, I watched the new Alpha video at that point on Youtube a year or so ago, and now it is solidly Trinitarian; previously it had undermined perichoresis.

That's cool you pointed out perichoresis. You might appreciate the theology of T.F. Torrence or some of the books or lectures by Baxter Kruger. Both are from the Reformed tradition, but they revisit the theology of Athanasius and show how it is still relevant today.

The emphasis on perichoresis is correct. This is something that transcends egalitarianism as an ideology. It's far more about love, creativity and generativity- it has a strong aesthetic component that goes beyond the desire to rationalize the world. I believe this is something our own Anglo-Saxon culture gets stuck on: trying to remodel the world into some ideal, instead of finding our own individual place within it, and it's partly due to the kind of religious atmosphere we have inherited through radical Christian ideas focused on "reformation" as an operating principle (as a Lutheran, my take on what "reformation" means is a lot more conservative in many ways).

I don't think it was Calvin's intention to be a tritheist, but still, I think his ideas muddied the waters.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The trinity is equal in it's application as all are needed for salvation thru the author, the means, and the promise.

Not one can be missed in it's application either, so for the Godhead to save us there has to be a mutual transaction where not only is the trinty involved but we must be also. There is where submission is. The mystery of the Godhead revealed is the bridge.

I had just posted this on another forum but I think it applies here also.

Reckoning is summed up in the 6th chapter of (Romans 6).But that chapter also explains the spiritual sense of the words.

17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

19 I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Reckoning isn't a technique ... it's a spontaneous believing or considering that is produced by seeing the facts that are revealed in Romans 6.. Seeing, believing the facts in recognition of those facts, and, according to those facts, we reckon ourselves dead to sin and living to God.

That is how the spiritual aspect is recognized as truth. When we reckon ourselves as edifying ourselves from the reality of the Truth then we have placed ourselves in the correct position to recieve Him.

Not Reckoning nor eating the bread can cause the death of the old nature. Only life from the Holy Spirit explained in chapter 8 of Romans can do that. But that is the other side of the coin of reckoning, because we're to allow His work in us.

Objective facts need claiming/reckoning so that the subjective work of the Holy Spirit can accomplishe the facts in our lives. That is fellowship with God in experience.

Romans 6 plus Romans 8 (hearing plus seeing) is the spiritual aspect of feeding on the Lord for life in the Father.
******************
From that the work of the Trinity is seen as equally important.

 

[mkgal1]

There isn't an absolute equality, if this is understood as sameness

But equality =/= sameness.

Just as the picture that 1st Cor 12:12 paints in my mind: there's something uniquely beautiful about how the Body of Christ (and even the Trinity) are in unity while still maintaining distinction and diversity.

 

[mkgal1]

I was thinking I'd brought up perichoresis in this thread, but I guess that was a few other threads I'd been posting on. What I love about the idea of the Godhead being a "circle dance of love" is that a dance isn't static. When we look at something one-dimensional like this idea of the Trinity---it lacks something due to the one-dimensional aspect of it:

OTOH....if we can imagine the Godhead as moving in a circle dance....to me that's just more accurate....you know?

 

[mkgal1]

The emphasis on perichoresis is correct. This is something that transcends egalitarianism as an ideology. It's far more about love, creativity and generativity- it has a strong aesthetic component that goes beyond the desire to rationalize the world. I believe this is something our own Anglo-Saxon culture gets stuck on: trying to remodel the world into some ideal, instead of finding our own individual place within it, and it's partly due to the kind of religious atmosphere we have inherited through radical Christian ideas focused on "reformation" as an operating principle (as a Lutheran, my take on what "reformation" means is a lot more conservative in many ways).

Can we discuss the bolded text? What do you mean that perichoresis "transcends egalitarianism as an ideology"? What do you understand egalitarianism to be? Do you see it as being limited to genders---or does the equality extend further....into race, socio-economic status, faith groups, etc?

I wanted to share this quote as it's at the front of my mind (although it may seem to not quite be relevant right now):

The doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Theological Society describes the biblical teaching about the Godhead as the original community of oneness in a single sentence: ‘God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.’

The words, "original community of oneness" really resonated with me, and seems to say a lot in just a few words.