The subjugation of the Son is not just an economic reality either, limited to salvation or the incarnation. The subordination of the Son is ingrained within the very DNA of the Trinity apart from creation, within the immanent Trinity itself (which EFSers assume is synonymous with what they label eternity past and future). (Matthew Barrett, Simply Trinity, 218)
In part 1, we note how Matthew Barrett misrepresents EFS in claiming that Bruce Ware teaches the Trinity is defined as a relational community. In part 2, we see how Barrett is misleading in claiming that EFS teaches hierarchy within the Trinity. In part 3, we will look at the main problem with many critiques of EFS (ESS): the inability to understand economic relations in anything other than created reality, thus misrepresenting EFS as teaching subordination within the immanent Trinity.
In the beginning, there was God. God in Himself, in the three persons of the Trinity, is love. Modern Christian apologists utilize this point particularly against Islam, in pointing out that a unitary God cannot actually be love. For there to be love, the persons of the Trinity must be loving each other from eternity past to eternity future.
In the beginning, God has a decree. The one decree of God translates to the many decrees of God which are enacted in time and space. This one decree is in eternity past. The many decrees are also in eternity past, for a decree must exist before its results come to fruition. Since a decree must exist before its results come to fruition, then the decree to create the world must be in eternity before time. But since God is immutable, that means all the many decrees must be already present before time exist, in eternity past.
What is the point of looking at these, you might ask. The point is simple: The love of God expressed towards each other person is outside of the persons of God. The one decree is God, but the many decrees coming from that one decree is not God, for it is many (Divine simplicity). Already in orthodoxy Christian theology, and especially Reformed theology, there are divine things that are from eternity and before time. The ad extra ("to out of") elements of God are not just limited to the incarnation or to salvation. Anything that is not one-ness is ad extra by virtue of the doctrine of divine simplicity. That includes the expressed love of the persons of the Trinity, the decreees (plural) of God, the relationship God has with any of His people, even the upholding of creation.
Straight away, we see the problem with Barrett's accusation. In Barrett's mind, and in the minds of many classical theists it seem, the economic Trinity, God ad extra, pertains only to salvation and the incarnation. That assertion is expressively rejected by all proponents of EFS. In fact, from the examples I have given of the love of God and the decrees of God, it is uncertain that Barrett's assertion is even coherent much less logical. There is God ad intra, with regards to His being in the one essence, and God ad extra, which includs any and everything that is not of the being of God, including the decrees and actions of any one person or all of them.
Barrett's accusation against EFS proponents stem from reading concepts into their words. Many EFS proponents are biblicists, and they, I would say carelessly, use words like the life of the Trinity, or the inner life of the triune God or things to that effect. What they have in mind is that the persons of the God relate to each other, and these relations happen in eternity past, and willl continue to happen in eternity future. This inner life of the triune God is NOT The same as the immanent Trinity, which refers to the being of God. Here, I acknowledge that part of the confusion is a failure by the biblicists to properly use terms like "immanent" and "econimic," or "ad intra/ ad extra." However, when read in context according to the words and concepts they use, it is clear that what they mean is that EFS pertains to the economic ad extra aspect of the Godhead, as they are seen in the relations of the triune persons from eternity past to eternity future.
When Barrett states that "EFSers assume [the immanent Trinity] is synonymous with what they label eternity past and future," the person who is confused is Barrett, not EFSers. Barrett misrepresents EFS as teaching subordination within the immanent Trinity, whereas EFS merely teaches submission of the Son to the Father in eternity, but such is economic not immanent.
No comments:
Post a Comment