Eternal Functional Subordination And The Problem Of The Divine Will -- By: D. Glenn Butner, Jr.
Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 58:1 (Mar 2015)
Article: Eternal Functional Subordination And The Problem Of The Divine Will
Author: D. Glenn Butner, Jr.
JETS 58:1 (March 2015) p. 131
Eternal Functional Subordination And The Problem Of The Divine Will
* D. Glenn Butner Jr. is a doctoral candidate in systematic theology at Marquette University, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 53201.
The doctrine of eternal functional subordination (hereafter EFS) has been growing in support in evangelical circles in recent years. EFS claims that the Father and the Son are eternally distinguished by an “authority-submission structure”1 such that the Son eternally submits to the Father and the Father eternally has authority over the Son. This structure is the pattern for all created male-female relationships. Advocates of EFS are confident in their theology. We are told that “if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another,” such that, if we reject EFS, “we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity.”2 Those who reject EFS are said to be “condemning all orthodox Christology from the Nicene Creed onward” because the Nicene Creed affirms that the Son is eternally begotten.3 This paper will suggest against such claims that EFS is completely contrary to classical Christology, but it will do so using a different argument than the standard one presented by opponents of EFS.
The most prevalent philosophical and theological argument4 against EFS charges the doctrine with undermining the fact that the Father is homoousios with the Son, and therefore claims that the advocates of EFS are Arians. Millard Erickson presents the standard argument in its briefest form:
The problem is this: If authority over the Son is an essential, not an accidental, attribute of the Father, and subordination to the Father is an essential, not an accidental, attribute of the Son, then something significant follows. Authority is part of the Father’s essence, and subordination is part of the Son’s essence, and each attribute is not part of the essence of the other person. That means that the essence of the Son is different from the essence of the Father…. That is equivalent to saying that they are not homoousios with one another.5
JETS 58:1 (March 2015) p. 132
The fundamental problem, according to many of its opponents,6 is that EFS attributes ...
Click here to subscribe