This should make it clear that the comment by “Tim” was not authored by you, Timothy Mills.

I addressed this question more fully in my review of Kevin Giles’ book “Jesus and the Father,” where he made the same agreements about the nature of the persons of the Trinity, saying that the Persons of the Trinity are so undifferentiated that the most one can say about the Trinity is that one is called “Father,” another is called “Son,” while the third is called “Holy Spirit.” Giles only stopped short of denying that there is in fact a Trinity, and that God merely shows up in different forms at various times to accommodate our humanity (Modalism).

Indeed, God IS the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), I affirm that with full voice; if we accept Scripture to be what it claims to be, then we must also believe that Christ will also subject Himself to the Father on the Last Day, and God is all in all (1 Cor 15:28). I also affirm that verse full throated.

Far from being burned, Dr. Grudem’s work is to be cherished and studied, learned from and (largely) implemented.

Shame to whomever posted the comments above Phil Gons’s comments using my name. I would never recommend the burning of any book, however much I disagreed with it, much less one with which I am largely in accord.

I don’t share your view of Grudem. He is far from a heretic. He is a very solid evangelical scholar, and his Systematic Theology is one of my favorites. I recommend it often and will continue to do so. His view of the trinity is supported by a long line of evangelical scholars and ecumenical creeds and councils.

Nor do I share your view of the trinity. I disagree that hierarchy, properly understood and defined, constitutes tritheism—for the simple reason that both hierarchy and monotheism are taught in Scripture.

First, you need to distinguish between essence or nature and function or economy. Father, Son, and Spirit are equal in the former, but not in the latter.

Second, that Jesus during His incarnation was functionally subordinate to the Father is without dispute. If this could take place for a time without constituting tritheism, then it could take place eternally without constituting tritheism.

Third, whether that subordination existed before and continues after the incarnation is less clear, but there are some texts that strongly suggest this.

Deal, please, with 1 Cor 11:3 and 1 Cor 15:28.

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that sGod may be all in all.

The Father is the head of the Son. The Son will finally be subjected to the Father. If this is not functional subordination, then what is it?

A denial of functional subordination is nothing more than egalitarianism wrongfully controlling exegesis and theology.

Yes, the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the church (Eph. 5:23), but that is a relationship between the husband and wife, as between Christ and the church; but not as between the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. No where does the New Testament make that comparison.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but isn’t that precisely the connection Paul makes in 1 Cor 11:3?

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Just as a husband is the head of his wife, so the Father is the head of the Son.

How would you handle this passage in light of the above statement from your review?

Thanks.

Phil