I think that sometimes the words we use are open to interpretation. Theologians are quite adept at not being careful enough in this matter. We are quite adept at jumping to conclusions when we hear someone use a word, and offer our own expert opinion. So, for what it’s worth, here’s my decidedly UNexpert opinion.

We know there are many senses in which words can be used. The English language is famous for not being careful with its use of words.

The USA/Australian use of the English language is likewise very ambiguous at times. No doubt you have to decipher what I say, and believe me, likewise.

The word “trinity” is not found in the Bible, but, there can be no doubt that the concept is very clearly declared. The same can be said for the general idea conferred by many theological words such as the “three oms”: “omniscience,” “omnipotence,” “omnipresence” . Never-the-less, we have no trouble using these words to conceptualize the unique attributes of God.

In my very limited way, the same applies to the word “subordination” in the Godhead. It depends very much on what we, in our feeble minds, understand what is meant by “subordination”.

It seems to me that the word is quite legitimate when we use it in terms of formal association or order. I DO NOT believe it is legitimate if we understand “subordination” to mean substance or essence. Subordination certainly DOES NOT mean that one or the other is greater or lesser than the other in divinity or authority

God the Father is not begotten, but the Jesus, the Son is (John 3:16). The Father sent the Son (John 5:26) . The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26).

We need to be very careful how we articulate the issue because we can very easily slip into the heretical trap of denying, either implicitly or explicitly, the truth of the divinity of both the Son and the Holy Spirit .

As we contemplate the matter, we need to heed Moses words, when he declared, “”Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is ONE!” (Deut. 6:4), whilst being careful to listen to Jesus when He said, “I and the Father are ONE”(John 10:30), and remembering that this same “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever”(Heb.13:8).

As we intellectually struggle with concepts such as “subordination” we need to always keep in mind, as Jesus spoke about His New Covenant mission at that last supper, it was a reminder that HE is all of these at the same time; THE agent, THE purpose, and THE goal of creation! ALL of God’s purpose, from end to beginning, revolves around HIM.

It is HE “who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. It is HE who has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we
have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. It is HE who is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn over all creation. For by HIM all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. ALL things were created through HIM and for HIM. It is HE who is before all things, and in HIM all things consist. And it is HE who is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the
dead, that IN ALL THINGS HE HAVE FIRST PLACE IN EVERYTHING.

Why? “For God was pleased to have all of his fullness live in HIM. Through HIM he also reconciled all things to himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, thus making peace through the blood of his cross.” (Col. 1:19,20)

I would have to say no I don’t see any of those words perse. But we all know the “word doesn’t have to be there” argument. I do think that in that text it appears that the Spirit is subject to the preordained ministry that belongs to the Father and the Son. If the doctrine of the Trinity describes them as co-equal, then how come the Spirit doesn’t have ownership as well? I know I am missing something. It may be that I am thinking too much in human terms as to ownership. I can stomach that charge.

So you see the Spirit’s “own” as refering to His ministry? That’s interesting. I’ve never heard that before. But we do know something of the ministry of the Spirit from, well, the Spirit inspired writers. So in a way, He does disclose His “own” ministry to them. That’s how we know what it is. So I’m back to square one in a way. I don’t think, for this logical reason alone, that His “own” could be refering to His ministry.

I don’t know. I hope I’m not just refusing the answer. But thanks for working this out with me. Lately there are some other things that I have been reexamining that I would like to get a better understanding on.

You bring up some good questions. I will work through this a bit. However, my initial thought is this is still surrounding redemption and in redemption there is a bit different outworking. Ephesians 1 gives the cooperative work of the Godhead in redemption with each playing unique roles.

When it says initiative it is saying he will not speak of “himself” I don’t know why the translators used “initiative”. The role of the Spirit was to glorify the Son not to point to His own ministry. This isn’t subordination but function. The Spirits function is to place the truth of the Gospel on the hearts of the redeemed in order for the work of God in the Son on the cross will be brought to fruition. Let me know what you think.

Let me ask do you see the word “subject” or “subordinate” or “submitted” in relation to the role of the Spirit to the Son?

I have an honest question about the Spirit’s subjection. Now I will start off by saying that I may have the definition of subjection wrong as it relates to the inner-Trinitarian relationship. So forgive me in advance. Here are the verses:

John 16:7,12-15 (NASB) “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will declare it to you.”

Now I want to make a few observations. I realize that this is one passage of perhaps many. So I don’t mind if other verses are brought in to explain it. I would like an honest assessment of what seems to be here though, first. Here we go:

1. The Helper is sent by Jesus. I realize this could be the result of a cooperative relationship and not of any type of hierarchy. But stay with me here.

2. The Helper will guide into all truth but Christ’ explanation of that statement seems to be that the Helper will NOT speak on His own initiative. Now, does that statement imply that Truth itself is under the sole rule of someone other than the Helper? I’m not saying that the Helper would lie or that He would have a seperate truth but it seems that Christ connects Him not speaking on His own initiative and Him guiding into all truth. What am I reading into this or missing? I realize that it is possible.

3. The Helper glorifies Christ. No problem there. But He glorifies Christ by disclosing what Christ refers to as “Mine”. Christ then says that it belongs to the Father and Himself. However, He doesn’t say that it also belongs to the Helper and if it does, then it is at least apparent that what the Helper discloses is controlled because the Helper will not speak on His own initiative. (Man I feel like a heretic right now, LOL!!!)

I honestly don’t know what the solution is. I am not trying to redefine the Trinity. I do sense the wood and coals burning on the stake though, lol.

Help a brother out!