The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Eternal Subordination of the Son

I wonder,too, about who is referred as the Big Eva. Would Wayne Grudem and Dennis Burke be considered New Calvinists? Seems as if the New Calvinists according to Trueman are folks like those with The Gospel Coalition.

I might be totally confused on who are the players.

From what I've gathered, albeit little, Carl Trueman seems to be the one coining the phrase, "Big EVA". And from some other writings of his, "Big EVA" is a very broad group which includes New Calvinists and The Gospel Coalition. However inclusive it may be, the term is used in a pejorative sense, if I have it right.

Now to be sure, there are some major 'players' in The Gospel Coalition, e.g., Tim Keller, who are also part of the nebulous New Calvinist movement. Whether Grudem and/or Dennis Burke belong to either I don't have a clue. My practice is to dismiss without malice anyone who belongs to any of those groups.

Im not sure as well about those players highlighted here,.. but the Gospel Coalition is a very loose group in my opinion especially with Keller,.. each time I hear him in a Q&A I'm always left with a frown on my face,.. trying to figure out what he is saying and what he is not saying,.. very interesting post as I have never heard of the Big EVA, before.

I think loose is the right word.
There are speakers at some of their conferences that are very Reformed in their doctrine.
I have listened to a few over the years who have made it very clear that they dislike liberal views on things like the creation. In fact they point out how not holding to the 6 24 hour (which Keller doesn't hold to) is a very slippery slope.
Yet try to get to the bottom of why they would be in the same organization as men who are not orthodox and chances are you will not get a response.
I have written to a few of them over the last few years and have not even received one response. Some of these same people I have received responses from before on other matters. I also know people who have tried to find out the reason for this, without any response either.
Tom

Could Big Eva Face a Trump Moment?
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/post...big-eva-face-a-trump-moment#.V2B2UJApBJ8

Pilgrim
Just to let you know, some of my earlier confusion stems from your quote above.
It appears (at least to me) like you were saying that Christ's subordination to the Father, was ontological, not just functional.
Tom

There is no mention of 'ontological' in the quote. The statement was meant to be UNIVERSAL in scope. The issue of ontological vs. functional re: subordination wasn't brought up. So, as far as I'm concerned, the statement is accurate albeit some, such as yourself, might be confused if that is all one read.

So, once again... Subordination of the Son to the Father does not apply to God's essense (ontological Trinity). The subordination of the Son to the Father is strictly functional which exists eternally since God is not subject to time.