Is the Son less than the Father?

Some texts set the Son below the Father. "The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing" (John 5:19). "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). The risen Jesus speaks of "my God and your God" (John 20:17). "The head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3). And at the end "the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him" (1 Corinthians 15:28).

Ken Kibbey's Living Systematic Theology (LST) grades these texts so: "These texts establish real personal and mediatorial order, but they do not by themselves establish inequality of divine nature or an eternal hierarchy of command and obedience between the divine persons as such." That is three claims, and all three hold. The texts establish an order of Father and Son in the work of salvation (lstOrder_establishes). They leave open whether the Son is less than the Father in his divinity (order_texts_leave_lesser_divinity_open). And they leave open whether the order is eternal, an order of authority and submission between the persons as they are (order_texts_leave_eternal_authority_open). LST calls the order "personal and mediatorial". What is checked here is the order in the work of salvation, the mediatorial one; whether it also belongs to the persons as they eternally are is the third claim, and is left open.

Two questions, and who answers them

The first question is the old one. The party that followed Arius (died 336) held the Son to be a creature, or unlike the Father, and read John 14:28 as saying so. The creed of Sirmium (357) says the Father is "greater in honour and dignity and Godhead … the Son Himself testifying, 'The Father that sent Me is greater than I'". Arius had written that "the Son has a beginning, but … God is without beginning". Three readers answer the verse, and their answers differ.

Augustine reads it by the two "forms" of Philippians 2:6–7: "The Son of God, then, is equal to God the Father in nature, but less in fashion. For in the form of a servant which He took He is less than the Father; but in the form of God … He is equal to the Father."
Athanasius reads "greater" of the Father as the one the Son is from: "not indeed in greatness, nor in time, but because of His generation from the Father Himself, nay, in saying 'greater' He again shows that He is proper to His essence", that is, belongs to the Father's own being.
Calvin reads it as Christ the Mediator, the one who stands between God and us (1 Timothy 2:5), comparing his humbled state with the glory he is going to: "Christ does not now speak either of his human nature, or of his eternal Divinity". He calls the Fathers' reading of the verse from the human nature "neither correct nor appropriate". He holds the two forms; he denies that this verse speaks of them.

The second question was argued among evangelicals, most sharply at the Evangelical Theological Society in 2016, as "eternal functional subordination" or "eternal relations of authority and submission". Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware hold that the order of sending and obeying belongs to the persons as they eternally are: "the names Father and Son indicate an eternal relationship of authority and submission" (Grudem, 2016), and "prior to creation, the Son was eternally subject to the planning and authority of the Father" (Grudem, 2015, p. 40). Grudem confesses the persons "equal in power and glory", with the Evangelical Theological Society, and holds that eternal submission does not deny it. Kevin Giles answers that "to argue that the Son is eternally subordinate in authority to the Father, denies that he is equal in power with the Father" (2008, p. 323). The Westminster Confession calls the three persons "of one substance, power, and eternity" (II.3). Millard Erickson, weighing the debate, holds that the texts of the Father's sending and commanding "do not count as evidence in support of an eternal supremacy of the Father"; his words are quoted here as Grudem quotes them (2016), and Ware's as Giles quotes them, since no page of either book was read.

The limits of what is checked

The dispute hears the five order texts, Philippians 2:6, the Westminster Confession's "power", and four readings of John 14:28. It does not hear the texts that say the Son is God, John 1:1 and 20:28 among them, which are the next question of LST §3. So whatever it finds about the Son's divinity is what those few verses carry, and no more.

How this is checked

The positions, steps and results behind this chapter, each with the formula or the Lean that checks it

The texts, and the order they establish

orderTexts

The order texts LST cites.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — John 5:19, 30 — the Son does nothing of his own accord, but the sender's will
(2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — John 14:28 — "the Father is greater than I"
(3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — John 20:17 — the risen Jesus: "my God and your God"
(4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — 1 Corinthians 11:3 — "the head of Christ is God"
(5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "the Son himself will also be subjected to him"

textsEstablishOrder

From the texts to a real order: the Son is sent and does the sender's will, the Father is greater, the risen Son calls him his God, the head of Christ is God, and at the end the Son is subject.

\((\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}}\) — would give: There is a real order of Father and Son in the work of salvation

orderLine — The order texts: the Son sent, obedient, and subject at the end

What the order texts establish, on every party's reading: a real order of Father and Son in the work of salvation.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — John 5:19, 30 — the Son does nothing of his own accord, but the sender's will
(2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — John 14:28 — "the Father is greater than I"
(3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — John 20:17 — the risen Jesus: "my God and your God"
(4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — 1 Corinthians 11:3 — "the head of Christ is God"
(5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "the Son himself will also be subjected to him"
(6) \((\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}}\) — at issue: There is a real order of Father and Son in the work of salvation

lstOrderCase — The order texts: the Son sent, obedient, and subject at the end

LST's position on the order texts: the texts, and the order they establish. Every premise is a text, cited to Scripture alone.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — John 5:19, 30 — the Son does nothing of his own accord, but the sender's will
(2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — John 14:28 — "the Father is greater than I"
(3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — John 20:17 — the risen Jesus: "my God and your God"
(4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — 1 Corinthians 11:3 — "the head of Christ is God"
(5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "the Son himself will also be subjected to him"
(6) \((\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}}\) — at issue: There is a real order of Father and Son in the work of salvation

Grounded in scripture alone: John 5:19, 30 — the Son does nothing of his own accord, but the sender's will, John 14:28 — "the Father is greater than I", John 20:17 — the risen Jesus: "my God and your God", 1 Corinthians 11:3 — "the head of Christ is God", 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "the Son himself will also be subjected to him".

Is the Son less in his divinity?

greaterToLesserDivinity

The Arian step: "greater" means lesser divinity.

\((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-23}{P_{23}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — would give: The Son is less than the Father in his divinity

arianLine — "The Father is greater": a lesser divinity (the Arians)

The Arian line, as the creed of Sirmium (357) uses the verse, and as Augustine and Calvin report it.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-23}{P_{23}}\) — In John 14:28 "greater" means the Son is less in his divinity
(2) \((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-23}{P_{23}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — at issue: The Son is less than the Father in his divinity

arianCase — The Son less in divinity (the Arians)

The Arian position: the order texts, and John 14:28 read as lesser divinity.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — John 5:19, 30 — the Son does nothing of his own accord, but the sender's will
(2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — John 14:28 — "the Father is greater than I"
(3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — John 20:17 — the risen Jesus: "my God and your God"
(4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — 1 Corinthians 11:3 — "the head of Christ is God"
(5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "the Son himself will also be subjected to him"
(6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-23}{P_{23}}\) — In John 14:28 "greater" means the Son is less in his divinity
(7) \((\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}}\) — would give: There is a real order of Father and Son in the work of salvation
(8) \((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-23}{P_{23}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — at issue: The Son is less than the Father in his divinity

twoFormsToEquality

Augustine's step: less in the form of a servant, equal in the form of God.

\((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-24}{P_{24}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — would deny: The Son is less than the Father in his divinity

augustineLine — Less in the form of a servant, equal in the form of God (Augustine)

Augustine's line, by the two forms.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}}\) — Philippians 2:6 — "though he was in the form of God"
(2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-24}{P_{24}}\) — In John 14:28 the Son is less in the form of a servant, not in the form of God
(3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-24}{P_{24}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — at issue, the denial of: The Son is less than the Father in his divinity

augustineCase — Equal in nature, less in the form of a servant (Augustine)

Augustine's position.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — John 5:19, 30 — the Son does nothing of his own accord, but the sender's will
(2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — John 14:28 — "the Father is greater than I"
(3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — John 20:17 — the risen Jesus: "my God and your God"
(4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — 1 Corinthians 11:3 — "the head of Christ is God"
(5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "the Son himself will also be subjected to him"
(6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}}\) — Philippians 2:6 — "though he was in the form of God"
(7) \(\href{claims.html#claim-24}{P_{24}}\) — In John 14:28 the Son is less in the form of a servant, not in the form of God
(8) \((\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}}\) — would give: There is a real order of Father and Son in the work of salvation
(9) \((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-24}{P_{24}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — at issue, the denial of: The Son is less than the Father in his divinity

begetterToEquality

Athanasius's step: "greater" as the one the Son is from, so "proper to His essence".

\((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-25}{P_{25}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — would deny: The Son is less than the Father in his divinity

athanasiusLine — Greater as the one he is from (Athanasius)

Athanasius's line.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-25}{P_{25}}\) — The Father is "greater" as the one the Son is begotten from
(2) \((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-25}{P_{25}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — at issue, the denial of: The Son is less than the Father in his divinity

athanasiusCase — Greater as the one he is from (Athanasius)

Athanasius's position.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — John 5:19, 30 — the Son does nothing of his own accord, but the sender's will
(2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — John 14:28 — "the Father is greater than I"
(3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — John 20:17 — the risen Jesus: "my God and your God"
(4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — 1 Corinthians 11:3 — "the head of Christ is God"
(5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "the Son himself will also be subjected to him"
(6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-25}{P_{25}}\) — The Father is "greater" as the one the Son is begotten from
(7) \((\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}}\) — would give: There is a real order of Father and Son in the work of salvation
(8) \((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-25}{P_{25}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — at issue, the denial of: The Son is less than the Father in his divinity

mediatorsStateAnswersArius

Calvin's step: the verse compares the Mediator's state with his glory, so it does not say the Son is less in divinity.

\((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-23}{P_{23}}\) — would deny: In John 14:28 "greater" means the Son is less in his divinity

mediatorsStateAnswersTheFathers

Calvin against the Fathers' reply: the verse does not speak of the Son's human nature either.

\(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-24}{P_{24}}\) — would deny: In John 14:28 the Son is less in the form of a servant, not in the form of God

calvinLine — The Mediator's humbled state (Calvin)

Calvin's line.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) — In John 14:28 Christ compares his humbled state as Mediator with his glory
(2) \((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-23}{P_{23}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-23}{P_{23}}\) — at issue, the denial of: In John 14:28 "greater" means the Son is less in his divinity

calvinCase — The Mediator's state, not his natures (Calvin)

Calvin's position: John 14:28 does not say the Son is less in divinity, nor speak of his human nature.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — John 5:19, 30 — the Son does nothing of his own accord, but the sender's will
(2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — John 14:28 — "the Father is greater than I"
(3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — John 20:17 — the risen Jesus: "my God and your God"
(4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — 1 Corinthians 11:3 — "the head of Christ is God"
(5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "the Son himself will also be subjected to him"
(6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) — In John 14:28 Christ compares his humbled state as Mediator with his glory
(7) \((\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}}\) — would give: There is a real order of Father and Son in the work of salvation
(8) \((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-23}{P_{23}}\)
(9) \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-24}{P_{24}}\) — would deny: In John 14:28 the Son is less in the form of a servant, not in the form of God
\(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-23}{P_{23}}\) — at issue, the denial of: In John 14:28 "greater" means the Son is less in his divinity

Is the order eternal?

orderToEternalAuthority

From the order, read as eternal, to an eternal relationship of authority and submission.

\((\href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-27}{P_{27}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) — would give: There is an eternal relationship of authority and submission of Father and Son

eternalOrderLine — The order is eternal (Grudem, Ware)

The line of Grudem and Ware.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-27}{P_{27}}\) — The sending and obeying are the outworking of an eternal authority and submission
(2) \((\href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-27}{P_{27}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) — at issue: There is an eternal relationship of authority and submission of Father and Son

eternalAuthorityCase — Eternal authority and submission (Grudem, Ware)

The position of Grudem and Ware.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — John 5:19, 30 — the Son does nothing of his own accord, but the sender's will
(2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — John 14:28 — "the Father is greater than I"
(3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — John 20:17 — the risen Jesus: "my God and your God"
(4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — 1 Corinthians 11:3 — "the head of Christ is God"
(5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "the Son himself will also be subjected to him"
(6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-27}{P_{27}}\) — The sending and obeying are the outworking of an eternal authority and submission
(7) \((\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}}\) — would give: There is a real order of Father and Son in the work of salvation
(8) \((\href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-27}{P_{27}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) — at issue: There is an eternal relationship of authority and submission of Father and Son

equalPowerExcludesSubordination

From the Son's equality in power, and eternal subordination's denial of it, to no eternal subordination in authority.

\((\href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) — would deny: There is an eternal relationship of authority and submission of Father and Son

equalPowerLine — Equal in power, so not eternally subordinate (Giles)

Giles's line.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — The Son is equal to the Father in power: "of one substance, power, and eternity"
(2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}\) — Eternal subordination in authority would deny the Son's equality in power
(3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) — at issue, the denial of: There is an eternal relationship of authority and submission of Father and Son

equalAuthorityCase — No eternal subordination in authority (Giles)

Giles's position.

(1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — John 5:19, 30 — the Son does nothing of his own accord, but the sender's will
(2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — John 14:28 — "the Father is greater than I"
(3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — John 20:17 — the risen Jesus: "my God and your God"
(4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — 1 Corinthians 11:3 — "the head of Christ is God"
(5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "the Son himself will also be subjected to him"
(6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — The Son is equal to the Father in power: "of one substance, power, and eternity"
(7) \(\href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}\) — Eternal subordination in authority would deny the Son's equality in power
(8) \((\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-22}{P_{22}}\) — would give: There is a real order of Father and Son in the work of salvation
(9) \((\href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\)
\(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) — at issue, the denial of: There is an eternal relationship of authority and submission of Father and Son

Readings, written down

nicenWithGilesReading

A Nicene reading with Giles: every order text, the order, Augustine's and Athanasius's readings of John 14:28, the Son not less in divinity, the Son equal in power, and no eternal order of authority.

def nicenWithGilesReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.greaterMeansLesserDivinity => False
    | Claim.sonLesserInDivinity => False
    | Claim.greaterAsMediatorsState => False
    | Claim.orderIsEternal => False
    | Claim.eternalAuthorityAndSubmission => False
    | x => True

arianReading

The Arian reading: every order text, the order, John 14:28 as lesser divinity, and the Son less in his divinity; none of the three Nicene readings of the verse.

def arianReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.lessInTheFormOfAServant => False
    | Claim.greaterAsBegetter => False
    | Claim.greaterAsMediatorsState => False
    | x => True

augustineReading

Augustine's reading: every order text, the order, the two forms, and the Son not less in divinity; not the Arian reading, and not Calvin's, which denies that John 14:28 speaks of the two forms. It also makes the eternal order true. That is a choice of model, not Augustine's answer to the second question.

def augustineReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.greaterMeansLesserDivinity => False
    | Claim.sonLesserInDivinity => False
    | Claim.greaterAsMediatorsState => False
    | x => True

calvinReading

Calvin's reading: every order text, the order, the Mediator's state, and neither the Arian reading of John 14:28 nor Augustine's reading of it by the two forms.

def calvinReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.greaterMeansLesserDivinity => False
    | Claim.sonLesserInDivinity => False
    | Claim.lessInTheFormOfAServant => False
    | x => True

eternalAuthorityReading

The reading of Grudem and Ware: every order text, the order, the order read as eternal, and an eternal relationship of authority and submission. Giles's reading, that such an order would deny the Son's equal power, is not theirs.

def eternalAuthorityReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.subordinationDeniesEqualPower => False
    | x => True

equalAuthorityReading

Giles's reading: every order text, the order, the Son equal in power, and no eternal subordination in authority; the order not read as eternal.

def equalAuthorityReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.orderIsEternal => False
    | Claim.eternalAuthorityAndSubmission => False
    | x => True

What the order texts settle, and what they leave open

lstOrder_establishes

Grant the order texts, and there is a real order of Father and Son. This is what LST says they establish, and every party here grants it.

theorem lstOrder_establishes : Establishes lstOrderCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

lstOrderCase_is_satisfiable

LST's position on the order texts can be held without contradiction.

theorem lstOrderCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable lstOrderCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

order_texts_leave_lesser_divinity_open

The order texts leave open whether the Son is less in his divinity. Granted the five texts and the order they establish, neither "the Son is less than the Father in his divinity" nor its denial follows: the Arian reading satisfies every premise with it, and Augustine's without it.

That is LST's claim, and it holds. It is checked with each verse taken as its own words and each reading of it as a premise of its own. A reader who holds that "greater" plainly means greater in divinity puts that reading into the verse, and the reading is the premise rated disputed. Whether the Son is less in his divinity is argued from such readings, and from other texts, which the next question of LST §3 takes up.

theorem order_texts_leave_lesser_divinity_open : Independent
    lstOrderCase.premises (p Claim.sonLesserInDivinity)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

order_texts_leave_eternal_authority_open

The order texts leave open whether the order is eternal. Granted the texts and the order, neither an eternal relationship of authority and submission nor its denial follows: the reading of Grudem and Ware satisfies every premise with it, and Giles's without it.

That is LST's further claim, and it holds, checked in the same way: each verse as its own words, and the reading that the order is eternal as a premise of its own. Grudem argues that the subjection of 1 Corinthians 15:28 and the Son's being sent from before creation already show it; that argument is the reading, rated disputed. Erickson draws LST's conclusion about the texts of sending and commanding, that "they do not count as evidence in support of an eternal supremacy of the Father" (as Grudem quotes him).

theorem order_texts_leave_eternal_authority_open : Independent
    lstOrderCase.premises (p Claim.eternalAuthorityAndSubmission)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

What each position delivers

arianCase_establishes

Grant John 14:28 read as lesser divinity, and the Son is less than the Father in his divinity.

theorem arianCase_establishes : Establishes arianCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

arianCase_is_satisfiable

The Arian position can be held without contradiction.

theorem arianCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable arianCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

augustineCase_establishes

Grant Augustine's two forms, and the Son is not less in his divinity.

theorem augustineCase_establishes : Establishes augustineCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

augustineCase_is_satisfiable

Augustine's position can be held without contradiction.

theorem augustineCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable augustineCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

athanasiusCase_establishes

Grant Athanasius's reading of "greater", and the Son is not less in his divinity.

theorem athanasiusCase_establishes : Establishes athanasiusCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

athanasiusCase_is_satisfiable

Athanasius's position can be held without contradiction.

theorem athanasiusCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable athanasiusCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

calvinCase_establishes

Grant Calvin's reading, and John 14:28 does not say the Son is less in his divinity.

theorem calvinCase_establishes : Establishes calvinCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

calvinCase_is_satisfiable

Calvin's position can be held without contradiction.

theorem calvinCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable calvinCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

eternalAuthorityCase_establishes

Grant the order read as eternal, and there is an eternal relationship of authority and submission.

theorem eternalAuthorityCase_establishes : Establishes eternalAuthorityCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

eternalAuthorityCase_is_satisfiable

The position of Grudem and Ware can be held without contradiction.

theorem eternalAuthorityCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    eternalAuthorityCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

equalAuthorityCase_establishes

Grant the Son equal in power, and that eternal subordination would deny it, and there is no eternal subordination in authority.

theorem equalAuthorityCase_establishes : Establishes equalAuthorityCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

equalAuthorityCase_is_satisfiable

Giles's position can be held without contradiction.

theorem equalAuthorityCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    equalAuthorityCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

Testimony