Midweek Musings: The Eternal Son, The Mediator, and Why the "When" Matters

The Eternal Son, The Mediator, and Why the "When" Matters

If you’ve been doom-scrolling "Theology Twitter" (X) lately—and if you have, I’m sorry—you’ve likely seen the skirmish regarding the Baptist Faith & Message and the Nicene Creed. It’s a messy fight, but recently Denny Burk dropped a tweet that perfectly illustrates why this battle matters.

Burk is doubling down on Eternal Functional Subordination (EFS) by blurring the lines between who God is (ontology) and what God does (economy).

He posted a quote from the late and great Herman Bavinck, essentially using the Dutch theologian as a shield for his own heterodoxy regarding the Trinity. The quote suggests that the Son’s role as Mediator (and the subordination to the Father that comes with it) wasn't just planned in eternity, but was active in eternity.

The Problem with an "Eternal" Incarnation

The quote Burk shared claims that "the incarnation itself is already included in the execution of the work assigned to the Son, but occurs in eternity."

Bavinck is a heavyweight, but this specific formulation—at least how Burk is deploying it—is incomprehensible. This is not a surprise, however, since those who read subordination into scripture will also read it into orthodox theologians.

When you peel back the layers of this statement, you find several theological landmines.

First, this understanding of the pactum salutis (covenant of redemption) implicitly assumes a rigid lapsarianism. By suggesting the Son is eternally acting as Mediator for a humanity that does not yet exist, it assumes a divine authorization of the Fall in a way that risks making God the author of sin.

Second, and perhaps more pressingly, how can the Son assume the office of Mediator in eternity if there is no other party to mediate for? A mediator stands between two parties. If humanity hasn't been created yet, who is He mediating for? The office of Mediator is assigned to Him in the Incarnation. We might argue it is ascribed to Him in the Old Testament by way of anticipation, but to say the Incarnation is assigned and occurs "in eternity" creates a metaphysical headache that collapses the Creator-creature distinction.

The Conflation of Ontology and Economy

The biggest issue here is that Burk (and this reading of Bavinck) conflates ontology and economy. This is just as much an error as separating them entirely.

If the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father because He is eternally the Mediator in act, then you have tampered with the internal life of the Trinity. You have introduced hierarchy into the essence of God.

A Better Way

Contrast that confusion with the clarity of the Orthodox Creed (1679). Article IX offers a much healthier and more robust view of the pactum.

The Creed affirms that Christ was "elected before the Foundation of the World," but notice the shift in timing regarding the work: "...which in the fullness of Time, he was made of a Woman, made under the Law."

The Orthodox Creed carefully distinguishes between the decree (which is eternal) and the execution (which is historical). It notes that Christ is the "Meriting Cause" of salvation, but it doesn't force the "Humane Nature" into eternity past. It anchors the office of Mediator in the "Hypostatical Union"—the moment the Word became flesh.

Why Does This Matter?

Why are men like Burk so committed to this confusing and heterodox reading of the Trinity?

It brings us back to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). For years, figures within this camp have been so concerned with maintaining human hierarchies (specifically regarding men and women) that they have projected those hierarchies into the heavens. They seem to need the Son to be eternally subordinate to the Father to justify women being permanently subordinate to men.

In doing so, they have neglected first principles. 

They have prioritized anthropology over Christology. 

They are playing games with Divine ontology to score points in a culture war.

We need to recover a high Christology that refuses to let modern gender politics rewrite the Nicene faith.

The Son decrees and aseents to His own election and saving work with the Father and the Spirit. 

He is not a hired hand or a subordinate employee. 

He is the Lord.

For Further Reading

• David Bumgardner, "Jesus Christ is Under Attack," BNG.

• ———. "Jesus Christ is (still) Under Attack," BNG.

• Malcolm Yarnell: God: Theology for Every Person.

• Michael Reeves: Delighting in the Trinity.

• Scott Swain: The Trinity: An Introduction.