Triune God - CBE International

(ACTS 18)”
6 One Essence, One Goodness, One Power Nancy Hedberg
12 An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity Stanley N. Gundry
Chr i s t i an s fo r B i bl i ca l Equa l i t y | www.cb e in t e r nat i ona l . o rg
We believe that the sole living God who created and rules over all and who is described in the Bible is one Triune God in three coeternal, coequal Persons, each Person being presented as distinct yet equal, not as three separate gods, but one Godhead, sharing equally in honor, glory, worship, power, authority, rule, and rank, such that no Person has eternal primacy over the others.
15 An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity William David Spencer
20 CBE and the Doctrine of the Trinity Kevin Giles
22 Human Interpersonal Relationships and the Love of the Trinity Maria L. Boccia
27 Book Review: Nancy Hedberg’s Women, Men, and the Trinity William David Spencer
28 Book Review: Millard Erickson’s Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? John Jefferson Davis
30 Poem: Heaven’s Terms for Ending the Lethal Punch-and-Judy Show William David Spencer
2 • Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011
deanStuartBartonBabbage,I learnedabouttheprecioustrea- surebequeathedtoChristianposterityinsuchstatementsasthe CreedofNicaea, theChalcedonianDefinitionof theFaith, the Apostles’Creed.Ialsolearned,tomysurprise,thatsuchdecla- rations as the Southern Baptist “Faith and Message” were also creeds, as was the statement of belief in my own independent Baptistbirthchurch.
Acreed,fromtheLatincredo,meaning“Ibelieve,”wassimply anaffirmationofwhatanindividual,orachurch,oragroupsuch asaparachurchorganization,oradenominationbelievesarethe central tenets of the faith that may not be changed. These are what are called the dogmatic declarations—the unifying prin- ciplesthatdefinethefaithbeingespoused.
In evangelical Christianity, we have (hopefully) many areas inwhichweallowvarietyofconviction.Wecanvaryinchurch structure; inwhat liquidelements(alcoholicornon)weusein theLord’sSupper;inwhenwebaptize,howmuchofthebodywe needtocoverwithwater,andhowmanytimeswedoitforeach individualbeliever;inhowformalourworshipstylesare;inwhat version(s)oftheBiblewedeemacceptableforthepublicreading oftheScriptures;toitemsaspersonalaswhetherbody-piercing and tattooing are demonic or simply artistic, or as formal as whetherrobesarerequiredonclergyornot,andsoon.
ThequestionofwhetherJesusisfullyGodandfullyhuman andtheonlywaytosalvationisnot,however,negotiableincon- servativeChristiancircles.
AsNanceyMurphyhasnoted inher illuminatingbookBe- yond Liberalism and Fundamentalism, when one moves away
Oneoftheepiphanicmomentsofmyfaith cameaboutinnorthPhiladelphiaatwhat had been Temple University’s theological school, redubbed Conwell School of Theology after Russell Conwell, the Civil War officer whose coming to Christian faith was profoundly influenced by a de- vout and devoted assistant, Johnny Ring. Johnnyseemedaperfectcandidateforthe ministrywhenhislifewasabruptlycutoff
in“thewarbetweenbrothers.”Severelywoundedhimselfandleft fordeadforanightattheBattleofKennesawMountain(Geor- gia), Conwell eventually embraced Johnny’s God.1 Years later, nowaBaptistpastor,hewasaskedbyayoungdeacontoteach himtopreachandrespondedinthegrandstyle,foundingTem- pleCollegeinPhiladelphia,“thecityofbrotherlylove,”perhaps as much a tribute to the young believer Johnny Ring. Temple blossomed into the university with a theological seminary, the latter becoming independent and soon acquiring a new name, Gordon-ConwellTheologicalSeminary,whenBillyGrahambro- keredamergerwithanotherseminary,GordonDivinitySchool, whichwasalsoleavingitspresentcampus.
ThePhiladelphiabranch,onlydestined to run thatone last year, 1969,washousedappropriately in theoldWidenerMan- sion,theformerPhiladelphiaPublicLibrary.There,amidanew setofbooks,allChristianandprofound,anda faculty that fa- vored European and high-church professors, assembled by the wiseAustralianAnglicanchurchhistorianandformercathedral
Priscilla Papers(issn0898-753x)ispublishedquarterlybyChristiansforBiblicalEquality,©2011. 122WestFranklinAvenue,Suite218,Minneapolis,MN55404-2451.Foraddresschangesandotherinformation,phone:612-872-6898;
fax:612-872-6891;ore-mail:[email protected]. Priscilla PapersisindexedbyChristiansforBiblicalEquality,theChristianPeriodicalIndex(CPI),AmericanTheologicalLibraryAssociation’s(ATLA)NewTestament
Abstracts(NTA),andReligious&TheologicalAbstracts(R&TA).Inaddition,Priscilla PapersislicensedwithEBSCOPublishing’sfull-textinformationallibraryproducts.
Editor • William David Spencer
BookReviewEditor • Aída Besançon Spencer
President/Publisher • Mimi Haddad
EditorsEmerita • Carol Thiessen† & Gretchen Gaebelein Hull
BoardofReference:MiriamAdeney,CarlE.Armerding,MyronS. Augsburger, Raymond J. Bakke, Anthony Campolo, Lois McKinney Douglas, Gordon D. Fee, Richard Foster, John R. Franke, W. Ward Gasque,J.LeeGrady,VernonGrounds,DavidJoelHamilton,Roberta Hestenes, Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Donald Joy, Robbie Joy, Craig S. Keener, John R. Kohlenberger III, David Mains, Kari Torjesen Malcolm, Brenda Salter McNeil, Alvera Mickelsen, Virgil Olson, LaDonna Osborn, T. L. Osborn, John E. Phelan, Kay F. Rader, Paul A. Rader, Ronald J. Sider, Aída Besançon Spencer, William David Spencer,RuthA.Tucker,MaryStewartVanLeeuwen,TimothyWeber, JeanetteS.G.Yep
Editor’s Reflections
DISCLAIMER:FinalselectionofallmaterialpublishedbyCBEinPriscilla Papersisentirelyuptothediscretionoftheeditor,consultingtheologians,andCBE’s executive.Pleasenotethateachauthorissolelylegallyresponsibleforthecontentandtheaccuracyoffacts,citations,references,andquotationsrenderedandprop- erlyattributedinthearticleappearingunderhisorhername.NeitherChristiansforBiblicalEquality,northeeditor,northeeditorialteamisresponsibleorlegally liableforanycontentoranystatementsmadebyanyauthor,butthelegalresponsibilityissolelythatauthor’sonceanarticleappearsinprintinPriscilla Papers.
Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011 • 3
fromanyofthesefoundationaltenets,onehasmadeaparadigm shiftfromconservative to liberal.Sheexplains thatonecannot simplyslipdownaslipperyslideofplummetingdoctrine.One needstochangeone’sviews.2JesusiseitherLordofallorLordof some,Godornot-God,humanornot-human,thesoledoorto salvationorjustoneofmanywindowslookingin.
As I keep telling my own students, Jesus cannot be “most unique”or“veryunique”or“moreunique.”Jesusiseitherunique— theonlymemberofthecategoryofGod-Among-Us-in-Human- Form—or not unique. There are not degrees of uniqueness any morethantherearedegreesofegalitarian,sincethingsareeither equalortheyarenot.Thesewordsindicatesomethingabsolute.
InChristiandoctrine,statingthatacoretenetisanabsolute andunchangeableaspectofwhatachurchbelieves,anunalter- abledogmafoundationaltothatchurch’sfaith,iswhatdeclaring a“WeBelieve”confessionisallabout.
Themostfamousandenduringofthe“Webelieve”statements, orcreeds,ofcourse,dealwiththenatureofGod.Thefirstgreat creeds,itcanbeargued,actuallyappearintheBibleitself.Itrace thefirstgreat“Webelieve”towhatiscalledtheShema,the“Hear, Israel,”namedintheHebrewstyleforitsfirstwordsofdeclara- tioninDeuteronomy6:4,(literally)“Hear,Israel,theLord,your God(s), the Lord is one (or united).” What using the singular word for“Lord”—the foursacred lettersofGod’sname,called the Tetragrammaton—in conjunction with the plural word for God, Elohim (“Gods”) meansinthiscontexthasbeenthesubject ofmuchdebate.Manyevangelicalsseeitastheforeshadowingof therevelationofGod’striunenature,oneofmanysuchplacesin theBiblewhereJesustookthoseastonishedtravelerstoEmmaeus, asreportedinLuke24:13–35,as“beginningwithMosesandwith alloftheprophetsheexplained(orinterpreted,diermneu)to theminalltheScripturesthethingsconcerninghimself ”(v.27).
IhavelongfeltthatwhattheApostleJohninthefirstchapter orprologuetohisgospelissettingoutisacreedalstatementashe combatstheperniciousteachingofCerinthus,theEbionites,the Nicolaitians.3Alloftheseteacherssoughttoalterthefaithonce receivedbythesaints.
CerinthuswasaNeoplatonistwhoviewedJesusaslessthan God,sinceJesuscreatedtheworld,and,inthePlatonistperspec- tive,matterisevilandGodcannottouchit.Alesserdemiurgeem- anatingfromtheDivineMonad(Godseenasanon-Trinitarian, Unitariandeity)musthavebeenthecreator.ButJohnestablishes inhisstatementthatthecreativewordthatemanatedoutfrom GodinGenesis1wasadistinctpersonofGod,bothdistinctbut unitedindeity:“andtheWordwaswithGod”(“with,”pros,be- ingaprepositiondrawnfromthewordfor“face,”prospon,thus meaningdistinct fromor “face to facewithGod”), and, at the sametime,that“WordwasGod”(John1:1).
I believe that John is drawing out the same lesson that the Shema wasteaching:thatGodispluralyetone.Wecallthisthe “Three inOne”qualityofGod: theTrinity.4Ourzealous Jeho- vah’sWitnessesfriendsmayinsistthattheterm“Trinity”isnot intheBible,butthetermwascreatedtoexplainthisconceptof divinepluralityinsingleness,thethree-in-onenessofGod,that
weseeallovertheBible.Thisiswhattheologyisallabout:articu- latingconceptsinhelpfulterms.Thosetermsarethengathered upintostatementsthathelpusunderstandandconfessourcen- tralbeliefs:thecreeds.
Generationaftergeneration,thechurchhashadtostandup anddeclarewhatitbelievesjustasIsraelregularlyconfessedthe Shema thatGodfirstdelivered throughMosesasGod’speople stoodonthefarsideoftheJordanRiver,poisedtoenteraland fulloffalsefaithsthatwouldseektopollutethetruerevelation thathadbeengiventotheminorderforthemtoblessothersasa nationofpriests(Gen12:2–3).
The Apostle John, as we saw, stated this faith again in the openingofhisgospel.PauldiditinColossians1:15–20andPhi- lippians 2:5–11. Emperor Constantine had church leaders do it againattheCouncilofNicaeawhenmoreNeoplatonists,spurred bythesaintlyappearingpreacherAriusandhispowerfulpatron theoverseerEusebiusofNicomedia,soughttoestablishthatJesus wasalesserGodthantheFather.Acenturyandaquarterlater, theequalityintheTrinityandtherevelationoftheincarnationof thatpersonintheTrinitywhocametoearthasJesusChrist,fully human,fullyGod,hadtobereaffirmedagainattheCouncilof Chalcedon.Downthroughtheages,confessionafterconfession becamenecessaryasthechurchcontinuedtoreaffirmitscentral tenets.Manyofthesehavebecomefamous:the Westminster Con- fession of Faith, the Scots Confession, the Second Helvetic Confes- sion.Someemergedfromgreatconflictandthreatsnotonlyto thefaith,butalsototheverynatureofthechurchasChrist’sand notsomeotherearthlypower’s,asthe Theological Declaration of Barmen thatdeclaredthatJesusChristaloneandnotAdolfHitler wastheLordofthechurch.
Inshort,periodicallythechurchneedstodeclareoneormore ofitscentralbeliefswhenitsensesthesearethreatened.Thisis not“creepingcreedalism”;thisislivingconfession.
Recently,manyofushavebeendismayedbyarisingmove- mentamongsomeinconservativeChristianitytodrawdistinc- tionsofdegreeofrankbetweenthepersonsoftheTrinity.These evangelicalsand fundamentalistsaremotivatedbyabelief that therearedegreesofrankamonghumanbeingsthatreflectour creation in the imageofGod,who isalsostratified.Notwant- ingtobecomeheretical,thesesincerebelievershaveconsciously tried to avoid making that paradigm shift into liberalism that seesadifferenceinrankasalsoadifferenceinbeing.
As all of us know, the dividing line between a theological liberal and a theological conservative is not in essence about whetherwethinkthatgivingacupofwatertoathirstypersonis partofJesus’gospelmessageorapreludetoit.Thelineisdrawn betweenwhetherwebelievethatGodtheFatherisGodandJesus andtheHolySpiritarelesserbeings,orwhetheronebelievesthat GodisoneGodinthreecoeternalandcoequalpersons.Among theological liberals, Jesus is often identified as a human being whoapprehendedGodinafullerwaythantherestofusandthe HolySpiritasthepowerofGodworkingonearth.Theological liberalism is at its core essentially akin to Unitarianism. Theo- logicalconservatismidentifiesJesusChristandtheHolySpiritas
coequalandcoeternalpersonswithintheGodheadinregardto being.Thereisnodisagreementbetweenevangelicalegalitarians andconservativegenderhierarchistsonthispoint.Allofusare TrinitarianinregardtoGod’sbeing.
Wherethedisagreementliesiswhetheraneternaldifference inrankindicatesanessentialdifferenceinbeinginthepersons oftheTrinity.Forsome(butnotall)gender hierarchists, permanently imprinted (soastosay)intheessenceofeachdivine person is a presumed stratified position inrank, theFatherbeingfirst inposition (callingtheshots,onemightsay)and(to somewhoholdthisposition),therefore,firstinpowerandglory andhonoraswell,theSonandHolySpiritwaitingforandacting upontheFather’sordersinaone-waysubordinationrelationship. Thispositionisheldbythosewhoalsoespousethatwomen,as JesusandtheSpirittotheFather,reflectthisone-waysubordina- tiontomen.
Itisimportanttonote,however,thatnotallwhoareconvinced thattheBibleteachesthatmenhavetheultimatedecision-mak- ingresponsibilityinthehomealsoespousethatasimilarstrati- ficationofrankingexistsintheTrinity.Theseevangelicalsseea separatedynamicworkingintheGodheadthantheoneworking inhumanity.Theyseenonecessarycorrespondencebetweena womaninthehomeandthepersonoftheGodheadwhobecame JesusChrist(God’sanointedMessiahandGod-Among-Usinhu- manflesh)ortheOneidentifiedtousastheHolySpirit.Jesus, as God’s “Son” on earth, hardly corresponds to a human wife. Further, toposit theHolySpiritas femaleand impregnatedby theFatherandemployingthehumanMaryasasurrogatemother seems anthropomorphic to the point of being pagan, God the FatherhavingbecomeZeusandtheHolySpiritHera.Nosuch explanationofthebirthofJesusispresentedintheBible.Inthe Bible’saccount,GodtheFatherhasnodirectactionintheSon’s birth.TheHolySpirit,notGodthe“Father,”overshadowsMary (episkiaz,Luke1:35).Instead,GodtheFatheristhepersonofthe TrinitywhoexhortedtheGodheadtocreatehumanity(Gen1:26) andfromwhom,Jesusexplains,weinheritGod’skingdom(Matt 25:34).GodisFatherintermsofbeingthesourceofheavenlyin- heritance,notintermsofsexualproduction,therebyeliminating suchGreekpaganthinking.Finally,theGodheadisnotaninsti- tution,asismarriage,butisthedivinemysteryoftheDeity—that GodisoneGodinthreecoeternal,coequalpersons.
Further, any analogies in the Scriptures that could be con- struedasone-waysubmissionintheGodheadarerecognizedby many gender hierarchists along with egalitarians as comment- ingonatemporaryincarnationalsubmissionofJesusinorderto demonstratetheproperobedienceofhumanscollectivelytoGod aswellastobringabouthumansalvation.
Afterthosegraciousactions,asCalvinputit,onceJesushad fulfilledtheroleofhumanity’s“Lord,”“thenhereturnsthelord- shiptohisFathersothat—farfromdiminishinghisownmajes- ty—itmayshineallthemorebrightly.Then,also,Godshallcease tobetheHeadofChrist,forChrist’sowndeitywillshineofitself,
althoughasofyetcoveredbyaveil,”sinceJesus“willceasetobe theambassadorofhisFather,andwillbesatisfiedwiththatglory whichheenjoyedbeforethecreationoftheworld.”5
Inotherwords,Jesus’submissiontotheFatherintheincarna- tionwastemporary,justaswesubmittoabossatwork.Itdoes notmeanthatourbossisqualifiedeternallytogiveusordersaf-
terworkhoursorafterourjobisdoneand foreverafter.Suchaprivilegewouldonly occurifourbossweresomehowinessence superiortousinbeingand,therefore,eter- nallyequippedtoruleoverus.Whattrou- blesallofusegalitariansandthosegender
hierarchists who reject the eternal subordination view of Jesus andtheHolySpirit,whicheversideofthegenderdebatewefall on,isthatsuchapositionwouldindicateanessentialdifference inthenaturesoftheFatherandtheSonandtheSpirit.Tosuggest thattheessenceoftheFatheristocommandeternally,whilethe essenceoftheSonandSpiritistosubmiteternally,istodescribe adifferenceinessencesthatdeterminesaneternaldifferencein function.But,thenatureofdeityistobeunique.And“unique,” aswenotedearlier,doesnotsupportsuchdegreesofdifference. Thisisthestruggletodefinethedistinctionbetweentheeternal facesorpersonalitiesorpersons intheGodheadthat thegreat NicaeanscholarAthanasius,thedefenderoftheNicaeancreed, underwentwhenheconcludedthatJesus“hasequalitywiththe Fatherbytitlesexpressiveofunity,andwhatissaidoftheFather, is said inScriptureof theSonalso,allbuthisbeingcalledFa- ther.”6Neitherofthepersonswecallthe“Second”and“Third”of theTrinityisinferiorinbeingorinranking(oringlory,honor, power)totheOnewecalltheFirstPerson.Equalityofessence meansjustthat.Noinequalitiesofattributescanbebuiltineter- nallytothenatureoftheOneinThree.Therefore,GodtheSon cannotbeeternallysubordinatetoGodtheFatherandalsore- mainofthesameuniquesubstanceoftheFather.
Suchconcerntoremainhistoricallyorthodoxtothescriptural revelationandthegreatorthodoxconfessionsofthechurchhas promptedusegalitariansandsomegenderhierarchiststounite toformanewconfessionalstatement:acreed,ora“Webelieve,” thatwearecalling“AnEvangelicalStatementontheTrinity.”In this issueofPriscilla Papers and in thebookeditedbyDennis Jowers and Wayne House, The New Evangelical Subordination- ism? Perspectives on the Equality of God the Father and God the SonfromWipfandStockPublishers,wearedebutingourcreedal statement.Itisdisplayedonthecoverofthisissueanddiscussed withinit.StanleyGundryprovidesabiblicalcommentary.Ipres- ent a theological commentary I drafted in consultation with a numberofotherconcernedscholars.KevinGilesalsoprovides apopularcommentaryontheissue.Alongwiththese,scholars NancyHedbergandMariaBocciabothpresentdiscussionsofthe issues involved.Apoemandbookreviews roundoutwhatwe hopewillbeausefulandprovocativepresentationthatwillhelp ourreadersnegotiatethecurrentdiscussion.
Once, a student from a nonevangelical seminary who was considering taking my Systematic Theology 1 course asked me
Theological conservatism identifies
coequal and coeternal persons within
the Godhead in regard to being.
attheopeningofmyfirstlecture,justasIbegantointroducethe Trinity,whetheranyofthiswasimportant.Smilingsweetlyatme, he asked, “Does it really matter what we believe about Jesus— whetherhe’sGodorjusthumanorwhetherthere’sreallyaTrinity ornot?Afterall,IhavemybeliefaboutGod,andyouhaveyour belief,andthesefolkshavetheirbelief.Isn’tthemostimportant thingthatwealljusttrytogetalong?”
“Actually, itdoesmatter,” Ihad to reply. “Howwe treatone anotherisextremelyimportant.ButwhatwebelieveaboutJesus andtheTrinityisessentialtoourfaith.Wedon’tjustmakeitup aswegoalong.Allovertheworld,peoplegiveuptheirlivesand dieforwhattheybelieve.Youcan’tsimplydismisstheessential pointsof faithas irrelevant,becausewhatwebelievemotivates howweactand, therefore,howwetreatoneanother.Theyare intrinsicallyandinseparablyrelated.”
What we believe about the Godhead—whether the One we worshipisinternallyandthuseternallystratifiedinrankorwheth- ertheTrinity isa fullyequaldivinecommunity—isessential to preservingthetenetsofwhatmakesourfaithtruetowhatGod hasrevealed.Ourbeliefalsodoesdirectlyaffecthowweregard and,thus,treatoneanother,bothinourapproachtorelationships betweenwomenandmen,but,aswell, inhowwedealwithall thedifferentnationalitiesandtypesofpeopleweencounteracross ourworld.Wedoneedtoexpendtheefforttogetitright.
Blessings,
Notes
1. SeeAgnesRushBurr,Russell H. Conwell and His Work (Philadel- phia,PA:JohnC.Winston,1926),125–34.IfirstheardtheJohnnyRing accountwhenIwasastudentatConwellin1969.AsIrecall,therendi- tionIheardwasthatJohnnywasdeterminedtostudyfortheministry, andthedecisionto foundTemplewas inpartaneffort tohelpyoung menlikehim.IamindebtedtochurchhistorianDr.GarthRosell,who graciouslyprovidedtheBurrdatatohelpmeclarifythisaccount.
2. Thewaysheputs it is:“While it iscertainlypossibleforfunda- mentaliststo‘slidedowntheslipperyslope’toevangelicalism,itisnot equallypossibletoslidefromevangelicalismtoliberalism.Thereisan invisiblewall inbetween;a ‘paradigmshift’ isrequired.”NanceyMur- phy, Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism: How Modern and Post- modern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda(ValleyForge,PA:Trinity, 1996),ix.
3. Irenaeus offers a helpful introduction to these heterodoxies in book1,chapter26,ofhisAgainst the Heresies (NewYork,NY:Paulist, 1992),90–91.
4. Onecanfindaprovocativediscussionofthe“threeinoneandone inthree”inlateChristianwriterPseudo-Lucian’sdramaticphilosophi- caldialogue“ThePatriotorThePupil,”inLucian,trans.M.D.Macleod, TheLoebClassicalLibrary,vol.8(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity, 1967),437;e.g.“Themightygodthatrulesonhigh/Immortaldwelling inthesky,thesonofthefather,spiritproceedingfromthefather,three inoneandoneinthree[.]ThinkhimyourZeus,considerhimyourgod.”
5. JohnCalvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion,ed.JohnMcNeill, trans.FordLewisBattles,vol.2(Philadelphia,PA:Westminster,1960), 486,485(2.14.3).
6. Athanasius, The Epistle of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexan- dria, Concerning the Councils Held at Ariminum in Italy and at Selecucia in Isauria,trans.J.H.Newman(Oxford:JohnHenryParker,J.G.F.and J.Rivington:1842),3.21.50.
u
Does Christ Submit to the Church? 978-0-8010-2700-0 • 176 pp. • $19.99p
Does Christ submit to the church? Should Christians submit to one another? What about husbands and wives? In this volume, theologian Alan Padgett offers a fresh look at the ethics of submission, gender roles, and servant leadership in the New Testament. Through his careful interpretation of Paul’s letters and broader New Testament teaching, the author shows how Christ’s submission to the church models an appropriate understanding of gender roles and servant leadership. As Christ submits to the church, so all Christians must submit to, serve, and care for one another.
“Exploring critical questions regarding biblical interpretation, As Christ Submits to the Church offers a thoroughly Christian understanding of submission and service within marriage and the church. Alan Padgett opens much sky over the heads of those engaged in the evangelical conversation on gender and authority. This book is well worth our time and attention.” —Mimi Haddad, president, Christians for Biblical Equality, www.cbeinternational.org
Available in bookstores or by calling 800.877.2665. Like us on . Subscribe to Baker Academic’s electronic newsletter (E-Notes) at www.bakeracademic.com.
One Essence, One Goodness, One Power NancyHedberg
NANCY HEDBERG, D.Min., is Vice President for Student Life at Corban University in Salem, Or- egon. Her books include Hear Me With Your Heart, A Rooted Sorrow, Rings of Grass, and Women, Men, and the Trinity. She and her husband, LeRoy, have three grown children and five grandchildren.
In the late 1970s, I first came across the claim that within the TrinitytheSonisfunctionallysubordinatetotheFather.1Ihad beentaught—andstillbelieve—thattheFatherandtheSonare equal.Period.Thiscounterclaimchallengedthatassumptionand plantedaquestioninmymind.Forthemostpart,Iputtheques- tionasideformanyyears.Ihadmyhandsfullasastay-at-home mom,freelancewriter,andpart-timestudentatourcommunity college. My general attitude toward the doctrine of the Trinity duringthoseyearscouldbesummedupinCarlHenry’srhetori- calquestion: “Is thedoctrineof theTrinitya futile intellectual efforttoresolveinherentlycontradictorynotionsofdivineunity anddivineplurality?Areorthodoxevangelicalsdriventosaythat anyonewhorejectsthisdoctrinemaylosehissoulwhereasany- onewhotriestoexplainitwilllosehismind?”2Ididnotgetit, andIdidnothavetimetothinkaboutit.Nevertheless,aquestion hadbeenplanted,andalthoughitwentundergroundformany years, it never quite went away. As is often true in such cases, whenthequestionreappearedlater,itwasnotwithavengeance exactly,butcertainlywithrenewedurgency.Itbecamethefocus ofmydoctoraldissertationandthe topicofmybook,Women, Men, and the Trinity.
ThedoctrineoftheTrinityisoneofthecoredistinctivesofthe Christianfaith—somewouldsaythecoredistinctionofChristi- anity.Althoughitisimpossibletograspcompletely,itisimpor- tantandworthyofexploration.Inaddition,in1Corinthians11:3, PaullinkstherelationshipsbetweenGodastheheadofChrist, andmanastheheadofwoman,inawaythatsuggeststhatabet- terunderstandingoftherelationshipwithintheTrinitycanim- pactourunderstandingofhumanrelations,especiallythemale/ femalerelationship.
OurprimarysourceforunderstandingthenatureoftheTrin- ity,andforobtainingGod’sperspectiveontherelationshipbe- tween men and women, is the Bible. Although less important than the Bible, the historical, orthodox Christian view is also important.Thatiswhatwewillbeexploringinthisarticle.The orthodoxChristianviewistheconventionalsetofbeliefsheldby Christiansdownthroughtheages.Amongtoday’s theologians, thereisdisagreementregardingtheorthodoxviewoftheTrin- ity. Has the Son historically been considered functionally sub- ordinatetotheFather?Didtheearlychurchfathersconsiderthe FatherandSonequal inbothessenceandfunction?IstheSon equaltotheFatherinwhoheis,butsubordinateinhisauthority, works,andoperations?
Tobesubordinatedistobeplacedbelowanotherinpoweror importance.Subordinationism,ontheotherhand,oftenrefersto adistinctdoctrine,theviewthatthereisahierarchywithinthe Trinityandthat theSon iseternallyandontologicallysubordi- natetotheFather.Mostevangelicalswouldagreethatthistypeof subordinationism,thebeliefthattheSoniseternallysubordinate to the Father in the essence of his being, was proposed in the fourth century and condemned as heretical. At the same time, many current gender hierarchists3 claim that functional subor- dinationispartofourorthodoxevangelicalheritage.4Everyone agrees theSon submitted to theFatherduringhis incarnation. ThecurrentdebateisbetweenthosewhobelievetheFatherand theSonareeternallyequalinbothessenceandfunction(egalitarian)andthosewhosaythat,althoughtheSoniseternallyequalto theFatherintheessenceofhisbeing,heiseternallysubordinate infunctionandauthority(hierarchist).
Ofcourse,inthisbriefarticle,itisnotpossibletopresentan exhaustive review of Christian theologians. Instead, I have se- lectedafew—Augustine,Warfield,Athanasius,Basil,JohnofDa- mascus,JohnCalvin,KarlRahner,andKarlBarth—torepresent theorthodoxview.Whenweexploretheviewsofthesepromi- nent theologians in regard to sonship, authority, and function, wewillseethattheydonotsupportthehierarchalclaimregard- ingfunctionalsubordination.But,beforeIaddressthosespecific topics,letusobservehowthedoctrineoftheTrinitydeveloped.
Development of church doctrine
Oneofthemostcriticalissuestheearlychurchfacedwastheclar- ificationofchurchdoctrine.Theearlyyearsofthechurchwere markedbydebates,persecution,heresies,religiousabuse,andthe formationofvariouscreeds.Today,weholdthedoctrineofthe TrinityasabasictenetofChristianity.Butoneofthechallenges oftheearlychurchwastoformulatethisdoctrineinawaythat upheldthedeityofChristwithoutthreateningtheOldTestament beliefthatthereisonlyoneGod.ThedoctrineoftheTrinityisnot spelledoutinScripture,anddisputesintheearlychurchabound- edastheologianswentfromoneextremetoanother,sometimes defining God as three loosely connected Gods (tritheism) and atothertimesmeldingtheFather,Son,andHolySpiritintoone Godwhomanifestedhimselfindifferentmodes(modalism).5
UpuntiltheCouncilofNicaeainAD325,thedoctrineofthe Trinitywassomewhatfluid.Oneofthemajordebatesatthattime involved Arianism. Arianism was rooted in the belief that the SonwassubordinatetotheFather.Thisvieweventuallyevolved intoteachingsthatdeniedthedeityofChrist.Movingawayfrom thesubordinationistdoctrinesoftheseearlyspeculativetheolo- gians,theCouncilofNicaeacondemnedAriusandhisteaching.6
The creed written at Nicaea stressed the equality of the Fa- therandtheSonandthedeityofChrist,statingthatChristwas “theonly-begottenoftheFather...begotten,notmade,ofone substance [Greek homoousian] with the Father.”7 The Creed of
NicaeaiswidelyrecognizedasfoundationaltoChristianortho- doxyinregardtotheTrinity.Forthemostpart,thedoctrineof theTrinityclarifiedduringthefourthcenturyhasbeendefended downthroughtheyears.
AtthetimeoftheReformation,numeroustheologicalpremis- eswerethoroughlydebated,soitshould benosurprisethatoneoftheissuesthat surfacedwasthedoctrineoftheTrinity. Opponentsofthedoctrineconsideredit unscriptural and irrational.8 Although thedoctrineitselfcameunderattack,it doesnotappearthatsubordinationwithintheTrinitywasama- jorissueforthosewhosupportedtheTrinitariandoctrineitself. ItseemstheReformersconsideredequalityamongthemembers oftheTrinityanissuesettledbyearlychurchcreedsandtreated itasagiven.9
In thecurrentdebateamong theologians regarding thehis- torical,orthodoxviewof theTrinity, several themesrecur.The first one that I want to explore is the issue of sonship. Closely relatedtosonshiparetheissuesofbegottennessandbeingsent.
Sonship, begottenness, and being sent
BothhierarchistsandegalitariansconsidertheCreedofNicaea tobeacriticaldocumentoutliningorthodoxdoctrine.And,in- terestingly, both egalitarians and hierarchists use it to support their points of view. This is possible because they come to the creedwithdifferentassumptions.Hierarchistsassumethatcon- ceptssuchassonship,begottenness,andbeingsentindicatesub- ordination.10Egalitarians,ontheotherhand,believethatthese conceptsinandofthemselvessimplyindicateaspectsofTrinitar- ianrelationshiphavingtodowithdistinctionsoffunctioninhu- manredemption,notsubordinationor lesserauthority.11Since hierarchistsandegalitariansseethissodifferently,Iwaseagerto seewhatearlytheologiansactuallyhadtosayaboutbegottenness andsonship.
Basil(330–397),aprominentearlytheologian,understoodbe- ingsentandbeingbegottenasmattersofdistinctionandidenti- fication, not subordination. He took the phrase “begotten, not made”tosuggestequalglory.12Augustine(354–430),recognized widelyasoneofthemostimportantChristiantheologiansofall time, pointed out that references to the Son being sent by the FatherandbegottenoftheFatherdonotsuggestsubordination orinequality.Hesaid,“Hisbeingsentwastheworkofboththe FatherandHisWord;thereforethesameSonwassentbytheFa- therandtheSon,becausetheSonHimselfistheWordoftheFa- ther.”13Augustinestressedtheindivisibilityofboththesubstance andworksoftheGodheadandarguedthatbeingsentorbegot- tendidnot indicate thatonepersonof theGodhead isgreater andoneislesser.14Augustineconsistentlypointsoutthatsonship doesnotnecessitateinferiorityorsubordination.15
Wecanseethisillustratedevenonthehumanlevel.Forin- stance,wouldwesaythattheauthorityofJessewasgreaterthan thatofhissonDavid?ThatAbrahamremainedsubordinatetohis father, Terah? Although authority and submission characterize
afather/childrelationshipforagiventimeorincertaincircum- stances, they are not the defining characteristics of earthly father/sonrelationships,muchlessrelationshipswithintheTrinity. MarkStrauss,anadvocateforinclusivelanguage,explainswhyit isnotaccuratetosubstitutechild forson ingender-inclusivebibli-
caltranslations.Althoughheisspeaking toadifferent issue, thepointhemakes is significant: “Theuseof ‘Child’ could carry implications of immaturity that ‘Son’doesnot. Jesus is themightySon ofGodinallthegloryandmagnificence
ofhisexaltationasheirofallthings(seeHeb1:3).Heisnotan immaturechild.”16
This is incontrast to thosewhobelieve that theFatherand Sonrelationship is inherentlyoneof submissionandauthority andthatthissubmissive/authoritativeaspectoftheirrelationship primarilydifferentiatesthepersonsoftheGodheadfromonean- other.17ForAugustine,thesendingoftheSonwasajointendeav- orinvolvingboththeFatherandtheSon.Itwasaboutdiversity, equality,andunity,notauthorityandsubmission.
As I mentioned earlier, during and following the Reforma- tion,therewasnotmuchdebateaboutthedoctrineoftheTrin- ity.However,BenjaminB.Warfield(1851–1921),aprofessorwho taughtatthetheologicalseminaryatPrinceton,tookpainstoex- plainhowheunderstoodbegottennessinrelationshiptoequal- ity.Inadditiontoclarifyingthatbegottennessdidnotnecessitate subordination,WarfieldassertedthattheSon’scomingtoearth inhumanformwasvoluntaryandthatbiblicalpassagesreferring totheSon’ssubordinationduringtheincarnationdidnotreflect onhiseternalstandingwithintheGodhead.18
Augustine,Basil,andWarfieldarethreeinfluentialtheologians whoaddressedsonship,begottenness,andbeingsent.Far from advocatingthefunctionalsubordinationoftheSontotheFather, theseprominenttheologiansarguedthattheFather/Sonrelation- shipwithintheTrinityismarkedbyunityandequality.Butwhat didearlytheologianshavetosayabouttheSon’sauthority?
Power and authority
Ofparticularinterest iswhetherithasbeenhistoricallyunder- stoodthattheFatherandtheSonareequalinpowerandauthor- ity.Althoughthereisaslightdifferenceinmeaning,Iamassum- ing that, unless specified otherwise, references to God’s power alsoreferencehisauthority.
Athanasius(300–373),whoinhistimesometimesstoodalone againstArianism,pointedoutthat,althoughduringtheincarna- tionJesussubmittedhimselftotheFather,whenitcametothe resurrection,theSonraisedhisownbody19—thathewasanac- tive,ratherthanapassive,participantalongwiththeFather.20He saidthatnooneshoulddoubtthat“HeisverySonofGod,having HisbeingfromGodasfromaFather,WhoseWordandwisdom andWhosePowerHe is.”21Athanasius saw theFatherand the Sonunitedintheirpower.
In On the Holy Spirit, Basil also affirmed the equality of Christ’spower.WritinginresponsetotheargumentthattheSon
For instance, would we say that the
authority of Jesse was greater than that
of his son David? That Abraham remained
subordinate to his father, Terah?
received commandments from the Father in a way that would suggesthisinferiority,BasilsaysthattheFatherandtheSonare equalinessence,power,andworks.22Basilalsoarguedthatbe- ingseatedattherighthandoftheFather(Heb1:3)isnotaseat ofinferiority,butastationofequality.23Itisdifficulttoimagine BasilsupportingtheideathattheSonisequaltotheFatherines- sence,butpermanentlysubordinatein power and authority. Both Athanasius andBasiltakepainstoexplainthatthe FatherandtheSonareeternallyunited andequalinrank,power,andworks.
About three hundred years after Athanasius and Basil, John of Damascus (c. 675–c. 749) wrote Fountain of Wisdom. Hispurposewas to collect andcondense the quintessential opinions and works of the great theologians whohadprecededhim.HisbookConcerning the Orthodox Faith has been described as the most important of his writings and “one of the most notable works of Christian antiquity.”24 In a chapterontheTrinity,JohnofDamascussaysthattheunityof thepersonsoftheTrinityinregardtoauthorityisdemonstrated bytheir“beingidenticalinauthorityandpowerandgoodness. ...Forthereisoneessence,onegoodness,onepower,onewill, oneenergy,oneauthority,oneandthesame,Irepeat,notthree resemblingeachother.”25
Itseemssignificantthat,inaworkwrittenfortheexpresspur- poseofepitomizingtheopinionsoftheearlytheologians,Johnof Damascusadamantlyaffirmsthatwithintheessentialonenessof theTrinitythereisalsoonenessofauthority.HowcantheFather andSonbe“identicalinauthority”andyetbedifferentiatedby theFather’sauthorityandtheSon’ssubmission,assomeclaim?
JohnCalvin,oneofthemostinfluentialReformationtheolo- gians,acknowledgedorderingwithintheTrinity,butinhiscom- mentaryon1Corinthians,henotedthatanyimpliedsubordina- tion is restricted to Jesus’ incarnation. He said that Christ was “inferior to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature.”26 IntheInstitutes,Calvinagainreferstotherelationshipbetween theFatherandtheSon,thistimeinregardtothefuture:“God willthenceasetobetheheadofChrist,andChrist’sownGod- headwillthenshineforthofitself,whereasitisnowinamanner veiled.”27CalvinunderstoodthatJesussubmittedduringthein- carnationandinhisroleasmediator,buthesawthissubmission astemporal,noteternal.Hebelievedthat,whenweseeGodas heis,wewillseethattheFatherisnolonger“theheadofChrist,” but that thepersonsof theTrinityareequal in theirgloryand majesty. While I do not necessarily agree with Calvin’s under- standingof“headship,”itisclearthathesawChrist’ssubmission duringtheincarnationastemporalandnotanindicationofhis eternalauthorityandstatuswithintheGodhead.
There is considerable agreement among theologians down through thecenturies that thepersonsof theTrinityare equal inpowerandauthority.Inthenextsection,wewillexplorethe amazing unity within the Godhead and consider what theolo- gianshavehadtosayaboutequalityinregardtotheirfunctions andoperations.
Function
Ashasalreadybeennoted,Basilwasoneoftheearlytheologians whorecognizedtheequalityofpowerwithintheTrinityandun- derstoodbegottenness to indicate equalglory rather than subordination.Healsodefendedthe functionalequalityandunity
within the Godhead. Citing John 5:19, hesaid that theSondoeswhateverhe seestheFatherdoingandthatthereis no distinction between their works.28 ThiswasAthanasius’sunderstandingas well:“WhentheSonworks,theFather istheWorker....whentheFathergives
graceandpeace,theSonalsogivesit.”29AthanasiussawtheFa- therandtheSonfunctioningtogether,notoneinsubordination totheother.
WehavenotedthatthereisnodebateabouttheSon’ssubmis- sionduringtheincarnation.Everyonerecognizesthat,duringhis timeonearth,theSonsubmittedtotheFather.But,inhiscom- mitmenttoclarifytheeternalequalityofthepersonsoftheTrin- ity,Augustinemakesamind-bendingobservation:Hesaysthat theSon’ssubordinationduringtheincarnationwasinpartsub- ordinationtohimself.30Likewise,Augustine insisted thatPaul’s statementin1Corinthians15:27–28abouttheFathersubjecting allthingstotheSondoesnothaveimplicationsregardingatop- downdelegationwithintheGodhead,butratherindicatesanin- separable,reciprocaltypeofsubjection:“Lethimnotthinkthat thewords‘HehassubjectedallthingstotheSon,’aretobeunder- stoodoftheFatherinsuchawayastothinkthattheSonhasnot subjectedallthingstoHimself....FortheoperationoftheFather andtheSonisinseparable.”31InAugustine’sview,theonenessof theFatherandSonissocompletethat,iftheFatherissubjecting allthingstohimself,theSonisparticipatinginthatactofsubject- ing.Inanotherplace,Augustinenotedthatthe“willoftheFather andtheSonisone,andtheiroperationisinseparable.”32
Prominent early theologians such as Augustine, Athanasius, andBasildescribedthefunctionalequalityofGodtheFatherand God theSonandarticulated that theiroperationscouldnotbe separated.Ifthereisnoindicationofaseparationbetweentheop- erationsofoneandtheoperationsoftheother,itisdifficulttosee howonecouldbeeternallyfunctionallysubordinatetotheother.
Evenso,thereisanothermatterthatcomesupinregardtothe Trinity.Manytheologiansmakeadistinctionbetweentheeco- nomic Trinity and the immanent Trinity. The immanent Trin- ity has to do with the intrinsic nature of the Triune God. The economicTrinitycanbeidentifiedwiththeactsoftheTrinityas revealedtousincreationandredemption.33KevinGilespoints outthatGod’srevelationtousismarkedbybothtruthandre- straint:“ThisdistinctionbetweentheimmanentTrinityandthe economicTrinityallowsthatthereismoretoGodthanwhatis revealedtousbutthatwhatisrevealedistrueandaccurate.God isnototherthanheisinrevelation.”34
Some theologians assume a hierarchy within the economic Trinity.35ThetemptationistoequatetheimmanentTrinitywith equalityofessenceandtheeconomicTrinitywithsubordination
In Augustine’s view, the oneness of the
Father and Son is so complete that, if the
Father is subjecting all things to himself, the
Son is participating in that act of subjecting.
offunction.However,thatisamistake.Althoughtheincarnation hasaprominentplaceinGod’srevelationregardingredemption, andweallunderstand theSon submitted to theFatherduring histimeonearth,God’srevelationtousregardingtheoperations of theSonwithin theeconomicTrinitygoeswellbeyond that. When we consider what the Bible reveals to us about the role oftheSonincreation36(Col1:15–20),sanctification(Eph5:26), judgment(2Tim4:1),andmediation(Heb4:14–16),wecansay withsomeassurancethatthefunctionoftheSonwithintheeco- nomic Trinity as revealed through God’s work in creation and redemptionislargerinscopethanJesus’timeonearthduringhis incarnation.ThefunctionoftheSonisnotlimitedtohissubmis- sionasfleshedoutintheincarnation,andtheeconomicTrinity asawholeisnotnecessarilydistinguishedbyahierarchyofroles.
KarlRahner(1904–1984)wasaCatholictheologianwhogave the economic Trinity careful consideration. Karl Barth (1886– 1968) was another fairly recent theologian who weighed in re- gardingtheTrinity.Bothplaceheavyemphasisonunitywithin theGodhead.KarlRahnerwasconcernedwithassuringthatthe doctrineoftheTrinityremainedrelevant.OneofRahner’spri- mary concerns was to make a connection between the Trinity andhumanity.37To thatend,hemakes thestatement that“the ‘economic’Trinityisthe‘immanent’Trinityandthe‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.”38 Although this statement couldsuggestthatanysubordinationwithintheeconomicTrin- ity would mean eternal ontological subordination as well, that doesnotseemtobehisintent.Heexplains,“Therehasoccurred insalvationhistorysomethingwhichcanbepredicatedonlyof one divine person,”39 suggesting that only the Son could have participatedintheincarnation.Butitisnotclearthatheisatthe sametimesayingthat,becauseonlytheSoncouldhavepartici- patedintheincarnation,andthatduringtheincarnationtheSon wassubordinatetotheFather,itmeansthattheSoniseternally subordinated, because he clarifies, “[T]here exists in God only onepower,onewill,onlyoneself-presence,auniqueactivity,a uniquebeatitude,andso forth.”40Clearly,hisprimaryconcern hasmoretodowithmakingarealconnectionbetweentheTrin- ityandhumanity,andhethusattemptstoerasewhatmaybea false and misleading distinction between the economic Trinity andtheimmanentTrinity.
KarlBarthmaintained that the threepersonsof theTrinity acttogether:“Noattribute,noactofGodisnotinthesameway theattributeoractoftheFather,theSonandtheSpirit.”41Ina discussionregardingtheSon’sparticipationincreationandre- demption,Barthsays,“IftheSonhasashareinwhatwascalled thespecialworkoftheFather,ifHeworkswiththeFatherinthe workofcreation,thenthismeans,atleastinthesenseofAthana- siusandthetheologywhichfinallytriumphedinthefourthcen- tury,thatHeisofoneessencewithHim.”42Farfromsuggesting thattheSonisequalinessencebutsubordinateinworks,Barth saysthatitistheSon’sveryparticipationinGod’sworksthatcon- firmhisonenesswiththeFather:“Inorderthatallthingsmight bemadebyHim,inorderthatHemightbetheMediatorofcre- ation, He Himself had to be God by nature.”43 If I understand
Barthcorrectly,heissayingthattheSon’sfunctionconfirmshis essentialequalitywiththeFather.Thisisatotalabout-facefrom thehierarchalviewoffunctionalsubordination.Farfromunder- standingtheworksoftheSonasassignedtohimbyhisauthori- tativeFather,BarthunderstandstheworksoftheFatherandthe Sontobeone,theworksoftheSonconfirminghisdeity.
Thereisrelationship,andanorderingofrelationship,butun- lessoneassumesthatorderingimplieshierarchy,orthat“sonship” implieslessauthority,theseformulationsIhaveciteddonotin- dicateeternalfunctionalsubordinationoftheSontotheFather.
Summary
The question at hand is whether there is an eternal functional subordinationoftheSontotheFather.Certainly,overtheyears, therehavebeentheologianswhohavesupportedfunctionalsub- ordinationorwhoseviewsaresoambiguousitisimpossibleto discerntheirperspectiveonthistopic.However,inmyreading, andespecially inexamining the thinkingofprominent theologians such as Augustine, Athanasius, Basil, John of Damascus, Warfield, Calvin, Rahner, and Barth, I have detected far more emphasisonequalityofbothessenceandfunctionthanonfunc- tionalsubordination.Itisdifficultformetoseehowhierarchists canclaimthatthetimeless,orthodoxChristianviewisthatthe SonisfunctionallysubordinatetotheFather.Furthermore,em- bedded in thedebateofwhether there is aneternal functional subordinationof theSon to theFather isa troublingquestion. IsitpossiblefortheSontobeeternally functionallysubordinate withoutalsobeingontologicallysubordinate?Eternalontological equalityisassumedbybothegalitariansandhierarchists.How- ever,iftheFatherandSonareunitedintheirattributes,works, word, will, thought, deeds, authority, operations, power, rank, glory,majesty,truth,goodness,andmercy,astheseearlytheolo- gianswehavecitedclaim,thenwhatismeantbyfunctionalsub- ordination?Ispermanentfunctionalsubordinationevenpossible withoutontologicalinequality(meaningthatbeingsubordinated ispermanentlyapartoftheessenceofoneortwoofthepersons oftheTrinityandsubordinatingandrulingisapermanentpart ofanother,sothattheessencesarenotexactlythesame)?
Ibelievethisisacriticalunderlyingquestionthatislargelyre- sponsibleforthecurrentimpassebetweenhierarchistsandegali- tariansregardingtheTrinity.Itisobviousthat,in1Corinthians 11:3,PaulistryingtomakesomesortofconnectionbetweenGod astheheadofChristandmanastheheadofwoman.ButIdonot believewecanassumeheisreferringtoarelationshipthatishier- archicalorbasedononepersonhavingauthorityovertheother. Instead,Ibelieveheisusingthetermheadaspartofahead-and- body metaphor, illustrating unity and interdependency. This is consistentwiththewayPaulusesthismetaphorthroughoutthe bookof1Corinthians,anditseemsconsistentwiththeviewsof theseearliertheologianswhoviewedthepersonsoftheTrinity asunitedintheirauthorityandworks.Thus,althoughanumber of prominent theologians today claim that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in function and authority and posit thatthisisthehistoricalorthodoxviewofthechurch,Idonot
seethistheorysupportedbythechurchfathersorbythemajor- ityoftheologiansthroughoutthehistoryofChristianity.There- fore,churchhistorydoesnotsupporttheclaimsofhierarchists regardingfunctionalsubordinationwithintheTrinity,andtheir claimsshouldnotbeusedasanargumentforthefunctionalsub- ordinationofwomen.
WeconcludewiththiswisesummaryfromJohnofDamas- cus:“Forthereisoneessence,onegoodness,onepower,onewill, oneenergy,oneauthority,oneandthesame,Irepeat,notthree resemblingeachother.”44
Notes
1. GeorgeKnight,The New Testament Teaching Regarding the Role Relationship of Men and Women (GrandRapids,MI:Baker,1977),55–56.
2. CarlF.H.Henry,God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 5 (Waco, TX:Word,1982),165.
3. The terms complementarian and egalitarian are most common- lyusedwithin thegenderdebate.For termsspecifically related to the Trinity,seeMillardErickson’sbookWho’s Tampering With the Trinity? (GrandRapids,MI:Kregel,2009).Ericksonusesthetermgradational authoritytodescribethosewhobelievethereisaneternalhierarchywith theFatherinauthorityovertheSon.Heusesthetermequivalent author- ityforthosewhobelievetheFather,Son,andHolySpiritareeternally equaland thesubordinationof theSonwas limited toa specific time andpurpose.
4. ThomasR.Schreiner,“HeadCoverings,Prophecies,andtheTrin- ity,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper andWayneGrudem(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,1991),129.
5. P.P.Enns,The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago,IL:Moody, 1997),199.
6. Enns,Moody Handbook,199. 7. Enns,Moody Handbook,420. 8. JustoL.González,A History of Christian Thought,vol.3(Nash-
ville,TN:Abingdon,1975),101–02. 9. KevinGiles,The Trinity and Subordinationism(DownersGrove,
IL:InterVarsity,2002),167. 10. Bruce A. Ware, “Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles: Eternal
FunctionalAuthorityandSubmissionamongtheEssentiallyEqualDi- vinePersonsoftheGodhead”(paperpresentedatthe58thannualmeet- ingoftheEvangelicalTheologicalSociety,Washington,DC,November 16,2006),12.
11. KevinGiles,Jesus and the Father (GrandRapids,MI:Zondervan, 2006),52.
12. Basil,On the Holy Spirit,(Crestwood,NY:St.Vladimir’s,1980), 31. 13. Augustine, On the Trinity, II.5.9, http://www.newadvent.org/
fathers/130102.htm,citedJune27,2007. 14. Augustine,Trinity, IV.20.27. 15. Augustine,Trinity, II.1.3. 16. MarkL.Strauss,Distorting Scripture? (DownersGrove,IL:Inter-
Varsity,1998),181. 17. Ware says that the distinction of persons in the Godhead is
“manifestbytheinherentauthorityoftheFatherandinherentsubmis- sion of the Son.” Bruce Ware, “Equal in Essence,” 10. Grudem makes this same point, assuming the Father/Son relationship is necessarily one of authority/submission. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,1994),251.Also,Grudemseestheauthority/submissionre- lationshipwithintheTrinityas the“meansbywhichFather,Son,and HolySpiritdifferfromoneanotherandcanbedifferentiatedfromone another.” Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Sisters, OR: Mult- nomah,2004), 433.
18. BenjaminBreckinridgeWarfield,The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia,PA:PresbyterianandReformed,1970),39,56.
19. See,forexample,John2:19. 20. See,forexample,Rom10:9. 21. Athanasius,On the Incarnation (Crestwood,NY:St.Vladimir’s,
1996), 63–64. 22. Basil,On the Holy Spirit,39. 23. Basil,On the Holy Spirit,30. 24. Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v.“SaintJohnDamascene,”http://www
.newadvent.org/ccathen/08459b.htm,citedDecember7,2007. 25. JohnofDamascus,“ConcerningtheHolyTrinity” inAn Exact
Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, BookI,ChapterVIII,http://www.ccel .org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.viii.html?highlight=john, 37, cited De- cember7,2007.
26. JohnCalvin,Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians,vol.1,trans.JohnPringle(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdma- ns,1948),353.
27. Calvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion,II.xiii.3,trans.Henry Beveridge,esq.(OakHarbor,WA:LogosResearchSystems,1997).
28. Basil,On the Holy Spirit,39. 29. Athanasius,Against the Arians,Discourse III,XXV,11,inNicene
and Post Nicene Fathers,2ndseries,vol.4,ed.PhilipSchaffandHenry Wallace, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.iii.html,citedNovember10,2007.
30. Augustine,On the Trinity, II.2. 31. Augustine,On the Trinity, I.15,22. 32. Augustine, On the Trinity in The Fathers of the Church, vol.
45, trans.StephenMcKenna (Washington,DC:CatholicUniversityof AmericaPress,1963),61.
33. WayneGrudemsaysthat,whenspeakingoftheeconomy of the Trinity, thewordeconomy isusedinthesenseofordering of activities: “The ‘economyof theTrinity’means thedifferentways the threeper- sonsactastheyrelatetotheworldand...toeachotherforalleternity.” Grudem,Systematic Theology,248.KevinGilesexplains theeconomic and immanentTrinityas follows: “The former refers to theTrinityas revealedinGod’sunfoldingworkofcreationandredemptioninhistory; thelatterreferstotheessentialbeingofthetriuneGod,whichnohuman couldevercompletelycomprehend.”Giles,Trinity,28.
34. Giles,Trinity,28. 35. “Within the Holy Trinity the Father leads, the Son submits to
Him, and the Spirit submits to both (the Economic Trinity). But it is also true that the threePersonsare fullyequal indivinity,power,and glory(theOntologicalTrinity).”RaymondC.Ortlund,Jr.,“Male-Female EqualityandMaleHeadship,”inRecovering Biblical Manhood and Wom- anhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991),103.
36. Inregardtocreation,Augustinesays,“Forifsomethingswere madebytheFather,andsomebytheSon,thenallthingswerenotmade bytheFather,norallthingsbytheSon;butifallthingsweremadeby theFather,andallthingsbytheSon,thenthesamethingsweremadeby theFatherandbytheSon.TheSon,therefore,isequalwiththeFather, andtheworkingoftheFatherandtheSonisindivisible.”Augustine,On the Trinity,1:12.
37. KarlRahner,The Trinity, trans.JosephDonceel(NewYork,NY: Seabury,1974),73.
38. Rahner,Trinity,22. 39. Rahner,Trinity,23. 40. Rahner,Trinity,75,emphasisoriginal. 41. KarlBarth,Church Dogmatics, vol.1,ed.G.W.BromileyandT.
F.Torrance,trans.G.W.Bromily(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1975),375. 42. Barth,Church Dogmatics,442. 43. Barth,Church Dogmatics,442. 44. JohnofDamascus,“ExpositionoftheOrthodoxFaith,”inNicene
and Post Nicene Fathers,2ndseries,vol.9,ed.PhilipSchaffandHenry Wallace(NewYork,NY:Cosimo,2007),10.
“Myths about women are trumpeted all around us,
so how do we separate the myths from the truth
about us? This doctoral track enables you to explore
women’s realities in a changing world so that you can
minister effectively to them.” -Alice Mathews, Ph.D.
Doctor of Ministry
More tracks can be found at www.gcts.edu/dmin
U P C O M I N G T R A C K S
An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity StanleyN.Gundry
STAN GUNDRY is Executive Vice President and Editor-in-Chief for the Zondervan Corporation. He has served as a pastor and taught Bible, theology, and church history at Moody Bible Institute and Trinity Evan-
gelical Divinity School. Stan served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society and on its executive committee as well as serving on the CBE Board, for a time as co-chair. Currently, he is also Adjunct Professor of Historical Theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. He has pub- lished seven books and many articles.
Weconfess theonetrueandlivingGod,Creatorofeverything andRulerovertheentirecreation.Hehasuniquelyrevealedhim- selfinthelivingWord,Jesus Christ,andinthewrittenWord,the Bible,asOneTriuneGod—threecoeternalandcoequalPersons. Each Person is distinct, yet there is only one essence or Being who is God, not three separate Gods. Each Person of the One TriuneGodsharesequally inhonor,glory,worship,power,authority,andrank.TheBibleneversuggeststhatanyonePerson oftheTrinityhaseternalsuperiorityorauthorityovertheothers, orthatoneisineternalsubordinationtoanother.TheSon’ssub- missionandobediencetotheFatherwerevoluntaryandrelated specificallytothetimeduringwhichhehumbledhimself,took onhumannature,anddwelledamongusasaservant.
The biblical1 testimony
Isaiahprophesied,anditwasfulfilledthroughMary,thatavirgin wouldconceiveandgivebirthtoasonwhosenamewouldbeIm- manuel,whichmeans“Godwithus.”Thissonwasalsogiventhe nameJesus,meaning“theLordsaves”(Isa7:14;Matt1:20–23).
Jesus,theeternalWord,alreadyexistedinthebeginning.“The WordwaswithGod,andtheWordwasGod.HewaswithGodin thebeginning.”ThissameWord“becameflesh”inthepersonof Jesusand“madehisdwellingamongus.”IntheincarnateWord, humankindsawthe“gloryoftheoneandonlySon,whocame fromtheFather”(John1:1–14).
Christ Jesus, “being in very nature God, did not consider equalitywithGodsomethingtobeusedtohisownadvantage; rather,hemadehimselfnothingbytakingtheverynatureofa servant,beingmadeinhumanlikeness....Hehumbledhimself bybecomingobedienttodeath—evendeathonacross!There- foreGodexaltedhimtothehighestplaceandgavehimthename that isaboveeveryname, thatat thenameof Jesuseveryknee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and everytongueacknowledgethatJesusChristisLord,totheglory ofGodtheFather(Phil2:5–11).”
TheSondidnotdivesthimselfofhisdeity,butthetextdoes saythathehadequalitywithGodthathegaveupbytakingthe verynatureofaservantduringthetimeofhisIncarnation.He voluntarilyhumbledhimself,becomingobedienttothepointof deathonthecross.Aservantisonewhodoesthebiddingofan-
other,andtheveryfact that theSontook on the very nature of a servantsuggeststhat,beforetheSoncameinhumanlikeness, hewasnotaservantoronewhosubjectedhimselftoanother’s will.AftertheSon’searthlyministryastheobedientservant,the Fatherexaltedhimtothehighestplacesothatallcreationbows beforehimandacknowledgeshimasGod.Similarly,“Duringthe daysof Jesus’ lifeonearth,” theSonwasreverentlysubmissive, and,“Sonthoughhewas,helearnedobedience,”againsuggest- ingthatobediencewassomethingunusualorunexpectedfrom God’sSon(Heb5:7–8).PeterandPaulalsoaffirmthattherisen SonisnowattherighthandofGod(Acts2:33;Col3:1),andJesus toldhisdisciplesthat“allauthorityinheavenandonearth”had beengiventohim(Matt28:18).Theevidenceseemsclear—the Son’ssubordinationtotheFatherwastemporary,noteternal,and relatedonlytothetimeofhisearthlyministry.
Some actions of God are more frequently attributed to one Person of the Trinity in particular. Nevertheless, many times within Scripture, actions that are attributed to one member of the Trinity are also attributed to another member of the Trin- ity.2Thesetooareevidencethatthereisfullandeternalequality amongthePersonsoftheTrinityandnoeternalsubordinationor rigidhierarchyofroles.
n Creation. BoththeFatherandtheSonare theagents in the Creation(Gen1and2;John1:2–3,10;Col1:16;Heb1:10).
n Choosing.BoththeFatherandtheSonareinvolvedinpredes- tinationorchoosing(Rom8:29;1Pet1:2;John6:70;13:18;Acts 1:2,24;9:15;Matt11:27).
n Sending the Spirit.BoththeFatherandtheSonareassociated withthesendingoftheHolySpirit(John14:16,26;15:26;16:7).
n Access to the Father.Thebeliever’saccesstotheFatherisassoci- atedwithboththeSonandtheSpirit(John14:6;Eph2:16,18).
n Indwelling.Father,Son,andHolySpiritalllivewithinbeliev- ers(John14:16–20,23;15:5;Rom8:9–11;2Cor13:5;Col1:27; Gal2:20;1Cor3:16;6:19).
n Intercession.TheSonintercedesonthebeliever’sbehalfwith the Father (Heb 7:25; Rom 8:34), but so also does the Holy Spirit(Rom8:26–27).
n Gift giving.TheFatheristhegiverofgoodgiftstohumankind (Matt7:11; John3:34;6:32–33;Rom4:17;15:5; 1Cor15:57–58; 1Thess4:8;1Tim6:13;Jas1:5,17;1Pet5:5),butsoalsoarethe SonandtheSpirit(John5:21;6:33,63;14:27;1Cor12:11;2Cor. 3:6).Inthisselectionoftexts,itisespeciallynoteworthythat eachPersonoftheTrinityissaidtogivelife.
n Preservation.InJohn10:28–30,JesussaysthatheandtheFa- therpreserveJesus’sheep;notonlyareidenticaltermsused todescribetheactionofJesusandtheFather,butJesuscon- cludeswiththistellingstatement,“IandtheFatherareone.”
n Love.God’sloveforhisownisattributedtoboththeFather andtheSon(John3:16;15:9–12;Rom8:35–39).
n Judgment.Attheconsummationofthisworld,theSonexer- cisessupremeauthorityasjudge(Matt25:31–46;2Cor5:10),
but the judgment seat is also the judgment seatofGod the Father(Rom14:10).
n Prayer.MostofteninScripture,prayerisofferedtotheFather, butnotexclusivelyso.BelieversalsoofferprayerstotheSon (Acts7:59–60;2Cor12:9–10;Rev22:20).
When we discuss the Trinity, we must acknowledge that our wordsarehaltingattemptstodescribeinfinitehumanlanguage themysteryoftheBeingoftheinfiniteandeternalGod.Butone thingseemscrystalclear—thewrittenWordandthelivingWord bear witness that there is a unity of the Persons of the Trinity suchthattheactionsandattributesofonePersonoftheTrinity are not the actions or attributes of that Person exclusively, but arebytheirverynaturetheactionsandattributesofGodhim- self, and therefore in some sense the actions and attributes of eachPersonoftheTrinity.Thisisthemostfittingwaytogivefull weighttothosetextsthatspeakoftheunityandequalityofthe Persons(John5:17–19;10:30;14:7–11,23;17:20–23;compareMatt 28:20withJohn16:7).WhileaffirmingtheunityofthePersons, wemustalsoaffirmtheTrinityofthePersonstestifiedtointhe baptismalformula(Matt28:19).
The Athanasian Creed
WesternChristiansinthelatefourthorearlyfifthcenturiessum- marized their understanding of God in what later came to be knownastheAthanasianCreed.Inthiscreed, theFather,Son, and Spirit are described as one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, three “coeternal” and “coequal” Persons, each fully God butstilloneGod,notthree—sothattheyshareequallyinpower andauthority,andnoneisgreaterorlessthananother.Similarly,
AugustinearguesthatwhatissaidofonememberoftheTrinity canalsobeunderstoodoftheothers.3
Summary
InseekingtobearwitnesstotheirbeliefthattheGodrevealedin ScriptureandinJesusChristisoneandthreeatthesametime, theearlychurchrejectedtheideathattheFather,Son,andSpirit relatedtooneanotherhierarchicallyandthattherewasaneter- nalsubordinationwithintheTrinity.Withregret,wemustwarn thatanyviewoftheTrinitythatpositsaneternalsubordination amongthePersonsoftheTrinity,inspiteofitsbestintentions, cannot do full justicetotheevidenceofScripture,diminishesthe magnitude and significance of the Incarnation, undercuts the unity of the Trinity, and tends to diminish the full deity of the SonandtheSpirit.WiththeAthanasianCreed,webelievethat confessingOneTriuneGodinthreecoeternal,coequalPersons, eachsharingeternally,equally,andfullyinthehonor,glory,worship,power,authority,andrankthatbelongalonetoGod,best representstheOnetrueGodrevealedinJesusChristandinthe Bible.Wecallonourfellowevangelicals,whethertheywishtobe knownasegalitariansorcomplementarians,ornosuchlabelat all,tojoinusinthisreaffirmationoftrinitarianismthatisatthe coreofhistoricChristianorthodoxy.
Notes
1. BiblicalquotationsarefromtheNewInternationalVersion. 2.IwishtoexpressmyindebtnesstotheworkofMillardJ.Erickson,
Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?(GrandRapids,MI:Kregel,2009),es- peciallychapter4,“TheBiblicalEvidence,”109–38.
3. Augustine,On the Trinity,1.9.19.
A charitable gift annuity allows you to establish
a charitable contribution toward Christians
for Biblical Equality for future generations, take
an immediate charitable tax deduction, and be
assured of an annuitized income stream for life.
It is a way of realizing your heart’s desire for the
future of CBE’s expanding ministry
and of making a difference in the lives that follow.
For more information about charitable gift annuities, call 612-872-6898 or email [email protected].
Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn— – Psalm 22:30–31for he has done it.
An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity
The Statement
WebelievethatthesolelivingGodwhocreatedand rulesoverallandwhoisdescribedintheBibleisone TriuneGodinthreecoeternal,coequalPersons,each Person being presented as distinct yet equal, not as threeseparategods,butoneGodhead,sharingequally in honor, glory, worship, power, authority, rule, and rank, such that no Person has eternal primacy over theothers. A theological commentary
Athanasius, the defender of the Nicaean Creed, correctly explained the faith once delivered to the saints.
ObjectingtoattemptsofhisdaytoreduceJesusChrist(andthe HolySpirit)tosecondary(andtertiary)statusinbeing,authority,andpower,Athanasiuspointedoutthat,hadhisopponents understoodJesus“tobetheproperoffspringoftheFather’ssub- stance,as theradiance is fromlight, theywouldnoteveryone ofthemhavefoundfaultwiththe[Nicaean]Fathers;butwould have been confident that the Council wrote suitably” (3.9.39).1 Therefore, our guidance in constructing this statement comes fromtheBibleandthehelpfulexplanationsofAthanasius,from whoseinsightswedrawthelistofequalattributesattheendof ourstatement.ForAthanasius,equalityofattributesistheproof forequalityofsubstance(being).Losethefirstandonelosesthe second.SohedeclaresoftheChrist,“ThisiswhyHehasequality withtheFatherbytitlesexpressiveofunity,andwhatissaidof theFather,issaidinScriptureoftheSonalso,allbuthisbeing calledFather.”2
Athanasius illustrates his position by citing Bible verses in which Jesus claims to possess all the Father possesses, for example,beingnamed“God,”“the Almighty,”“Light,”making“all things”anddoing“whatsoever”theFatherdoes,“beingEverlast- ing” with “eternal power and godhead.” He also notes parallel Scriptures inwhich theSonand theFatheraredescribedwith thesameterms:“beingLord...through whom [are] all things,” being“LordofAngels”and“worshippedbythem,”“beinghon- ouredastheFather,forthat they may honour the Son, Hesays,as they honour the Father;beingequaltoGod,He thought it not rob- bery to be equal with God,” “beingTruth,”“Life,”being“The Lord God”and“The God of Gods,”whoforgivessins,being“the King of glory,”as“DavidinthePsalm”states“oftheSon”and“God” verifies(3.20.49),“My glory I will not give to another.”Athanasius concludes,“Ifthenanythinkofotherorigin,andotherFather, consideringtheequalityoftheseattributes,itisamadthought” (3.21.50).3
Therefore, maintaining an understanding of the equality of theattributesofeachPersonoftheTrinityis,forAthanasius,nec- essarytomaintainaproperconfessionofeachPerson’sequality ofsubstance.Reduceone’sbeliefintheequalstatusoftheattri- butesofanyofthePersonsoftheGodheadandonehaselimi-
natedone’sproofoftheexistenceoftheTrinity,havingreduced one’sunderstandingofthedoctrinetoanascendingrelationship ofthreegodsintandem.Ariusmadesuchamistakewhenhede- clared,“ThusthereisaThree,notinequalglories.Notintermin- glingwitheachotheraretheirsubsistences.Onemoreglorious thantheotherintheirgloriesuntoimmensity”(2.2.15).
Instead, having established the equality of the Father and Son’sgloryandotherattributesinthesequotationsfromtheDe Synodis, AthanasiusproceedstothequestionofrankinEpistulae quattuor ad Serapionem, explaining,“Butofsuchrank[taxis]and naturetheSpiritishavingtotheSon,sotheSonhastotheFa- ther.”4TheSermo contra Latinos confirms,“ButtheFatherisfirst notaccordingtotime,andnotaccordingtorank,surelynot!”5
God is unique.
WehavenoprecedentinourworldforunderstandinghowGod canbeoneandatthesametimethree.Wemistakethenatureof theGodheadbypositingthreePersonsintandem,oneeternally exercisingauthorityovertheothersashumanchiefexecutiveof- ficersexerciseauthorityovertheirsubordinatestaff.Weimpose human conduct in our fallen world onto the relationships in heaven’sperfectone.But,sincethereisnoexactpointofrefer- enceforGodinourcontingentworld,wemustrelyuponGod’s revelationofGod’snature.Suchspecificdivinerevelationisre- cordedintheBibleintheformofaffirmations,suchas“Hear,Is- rael,theLord(singular)yourGod(plural),theLord(singular) isone”(Deut6:4).Theinterchangeableuseof thesingularand pluralnamesofGodshowsthatGodisunique.
God is not limited to human gender.
ChristiansdifferovertheirunderstandingofGod’sintentionfor the ecclesiastical and domestic relationship between the gen- ders. But, this topic should be included under the doctrine of humanityandnotoftheTrinity,sinceGodisneithermalenor female(aswelearnfromDeut4:15–16),andGodisnotlimited totwoPersons,butisoneGodinthreePersons.Thus,nodirect andspecificanalogicalcorrespondenceexistsbetweenonemale andonefemaleinrelationshiporinchurchserviceorallfemales andallmalesinrelationshiporinchurchserviceandtheperfect loverelationshipswithinthemonotheisticGodheadoftheTrin- ity.Further,theattempttoignoretheHolySpiritandforgesome sortofcorrespondingrelationship tohumangenderoutof the incarnational,metaphoricaldesignationsof“father”and“son”is atbestlogicfaultandatworstheterodox.
Written by William David Spencer in consultation with Aída Besançon Spencer, Mimi Haddad, Royce Gruenler, Kevin Giles, I. Howard Marshall, Alan Myatt, Millard Erickson, Steven Tracy, Alvera Mickelsen, Stanley Gundry, Catherine Clark Kroeger, and other theologians, exegetes, philoso- phers, and church historians. To be included in the upcoming book The New Evangelical Subordinationism? Perspectives on the Equality of God the Father and God the Son. Used by permission of Wipf and Stock Publishers, www .wipfandstock.com. Sign your name in support of the Evangelical State- ment on the Trinity by visiting www.TrinityStatement.com.
AthanasiuswarnsagainstoverlyanthropomorphizingTrini- tarian familial language. He counters the charge that his insis- tenceonequalityintheTrinityreducestwoPersonsoftheGod- head to “brothers”: “One isnotFatherand theOtherSon,but they are brothers together.”6 Athanasius answers that equality doesnotmeanthatonePersonintheGodheadcannotbeidenti- fiedas “father,” as another takesonfleshandentersourworld asaninfantwhoisthechildofdivineintervention(bytheHoly Spirit,whoisanotherPersonoftheTrinity[Luke1:35])andhu- manchildbirth(seePhil2:5–11),andhecitesnumerousexamples ofhumanparentsbegettingchildren.Yet,hewarnsthatthishu- manunderstandingmustbeconfinedtoourhumanrealm.We mustapproachtheeternalby“castingawayhumanimages,nay, all thingssensible,andascendingtotheFather, lestwerobthe FatheroftheSoninignorance,andrankHimamongHisown creatures”(3.23.51).
Insummary,Athanasiusinsiststhatequalityofattributesdem- onstratesequalityofsubstance(being)intheOneTriuneGod.
God exercises perfect cooperative relationships.
Godmodelsperfectlove,respect,cooperation.AlthoughJesusin hishumanincarnationwaslimitedinvariousways(Phil2:6–8), includinginknowledge(e.g.,Matt24:36;Mark13:32),athisas- censionhereturnedtohisformerplaceofauthorityandglory, where he receives prayer and grants power from heaven (Acts 7:56,59;Luke24:49).Ineternity,thePersonsoftheTrinityknow each other intimately. As 1 Corinthians 2:10 tells us, the Spirit searchesthethoughtsoftheothers.ThePersonsoftheGodhead indwelleachother(John17:21),expressingperfectloveandmu- tual glorification (John 17:1; 23–24), each sharing cooperatively inhumanity’screation,redemption,andsanctification.7Godex- emplifiesaunityindiversitythatweshouldemulatebetweenthe gendersandpracticeintheglobal,multicultural,mutualsubmis- sionandrespectfulcooperationofallhumans.
Voluntary deference as part of the salvific plan
DeferencewithintheTrinityismutual:theFatherdeferstothe Sontocarryouttheplanofsalvation,asdoestheHolySpirit,and sotheSonishonoredasheinturndeferstoFatherandSpirit.All mutuallyhonoranddefertooneanother.
Suchdeferencedidnotrevealapermanentsuperiorityofone PersonoftheTrinityovertheOtherstoJohnCalvin,whowrote:
WeoughtalsotounderstandwhatwereadinPaul:afterthe judgment “Christ will deliver the Kingdom to his God and Father”(1Cor.15:24p.).SurelytheKingdomoftheSonofGod hadnobeginningandwillhavenoend.Butevenashe lay concealedunder the lownessoffleshand“emptiedhimself, takingtheformofaservant”(Phil.2:7;cfVg.), layingaside the splendor of majesty, he showed himself obedient to his Father (cf.Phil. 2:8).Havingcompleted this subjection, “he wasatlastcrownedwithgloryandhonor”(Heb.2:9p.).
ThemissionofJesusChristwasnotsimplytoleadhumanityin righteousandobedientliving,aswasthetaskofthefirsthumans. Christ’smissionwasgreater,havingtoredeemfallenhumanity, afterwhich,Calvinexplains,“SothenwillheyieldtotheFather
hisnameandcrownofglory,andwhateverhehasreceivedfrom theFather,that‘Godmaybeallinall’(1Cor15:28).”Toperform thismission,Christbecomesour“Mediator”andour“Lord,”a title,Calvinnotes,that“belongstothepersonofChristonlyin sofarasitrepresentsadegreemidwaybetweenGodandus.”But onceChristhascompletelyfulfilledtheroleofhumanity’s“Lord,” Calvinexplains,“Thenhereturnsthe lordshiptohisFatherso that—far from diminishing his own majesty—it may shine all themorebrightly.Then,also,GodshallceasetobetheHeadof Christ,8forChrist’sowndeitywillshineofitself,althoughasyet itiscoveredbyaveil.”Calvinadds,theincarnateSecondPerson oftheTrinity“willceasetobetheambassadorofhisFather,and willbesatisfiedwiththatglorywhichheenjoyedbeforethecre- ationoftheworld.”9
B. B. Warfield agreed that the term “Lord” indicates “function”10 inChrist’smission,ascanbe seen inhisexplanationof why“PaulmightverywellcallChrist‘Lordoverall’butnot‘God over all.’’’ To him, “‘Lord over all’ would have meant, however, preciselywhat‘Godoverall’means.”11Warfieldspecificallydenies
thatPaulincurrentlyspeakingofChristas“Lord”placedhim onalowerplanethanGod.Paul’sintentionwaspreciselythe opposite,viz., toputhimonthesameplanewithGod;and accordinglyitisas“Lord”thatalldivineattributesandactivi- tiesareascribedtoChristandallreligiousemotionsandwor- shiparedirectedtohim.Ineffect,theOldTestamentdivine names,Elohimontheonehand,andJehovahandAdhonai ontheother,areintheNewTestamentdistributedbetween GodtheFatherandGodtheSonwithaslittleimplicationof differenceinrankhereasthere.12
Instead, forWarfield,“despite thisearthlyoriginofHishuman nature,Heyetisandabides(presentparticiple)nothinglessthan theSupremeGod, ‘Godoverall [emphatic],blessed forever,’”13 “our‘greatGod’(Titus2:13).”14“PaulcouplesGodourFatherand theLordJesusChristinhisprayeronacompleteequality.”15Even “theadjective‘onlybegotten’conveystheidea,notofderivation and subordination, but of uniqueness and consubstantiality,”16 sinceJesus“placesHimselfinaposition,notofequalitymerely, but of absolute reciprocity and interpenetration of knowledge withtheFather.”17Clearly,bothCalvinandWarfieldaffirmthat a temporary (not eternal) submission of one of the Persons of theGodheadintheincarnationwasamutuallyagreed-uponpart ofGod’splanforsavinghumanityfrometernalcondemnation, wherein a Person of the Godhead became fully human, while remainingfullyGod(John1:1,14).18JesusChrist,God-Among- Us,“pitchedthetentofabody”(sknn,John1:14),muchasthe tabernacle,thetentofmeeting,wasplacedinthecenterofIsrael’s encampmentsothathumanscouldencounterGodfacetoface. AccordingtotheBible,thereissalvationthroughnoothername than that of Jesus Christ and through no other means but the deathofJesusChristforoursins(John3:16;Acts4:12;1Tim2:5– 6).HumanswitnessedthespiritofservanthoodthatGodvalues anddisplays.Itwasexemplifiedbytheonce-and-for-allsacrifice ofGod-Among-Ustorestorehumanity toGod’s favor through God’sgrace(Heb10:14).God’smutualdeferencemodelsavirtue forbothmenandwomentofollow.
Avoiding elements of Arianism
Suggestions that superiority and inferiority of authority eter- nallyexistamongthePersonsoftheGodheadareproblematic. All God’s attributes are essential. We should not posit distinc- tive, unequal attributes that divide God’s substance. If divine attributes are ranked in a hierarchy, then it necessarily follows thatthelowerrankedareofinferiorquality.Therefore,itiscon- tradictorytosaythattheysharetheidenticalsubstance(ousia), andyetthedegreeofeachattributecandifferaccordingtorank. SuchaneternaldistinctionmakestheSonlessinauthoritythan theFather, therebydividingandseparating theoneGod.Such radicalsocialTrinitarianismendsupastritheism.Affirmingone Godinthreecoeternal,coequalPersonsis,therefore,necessary topreserveandperpetuatetheonefaithoncegiventothesaints.
Notes
1. AllquotationsofAthanasiusarefromThe Epistle of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, Concerning the Councils Held at Ariminum in Italy and at Seleucia in Isauria (or De Synodis),inMembersoftheEng- lishChurch,Select Treatises of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, in Controversy with the Arians, trans.J.H.Newman(Oxford:JohnHen- ryParker,J.G.F.andJ.Rivington:1842),exceptwhereotherwisenoted.
2. PunctuationisthatofthetranslatoroftheDe Synodis. 3. Thisconcernforandattentiontotherelationshipbetweenequal-
ityinsubstanceandattributescanbeseenin“TheWestminsterConfes- sionofFaith,”9:1,whichrecognizes,“TheHolySpirit,thethirdPerson intheTrinity,proceedingfromtheFatherandtheSon,ofthesamesub- stanceandequal inpowerandglory, is, togetherwith theFatherand Son, to be believed in, loved, obeyed, and worshipped throughout all ages,”inThe Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Part I: Book of Confessions (Louisville,KY:TheOfficeoftheGeneralAssembly,1999), 131.“TheWestminsterShorterCatechism”continuesthisequationinits answertoQuestion6:“TherearethreePersonsintheGodhead:theFa- ther,theSon,andtheHolyGhost;andthesethreeareoneGod,thesame insubstance,equalinpowerandglory”(Constitution of the Presbyterian Church,175).“TheWestminsterLargerCatechism”slightlyamplifiesthis statement in itsanswer toQuestion9: “Therebe threepersons in the Godhead:theFather,theSon,andtheHolyGhost;andthesethreeare onetrue,eternalGod,thesameinsubstance,equalinpowerandglory; althoughdistinguishedbytheirpersonalproperties”(Constitution of the Presbyterian Church,196).
4. Thesaurus linguae graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works, vol. 26,p.580,line24,accessed23Feb.2006,availablefromhttp://stephanus .tlg.uci.edu/inst/textsearch,translationbyWilliamDavidSpencer.
5. Literally:“mayitnothappen!m genoito.”Thesaurus linguae graecae, vol.28,p.829,line47,translationbyWilliamDavidSpencer.One willnoticethattheSermo contra Latinos hasbeenpaidlittleattention intheliterature.Thisisdoubtlessbecause“theBenedictineeditorsde- clareddubiousorspuriousallofthesermonsattributedtoAthanasius,” as JohannesQuastenhas lamented,adding,“Acarefulexaminationof thegreatnumberlistedbyA.Erhhardwhichsofarhasnotbeenmade, willmostprobablymodifythisjudgmentandprovesomeofthemgenu- ine” (Patrology, vol. 3 [Utrecht: Spectrum, 1960], 50). The question of whichworksofAthanasius(andhowmuchofeach)aregenuinecontin- uestobedebated.Insomecases,decisionsmadebyinternalevidence appearsubjective,dependinglargelyonhowthewordingofaparticular pieceseems tohavestruckaparticularcriticataparticular time.For example,LouisElliesDuPininhisBibliotheca Patrum; Or, A New His- tory of Ecclesiastical Writers, 2nded., trans.WilliamWotton (London: AbelSwallandTim.Childe,1693)decided,inregardtosermons,“The HomilyupontheseWords,My Father hath given me all things” isamong the“manyotherWorksofSt.Athanasius,ofwhichtheChronology is
notknown,whichitconcernsustodistinguishwellfromthosethatare doubtful or supposititious” (33). Such distinguishing was done some- timesbyexternalevidence(ashistoricalattestationofexternalauthor- ship),but, inaddition,bywhetherDuPin judgedapiecewas“in the StileofSt.Athanasius” (34).So, amonghispronouncements,he rules in favor of “The Homily of the Sabbath and of Circumcision,” which, hedecides,“isnotwhollyofSt.Athanasius’sStile,buttheDifferenceis veryinconsiderable,”whileherules,withBernardoDeMontfauconand notEichorn,againstthegenuinenessofDe Virginitate.Thisparticular book,whichremains thesubjectofa lively internetdebate,ofcourse, is thrown intoquestionbecauseof theway the“threehypostases”are discussed(see,amongmanyothers,ArchibaldRobertson,“Prolegom- ena”inNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ASelectLibraryoftheChristian Church,2ndseries,vol.4,ed.PhilipSchaffandHenryWace[Peabody, MA:Hendrickson,1892,1999], lxv).But,DuPin’sdecisionisbasedas muchonhisopinionthatthisbook“hasnothingoftheStyleofSt.Atha- nasius”(34),since“ThisBookiswritteninalowStileandcontainsPre- ceptsabouttheQualityofthechildishClothesofVirgins:Therearein itExpressionsunworthyofSt.Athanasius,aswhenhecallsaVirgin,the DancerofJesusChrist”(35).Afterhavingwrittenthis,DuPinendshis discussionbyagreeingwithPhotius’scommendationofAthanasiusfor his “wonderful Artifice: He observes all along an admirable fitness of ExpressionandalwaysadaptshisStiletotheSubjectofwhichhetreats, and to thePersons towhomhe speaks” (46).Current readerswillno doubtrecallArchibaldRobertson’sreminderthatAthanasiuswas,after all,“aChristianpastor...engagedinpreaching,”whose“simplicityled Philostorgius...topronounceAthanasiusachildascomparedwithBa- sil,Gregory,orApollinarius”(Prolegomena,lxvi).Againstsuchconflict- ingopinions,thetenuousnessofrelyingonacriterionofwhatsounds likeanauthor’sstyletoacritictodetermineauthorship,orrelyingona previouscompilerwhohasdonejustthat,isveryunreliable.Today,lin- guisticstudyisacomplexenterprisedemandingnumerousoperations, such as analyzing syntactical and transposition sentence changes, as- sessingverbdensity,abstractversusconcretenouns,anduseofadverbs andadverbialclauses,doinglogicaldiagramming,applyingLeoSpitzer’s
philological circle,performingpropositional reduction,andexecuting othersuchoperations.Further,“accordingtoseverallinguists,100,000 words are needed to prove authorship” (see Aída Besançon Spencer’s stylistic study Paul’s Literary Style [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1998], 21, 149). And, even then, one is wise to be cautious. Further, determination by style is difficult to make when no uniform scholarlyopinionexistsonthequalityorbreadthofAthanasius’swrit- ingstyle, since judgmentsrange fromPhotius’sglowingendorsement, “ReadvariouslettersofAthanasius,somecontainingakindofApology forhisflight.Thestyle iselegant,brilliant,andclear, fullofgraceand persuasiveness”(Bibliotheca or Myriobiblon, trans.J.H.Freese(London: SPCK,1920),32,accessed1June2011,availablefromhttp://www.tertul- lian.org/fathers/photius_02preface.htm,)toBertholdAltaner’sdimmer assessment:“OnthewholeAthanasiusis littleconcernedwithliterary form;hecertainlyshowseverywhereclarityandprecisionof thought, buthiswritingssufferfromdefectivearrangementofhismaterialaswell asfromfrequentrepetitionsanddiffusiveness”(Patrology,trans.Hilda C.Graef [Freburg:Herder,1960],314).Whenwefactorintherealization thattheimmenselyaccomplishedbutstilllargelyprescientificBernard DeMontfauconandhiseditorsdismissedtheentirecorpusofsermons intheircompilationsof1698andafterward,andthattheimpactofthat decisioncanbeseenintheassignmentofthesehomiliesas“dubious” or“spurious”byMigne(whocontinuestodatetheSermo contra Lati- nos inthe300s),Lampe,andotherswhofollowed,onecanonlypause andhopethatthequestionoftheauthenticityofeachsermonthatwas traditionallyassignedtoAthanasiuswilleventuallyhaveitsownmore contemporary,scientific,andaccurateexploration.Inthemeantime,the carefulapproachistobearcautioninmindandregardthepresentdocu- mentaseitherbyAthanasius(astraditionallyidentified)orbyoneofthe Athanasianpartyauthorsattempting to followhis theologyandwrite inthespiritofAthanasius’sthought.Thestatementcitedinourtextis includedinadiscussionofthetheoryofthe“eternalemergence”ofthe
SonandSpirit,whichseekstoclarifythattheSpiritis“conjoinedandto- getherandnotbeinginferioraccordingtotheemergenceaftertheSon. ...ForjustastheSonimmediatelyandcloselyisoutofthefirst,which implies theFather, soalso theSpirit is immediatelyoutof theFather, withreferencetotheeternalemergence.ButtheFatherisfirstneither accordingtotime,noraccordingtorank—surelynot!”Aswecansee, theSonandSpiritproceeding fromtheFathermaybeunderstoodas order,butwithoutaneternallyhierarchicalordering.Inaddition,wecan noticethisconcernisalsoexpressedintheSecondHelveticConfession: “Thustherearenotthreegods,butthreepersons,consubstantial,coeternal,andcoequal;distinctwithrespecttohypostases,andwithrespect toorder, theonepreceding theotheryetwithoutany inequality” (ch. 3,“OfGod,HisUnityandTrinity,”“TheSecondHelveticConfession,” inThe Constitution of the Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.], Part I: Book of Confessions,56).
6. InaMay1537lettertoSimonGrynée,therectoroftheAcademy of Basle, John Calvin reports he was labeled a Sabellian for claiming JesusChristwas“thatJehovah,whoofHimselfalonewasalwaysself- existent”(inotherwordsautotheos).ThisisnotedbyCharlesHodge(see hisSystematic Theology [GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1952],467 [vol.I, ch.4,sec.6A].ReferencingIgnatius,Athanasiusmakesasimilarpointto thatofCalvin,that,strictlyspeaking,“theSonwasingenerate,”sincethe SecondPersonoftheTrinitywasnotcreated,thoughtheSonwasgener- ateintheincarnation(De Synodis, 3.17.46):“Wearepersuadedthatthe blessedIgnatiuswasorthodoxinwritingthatChristwasgenerateonac- countoftheflesh,(forHewasmadeflesh,)yetingenerate,becauseHeis notinthenumberofthingsmadeandgenerated,butSonfromFather” (De Synodis,3.18.47).CharlesHodge,however,seemstodisagree,seeing the“fatherswhoframedthat[Nicene]Creed”as“denyingtotheFather anypriorityorsuperioritytotheotherpersonsoftheTrinity,”butyet being“theMonas,ashavinginorderofthoughtthewholeGodheadin Himself;sothatHealonewasGodofHimself(autotheos, inthatsenseof theword),”being“greaterthantheotherdivinepersons”(465).Inregard to“theFather,Son,andSpirit,”Prof.Hodgebelievesin“theirabsolute unityastosubstanceoressence,andtheirconsequentperfectequality; andthesubordinationoftheSontotheFather,andoftheSpirittothe FatherandtheSon,astothemodeofsubsistenceandoperation”(462), offeringquotationsofscholarsancientandcontemporarytohimself,in- cludingProf.Waterland,whoclaims,“Thetitleofho Theos [theGod], beingunderstoodinthesamesensewithautotheos,was,asitoughttobe, generallyreservedtotheFather,asthedistinguishingpersonalcharacter ofthefirstpersonoftheHolyTrinity”(465).Hodge,however,cautions that“neithertheBiblenortheancientcreedsexplain”whatis“meant” bytheterm“sonship,”and,infact,“itmaybesomethingaltogetherin- scrutableandtous incomprehensible”(468).Still,drawingonhuman analogy,hehimselfbelieves,“Intheconsubstantial identityofthehu- mansoulthereisasubordinationofonefacultytoanother,andso,how- everincomprehensibletous,theremaybeasubordinationintheTrinity consistentwiththeidentityofessenceintheGodhead”(474).Likewise, AugustusHopkinsStrongalsonotesthechargeofSabellianismagainst Calvin(Systematic Theology [OldTappan,NJ:FlemingH.Revell,1907], 334[vol.1,pt.4,ch.2,sec.4c])andhimselfstates,“TheNewTestament callsChristTheos, butnotho theos. Wefranklyrecognizeaneternalsub- ordinationofChristtotheFather,butwemaintainatthesametimethat thissubordinationisasubordinationoforder,office,andoperation,not asubordinationofessence”(342[I.4.2.5:3d]).Prof.Strongbelieveshis anthropomorphicviewof“thepossibilityofanorder,whichyetinvolves noinequality,maybeillustratedbytherelationbetweenmanandwom- an.Inofficemanisfirstandwomansecond,butwoman’ssoulisworth asmuchasman’s”(ibid.).Suchdistinctionscanbe traced in theearly churchtoOrigeninhisCommentary on John, book2,section13(p.98), wherehesuggestsofJohn1:1,“Johnhasusedthearticlesinoneplaceand omittedtheminanotherveryprecisely,andnotasthoughhedidnotun- derstandtheprecisionoftheGreeklanguage.InthecaseoftheWord,he addsthearticle‘the,’butinthecaseofthenoun‘God,’heinsertsitinone
Women, Men, and the Trinity What Does It Mean to Be Equal?
ere is a gridlock in churches today regarding the role of women. is debate extends beyond the relationship between men and women. In 1 Corinthians 11:3, when Paul says, “the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God,” he is drawing a parallel between the relationship of men and women and the relationship of the Father and the Son within the Trinity. is book explores the controversial theological premise that, while maintaining equality of essence, functio

Triune God - CBE International

Documents

Transcript of Triune God - CBE International