Following up my last post on “Essence and Function: Definition and Distinction,” I decided to create a second portion of Part II, where I would set up a simple argument for the temporary subordination of Christ. The temporary subordination of Christ can be proven by arguing that the coming of Christ to earth to die was not a necessary action, but a contingent one: that is, it was based upon the granting of free will to human beings and God’s foreknowledge of their later sin. I have set up a syllogism as a way to present a succinct argument.
Syllogism:
a. God freely decided to create the world.
b. God freely decided to grant human creation free will.
c. God freely knew that man, with his free will, would sin.
d. God freely knew man’s sin, and freely decided to come in the person of Christ to atone for man’s sin.
e. That which is freely done or that which is a free decision is not necessary.
f. Therefore, it was not necessary for God to create the world.
g. It was not necessary for God to grant free will to His human creation.
h. It was not necessary that man should sin.
i. It was not necessary that Christ come and atone for sin (if sin was not
necessary).
j. If none of God’s free decisions were necessary, then neither was His coming
to earth and crucifixion necessary. As a result, Christ’s subordination on earth was not necessary.
k. That which is necessary is eternal (as is God’s essence); that which is not necessary, then, cannot be eternal.
l. Christ’s subordination, then, was not necessary, and therefore, cannot be eternal. It can only be temporary.
In order to understand the above syllogism, one must know the terms involved. To begin with, let’s define the word “necessary”:
“Of an inevitable nature; inescapable.”
Christ’s essence, Godness (or divinity), was NECESSARY in order that Christ come to earth and atone for man’s sin. But what about his function? Let’s find the definition of the word “contingent”:
“Conditional; dependent; that may or may not occur” (from “The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus,” Second Edition. New York: Berkeley Books, 2001).
If God had never created the world, then Jesus would never have had to come and die; how then, can His subordination have been “necessary” or “eternal”? those who argue this belief fail to consider the unorthodox theology behind such an argument.
I will refer to this twelve-point syllogism quite often as we continue to discuss the issue of essence and function. Stay tuned...
Showing posts with label The Trinity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Trinity. Show all posts
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Essence and Function, Part II: Definition and Distinction
Happy New Year to everyone! I’m back, after a month away, to begin work at “Men and Women” for the year of 2010. It is such a blessing to be returning to the work I love once more!!
Since I was in the middle of a series on “Essence and Function,” I will pick up where I left off. This post will continue our series.
I told you in the last post that, as students of the Bible, all of us who name the name of Christ should be philosophers (which means, we should be “lovers of wisdom”). The Bible tells us the importance of godly wisdom and the benefits that godly wisdom provides for the believer.
Now, on to the task at hand: the definitions and distinctions of “essence” and “function.”
First, let’s define “essence”:
1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
2. The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
3. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/essence)
Let’s notice some things about the above definitions of essence. First, we see that it is an “intrinsic” property that “identifies” something. It is important to see essence as an identifier because essence is the DEFINING MARK of an object or person. In addition, the essence of a thing is its “unchanging” nature. The essence stays the same. There is no change that occurs in the essence whatsoever. This is important because, if this is the case, then the essence must represent that which is “permanent” when compared with the function of something. The function, then, will be the opposite of essence; and if the essence is permanent, then the function must be temporary. It cannot be permanent because its duration (amount of time) must be distinguished from the essence (which is permanent). The opposite of “permanent” is “temporary.” Just keep these things in mind.
Next, let’s look at the definition of “function”:
1.the natural action or intended purpose of a person or thing in a specific role
2. a factor dependent upon another or other factors
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/function)
Function relates to “purpose” or “action” of a person. According to the second definition, the function is “dependent upon another or other factors.” This means that the function is a dependent variable. As I was always taught in mathematics, a “dependent” variable is that which needs something else in order to exist; an “independent” variable, on the other hand, is something that can stand on its own.
Take for example two factors, “time” and “height.” Time is an independent factor---in other words, time can stand on its own. However, height is a dependent factor, for I can only grow if time exists. If time does not exist, then I cannot grow. Another good example would be “seed growth of plant” and “weather.” The weather is the independent variable, because if the weather does not cooperate, then the seed will not grow. But even if the seed does not grow, the weather will still exist! This is why the weather is the independent variable: because it exists despite seed growth (or the lack thereof).
According to the definition of “function” given above, then, the function is a dependent variable, not able to exist without another factor. In this case, function would not exist without essence (think about it: if something does not exist, then it cannot function!). I think that it’s pretty easy to conceive of something that does not exist as having no function or purpose. After all, no one sits around and talks about imaginary objects as part of everyday life, do they?
Now, let’s talk more about Jesus and the Father. I have made the point here at the site that essence and function are opposites. If they are, and function is dependent upon essence (essence being permanent), then the function of something or someone must be temporary. If we use this in regards to Christ, He is ETERNALLY EQUAL in His essence, but TEMPORARILY SUBORDINATE in His function.
Why is Jesus’ function “temporarily subordinate”? Because it follows the meaning of function. Function is dependent upon the essence. If Jesus had not been God, He COULD NOT have been the Savior of the world (for the only one who could save mankind was God Himself). If one wants to debate about function, ask yourself this: “Could Jesus have been just a mere man AND the Savior of the world?” I think we all know the answer to that question (of course, it’s “NO WAY!”).
Now, to test this theory out of essence and function, let’s examine the view of the complementarians regarding Jesus:
ETERNALLY EQUAL in essence [but] ETERNALLY SUBORDINATE in function
Now, according to our definitions above, function must be dependent on essence. Function cannot be permanent if essence is, because function cannot exist without essence. Since this is the case, subordinate function cannot be “eternal.” Why? because “eternal subordination” implies that subordination is a permanent factor. In other words, complementarians, when they label subordination as “eternal,” imply that function can exist without essence (which it cannot!)...
We see this in everyday life. Take a student for instance: if that student were to lose his humanness, could he still be a student? No. Where have you ever seen a monkey go to class, sit, pay attention, answer questions, and take examinations, pass them, and function as a human being? I will boldly confess that I’ve never seen that sight before! And chances are, you haven’t either---which means that humanness is essential to the function of “being a student.” However, a human doesn’t have to function as a student---he could be a recording artist, for example, and still be human! “student function” is not necessary for a person to be human---“humanness” is!
I’ll give a real-life example of essence and function. In World War II, during the Holocaust, Hitler killed over 6 million Jews. I read Elie Wiesel’s “Night” and learned that Hitler killed all the Jews who seemed to be elderly and of old age. Wiesel writes in his book that he and others would run for some time before their doctor appointments, in order to show up “red” in the face and give the appearance that they were “young-blooded.” If they looked old and tired in any sense, the doctors would sentence them to the concentration camps, where they would die. Hitler reasoned that if a Jew could no longer function in hard labor, then that Jew was no longer human (and thus, no longer worthy of human life). Hitler advocated much of Darwinian biological evolution into his practices; and Darwin himself believed that man is just a machine: take away his function and he is no longer human. This explains eugenics and death in the cases of the paralyzed, comatose, and handicapped (whether mental or physical).
But this has also become the reasoning behind abortions. Have you ever wondered why abortions are so popular over the United States? Abortions have become the “new fad” of conception because they presuppose a Darwinian view: that man is just a machine, and without function, nothing at all. So if a fetus is present within a woman, but cannot function like a person, then the fetus is no person at all (just a bunch of biological raw material)---and can be “done away with.” And why? Because function, in the minds of humans, has become EQUAL to essence. I believe, however, that the fetus is still a human being (even if the fetus cannot “do” anything). And I believe the fetus remains human because essence is over function. Regardless of the human’s function, the human is still a human (even a fetus!).
I have one more thing to say about Jesus’ subordinate function, but I’ll save it until next time.
Since I was in the middle of a series on “Essence and Function,” I will pick up where I left off. This post will continue our series.
I told you in the last post that, as students of the Bible, all of us who name the name of Christ should be philosophers (which means, we should be “lovers of wisdom”). The Bible tells us the importance of godly wisdom and the benefits that godly wisdom provides for the believer.
Now, on to the task at hand: the definitions and distinctions of “essence” and “function.”
First, let’s define “essence”:
1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
2. The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
3. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/essence)
Let’s notice some things about the above definitions of essence. First, we see that it is an “intrinsic” property that “identifies” something. It is important to see essence as an identifier because essence is the DEFINING MARK of an object or person. In addition, the essence of a thing is its “unchanging” nature. The essence stays the same. There is no change that occurs in the essence whatsoever. This is important because, if this is the case, then the essence must represent that which is “permanent” when compared with the function of something. The function, then, will be the opposite of essence; and if the essence is permanent, then the function must be temporary. It cannot be permanent because its duration (amount of time) must be distinguished from the essence (which is permanent). The opposite of “permanent” is “temporary.” Just keep these things in mind.
Next, let’s look at the definition of “function”:
1.the natural action or intended purpose of a person or thing in a specific role
2. a factor dependent upon another or other factors
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/function)
Function relates to “purpose” or “action” of a person. According to the second definition, the function is “dependent upon another or other factors.” This means that the function is a dependent variable. As I was always taught in mathematics, a “dependent” variable is that which needs something else in order to exist; an “independent” variable, on the other hand, is something that can stand on its own.
Take for example two factors, “time” and “height.” Time is an independent factor---in other words, time can stand on its own. However, height is a dependent factor, for I can only grow if time exists. If time does not exist, then I cannot grow. Another good example would be “seed growth of plant” and “weather.” The weather is the independent variable, because if the weather does not cooperate, then the seed will not grow. But even if the seed does not grow, the weather will still exist! This is why the weather is the independent variable: because it exists despite seed growth (or the lack thereof).
According to the definition of “function” given above, then, the function is a dependent variable, not able to exist without another factor. In this case, function would not exist without essence (think about it: if something does not exist, then it cannot function!). I think that it’s pretty easy to conceive of something that does not exist as having no function or purpose. After all, no one sits around and talks about imaginary objects as part of everyday life, do they?
Now, let’s talk more about Jesus and the Father. I have made the point here at the site that essence and function are opposites. If they are, and function is dependent upon essence (essence being permanent), then the function of something or someone must be temporary. If we use this in regards to Christ, He is ETERNALLY EQUAL in His essence, but TEMPORARILY SUBORDINATE in His function.
Why is Jesus’ function “temporarily subordinate”? Because it follows the meaning of function. Function is dependent upon the essence. If Jesus had not been God, He COULD NOT have been the Savior of the world (for the only one who could save mankind was God Himself). If one wants to debate about function, ask yourself this: “Could Jesus have been just a mere man AND the Savior of the world?” I think we all know the answer to that question (of course, it’s “NO WAY!”).
Now, to test this theory out of essence and function, let’s examine the view of the complementarians regarding Jesus:
ETERNALLY EQUAL in essence [but] ETERNALLY SUBORDINATE in function
Now, according to our definitions above, function must be dependent on essence. Function cannot be permanent if essence is, because function cannot exist without essence. Since this is the case, subordinate function cannot be “eternal.” Why? because “eternal subordination” implies that subordination is a permanent factor. In other words, complementarians, when they label subordination as “eternal,” imply that function can exist without essence (which it cannot!)...
We see this in everyday life. Take a student for instance: if that student were to lose his humanness, could he still be a student? No. Where have you ever seen a monkey go to class, sit, pay attention, answer questions, and take examinations, pass them, and function as a human being? I will boldly confess that I’ve never seen that sight before! And chances are, you haven’t either---which means that humanness is essential to the function of “being a student.” However, a human doesn’t have to function as a student---he could be a recording artist, for example, and still be human! “student function” is not necessary for a person to be human---“humanness” is!
I’ll give a real-life example of essence and function. In World War II, during the Holocaust, Hitler killed over 6 million Jews. I read Elie Wiesel’s “Night” and learned that Hitler killed all the Jews who seemed to be elderly and of old age. Wiesel writes in his book that he and others would run for some time before their doctor appointments, in order to show up “red” in the face and give the appearance that they were “young-blooded.” If they looked old and tired in any sense, the doctors would sentence them to the concentration camps, where they would die. Hitler reasoned that if a Jew could no longer function in hard labor, then that Jew was no longer human (and thus, no longer worthy of human life). Hitler advocated much of Darwinian biological evolution into his practices; and Darwin himself believed that man is just a machine: take away his function and he is no longer human. This explains eugenics and death in the cases of the paralyzed, comatose, and handicapped (whether mental or physical).
But this has also become the reasoning behind abortions. Have you ever wondered why abortions are so popular over the United States? Abortions have become the “new fad” of conception because they presuppose a Darwinian view: that man is just a machine, and without function, nothing at all. So if a fetus is present within a woman, but cannot function like a person, then the fetus is no person at all (just a bunch of biological raw material)---and can be “done away with.” And why? Because function, in the minds of humans, has become EQUAL to essence. I believe, however, that the fetus is still a human being (even if the fetus cannot “do” anything). And I believe the fetus remains human because essence is over function. Regardless of the human’s function, the human is still a human (even a fetus!).
I have one more thing to say about Jesus’ subordinate function, but I’ll save it until next time.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Essence and Function, Part One: The Importance of Philosophy
I’ve been thinking over the series on the Trinity that I’ve been doing here at the blog the last few days...and it has occurred to me through dialogue with others via e-mail that it is important to spend some time explaining the simple philosophy behind the Trinity and the men-women debate.
Now, some may say, “Well, this is a theological issue...let’s just stick to the Bible.” When I was younger, I believed the exact same thing----even until I was a seminary student, I believed the exact same thing. But my time at seminary (in addition to the countless pages of reading I’ve done) has convinced me, via historical theology, that debates in the church are not as much an issue of the Bible as they are of philosophy. In the debate on the Trinity, for instance, everyone will marshal their proof-texts to sway you to believe what they do; however, what happens when you arrive at an impasse? What happens when your opponent has just as many passages for his view as you do yours?
This is where philosophy comes in. During the Middle Ages, philosophy was labeled “the handmaiden of theology” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871268,00.html) and, although the two fields have had their share of fights, I still believe the statement to be true: philosophy is still the handmaiden of theology. Because Scripture speaks of God as a logical God, a God of order, a God who does that which is just and right, it makes sense to study philosophy. The word “philosophy” literally translated, comes from two Greek words, “philos” (lover) and “Sophia” (wisdom). Put together, the word “philosophy” refers to “a lover of wisdom.”
Scripture testifies that wisdom is a blessing:
“Happy is the man who finds WISDOM, and the man who gains understanding; for her proceeds are better than the profits of silver, and her gain than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies, and ALL THE THINGS YOU MAY DESIRE CANNOT COMPARE WITH HER. Length of days is in her right hand, in her left hand riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and ALL HER PATHS ARE PEACE. SHE IS A TREE OF LIFE to those who take hold of her, and happy are all who retain her” (Proverbs 3:13-18, NKJV).
Wisdom is more profitable than “silver,” “fine gold,” and “rubies.” Wisdom is worth more than “all the things” a person could ever desire. In other words, wisdom is the most valuable possession a person could ever own. Wisdom is even worth more than all my college and seminary training combined!
One of the most important things that Solomon wants us to see about wisdom is that “she is a tree of life to those who take hold of her...” Solomon labels wisdom as “a tree of life.”
Does the “tree of life” allusion here ring a bell? It should. This reference takes us back to Genesis, where Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden by eating fruit from “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Someone could say, “well, they aimed for knowledge...so, why was it a bad thing?” It was wrong because they were disobeying God! The very act of disobedience itself showed that humanity’s first parents did not have a “fear of the Lord,” which is central to wisdom: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Prov. 9:10, NKJV). To first have wisdom, then, we must first have a reverential fear for the Lord. God must be first in our lives, and we must long to please him with all our heart, soul, and might (which involves the mind). Once He is Lord over our lives, then and only then can we seek to love Him with everything we are and everything we have. Wisdom, then, is not just a tree of knowledge, but a tree of understanding. And wisdom gives life, prolongs days (“length of years,” Prov. 3—see above).
It is at this point that you may ask me, “Well, I realize that wisdom is important, that it’s more valuable to me than anything I hold dear. How do I get this wisdom?” James, the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, tell us:
“If any of you lacks wisdom, LET HIM ASK OF GOD, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5).
I have taken some time here to show the importance of philosophy in the life of the believer. The Lord desires that we please Him with our minds; but in order to do that, we’ve got to become “lovers of wisdom.” The only way to do this is to know what wisdom is—and that starts with “the fear of the Lord.” Once a person has the Lord as the center of their entire existence, then he or she can begin to ask God for wisdom. God desires that we know Him in a most intimate way, so He will give us wisdom if we ask for it. Our desire to study philosophy should be founded upon our desire to please the Lord with our minds, our intellect that He so graciously bestowed upon humanity. Let the wicked and lazy servant be an example to us that, to throw away our minds is to disregard the goodness of our Lord...and thus, make ourselves enemies of His Grace.
I will continue with a discussion of wisdom and philosophy in future posts.
Now, some may say, “Well, this is a theological issue...let’s just stick to the Bible.” When I was younger, I believed the exact same thing----even until I was a seminary student, I believed the exact same thing. But my time at seminary (in addition to the countless pages of reading I’ve done) has convinced me, via historical theology, that debates in the church are not as much an issue of the Bible as they are of philosophy. In the debate on the Trinity, for instance, everyone will marshal their proof-texts to sway you to believe what they do; however, what happens when you arrive at an impasse? What happens when your opponent has just as many passages for his view as you do yours?
This is where philosophy comes in. During the Middle Ages, philosophy was labeled “the handmaiden of theology” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871268,00.html) and, although the two fields have had their share of fights, I still believe the statement to be true: philosophy is still the handmaiden of theology. Because Scripture speaks of God as a logical God, a God of order, a God who does that which is just and right, it makes sense to study philosophy. The word “philosophy” literally translated, comes from two Greek words, “philos” (lover) and “Sophia” (wisdom). Put together, the word “philosophy” refers to “a lover of wisdom.”
Scripture testifies that wisdom is a blessing:
“Happy is the man who finds WISDOM, and the man who gains understanding; for her proceeds are better than the profits of silver, and her gain than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies, and ALL THE THINGS YOU MAY DESIRE CANNOT COMPARE WITH HER. Length of days is in her right hand, in her left hand riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and ALL HER PATHS ARE PEACE. SHE IS A TREE OF LIFE to those who take hold of her, and happy are all who retain her” (Proverbs 3:13-18, NKJV).
Wisdom is more profitable than “silver,” “fine gold,” and “rubies.” Wisdom is worth more than “all the things” a person could ever desire. In other words, wisdom is the most valuable possession a person could ever own. Wisdom is even worth more than all my college and seminary training combined!
One of the most important things that Solomon wants us to see about wisdom is that “she is a tree of life to those who take hold of her...” Solomon labels wisdom as “a tree of life.”
Does the “tree of life” allusion here ring a bell? It should. This reference takes us back to Genesis, where Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden by eating fruit from “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Someone could say, “well, they aimed for knowledge...so, why was it a bad thing?” It was wrong because they were disobeying God! The very act of disobedience itself showed that humanity’s first parents did not have a “fear of the Lord,” which is central to wisdom: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Prov. 9:10, NKJV). To first have wisdom, then, we must first have a reverential fear for the Lord. God must be first in our lives, and we must long to please him with all our heart, soul, and might (which involves the mind). Once He is Lord over our lives, then and only then can we seek to love Him with everything we are and everything we have. Wisdom, then, is not just a tree of knowledge, but a tree of understanding. And wisdom gives life, prolongs days (“length of years,” Prov. 3—see above).
It is at this point that you may ask me, “Well, I realize that wisdom is important, that it’s more valuable to me than anything I hold dear. How do I get this wisdom?” James, the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, tell us:
“If any of you lacks wisdom, LET HIM ASK OF GOD, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5).
I have taken some time here to show the importance of philosophy in the life of the believer. The Lord desires that we please Him with our minds; but in order to do that, we’ve got to become “lovers of wisdom.” The only way to do this is to know what wisdom is—and that starts with “the fear of the Lord.” Once a person has the Lord as the center of their entire existence, then he or she can begin to ask God for wisdom. God desires that we know Him in a most intimate way, so He will give us wisdom if we ask for it. Our desire to study philosophy should be founded upon our desire to please the Lord with our minds, our intellect that He so graciously bestowed upon humanity. Let the wicked and lazy servant be an example to us that, to throw away our minds is to disregard the goodness of our Lord...and thus, make ourselves enemies of His Grace.
I will continue with a discussion of wisdom and philosophy in future posts.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Trinitarian Order: First, Second, Third?
“The common order in which Christians usually express the names of the members of the Trinity is Father, Son, and Spirit, and this is supported by the order in the baptismal formula in Matthew 28. However, Warfield points out that THIS ORDER IS BY NO MEANS INVARIABLE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT...” (Millard Erickson, “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 56).
In today’s post, I am covering the idea of “taxis,” or order within the Trinity. I have finished covering the Gradational-Authority View (which states that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father in function). Now, I will begin the study of the “Equivalent-Authority View,” beginning with B.B. Warfield. In his above statement, he recognizes the baptismal formula in Matthew 28, which states the following:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY SPIRIT” (Matthew 28:19, NKJV).
Nevertheless, B.B. Warfield makes the case that, if the Father were really superior (and the Son and Spirit subordinate), then we would see this order consistently repeated throughout the New Testament. However, this is not what we see:
“In the benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14, the order is ‘Lord, God, and Holy Spirit.’ In 1 Peter 1:2, the order is ‘Father, Spirit, and Jesus Christ.’ In Jude 20-21, it is ‘Holy Spirit, God, and Lord Jesus Christ.’ Sometimes, as in 1 Corinthians 12:3-6, the order is ACTUALLY REVERSED COMPLETELY, which may be a rhetorical device. Again, Warfield’s statement is cautious: ‘If in their conviction THE VERY ESSENCE of the doctrine of the Trinity was embodied in this order, should we not anticipate that there should appear in their numerous allusions to the Trinity some suggestion of this conviction?’” (56-57)
I think that the interchangeable order of the Trinitarian members shows us their equality—that one is no more God than the others, that no one member is “less God” than the others. But I think this equality also demolishes the idea of the Son and the Spirit as “subordinate.” After all, Paul tells us that after meeting Christ on the Damascus Road, he went to Arabia (Galatians 1:17) where he was taught by the Lord concerning the law and the Scriptures. It seems that, if he was taught by the Lord in all matters (which he states he was), then, if there was an important “one order” to the members of the Trinity, that the Lord would have revealed that also to Paul? The fact that we see Paul using the members interchangeably without being labeled a heretic testifies to the fact that using them interchangeably does not “humiliate” God Himself.
Warfield does acknowledge that Christ is sent by the Father, and that He takes on a role of submission to His Father. However, his reason for why this occurs differs greatly from that of the gradationists:
“It may be natural to assume...that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these references to subordination in modes of operation (functions) MAY JUST AS WELL BE DUE TO A CONVENTION, AN AGREEMENT, BETWEEN THE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY—a ‘Covenant’ as it is technically called—by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED by each” (57).
I know what you, my readers, are thinking at this point: here goes an “invented” scheme as a way to deal with the submission of the Son to the Spirit (and the Spirit to the Father and Son). However, there is biblical warrant for Warfield’s assertion:
“LET US make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...” (Genesis 1:26, NKJV)
“Come, LET US go down and there confuse their language...” (Gen. 11:7)
These are two instances in Genesis, but I think it shows us the collaboration of all the Trinitarian members in regards to creation of man (Genesis 1) and the confusing of the language of mankind (Genesis 11). It shows that all of the members had one mind and were in unanimous agreement regarding divine action. This is what we know biblically. While we do not know if there was a Trinitarian agreement regarding Christ’s role as Savior and His Crucifixion, we do know that the Trinity members agreed on everything. If this is so, then we can make the connection between the creation of man (and the world) to the roles of the Father, Son, and Spirit before the foundations of the world.
We’ve seen in this post that, while the baptismal formula of Matthew 28 shows order, we see that the order was interchangeable throughout the New Testament. In addition, we’ve also seen that the distinguished roles are very likely to be the result of a pre-creation covenant amongst the Trinitarian members. While we can’t be one-hundred percent sure of a covenant, details within Scripture itself give us hope. The gradationists, on the other hand, don’t have a shred of evidence to prove that the Spirit and the Son were subordinate before the foundations of the world...and this hole in their argument is what tears the gradationist view apart.
In today’s post, I am covering the idea of “taxis,” or order within the Trinity. I have finished covering the Gradational-Authority View (which states that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father in function). Now, I will begin the study of the “Equivalent-Authority View,” beginning with B.B. Warfield. In his above statement, he recognizes the baptismal formula in Matthew 28, which states the following:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY SPIRIT” (Matthew 28:19, NKJV).
Nevertheless, B.B. Warfield makes the case that, if the Father were really superior (and the Son and Spirit subordinate), then we would see this order consistently repeated throughout the New Testament. However, this is not what we see:
“In the benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14, the order is ‘Lord, God, and Holy Spirit.’ In 1 Peter 1:2, the order is ‘Father, Spirit, and Jesus Christ.’ In Jude 20-21, it is ‘Holy Spirit, God, and Lord Jesus Christ.’ Sometimes, as in 1 Corinthians 12:3-6, the order is ACTUALLY REVERSED COMPLETELY, which may be a rhetorical device. Again, Warfield’s statement is cautious: ‘If in their conviction THE VERY ESSENCE of the doctrine of the Trinity was embodied in this order, should we not anticipate that there should appear in their numerous allusions to the Trinity some suggestion of this conviction?’” (56-57)
I think that the interchangeable order of the Trinitarian members shows us their equality—that one is no more God than the others, that no one member is “less God” than the others. But I think this equality also demolishes the idea of the Son and the Spirit as “subordinate.” After all, Paul tells us that after meeting Christ on the Damascus Road, he went to Arabia (Galatians 1:17) where he was taught by the Lord concerning the law and the Scriptures. It seems that, if he was taught by the Lord in all matters (which he states he was), then, if there was an important “one order” to the members of the Trinity, that the Lord would have revealed that also to Paul? The fact that we see Paul using the members interchangeably without being labeled a heretic testifies to the fact that using them interchangeably does not “humiliate” God Himself.
Warfield does acknowledge that Christ is sent by the Father, and that He takes on a role of submission to His Father. However, his reason for why this occurs differs greatly from that of the gradationists:
“It may be natural to assume...that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these references to subordination in modes of operation (functions) MAY JUST AS WELL BE DUE TO A CONVENTION, AN AGREEMENT, BETWEEN THE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY—a ‘Covenant’ as it is technically called—by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED by each” (57).
I know what you, my readers, are thinking at this point: here goes an “invented” scheme as a way to deal with the submission of the Son to the Spirit (and the Spirit to the Father and Son). However, there is biblical warrant for Warfield’s assertion:
“LET US make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...” (Genesis 1:26, NKJV)
“Come, LET US go down and there confuse their language...” (Gen. 11:7)
These are two instances in Genesis, but I think it shows us the collaboration of all the Trinitarian members in regards to creation of man (Genesis 1) and the confusing of the language of mankind (Genesis 11). It shows that all of the members had one mind and were in unanimous agreement regarding divine action. This is what we know biblically. While we do not know if there was a Trinitarian agreement regarding Christ’s role as Savior and His Crucifixion, we do know that the Trinity members agreed on everything. If this is so, then we can make the connection between the creation of man (and the world) to the roles of the Father, Son, and Spirit before the foundations of the world.
We’ve seen in this post that, while the baptismal formula of Matthew 28 shows order, we see that the order was interchangeable throughout the New Testament. In addition, we’ve also seen that the distinguished roles are very likely to be the result of a pre-creation covenant amongst the Trinitarian members. While we can’t be one-hundred percent sure of a covenant, details within Scripture itself give us hope. The gradationists, on the other hand, don’t have a shred of evidence to prove that the Spirit and the Son were subordinate before the foundations of the world...and this hole in their argument is what tears the gradationist view apart.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
An Important Theological Question...
“He [Bruce Ware] believes that the egalitarians have a problem here in terms of their inability to answer an important theological question: ‘It appears that contemporary egalitarianism is vulnerable also to this criticism. Since NOTHING IN GOD grounds the Son being the Son of the Father, and since every aspect of the Son’s earthly submission to the Father is DIVORCED ALTOGETHER FROM ANY ETERNAL RELATION that exists between the Father and Son, there simply is no reason why the Father should send the Son’” (Bruce Ware, quoted by Millard Erickson, in “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 42).
In “The Trinity: Good News For Women” series, I have covered quite a bit so far. We have seen Bruce Ware’s arguments, among others, for the eternal subordination for women. Here in this post, Bruce Ware poses a question: if there is no eternal submission in the Trinity of the Son and the Spirit, and if there is no hierarchy within the Trinity itself, then why does the Father send the Son?
This question makes it seem as if hierarchy and submission are the ONLY reasons why Jesus would be sent. But to emphasize these two factors downplays what Scripture has to say about why Jesus came. In truth, Jesus came to die for the sins of the world (both Jews and Gentiles). For proof, we have the following verses:
“And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, FOR HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV).
“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God WILL GIVE HIM THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID. AND HE WILL REIGN OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOREVER, AND OF HIS KINGDOM THERE WILL BE NO END” (Luke 1:31-33, NKJV).
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘BEHOLD! THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!’” (John 1:29, NKJV)
As is demonstrated with the verses above, Jesus’ mission was not to show “who the boss is,” or to show Jesus taking orders from the Father. The purpose of Jesus’ mission was to give His life for the sins of the world. Jesus tells us this Himself in John 6:
“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; AND THE BREAD THAT I SHALL GIVE IS MY FLESH, WHICH I SHALL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD” (John 6:48-51, NKJV).
His mission was to be Savior, which is why He was given the name “Jesus.” The name “Jesus” means “Savior.”
So, contrary to Ware’s belief, the Incarnation was not done to show submission or the authority of the Father, but rather the love of God for the world (John 3:16-17). In the same way that Abraham sacrificed his son and received him back as a foreshadowing (Hebrews 11:17-19), so the Father sacrificed His Son out of love for the world.
As I’ve shown in this post, Ware’s emphasis on submission and authority demonstrates his own perception of the Father sending Jesus. However, it isn’t supported by the biblical text. And Paul’s concern for the church as a congregation was that they mutually submit to one another, seeing the Father and Christ as the example of submission (Christ) and exaltation by the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).
In “The Trinity: Good News For Women” series, I have covered quite a bit so far. We have seen Bruce Ware’s arguments, among others, for the eternal subordination for women. Here in this post, Bruce Ware poses a question: if there is no eternal submission in the Trinity of the Son and the Spirit, and if there is no hierarchy within the Trinity itself, then why does the Father send the Son?
This question makes it seem as if hierarchy and submission are the ONLY reasons why Jesus would be sent. But to emphasize these two factors downplays what Scripture has to say about why Jesus came. In truth, Jesus came to die for the sins of the world (both Jews and Gentiles). For proof, we have the following verses:
“And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, FOR HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV).
“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God WILL GIVE HIM THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID. AND HE WILL REIGN OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOREVER, AND OF HIS KINGDOM THERE WILL BE NO END” (Luke 1:31-33, NKJV).
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘BEHOLD! THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!’” (John 1:29, NKJV)
As is demonstrated with the verses above, Jesus’ mission was not to show “who the boss is,” or to show Jesus taking orders from the Father. The purpose of Jesus’ mission was to give His life for the sins of the world. Jesus tells us this Himself in John 6:
“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; AND THE BREAD THAT I SHALL GIVE IS MY FLESH, WHICH I SHALL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD” (John 6:48-51, NKJV).
His mission was to be Savior, which is why He was given the name “Jesus.” The name “Jesus” means “Savior.”
So, contrary to Ware’s belief, the Incarnation was not done to show submission or the authority of the Father, but rather the love of God for the world (John 3:16-17). In the same way that Abraham sacrificed his son and received him back as a foreshadowing (Hebrews 11:17-19), so the Father sacrificed His Son out of love for the world.
As I’ve shown in this post, Ware’s emphasis on submission and authority demonstrates his own perception of the Father sending Jesus. However, it isn’t supported by the biblical text. And Paul’s concern for the church as a congregation was that they mutually submit to one another, seeing the Father and Christ as the example of submission (Christ) and exaltation by the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).
Saturday, November 14, 2009
"Houston, We've Got a Problem": The Thorn of Temporary Submission
“Ware spends considerable time on the topic of taxis, or ordering, within the Trinity. Because of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons and this distinction is not in terms of any difference in essence or attributes, it must be found in this ordering. Ware describes it: ‘The order is not random or arbitrary; it is not the Spirit first, the Son second, and the Father third, nor is it any way other than the one way that the early church, reflecting Scripture itself (Matt. 28:19), insisted on: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.’ So the Son obeyed the Father in all things, not only during his earthly ministry, but also in eternity past, just as he will do so in eternity to come. Similarly, Ware traces the role of the Holy Spirit, who submits himself to both the Father and the Son. He acknowledges that the Spirit directed the Son at certain points in the Son’s life and ministry, but HE REGARDS THAT APPARENT SUBMISSION OF THE SON TO THE SPIRIT AS BEING RESTRICTED TO THE SON’S EARTHLY MINISTRY” (Millard Erickson, “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, pages 38-39).
I’m back to continue my discussion of Millard Erickson’s work. For those who haven’t bought this book, you need to buy it. It will prove to be one of the best books regarding the subordination debate that you could ever own. I also think that Erickson was fair to both sides of the debate, while still being honest with his readers and stating his advocacy of the equivalent-authority position.
We’ve seen here at the site just how adamant Bruce Ware is about the ETERNAL SUBORDINATION AND SUBMISSION of the Son to the Father. And we’ve also noted that Bruce Ware believes that the Spirit is eternally subordinate to both the Father and the Son. However, in the quote above, Ware finds himself entrapped: in discussion of the Son’s subordination to the Spirit, he now states that the submission of the Son to the Spirit is “restricted to the Son’s earthly ministry.”
Funny, but we don’t read anything of this sort in Scripture! We read nothing of the Son submitting Himself to the Spirit, but we see this in the Incarnation (as Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit), as well as the Spirit’s leading Jesus into the wilderness (Luke 4, among others), and Jesus’ miracles with the Spirit’s power. Even though this submission is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, Ware seems to “assume” that this submission is temporary.
But if the submission of the Son to the Spirit is temporary, why not then the submission of the Son to the Father? In the thought of Bruce Ware, the Son has to eternally submit because He is subordinate, BELOW, the Father. However, Ware’s need to keep the Father as always “superior” to the other members of the Trinity sounds like part of an underhanded agenda to me.
Apart from Bruce Ware’s material on the Trinity, I do read other material of Ware’s. And last night, I found myself finishing Ware’s discussion of the Doctrine of Divine Immutability (which basically teaches that God changes nothing about Himself, except in relationship with His creation). This doctrine teaches us that emotions like God’s anger really existed—that God was angry with us while we were enemies of His. When we were sinners, we were “sinners in the hands of an angry God,” to use a Jonathan Edwards sermon title. Once we accepted Christ, however, we became “friends” of God...which means that now, God’s anger is no longer kindled toward us. Instead, God’s anger has now been appeased in His Son, Jesus Christ. This is why Romans 3 and 1 John 4 refer to Christ as “the propitiation for our sins.” The word “propitiate” means “to please, to appease,” and Christ’s sacrificial death was the “appeasement” of God’s wrath. This is why when Jesus is born in the Gospel of Luke, for instance, the angels proclaim, “Peace on earth, goodwill toward men.” Peace came in the form of Christ, who is our “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9).
Now, back to Bruce Ware. I was reading on the above doctrine, and I noted a statement Bruce Ware made that I think works perfectly for this discussion on the Trinity:
“What is it like to be in relationship with one who is infinitely wise, powerful, holy, truthful, and good? Perhaps from God’s side of the picture, this relationship is summed up with the words, ‘he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust’ (Ps. 103:14). The disparity between us and God is impossible really to imagine. Analogies fail, because the disparity here is between what is infinite and what is finite and, at present, fallen. WHY SHOULD WE THINK THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP WOULD BE LIKE ANY OF OUR OTHER RELATIONSHIPS?” (Bruce Ware, “God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and The Christian Faith.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004, page 156).
Notice the statement I capitalized above in Ware’s quote? I think it is fitting. Ware says that our relationship with God is unlike any other relationship that we have. And I would say that he’s right—it is “the infinite” interacting with the “finite,” and “the finite” (us) interacting with “the infinite” (which is God).
However, if our HUMAN relationships are BELOW our relationship with God, then how do we characterize the intratrinitarian relationship of the Trinity? Since all the members of the Trinity are “fully and equally God” in their own right, and yet, are in relationship with one another, where does this fit on our scale of relationships?
Ware tells us here that the Trinity has a hierarchy within itself, QUITE LIKE HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS:
“An authority-submission structure marks THE VERY NATURE of the eternal Being of the one who is three. In this authority-submission structure, the three Persons understand the rightful place each has. THE FATHER POSSESSES THE PLACE OF SUPREME AUTHORITY, and the Son is the eternal Son of the eternal Father. As such, THE SON SUBMITS TO THE FATHER...and the Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. THIS HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF AUTHORITY exists in the eternal Godhead even though it is also eternally true that each Person is fully equal to each other in their commonly possessed essence” (Bruce Ware, “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationship, Relevance, and Roles.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005, page 21).
But this contradicts what he said above; if the God-human relationship is ABOVE human relationships, and the intratrinitarian relationship consists of the three persons as God, then doesn’t that place the intratrinitarian relationship ABOVE the God-human relationship? And if analogies fail with the God-human relationship (Ware states this above), then how much more do they fail when it comes to the members of the Trinity!!
We see the difference in the God-human relationship from human relationships in the book of Hebrews:
“Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He FOR OUR PROFIT, that we may be partakers of His holiness” (Hebrews 12:9-10, NKJV).
The God-human relationship is above all human relationships! On this, we would all agree...
Next, the Trinitarian relationship.
“But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’
But to the Son He says:
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.’
And:
‘You, LORD, in the beginning LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, and the heavens are the work of Your hands” (Hebrews 1:6,8,10).
The Trinitarian relationship is such that each member of the Trinity recognizes the other members as “fully God” and equal to Himself.
If this is true, then what about Jesus’ submission?
“though He was a Son, YET HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE by the things which He suffered” (Heb. 5:8, NKJV).
If we listen to Bruce Ware, the Son had already “learned obedience” in heaven; however, this contradicts the biblical record. If Christ was already “subordinate” in heaven, then why would He need to learn obedience on earth? It is at this point that we should part ways with our good friend, Bruce Ware.
And, because of the Son’s temporary submission to the Father, we can conclude that the Son temporarily submits to the Spirit. But, if this be the case, then there is a mutual submission amongst all the members of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
In the case of the Spirit, this can be seen with the fact that the Son foretells of
the Spirit:
“And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment...when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come” (John 16:8, 13 NKJV).
However, we find that the Spirit also foretold of Christ’s coming:
“Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHO WAS IN THEM was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:10-11, NKJV).
The Spirit of God that was within the prophets foretold that Christ would suffer and die for the sins of the world.
Now, let’s look at this interaction. The Spirit announces Christ’s coming through the prophets; but in John, the Son also announces the Spirit’s coming and His mission in the world. In both cases, we have the Son and the Spirit recognizing and introducing one another. This is the case of a relationship among equals, not one wielding power over the other.
Our friend Bruce Ware is at a disadvantage: he wants to affirm the “temporary” subordination of Christ to the Spirit, while affirming Christ’s “eternal” subordination to the Father. What we find in the Trinity instead is a mutual relationship among equals. Jesus tells us this when He requests of the Father to “glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5), stating that He had glorified the Father on earth (John 17:4). This, then, is mutual submission.
Sounds like Ware’s playing theological mind games with the evidence; however, to affirm the Son as “temporarily” subordinate on one hand and “eternally” subordinate on the other shows more of the mind of Bruce Ware than it does the testimony of the biblical evidence.
I’m back to continue my discussion of Millard Erickson’s work. For those who haven’t bought this book, you need to buy it. It will prove to be one of the best books regarding the subordination debate that you could ever own. I also think that Erickson was fair to both sides of the debate, while still being honest with his readers and stating his advocacy of the equivalent-authority position.
We’ve seen here at the site just how adamant Bruce Ware is about the ETERNAL SUBORDINATION AND SUBMISSION of the Son to the Father. And we’ve also noted that Bruce Ware believes that the Spirit is eternally subordinate to both the Father and the Son. However, in the quote above, Ware finds himself entrapped: in discussion of the Son’s subordination to the Spirit, he now states that the submission of the Son to the Spirit is “restricted to the Son’s earthly ministry.”
Funny, but we don’t read anything of this sort in Scripture! We read nothing of the Son submitting Himself to the Spirit, but we see this in the Incarnation (as Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit), as well as the Spirit’s leading Jesus into the wilderness (Luke 4, among others), and Jesus’ miracles with the Spirit’s power. Even though this submission is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, Ware seems to “assume” that this submission is temporary.
But if the submission of the Son to the Spirit is temporary, why not then the submission of the Son to the Father? In the thought of Bruce Ware, the Son has to eternally submit because He is subordinate, BELOW, the Father. However, Ware’s need to keep the Father as always “superior” to the other members of the Trinity sounds like part of an underhanded agenda to me.
Apart from Bruce Ware’s material on the Trinity, I do read other material of Ware’s. And last night, I found myself finishing Ware’s discussion of the Doctrine of Divine Immutability (which basically teaches that God changes nothing about Himself, except in relationship with His creation). This doctrine teaches us that emotions like God’s anger really existed—that God was angry with us while we were enemies of His. When we were sinners, we were “sinners in the hands of an angry God,” to use a Jonathan Edwards sermon title. Once we accepted Christ, however, we became “friends” of God...which means that now, God’s anger is no longer kindled toward us. Instead, God’s anger has now been appeased in His Son, Jesus Christ. This is why Romans 3 and 1 John 4 refer to Christ as “the propitiation for our sins.” The word “propitiate” means “to please, to appease,” and Christ’s sacrificial death was the “appeasement” of God’s wrath. This is why when Jesus is born in the Gospel of Luke, for instance, the angels proclaim, “Peace on earth, goodwill toward men.” Peace came in the form of Christ, who is our “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9).
Now, back to Bruce Ware. I was reading on the above doctrine, and I noted a statement Bruce Ware made that I think works perfectly for this discussion on the Trinity:
“What is it like to be in relationship with one who is infinitely wise, powerful, holy, truthful, and good? Perhaps from God’s side of the picture, this relationship is summed up with the words, ‘he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust’ (Ps. 103:14). The disparity between us and God is impossible really to imagine. Analogies fail, because the disparity here is between what is infinite and what is finite and, at present, fallen. WHY SHOULD WE THINK THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP WOULD BE LIKE ANY OF OUR OTHER RELATIONSHIPS?” (Bruce Ware, “God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and The Christian Faith.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004, page 156).
Notice the statement I capitalized above in Ware’s quote? I think it is fitting. Ware says that our relationship with God is unlike any other relationship that we have. And I would say that he’s right—it is “the infinite” interacting with the “finite,” and “the finite” (us) interacting with “the infinite” (which is God).
However, if our HUMAN relationships are BELOW our relationship with God, then how do we characterize the intratrinitarian relationship of the Trinity? Since all the members of the Trinity are “fully and equally God” in their own right, and yet, are in relationship with one another, where does this fit on our scale of relationships?
Ware tells us here that the Trinity has a hierarchy within itself, QUITE LIKE HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS:
“An authority-submission structure marks THE VERY NATURE of the eternal Being of the one who is three. In this authority-submission structure, the three Persons understand the rightful place each has. THE FATHER POSSESSES THE PLACE OF SUPREME AUTHORITY, and the Son is the eternal Son of the eternal Father. As such, THE SON SUBMITS TO THE FATHER...and the Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. THIS HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF AUTHORITY exists in the eternal Godhead even though it is also eternally true that each Person is fully equal to each other in their commonly possessed essence” (Bruce Ware, “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationship, Relevance, and Roles.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005, page 21).
But this contradicts what he said above; if the God-human relationship is ABOVE human relationships, and the intratrinitarian relationship consists of the three persons as God, then doesn’t that place the intratrinitarian relationship ABOVE the God-human relationship? And if analogies fail with the God-human relationship (Ware states this above), then how much more do they fail when it comes to the members of the Trinity!!
We see the difference in the God-human relationship from human relationships in the book of Hebrews:
“Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He FOR OUR PROFIT, that we may be partakers of His holiness” (Hebrews 12:9-10, NKJV).
The God-human relationship is above all human relationships! On this, we would all agree...
Next, the Trinitarian relationship.
“But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’
But to the Son He says:
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.’
And:
‘You, LORD, in the beginning LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, and the heavens are the work of Your hands” (Hebrews 1:6,8,10).
The Trinitarian relationship is such that each member of the Trinity recognizes the other members as “fully God” and equal to Himself.
If this is true, then what about Jesus’ submission?
“though He was a Son, YET HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE by the things which He suffered” (Heb. 5:8, NKJV).
If we listen to Bruce Ware, the Son had already “learned obedience” in heaven; however, this contradicts the biblical record. If Christ was already “subordinate” in heaven, then why would He need to learn obedience on earth? It is at this point that we should part ways with our good friend, Bruce Ware.
And, because of the Son’s temporary submission to the Father, we can conclude that the Son temporarily submits to the Spirit. But, if this be the case, then there is a mutual submission amongst all the members of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
In the case of the Spirit, this can be seen with the fact that the Son foretells of
the Spirit:
“And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment...when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come” (John 16:8, 13 NKJV).
However, we find that the Spirit also foretold of Christ’s coming:
“Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHO WAS IN THEM was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:10-11, NKJV).
The Spirit of God that was within the prophets foretold that Christ would suffer and die for the sins of the world.
Now, let’s look at this interaction. The Spirit announces Christ’s coming through the prophets; but in John, the Son also announces the Spirit’s coming and His mission in the world. In both cases, we have the Son and the Spirit recognizing and introducing one another. This is the case of a relationship among equals, not one wielding power over the other.
Our friend Bruce Ware is at a disadvantage: he wants to affirm the “temporary” subordination of Christ to the Spirit, while affirming Christ’s “eternal” subordination to the Father. What we find in the Trinity instead is a mutual relationship among equals. Jesus tells us this when He requests of the Father to “glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5), stating that He had glorified the Father on earth (John 17:4). This, then, is mutual submission.
Sounds like Ware’s playing theological mind games with the evidence; however, to affirm the Son as “temporarily” subordinate on one hand and “eternally” subordinate on the other shows more of the mind of Bruce Ware than it does the testimony of the biblical evidence.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Father Alone?
“Ware makes much of the differing roles of the three persons. With respect to creation, for example, he says of the Father, ‘He is the Grand Architect and Wise Designer of everything in the created order. More generally, ‘From initial creation through ultimate consummation and everything that happens in between, it is God the Father who is the Architect, the Designer, the one who stands behind all that occurs as the one who plans and implements what he has chosen to do. Thus, the Father is PREEMINENT in foreordination, creation, providence, and many associated doctrines. He is also the giver of every gift. Yet, ‘though the Father is supreme, he often provides and works through his Son and Spirit to accomplish his work and fulfill his will” (Millard Erickson quoting Bruce Ware, in “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, pages 37-38).
In Bruce Ware’s book, called “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationship, Roles, and Relevance,” Ware goes to great lengths to show why the Father is superior to both Jesus and the Spirit in the Trinitarian relationship. In the quote above, he states, “He [Father] is the Grand Architect and Wise Designer of everything in the created order.”
However, Scripture tells us that without Jesus, the world would not have been created: “All things were made through Him, and WITHOUT HIM NOTHING WAS MADE THAT WAS MADE” (John 1:3, NKJV). Christ was just as essential to the creation of the world as God the Father was.
Next, Ware states, “Thus, the Father is preeminent in foreordination, creation, providence, and many associated doctrines.”
But Ware’s comment here is a problem as well. Notice what the Scriptures say about Jesus:
“And He [the Son, Col. 1:13] is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, THAT IN ALL THINGS HE MAY HAVE THE PREEMINENCE” (Colossians 1:18, NKJV).
It seems then that the Son was to have “preeminence” along with the Father. After all, this is the same Jesus who prayed to the Father,
“And now, O Father, GLORIFY ME TOGETHER WITH YOURSELF, with the glory WHICH I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD WAS” (John 17:5; 1:1, 14, 18; Phil. 2:6).
Since in his eyes the Father is the “head” of the Trinity, the Son and the Spirit are “sent” by the Father:
Yet, ‘though the Father is supreme, he often provides and works through his Son and Spirit to accomplish his work and fulfill his will.”
However, what are we to do with the Spirit’s “willing”?
“There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit...but one and the same Spirit WORKSS IN ALL THESE THINGS, distributing to each one individually AS HE WILLS” (1 Corinthians 12:4, 11).
But if 1 Corinthians 12 is correct, then Bruce Ware can’t be—for here, the Spirit Himself is “willing” who will receive certain gifts from Himself. If Bruce Ware is correct, then the Father “wills” for the Spirit to give gifts, but now, the Spirit is “willing” gifts to whomever He pleases! If we listen to Bruce Ware, the Father and the Spirit are IN OPEN CONFLICT RIGHT HERE IN SCRIPTURE!!
You see the problems with the idea of a “Trinitarian conflict” or “Trinitarian disagreement,” right? I do. How then, can we reconcile the “willing” of the Father and the “willing” of the Spirit? We can reconcile this by remembering that, since all three members of the Trinity are God, they do not will apart from one another; rather, they all have ONE WILL and do things IN ONE ACCORD! Scripture tells us this also:
“Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groaning which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts know what the mind of the Spirit is, because He [Spirit] makes intercession for the saints ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF GOD” (Romans 8:26-27, NKJV).
The Spirit intercedes according to God’s will, which means that the Spirit does the uniform will of the Trinity. The Trinity has one will, not three (which would argue that each member of the Trinity has a SEPARATE will).
Jesus Himself spoke of the agreement of the Trinity:
“However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you” (John 16:13-15, NKJV).
When Jesus said that “all things that the Father has are Mine.” The Father gave all things to Jesus. Jesus then, gave “all things” to the Spirit.
Notice then, that what the Father has He “shares” with the Son; and the Son shares with Spirit.
Clearly then, there is an intimate bond between the Father, Son, and Spirit. There is no one member of the Trinity “yielding power or authority” over the other members.
Is the Father “alone” in His work? No, He isn’t. The problem is even worse for Bruce Ware when you consider that the Trinity was in UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when God created man (Genesis 1:26-28)...
In Bruce Ware’s book, called “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationship, Roles, and Relevance,” Ware goes to great lengths to show why the Father is superior to both Jesus and the Spirit in the Trinitarian relationship. In the quote above, he states, “He [Father] is the Grand Architect and Wise Designer of everything in the created order.”
However, Scripture tells us that without Jesus, the world would not have been created: “All things were made through Him, and WITHOUT HIM NOTHING WAS MADE THAT WAS MADE” (John 1:3, NKJV). Christ was just as essential to the creation of the world as God the Father was.
Next, Ware states, “Thus, the Father is preeminent in foreordination, creation, providence, and many associated doctrines.”
But Ware’s comment here is a problem as well. Notice what the Scriptures say about Jesus:
“And He [the Son, Col. 1:13] is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, THAT IN ALL THINGS HE MAY HAVE THE PREEMINENCE” (Colossians 1:18, NKJV).
It seems then that the Son was to have “preeminence” along with the Father. After all, this is the same Jesus who prayed to the Father,
“And now, O Father, GLORIFY ME TOGETHER WITH YOURSELF, with the glory WHICH I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD WAS” (John 17:5; 1:1, 14, 18; Phil. 2:6).
Since in his eyes the Father is the “head” of the Trinity, the Son and the Spirit are “sent” by the Father:
Yet, ‘though the Father is supreme, he often provides and works through his Son and Spirit to accomplish his work and fulfill his will.”
However, what are we to do with the Spirit’s “willing”?
“There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit...but one and the same Spirit WORKSS IN ALL THESE THINGS, distributing to each one individually AS HE WILLS” (1 Corinthians 12:4, 11).
But if 1 Corinthians 12 is correct, then Bruce Ware can’t be—for here, the Spirit Himself is “willing” who will receive certain gifts from Himself. If Bruce Ware is correct, then the Father “wills” for the Spirit to give gifts, but now, the Spirit is “willing” gifts to whomever He pleases! If we listen to Bruce Ware, the Father and the Spirit are IN OPEN CONFLICT RIGHT HERE IN SCRIPTURE!!
You see the problems with the idea of a “Trinitarian conflict” or “Trinitarian disagreement,” right? I do. How then, can we reconcile the “willing” of the Father and the “willing” of the Spirit? We can reconcile this by remembering that, since all three members of the Trinity are God, they do not will apart from one another; rather, they all have ONE WILL and do things IN ONE ACCORD! Scripture tells us this also:
“Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groaning which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts know what the mind of the Spirit is, because He [Spirit] makes intercession for the saints ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF GOD” (Romans 8:26-27, NKJV).
The Spirit intercedes according to God’s will, which means that the Spirit does the uniform will of the Trinity. The Trinity has one will, not three (which would argue that each member of the Trinity has a SEPARATE will).
Jesus Himself spoke of the agreement of the Trinity:
“However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you” (John 16:13-15, NKJV).
When Jesus said that “all things that the Father has are Mine.” The Father gave all things to Jesus. Jesus then, gave “all things” to the Spirit.
Notice then, that what the Father has He “shares” with the Son; and the Son shares with Spirit.
Clearly then, there is an intimate bond between the Father, Son, and Spirit. There is no one member of the Trinity “yielding power or authority” over the other members.
Is the Father “alone” in His work? No, He isn’t. The problem is even worse for Bruce Ware when you consider that the Trinity was in UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when God created man (Genesis 1:26-28)...
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Nature of the Trinity
“An authority-submission structure MARKS THE VERY NATURE of the eternal Being of the one who is three. In this authority-submission structure, the three Persons understand the rightful place each has. The Father possesses the place of supreme authority, and the Son is the eternal Son of the eternal Father. As such, the Son submits to the Father just as the Father, as eternal Father of the eternal Son, exercises authority over the Son. And the Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. This hierarchical structure of authority exists in the eternal Godhead even though it is also eternally true that each Person is fully equal to each other in their commonly possessed essence. The implications are both manifold and wondrous as we ponder this authority-submission structure which not only is accepted but is honored, cherished, and upheld within the Godhead” (Bruce Ware, “Beholding the Wonder of Our Triune God: Importance of This Doctrine,” from “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, & Relevance.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005, page 21).
The “Trinity” series will continue with a quote from Bruce Ware’s book (as given above). I capitalized a phrase at the beginning, “marks the very nature.” The reason why I did this is because it contradicts the subordinationist stance. Notice that Ware is quick to say, “each Person is fully equal to each other in their commonly possessed essence.” However, what does Ware mean by a “commonly-possessed essence”? Isn’t there ONLY ONE essence that the members of the Trinity share? One easily discovers that Ware’s language demonstrates that there is a “common essence,” but also an “uncommon essence.”
Millard Erickson, author of “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordinate Debate,” shows us the “uncommon essence”:
“It is important to notice that this differentiation in which the Father is eternally supreme and the Son and the Spirit eternally submit to the Father is described as a structure that ‘marks the very nature’ of God. IT IS THEREFORE INTRINSIC TO THAT DIVINE NATURE. Things could not have been otherwise. This means that each of the three persons has roles that are unique
to him and that THESE ROLES ARE ETERNAL” (Millard Erickson, “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 37).
If something is intrinsic to one’s nature, then it must be “of the essence,” essential to the Person of the Trinity. In this case, if subordination is part of the very nature of the Trinity, then we end up with a “less-Deity” Jesus and “less-Deity” Holy Spirit.
Since the subordinationists like to use human analogies to make their case regarding the Trinity, let’s oblige them for a moment. At the current moment, I’m a student. My function in this society is a student (although I pay bills). But is being a student INTRINSIC to my nature? Was it NECESSARY for me to be a student to be human? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! I could have decided to be an astronaut or a basketball player. I could have become a full-time member of an international music group. I could have become the owner of a restaurant chain, etc. My function in society is not “essential” to my existence (although I don’t think I would enjoy life half as much if I had done anything else except go to school!!).
Now, as a student, I’m not “eternally subordinate” to my professors. Although my professors are my academic and ecclesiastical superiors, one day I will graduate with my PhD and they will have to stand and acknowledge my achievement as I walk across the stage to receive my degree. One day, I will be their academic equals (and theological equals as well). Everyone knows that their students do not always stay “subordinate” to them. Their students may even surpass them in their educational pursuits...if this is true, then it is also true that the function of Christ as “eternally subordinate” goes against that idea. Christ as Savior offered Himself for mankind “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10). How could He do this “once” but be “eternally subordinate”? if the function, coming to die for mankind, occurred “one time” for all of history, then why would Christ be PERMANENTLY held in this position?
The Scriptures testify to the difference between “temporary” and “eternal”:
“For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they OFFER CONTINUALLY YEAR BY YEAR, make those who approach perfect. For then WOULD THEY NOT HAVE CEASED TO BE OFFERED? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices THERE IS A REMINDER OF SINS EVERY YEAR. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Hebrews 10:1-4, NKJV).
The law was a “shadow” and “not the very image” of what was to come. Because it was “impossible” for the temple sacrifices to do away with sin, there was a need for something “superior” to temple sacrifice. Notice that the sacrifices are offered “continually year by year.” The temple sacrifices are eternally subordinate in their effect.
But Christ is the ULTIMATE sacrifice:
“And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, WHICH CAN NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:11-12, NKJV).
The Lord Jesus gave His life for the world ONCE, and His sacrifice is still saving those who come to Him by faith. He is not “eternally subordinate,” but “eternally superior.”
If His function on earth was to “save” through His blood, and His blood has already been shed, then what need is there for Him to retain this function eternally?
The writer of Hebrews realized Christ was God, and he contrasts the Father’s treatment of the angels versus that of Christ Himself:
“But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’ And of the angels He says:
‘Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.’
But to the Son He says:
‘Your throne, O God, IS FOREVER AND EVER; a scepter of righteousness is THE SCEPTER OF YOUR KINGDOM” (Heb. 1:6-8, NKJV).
Notice that in verse 8, the Father calls His Son “God,” and tells His Son that “your throne...is forever and ever.” In addition, the Father tells the Son that He rules the Kingdom: “the scepter of Your kingdom.” The Son’s rule is ETERNALLY. One who “rules” cannot be “subordinate.” Since the Son rules eternally, He cannot be ETERNALLY subordinate.
If all three members of the Trinity agreed with one undivided will to create the world, and agreed to make man in “our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26-28), then what makes us think any one member is “eternally” subordinate?
I’ll continue with more of our series in my next post.
The “Trinity” series will continue with a quote from Bruce Ware’s book (as given above). I capitalized a phrase at the beginning, “marks the very nature.” The reason why I did this is because it contradicts the subordinationist stance. Notice that Ware is quick to say, “each Person is fully equal to each other in their commonly possessed essence.” However, what does Ware mean by a “commonly-possessed essence”? Isn’t there ONLY ONE essence that the members of the Trinity share? One easily discovers that Ware’s language demonstrates that there is a “common essence,” but also an “uncommon essence.”
Millard Erickson, author of “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordinate Debate,” shows us the “uncommon essence”:
“It is important to notice that this differentiation in which the Father is eternally supreme and the Son and the Spirit eternally submit to the Father is described as a structure that ‘marks the very nature’ of God. IT IS THEREFORE INTRINSIC TO THAT DIVINE NATURE. Things could not have been otherwise. This means that each of the three persons has roles that are unique
to him and that THESE ROLES ARE ETERNAL” (Millard Erickson, “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 37).
If something is intrinsic to one’s nature, then it must be “of the essence,” essential to the Person of the Trinity. In this case, if subordination is part of the very nature of the Trinity, then we end up with a “less-Deity” Jesus and “less-Deity” Holy Spirit.
Since the subordinationists like to use human analogies to make their case regarding the Trinity, let’s oblige them for a moment. At the current moment, I’m a student. My function in this society is a student (although I pay bills). But is being a student INTRINSIC to my nature? Was it NECESSARY for me to be a student to be human? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! I could have decided to be an astronaut or a basketball player. I could have become a full-time member of an international music group. I could have become the owner of a restaurant chain, etc. My function in society is not “essential” to my existence (although I don’t think I would enjoy life half as much if I had done anything else except go to school!!).
Now, as a student, I’m not “eternally subordinate” to my professors. Although my professors are my academic and ecclesiastical superiors, one day I will graduate with my PhD and they will have to stand and acknowledge my achievement as I walk across the stage to receive my degree. One day, I will be their academic equals (and theological equals as well). Everyone knows that their students do not always stay “subordinate” to them. Their students may even surpass them in their educational pursuits...if this is true, then it is also true that the function of Christ as “eternally subordinate” goes against that idea. Christ as Savior offered Himself for mankind “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10). How could He do this “once” but be “eternally subordinate”? if the function, coming to die for mankind, occurred “one time” for all of history, then why would Christ be PERMANENTLY held in this position?
The Scriptures testify to the difference between “temporary” and “eternal”:
“For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they OFFER CONTINUALLY YEAR BY YEAR, make those who approach perfect. For then WOULD THEY NOT HAVE CEASED TO BE OFFERED? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices THERE IS A REMINDER OF SINS EVERY YEAR. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Hebrews 10:1-4, NKJV).
The law was a “shadow” and “not the very image” of what was to come. Because it was “impossible” for the temple sacrifices to do away with sin, there was a need for something “superior” to temple sacrifice. Notice that the sacrifices are offered “continually year by year.” The temple sacrifices are eternally subordinate in their effect.
But Christ is the ULTIMATE sacrifice:
“And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, WHICH CAN NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:11-12, NKJV).
The Lord Jesus gave His life for the world ONCE, and His sacrifice is still saving those who come to Him by faith. He is not “eternally subordinate,” but “eternally superior.”
If His function on earth was to “save” through His blood, and His blood has already been shed, then what need is there for Him to retain this function eternally?
The writer of Hebrews realized Christ was God, and he contrasts the Father’s treatment of the angels versus that of Christ Himself:
“But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’ And of the angels He says:
‘Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.’
But to the Son He says:
‘Your throne, O God, IS FOREVER AND EVER; a scepter of righteousness is THE SCEPTER OF YOUR KINGDOM” (Heb. 1:6-8, NKJV).
Notice that in verse 8, the Father calls His Son “God,” and tells His Son that “your throne...is forever and ever.” In addition, the Father tells the Son that He rules the Kingdom: “the scepter of Your kingdom.” The Son’s rule is ETERNALLY. One who “rules” cannot be “subordinate.” Since the Son rules eternally, He cannot be ETERNALLY subordinate.
If all three members of the Trinity agreed with one undivided will to create the world, and agreed to make man in “our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26-28), then what makes us think any one member is “eternally” subordinate?
I’ll continue with more of our series in my next post.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Going to the Source: The Central Meaning of 1 Corinthians 11.3
I am still here in the Trinity series, talking today about 1 Corinthians 11:3 and its implications for women in ministry.
I’ve made it clear here at the site that one cannot give Christ an “eternal” functional subordination without also giving Him an eternal “ontological” subordination—a subordination in essence, which now makes Him “less God” than the Father, the Spirit being “less God” than the Son.
Today I’m back to deal with this passage and some comments from Erickson’s book.
In his chapter on “The Gradational Authority View,” Erickson quotes from the work of George Knight III regarding the role of women. In 1977, Knight published a book titled “The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women,” in which he claims to “set the record straight” about men and women and how they should relate to each other. Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3, Knight writes,
“For the basis of man’s headship and woman’s submission, the apostle Paul appeals to the analogy of God the Father’s headship over Jesus Christ, His incarnate Son (1 Cor. 11:3);...with full authority and with absolute and permanent reasons, Paul argues for the form of this relationship between man and woman...one would have to deny Paul’s argument or his explanation and application of Genesis 2 to overturn the fact that this is the teaching of the apostles which they intended to be believed and obeyed” (George Knight III, cited by Millard Erickson, “The Gradational View”; from “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 34).
Now that we know how Knight feels about women, let’s look at Scripture itself, 1 Corinthians 11—
“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. FOR MAN IS NOT FROM WOMAN, BUT WOMAN FROM MAN. NOR WAS MAN CREATED FOR THE WOMAN, BUT THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN” (1 Corinthians 11:2-9, NKJV).
As you can see, the issue here is clearly “origin” or source, for we are told that “woman is from man” and woman was created for the man, both pieces of information supplied in verses 8 and 9. The “symbol of authority” found in verse 10 is to be worn because the origin of the woman is the man. The woman comes from the man, in the same way that Eve came from Adam’s rib in Genesis.
But look at verses 11 and 12:
“Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as WOMAN CAME FROM MAN, even so MAN ALSO COMES THROUGH WOMAN; BUT ALL THINGS ARE FROM GOD” (1 Cor. 11:11-12, NKJV).
Look at Paul’s argument. It is easy to look at verses 8 and 9 and get lost in that portion of the argument without looking to Paul’s conclusion in verses 11 and 12. In these two verses, though, Paul is arguing that, whereas the EARLIER ORIGIN of mankind is the man, the MODERN ORIGIN of man is the woman, since man is born of a woman. This is why Paul writes in verse 11 that “neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.” The man comes from the woman just like the woman comes from the man. In Genesis, Eve needed Adam to be created; however, Adam needed Eve to bring children into the world, as all men need women to bear children today (for only women can do so).
And notice what Paul says about Christ and God?
“but all things are from God” (1 Cor. 11:12b).
As we’ve seen in verses 11 and 12, Paul trumps the argument of women wearing head coverings because they came from “man.” Paul argues instead that if men should not wear head coverings, there is also an argument that women shouldn’t either—because they are the origin of new life today that comes into the world.
If he claims that man and woman are not “independent in the Lord” (v.11), then he would be making the same statement about Christ and God—neither is independent of the other. The Father needs the Son and the Son needs the Father. According to Giles, Athanasius made the same argument:
“To put it succinctly, for Athanasius the Father and the Son are eternally correlated. The Father never stands alone or works alone. Pannenberg states that ‘Athanasius’ most important argument [was] that THE FATHER WOULD NOT BE THE FATHER WITHOUT THE SON (Contra Arian 1.29).’ The words ‘begotten’ and ‘offspring’ are for Athanasius helpful terms to use of the Father-Son relationship because they ‘signify a Son...and beholding the Son we see the Father’” (Kevin Giles, “Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, page 136).
I’ll state it again: Athanasius’ greatest argument was that “the Father would not be the Father without the Son.” And I think this matches Paul’s point regarding the origin of men and women in 1 Corinthians 11. Without Adam, there would never have been an “Eve.” But today, without the “woman,” no “man” would exist. Thus, we see a dependence of the woman on the man, and a dependence of the man on the woman. In the same way, we see the mutual dependence of God and Christ on one another. And both relationships, whether divine or human, are both based on interdependence and trust. This, then, is the meaning of relationship; and until subordinationists figure out what “relationship” is, they’ll continue to get it wrong.
I’ve made it clear here at the site that one cannot give Christ an “eternal” functional subordination without also giving Him an eternal “ontological” subordination—a subordination in essence, which now makes Him “less God” than the Father, the Spirit being “less God” than the Son.
Today I’m back to deal with this passage and some comments from Erickson’s book.
In his chapter on “The Gradational Authority View,” Erickson quotes from the work of George Knight III regarding the role of women. In 1977, Knight published a book titled “The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women,” in which he claims to “set the record straight” about men and women and how they should relate to each other. Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3, Knight writes,
“For the basis of man’s headship and woman’s submission, the apostle Paul appeals to the analogy of God the Father’s headship over Jesus Christ, His incarnate Son (1 Cor. 11:3);...with full authority and with absolute and permanent reasons, Paul argues for the form of this relationship between man and woman...one would have to deny Paul’s argument or his explanation and application of Genesis 2 to overturn the fact that this is the teaching of the apostles which they intended to be believed and obeyed” (George Knight III, cited by Millard Erickson, “The Gradational View”; from “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 34).
Now that we know how Knight feels about women, let’s look at Scripture itself, 1 Corinthians 11—
“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. FOR MAN IS NOT FROM WOMAN, BUT WOMAN FROM MAN. NOR WAS MAN CREATED FOR THE WOMAN, BUT THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN” (1 Corinthians 11:2-9, NKJV).
As you can see, the issue here is clearly “origin” or source, for we are told that “woman is from man” and woman was created for the man, both pieces of information supplied in verses 8 and 9. The “symbol of authority” found in verse 10 is to be worn because the origin of the woman is the man. The woman comes from the man, in the same way that Eve came from Adam’s rib in Genesis.
But look at verses 11 and 12:
“Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as WOMAN CAME FROM MAN, even so MAN ALSO COMES THROUGH WOMAN; BUT ALL THINGS ARE FROM GOD” (1 Cor. 11:11-12, NKJV).
Look at Paul’s argument. It is easy to look at verses 8 and 9 and get lost in that portion of the argument without looking to Paul’s conclusion in verses 11 and 12. In these two verses, though, Paul is arguing that, whereas the EARLIER ORIGIN of mankind is the man, the MODERN ORIGIN of man is the woman, since man is born of a woman. This is why Paul writes in verse 11 that “neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.” The man comes from the woman just like the woman comes from the man. In Genesis, Eve needed Adam to be created; however, Adam needed Eve to bring children into the world, as all men need women to bear children today (for only women can do so).
And notice what Paul says about Christ and God?
“but all things are from God” (1 Cor. 11:12b).
As we’ve seen in verses 11 and 12, Paul trumps the argument of women wearing head coverings because they came from “man.” Paul argues instead that if men should not wear head coverings, there is also an argument that women shouldn’t either—because they are the origin of new life today that comes into the world.
If he claims that man and woman are not “independent in the Lord” (v.11), then he would be making the same statement about Christ and God—neither is independent of the other. The Father needs the Son and the Son needs the Father. According to Giles, Athanasius made the same argument:
“To put it succinctly, for Athanasius the Father and the Son are eternally correlated. The Father never stands alone or works alone. Pannenberg states that ‘Athanasius’ most important argument [was] that THE FATHER WOULD NOT BE THE FATHER WITHOUT THE SON (Contra Arian 1.29).’ The words ‘begotten’ and ‘offspring’ are for Athanasius helpful terms to use of the Father-Son relationship because they ‘signify a Son...and beholding the Son we see the Father’” (Kevin Giles, “Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, page 136).
I’ll state it again: Athanasius’ greatest argument was that “the Father would not be the Father without the Son.” And I think this matches Paul’s point regarding the origin of men and women in 1 Corinthians 11. Without Adam, there would never have been an “Eve.” But today, without the “woman,” no “man” would exist. Thus, we see a dependence of the woman on the man, and a dependence of the man on the woman. In the same way, we see the mutual dependence of God and Christ on one another. And both relationships, whether divine or human, are both based on interdependence and trust. This, then, is the meaning of relationship; and until subordinationists figure out what “relationship” is, they’ll continue to get it wrong.
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Trinity: Good News For Women, Part I-A (Creative Absence, Continued)
Yesterday, I posted on the opposing categories of “essence” and “function” and how both of these can’t exist as absolutes side-by-side because they are both opposite phrases of “equal in essence” and “subordinate in function.” I then took you, the reader, through the ridiculousness of the subordinationists’logic—which is demonstrated when they add the word “eternally” in front of both opposing statements (as if this actually helps the problem). Now what they’ve done is affirmed that these two OPPOSING STATEMENTS can exist AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME WAY throughout infinity! This is like saying that a person can be both tall and short at the same time throughout all eternity. When subordinationists accept this contradiction, however, they are going against rules of common logic.
Tonight, though, I’m back to deal with the words of Gregg Allison, who is a professor of Christian Theology at Southern Seminary. Allison was asked by Randy Stinson, who chaired the event, to explain “the discrepancy in the debate” over the church fathers and the Trinity. According to Courtney Reissig, Allison responded as such:
“Because the early church did not specifically discuss authority and submission in their teaching on the Trinity, Erickson takes this as the early church fathers not holding to authority and submission. Allison said that the church fathers saw authority and submission as so natural that they did not have to make it explicit in their writings.”
For those who wanna see the article for themselves, go to the following site:
https://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Trinity-Panel-Wrap-up-Part-1
What amazed me most about Allison’s quote is that he advocates the subordinationist position, but does so for a poor reason: “the church fathers saw authority and submission AS SO NATURAL that they did not have to make it explicit in their writings.”
He is, however, incredibly wrong on this point. There is a reference to Jesus as “subordinate” (with the word “subordinate” mentioned) in a few of the church fathers, but not all. I will cover in this post the church fathers who reference the “subordination” or “inferiority” of Jesus in relation to God the Father.
First, we have the ante-Nicene (before the Nicene Creed) father Novatian:
“He [Jesus] is therefore the Son, not the Father: for He would have confessed that He was the Father had He considered Himself to be the Father; and He declares that He was sanctified by His Father. In receiving, then, sanctification from the Father, HE IS INFERIOR TO THE FATHER” (quoted by Millard Erickson in “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity?” page 143).
Next is the church father Athanasius:
“For we acknowledge, that though HE BE SUBORDINATE TO HIS FATHER AND GOD, yet, being before ages begotten of God, He is God perfect according to nature and true, and not first man and then God, but first God and then becoming man for us, and never having been deprived of being” (“Who’s Tampering With the Trinity?” page 148).
“And no one is ignorant, that it is Catholic doctrine, that there are two Persons of Father and Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son SUBORDINATED TO THE FATHER together with all things which the Father has subordinated to Him” (148).
Erickson writes regarding Athanasius:
“Whether he saw the full implications of his view and would have applied them to these statements is not completely clear, but the principle of the double account, if carried through thoroughly, might have resolved these APPARENTLY CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS” (149).
As I stated in my blog post from yesterday called “Creative Absence,” one cannot hold to “equal essence” and “unequal function” at the same time without qualifying these two opposing statements. Athanasius, however, leaves them “in tandem” without qualifying the terms. Even though he mentions “subordination,” we still don’t know whether he would’ve qualified the subordination as “temporary” or “eternal.”
Hilary of Poitiers is another church father who writes about the subordination of the Son in his work, “On the Councils”:
“There is no question that THE FATHER IS GREATER. No one can doubt that THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN THE SON IN HONOR, DIGNITY, SPLENDOR, MAJESTY, AND IN THE VERY NAME OF FATHER, the Son Himself testifying, ‘He that sent Me is greater than I.’ And no one is ignorant that it is Catholic doctrine that there are two Persons of Father and Son; and that THE FATHER IS GREATER, AND THAT THE SON IS SUBORDINATED TO THE FATHER...” (Hilary of Poitiers; quoted by Millard Erickson in “Who’s Tampering,” page 151).
These three church fathers (Novatian, Athanasius, and Hilary of Poitiers) are the only three that mention “subordination” in their discussion of the Son’s relation to the Father.
Back to Allison’s quote: the church fathers did mention submission and authority, and some even labeled Jesus as “subordinated” in function. However, only three do so. And the fact that they mention “subordination” of any sort demonstrates that the church fathers felt the need to explicitly, in detail, set forth their theological convictions in writing. However, the “subordination” of Jesus is never qualified (we are just told that Christ is subordinate). So the question then becomes, if Jesus’ “functional subordination” was not qualified, then was His essence? Are there any clues about His essence and its eternality? That will be the subject of my next post...
Tonight, though, I’m back to deal with the words of Gregg Allison, who is a professor of Christian Theology at Southern Seminary. Allison was asked by Randy Stinson, who chaired the event, to explain “the discrepancy in the debate” over the church fathers and the Trinity. According to Courtney Reissig, Allison responded as such:
“Because the early church did not specifically discuss authority and submission in their teaching on the Trinity, Erickson takes this as the early church fathers not holding to authority and submission. Allison said that the church fathers saw authority and submission as so natural that they did not have to make it explicit in their writings.”
For those who wanna see the article for themselves, go to the following site:
https://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Trinity-Panel-Wrap-up-Part-1
What amazed me most about Allison’s quote is that he advocates the subordinationist position, but does so for a poor reason: “the church fathers saw authority and submission AS SO NATURAL that they did not have to make it explicit in their writings.”
He is, however, incredibly wrong on this point. There is a reference to Jesus as “subordinate” (with the word “subordinate” mentioned) in a few of the church fathers, but not all. I will cover in this post the church fathers who reference the “subordination” or “inferiority” of Jesus in relation to God the Father.
First, we have the ante-Nicene (before the Nicene Creed) father Novatian:
“He [Jesus] is therefore the Son, not the Father: for He would have confessed that He was the Father had He considered Himself to be the Father; and He declares that He was sanctified by His Father. In receiving, then, sanctification from the Father, HE IS INFERIOR TO THE FATHER” (quoted by Millard Erickson in “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity?” page 143).
Next is the church father Athanasius:
“For we acknowledge, that though HE BE SUBORDINATE TO HIS FATHER AND GOD, yet, being before ages begotten of God, He is God perfect according to nature and true, and not first man and then God, but first God and then becoming man for us, and never having been deprived of being” (“Who’s Tampering With the Trinity?” page 148).
“And no one is ignorant, that it is Catholic doctrine, that there are two Persons of Father and Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son SUBORDINATED TO THE FATHER together with all things which the Father has subordinated to Him” (148).
Erickson writes regarding Athanasius:
“Whether he saw the full implications of his view and would have applied them to these statements is not completely clear, but the principle of the double account, if carried through thoroughly, might have resolved these APPARENTLY CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS” (149).
As I stated in my blog post from yesterday called “Creative Absence,” one cannot hold to “equal essence” and “unequal function” at the same time without qualifying these two opposing statements. Athanasius, however, leaves them “in tandem” without qualifying the terms. Even though he mentions “subordination,” we still don’t know whether he would’ve qualified the subordination as “temporary” or “eternal.”
Hilary of Poitiers is another church father who writes about the subordination of the Son in his work, “On the Councils”:
“There is no question that THE FATHER IS GREATER. No one can doubt that THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN THE SON IN HONOR, DIGNITY, SPLENDOR, MAJESTY, AND IN THE VERY NAME OF FATHER, the Son Himself testifying, ‘He that sent Me is greater than I.’ And no one is ignorant that it is Catholic doctrine that there are two Persons of Father and Son; and that THE FATHER IS GREATER, AND THAT THE SON IS SUBORDINATED TO THE FATHER...” (Hilary of Poitiers; quoted by Millard Erickson in “Who’s Tampering,” page 151).
These three church fathers (Novatian, Athanasius, and Hilary of Poitiers) are the only three that mention “subordination” in their discussion of the Son’s relation to the Father.
Back to Allison’s quote: the church fathers did mention submission and authority, and some even labeled Jesus as “subordinated” in function. However, only three do so. And the fact that they mention “subordination” of any sort demonstrates that the church fathers felt the need to explicitly, in detail, set forth their theological convictions in writing. However, the “subordination” of Jesus is never qualified (we are just told that Christ is subordinate). So the question then becomes, if Jesus’ “functional subordination” was not qualified, then was His essence? Are there any clues about His essence and its eternality? That will be the subject of my next post...
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Trinity: Good News For Women, Part I (Creative Absence)
“Stinson asked Allison to explain the discrepancy in the debate if both sides are claiming church history as their ally. Because the early church did not specifically discuss authority and submission in their teaching on the Trinity, Erickson takes this as the early church fathers not holding to authority and submission. Allison said that the church fathers saw authority and submission as SO NATURAL THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE TO MAKE IT EXPLICIT IN THEIR WRITINGS.” (https://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Trinity-Panel-Wrap-up-Part-1)
Our series on the Trinity will begin with a few articles regarding the intense debate amongst conservative evangelicals over the Trinity—and what this means for women in ministry.
Reading the quote above (from the article link above) made me laugh immensely. This
morning, I finished reading Millard Erickson’s chapter on “The Historical Considerations” from his book “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate,” and the entire chapter revolved around tracing the church fathers who are claimed by both sides in the debate. Erickson wanted to show what the church fathers really said regarding the Trinity, and whether or not the fathers ever claimed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father.
I can tell you this: while Jesus was considered to be “eternally generated,” that is, “begotten of the Father from all eternity,” He was never unanimously labeled as “subordinate.” One church father, Hilary of Poitiers, comes out in his language and labels Jesus as “subordinate”; but none of the others do. Eternal generation does not imply eternal functional subordination. However, if Jesus is “eternally subordinate” in His function, then He is also “eternally subordinate” IN HIS ESSENCE—and this is the old ancient heresy of Arianism repackaged!
Gilbert Bilezikian, an egalitarian and equivalentist (believes in the equality of the Trinity persons), writes the following with regard to eternal functional subordination and eternal essence:
“a subordination that extends into eternity cannot remain only functional...it also becomes ipso facto an ONTOLOGICAL reality” (quoted by Millard Erickson, “The Equivalent-Authority View,” from “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity?” page 71).
If Jesus has existed from all eternity, and He has been “forced” to do what He’s told to do from all eternity, then He has been “ontologically subordinate” (inferior in Deity) from all eternity.
Here’s a simple way to approach this. Think about slavery times in this country. When it was reported that new land was available in America, European landowners and workers of all types decided to come to America. At first, there were those who couldn’t pay their way to America—they didn’t have enough for the fare. As a result, landowners began to help these everyday people make it to America. When the workers got to America, they placed themselves under the landowners with the title “indentured servants.” Such a title was meant to be “temporarily subordinate in function”: the only reason why the workers were servants to the landowners was to pay off their debt. In a few years, the indentured servants believed they would be free of their debt and would go their own way. As time passed, though, they began to understand that they wouldn’t be able to pay off their debt; as a result, not only would the indentured servant remain in service for his entire life, but GENERATIONS more of his kinsfolk would remain in slavery as well.
If we look at the subordinationist belief, they would say, “Well, Jesus IS God; He’s just SUBORDINATE in function.” They attempt to separate function from essence. But let’s get back to my slavery story above...
If the subordinationist belief is correct, then the slaves should have been considered the “equals” of the slaveowners, even though they were functionally subordinate, right? Isn’t this how it should have gone? yes. But the problem is, this is NOT how history unfolded; instead of the servants being considered the equals of their “functional superiors,” they began to be treated as “ontologically subordinate” to their superiors. Once blacks were enslaved in what seemed to be an unceasing spiral, no longer did the surrounding society deem them as “equals.” Instead, what we find in reading history is that society began to argue the INEQUALITY of persons. Blacks now were deemed BIOLOGICALLY INFERIOR, labeled as the “chattel” or property of their slaveowners, and deprived of rights in this country like voting, citizenship, etc.
But wait a minute! Blacks were equal, right? Yeah, in theory...but the fact that society enslaved them and THEN found “genetic” arguments to “prove” the reasons for enslavement and inequality shows that even a society can’t maintain an “equal, but subordinate stance.”
The truth is, subordinationists cannot maintain “equal, yet subordinate” and hold them both in balance. If an “equal essence” exists, then it is “essence” we must emphasize. If we don’t, then even “blacks” in my story above become nothing more than “animals.” To stress the differences of human beings at the expense of the human quality creates a whole new category of “species” for the “black” person.
And it is no different with the Trinity. To stress the subordination of Jesus at the expense of His equality as Deity is to make Him less than God.
In the world of philosophy, Bilezikian (whom I just quoted above) uses what is called “The Law of Non-Contradiction,” which states that two OPPOSING ideas cannot be the same in all respects AT THE SAME TIME. Let’s take for example, the words “tall” and “short.” Now we all know that these two adjectives are in direct contradiction to each other. To reconcile them, we must “qualify” the adjectives themselves—in other words, specify TO WHAT EXTENT these two adjectives can peacefully co-exist. So, if Sue is “both tall and short,” we must explain HOW this can be. Sue cannot be “EQUALLY TALL AND EQUALLY SHORT” at the same time. However, Sue can be “tall” and be “shorter than her grandmother” at the same time. The second phrase, “shorter than her grandmother,” tells us the extent to which Sue is “short.” With the qualifying statement, though, we see that Sue’s “shortness” is relative. It doesn’t change the fact that when we see her walking in the mall, because she is six feet tall, she will be labeled “tall.”
But, can Sue be “taller than her grandmother” and “shorter than her grandmother” at the same time? Of course not! When a person is using a qualifying statement, if one quality is absolute (unqualified), the other must be qualified. Now, both statements can be qualified (for instance, “taller than her aunt, shorter than her grandmother”); but both CANNOT be unqualified (tall and short).
And this is where the subordinationists fall into a trap.
Essence is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being.
What is “function”?
Merriam-Webster defines “function” as that which “implies a definite end or purpose that the one in question serves or a particular kind of work it is intended to perform.”
If essence, then, is “permanent,” then function must be “temporary,” for it “implies a definite END,” in and of itself. Seeing this, then, “essence” and “function” are opposites.
Because they are opposites, they cannot co-exist (like tall and short) without some sort of qualifier. If a person cannot be “equally tall and equally short,” then neither can they be “the same in essence and the same in function.”
There are, then, three choices:
(1) Qualify the essence
(2) Qualify the function
(3) Qualify both essence and function
First, let’s qualify the essence. Since this is important to Jesus as Deity, we will say that He is “equal in essence” to the Father.
Next, let’s qualify the function. Since this is where Jesus differs from the Father, we will say that He is “different” in function. We’ll come back to this in a moment.
Last, we are left to qualify both essence and function.
Now, look at what we have. Jesus is equal in essence, but unequal (different) in function. Have we solved the problem here? No, absolutely not! By saying that Jesus is “equal in essence, unequal in function,” all we’ve done is pile MORE OPPOSITES on top of the OPPOSITES! Look at it:
EQUAL in ESSENCE
UNEQUAL in FUNCTION
All we’ve done is piled two more opposites (equal and unequal) on top of two previous opposites (essence and function). We’ve still got two absolute statements without qualifiers. So now, we’ve got to find two more adjectives to qualify the two statements above. The end result of these two must be in such a state where one is permanent (absolute) and the other is temporary (qualified).
What do the subordinationists do? They present to us the following:
ETERNALLY EQUAL in ESSENCE
ETERNALLY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION
But this only compounds the problem we had above! We notice that they’ve added another qualifier, but it’s the SAME. They have failed to add two qualifiers that will distinguish the two statements.
By using the word “eternally,” all they’ve given us are “equally opposing statements”! We are no better off than where we started. Sue is still “always tall” and “always short” (if we use the same qualifier, “always”).
Therefore, if Jesus is “eternally equal in essence,” He cannot be “eternally unequal (or subordinate) in function.” There must be a qualifier to the equality and a qualifier to the subordination (for both essence and function are opposites).
If we qualify Jesus’ essence, what shall we do? Well, if we say that He is “temporarily” equal in essence, then we have committed the old ancient heresy of Arianism (where Arius believed that Jesus had a “point of beginning” and was “created”). However, we would then be forced to keep the other opposing phrase, “eternally unequal in function”; this would then mean that Jesus is “less God” than the Father (because He would only share Deity for a time—“temporarily equal”). We end up with this:
TEMPORARILY EQUAL in ESSENCE
ETERNALLY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION
If, then, we decide to say that Jesus is “temporarily unequal in function,” then we end up with this scheme:
ETERNALLY EQUAL in ESSENCE
TEMPORARILY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION
This fits what we know about Jesus and His existence. In the case of Jesus, we see that one exists for a shorter duration than the other, that being Jesus’ subordinate function is “temporary,” as compared to His “essence,” which is “eternal.”
Even if we had not used “essence” and “function,” we can still see the problem with the subordinationist view:
“eternally equal”
“eternally unequal”
In this case, we still have TWO EQUALLY OPPOSING PHRASES that would still need a qualifier to distinguish them. Jesus would then have had to be either
TEMPORARILY equal
ETERNALLY unequal
OR
ETERNALLY equal
TEMPORARILY uneqal
Bilezikian makes the argument that “eternal” subordination becomes part of the “eternal” essence. Here, however, I’ve shown you that, according to the rules of philosophy and logic, the subordinationist view doesn’t hold up.
About the Allison quote? I'll tackle it in my next post...
Our series on the Trinity will begin with a few articles regarding the intense debate amongst conservative evangelicals over the Trinity—and what this means for women in ministry.
Reading the quote above (from the article link above) made me laugh immensely. This
morning, I finished reading Millard Erickson’s chapter on “The Historical Considerations” from his book “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate,” and the entire chapter revolved around tracing the church fathers who are claimed by both sides in the debate. Erickson wanted to show what the church fathers really said regarding the Trinity, and whether or not the fathers ever claimed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father.
I can tell you this: while Jesus was considered to be “eternally generated,” that is, “begotten of the Father from all eternity,” He was never unanimously labeled as “subordinate.” One church father, Hilary of Poitiers, comes out in his language and labels Jesus as “subordinate”; but none of the others do. Eternal generation does not imply eternal functional subordination. However, if Jesus is “eternally subordinate” in His function, then He is also “eternally subordinate” IN HIS ESSENCE—and this is the old ancient heresy of Arianism repackaged!
Gilbert Bilezikian, an egalitarian and equivalentist (believes in the equality of the Trinity persons), writes the following with regard to eternal functional subordination and eternal essence:
“a subordination that extends into eternity cannot remain only functional...it also becomes ipso facto an ONTOLOGICAL reality” (quoted by Millard Erickson, “The Equivalent-Authority View,” from “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity?” page 71).
If Jesus has existed from all eternity, and He has been “forced” to do what He’s told to do from all eternity, then He has been “ontologically subordinate” (inferior in Deity) from all eternity.
Here’s a simple way to approach this. Think about slavery times in this country. When it was reported that new land was available in America, European landowners and workers of all types decided to come to America. At first, there were those who couldn’t pay their way to America—they didn’t have enough for the fare. As a result, landowners began to help these everyday people make it to America. When the workers got to America, they placed themselves under the landowners with the title “indentured servants.” Such a title was meant to be “temporarily subordinate in function”: the only reason why the workers were servants to the landowners was to pay off their debt. In a few years, the indentured servants believed they would be free of their debt and would go their own way. As time passed, though, they began to understand that they wouldn’t be able to pay off their debt; as a result, not only would the indentured servant remain in service for his entire life, but GENERATIONS more of his kinsfolk would remain in slavery as well.
If we look at the subordinationist belief, they would say, “Well, Jesus IS God; He’s just SUBORDINATE in function.” They attempt to separate function from essence. But let’s get back to my slavery story above...
If the subordinationist belief is correct, then the slaves should have been considered the “equals” of the slaveowners, even though they were functionally subordinate, right? Isn’t this how it should have gone? yes. But the problem is, this is NOT how history unfolded; instead of the servants being considered the equals of their “functional superiors,” they began to be treated as “ontologically subordinate” to their superiors. Once blacks were enslaved in what seemed to be an unceasing spiral, no longer did the surrounding society deem them as “equals.” Instead, what we find in reading history is that society began to argue the INEQUALITY of persons. Blacks now were deemed BIOLOGICALLY INFERIOR, labeled as the “chattel” or property of their slaveowners, and deprived of rights in this country like voting, citizenship, etc.
But wait a minute! Blacks were equal, right? Yeah, in theory...but the fact that society enslaved them and THEN found “genetic” arguments to “prove” the reasons for enslavement and inequality shows that even a society can’t maintain an “equal, but subordinate stance.”
The truth is, subordinationists cannot maintain “equal, yet subordinate” and hold them both in balance. If an “equal essence” exists, then it is “essence” we must emphasize. If we don’t, then even “blacks” in my story above become nothing more than “animals.” To stress the differences of human beings at the expense of the human quality creates a whole new category of “species” for the “black” person.
And it is no different with the Trinity. To stress the subordination of Jesus at the expense of His equality as Deity is to make Him less than God.
In the world of philosophy, Bilezikian (whom I just quoted above) uses what is called “The Law of Non-Contradiction,” which states that two OPPOSING ideas cannot be the same in all respects AT THE SAME TIME. Let’s take for example, the words “tall” and “short.” Now we all know that these two adjectives are in direct contradiction to each other. To reconcile them, we must “qualify” the adjectives themselves—in other words, specify TO WHAT EXTENT these two adjectives can peacefully co-exist. So, if Sue is “both tall and short,” we must explain HOW this can be. Sue cannot be “EQUALLY TALL AND EQUALLY SHORT” at the same time. However, Sue can be “tall” and be “shorter than her grandmother” at the same time. The second phrase, “shorter than her grandmother,” tells us the extent to which Sue is “short.” With the qualifying statement, though, we see that Sue’s “shortness” is relative. It doesn’t change the fact that when we see her walking in the mall, because she is six feet tall, she will be labeled “tall.”
But, can Sue be “taller than her grandmother” and “shorter than her grandmother” at the same time? Of course not! When a person is using a qualifying statement, if one quality is absolute (unqualified), the other must be qualified. Now, both statements can be qualified (for instance, “taller than her aunt, shorter than her grandmother”); but both CANNOT be unqualified (tall and short).
And this is where the subordinationists fall into a trap.
Essence is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being.
What is “function”?
Merriam-Webster defines “function” as that which “implies a definite end or purpose that the one in question serves or a particular kind of work it is intended to perform.”
If essence, then, is “permanent,” then function must be “temporary,” for it “implies a definite END,” in and of itself. Seeing this, then, “essence” and “function” are opposites.
Because they are opposites, they cannot co-exist (like tall and short) without some sort of qualifier. If a person cannot be “equally tall and equally short,” then neither can they be “the same in essence and the same in function.”
There are, then, three choices:
(1) Qualify the essence
(2) Qualify the function
(3) Qualify both essence and function
First, let’s qualify the essence. Since this is important to Jesus as Deity, we will say that He is “equal in essence” to the Father.
Next, let’s qualify the function. Since this is where Jesus differs from the Father, we will say that He is “different” in function. We’ll come back to this in a moment.
Last, we are left to qualify both essence and function.
Now, look at what we have. Jesus is equal in essence, but unequal (different) in function. Have we solved the problem here? No, absolutely not! By saying that Jesus is “equal in essence, unequal in function,” all we’ve done is pile MORE OPPOSITES on top of the OPPOSITES! Look at it:
EQUAL in ESSENCE
UNEQUAL in FUNCTION
All we’ve done is piled two more opposites (equal and unequal) on top of two previous opposites (essence and function). We’ve still got two absolute statements without qualifiers. So now, we’ve got to find two more adjectives to qualify the two statements above. The end result of these two must be in such a state where one is permanent (absolute) and the other is temporary (qualified).
What do the subordinationists do? They present to us the following:
ETERNALLY EQUAL in ESSENCE
ETERNALLY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION
But this only compounds the problem we had above! We notice that they’ve added another qualifier, but it’s the SAME. They have failed to add two qualifiers that will distinguish the two statements.
By using the word “eternally,” all they’ve given us are “equally opposing statements”! We are no better off than where we started. Sue is still “always tall” and “always short” (if we use the same qualifier, “always”).
Therefore, if Jesus is “eternally equal in essence,” He cannot be “eternally unequal (or subordinate) in function.” There must be a qualifier to the equality and a qualifier to the subordination (for both essence and function are opposites).
If we qualify Jesus’ essence, what shall we do? Well, if we say that He is “temporarily” equal in essence, then we have committed the old ancient heresy of Arianism (where Arius believed that Jesus had a “point of beginning” and was “created”). However, we would then be forced to keep the other opposing phrase, “eternally unequal in function”; this would then mean that Jesus is “less God” than the Father (because He would only share Deity for a time—“temporarily equal”). We end up with this:
TEMPORARILY EQUAL in ESSENCE
ETERNALLY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION
If, then, we decide to say that Jesus is “temporarily unequal in function,” then we end up with this scheme:
ETERNALLY EQUAL in ESSENCE
TEMPORARILY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION
This fits what we know about Jesus and His existence. In the case of Jesus, we see that one exists for a shorter duration than the other, that being Jesus’ subordinate function is “temporary,” as compared to His “essence,” which is “eternal.”
Even if we had not used “essence” and “function,” we can still see the problem with the subordinationist view:
“eternally equal”
“eternally unequal”
In this case, we still have TWO EQUALLY OPPOSING PHRASES that would still need a qualifier to distinguish them. Jesus would then have had to be either
TEMPORARILY equal
ETERNALLY unequal
OR
ETERNALLY equal
TEMPORARILY uneqal
Bilezikian makes the argument that “eternal” subordination becomes part of the “eternal” essence. Here, however, I’ve shown you that, according to the rules of philosophy and logic, the subordinationist view doesn’t hold up.
About the Allison quote? I'll tackle it in my next post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)