Contrary to the views of a handful of Baptist Identity bloggers, Southern Baptist blogs can be a source of beneficial debate within the Southern Baptist Convention. Evidence is in the the following email, sent to me after the writer read Growing Semi-Arianism in the SBC The email is from Dr. Curtis Freeman, Director of the Baptist House of Studies, Duke Divinity School, Durham, North Carolina. His words, profound and direct, need no commentary from me.October 8, 2008
Dear Wade:
Thank you for taking up this issue of the Trinity. Getting a Trinitarian conversation going among Baptists is more important than one might first expect given that most Baptists these days are, and for some time have been, functionally Unitarians. For example, in The Baptist Hymnal (1991) out of 666 hymns only 20 are Trinitarian (a ratio of 1:33), but 268 of these 666 hymns are Christological (a ratio of 1:2.5). Baptist worship in the South clearly tilts toward Unitarianism of the Second Person (i.e., a faith in Jesus alone to the near exclusion of the Father and the Spirit), just as on occasions in the past it has leaned in the direction of Unitarianism of the First Person (i.e. a faith in the Father alone with a subordinate role for the Son and the Spirit). To put the matter pointedly, most Baptists are Unitarians that simply have not yet gotten around to denying the Trinity. Non-Trinitarian faith is not necessarily anti-Trinitarian, yet it is reason for concern nonetheless.
All this may seem counter intuitive, but it's true. I often tell incoming students at Duke that they will hear the Trinity invoked more in the first week than in their entire life in Baptist churches. They later surprisingly tell me that they thought I was exaggerating at first, but after a week they came to see that I may have underplayed the way in which our community draws from the life of the Trinity in prayer, worship, study, and living. It has thus become one of my life goals to help the wider Baptist family retrieve a faith and practice grounded in the life of the Triune God in whom we live, and move, and have our very being. To the end that your conversation has served to raise that awareness I am grateful.
However, like you, I am concerned about embracing a Trinitarian doctrine that is not well grounded or tested. For several years now this new doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son (ESS) has been surfacing among Baptists and other evangelicals. As I've read some of the replies on your blog and other blogs criticizing you, I've encountered the very odd claim that ESS is the historic doctrine of orthodoxy. A simple fact check of the history of the doctrine of the Trinity will reveal that ESS is not a historic doctrine at all, but a very new one. Nor is it part of the received wisdom of the Christian tradition, but in fact is a matter of contemporary speculation. Doctrines do change, and sometimes innovations are received as wisdom. But ESS has yet to be tested and proved by any but a very small and unrepresentative group. The doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t belong to Baptists or Evangelicals. It is the faith shared by all Christians. And until ESS has been tested by the whole Church, it seems prudent to wait.
One of the major concerns about ESS is the supposed distinction between functional and ontological subordination. While it is true that the incarnate Son in his earthly life was submissive to the Father, the suggestion that this subordination extends to his eternal exalted state is worrisome. As Kevin Giles has argued, very persuasively I think, this appears to be a new iteration of Arianism. To be fair to the proponents of ESS, they are not Arians in one important respect: they believe in the Son’s eternal generation (the aspect or Origen’s thought appropriated in the Creed of the Council of Nicaea, “eternally begotten of the Father”), but they also believe in his eternal subordination (the aspect of Origen’s thought not appropriated by the Nicene defenders of homoousios). I suppose that makes them only semi-Arians. [Thanks to my friend and colleague Steve Harmon for this qualification.] The burden of proof, however, is on those proposing this new doctrine of ESS to show that it is not a new form of an old heresy. I’ve yet to be convinced. Until this is worked out it seems wise to wait until this new doctrine of ESS has been thoroughly examined and tested.
Beyond the question of the orthodoxy of ESS, which is still very much in question, I am suspicious of the not so subtle political agenda of ESS which is attracted to Trinitarian theology, not as an account of the life in which we live and move and have our being, but as an argument that underwrites complementarian views. I am just as suspicious of those who use Trinitarian doctrine to support the complementarian social agenda as those who engage in social Trinitarian speculations to underwrite feminist convictions. Miroslav Volf, one of our best Free Church theologians on the Trinity, has called for caution in the use of such speculative Trinitarian theology which can easily be co-opted by ideologies of the right and the left. His cautionary word seems wise regarding ESS. I am suspicious that the real energy behind this new ESS doctrine is really a thinly veiled attempt to elevate complementarianism to de fide orthodoxy, so that complementarian gender relations are set forth as the only acceptable model for Christians and that egalitarianism is heresy equivalent to denying the Trinity. This utilitarian use of Trinitarian doctrine is (in my opinion) based on dubious scholarship and bad theology.
I share the goal of helping our wider Baptist family retrieve the wisdom of the vast storehouse of orthodoxy. As bad as functional Unitarianism is, however, the possible embrace of a semi-Arianism masquerading as orthodoxy used for political ends may be even worse.
Yours in a common faith,
CurtisCurtis W. Freeman
Research Professor of Theology
Director of the Baptist House of Studies
Duke Divinity School
Box 90966
Durham, NC 27708-0966
The one sentence from Dr. Curtis Freeman's email that succinctly states the point I am making about the rise of eternal subordination in the Southern Baptist Convention is this one:
I am suspicious that the real energy behind this new ESS doctrine is really a thinly veiled attempt to elevate complementarianism to de fide orthodoxy, so that complementarian gender relations are set forth as the only acceptable model for Christians and that egalitarianism is heresy equivalent to denying the Trinity.
I shall allow Dr. Al Mohler's own words to frame Dr. Freeman's sentence above:
"The misjudgment of true Fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus, third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided."Amen, Dr. Mohler. When the "role" of women vs. men is set on an equal plane with the doctrine of the Trinity, then we Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided. May we resist any and all attempts to manipulate our understanding of the Trinity to justify our Biblical understanding of gender.
For further study on the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, read Dr. Freeman's God in Three Persons: Baptist Unitarianism and the Trinity
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
255 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255Peter:
If you keep dismissing people you will have none to converse with.
You do seem well versed in CR tactics and you should see they just do not work well.
Peter:
I will ask you again--"Can you not come up with any other blog topics that do not include Wade Burleson?" You try to demonize Wade--that Sir, is a CR tactic. It aint working and it makes you look mighty small.
John Fariss mentioned 'traditions' of faith. Some traditions in Christianity are shared by most Christians:
Well, worshipping on Sunday, is one. Celebrations of the holy days of Christmas and Easter are another. There are special Christian stories that come down in tradition:
The story of Veronica wiping the face of Jesus, as He fell on His way to Golgotha to be crucified. The legend goes that when Veronica took the cloth away from Jesus' face, an image (or 'icon') of His face was on the cloth. The name of this woman is not known, if the story is true. Tradition names her "Veronica" meaning 'Vera' for true; and 'Icon' for image. So 'vera-icon' becomes, in tradition, 'Veronica'. No church makes people believe in these legends, though the stories are beautiful.
Another, of course, is the legend of the boy who carried a young Jesus across a stream. In tradition, the boy is named "Christopher" which means 'Christ-bearer": a lovely story passed down for centuries.
Another beautiful tradition is to light a candle when saying a prayer. The candle, continuing to burn, is symbolic that your prayer will remain eternally before God; even after you have finished saying it.
What 'traditions' do Protestants have other than worship on Sunday? Most Catholics don't have any idea. L's Gran
Peter,
The emails that I've seen clarifying doctrine concerned Ware's PUBLIC teachings. He was well aware of Cheryl's intent and purpose also, as she'd included statements he made on a previous video and he was aware that she was preparing to do a video on the Trinity. And the only reason I know that Ware broke contact and Cheryl was made public on her blog. The emails were offered for the benefit of the other party to whom I showed accountability to save him from listening to several hours of audio, read a book, portions in another book and a few online articles. They emails most efficiently addressed the specific doctrinal questions about Ware's PUBLIC teachings and were a courtesy to the other party.
This is all kind of odd also because in the talk, I only mentioned ESS, and Ware's teachings about Eve as the indirect image of God and that Ware thinks that sin really entered mankind through Eve. And I cited what Giles said about ESS. Out of 60 slides, this information was featured on about 3 of them. It comprised less than 5% of the content of my lecture.
I'm reminded of what Walter Martin said about recognizing counterfeits. He once spoke to a noteworthy an powerful banker and asked about identifying counterfeits. Martin thought this was an excellent analogy. This banker says that his people only ever handled real money -- so they were intimate with how it felt, looked, sounded, etc. That makes counterfeits easy to spot. Likewise, believers should know the Word of God and sound doctrine, so that when false teachings come along, just like the bankers, the counterfeit becomes simple to identify.
So when you ask what I would say in response to Strong or Boyce or Mullins or whoever, I would say that what they have to say is of little to no significance. I know the genuine article and have experience defending and advocating for this specific doctrine. And frankly, if Walter Martin taught ESS, I would reject the teaching. I'm accountable to the Word and the Spirit and my authorities under whom I've studied to show myself approved. What anyone else has to say is not of much consequence unless they can show me error. I was not approached in a Christian manner to discuss error by these men, they used heavy handed means to make me go away. And though I affirm their positions and demonstrate respect for them, the same cannot be said of them.
So I am not persuaded any differently by what you've written here and that you've distorted what others have said here. I believe that these men are my brothers in Christ and shown respect for their office, even honoring them for their expertise.
But concerning the Trinity and some of the things that they've done to defend this doctrine, they are unfortunately wrong.
I admire your faithfulness and zeal in advocating for your beliefs, but I disagree with you.
Peter wrote:
"The difficulty in dealing with arrogance is its obvious interior nature. It is even more difficult to pen down in printed material."
Are you serious? I may be a semi-educated West Texas hick, but I know condescension when I see it....I've been guilty of it myself for far too many times.
I don't mean to attack you, Peter, and I'm afraid this dialogue is going nowhere. I simply wanted to point out that you have good, constructive things to say. However, your tone often causes people to miss the point. However, it appears my efforts are for naught.
I'll make every effort to restrain from getting into this kind of exchange with you in the future. I fear it has become what I hate most, comments that hurt the cause of Christ rather than help.
Hoping I've learned my lesson.
Jeff
"While you are at it, please inform us why A. Strong, J. Boyce, J. Dagg, and E.Y. Mullins--great Baptist theologians beginning in the 19th Century--were also guilty of this "not sound" understanding of the Triune God, an understanding somehow that now is "new" and "novel""
Hi Peter,
Did they teach it is a waste of time to pray to Jesus Christ?
If they did, they are wrong, too. (GASP)
"Unfortunately, you write "You sling the 'slander' word around quite a bit, Peter..." and deem it an "empty threat" because the teaching is public."
Peter, almost every thread you use the 'slander' word.
"Finally, Lydia, I have no time further to defend against the dubious charge of "CR" tactics of "insults and name-calling". If you've got something specific, I'll address it. If not, consider this my good night to you"
Are you serious? And start another verbose circular dialogue? No thanks, I am tuckered out! :o)
Lydia
Peter, are you running for
"B.I. Attack Dog of the Year" ?
If so, your bark, bark, bark ad infinitem, is ANNOYING rather than PERSUASIVE. You are suffering from 'gas-bag-itis'. There is no known cure. Good night to you, sir.
L. Van Pelt
Wow, Peter, you sure know how to clear a room: everyone is saying 'good night'. Give it a rest.
C. Brown
Corrie, don't sign that manifesto until you read this one, too.
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-11-No-1/Relationships-and-Roles-in-the-New-Creation
CBMW teaches there will be male headship of the women saints in heaven!
here are some excerpts:
"Considerably more controversial, however, than the question of "what we shall be" in the new creation is the question of "what we shall do." Given that gender identity will remain, is there evidence that functional distinctions will likewise remain in the new creation? Will resurrected saints as male and female have gender-specific roles? How will we relate to one another? Will male headship apply? Initial responses will likely depend on whether such questions are approached from a complementarian or egalitarian perspective."
Complementarians, who view male headship and gender-specific roles as part of God's original plan for creation (and for the present age as well) are more likely to answer these questions in the affirmative.2 Functional distinctions will remain. Egalitarians, on the other hand, who view male headship and functional distinctions as a result of the edenic fall-and therefore as being inappropriate to mature Christendom-are likely to reject such a notion as inconsistent with the Kingdom ideal of equality for all. Which view is correct? Does it matter?
It does indeed.
It matters, second, because how one understands life in the new creation guides our present-day preparations for the life to come. Randy Alcorn observes that Jonathan Edwards understood this principle and encouraged others to follow it: "It becomes us to spend this life only as a journey toward heaven . . . to which we should subordinate all other concerns of life. Why should we labor for or set our hearts on anything else, but that which is our proper end and true happiness."4 It may indeed be true, as C. S. Lewis has suggested, "that the joys of Heaven are . . . ‘an acquired taste'-and certain ways of life may render the taste impossible of acquisition."5 None of this is to suggest, of course, that Christians should abandon clear biblical guidelines for life in the present age in pursuit of eschatological ideals-an error Wayne Grudem refers to as "over-realized eschatology."6 But, if Lewis is correct, we would do well to begin now ordering our lives in such a way as to acquire a "taste" for things to come.
It matters, finally, and perhaps most significantly, because the answer to the question of functional distinctions in the new creation is-to use an analogy from football-like the three-hundred-pound lineman that everyone wants on their team. Evangelical complementarians and egalitarians alike should very much like to find in the doctrine of the new creation a strong defense of their respective positions, though, as we shall see, the "new creation defense" disproportionately favors the complementarian view. Allow me to explain. There are some egalitarian interpreters who agree that the writers of the New Testament epistles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, taught male headship and gender-based differentiation of roles for the original recipients of those epistles, indicating that complementarity is divinely sanctioned, at least under certain circumstances.7 If it can be demonstrated successfully that complementarity also will characterize the new creation, then the case for complementarity in the present age is disproportionately strengthened. Complementarity is not just an accommodation to the less-than-perfect conditions that prevailed during the first century. Rather, it is a divine principle weaved into the fabric of God's order for the universe. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the proponents of egalitarianism.8
The paragraphs that follow will offer evidence for complementarity among resurrected saints by examining the evidence for functional distinctions in two aspects of life in the new creation: relationships and gender-
and later...
"Given, then, that relationships between those married on earth will in some sense remain in the new creation, it remains for us to inquire regarding the nature of those relationships. To put it more directly, will husbandly headship and wifely submission still obtain in the new creation? The egalitarian response, of course, is that all traces of headship and submission will have been removed. The evidence, however, argues to the contrary.
First, consider the argument concerning man and woman as originally created. There is virtually universal agreement that man and woman are ontologically equal, equal in essence and worth, because both were created in the image of God. In the ordering of his creation, however, God formed the man first and gave him responsibility and authority as the head of the human race.41 This headship, far from being a result of the fall-feminist and egalitarian claims notwithstanding-is a central feature of the divine created order.42 Because the new creation is, fundamentally, a return to the divine order that prevailed before the fall, it follows that male headship will remain in the new creation"
Read it all at your own peril!
Basically, they are saying that male 'headship' of the saints in heaven will be good because there will be no evil.
Beside the fact that they never get anything about egalitarians correct, they are going positively Mormon over there!
Corrie:
You went to the True Woman 08 conference? And just when I was beginning to like you! ;-)
I bet I would have felt even more "disconcerted" than you did there. I'm sure more Christian women share your beliefs about Christian womanhood than share the far right CBMW beliefs! So keep on keeping on, Girlfriend, enjoy reading your comments!
Lin said,
"Basically, they are saying that male 'headship' of the saints in heaven will be good because there will be no evil."
Oh Lin, WILL THEY NEVER GIVE POOR EVE AND HER DAUGHTERS ANY PEACE; EVEN IN HEAVEN ???
Lin,
That is the very article I referenced further up in this thread. I couldn't believe my eyes when I was reading it because it is sitting right there on the CBMW website and it is so NOT what the Bible teaches.
""Considerably more controversial, however, than the question of "what we shall be" in the new creation is the question of "what we shall do." Given that gender identity will remain, is there evidence that functional distinctions will likewise remain in the new creation? Will resurrected saints as male and female have gender-specific roles? How will we relate to one another? Will male headship apply? Initial responses will likely depend on whether such questions are approached from a complementarian or egalitarian perspective.""
As I said before, no marriage....no husbands.....no headship over wives....no wives.....how much more specific does the Bible have to be for these guys to get it? This has nothing to do with comp/egal perspectives but what the very word of God has clearly stated.
THERE IS NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN. Why? Because we will be married to the Lamb of God because He is our Bridegroom.
That article is most definitely Mormon theology.
And then I have to ask myself whether the women who sign that Manifesto know that this unbiblical theology is part and parcel of what they are signing. If they disagree, does it mean that they are of an "egalitarian perspective" and exhibiting a "spirit of feminism"?
What I am most horrified over is that there is no "world-class scholar" that has put pressure on CBMW to take that piece off of their website and write a retraction.
It is obvious that no one is policing their own and when someone else dares to police them, they get upset and claim they are being attacked (all the while they are attacking others by their very own definition).
"You went to the True Woman 08 conference? And just when I was beginning to like you! ;-)"
Hi Elizabeth,
LOL!
Let us say that I went because I needed to be able to experience it in order to understand it. I wanted to be accurate.
They stated, several times, that God was raising up an "army" of women to wage counter-cultural war. I am glad that it was said that the feminists are not our enemy (Janet Parshall was the first one to say that and I really enjoyed her session).
A few times I thought: "Trojan Horse".
For the most part, the conference was concerning keeping our eyes on God and making His word central to our lives. I can totally agree with that.
But, there are a couple of sessions that didn't seem to fit with the rest of the emphasis. Kind of like the Sesame Street game, "Which one of these things doesn't belong here." :-)
I am still processing the conference at this time. As someone said to me via a private email, it is not the 98% of the truth that is bothersome but the 2% poison. I would like to know what is behind this movement, what was the motivation for this conference, what was the spark that caused it to be born, etc.
Well, no one took me up on my offer to continue the salvation conversation at my blog so far, so I suppose the conversation is over. Looks like SL1M has taken a break from commenting right now. And L's Gran, you never did acknowledge the link to the website I mentioned, or comment either way. A simple "Thanks, but I'm really not interested" would have been preferable to no response at all. Be that as it may, if anyone wants to continue the conversation there at my blog, please let me know. Personally, I consider the conversation over for the time being. Good day, all.
Hi Corrie,
You said: "it is not the 98% of the truth that is bothersome but the 2% poison. I would like to know what is behind this movement, what was the motivation for this conference, what was the spark that caused it to be born, etc."
Corrie, thanks to the Holy Spirit, your discernment powers are alive and well. That 2% kicked off a red light. I'm glad you noticed.
What got me was that part about submitting to the authority of religious leaders. Well, depending on WHO these 'leaders' are: one could be taken down some very dark roads.
Here's to discernment. L's G.
Good Morning, Byron
It's me, L's Gran.
Thanks for the special invitation but we can communicate on Wade's blog, if you like. Slim needs to stay on Wade's blog. I think this best. Be peaceful.
L's G.
Thank you L's Gran, for your response. Well the decision is up to you and SL1M and whoever else is interested, so that's fine by me. Have a good day!
L Gran,
You said the following earlier:
Dr. Ware's views remind me of the ancient Trinitarian heresy of 'Subordinationism'.
(Yes, it's actually called that!).
In 'Subordinationism', the concept of shared SUBSTANCE is denied. In short, this heresy admits there are three Persons in God, but DENIES that the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of the same SUBSTANCE as the Father. ('co-substantial')
Earlier I posted an article which I believe rebuts this particular proposal. In the midst of 200+ post, you may not have seen it. Allow me to repost it for your consideration:
Does Eternal Subordination Entail a Denial of Homoousian?
I think it explains rather well how Grudem/Ware's position differs from "subordinationism."
As I noted earlier, the comparison has been made numerous times, but not yet has anyone fully questioned the legitimacy of that critique. Phil Gons in the article seems to show the inadequacy and imprecision of that particular argument. And if he does show that, then honesty demands that one cease from using that argument.
On a separate note, I think that numerous times statements intended to be used as slander against men of the CBMW such as the accusation that CBMW teaches Mormonism or Jehovah's Witness theology are actually quite dishonest. Simply because an argument is somehow, though distantly related, does not imply that it is, in fact, a Mormonistic or Jehovah's Witness theological position. One must actually place the two side by side and make a case that the two are the same. Otherwise, much of this amounts to innuendo and gossip.
Those of us who adhere to Reformed Theology, for example, are familiar with the false argument that Calvinism teaches Islam, because both teach some form of determinism, though the breadth of difference is astounding and thus completely unrelated. Still, the argument is used to deflect and accuse, rather than to clarify and critique. I think those who are quick to accuse Ware and others of such cultic beliefs must be careful that they are not guilty of the same thing.
Scholarship demands that we actually attempt to understand one another's positions before accusations. And I am not convinced that the majority of people on here are seeking to understand the positions before they begin accusing their brothers and sisters in Christ of "semi" heresies. Instead, it seems that all we can do is attack one another, labelling each other as arrogant and otherwise, without actually dealing with the arguments.
L Gran, let me make it clear that the last bit wasn't meant to accuse you in any way (the two were only related in that I think we must be careful in placing labels on one another), but hopefully to get us to think about bringing this back to a legitimate academic discussion, not the mudslinging it has become. I am hoping that a discussion beginning with your statement on subordinationism and including the article by Gons could do that.
Please let me know what you think once you read it.
"Otherwise, much of this amounts to innuendo and gossip."
Discussing public teachings by 'scholars' who are paid by our tithe dollars is not 'gossip'. But, if you can convince enough lemmings that it IS gossip, then you and your mentors have some great control over folks. (Is this called the doctrine of Jim Jones?) Which is what this 'subordination teaching' is all really about. Elevating some earthlings above other earthlings.
Let me guess. You get to be one of the 'elevated' earthlings? :o)
"Scholarship demands that we actually attempt to understand one another's positions before accusations. And I am not convinced that the majority of people on here are seeking to understand the positions before they begin accusing their brothers and sisters in Christ of "semi" heresies. Instead, it seems that all we can do is attack one another, labelling each other as arrogant and otherwise, without actually dealing with the arguments."
There are plenty of people who understand the 'positions'. Some have even written books. Another one is about to release a DVD with Ware quotes that can be verified.
Do you believe it is a waste of time to pray to Jesus, DR?
Lydia
Dear Wade and Baptist Blogging Brothers and Sisters:
Your comments on the ESS post have been most enlightening. Thank you. Allow me to apologize to those who took too literally my hyperbolic summary of most Baptists in the South as functionally unitarians of the second person. Some read no further. By such a description, I mean (as I tried to say) Baptists focus so often and so much on Jesus only that our piety and practice finds little expression in Trinitarian terms. This is not (also as I tried to say) anti-Trinitarian. It is also not (contrary to protests otherwise) Christological Trinitarianism either. Anyone who took the time to read my article on Baptists and the Trinity will understand more why I think this is the case.
As far as learning more about how Baptist theologians have dealt with the doctrine of the Trinity, I would defer to my several articles on the subject. Most notably, Baptists, whose theology tends toward biblicism (that is, doctrine warranted in concise "Bible language") lost their simple biblical support when the Trinitarian summary in 1 Jn 5:7 (in the textus receptus and the KVJ) was shown to be a later addition. (Read footnote 45 of my article regarding the work of Richard Bentley.) From then on Baptist accounts of the Trinity grew increasingly scholasticized and also became theologically marginalized. I tried to document this in the writings of our theologians who continued to affirm the Trinity, while introducing the subject late in their theology texts and discussing it only enough to move on to the next topic.
My larger concern which I share with Wade Burleson is that the ESS doctrine is not, contrary to assertions by its proponents, the historical view of the church. It is a new and innovative speculation without wide support or recognition outside a very narrow sector of evangelical Protestants. Its claim to orthodoxy is very much in question, and so I cautioned patience and stated that the burden of proof is on the proponents of ESS to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the wider Christian community that ESS is not in fact semi-Arian. ESS draws implications for complementarian socio-political relations based on the analogue of the divine Persons in the theology known as social Trinitarianism much as feminist theologians have also done for egalitarinaism. As one person rightly noted in the replies, quoting Isa 55, God’s thoughts and ways are not ours. We must therefore discipline the human propensity to narrow the gaps of our analogies between the divine and human persons.
I do find it hopeful that Baptists and other Evangelicals are open to retrieving the wisdom of a historic and apostolic faith and practice grounded in the life of the Trinity. If such a ressourcement takes place, our churches and our lives will be enriched. The grace of the Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all!
Curtis W. FreemanResearch Professor of TheologyDirector of the Baptist House of StudiesDuke Divinity SchoolBox 90966
DR, BTW: aren't you the same guy that declared over at the OUtpost that Ware would never teach that women are made in the 'indirect image of God' and a 'derivative'?
Then later when you found out that he really did teach that, you quickly became one of his many blog 'interpreters' and apologist who must interpret what **you** think Ware IS REALLY teaching.
For a professor, Ware sure is 'misunderstood' a lot.
Lydia
L's Gran,
I believe you were the one who asked about Dorothy Sayers. Yes, she is considered a theologian, at least by the Anglicans.
She did write at least three delightful books about theology, both of which I highly recommend. "Are Women Human?" , "Creed or Chaos" and "The Whimsical Christian"
Hi D.R.
It's me, L's Gran
More completely, I said: "No, I don't think Dr. Ware has abandoned ALL doctrines of the Trinity, just the Orthodox one.
Dr. Ware's views remind me of the ancient Trinitarian heresy of 'Subordinationism'.
(Yes, it's actually called that!).
In 'Subordinationism', the concept of shared SUBSTANCE is denied. In short, this heresy admits there are three Persons in God, but DENIES that the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of the same SUBSTANCE as the Father. ('co-substantial')
So, a prayer to the Father, in this heresy would not be addressed to the Son. And Ware seems to feel that this is possible.
So, I'm not 'slandering' Dr. Ware. I don't think he has come up with anything new at all. I AM saying that he presents himself to me in his writings as someone who is STRONGLY INFLUENCED by 'subordinationism': an ancient heresy, in my OWN church."
D.R. ,
I have distinguished your term 'eternal subordination' and your term 'subordination' from my OWN Church's list of Trinitarian heresies. I have named the R.C. heresy as it is called in my Church: 'Subordinationism' , a sub-group of Arianism. (not identical, but containing some similarities).
Perhaps your confusion is over my reference to my own faith's heresy.
This is what I know. From his words, Dr. Ware has a problem with people praying directly to Jesus. If I am wrong, perhaps you can correct me. As I did say: " So, a prayer to the Father, in this heresy would not be addressed to the Son. And Ware seems to feel that this is possible. "
The next concern is the term
"consubstantial" which is an R.C. term. I honestly do not know if you or Dr. Ware know this term or its meaning: the idea of three persons sharing one SUBSTANCE?
If you examine my statement again, you will see that I (from another religion) see a similarity in Dr. Ware's writing to an ancient Trinitarian heresy as defined in my OWN Church.
In the Reformed Faith, there are many variations which are confusing. When terms are used, often they must be defined or clarified. I hope I have helped.
One thing I am sure of. Dr. Ware words present that he is NOT 'orthodox' in his interpretation of the Holy Trinity; that is, using the word 'orthodox' to mean R.C. belief regarding the Trinity.
Please write back, if you wish.
In no way, would I want to misjudge someone's stand on a doctrine simply because of an misunderstanding over a term. L'Gran
P.S. A few years ago, a fellow teacher of mine told me that the Baptist Church was similar to the Methodist and the Presbyterian. Judging by Dr.Ware's words, I can see that there must be very clear doctrinal differences, at least to do with the Trinity. L's G.
Hello Dr. Freeman,
I'm so glad that you've commented here. This has all been very encouraging.
I noticed that Dr. Freeman mentions social trinitarianism, and it dawned on me that people might not know what this is talking about.
On my website (not my blog), I posted a collection of information about the Trinity. I created a nice chart that quotes from Moreland and Craig (excellent source on a variety of topics IMO) that compares social trinitarianism with antisocial trinitarianism.
http://www.undermuchgrace.com/index.php?p=1_59_Theories-of-Trinity
There are also really insightful comments from Robert K McGregor Wright that were originally posted in comments on Cheryl Schatz blog. He says that this theory actually relates back to Arminian freewillism, despite the fact that this doctrine is promoted by people that call themselves Reformed. He lists references in the comments there.
To put a universe in an even smaller nutshell:
Social Trinitarianism:
Focuses on the three, distinct centers of consciousness within the Trinity (though should not negate the unity if balanced). This approach bears natural pitfalls of falling into tritheism/polytheism if not balanced because of the focus on the three.
This reminds me of a Moody Radio interview that I heard Bruce Ware do last year wherein he said we focus too much on Christ's Divinity and do not focus enough on His humanity. I don't really have a problem with the statement in general, but this becomes problematic when there is TOO MUCH emphasis placed on His humanity.
Anti-social Trinitarianism:
Focuses on the unity of attributes, character, and will/intellect (though should not negate the seperate Persons if it remains balanced). The pitfalls of this approach include modalism and unitarianism.
Hi Anna,
Thank you. I adore Dorothy L. Sayers as an author of English mysteries and I'm delighted to hear that she has written in the theological genre, also.
I am fairly familiar with the Anglican faith, so her theological writings may be within my power to understand.
Thanks Anna, for ALL your help.
L's Gran
Cindy,
I just went to your website link and read McGregor Wright's comments on this ESS issue. They are excellent and easy to understand.
He is a great communicator. Thanks for sharing this link.
(If anyone else decides to check this out, Wright's comments are near the bottom of the page)
L's Gran,
I love Sayers' theological writings. I especially think her essay, Are Women Human, to be necessary reading.
Lydia,
Interesting.....Ware teaches that women are a derivative, meaning they were not made in the direct image of God but in the indirect image of God and we, as women, only reflect God's image as we get it from a man, much like the moon merely reflects the Sun's light and has no light of its own. I have heard this before by various other teachers, too.
So, if men are like the Father and women are like the Son, does that mean that Jesus is also a derivative of the Father? Or is He an exact copy?
Jesus told His disciples that they have seen the Father because they have seen Him. Why? Because He IS God. So, Jesus can't be a derivative of the Father.
And women can't be a derivative of God's image, either, because the Bible tells us so in Gen. 1:27 where the Triune God states that male and female were created in His image.
I am thinking that it is dangerous business to use the Trinity in order to shore up our own particular belief systems and I believe that Dr. Freeman is quite right when he states that it is just as wrong for complementarians to do it as it is for egalitarians.
In order to keep women eternally subordinate and eternally married and under the headship of their husband (or husbands for some women????) as the CBMW website states as Gospel truth (or else we are guilty of "reckless theology"), then they would necessarily have to make Jesus eternally subordinate to the Father.
So, not only do we make Jesus subordinate to the Father for all eternity but we also have to pretend that the Bible clearly teaches that there is NO marriage in Heaven and that earthly marriage is only a temporary institution and that there is no eternal male headship and eternal subordination of females in Heaven, since Jesus, our Bridegroom is our eternal Head and we, male and female, are His eternally subordinate Bride.
It could be that THAT fact is a hard pill to swallow for some who want to be greatest in God's kingdom and sit at His right hand just like the Sons of Thunder wanted. That is earthly and fleshly ambition and it is not of God.
"What got me was that part about submitting to the authority of religious leaders. Well, depending on WHO these 'leaders' are: one could be taken down some very dark roads. "
Very good point.
And who gets to decide which religious leaders are correct and unquestionable and which religious leaders are "open season" for being questioned and having their teachings scrutinized?
So far I see a huge lack of consistency with this issue but it does not surprise me at all.
L Gran,
Thanks for the response. It was a breath of fresh air in a heated and continually degrading discussion. However, I wonder if we are on the same wavelength here. Let me try to clarify.
Regardless of terms, I am addressing the idea that some (including apparently Burleson) are accusing Ware (but not just him - Grudem and pretty much anyone associated with CBMW who believe that in relational rank the Son is submissive to the Father from eternity and to eternity).
The charge that has been leveled is that it is associated with, or a derivation of, Arianism based on the question of whether or not Jesus and the Father are of the same substance.
We could label and relabel until we eventually find a suitable label for it, but it all comes back to the question, "Do Ware, Grudem, etc. espouse the ancient heresy known as subordinationism, associated closely with Arianism?"
This is what you seemed to assert with your comment. Prehaps I am wrong, but it seems you are saying the following: Subordinationism (i.e., eternal submission of the Son to the Father) = different Substance, and that this is what Ware, et al. believe.
The problem I have with that position is that while it was believed and taught in Arianism (Subordinationism) - i.e., subordination = differing Substance - it is not a mutually necessary construct. One can be eternally positionally submissive without being of a different Substance. That's where it falls out in the gender debate. Men and Women can be of the same substance, yet women can still be called to be positionally submissive. There is equality of substance, but a differing in position (which seems to go right along with Jesus' teaching on the first being last, etc. - in which position meant nothing to worth, a complete opposite teaching of Jewish and other Near East culture)
And that is the point that Gons makes in his article - that Eternal Submissiveness (called Eternal Subordination) does not equal differing Substances. That is what I wanted you to interact with. And that is what I wanted Burleson to interact with - though so far he has not.
The problem seems to be guilt by association. If you suggest eternal submission of the Son to the Father is true, then immediately the suggestions seems to be that one is a "Semi-Arian." The problem is that one must believe and espouse that the Father and Son are of distinct substances for this to be true.
If one does not claim this and instead explicitly denies this, as does Ware, et al., then the charge becomes false. This is part of Gons point in his article. Therefore, to continue to assert that they believe this is simply false, unless it can be logically proven otherwise.
Here, in this post, it seems that Burleson and even yourself assert that eternal submission naturally assumes Subordination and at the least, Semi-Arianism. However, Gons takes this head on and explains how this is not so using simply logic.
So the burden is on the critic to prove that either Ware, et al., do indeed espouse that the Father and Son are of a different Substance, which they have categorically denied, or that eternal submissiveness = Subordinationism and/or Arianism.
So far, that has not been established, and Gons, in his article has showed why this is a flawed assumption.
Therefore, what I asked in my previous comment is what I ask again. How can you assert that Ware, Grudem, CBMW, etc. have a similar view of Subordinationism (Semi-Arianism) if indeed they deny they believe that the Father and Son are of a different substance? Again, please interact with Gons in framing your argument.
Now, one last comment. So far, I have not seen any direct quotes from Ware on his view of praying to the Father. All we have are summaries where Ware is to have "basically" said praying to the Son is "a waste of time". Prehaps we should see his exact words on this and understand his full argument before dealing with how his position is similar/dissimilar to Subordination based on his application of eternal submissiveness to prayer. If you can provide this, I welcome it. I would like to see what he actually said, rather than a summary. Summaries are not academically viable. And I don't say that arrogantly, but rather matter-of-factly. We all know that summarizing another's argument in an academic paper without sufficient written or documented evidence that others can look into themselves will not fly in any academic institution. I think we should treat this environment the same if we are truly going to have a legitimate dialogue.
That's not to say that I am calling Cheryl a liar, or asserting that she is twisting Ware's words, but rather that having Ware's words in context in order to fully understand his argument is the appropriate and academically proper thing to do before making assertions from his beliefs.
I will say this however, in response to the idea that we should pray only to the Father - Never does Jesus instruct us to pray to Him. And never do the Biblical writers pray to Jesus. They always direct their prayers to the Father, in the name of the Son.
I think this is simply a Biblical way of praying. And apparently it was important enough to Jesus for Him to distinguish this in teaching the disciples to pray and in instructing them to pray in His name and not in praying to Him.
So one would not have to believe that Jesus was of a different Substance that the Father to believe that we ought not pray to Him, but rather to the Father in His name. That's simply Biblical and Trinitarian. Wouldn't you agree that the Bible does indeed teach us to pray to the Father and not to the Son? Could you offer any Biblical reason why we should not follow Jesus' instructions and instead pray to Him and not to the Father in His name?
Hopefully this comment clarifies what I was trying to begin a discussion on. If not, feel free to ask for clarification. I would like to see a legitimate discussion of this, as it speaks entirety to the legitimacy of this blog post in the first place. Hopefully, Burleson will return to the discussion and defend his charges in light of Gons' article, as well.
Dr. Freeman,
First, thank you for your clarification and your willingness to continue in this discussion. I would like to address something you said. You wrote,
...the burden of proof is on the proponents of ESS to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the wider Christian community that ESS is not in fact semi-Arian."
It is doubtful you read my previous comments to L Gran or to Wade Burleson, so I wanted to personally direct you to a link to a response to this very assertion by Peter Gons. Here is the link again.
Does Eternal Subordination Entail a Denial of Homoousian?
Another article that directly challenges this assertion is written by Benjamin Phillips. Here is the link to that one as well:
Method Mistak: An Analysis of the Charge of Arianism in Complementarian Discussions of the Trinity
I invite you to interact with these (either here or direct us elsewhere to a place better suited for it). I believe we need to employ academic precision to this debate prior to throwing labels and accusing others of heresy. The results could be disasterous to the Body of Christ. I am sure you would agree.
Additionally, I do think that CBMW and others have answered their critics rather well elsewhere. Here are some additional links for your consideration:
Egalitarians Revamp Doctrine of the Trinity: Bilezikian, Grenz and the Kroegers Deny Eternal Subordination of the Son
Eternal Subordination of the Son: The Basics, Part IV (specifically related to Church History)
Hopefully, this will spark a discussion that aids us in properly understanding the Trinity and in carefully considering others' views in the process.
Thank you again,
Soli Deo Gloria,
D.R. Randle
D.R.
I would like to know your thoughts concerning the CBMW article about eternal headship/subordination/marriage in Heaven.
I see this article as being directly related to the revamped thoughts on Christ being eternally subordinate to the Father.
Do you believe that men are going to be the head of women in Heaven? Do you believe that a husband will be head of his wife in Heaven? Also, what happens when a woman has had more than one husband on this earth? Does she have several heads? Is the last husband her true head? Or the one she liked best and love the most?
This is from one of the links on CBMW's website:
"Many complementarians argue that the Son is eternally functionally submissive to the Father while still possessing absolute ontological equality with Him. The thesis of Ware's 2006 ETS paper was,
The Father and Son are fully equal in their deity as each possesses the identically same divine nature, yet the eternal and inner-Trinitarian Father-Son relationship is marked, among other things by an authority and submission structure in which the Father is eternally in authority over the Son and the Son eternally in submission to the Father. There is, then, an eternal and immutable equality of essence between the Father and the Son, while there is also an eternal and immutable authority-submission structure that marks the relationship of the Father and the Son.4"
But, what I want to know is how this relates to male/female relationships? Does Ware and CBMW (we already know they do because the article on their site) also think that women are eternally subordinate to male authority and that men are eternally in authority over women?
Why are they trying to draw a parallel where none exists? There is no need for so-called male authority and female subordination in heaven and Christ has already defined for us who shall be the greatest and the least in His kingdom. I would hope that complementarians would take heed to those words of Christ and see it as the warning it is instead of trying to create a structure of hierarchy in Heaven where males rule over women for all eternity.
Or am I just not truly getting what the crux of the assertion behind ESS really is? Why is ESS so important to us?
D.R.,
You note several times in your recent comments that people are making "accusations" of heresy.
I was accused of calling Bruce Ware a heretic myself, when in fact, I said no such thing. I also mentioned Grudem and Knight in the same light, actually giving Grudem more credit for propagating ESS in his '94 Systematic Theology when I spoke at a conference. But no one was concerned about Grudem. But I was accused of name-calling. All I did was describe the concept, who taught it and what Giles ("consistent with the heresy of Arius" in terms of authority) had say and what my personal response to it was (which I stated that I believed it was "wrong" and that I personally "had a problem" with Ware's teaching). I was falsely accused of name-calling for merely questioning the doctrine, mentioning who taught it and for very briefly citing one author's opinion of it.
When I was a teen and attended an Assemblies of God church, I had an adult Baptist tell me that I was dabbling in the demonic by praying in tongues. Please note that I was technically a child, and an adult told me these things. They did not say that they were within the pale of orthodoxy or that given their study of the issue that it was their conviction, they were concerned that I was in error. They outright condemned me for being something of a demoniac and did not honor my confession of faith an belief in the risen Jesus Christ as my savior.
I think that example yields a good analogy here. I have not called Ware a heretic, though I have stated very respectfully and in an academic style that I have issues with his teachings. On a superficial reading of his book on the Trinity, the phrase "This is Wrong" just rang repeatedly through my mind, over and over. Upon closer examination, the first objective problem that I found came as I considered on a practical level exactly how his teaching would affect witnessing to a Jehovah's Witness. I found Ware's book and some of his audio very problematic for this reason. That gave me further cause to investigate to discern whether I was the only person to take issue with this teaching.
That lead me to search for the writings of others with greater expertise in this area, and I was surprised to find so little written on the subject. At that point, I wrote a synopsis of the first chapter of Giles' "Jesus and the Father" to several ministers to ask if they thought that this information was credible enough to cite Giles thesis in a lecture I was preparing. I received all positive feedback, particularly from those with experience witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Esteemed others have made the evaluations and have summarized the ESS theories, classifying them as semi-arian. I've never seen where anyone has outright called any persons heretics. As some insightful MAN noted in an earlier comment, it is one thing to innocently teach or believe something heretical and an entirely different matter to be an heretic. No one has demeaned these men as heretics and discounted their faith in Jesus Christ. What has been said is that their teachings classify as semi-arian, and that is indeed a serious charge.
On the other hand, folks like Russell Moore state that anyone who does not agree with their gender views and their Trinity teachings classifies as an open theist. I do not think that open theism is Biblical and do not believe it. I actually departed from the Assemblies of God because I did not believe that they correctly interpreted God's sovereignty. I think that the belief in open theism itself is an heretical belief (heterodox versus orthodox). But folks like Moore claim that because I reject their package, I am not only an open theist, I am a feminist and I reject God's Lordship over all creation. Those are not academic observations or statements that concern a discussion of teachings that might be false! These are personal charges that concern a personal discounting of my faith that hint that I am actually worshipping a false God. This reminds me so much of the adult that told me that I was dabbling in the demonic regarding an intramural issue.
So I think you are being a little too indiscriminate in your use of language when you write that others have been accused of heresy and have been called heretics. These teachings are very problematic, and if they do correspond to anything remotely heretical, they need to be addressed. I think that everyone involved here holds to sola scriptura and desires anything other than to follow heresy. We would give our very lives to guard against heresy. So this is not personal. We are engaged in this issue because we all seek to honor God and His Word. I think that those Bereans who question these teachings according to Paul's admonition to test all things deserve a fair assessment as well. We are examining the teachings which may well correspond to elements of Arianism and should be discussed and examined. In the process, we should all remain careful to not unfairly label anyone, condemn our opponents, throw pejoratives at them but should entreat them with a spirit of respect.
But as Pastor Wade has pointed out on this blog, there are many leaders in the SBC who model ANYTHING BUT a spirit of respect and honor for their fellow believers. They respond with authoritarianism and heavy-handed attempts to squelch any type of criticism. They respond with pejorative, logical fallacy and cruelty that sometimes rivals the behavior of the Pharisees. And that spirit does not come from those who question their teachings respectfully, just as Giles has addressed in his book and just as I've done so in video that is available for the whole world to review.
I humbly ask that you reconsider your use of the word "accusation" when discussing these teachings. I don't think that those who have evaluated the ESS doctrine are doing so in an adversarial spirit, though they strongly oppose the doctrine. This is not personal, beyond the fact that certain persons propagate the doctrine. (I cannot say the same is true for what others have said of me in efforts to squelch my opinion and poison the well.) I acknowledge that the topic is very sensitive as well it should be -- we are talking about the identity and character of God.
I have not called Grudem or Ware neo-Arians but I have studied and believe that what they teach does correspond to Arius concerning matters of the Trinity that touch upon authority and hierarchy. Others have done the same, but as Giles states in his aforementioned book, the complementarians who embrace ESS often will not come to the table of discussion in a spirit of respect. I thank God that there have been some strides toward this, but there are far more striking and numerous examples to the contrary at this point. Further promoting the idea that those who reject ESS do so with an adversarial spirit does not work towards resolution of these matters. The adversarial approach does not come from those who oppose ESS but from those who defend it.
I failed to note in my previous comment something that I think is very telling. I cited several people who teach ESS when I lectured. Bruce Ware was only one of many people I cited. I also cited Ware with John MacArthur for teachings about sin entering mankind through Eve (so she is actually more culpable for sin than Adam) and that women are derivatives (made in the image of man directly and only made in God's image indirectly). But the only flack I received concerned the faculty at SBTS. Why is that? I question whether MacAruthur's and Grudem's names even registered for people.
Why the concern over SBTS faculty and no one else? You can question any other teachers but not them?
sorry for not including that in my prior post
I think it's great that we contend for our beliefs, particularly those that are so essential. We'd better be contending passionately for them. My germane point regards the fact that questioning these teachings is deemed "unthinkable" to so many. I'm seriously concerned that so many "people of the Book" heard these teachings and never found them questionable until a few dissidents paid the price to speak up about them. When they have, they are accused of name-calling and more.
Corrie,
I appreciate your questions. I honestly think you are truly seeking some answers. And I appreciate the fact that you chose to go to the True Woman Conference and listen to and meet both female and male complementarians. And that you did so with open but critical eyes and ears.
Having said that, let me clearly say that I don't have all the answers.. But I don't think any one person does. Contrary to much discussion around here, CBMW isn't unilaterally in agreement on all issues. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
I could point to a number of interpretations and practices within the Church that members of CBMW differ on, even among their board members.
So, what I think is best is for you to take your questions directly to the authors of the various papers on the CBMW site with which you have reservations.
Still, let me try to offer some clarity and possibly a different way of looking at the article "Roles and Relationships in the New Creation." Mark David Walton's purpose seems to me to be to confront the Egalitarian grounding-principle that "there can be no true equality as long as gender-based differentiation of roles or responsibility remains."
He argues that this statement is false. And then tries to show that if the statement is not true, and if it is true that gender-based roles were part of God's original created order (which God said was good), then it follows suit that in eternity, gender roles would continue to exist to some extent, albeit without sin so as to be perfectly in line with the Will of God.
The premise Walton is more concerned about in his article is the Egalitarian one that claims that absolutely no gender-specific roles will exist in Heaven. He directly turns to the idea of Headship, using the husband-wife relationship as a type. At a couple of points, he is confusing, and I will admit, he could have been more clear and better organized. After reading it, I believe the problem that may cause the most confusion is that he uses this term "Headship" to mean general leadership by men, not specifically related to the husband-wife relationship. However, when he says "headship" it does seem confusing one is forced to remember that his intent wasn't that of husband-wife relationships, but rather more like that of elder-church member relationships. If you read it like that, you can see that Walton does not believe that marriage continues, nor that husbands will be directly in Headship over their wives in the New Creation (as those relationships will take on completely new constructs) in the same way as on Earth.
Note this particular passage that is somewhat poorly worded and might have been skipped over. This is what he says under the heading, "Gender and Relationships in the New Creation":
What, then, of marriage? Although the common assumption that there will be no marriage in heaven may be in error, 37 it is most unlikely that marriage will continue in the new creation in its present covenantal and conjugal aspects. The covenant of which marriage is a type will be replaced in the new creation by the archetype, the marriage between Christ and his church (Eph 5:31-32). Likewise, conjugal relations as we now know them will end. Yet when it is remembered that the intimate relations between the first man and woman were part of God's original-creation plan, we realize that it is not so much that such relations will altogether cease, as that they will be replaced, transformed into something befitting the new creation" (emphasis added).
He does hold out the possibility that marriage might exist in Heaven, but this is based on a technical point in the text spoken by Jesus in Mt 22. The footnote explains some, but it's simply an academic reference, and shouldn't be taken as any endorsement of that idea, especially given that the wording after that is especially strong in favor of no marriage in Heaven.
After reading this, I can very easily see how confusing this article could be. Honestly, he says more than he needs to deal with the issue he is trying to confront (the Egalitarian view of the New Creation). And anytime you do that, you open yourself up to being confusing and ultimately, being misinterpreted.
Still, I recognize that I might be missing something in his article. But, even Walton admits ignorance when it comes to actual application of his idea of some form of Headship in the New Creation. And certainly he is right when he says, "There is so much that we cannot yet know about life in the new creation. We can be confident, though, that 'God must have some very profound eternal purpose for manhood and womanhood.'"
So I said all that to say, Corrie, that I encourage you to take your questions about confusion to Walton and ther other CBMW writers. If you are honestly seeking some clarification, then I don't think they will turn you down. But if you are looking for a fight or to denigrate them, then don't expect a response. I believe some have gone to them like this and found that they will not give up their time to engage those who do not sincerely want to have a two-way conversation.
Finally, to answer your question, "Why is ESS so important to us?" Let me give some history. The idea of the eternal functunal submissiveness and subordination of the Son to the Father, is at least casually Biblical. Certainly we would say that there are passages that teach the obedience of the Son to the Father, but never vice versa. Beyond the scope of this debate, there are many who have espoused this view throughout history in some form, even if it wasn't fully developed.
Those in the CBMW camp used this teaching on the Trinity long ago in explaining how the grounding principle of Egalitarianism (already discussed above) is not legitimate. After all, if Jesus and the Father could both be equal, yet the Son is functionally submissive to the Father, then how could Egalitarians claim that functional submission = inequality among the genders in the eyes of God. Thus, Egalitarians began to critique Complementarians and others concerning this view.
Since the release of Kevin Giles' book and others who claim CBMW is Semi-Arian, there has been a need to defend this view against such charges of heresy. Therefore, it is important in that regard.
However, Complementarianism doesn't rise and fall on this one belief. But, if Egalitarians win this battle and convince the greater population of Evangelicals that Complementarians are heretics, then they can use the ad hominem against them in all other arguments regarding gender-roles. Egalitarians have a great deal staked on this position. And that's what makes this doctrinal discussion more important, emotional, and divisive than it really should be.
Honestly, had the fires of this not been stoked by guys like Wade Burleson, almost no one in the pews would even care. What I worry is that false information and the assertion of false motives will serve to tear the Body of Christ apart. And we certainly all bear responsiblity for that.
I hope all this helps, but sorry for the long comment,
Soli Deo Gloria,
D.R. Randle
I believe in The Father
The Son
& The Holy Spirit
What does that make me .
Cindy,
There is much I would like to deal with in your response. However, first, I am not sure that I should at this point, because I would be going off point. And I really desire to stay on topic. Secondly, my comments were directed at L Gran. Are you one in the same with that person? If so, then my hope is that you will now interact with Gons concerning the charge of potential "Semi-Arianism" and it's legitimacy. If you are not L Gran, then please allow him/her to respond before we have further discussions (sorry, I have not kept up enough to know what gender L Gran is and I don't have time right now to look back at their post in order to determine that).
In the end, let me clearly state that I have no problem with anyone questioning the Biblical legitimacy of another's belief, but I do think that there are times when some commentators have been quite disrespectful to men who have poured their lives out to teach others. My concern, as I have stated is that innuendo and labeling (however unintentional or innocent) end up bringing about unintended consequences in the Body of Christ.
Now, having said that, I would still like for us to engage in an honest discussion on whether it is legitimate for Wade to call what Grudem, Ware, McArthur, and others believe regarding submission in the Trinity Semi-Arianism. Please interact with Gons, Phillips, and others in the articles I posted, if you can.
Hopefully that will steer us into an honest and eternally satisfying discussion on the Trinity.
If you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, what does that make you?
A Trinitarian Monotheist:
Maintains both the idea that each of the Persons are Divine in and of themselves, it is the Trinity together that comprises God. Presumably, each Divine Person is not God in and of themselves.
“Each divine person is in the Unity, yet no person is the one God”
Hilary in On the Trinity 7.2; cf.7.13, 32)
Are you guys mixing Corrie and Cindy up again?
D.R. Randle,
I appreciate deeply that you note here that we as a group of Christians tend to be sleepy and often fail to stand at the ready and discerning in our pews as we listen to instruction. That gives me great hope that we will eventually come together into unity in the knowledge of the truth.
Why does this blog start hopping on a Tuesday when I don't have the opportunity to blog?
I did look at the Gons blog.
One point that Kevin Giles makes regarding this topic is that language is used in a manner that is not true and consistent with common understanding of terms. I think he would agree that those who advocate ESS capitalize on that ambiguity rather than seek to be abundantly clear and perspicacious. Quite a bit of "complementarianism" is driven off the emotional connotation of both terms and definitions. Lifton calls this "loading the language," both by creating specialized terminology that is exclusive and also by tainting definitions or using words in unique and new ways.
Ware is tricky here. I don't believe that ware has ever denied that Christ was of the same substance or essence than God the Father. This is where he definitely differs from Arius because part of his argument involved substance. What Ware does that is unique is to separate out what one might call an executive function of the Trinity through relationship by means of hierarchy and authority as if it had nothing to do with essence. So he tries to have it both ways by claiming that authority and hierarchy have nothing to do with essence and that authority is separate. So Ware therefore claims that he is not violating the concept of "same substance."
Giles argues that you cannot separate out authority from essence. Gons states that Giles arguments are unhelpful and I still disagree. Gons' terminology as others' on this subject play upon semantics and ambiguious word definitions just as Giles points out that Ware does in his book. Gons is missing this, plus he never addresses the point that we do not know implicitly from Scripture at all that Christ was eternally subordinate. He never addresses the issue of ETERNAL submission. That is the crux of the issue -- the evidence either for or against the idea that Jesus, but virtue of authority, was eternally submitted to the Father. To me, Gons is talking about a peripheral issue. Whether it was discussed in that debate at TEDS is immaterial. What people want to call the error is immaterial and distracts from the crux (no pun intended but I'll take it). However you slice it, it changes who Christ is and diminishes His Deity.
Ware says (and something I've seen him argue with Cheryl Schatz via email) is that saying the Father has supreme or ultimate authority and glory, a quality that the Son does not have to the same degree that the Father has. But he will say that you are misquoting him and distorting him if you say that he (Ware) claims that he believes that Jesus (who has non-supreme and non-ultimate authority and glory) has less authority and glory. That is a game and is a subtle, crafty one if you ask me. In common understanding for the reasonable Christian, this means Christ has lesser authority and Ware will accuse you of distorting his teaching for saying so.
These are games of language that sound sophisticated and most people become intimidated. It's a game of power and knowledge as power. I still don't buy it.
I think that what Gons has written here is, essentially, a red herring for said reasons. I respect you if you do not agree with me and I certainly do not mean what I've said as any kind of insult or something meant to demean anyone who disagrees with me. When I go to clean my stove, I often get distracted by the knobs on the stove and will spend an hour cleaning them through overfocus rather than giving the whole stove a general wipe. And my stove is still dirty an hour later. In many ways, I think this is what Gons has done with this blog piece. He's arguing the wrong point, so I am not persuaded by this one. I will look at the others later.
Hi D.R.,
It's me, L's Gran
You said: "I will say this however, in response to the idea that we should pray only to the Father - Never does Jesus instruct us to pray to Him. And never do the Biblical writers pray to Jesus. They always direct their prayers to the Father, in the name of the Son."
You are of a different faith than myself. The forms of praying in my religion have incorporated praying to Jesus directly as being the same as an address to "God". My faith interprets Scripture also in the light of 2000years of Christian tradition.
We then, must be aware that you and I will see the Scriptures differently; one of us from Scriptures as part of a faith Tradition; the other as 'only scripture'.
Very different perspectives.
My interest here is two-fold:
1. I do not want any fundamentalists 'borrowing' from the integrity of my orthodox faith in order to pursue an agenda that is not worthy of ALL Christians (this includes women). Dr. Ware's trinitarian views are NOT orthodox.
2. If Dr. Ware is teaching in a Southern Baptist seminary, WHAT is he teaching? How does it vary from Trinitarian views before the 'hostile take-over'? Why the change? Who authorized this change? I AM concerned for my grandmother's church and I am worried about the direction that the 'leadership' has taken it.
Dr. Ware's writings do not seem to be consistently Christo-centric.
I know that my religion does not believe in any differentiation of positions of AUTHORITY eternally within the Trinity.
We do not confuse the mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption with our doctine of the eternal unity of the Trinity. Have you had any dialogue directly with RC clergy on this? Perhaps they, who are more versed in theological terminology, can explain my point of view to you.
One thing I know: Dr. Ware's views of the Trinity are NOT in sinc with RC views, which are extremely orthodox.
I do not know all that Dr. Ware believes about the Trinity. If you feel that quoting him is a better way for me to look at his views, then please do so.
Thanks for helping. L's Gran
D.R. Randal,
I think that my cat walked on top of my keyboard, and I now see that you did address me specifically. I think I inadvertantly scrolled down beyond your post. (I'll blame it on the cat!)
Some of your comments to Corrie sound applicable to me, and I missed the top half of another post.
I just looked at Benjamin's Article on CBMW, the second article that you posted. Again, I think there's much circumlocution that takes place in that article from a different perspective. Again, I think this all hinges on whether one believes that it is appropriate to pull out the quality of authority from one's essence and consider it separately from all else. Though it might seem like a "role" issue as Ware might define it, Giles argues that it this does tear at Christ's essence.
This boils down to presuppositions and eisegesis that might follow those presuppositions. If you presuppose that Ware's role distinctions (subtitling his book "Roles, Relationships and Relevance") are not a function or related to essence at all, then the particulars in the article about Arianism might be relevant. You can then prove with impunity that these matters don't correspond to Arianism in any way.
But this bypasses Giles point that authority cannot be considered apart from essence. So again, I think this article also bypasses the issue of ETERNAL subordination of Christ and mitigates that with what might have been a function of the kenosis and temporary. No one has been able to demonstrate to me with a degree of credulity that Scripture says that Christ's subordination was limited to and temporarily necessary for the kenosis/incarnation. If you reject the idea that authority can be separated, you can offer these arguments for a lifetime.
So, if you accept Giles thesis, what Benjamin claims is not sound. If you reject Giles thesis, Benjamin has some talking points that I believe skirt the primary issue.
I also think that this article "shows its slip" under that skirt when it assumes that human gender and God's identity are inextricably bound. This presupposition is quite easy to spot in the subtitle of "The EGALITARIAN Ontological Axiom." Why is that in there? Giles says that those who cling to ESS cannot consider God apart from human gender. This section then goes on to frame this out as a "Faustian choice":
To make any distinction between the divine Persons in eternity would be to succumb to either Arianism or tri-theism. If, on the other hand, we make no distinctions between the Persons in eternity, we in effect abandon immanent Trinity and run the risk of conceiving God in eternity as a monad.
I think that this is a completely false assumption. I believe that it is possible to approach the Trinity from either a social trinitarian view "in Eternity" and not end up in tritheism or arianism. If one is grounded in what we do know to be true of Scripture, one can take this approach to begin to make sense of the inscrutable and not fall into error. We can certainly focus on the Divine Three as three and not go as far as Ware or Grudem. Likewise, I believe that as Augustine did, a person can make make sense of the inscrutable with an anti-social trinitarian approach and NOT deny the distinctions of the separate Persons. An anti-social trinitarian can certainly approach the Trinity and still honor the immanent Trinity under the concept and understanding of divine simplicity versus perichoresis. God is inscrutable, but this involves a disagreement over exactly how inscrutable He is. But Benjamin denies that there is a workable balance that one can strike without resorting to ESS -- that an anti-social view can only resort in denying the immanent Trinity. Augustine and Aquinas did just fine, I think, and did not fall into this error.
I could go on about this article, but based on the fact that I reject these presuppositions, my opinion remains unchanged after taking a second look at this article.
Now I'm sleepy and up the stairs to Bedforshire...
Since my laundry is not yet dry and I'm waiting for the infamous buzzer, I thought I'd stick at this for just a bit longer.
There are two more articles listed by D.R.
Egalitarians Revamp the Doctrine of the Trinity.
The premise of this is laughable, because despite what people say, no one taught this before George Knight's book. I've interviewed all sorts of people who were educated in seminaries and from a variety of them. Somewhere, someone would have been taught something remotely similar to ESS in the terms that it is both taught and used today. This is not a traditionally understood doctrine, and I disagree. It differs substantially from the filioque which some argue preceded this doctrine as well.
The latter half of that article and the next concerning historians that supposedly argued ESS in the terms that it is currently taught by Grudem, Ware, et al. Again, I don't agree. I've combed through Berkof, Dabney, Hilary, Augustine and Aquinas since I started trying to evaluate all this. I paid special attention to Dabney and Berkof, but Dabney in particular because of the issues he had with women and slaves. There is no ESS and it certainly is not said to be connected to gender. Though the term of subordination might be used in these texts, in the context of their writings and theories, I deny that they argue ESS at all. The second article you offer here is especially misleading. It makes me think of how you can hunt and peck through the Bible to find proof-texts to support sin or anything you want. In context, I don't believe that this is what was written. Context is key.
This is all very interesting because these last two comments do discuss egalitarianism. I am not an egalitarian, and until about a year or two ago, I never heard anyone teach that women were the indirect image of God, essentially that women are made in man's direct image.
DR,
You state that perhaps these articles will spark a discussion that aids us in better understanding of different views. I think I understand them in the same manner that I did before and am further convinced of my own premise to start with. If you presuppose hierarchy, you will read that hierarchy into everything. I also am saddened that there is so much reliance on what other theologians have said or supposedly said.
I would like someone to spark my understanding by addressing how they definitively explain that Christ was eternally subordinate apart from gender and completely from the Word of God with credulity. I have yet to see it. The Word should not be so complicated as to require that I read this book or that article for an argument when all the arguments should be abundantly clear from Scripture. And I think that it's perfectly acceptable for Joe Q Believer to disagree with a theologian without that meaning that they are repudiating them personally.
Another issue with all of these articles -- they are all more concerned with disproving that the ideas are Arian than they are actually discerning whether they are orthodox. That also bothers me. Are we to be about the business of discerning what Scripture teaches or about how we can pull this theory away from the Arian title. Frankly, I don't care how people classify the doctrine. I want to know how this theory can be defended and supported from Scripture apart from the appeal of authority. I would like to know how this theory can be used to evangelize cultists. I would love to dive into that discussion
L's Gran,
First, let me apologize for not having recognized that you were Catholic. I saw you use the initials R.C., but it passed right over me because I did not expect anyone on this thread to be other than an Evanglical Protestant.
And since you begin with the statement, "You are of a different faith than myself", I will not pursue this futher. You rightly point out that we have vast differences in our views of Scripture, though certainly there are much deeper issues as well.
Since this is true, I believe we cannot have a legitimate discussion of Orthodoxy, given that our definition, in and of itself, is world's apart. Orthodoxy with me begins with the Bible, and thus, we do not have a foundation from which to discuss this.
I will simply say that I disagree with your views of what constitutes Orthodoxy in all of its forms. Sorry again that I began a discussion that we cannot finish.
Cindy,
There is certainly a lot you wrote that I should respond to. However, I think we need to take this one at a time, and I ask you to do the same in your responses. I cannot hope to answer every bit of your three posted responses. I just don't have enough time.
So, let me do a couple of things and let's please stick to these topics for now. We can expand the discussion if need be, but if we are going to go deeper than this, we certainly cannot deal with all these topics at one time.
So two general thoughts.
1) I noticed that a few times, you criticized Gons and later Phillips for not making a full argument for ESS. But you cannot criticize an author for not proving what he or she was not trying to prove. Neither Gons nor Phillips were trying to make a full case for ESS. They were simply answering one criticism made against their views. Therefore, they cannot be criticized for not taking on every criticism. You can only fairly evaluate Gons for the argument he makes, not the one he wasn't trying to make.
So, let's make sure we are dealing explicitly with the nature of the arguments made, and not with issues outside of our central points, which are 1)"Is it a fair criticism to label ESS as Semi-Arianism?" and "Does eternal functional submission (or subordination) necessarily require a distinction in essence, substance, worth, or equality?"
Having said that, let's move on to explore these two questions I just mentioned.
2) You said, "I don't believe that Ware has ever denied that Christ was of the same substance or essence than God the Father. This is where he definitely differs from Arius because part of his argument involved substance."
I am glad to see you say that Ware is not Arian. And that is an important point. Now, let's move on to the question of whether Ware is "Semi-Arian".
First, we must define our terms. The Catholic Encyclopedia has an entire article on it. Here is the Link:
Semiarians and Semiarianism
As you can see from the article, the point of contention in Semi-Arianism was over the terminology homoiousios. While the Arians taught that Jesus was "not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity", the Semi-Arians basically wanted to claim that the Father and Son were alike, but that the Son was not of exactly the same substance. Thus, they claimed He was of the same essence, but not of the same substance, alike, but not the same.
Some claimed this was a legitimate view and all acknowledged that it was different from Arianism, but eventually it was rightly rejected.
Having shared that, let's clarify the issue at hand today.
Ware does not claim either Arian or Semi-Arian views of the essence or substance of the Son being different from the Father. In fact, He is exactly in line with Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and the history of the Church in that regard.
No the question comes down to "What is the function of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in relation to one another?"
Ware and others claim that the Son functions in a subordinate role, meaning He doesn't will, but obeys the will of the Father. The Spirit is obedient to both, as He takes, not of His own initiative, but rather what He is given from the Son and/or Father, and discloses it to us.
So, the issue is function, not essence or substance at all.
Now, Burleson, and almost no one else, seems to want to explain this. When you talk about how Ware is being confusing, you must acknowledge confusion caused by Giles, Groothius, Burleson, and others, when they don't make this distinction of Ware's stated views more explicitly.
Moving on...the actual issue comes down to the presupposition, set forth by Giles, Groothius, and others that claims that one cannot function in a subordinate role and at the same time be equal.
Now, of course, they must acknowledge that at some point Jesus became subordinate to the Father while on Earth. He was submissive to the Father's will and did nothing apart from it.
So even more precisely, the question now becomes, "Is the Son eternally subordinate to the Father, not just while on Earth for a period of time?"
When you get to that point, Giles, Groothuis, and others claim that an eternal subordination, as opposed to a temporary subordination, must imply that there is a denial of equality, and thus a difference in essence or substance between the Father and Son.
This is where I and others disagree. Functioning in a subordinate role does not make one of a different substance, whether it be temporary or permanent.
And both Scripture and common sense make this case. No where in Scripture do you find it taught that one's function makes them unequal or of a different nature. In fact, we see quite the opposite in Jesus' teachings. And even in our society today, we do not actually believe that one who is a servant is in any way unequal to the person they serve in the eyes of God. They are not worth less, nor are they to be regarded as essentially inferior.
Thus, no where, can function be said to imply essence, substance, worth, or equality. Yet this is the outstanding and outrageous claim of Giles and Groothuis.
Additionally, if one believes that function does entail essence, substance, worth, or equality, then would not temporary functional subordination imply a temporary lack of equality? Was Jesus temporarily not of the same substance, essence, worth, and equality of God? Certainly neither you or the CBE is ready to claim that.
So then a temporary functional subordination no more solves the problem than does an eternal functional subordination.
Now, all of that is the first issue that must be dealt with in this debate. For more on this see Jeremy Pierre's article:
Functional Subordination and Eternal Inequality
I hope to dwell here before moving on to exploring other aspects of this issue. I think we cloud the waters when we try to expand the discussion beyond this essential point of argumentation. And since this is the presupposition that Giles, Groothuis, and others build their case again Ware from, it seems appropriate to begin here, at the crux of the matter.
D.R. wrote: This is where I and others disagree. Functioning in a subordinate role does not make one of a different substance, whether it be temporary or permanent.
D.R.
I think this is something I also stated. We share different presuppositions about whether one can separate function from essence. If we have different presuppositions, we can't have much meaningful or fruitful discussion. I thought I made that abundantly clear in several things that I wrote in response to your request that I comment on the four articles that you posted.
That brings up another point that causes me to feel like I'm being pushed into an area of futile discussion or even manipulation. You asked me to review the four articles you posted. I responded to them. You stated two contradictory things in response. First you said that I would have to lend you grace and time to answer all that I've written and could not address all of the specifics that I offered at once. But then you posted additional articles and referenced others that were not previously mentioned by either of us. With the exception of Giles, I don't even believe that the new people you offered were included in any of the articles you posted. How is that respectful to me? Why do I feel like an expert witness on the stand being cross examined by lawyer who is desperately trying to get me to move into a peripheral and ambiguous area of discussion so that I can be easily discredited? (That may not be what you intend, but that is how I feel because of how you've esteemed my comments that also took a sacrifice of time for me to write.) I'd first like to finish discussion of what I did offer before other articles or arguments by more authors are offered here.
You've also brought in additional arguments, "outrageous" ones and such made by others that I did not know I offered here including those of CBE and Groothius. Why is that? I'm not egalitarian. I did mention Giles, and I think before you move on to introduce new topics in this discussion, I respectfully request that you go back to my response that you solicited. I feel as though you've trumped one red herring with several new ones in response.
If one of us believes that the earth is cuboidal and the other believes that the earth is round or a flat plane, the discussion can only be fruitful to a point. We agree that there's an earth, and the physics of the earth's dynamics become largely fruitless if I am unwilling to re-evaluate my presuppositions. With what you offer in response to me, it's clear that we've ventured beyond what our presuppositions will productively allow.
I think that when these other academic matters are introduced into the discussion, the average believer feels quite intimidated and does not know where to begin. If I believe the earth is a cube and you believe the earth is flat, the considerations and important factors in the discussion will be unrelated because the assumptions are so different. They actually become diversion, circumlocution and an attempt to overwhelm with more information. I'm not interested in that kind of discussion.
I think that's why so much of debating ESS that does not involve Scripture often becomes an unfair discussion with a gnostic twist. The ability to understand ESS requires much more than the Inspired Word of God only with the revealing power of the Holy Spirit Who gives us spiritual discernment along with God's sufficient grace. John said that we would know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error without an algorhythm written by a group of academics. But it seems to me that understanding of ESS is dependent upon and limited to intercessory priests who go up into heaven to bring down the knowledge to Joe Q. Believer. That means that God's grace is not sufficient for the layman to discern truth unless he or she has advanced studies in both theology and philosophy. That's not Evangelical Protestantism. That's something akin to Roman Catholicism that exceeds what most Roman Catholics believe about these matters. I think that this is why the priesthood of all believers has been a point of contention within the complementarian camp, not only because women are not to be priests but because of sacerdotalism. The witness of the Spirit and the priesthood of all believers challenges the gnostics who have the higher and inspired understanding that is not common to the common man.
Not to say that academic pursuits have no value and should not be pursued, but if we are looking at the Word of God and what we discern from it with different assumptions, we would be better served to stick only with the Bible as the one thing that the ESS adherents and opposition share. We are also brought together in unity through the Word rather than drawn apart from one another in this matter.
In summary, I don't want to engage in fruitless discussion about fine points that stem from a presupposition that I do not share. I also don't feel like my contributions to the discussion were valued because my points were too time consuming for you to address, yet you had sufficient time to introduce new material for consideration. You've attributed things to me here that I do not believe that are based on your own presuppositions or additional arguments that you automatically and wrongly assume that I share.
I believe strongly that Christ's authority cannot be separated from His essence, and that has nothing to do with Giles or anyone else but I base this upon Scripture alone. I also believe that there are mysteries about the Trinity that I cannot discern while in this moral coil, something that the advocates of ESS challenge and take further than I do, going beyond good hermeneutics into what my spirit bears witness to me as human hubris. (Whether others do not share that conviction is between them and God.) Because your arguments all center on assumptions that I don't share, I don't see the point in discussing this any further.
I thus respectfully decline to pursue this any further because I am also pressed for time, and the witness of the Word in my mind and heart make this seem futile. Your logic has had sparked no Holy Spirit conviction that I am rebelling against truth and seeking error but rather that the assumptions of ESS (social trinitarianism) put man on par with God (by challenging the mysteries of God by the assumption that we can understand them beyond analogy), moving me to deep grief.
I'd rather that you spend precious time praying for me and I for you, then. I think it would be far more fruitful, praying for God to turn both of our hearts into knowledge of the truth like He turns the paths of the rivers.
God bless you with abundant wisdom until we come into the unity of the faith. And through my faith in the precious promises in the Word, I have great, joyful hope that this will eventually be so.
Hi D.R.,
You wrote: "Sorry again that I began a discussion that we cannot finish."
You are most sincerely forgiven. I am sorry about the confusion. Most of the people here know a little about my background and why I blog here: I had a Southern Baptist grandmother whom I loved and who loved me. She is one of my Christian heroes. As a young wife, she served and fed a LOT of people at her own kitchen table during the Depression Era and in years afterward. They could and did come to her home, knowing that they would receive help from her hand. In her memory, I wanted to know what was happening to her Church. It has been very sad for me to find out. I am sorry for your confusion and I take responsibility for causing it.
I do understand. In some better world than this, perhaps we would have been able to understand each other.
Dominus vobiscum,
L's Gran
D.R.
I went back today and reviewed the writings of four theologians in context that are touted to embrace and teach ESS. Not one of them does and they actually argue against it. I pulled out Karl Barth and Augustine again also (not on that list in the fourth article on the CBMW website), and I am only more firmly convinced of what I believed initially. I was reminded of Augustine's warnings and dislike of using the term "person" at all because it gave way to anthropomorphizing God. And though I am not Barthian and am in no way agreeing with the sum total of his works, his cautions about forcing God into our likeness are wise indeed.
I also re-read a section of Moreland and Craig's text on the Trinity again, focusing on functional monotheism versus trinitarian montheism. They have an excellent diagram in that work of a flow chart of possible interpretations of trinitarian monotheism. (I also feature it on the undermuchgrace.com site.) It basically all boils down to the fact that the Divine Three are One, and aspects of that are beyond our human capacity to understand. Putting a universe in a nutshell, God can be Divine in more than one way. God is not a committee with a President, a Vice President and a Speaker of the House that cooperate, or as Federal Vision suggests, that they have a covenant of agreement amongst them. Somehow, beyond my understanding, God the Father can be fully God, yet be separated as He was from the Son when the sins of the world were laid upon Him. How that can be is a mystery, but neither of them was all less fully God that moment than they were when the foundations of the world were laid. And I do not understand it, nor can I explain it other than to say what Moreland and Craig do: in terms of human understanding, there are two ways to be divine -- both separate and together. (I would add at least two ways, as this is all from our limited perspective. We have the mind of Christ but we see through a glass darkly.) It is my opinion that ESS cannot tolerate the ambiguity and the mystery of the glass that separates us from God's perspective. And we will have a better idea of what that is like more fully one glorious day when we are changed see Him and are like Him for we shall know Him as He is.
I am certainly not saying that we do not have any ability to know God, but we can certainly know who and what He is not. And many moons ago when Irenaeus discussed these similar matters in his day, he stressed that the best way to refrain from heresy was to remain rooted and grounded in our Christology. I guess in that respect and as Dr. Freeman notes, this is why so many evangelicals on a functional level amount to what classifies as a Unitarian of the Second Person. I think that this is a much safer perspective.
Consider this quote from Harold Brown's "Heresies":
“The spiritual contrast between these variant views and what we now call orthodoxy lay first of all in the goal that each sought to accomplish:
the heretical positions had in common a desire to understand the mystery of God;
the orthodox sought to preserve the salvation Christians find in Christ.”
(pg 150)
When I approach this matter, I seek only to know what the Word says about God so that I might be obedient to the Word of God. And as His creature that knows (because the Word tells us) that my perspective is limited and that I do not "see Him as He is." I rejoice in my limited station and give all laud and honor and glory to God for His magnificent greatness.
But this modern twist that has now been referred to as ESS has a troubling interest that follows it everywhere, a motive that seems to me and many others to compete with a purity of desire to understand who God is (and that can only be on God's terms). That motive is subordination of women, and for some other believers in both the past and present of our own nation, that also means subordination of those of different creed/ethinicities. Just as Stan Gundry has said in his testimony, the same arguments that are now used to define women are the very same arguments that were used to support slavery in the US.
In terms of what Harold Brown writes, the motive of CBMW and cadres might seek to understand the mysteries of God, but it has the additional haunting motive of gender hierarchy to add to that seeking of unscrewing the inscrutable. And many believe, because the gender motive always seems to come popping back up, that this desire to know mystery and in some way be like God in that respect, that the ESS evangelists limit the salvation that some Christians find in Christ. Many limit it for the non-reformed and many limit it for women.
So again D.R., it's not that I have not glibly adopted someone else's view. I've searched the Word of God, and I've read a host of writings on the subject by men (and women ;o)) who are far greater than I am so that I might understand the truth. The more ESS I read, the more firmly convinced I am of my current understanding of the Trinity. Because of my presuppositions (a matter of faith, conviction and the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart), the ESS arguments do not prove remotely logical or Biblically sound to me.
The other thing that bothers me about all of the writing and the audio in support of ESS, I have yet to note the teachers direction of students or listeners to the foundations of what we do know about the Trinity. If I were to recommend two helpful texts other than the Word, I would recommend Moreland and Craig's "Philosophical Basis for a Christian Worldview" and Brown's "Heresies." Why? They have no motive other than to understand the Trinity. One does not need Giles or Groothius at all. But the ESS evangelists to not direct us to a traditional, broad understanding of these matters through foundational works that help one understand the Trinity for the sake of a faithful understanding. That process inspires critical thought. They redirect their audience to Grudem, Ware and the CBMW website, and they offer unfaithful summaries of other theologians. What is the best text to read to understand ESS? It's Knight and Grudem, not Berkof or Augustine or even Calvin. Why?
So again, I wanted you to know that out of respect for you, I did search out some of these things again at the expense of my time which I really did not have to expend. And this is what I conclude. I hope you understand that I am not willing to consider the truth, I'm just not willing to waste any more time in an exchange where frankly, I feel like I'm given homework for not agreeing with you.
What I might like to do at some point would be to discuss Moreland and Craig or perhaps Harold Brown's book. (BTW, I think that they are all Reformed.)
I am blessed to see the good character that you possess through your devotion to your cause and those whom you love in your search to know the truth. That is commendable, speaking highly of your love and your tenacity. But in a choice between my own conviction of the Word and Spirit, and your reiteration of ESS, I'm going with the Word and the conviction of the Spirit.
I guess in that respect and as Dr. Freeman notes, this is why so many evangelicals on a functional level amount to what classifies as a Unitarian of the Second Person. I think that this is a much safer perspective.
Clarification:
Unitarian of the Second Person is safer in that it is at least rooted in what we do know -- the Scriptural account of Jesus Christ. That is not speculative. In agreement with Moreland and Craig, I would say that the best alternative is trinitarian monotheism which understands that there are 3 Gods (not 4 where the unity of the Trinity counts as like unto a 4th God), and each Person of the Godhead is not diminished in Deity when They are apart from the Group of Three. That is to say that there are two ways for the Persons to be divine. They are fully Divine when considered apart from one another (such as for the kenosis, etc.) and when they are considered in unity of time and space.
That is to say that I do not think that Unitarianism of the Second Person is the BEST alternative. (Just to be perfectly clear.)
(Consider also that we cannot comprehend what it truly is to be unlimited by the confines of time and space, so all this whole discussion might actually be like three year olds trying to comprehend linear regression curves and the physics of subatomic particles.)
And I hate to be dense, but I keep noting the use of "CR" here.
I think of
"Christian Reconstruction"
"Christian Right"
or
"counter-revolutionary"
I suspect that it has an altogether different meaning.
Any thoughts?
CR?
How about 'Christ Rejected"
How about 'Caged Rage'
How about 'Casting Rocks"
"And many believe, because the gender motive always seems to come popping back up, that this desire to know mystery and in some way be like God in that respect, that the ESS evangelists limit the salvation that some Christians find in Christ."
Exactly right, Cindy. You hit the nail on the head.
I also like your suggestion that if DR wants to only link to humans to make his points, then it should be humans who have no gender agenda...but just understanding the Trinity. And that would include Giles even though his point was to take the hierarchical gender roles out of the Trinity discussion.
My point is that it lessens Jesus Christ. There is no way around that no matter how much they want to insist it doesn't. And you are right to point out that you could not witness to JW's about 'their' Jesus.
Joe said:
Duke is a liberal theological school. I assume, therefore, that this guy is also liberal. Perhaps that is "guilty by association" but I'm comfortable with that.
Wow. Wasn't that what the Pharisees did to Jesus? "He hangs with tax collectors and sinners!"
Joe, I'm a recent Duke grad. I grew up Southern Baptist but am an evangelical United Methodist. Duke can NOT be called a "liberal" school. Duke certainly has a few profs who might be old-school liberals, but the vast majority are committed to a robust orthodoxy.
Get your facts straight, my friend.
This is a very old thread. I just wanted to add a quick comment, I wrote a post about this topic a while ago: Wayne Grudem and heresy. The post addresses the creeds and the language argument
Post a Comment