I suppose we could call this particular post "Round 2" from Enid, Oklahoma pastor, Wade Burleson's outlandish charge that many Southern Baptist theologians are teaching theological heresy by embracing an historic and fully orthodox understanding of the inter-personal relations between the Divine Persons within the Holy Trinity.
The issue specifically pertains to whether the eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father is acceptable orthodoxy.
Most recently, Burleson apparently discovered the charges several evangelical-feminist theologians have leveled against conservatives, accusing them of resurrecting the old fourth century heresy of the Arians. They have branded this an entirely "new" and "novel" way of looking at the Trinity.
I challenged Burleson to respond to several theologians I cited that questioned his accusation that Southern Baptists are teaching this "new" way to understand the Triune God, not to mention explicitly calling it heresy. Among the citations were James P. Boyce, John L. Dagg, and E. Y. Mullins, arguably Southern Baptists most influential theologians to this very day. Burleson did not even acknowledge the citations, much less engage them. Instead, he continued down the rabbit hole deeper and deeper still.
Today, he emerged from Wonderland, not as Alice but as the Cheshire cat, smiling from ear to ear. He got himself a supporter. Seems that Dr. Curtis Freeman, a research professor at Duke University, wrote Wade, encouraging him to stand strong against all the "Unitarians" in the SBC. You can read it here.
Below is a brief response from Professor Malcolm Yarnell III, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I think every Southern Baptist needs to digest this response.
Dear Peter,
Thank you for directing me to read the email of the esteemed Duke Divinity School theologian, Dr. Curtis Freeman, and his two accusations that (1) "most Baptists these days are, and for some time have been, functional Unitarians," and (2) the doctrine of the "eternal subordination of the Son" is an innovation prompted by modern concerns to defend traditional complementarianism. Please allow me to respond in a short but twofold manner to Dr. Freeman's contentions. (I have not read with care the many comments that prompted Dr. Freeman, and therefore will refrain from dipping too far into that context.)
First, most Baptists are not functional Unitarians, as Dr. Freeman contends, but Christological Trinitarians. Yes, we do focus upon Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, but we have good New Testament foundations for such. One thinks here of the Gospel of John, for instance, where the Holy Spirit is sent in order to draw the apostles and through them the church to remember the teachings of God's Son, Jesus Christ.
Moreover, notice that the Father and the Son are glorified by one another and that the Spirit is sent to glorify the Son. While we ourselves certainly recognize and glorify the Father and the Spirit as God, we merely follow the actions of the Father and the Spirit in focusing our acts of glorification upon the Son, for He is the sole mediator between God and man. Our access to God is through the humanity of the High Priest, Jesus Christ, and that mediation through His incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, continuing intercession, and expected return is significant enough that the New Testament makes it the central theme of its teaching.
We have good reason to be Christological Trinitarians as free churchmen, for our standard is the Bible. Now, if one were to take Dr. Freeman's phenomenological approach in the evaluation of Baptist churches and apply it to the New Testament, perhaps we could pin the blame for Baptist Christocentrism on the central text of Baptist worship. I will let you drive home the potential implications of such a methodology.
Moreover, notice that the Father and the Son are glorified by one another and that the Spirit is sent to glorify the Son. While we ourselves certainly recognize and glorify the Father and the Spirit as God, we merely follow the actions of the Father and the Spirit in focusing our acts of glorification upon the Son, for He is the sole mediator between God and man. Our access to God is through the humanity of the High Priest, Jesus Christ, and that mediation through His incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, continuing intercession, and expected return is significant enough that the New Testament makes it the central theme of its teaching.
We have good reason to be Christological Trinitarians as free churchmen, for our standard is the Bible. Now, if one were to take Dr. Freeman's phenomenological approach in the evaluation of Baptist churches and apply it to the New Testament, perhaps we could pin the blame for Baptist Christocentrism on the central text of Baptist worship. I will let you drive home the potential implications of such a methodology.
Second, regarding the problem of innovations in doctrines of the Trinity, it should be recognized that a proper doctrine of the Trinity may not separate the ontological Trinity (who God is) from the economic Trinity (what God does).
Moreover, from the standpoint of revelation, the functioning of the Trinity points us to the essence of the Trinity. As Karl Rahner so eloquently noted, we know who God is by what He does. Indeed, this is the primary way that Augustine's doctrine of double procession may be defended as a legitimate doctrinal development, a development that has been affirmed by the vast majority of Western Christians.
At the core of Trinitarian theologies, both East and West, is the belief in the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, on the one hand, and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, on the other hand. This last statement is significant, for it indicates that from the perspective of eternity, the Father is the source of the Trinity, both with regard to the Son and the Spirit.
Moreover, from the standpoint of revelation, the functioning of the Trinity points us to the essence of the Trinity. As Karl Rahner so eloquently noted, we know who God is by what He does. Indeed, this is the primary way that Augustine's doctrine of double procession may be defended as a legitimate doctrinal development, a development that has been affirmed by the vast majority of Western Christians.
At the core of Trinitarian theologies, both East and West, is the belief in the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, on the one hand, and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, on the other hand. This last statement is significant, for it indicates that from the perspective of eternity, the Father is the source of the Trinity, both with regard to the Son and the Spirit.
Now, whether one uses the noun "subordination" to describe this eternal relationship of the divine Persons is not as important as the fact that there is a set of ordered relations between the divine Persons, something affirmed quite clearly in the Quicumque Vult, a creed that carries as much historical veneration as the Nicene Creed. This problem of how exactly to describe the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Spirit from the Father (and the Son) has been with theologians since at least Origen, the first systematic theologian.
This fact undoes the contention of Dr. Freeman that recent attempts to understand the relational structure of the Trinity are innovative, for such attempts have been with Christianity from very early days indeed, as the accusation of semi-Arianism itself implies. And need we remind ourselves that Origen preceded Arius and was the focal point for study by both orthodox and heretic, and that thus the contradictory accusations of semi-Arianism and innovation do not carry to the one who first introduced the idea of subordination in the eternal relations?
Moreover, you Peter cited James P. Boyce, John L. Dagg and E.Y. Mullins, three Baptist theologians who most certainly preceded any concerns for defending traditional complementarianism with traditional Trinitarianism.
They spoke of subordination and were certainly not motivated in their words by defending biblical views of the husband-wife relationship against the acids of egalitarianism. Are these Baptist giants, too, guilty of innovation? The accusation of innovation in the idea of eternal subordination only muddles the conversation here and should be rejected as a rhetorical tactic.
This fact undoes the contention of Dr. Freeman that recent attempts to understand the relational structure of the Trinity are innovative, for such attempts have been with Christianity from very early days indeed, as the accusation of semi-Arianism itself implies. And need we remind ourselves that Origen preceded Arius and was the focal point for study by both orthodox and heretic, and that thus the contradictory accusations of semi-Arianism and innovation do not carry to the one who first introduced the idea of subordination in the eternal relations?
Moreover, you Peter cited James P. Boyce, John L. Dagg and E.Y. Mullins, three Baptist theologians who most certainly preceded any concerns for defending traditional complementarianism with traditional Trinitarianism.
They spoke of subordination and were certainly not motivated in their words by defending biblical views of the husband-wife relationship against the acids of egalitarianism. Are these Baptist giants, too, guilty of innovation? The accusation of innovation in the idea of eternal subordination only muddles the conversation here and should be rejected as a rhetorical tactic.
Whatever one thinks of post-Nicene and pre-Nicene attempts to describe the relationship of the Son to the Father, the truly modern innovation may not lay with the various descriptions of that relationship (some of which are deficient, others of which are sublime).
The true source of innovation may be with the social Trinitarianism that is all the vogue in many avant-garde academies. Social Trinitarianism has been popularized by, among others, Jurgen Moltmann and his student, Miroslav Volf, whom our esteemed friend mentioned as a theological arbiter. The impulses of Moltmann and Volf strike me as at their base partially proper (the promotion of human respect) but in their execution woefully deficient. Freeman says Volf may warn against social Trinitarianism, but that very system undergirds the structure of Volf's own thoughts, both with regard to the Trinity and with regard to the theology of the free churches, specifically his ruminations about John Smyth.
In other words, Volf is not to be entrusted with the keys to the kingdom of Trinitarian orthodoxy nor the keys to the kingdom of free church orthodoxy, in spite of his brilliant work in the former realm.
Rather, we must be on guard against the innovations that come from social Trinitarianism, which is a theological support for egalitarianism, and unfortunately progresses toward not only social confusion but also tritheism, the worship of three separate Gods. We must be careful to avoid treating the three Persons of the Trinity as somehow indistinct in their relations, for that will lead us to an error that is just as rank as Arianism or Unitarianism, the error of Tritheism. Unfortunately, the error of Tritheism seems to be the underlying tendency of much of today's theology for it fits perfectly with our post-modern and increasingly pagan egalitarian culture.
The true source of innovation may be with the social Trinitarianism that is all the vogue in many avant-garde academies. Social Trinitarianism has been popularized by, among others, Jurgen Moltmann and his student, Miroslav Volf, whom our esteemed friend mentioned as a theological arbiter. The impulses of Moltmann and Volf strike me as at their base partially proper (the promotion of human respect) but in their execution woefully deficient. Freeman says Volf may warn against social Trinitarianism, but that very system undergirds the structure of Volf's own thoughts, both with regard to the Trinity and with regard to the theology of the free churches, specifically his ruminations about John Smyth.
In other words, Volf is not to be entrusted with the keys to the kingdom of Trinitarian orthodoxy nor the keys to the kingdom of free church orthodoxy, in spite of his brilliant work in the former realm.
Rather, we must be on guard against the innovations that come from social Trinitarianism, which is a theological support for egalitarianism, and unfortunately progresses toward not only social confusion but also tritheism, the worship of three separate Gods. We must be careful to avoid treating the three Persons of the Trinity as somehow indistinct in their relations, for that will lead us to an error that is just as rank as Arianism or Unitarianism, the error of Tritheism. Unfortunately, the error of Tritheism seems to be the underlying tendency of much of today's theology for it fits perfectly with our post-modern and increasingly pagan egalitarian culture.
Thank you for the opportunity to converse with you on these important topics, my friend. If you have opportunity to converse with Dr. Freeman directly, please let him know that I have long admired his ministry and do hope he will be careful in his interactions with blogdom, a truly egalitarian means of communication if there ever was one.
Finally, I do hope you enjoy being with Dr. Vines, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Allen and Dr. Lemke at the upcoming John 3:16 Conference. I imagine they will talk quite a bit about Jesus there. Do you think they will be concerned about accusations that they are Unitarian when they exhort people to believe in Jesus?
Finally, I do hope you enjoy being with Dr. Vines, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Allen and Dr. Lemke at the upcoming John 3:16 Conference. I imagine they will talk quite a bit about Jesus there. Do you think they will be concerned about accusations that they are Unitarian when they exhort people to believe in Jesus?
In Christ,
Malcolm B. Yarnell III
Duke Divinity School alum
Thank you, Dr. Yarnell. With that, I am...
Peter
Thank you, Dr. Yarnell. With that, I am...
Peter
Thank you Dr. Yarnell for an excellent response.
Posted by: Byron | 2008.10.10 at 10:39 AM
I agree with Yarnell that the New Testament provides a good basis to be Christological Trinitarians.
The Son reveals the Father and the Spirit glorifies the Son. The Son is also revealed to be what the Old Testament pointed forward to in the New Testament.
Posted by: Benji Ramsaur | 2008.10.10 at 11:11 AM
Thanks, both Byron & Benji, for the comment.
Honestly, I am unsure where this strange assault of silliness is going. It appears that Enid's sights are so locked in on making somebody, somewhere in SBC employment look bad that all hope for reason is lost.
What's in my mind presently stays--"Get thee behind me, Satan!"
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.10.10 at 11:22 AM
As with all attacks, they simply expose the attacker's true self. Thanks for the post Peter.
Posted by: Chris | 2008.10.10 at 01:05 PM
Peter,
Thanks for posting this response. I too am greatly surprised that more people are not concerned or outraged about the charge that "most Baptists" are Unitarian heretics.
Maybe I will see you at the J316C.
Posted by: Joe White | 2008.10.10 at 01:50 PM
Well said Dr. yarnell.. thanks for posting this Peter.
Steve
Posted by: Steve | 2008.10.10 at 03:30 PM
Peter,
Excellent contribution by Dr. Yarnell!
What is so sad is to see so many twist Scripture, and the Godhead Himself, solely for the purpose to legitimize egalitarianism. I may be wrong, but I am beginning to believe that this is what all the attacks the past couple of years have really been about all along. They lost on the BFM2000 and have been at war ever since.
I am not surprised that the Enid crowd is not upset at the absurd statement about Southern Baptists being functioning Unitarians. That crowd has such unmitigated bias and hatred towards anything SBC, that they will buy into anything that attacks the SBC no matter the accuracy or the source. I have yet to see anyone let facts get in the way of their disdain.
Thanks again for attempting to take up the mantle of reasoned debate, even though Enid will not engage you in any discussion of the theologians you cite. It is obvious why, but the crowd there will continue to fawn all over Wade at his waxing eloquence and what a great service he is providing in his attacks on the SBC. Yet all the while we hear nothing but silence regarding sound arguments that thrust a dagger into the very heart of his manufactured heresies.
Keep up the good fight of faith!
Blessings,
Ron P.
Posted by: Ron P. | 2008.10.10 at 07:54 PM
Ron: This debate is not to give credence to egalitarianism but to raise the Godhead to the status that they are. Not subordinating them thus bringing Christ and the Holy Spirit to a lower level. I do not believe that this is what those who hold to eternal subordination mean to do, but that is exactly what it does.
And if you will look at the Gender websites you will see that this is the very argument used to promote complimentarianism or hierarchy, so I find your statement to be a little misplaced.
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2008.10.10 at 09:14 PM
Debbie,
You are making a false assumption. Whether or not it is your intention, you are insisting that the reason someone holds to that view of the Godhead is preceded by a belief regarding complementarianism. Might not the opposite be true? I would argue that it is the egalitarianism "tail" wagging the theological "dog" not the other way around.
Peter's multiple citations of theologians that clearly refute such false assumptions have yet to be answered. The "heretical" house of cards foisted upon Southern Baptists is without any foundation historically or theologically. Bombastic assaults upon Southern Baptists have clearly been egalitarian based theology that is relatively new to Christendom.
Finally, the gender websites and gender issues do not drive my understanding of the Godhead. I know of no complementarian where that would be true. Rather it is Scripture that gives understanding of God. Sola Scriptura!
Blessings,
Ron P.
Posted by: Ron P. | 2008.10.10 at 10:18 PM
Ron
Thanks, brother, for the meaningful, cordial engagement. To suggest as does Debbie, along with others, that this entire "concern"--specifically in its present form in the SBC--is a sober, well-thought out apologetical necessity to defend Classic Trinitarianism is driven either by sincere bias or ignorance, insincere desire to cover over the broader issue, or outright dishonesty. Of course, giving our Debbie the benefit of a doubt, we will choose to eliminate the latter two.
Not one argument expressing "concern" for the Oneness of God which Wade Burleson has made known about this "new, novel heresy" has been severed from the broader gender issue which insists vehemently for an uncompromisable egalitarianism. Not one.
If the concern was specifically over God's triune nature, we could anticipate the focus, for the most part, would remain with the subject of God's triune nature.
Instead, what we find, as is the case in much of the dissent with the SBC, God's triune nature appears very much to get exploited to "prove" gender equality with functional inequity--which is the well-worn bumper sticker of biblical complementarianism--is a hoax.
Imagine it for a moment: Using God--whether consciously or unconsciously, sincerely or insincerely, intentionally or unintentionally all beside the point--to make a statement.
Maranatha. Come Lord Jesus. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.10.11 at 04:29 AM
I am glad some heavyweight theologians are beginning to wade in on this. I do not believe Wade is lying, but he is dead wrong on this one. His view of the Trinity is the innovation - a departure from standard trinitarian doctrine through the years.
I think that so many people are so disgusted with Wade that they refuse to engage him on this one. I think his false teaching on this issue needs to be addressed by scholars and from the Word.
Posted by: Dave Miller | 2008.10.11 at 08:26 AM
Peter, Dave, and Ron,
I agree with yall. Yall have said all that I was thinking and more. This is getting crazy.
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2008.10.11 at 09:42 AM
Let me ask you gentlemen this. When we pray do we pray just to the Father? Do we pray to Christ or even the Holy Spirit?
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2008.10.11 at 11:41 AM
Debbie, the pattern for prayer in the NT is that it is directed to Father in the name of the Son, with the Holy Spirit guiding us.
Demonstrate a prayer that was directed to Jesus by name, or to the Spirit.
do a little historical research on this one and you will find that Eternal Subordination has been the orthodox position throughout church history and Wade's position is an innovation.
Facts are facts.
Posted by: Dave Miller | 2008.10.11 at 12:09 PM
Acts 7:59, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." "Lord do not hold this sin against them."
John 12:12-14: "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name and I will do it."
I could go on but will start here.
The Nicene creed clearly demonstrates that this being new is not true. It is why they spent so much time on Christ's divinity. There are other creeds that would say differently. Two of which I have already posted on Tim Guthrie's blog on this same subject Dave.
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2008.10.11 at 01:14 PM
Debbie,
Your reference is wrong. It is John 14, not John 12, and it is a textual variant. Manuscripts leave out the "me" and just say, "ask in my name."
The Acts 7 passage is hardly definitive. Stephen calls out to Jesus in his pain. He then asks "the Lord" (not a clear reference to either Father or Son - could be either) to forgive.
However, the Lord's prayer is clear. "Our Father."
The doctrine of the church since the earliest formulations of the trinitarian doctrine has been that the Father and Son are co-equal in essence, but different in office (or role). The Son proceeds from the Father and Spirit proceeds from the Father through Jesus.
You can deny history, but you cannot change it.
Posted by: Dave Miller | 2008.10.11 at 02:56 PM
Dave: Yes it is John 14, which just shows my imperfection in typing.
You can deny history, but you cannot change it.
And I could and do say the same for you. It can also be rewritten to portray what it is not. I believe strongly that is what has been done by those who believe in eternal subordination. Christ is not now 100% man and 100% God. He is God. Period David. I could give more scripture but then you would explain it away as well.
The part to look at is this in John 14
..."You may ask me for anything in my name and I will do it."
Acts 7 says what it says. Stephen cried out to Christ. Was it in pain? Was it because he saw Christ? The passage doesn't say so that would be guessing on your part. It doesn't matter, he prayed to Christ. We can pray to Christ. We can pray to the Holy Spirit. All are God. Three in One.
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2008.10.11 at 04:47 PM
Debbie:
Why are you so bound and determined to remind us of Christ's deity when that is not even disputed? I understand your view holds no distinction between functional and essential subordination, but until you prove that to be the case with evidence and reasoning, asserting we deny something we do not is simply not helpful.
I am sorry, because I do not mean this in a rude tone. But if you are going to argue your position, argue at the point of disagreement which is whether or not there is a distinction between functional and essential subordination, not whether or not Christ is God, which is not even a point of dispute. Treating us as if we do not believe this (we do!), is less helpful than pointing out (in your view) ourtheological inconsistency or inaccuracy in the operation of Deity. Thanks!
Posted by: Byron | 2008.10.11 at 05:18 PM
Bryon: I believe I have shown it.
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2008.10.11 at 06:44 PM
You can say all day long that Christ, the Holy Spirit and God are equal yet have different roles, and Christ, the Holy Spirit are eternally subordinate to God the Father "in deed" and it just doesn't wash. It makes Christ and the Holy Spirit less than equal.
It's the same as telling me that we are equal but I cannot do many things without your ok or to do you will. That's just another way of saying I am in a lesser position without actually coming out and saying it.
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2008.10.11 at 07:27 PM
Debbie:
Will you simply acknowledge that those who disagree with you also believe in the deity of Christ, that all three persons of the Godhead form one God? It would be more helpful if you would say, yes, you believe in the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit just as much as God the Father, but I believe your theological position X (i.e., where X is the subject of concern here) is at worst unfounded and at best inconsistent with that belief? If you are willing to at least acknowledge this, I believe more people will be willing to have a conversation with you. It's OK to be certain, but it's not helpful to focus on a point where there is no disagreement (at least not, intentionally, if you happen to be right). Can you see this?
I am not knowledgeable enough to have this conversation with you, by the way. I am simply pointing out things from my perspective. Personally, I believe your pastor is pursuing somewhat of a wild tangent. But I'll keep as open of a mind as I can on the issue while reading and learning.
Posted by: Byron | 2008.10.11 at 10:49 PM
Byron: Do you want a Diplomatic answer, or what I really think. Because if you want a Diplomatic answer, that I cannot give. To be honest, I am still overcoming surprise at Dave's answer to my question of who we should pray to. I am surprised, because what I am telling you now is what I have always believed, even when I was growing up in a Fundamentalist church.
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2008.10.12 at 02:11 AM
Debbie: With all due respect, I am not asking for a diplomatic answer, or for what you really think. All I am asking for is an acknowledgement that someone can be truthful and perhaps even most likely is when he or she says yes, I believe in the Trinity and that there is one God, however imperfectly he or she may understand the theological relationships involved. I believe this for example, that no matter what else may be involved, Christ is not less or separate from being God in all His fullness. If you are unwilling to do that, then you are unwilling to take Christians at their word or accept their testimony.
Posted by: Byron | 2008.10.12 at 10:27 AM
Well, I am going to retire myself from this discussion. Good day, everyone.
Posted by: Byron | 2008.10.12 at 10:29 AM
Byron: I am not trying to be mean or contrary here, believe me.I am actually heartbroken, because whether it is meant to or not, Christ and the Holy Spirit are being portrayed as less than they are through this doctrine. That is dangerous.
I agree that the Trinity need not be fully understood but it may be better to not explain them at all, saying that it is beyond our human understanding, than to go in this direction. I have never said this about any other doctrine we have discussed these past few years, but this is Christ. I cannot agree to disagree on this.
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2008.10.12 at 11:34 AM
Debbie, you said:
"I agree that the Trinity need not be fully understood but it may be better to not explain them at all, saying that it is beyond our human understanding, than to go in this direction."
You may be right. Thanks for acknowledging the first part. Of course, as Christians, it is not permissible to deny the Trinity or that God is one God. There is no disagreement there, I think. God Bless you (and all Christians) on the Lord's Day.
Posted by: Byron | 2008.10.12 at 12:43 PM
Peter,
Question: If there is no such thing as functional subordination, thus making subordination a heresy and egalitarinism the truth, The sould not we envolve the debate down to equality with our children too? I mean if we are using logic and reason here it seem to me that this would be the logical continuation. (Oh yes that is why our schools are in the mess, we let the children rule with equality.) Correct me if I take reason and logic too far.
Posted by: Chris | 2008.10.12 at 06:34 PM
I wish we could separate the discussion of the Trinity from its theoretical extensions to humanity. Egalitarianism amongst the Trinity doesn't endanger male/female complementarianism.
I think those pushing female subordination because of Christ's eternal subordination are wrong to do so. I think those pushing male/female egalitarianism because of Trinitarian egalitarianism are wrong to do so.
I think we should treat both subjects separately. It is interesting that both sides are claiming the weight of Christian history on their side.
For myself, I think the corpus of scripture presents a picture of Christ's earthly subordination, but not His eternal subordination. I don't believe this is in any way inconsistent with my also being a complementarian (although admittedly a softer complementarian than many in the SBC would be happy with).
I strongly disagree that Southern Baptists are too Christocentric. If anything, many modern evangelical churches are not Christocentric enough.
Posted by: Bill | 2008.10.12 at 07:05 PM
Exactly Bill. May I also add that I believe that Christ's earthly submission was more a picture of the Human/God relationship and not earthly relationships.
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2008.10.12 at 10:10 PM
All,
Thanks for the engagement, even if, at times, a bit rough.
I'm inclined to think with Bill that the two issues--gender complementarianism on the one hand and divine subordination on the other--are best engaged separately. I do remain open to the analogy since I have not considered it deeply before.
Even so, supposing that complementarians' point of an analogous nature between the two is not well taken, it does not follow, as egalitarians seem to suggest, that eternal functional subordination of the Son is spurious.
Additionally, as Chris brings up in a question, egalitarians have not been innocent in making their own analogies that, from my standpoint, are even less convincing than complementarians. For example, Stanley Grenz apparently believes the Father receives His deity from the Son, according to one source I read. I want later to follow up on that.
Nor is it acceptable that both sides are "claiming the weight of Christian history on their side" as Bill suggests While it may be true that both claim, the problem is, both cannot deliver the goods. Some of us have listed a hefty group of eminent theologians that weigh against egalitarian claims that eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father is not only not new, it has been the dominate teaching of the church, all of which is completely ignored by popular egalitarians like Wade Burleson.
On the other hand, egalitarians have not offered one theologian/scholar, apart from arguments the scholars at the Council on Biblical Equality--the Egalitarian think tank--promotes. Both sides may claim what they wish; however, it's delivering the groceries that matters.
In addition, there are egalitarian scholars who reject the arguments against complementarians; that is, they are proponents of eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. One example is Craig Keener. His view may be found in a paper entitled "Is Subordination in the Trinity Really Heresy?" (Trinity Journal, 20:1, Spring 1999).
Keener's irenic conclusion is worthy of quote:
If the Son’s subordination to the Father teaches us nothing else, may we learn from it to value the Father’s honor and submit to his will. And if the Son’s unity with the Father teaches us nothing else, may we learn from it how our unity with one another is essential to honoring him (John 17:21-23)."
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.10.13 at 07:43 AM
Peter,
"At the core of Trinitarian theologies, both East and West, is the belief in the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, on the one hand, and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, on the other hand. This last statement is significant, for it indicates that from the perspective of eternity, the Father is the source of the Trinity, both with regard to the Son and the Spirit."
This really seems to be at odds with the Nicene Creed.
Here
To quote Spurgeon...
" So here we have "begotten of the Father before all times, before all ages." Arius was fond of saying, "The Logos is not eternal. God begat him, and before he was begotten, he did not exist." The Athanasians replied that the begetting of the Logos was not an event in time, but an eternal relationship.
* God from God, Light from Light,
A favorite analogy of the Athanasians was the following: Light is continuously streaming forth from the sun. (In those days, it was generally assumed that light was instantaneous, so that there was no delay at all between the time that a ray of light left the sun and the time it struck the earth.) The rays of light are derived from the sun, and not vice versa. But it is not the case that first the sun existed and afterwards the Light. It is possible to imagine that the sun has always existed, and always emitted light. The Light, then, is derived from the sun, but the Light and the sun exist simultaneously throughout eternity. They are co-eternal. Just so, the Son exists because the Father exists, but there was never a time before the Father produced the Son. The analogy is further appropriate because we can know the sun only through the rays of light that it emits. To see the sunlight is to see the sun. Just so, Jesus says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)
* true God from true God,
* begotten, not made,
This line was inserted by way of repudiating Arius' teaching that the Son was the first thing that the Father created, and that to say that the Father begets the Son is simply another way of saying that the Father has created the Son.
Arius said that if the Father has begotten the Son, then the Son must be inferior to the Father, as a prince is inferior to a king. Athanasius replied that a son is precisely the same sort of being as his father, and that the only son of a king is destined himself to be a king. It is true that an earthly son is younger than his father, and that there is a time when he is not yet what he will be. But God is not in time. Time, like distance, is a relation between physical events, and has meaning only in the context of the physical universe. When we say that the Son is begotten of the Father, we do not refer to an event in the remote past, but to an eternal and timeless relation between the Persons of the Godhead. Thus, while we say of an earthly prince that he may some day hope to become what his father is now, we say of God the Son that He is eternally what God the Father is eternally.
* of one being with the Father."
Is the Dr. saying that Spurgeon got it wrong?
Posted by: Ezekiel | 2008.10.16 at 10:46 PM
Dear Ezekiel,
I am unsure if the "Dr" thinks Spurgeon got it wrong from the quote offered. Know, however, my guess is, whether or not Dr. Yarnell agrees with Spurgeon on that point, he undoubtedly disagrees with him at other junctures. As a capable theologian in his own right, does he not receive from us the privilege of doing such?
Moreover, Ezekiel, that you read Dr. Yarnell correctly is questionable. Whatever he meant by his statement, I am confident he neither meant nor implied that there was a time when the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was not.
Finally, as Baptists we are not under compulsion to adhere to The Nicene Creed, though obviously we have not rejected it outright either, generally accepting it as an historic, reputable document of the Christian Church.
Hope this helps. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.10.17 at 09:46 AM
Peter,
I am unsure if the "Dr" thinks Spurgeon got it wrong from the quote offered. Know, however, my guess is, whether or not Dr. Yarnell agrees with Spurgeon on that point, he undoubtedly disagrees with him at other junctures. As a capable theologian in his own right, does he not receive from us the privilege of doing such?
Certainly so and to a degree do not all of us have the same privilege? The real question though may be "how far is he or we allowed to go with that right"? At what point does his privilege to disagree start to divide the church? Shouldn't measures be taken to stop the disagreement before it destroys the church? That is apparently what happened in Acts 15 and with the Nicene Crede.
Moreover, Ezekiel, that you read Dr. Yarnell correctly is questionable. Whatever he meant by his statement, I am confident he neither meant nor implied that there was a time when the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was not.
Fair enough, but using the same sort of thought process as above, don't I have the privilege to read it the way I want to? If you are free to make the assumption that he neither meant nor implied, can't I make the assumption that he did mean or did imply?
Finally, as Baptists we are not under compulsion to adhere to The Nicene Creed, though obviously we have not rejected it outright either, generally accepting it as an historic, reputable document of the Christian Church.
Not being an authority on much of anything much less church history, can you help me understand why I, as a Christian, would be complelled to adhere to a church decision, made by elders of the church, leaders of the church, such as that in Acts 15 but then not have to adhere to the decision made by church leaders and elders and documented by the Nicene Crede?
I don't really see a lot of difference in the position that "Jesus is eternally subordinate to Father" or "He tells the Son what to do" and "Arius said that if the Father has begotten the Son, then the Son must be inferior to the Father, as a prince is inferior to a king.
All this seems geared toward making the same argument Arius was making and therefore the same mistake. With similar consequences.
" Arius and his immediate followers would have denied that they were reducing the Son to the position of a high-ranking angel. But their doctrine left no safeguard against it, and if they had triumphed at Nicea, even in the negative sense of having their position acknowledged as a permissible one within the limits of Christian orthodoxy, the damage to the Christian witness to Christ as God made flesh would have been irreparable."
Like Arius, Some say that the doctrine of ESS does no damage to the scriptures. If we acknowledge the postion as permissible with the limits of Christian orthodoxy then we do irreparable damage to Christ as God in the flesh.
Posted by: ezekiel | 2008.10.17 at 03:00 PM
Ezekiel,
You retort that the "real question though may be "how far is he or we allowed to go with that right"? At what point does his privilege to disagree start to divide the church?"
While there's nothing wrong with that question, that is not what you asked. You asked if "the Dr.[is] saying that Spurgeon got it wrong?" That is what I answered.
To respond to your "real" question, is quite simple: we are allowed to go as far as Scripture goes, and that whether or not it divides the church.
Nor Ezekiel, is it valid to convolute Acts 15 with The Nicene Creed as you seem to do when you assert "That is apparently what happened in Acts 15 and with the Nicene Crede." And the reason again is simple: one is Scripture and the other is not.
Ezekiel, I am lost as to what to make of this: "Fair enough, but using the same sort of thought process as above, don't I have the privilege to read it the way I want to? If you are free to make the assumption that he neither meant nor implied, can't I make the assumption that he did mean or did imply?" My friend, if you'd like to buy some good honest exchange, you come to the right store. If you want to play silly games, I can save you alot of time--I am uninterested. To suggest we have the "privilege to read [someone''s words] the way [we] want" is patently absurd.
You ask: "can you help me understand why I, as a Christian, would be complelled to adhere to a church decision, made by elders of the church, leaders of the church, such as that in Acts 15 but then not have to adhere to the decision made by church leaders and elders and documented by the Nicene Crede?"
Historic Baptists insist the Church cannot compel you to do anything, Ezekiel, and that includes compelling you to do what God clearly commands. The church, however, as a body, can act on its own conscience as well. Hence, they can withdraw their invitation to you to be a part of their local body, which means, of course, neither can you tell the church what to do.
After conceding you are not much of an expert in anything, Ezekiel, why should we take your assessment seriously that you "really don't see a lot of difference in the position that "Jesus is eternally subordinate to Father" or "He tells the Son what to do" and "Arius said that if the Father has begotten the Son..."?
Contrary to what you've been told, the facts are there for anyone to check: minds better than both you and me have made tight distinctions pertaining to the eternal relations between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, attempting to preserve the Oneness and Threeness we find in Scripture. Most Baptist theologians have embraced a qualified eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father. Check the sources yourself.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.10.18 at 08:26 AM
Peter,
" minds better than both you and me have made tight distinctions pertaining to the eternal relations between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, attempting to preserve the Oneness and Threeness we find in Scripture. Most Baptist theologians have embraced a qualified eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father. Check the sources yourself."
Man you sure are right about that. And when we look at it, maybe we see why they are so careful to qualify it. Maybe it would be best to treat it the same way the early church did.
"" Arius and his immediate followers would have denied that they were reducing the Son to the position of a high-ranking angel. But their doctrine left no safeguard against it, and if they had triumphed at Nicea, even in the negative sense of having their position acknowledged as a permissible one within the limits of Christian orthodoxy, the damage to the Christian witness to Christ as God made flesh would have been irreparable."
Posted by: ezekeil | 2008.10.18 at 03:28 PM
Peter,
You are quite the wordsmith. I know better than to joust with you. 2 Tim 2:14 comes to mind. So please understand why I don't parry every thrust from you. Just not worth the verbage.
However, one final thing. If you are going to quote me, please quote all the words. They are central to my point.
"I don't really see a lot of difference in the position that "Jesus is eternally subordinate to Father" or "He tells the Son what to do" and "Arius said that if the Father has begotten the Son, then the Son must be inferior to the Father, as a prince is inferior to a king."
That, to me is the point. All the theologians may be able to qualify it and keep it straight. However, evidence abounds today in churches everywhere that seminary taught pastors and even more importantly, untrained folk sitting in the pews are mis-handling the doctrine of ESS. How many generations will pass before Christ really is inferior to the Father?
I wouldn't think that would be a good thing in a Baptist church where Christ has been the Mediator and the focus of worship for a lot longer than you and I have been around.
With that, I am, ezekeil..
Posted by: ezekiel | 2008.10.19 at 09:46 AM
Ezekiel,
For the record, I am confused as to why you would assert "So please understand why I don't parry every thrust from you. Just not worth the verbage." Have I inundated this thread with meticulous counter-points about what you wrote? I think any fair-minded person would answer the same as I--No.
Grace for this afternoon. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.10.19 at 12:02 PM