« Chicken Little Starring Wade Burleson or Wade Burleson Starring Chicken Little? | Main | Southern Baptists, Blogging and Reputable Dispensers of Sound Information »

2008.10.05

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Robin Foster

Peter

As usual, thorough and accurate. I myself was also baffled by the accusations. While most can read what he said and realize the absurdity, the men who have been accused of heresy needed to be affirmed in their beliefs. Thanks!

Dave Miller

When I first read Wade's article, I was surprised. I had always been taught Eternal Subordination (or whatever the doctrine is called), and assumed it was standard, orthodox teaching. I was surprised at his assertion that this was something new and innovative.

I am glad that Wade wrote it, because it caused me to study something I had never researched.

After a lot of study, I have come to a simple conclusion - Wade is absolutely wrong on this one. This is not an innovation, it is the standard doctrine of Christian orthodoxy through time. It is biblical. And it is crucial.

He constantly fails to distinguish equality of essence from subordination of office (or role) as orthodoxy has always done.

It appears to me that Gilbert Bilizikian and other "evangelical feminists" (which, actually, Wade claims not to be) have reworked the doctrine of the trinity so that they can do away with the teaching of submission.

Big Daddy Weave

Peter,

As you know, the controversy over the suggestion that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God most recently went public back in 2006 at the annual meeting of ETS with Bruce Ware's paper presentation.

Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to cite Millard Erickson "in defense of subordination of function" here in your blog post? After all, back in 2006, Erickson was one of the chief critics of Ware's thesis. It's kinda odd that you are citing a member of the egalitarian Christians for Biblical Equality in support of a position put forth by folks like Bruce Ware of the complementarian Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

peter lumpkins

BDW,

I cited a number of theologians with whom I disagree. Most of them were 5 point Calvinists! Did you not note that?

My point was to demonstrate the rich discussion of the eternal relations within the Godhead from a decidedly evangelical point of view, not to leave out, of course, three distinguished and historic Southern Baptist theologues--Boyce, Dagg, and Mullins.

So, to assert my quote from Erickson as a possible "disingenuous" citation is, frankly, absurd. Besides, his view is found on pp.338-339, Vol. I of his Systematic Theology. An extended monograph is found in his subsequent work "God in Three Persons." Unless I misquoted him, what is the problem, BDW?

Moreover, while I do not know the circumstances surrounding his fuller critique of Ware, my guess is, it had more to do with what he perceived as non sequitar in employing the analogy of the Trinity specifically gender issues. As I say, I don't know that; just a guess.

With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins

Dave,

Thanks for the imput. By the way. Are you scared yet? I am. Twice in a row you've logged on and we have agreed. :^)

Grace, my brother.

Robin,

Always a pleasure. Wade is a decent writer. Why he so unhesitatingly continues to put his theological foot in his mouth is strange.

With that, I am...

Peter

Big Daddy Weave

Peter,

My point dealt with Erickson and Erickson alone. I need not address the many other citations you provided in order to make a point about Millard Erickson! To suggest such is, um, absurd.

I have not read Erickson's volume. I do not own Erickson's volume. However, based on his strong disagreement with Bruce Ware at the 2006 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, I would suggest that the quote you have provided in your blog post misrepresents his views. At that conference, Erickson argued that the eternal subordinationist view held by Ware undermines his affirmation of equality in essence. The practice of prooftexting often leads to the misrepresentation of a person's theology...

peter lumpkins

BDW,

Let's see if I get this straight: you have not read Erickson's 3 volume set, standardizing his fundamental theological position. Nor do you own Erickson's volumes which standardizes Erickson's theological position, not to mention his monograph on the Trinity I mentioned.

Nonetheless, because you know of a paper Erickson presented, disagreeing with some part of Bruce Ware--whose cow I did not milk but whom you dragged into my barn and commenced to squeeze teats--my citation is, therefore, reduced to the "practice of prooftexting [which] often leads to the misrepresentation of a person's theology..."

I think that is simply stellar logic, BDW. I'm just goin to have to go to me a Law school and get me sum of dat dare book smarts :^)

Unless, you can show I skewed Erickson--and you'll have to read him to do that, I'm afraid--I do not think your point is well taken.

I do wish you a great afternoon, though. With that, I am...

Peter

Big Daddy Weave

Peter,

Are you capable of dialgoue without being an arrogant ass? Seriously. You find a way to personally insult every person that attempts to engage you on the substance of your argument.

Bill

Dave: So are you suggesting that the idea that the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father is in fact the real heresy, and that eternal subordination is the orthodox view?

Dave Miller

BDW and Peter,

I think, if you read Erickson closely, his statement will explain the difference. Erickson (and most of the evangelical feminists) admit that Jesus was subordinate to the Father during his earthly ministry. Erickson states that in the quote Peter mentioned above.

The more historical view has been that the subordination of office or role is eternal. The feminist/modern view is that the subordination ONLY took place during Jesus' earthly ministry, after he emptied himself (Philippians 2).

However, the Scriptures would tend, in my opinion, to fall on the side of the Eternal Subordination of the Second person of the Trinity to the first.

And, yes, Peter. I plan to disagree with your next post, regardless.

Dave Miller

Bill, I saw your question after I posted above. I never used the word heresy. I am not sure that I would use it.

However, I am asserting that the Eternal Subordination of Christ has been the historic view of orthodox Christian theologies.

Whether denying the Eternal Subordination of Christ is a heresy, I am very reluctant to use that word. To me, a heretic denies doctrine essential to the faith.

So, I disagree (strongly) with Wade's view, but I would not call it heresy.

peter lumpkins

Dear BDW,

You're just a big ole meanie is what you are! I may just go to bed and cry myself to sleep.

I can't see at all how my words were arrogant but I can see how some might take your words as highly offensive. Thus, I'll have to think a bit if I'm going to leave your custom, little metaphor you created just for me.

Oh, by the way. I almost forgot. Your point still is not well taken unless you demonstrate how I skewed Erickson. Again, know you must read him to make the glue stick that I attributed to him something he does not embrace.

I hope you have a good evening. With that, I am...

Peter

Byron

I'm going to provide a link to an article I do not agree with on CBE International to illustrate a point. That link is available by clicking on my name in this comment if you are interested. The reason I mention this article is because it references certain Scriptural passages under the heading "Postscript: the difficult texts" which can be interpreted as opposing the author's view, and giving a defense accordingly.

I personally do not agree with the defense offered, but that is not the point. The point is, interpretations differ on this issue. I do not believe that those differences are automatically or necessarily heretical... "egalitarianism" just being plain "wrong" will do nicely... :)

BTW, it is a good article from an opposing viewpoint.

Bill

Dave: Fair enough. I lean toward Christ's earthly subordination but not His eternal subordination. Interesting that we both feel that the majority of verses lead to different conclusions. I would suggest that the doctrine is difficult enough that it isn't a slam dunk to suggest the eternal subordination of Christ is the basis for the earthly subordination of women.

peter lumpkins

Byron,

Thanks for the link and I hope folk read it. I could not agree more with you. Freedom to error must fit on a continuum, it seems to me, heresy being the worst possible extent. I do not at all think egals are heretics--not by a Georgia mile. I do, however, believe egals have limited involvement within our SBC since we formally embraced a complementarian understanding of gender in 2000.

It is that historic fact which frustrates me as much as anything about raising this issue perpetually. SBs have definitively spoken on this issue and they have said we are a complementarian fellowship.

In the face of such, to continue to cook the beans of "equality" for "egals" as Enid so often does, borders on scorching the pot and looks very much like the biblically divisive man about which Paul warned Timothy to reject.

With that, I am...

Peter

Steve

Many thanks Peter for some very good research. I agree with you 100% on this issue (not that you need or desire my endorsement, your work is endorsement enough).
Blessings.. (having returned from globetrotting)
Steve

peter lumpkins

Steve,

Your participation always welcome, my brother. It's amazing what even the slightest bit of digging will turn up as I know you very well understand.

Grace, always. With that, I am...

Peter

Doug

Peter,
I would give your opinion on this topic some weight - if I hadn't have read the entry from yesterday - A person who seriously thinks "Palin rocks" is surely not grasping reality!

Byron

Doug, it's not my blog, but I would recommend you keep unrelated topics separate and your comments on topic. Fault Peter if you will, but he keeps his comments on-topic and to the point. That's what I usually try to do (except now, and here, obviously).

selahV

Byron, you are such a smart fella! But since Peter brought up milking cows, I suppose it would be alright to suggest that Obama's been milking the Fannie Mae cow quite a bit till now, hmmmn? And speaking of milking...the pastor to the north of me seems always to be chewing cud from some piece of straw in the barnyard that has nothing to do with anything positive about our dear convention and her purpose to fulfill the Great Commission resurgence called for by our President Johnny Hunt. Oh well, we all have things we chew on that taste better to us than others. selahV

Steve

I read the interaction at Grace, Peter. Mr. B claims that you agree with his view. Can this be true that he thinks you agree with him on this issue?
Steve

The comments to this entry are closed.