A Steady Path Forward: Some Direction for the Gender Debate, Part 3 - the Trinity

Note: You can read the previous sections to the series Part 1  - Exegesis and Hermeneutics with help from Dr. Thomas Schreiner, and Part 2  - Ethics with help from Dr. Vern Poythress.

Let me mention two areas Dr. Poythress would like to see further study pertaining specifically to the relationships within the Trinity:  (a) There should be some further investigation in the compatibility of the subordination of the Son in the incarnation to who the Son always is in relation to the Father. Says Poythress, “There is much mystery here because the incarnate Son is man, as well as God, and as man appropriately submits to and obeys the will of the Father. But the incarnate Son is one person. He acts as God and as man.” In other words, there should be additional study as to how the relationship of the Father and Son is understood in light of the Chalcedonian constitution of the Person of Christ.

(b) The terms “father” and “son” are pertinent as well. Millard Erickson, in his most recent book on the Trinity, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity (Kregel, 2009), doubts that the terms have any “familial” sense to them and, therefore, should not imply any sort of authority/submission structure. Poythress, however, argues, “We need to continue to articulate here both the incomprehensibility of God (God, and not we, knows himself completely; God, not we, is the standard for knowing him) and the genuineness of the indications that these words give about who God really is.”What would be the goal of this revelation of God of himself? He adds, “The use by God of the words "father" and "son" indicates a genuine analogy with human relations.  We cannot ignore it or dispense with it. But because it is analogy rather than identity, it must be treated with circumspection and humility.”

Note: Thanks to Dr. Vern Poythress for his help with this post.