More on the Trinity: Some Presuppositions

Recently, here at Gender Blog, I wrote a three part series responding to the Trinity debate held at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School’s Henry Center.  If you are not aware of the debate or of its content, Denny Burk gives an insightful summary: “The debate concerned the nature of intra-Trinitarian relationships with a particular focus on the nature of the Son’s submission to the Father. On the one hand, Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem argued that the Son has always submitted to the Father (eternity past, present, and future). On the other hand, Tom McCall and Keith Yandell argued that Christ only submitted to the Father during his incarnation.”

I, of course, took the view of Drs. Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware, that the Son has always submitted to the Father (eternity past, present, and future) and in those posts I gave some gender implications.  You can read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. 

Judging by the responses we have received from the posts, it may be helpful to share what my presuppositions in writing my posts were and what are some of the foundations grounding my view as to the Trinity.  Here are a few (Note, these are my personal presuppositions, not Grudem or Ware’s):

God is Creator and we are his creation.  This seems simplistic, but the implications of this truth are sometimes overlooked.  It is true that we are made in his image, but what is not true is that he is the sum of our being, or all being.  God is not the ultimate example of what man should be like.  God, as Creator, has complete being in himself. We, as creature, have a derivative being.  Therefore, we cannot describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an equal sum of all properties. God is not the sum of anything. 

Yandell, during the recent debate, articulates his problem with the submission of the Son saying it implies a property that the Son does not have of the Father. But this objection seems to ignore an orthodox doctrine of the being of God.  It seems to miss that God is Creator and wholly other from his creation, not an equal sum of properties.  It also becomes difficult to understand God as personal within this property framework.

The Trinity is diverse in person.  I am not implying the McCall and Yandell think that the Trinity is neither diverse nor personal.  My point is that the fundamental place of diversity in the Trinity is in personhood.  The diversity is not merely that one is called the Father, one the Son, and the other the Spirit. But that each one is functionally a different Person.   It is only within an understanding of function that the names Father, Son, and Spirit are insightful and carry meaning.  If we disregard function as a distinction within in the Godhead, the names Father, Son, and Spirit are simply arbitrary and could have been given to either of the Three. 

The Son has the authority of God.  When some make the distinction of authority and submission between the Father and Son, this does not mean the Son does not have the authority of God. The Trinity's ontological relationship is different from its economic relationship with the world. Within the Godhead there are relationships of authority and submission. Yet, over creation, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have ultimate and complete authority within each One of them. It seems as though some do not make the ontological and economical distinction when reacting to the submission of the Son to the Father. 

My hope is that the above few presuppositions will help explain the foundation on which my view of the Trinity rests. This view of the Trinity should awaken high praise as we behold the tri-fold glory of God in the Father, Son and Holy Spirt (Revelation 14:12-19).