The doctrine of the Trinity has been the topic of much debate among evangelicals in recent years. And this year is no different.
A full room of students, faculty, and staff gathered on Sept. 9 at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to hear Bruce Ware and Gregg Allison discuss the recent book by Millard Erickson, Who's Tampering With The Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate. In the book, Erickson interacts with a number theologians regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, including Ware and Wayne Grudem. In interacting with Ware and Grudem, Erickson argues for an incarnational-only understanding of the Son's submission to the Father.
The event was co-sponsored by The School of Church Ministries at Southern Seminary and The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Randy Stinson, dean of the School of Church Ministries at Southern Seminary and president of CBMW, moderated the discussion.
Ware began the event by providing a brief overview regarding the two views on the Trinity. Both Ware and Allison serve as professor of Christian Theology at Southern Seminary.
"The question is whether or not the relationship of authority and submission is one that characterizes the relationship of the Father and the Son eternally, or was it just missional or incarnational," Ware said.
He added, "What we see in the incarnation is an instance of what is true eternally. The Son was always the Son of the Father. This reflects the broader eternal pattern of authority and submission."
Erickson's view, according to Ware, argues that "the submission of the Son to the Father is only incarnational. In eternity past there was no authority and submission relationship and in eternity future there will be no authority and submission relationship."
Both sides make serious claims against the other. "There are claims of implicit heresy on both sides," said Ware, highlighting the importance of the issue. Erickson's charges Ware with a form of Arianism, which says that the Son is not of the same essence as the Father. This is a charge that Ware said he takes very seriously. But the charges against Erickson, and others, are just as severe.
Erickson asserts, Ware said, "that if you can distinguish the property of the Son, that is distinct from the property of the Father, then you have to say the essence of the Son is different than the essence of the Father. (Egalitarians) argue that we can't hold to homoousios."
But Ware said the view of Erickson, whom he called a good friend, is equally dangerous. "This reduces to Unitarianism, and at best Modalism," Ware said. "God is simply three names, not three beings or person specific properties."
"There have to be distinguishing properties; otherwise we just have three names. Something has to distinguish the Father from the Son, and the Son from the Holy Spirit," Ware said.
Historical Evidence for Orthodox View of the Trinity
Within the debate, both sides claim church history as proof for their particular view. Allison, who is writing a massive volume on historical theology, said the complementarian position on the Trinity has been overwhelmingly held by orthodox theologians and ministers throughout the history of the church.
"Overwhelmingly the church has affirmed what we affirm. God is three persons, equal in essence, nature, and attributes," Allison said.
He described the historically orthodox rendering of the Trinity using the illustration of three columns. Each column contains attributes that are the same, while each column also contains realities about the persons of the Godhead that distinguish one from the other.
Stinson asked Allison to explain the discrepancy in the debate if both sides are claiming church history as their ally. Because the early church did not specifically discuss authority and submission in their teaching on the Trinity, Erickson takes this as the early church fathers not holding to authority and submission. Allison said that the church fathers saw authority and submission as so natural that they did not have to make it explicit in their writings.
Biblical Evidence
Stinson asked Ware and Allison to explain how these views play out in a biblical discussion. Ware said to consider eternity past in Ephesians 1:9, stating that the "he purposed in him" is saying something about the Trinity. "Erickson wants to say the whole Trinity decides this," Ware said, "but this is not reversible. It is not collective of the Trinity. The Father chose us in Christ. We see the role of the Father as the architect and designer who wills what will come to pass."
Creation also reveals something that is done in eternity past. Genesis 1 and John 1 reveal that God creates through the agency of the Son, Ware said.
We also see Christ's submission in eternity future, Ware added. "Revelation 1:1 indicates there is an ongoing relationship of authority that the Father has over the Son."
"There is not a single instance in the Bible where the Father carries out the will of the Son. It is not reciprocal. If we say it is not really this way, then we don't really know God's revelation," said Ware.
Erickson would say that these texts don't prove what we think they do. He sees the Father's choosing in Ephesians 1 as having no particular significance. Rather, he implies that there is a mutual authority throughout. For example, Erickson points to the Spirit's proceeding from the Father and the Son. Ware, however, cautioned that such texts must be read carefully. While the Spirit does indeed proceed from the Father and the Son, Ware also noted that Acts records that the Son received from the Father the gift of the Spirit.
Ware added that Erickson's most convincing use of Scripture is his interpretation of Philippians 2. Erickson claims that Christ took on a role of servitude and obedience that he had not exercised before, thereby proving that his submission to the Father was incarnational only. Ware, however, responded by saying, "Paul is not merely referring to servitude per se. It is servitude as a man."