Introduction. Using the Trinity for defining relationships if very common: social trinitarianism, hierarchical Trinitarianism outlined.
Texts that Perplex (The Hermeneutical Challenge). Our concern is a difference between rank or class (the Tiered Trinity). Outline of the Athanasian Creed (co-eternal and co-equal Persons). Different understandings of John 14:28 (Hilary vs. Creed of Sirmium, D.B. Knox, John Piper, etc). Cole respects complementarians who are consistent in their positions – even if he finally disagrees with them. Other key texts which will be discussed in this lecture are: 1 Cor. 3:21-23, 1 Cor. 11:3, 1 Cor. 15:20-28.
The Arian Solution. Historical overview of Arianism (4th AD). Arius invoked the ‘Twitter’ of his day – used drinking songs to communicate his ideas! But on this view (the subordination of the Son of God) you lose a real Trinity.
The Eternal Subordination Solution. Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem hold this position. Notes that Ware is bolder than Grudem in holding this position. Ware ranks the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (1st, 2nd, 3rd). Ware holds to three wills in God and that authority, honour, and majesty are ranked also. Grudem doesn’t go as far – he doesn’t see the subordination reaching into society generally. GC notes that these authors are not Arians, but they see a hierarchy within the Trinity.
The Economic Subordination Solution. Whilst Charles Hodge (Old Princeton) held to Eternal Subordination, his commentaries on 1 Corthinthians teach an economic subordination. His Eternal Subordination is determined on other grounds. Millard Erickson wrote Who’s Tampering with the Trinity: An assessment of the Subordination debate. He asks – how how do you go about deciding on the issue when Godly Christians come up with different solutions? He concludes – these texts are not ontological statements, but economic (Messianic son).
Addressing the Challenging Texts. In Augustine’s De Trinitae, he tried to work out this economic subordination. Eg., John 11:35 – how does the Word weep in light of his Incarnation as divine and human? 1 Cor. 11:3 – as per Ambrosiastor and Didymus the Blind and others, GC interprets Incarnate actions as economically obedient acts. 1 Cor 15:20-28 – Regnum Christi becomes Regnum Dei at the eschaton. Communicatio Idiomatum is the key. What does it mean in Acts 20, when Luke speaks of the church purchased by the blood of God? Calvin and Hodge see this as language of accommodation because they refuse to read ‘upwards’ into the ontological Trinity (ME: my words in this last sentence).
Time for a Moratorium. Graham Cole calls for a Moratorium on doctrines detailing the inner life of the Trinity. McGrath echoes this, as does Gerald Bray. Also, Mike Bird has an article in the Trinity Journal which specifically calls for this Moratorium! Graham Cole notes that the Complementarian position is highly variegated. Soft Complementarians (Blomberg, Stott) allow for women to preach, but not be the ultimate (though, under Christ) head of a church. Harder complementarians are similar to those of his Brethren background. Graham Cole notes that one motivation for the moratorium on descriptions on the inner life of the Trinity is that the NT speaks a great deal about the imitation of Christ as the motivation (1 Cor. 11:1, 1 Peter 2:21, 1 John 2:5-6). Philippians 2 is a great point at hand.
To hold to an Eternal Subordination position is speculative, with little Scriptural support. It embraces some sort of principle from outside, not inside. Rahner’s rule does this. Barth had something like it. It fails in light of the Scriptural testimony. Eg., in Luke-Acts, the temporal changes in Spirit-Christology would lead to a eternal change in the authority-submission relation of Father-Son essentially. In other words, does Rahner’s rule allow for the Pneumatalogical change in the Incarnate Christ?
Graham’s main fear is that strong complementarians may just keep going in this direction and lose the integrity of the Trinity in the next generation.
June 12, 2010
Thanks for the sum, Mark! Looking forward to hearing about the rest of the conference.
One comment: A moratorium on further discussion of a key doctrinal loci? Really? And in the context of a lecture on that very topic — as if Cole could claim the last word on a subject hotly contested for hundreds of years? I don’t get it. If something is hotly disputed and even causing division, the last thing we should do is command the Christian world not to talk about it any more. This is the antithesis of responsible theological discourse.
Or perhaps there is a greater context to the call for a moratorium?