Wow! It has been a while since my last blog post on these series. Anyway, here I am.
In my second post dedicated to Augustine's criticism of Subordinationism, I will try to answer to a timely question that my friend Sam asked: "How would we directly apply this [Augustine's words] to subordinationism, if someone denies that subordination does not make one less 'great' than another (which I guess they typically do)?" This is a difficult question to answer for historical and therefore also theological reasons: the kind of subordinationism Augustine condemned is different from today's subordinationism. Keith E. Johnson says that "Augustine does not explore the speculative question of whether any analogy might exist between the Son’s filial mode of being eternally 'from the Father' and his obedience to the Father in his state of humiliation." However and more importantly, he also says that "there is no evidence that Augustine believed that the hypostatic distinction between the Father and the Son is constituted by eternal 'authority' (on the part of the Father) and eternal 'submission' (on the part of the Son). To the contrary, this element of EFS is incompatible with his account of trinitarian agency." There are several passages of Augustine's On the Trinity where we can read about this incompatibility.
 |
My friend Sam (on the right) a second before he almost broke my
face by (accidentally) pushing me against the wall. He was trying to explain
|
But first, I would like to address the question mentioned above: what about someone saying that subordination does not make one less "great" than another? Well, to be very blunt, I think this is a very poor escaping device. Once we admit, as for instance Wayne Grudem does, that the Father has more authority than the other three persons, this necessarily implies that the other two persons are inferior to the Father. I will attempt to comment a couple of quotes by Grudem in order to show this (thanks to Rachel for pointing at them. I do not have time to read Grudem or Ware myself).
"If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and, consequently, we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally 'Father' and the Son is not eternally 'Son.' This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed." Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Zondervan, 1994), 251.
The unorthodoxy of this rather unclear paragraph is revealed if we consider other places among Grudem's writings.
"Between the members of the Trinity there has been equality in importance, personhood, and deity throughout all eternity. But there have also been differences in roles between the members of the Trinity. God the Father has always been the Father and has always related to the Son as a Father relates to his Son. Though all three members of the Trinity are equal in power and in all other attributes, the Father has a greater authority. He has a leadership role among all the members of the Trinity that the Son and Holy Spirit do not have. In creation, the Father speaks and initiates, but the work of creation is carried out through the Son and sustained by the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:1-2; John 1:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Hebr. 1:2). In redemption, the Father sends the Son into the world and the Son comes and is obedient to the Father and dies to pay for our sins (Luke 22:42; Phil. 2:6-8). After the Son has ascended into heaven, the Holy Spirit comes to equip and empower the church (John 16:7; Acts 1:8; 2:1-36). The Father did not come to die for our sins, nor did the Holy Spirit. The Father was not poured out on the church at Pentecost in new covenant power, nor was the Son. Each member of the Trinity has distinct roles or functions. Differences in roles and authority between the members of the Trinity are thus completely consistent with equal importance, personhood, and deity." - Grudem, Systematic Theology, 459. Emphasis added.
I am afraid Grudem and I use two different sets of logical rules. Grudem assumes that different roles or missions in the Trinity imply subordination between them, a subordination that is mainly characterised by a greater authority possessed by the Father. In the specific quotes mentioned above, he merely arrests this, without giving any argument to support his claim. In fact, a difference in missions does not logically entail a difference in authority. Grudem has to explain why he thinks this is the case and, at least in the section I quoted, he does not do that (although, I think I can reasonably assume he tries to do that elsewhere).
In my opinion, the sections in Italic are radically problematic. According to the classical (and Biblical) view of God, He is one, He has no parts, and He is His attributes. Grudem himself seems to embrace this vital theological principle (see Bible Doctrine. Essential Teaching of the Christian Faith, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1999, 81-82; Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 2005, 36).
Firstly, if God is one in essence and attributes, I deeply struggle to understand how He can be so while one person of the divine Trinity (the Father) has more authority than the other two. True, "authority" is not included in the classical classification of God's attributes. Still, it is something that pertains to God. Therefore, if the Father has more authority than the Son and the Spirit, I enormously struggle to see how God is united according to the classical and orthodox sense, and I wonder whether Grudem's words entail a modified version of partialism.
Secondly, "authority" is certainly a positive thing to have. For sure, in man's earthly life authority may come with all sorts of trials and responsibilities. But this is not the case with the most blessed triune God. Moreover, common sense tells us that a person with more authority is more important that a person without it. Now, if this is true, how can Grudem claim that the Father who, according to him, has more authority than the Son and the Spirit, has the same importance than the Son and the Spirit? He has more authority, but he is equal in importance. This does not make much sense at all to me. To prevent a possible objection, I do not think that earthly examples would help. I guess Grudem would mention the example of a husband who has more authority than his wife and the children, but he is not more important than them. However, I think God's situation is significantly different (David J. Engelsma rightly believes that the godly families of the earth and the church family are the only vestigia trinitatis in creatura [vestiges/traces of the Trinity in creation] we may think of because they share in themselves the same Holy Spirit that the Father and the Son breath to each other. However, he would never dare to think nor he does think that God is ontologically similar to the vestigia). Human authority is always limited at least in one sense (and usually even more than one sense), while divine authority is all-encompassing and absolute, embracing the natural and moral order. Therefore, if the Father's divine all-encompassing authority is greater than the Son's and Spirit's divine all-encompassing authority, it seems to me that this implies that, after all, the Son's and Spirit's authority are not so all-encompassing. If you agree with this conclusion, I let you decide what heresy Grudem's words may lead to.
 |
| In case you are wondering or even jumping to conclusions, the lady in the frame is Augustine's beloved mother, Monica. [Art: Ron Hill. Used with permission.] |
"Whence then is the Father greater? For if greater, He is greater by greatness; but whereas the Son is His greatness, neither assuredly is the Son greater than He who begot Him, nor is the Father greater than that greatness, whereby He is great; therefore they are equal. For whence is He equal, if not in that which He is, to whom it is not one thing to be, and another to be great? Or if the Father is greater in eternity, the Son is not equal in anything whatsoever. For whence equal? If you say in greatness, that greatness is not equal which is less eternal, and so of all things else. Or is He perhaps equal in power, but not equal in wisdom? But how is that power which is less wise, equal? Or is He equal in wisdom, but not equal in power? But how is that wisdom equal which is less powerful? It remains, therefore, that if He is not equal in anything, He is not equal in all. But Scripture proclaims, that 'He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' Therefore any adversary of the truth whatever, provided he feels bound by authority, must needs confess that the Son is equal with God in each one thing whatsoever. Let him choose that which he will; from it he will be shown, that He is equal in all things which are said of His substance." ~ On the Trinity, 6.3.5. Emphasis added.
I think Grudem's view necessarily implies all sorts of damaging difficulties. Furthermore, it seems to me that Grudem applies temporal categories to the atemporal, eternal, and immutable God. Grudem has a very bad philosophical theology, and, as I said in the past, I think Augustine's and Thomas Aquinas' trinitarian philosophical theologies may help him to clarify his confusion. I am not going to substantiate my claim because I do not want to make this blog post too long (and I do not even have the time).
I conclude by offering several lengthy quotes from Augustine's On the Trinity. I have sometimes italicised the most relevant section which I think are connected somewhat to what I have said above. However, it is important to read the emphasised parts in their context.
In the next blog post, I will move on to Anselm and what he can tell us about the topic in question.
Stay tuned. Stay orthodox.
I think Grudem's view necessarily implies all sorts of damaging difficulties. Furthermore, it seems to me that Grudem applies temporal categories to the atemporal, eternal, and immutable God. Grudem has a very bad philosophical theology, and, as I said in the past, I think Augustine's and Thomas Aquinas' trinitarian philosophical theologies may help him to clarify his confusion. I am not going to substantiate my claim because I do not want to make this blog post too long (and I do not even have the time).
I conclude by offering several lengthy quotes from Augustine's On the Trinity. I have sometimes italicised the most relevant section which I think are connected somewhat to what I have said above. However, it is important to read the emphasised parts in their context.
In the next blog post, I will move on to Anselm and what he can tell us about the topic in question.
Stay tuned. Stay orthodox.
~ ~ ~
- The importance of a clear understanding of the two nature of Christ (human and divine). The importance to distinguish when the Scripture is referring to the divine nature or to the human nature.
"Wherefore, having mastered this rule for interpreting the Scriptures concerning the Son of God, that we are to distinguish in them what relates to the form of God, in which He is equal to the Father, and what to the form of a servant which He took, in which He is less than the Father; we shall not be disquieted by apparently contrary and mutually repugnant sayings of the sacred books. For both the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the form of God, are equal to the Father, because neither of them is a creature, as we have already shown: but according to the form of a servant He is less than the Father, because He Himself has said, 'My Father is greater than I;' and He is less than Himself, because it is said of Him, He emptied Himself; and He is less than the Holy Spirit, because He Himself says, 'Whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven Him.' And in the Spirit too He wrought miracles, saying: 'But if I with the Spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God has come upon you.' And in Isaiah He says—in the lesson which He Himself read in the synagogue, and showed without a scruple of doubt to be fulfilled concerning Himself—'The Spirit of the Lord God,' He says, 'is upon me: because He has anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives,' etc.: for the doing of which things He therefore declares Himself to be 'sent,' because the Spirit of God is upon Him. According to the form of God, all things were made by Him; according to the form of a servant, He was Himself made of a woman, made under the law. According to the form of God, He and the Father are one; according to the form of a servant, He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him. According to the form of God, 'As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself;' according to the form of a servant, His 'soul is sorrowful even unto death;' and, 'O my Father,' He says, 'if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' According to the form of God, 'He is the True God, and eternal life;' according to the form of a servant, 'He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' According to the form of God, all things that the Father has are His, and 'All mine,' He says, 'are Yours, and Yours are mine;' according to the form of a servant, the doctrine is not His own, but His that sent Him." ~ 1.11.22-23.
- Therefore, the only authority that the Father has over the Son is over the man Son, not over the divine Son.
"Not, therefore, without cause the Scripture says both the one and the other, both that the Son is equal to the Father, and that the Father is greater than the Son. For there is no confusion when the former is understood as on account of the form of God, and the latter as on account of the form of a servant. And, in truth, this rule for clearing the question through all the sacred Scriptures is set forth in one chapter of an epistle of the Apostle Paul, where this distinction is commended to us plainly enough. For he says, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and was found in fashion as a man." The Son of God, then, is equal to God the Father in nature, but less in "fashion." For in the form of a servant which He took He is less than the Father; but in the form of God, in which also He was before He took the form of a servant, He is equal to the Father. In the form of God He is the Word, "by whom all things are made;" but in the form of a servant He was 'made of a woman, made under the law,' to redeem them that were under the law.' In like manner, in the form of God He made man; in the form of a servant He was made man. For if the Father alone had made man without the Son, it would not have been written, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man; but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man who is taken. For neither by that taking is the one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to be creature." ~ 1.7.14.
- Two meditations on the equality of the persons of the Trinity.
"One man is not as much as three men together; and two men are something more than one man: and in equal statues, three together amount to more of gold than each singly, and one amounts to less of gold than two. But in God it is not so; for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together is not a greater essence than the Father alone or the Son alone; but these three substances or persons, if they must be so called, together are equal to each singly: which the natural man does not comprehend. For he cannot think except under the conditions of bulk and space, either small or great, since phantasms or as it were images of bodies flit about in his mind. And until he be purged from this uncleanness, let him believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, alone, great, omnipotent, good, just, merciful, Creator of all things visible and invisible, and whatsoever can be worthily and truly said of Him in proportion to human capacity. And when he is told that the Father only is God, let him not separate from Him the Son or the Holy Spirit; for together with Him He is the only God, together with whom also He is one God; because, when we are told that the Son also is the only God, we must needs take it without any separation of the Father or the Holy Spirit. And let him so say one essence, as not to think one to be either greater or better than, or in any respect differing from, another. Yet not that the Father Himself is both Son and Holy Spirit, or whatever else each is singly called in relation to either of the others." ~ 7.6.11-12.
"The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begot the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself. And here that is recognized in the highest sense, 'Yea, yea; nay, nay.' And therefore this Word is truly truth, since whatever is in that knowledge from which it is born is also in itself and whatever is not in that knowledge is not in the Word. And this Word can never have anything false, because it is unchangeable, as He is from whom it is. For 'the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do.' Through power He cannot do this; nor is it infirmity, but strength, by which truth cannot be false. Therefore God the Father knows all things in Himself, knows all things in the Son; but in Himself as though Himself, in the Son as though His own Word which Word is spoken concerning all those things that are in Himself. Similarly the Son knows all things, viz. in Himself, as things which are born of those which the Father knows in Himself, and in the Father, as those of which they are born, which the Son Himself knows in Himself. The Father then, and the Son know mutually; but the one by begetting, the other by being born. And each of them sees simultaneously all things that are in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in their essence: not by parts or singly, as though by alternately looking from this side to that, and from that side to this, and again from this or that object to this or that object, so as not to be able to see some things without at the same time not seeing others; but, as I said, sees all things simultaneously, whereof there is not one that He does not always see." ~ 15.14.23.
©
