Some thoughts on the Trinitarian bust-up

Far smarter people have already weighed in on this. But for what it’s worth…

The tone of the debate

If you start a conversation with a definitive accusation of heterodoxy, expect the tone to be heated. You’ve raised the stakes so high as to make it very hard for either yourself or those you’re accusing to give any ground.

Did Dr. Goligher really have such a clear grasp of the range of EFS/ERAS views that he was confident that they were all necessarily heterodox? Was he quite sure that the language used by every stripe of EFS/ERAS proponents really had no precedent in Reformed thinkers of the past? This seems unlikely given that he has admitted that he didn’t think that Dr. Ovey would fall within the range of his critique.

But if that wasn’t clear, would it not be more profitable (not to mention charitable) to raise serious concerns without definitive declarations of heresy? Why not start a clarifying conversation to try and ascertain whether that sad conclusion needs to be reached? It seems reasonable to assume that if the discussion had been started like that, the EFS/ERAS proponents would have been far more likely to concede that maybe their language or views needed modification in light of concerns. Instead, we circle the wagons on both sides.

Unfortunately the bulk of many posts has consisted of “let me show you how Nicene I am” or “let me show you how many Bible verses or Biblical theological themes I think support my position.” This isn’t helping. Everyone wants to be Biblical. Everyone wants to be Nicene. And everyone thinks they are. In order to actually move forward, responses need to cut out the reiteration and focus on the one or two key logical/theological issues. Focus on the actual charges, and the actual responses to the charges.

Simply repeating the dire consequences of departing from Nicene Orthodoxy, or the dire consequences of “scholasticism” (scare quotes obligatory) doesn’t demonstrate that you’ve engaged with anyone’s position.

Questions with regards to accusations of heterodoxy

1. Have Reformed, Nicene-affirming theologians (prior to June 2016) felt it was acceptable to use the language of eternal subordination? Or was this generally agreed to be a bad idea?

Wayne Grudem quotes Frame, Berkhof, Strong and Hodge in his response. Undoubtedly people will have different valuations of these men and their thought. But no one seems to be denying that they used this kind of language without drawing immediate (or later) condemnation.

Here is W. G. Shedd (courtesy of @GJShearer):

There are three kinds of subordination: the filial or trinitarian; the theanthropic; and the Arian. The first is taught, and the second implied, in the Nicene creed. The last is denied and excluded.

Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen any anti-EFS folk come back on this historical-use-of-language point. Dr. Jones has said he sees the only precedent in Episcopius, and that it was definitely seen as unorthodox. I’m not sure what he makes of the writers Grudem cites, or indeed Shedd — because he doesn’t comment. Neither does Dr. Trueman in his brief response to Grudem.

But surely this is quite an important point? If this language wasn’t condemned before now, is it really fair to accuse recent EFS/ERAS proponents of heterodoxy just on this charge?

The same point applies for Dr. Ovey’s equivocal use of “will”. In his first response he makes it clear that he is using “will” in two different senses. Complain about that on grounds of clarity if you like —but it’s not the same as denying that in the strict Nicene sense will is a property of nature and hence there is only one will in the Godhead. In fact I think Dr. Ovey would defend that proposition. And if one were only allowed to employ “will” univocally in the Nicene sense, his article would be internally inconsistent. But of course he is in fact “allowed” to use language equivocally, given appropriate definitions. It may be unwise or likely to lead to confusion, but it does not constitute denying the tradition. And in fact, that kind of language can also be found elsewhere:

Call it careless if you like. Call it wrong and anti-Nicene. It’s mere existence in our theological heritage doesn’t vindicate it. But the point is that no one has been calling it heresy it until now.

Maybe this conversation really needed to happen — but if so it needed to happen in order to reach a constructive consensus on what language was and wasn’t within Nicene bounds when talking about the eternal relationship of the Son to the Father. That consensus really doesn’t seem to have been there before now.

2. For those anti-EFS, what precisely isn’t and isn’t allowed, according to Nicene Orthodoxy, when talking about the eternal relations of Father and Son?

Fred Sanders:

What the Lord Jesus lives out, there in the being of God, is eternal sonship, sovereign filiality, perfect fromness. When it takes on flesh and dwells among us, that sonship is expressed in the form of obedience. But “obedience to a command” is not a worthy name for it as it exists on high.

So there’s a something in the ad intra eternal relations that maps (somehow, in some way) to the ad extra roles.

Is this ok? Because it’s explicitly not using “obedience/submission”? Or this is heterodox as well? Is the only problem that this eternal dimension is used to justify complementarianism? If that were the charge, then I think Dr. Sanders would agree (e.g. here).

But that’s not the charge. The charge is that EFS/ERAS is, on purely Trinitarian grounds, heterodox for assuming any kind of submission between Father and Son in eternity. So then does Dr. Sanders fall into this error?

This eternal relationship shows that Father and Son are in positions of priority and posteriority; there is some ordering in which Father is first and Son is second. I would not call this subordination, but I would confess that it shows an ordered priority and posteriority in the life of the living God.

and again:

As for his submission to the Father, I don’t know what they call it in the happy land of the Trinity, but when it lives among us it is rightly named obedience.

What if EFS/ERAS (we’re all going to get tired of typing that) were just a poorly expressed version of what Dr. Sanders says above? Is the significance quite so high? Dr. Sanders, again:

Is the obedience of the Son’s will to the Father’s commanding authority also eternal? That seems to me to be a fairly small question, and also one that needs an answer so nuanced it’s practically a change of subject.

And if these things are even possibilities, why hasn’t the conversation sought to establish that before launching the H-bomb?