Frank

I’m sorry it has taken me longer, than I originally intended, to make a response to Mark’s latest comments ( #228) of my critique of the ESS teaching. But as you well know, Cheryl, the responsibilities and demands of everyday life often put restraints on the time you can give to studying and preparing any kind of a presentation for a debate. And I am glad that you and a couple others have made some helpful and insightful comments in the mean time. Nevetheless, I will now try to give a final summing up and conclusion to what I have already said, hopefully giving Mark a sufficiently complete answer that will end on a positive note for all. Anyway, here we go.

Mark, I am very glad that, at least in principle, you agree with the Trinitarian teaching of the Athanasian Creed. I agree with it fully myself. Though not written by Athanasius himself, it clearly was written by someone who, in understanding the teaching of Athanasius, Gregory the Theologian, and Augustine, made a great effort to both clarify and expand on this teaching with the intent that no one would have any doubt as to what the Christian Church, as a whole, regarded to be the orthodox and authoritative Doctrine of the Trinity. However, I think it would be good to quote it in full, and then see what light it really sheds on our differences over the matter of “the Eternal Subordination of the Son.” The Athanasian Creed reads as follows:

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated, nor three infinites, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, and the Holy Spirit is Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden…to say “There are three Gods, or three Lords.” The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity, none is before, or after, another. None is greater, or less, than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as was said before, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped (Cf. James R. White, “The Trinity and Church History,” The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, Bethany House Publishers, 1998, pp. 190-191)

Now I agree with this teaching on the Trinity, not because Athanasius, Gregory the Theologian, and Augustine taught it, nor because it was codifed and ratified by both the ancient Greek and Roman Churches in 381 A.D. and 382 A.D. Nor do I believe it because it was later reaffirmed by Reformed theologians, such as John Calvin, John Gill, B.B. Warfield, and Thomas F. Torrance. Not at all. I believe it because I am convinced that it is the only rationally consistent and coherent explanation of what the Scriptures themselves teach about the One God who is Three Persons, and the Three Persons who are the One God. Yet, I would never argue that this explanation places God in such a tight-fitting box that anyone can ever say, “Well, we now know all there is to know about the Triune God, his works and his ways.” What it essentially does is set the boundries within which an orthodox exploration of the Triune God’s nature, works and ways can be conducted without falling back into old heresies abandoned long ago. And so having said that, let me now make the following observations on the Creed itself:

1. Clearly, the author(s) intent in writing this creedal definition of the Trinity so precisely was in order that the four great heresies, i.e. Modalism, Sabellianism, Arianism, and Subordinationism—which have again and again cropped up within the Church at various times and in various forms–may once and for all be expelled from the Christian’s mind as an acceptable way to understand both the Unity and Diversity of the Triune God. Wouldn’t you agree, Mark?
2. Note that while the distinction of the Three Persons is maintained throughout, it is never stated that the distinction is ever based on one divine Person possessing some divine attribute, whether in part or full, which is not commonly shared by the Three Persons, who equally and fully share the One Divine Being and all its attributes, such as Glory, Majesty, Infinity, Eternality, Lordship, etc. Therefore, may I ask how anyone can one derive from this Creed the concept of an eternal subordination of the Son to the Father, which is defined by those who teach it as a hierarchical ranking of the Father over the Son rests on the “fact” that the Father’s Lordship contains more power and authority than does that of the Son? Does this not clearly imply that the Father, because his attributes are fuller and greater in some sense to those of the Son, in some sense also possesses more Divine Being than does the Son?
3. Note also that the distinctions that are recognized to exist among the Three Persons are strictly defined in terms of their eternal, internal relationships: Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession. The Father is the Father of the Son before all things, yet the Son is all the Father is as God, except he is not the Father. The Son, though “begotten” of the Father, as God is everything the Father is, except he is not the Father who begot him. And the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from both Father and Son, as God is everything that the Father and Son are, yet he is neither the Father nor Son from whom he proceeds. However, if we understand the Father’s begetting of the Son, and the Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son such that they are in some sense “derived” from the Being of the Father alone and are dependent on him for their “deification,” possessing less glory, majesty, power, and authority than does the Father himself–have we not fallen back into the subordinationist heresy of Arius that this Creed refutes? After all, it was Arius who argued that the divine Father-Son relationship, if we are to truly understand it, must be analogous to the human father-son relationship, which he understood and defined in terms of Superior to Inferior. So how should we think about the “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit”? Here, again, I refer to the statement made by T. F. Torrance on this subject:

What then does it mean to think of the three divine Persons specifically as ‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ and ‘Holy Spirit’? This is a question that had been cropping up in the Church since the Arian controversy, when attempts were made to speak of divine Fatherhood and Sonship on the analogy of human fatherhood and sonship. While there is certainly a figurative or metaphorical ingredient in the human terms ‘father’ and ‘son’ as they are used in divine revelation, they are to be understood in ways that point utterly beyond all sexist connotations and implications. Both the generation of the Son and
the procession of the Spirit are incomprehensible mysteries which are not explicable through recourse to human modes of thought. Hence, as Athanasius and Gregory Nanianzen insisted, we must set aside all analogies drawn from the visible world in speaking of God, helpful as they may be up to a point, for they are theologically unsatisfactory and even objectionable, and so must of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ when used of God as imageless relations. ‘Father,’ Gregory pointed out, ‘is the name of the relation in which the Father stands to the Son, and the Son to the Father, but such that it is an ineffable relation which exceeds and transcends human powers of imagination and conception,’ so that we may not read the creaturely of our human expressions of ‘father’ and ‘son’ analogically into what God discloses of his own inner divine relations. Hence, Gregory Nanianzen, like Athanasius, insisted that they must be treated as referring imagelessly, that is, in a diaphanous or ‘see through’ way, to the Father and Son without the intrusion of creaturely or sensual images into God. Thus we may not think of God as having gender, nor think of the Father as begetting the Son or of the Son as begotten after the analogy of generation or giving birth, with which we are familiar with among creaturely beings (Cf. “Three Persons, One Being,” The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons, T & T Clark, 1996, pp. 157-158)

Now at this point, as one whose own roots are in the Reformed and Baptist traditon, I want to address the idea, so common among hierarchical complementarians, that John Calvin both agrees with and in his Institutes of the Christian Religion also teaches that the distinctions of the Persons within the Trinity are necessarily to be understood as an eternal, hierarchical ranking due to one Person’s possession of a greater power, authority, or even function, in relation to the other two divine Persons. First of all, it ignores the fact, as B.B. Warfield, Kevin Giles and Thomas F. Torrance demonstrate from a careful study of his biblical and theological works, that not only did Calvin fully agree with the Trinitarian teaching expressed in both the Nicene-Constantinoplean and Anthanasian Creeds, but adamantly opposed every form of anti-trinitarianism and subordinationism of which he was aware, and which he perceived as a threat to orthodox belief. Secondly, in agreement with Athanasius and Gregory the Theologian, whom he quotes several times while discussing the Trinity in the 1559 revision and edition of the Institutes, Calvin argues clearly that both the Son and the Spirit, as well as the Father, are to be considered as autotheos, i.e. as “God in himself,” because each Person coequally and coeternally, both in their unity and in their diversity, fully share the one Being and its attributes that constitute the Triune God as God (Cf. Benjamin B. Warfield. “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” Calvin and Augustine, P & R Publishers, 1956, pp. 251-284) Third, when pressed to give a basic definition of the what it is that actually distinguishes the Persons in their relations and activities, seeking to be faithful to both the teaching of Scripture and the Ecumenical creeds, Calvin stated: “The Persons are so distinquished by the Scriptures that they attribute to the Father the beginning of all activity, as fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel and the actual dispensation of things to be done; and to the Spirit is attributed the power and efficiency of the action” (Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 13.i.62). So, to put it in modern terms Calvin was saying, in effect, that the Scriptures distinguished the Father as Initiator, the Son as the Director, and the Spirit as the Executor of all the divine activities.

Perhaps it is this one statement in the Institutes, more than any other, that hierarchical complementarians gravitate to appeal for Calvin’s support for their novel doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son in authority and function. But does Calvin’s statement above really teach what they asset it teaches? No, for the reasons we have already noted:

1. Calvin agreed with the teaching of the Early Church that the Triune God was to be understood not only as “One Being, Three Persons” (homoousia, treis hypostates), but also as three distinct divine Persons, but coequal and coeternal in Being, who also ever live within each other or coexist within one another in a self-giving, self-affirming, and self-nurturing communion and union that is necessary for maintaining both their Unity and Diversity as the One Triune God (perichoresis), which is taught in such texts as John 1:1, 18; 17:21-24, etc.
2. Calvin, on a number of occasions, confronted and opposed anti-trinitarian and subordinationist heresies; therefore, would we not judge him to be rationally inconsistent and incoherent to advocate a heresy he had earlier opposed and refuted?
3. Calvin was, among the Reformers, the one who argued most vigorously that the Father was autotheos, the Son was autotheos, and the Spirit was autotheos, because they fully and equally shared the One Divine Being and its attributes. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that he intended in this statement to teach or affirm a hierarchical or subordinationist ranking among the Three Persons, within the Godhead itself.

No, I think this must be understood in a relative sense, denoting how the three Persons relate and correlate with each other in the works of creation and redemption, rather than in their inward relations, which are to be understood primarily as mutual and reciprocal in nature (to be considered further below). I think the descriptive phrases “…the beginning of all activity,” “…the actual dispensation of things to be done,” and of the Spirit as the Agent who “has the power and efficiency of the action (s)” form the clues that clearly support this understanding of Calvin’s definition. For prior to their “new work” of creation and redemption, which had a “beginning” and were “outside” of the Triune God himself, what other “activities” could the three divine Persons have been engaged in, other than that of enjoying their mutual loving, self-giving and self-affirming Communion? And even if the Father were, in some sense, the Initiator in this inner Communion of the Trinity, how does that give him any greater power, authority, or function over the Son and the Spirit? If Son and Spirit are autotheos to the same degree as the Father, as Calvin had argued, would they not also possess the “ability” to initiate and reciprocrate a relationship with the Father? And if not, would they then not be less God, in that sense, than is the Father himself? I may be wrong, and I am willing to be corrected. But shouldn’t those who want to use Calvin to support ESS seriously consider these questions?

Now, in light of our examination of Calvin’s agreement with the Creeds, we need to further discuss the “coinherence, or coindwelling” (perichoresis) of the Three Persons, who are the One God. As they developed the homoousian formulation of the Trinity (i.e., “One Being, Three Persons”), that came to be enshrined in both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, Athanasius and Gregory the Theologian also taught, on the basis of such texts as John 10:27-30. 14:8-11, and 17:21-24, the perichoresis, or “the eternal coindwelling, or coinexistence, or coinherence” of the Three Persons. For in their debating with the Arians, they became convinced and then argued that in order to more fully maintain and explain the Unity and Diversity of the Three Persons, then the perichoresis must be recognized and firmly held as both the logical and necessary collary of their sharing the one Being and all its attributes, as required by the homoousian formulation. However, since I don’t want to write what would turn out to be another long essay, I will instead quote Thomas F. Torrance’s “short” explanation of perchoresis, and then follow it with a brief comment or two. Here’s his “short” explanation on this subject:

It was undoubtedly Athanasius who in his elucidation of the dwelling of the Father and of the Son in one another provided the theological basis for the doctrine of coinherence. He did this by way of elucidating statements of Jesus to the disciples recorded by St. John, particularly, ‘I am in the Father and the Father in me’. He deepened and refined the concept of the homoousion which gave expression to the underlying oneness of in being and activity between the incarnate Son and God the Father upon which everything in the Gospel depended. As he understood it the homoousian pointed both to real distinctions between the three divine Persons and to their coinhering with one another in the one Being of God. For Athanasius this had to do not merely with a linking or intercommunication of the distinctive properties of the three divine Persons, which became known as communicatio idiomatium, but with a completely mutual indwelling in which each Person, while remaining what he is by himself as Father, Son or Holy Spirit, is wholly in the others as the others are wholly in him. Although Athanasius did not give us a specific term for coinherence, mutual containing, or perichoresis–that came later–its basic idea was already conceived in his refutation of the Arian disparagement of the Lord’s words, ‘I in the Father and the Father in me’, through their question, ‘How can the one be contained (xorein) in the other and the other in the one?’ Athanasius pointed out that this would be to think of the relation between the Father and the Son quite inappropriately in accordance with the way material things can empty into and contain one another. He went on to explain that when it is said ‘I am in the Father and the Father is in me’ we are to understand this reciprocal relation as one in which the whole Being of the Father and the whole Being of the Son mutually indwell, inexist or coexist in one another, which is thinkable only in relation to God himself and of which we learn only in God’s revelation of himself. In his Letters on the Holy Spirit to his friend Serapion, Athanasius showed that we must think of this coinherence as applying equally to the homoousial interrelations between the Spirit and the Son, and the Spirit and the Father, and thus to the whole Trinity, for unless the Being and Activity of the Spirit are identical with the Being and Activity of the Father and Son, we are not saved. For the great Patriarch of Alexandria, the Gospel of salvation as handed down from the Apostles and as expressed in the Nicene Confession depended entirely on the ontological connection between the saving life and activity of the incarnate Son of God and God the Father, which in turn revealed and imported the no less crucial ontological connection between the Holy Spirit and both the Son and the Father. Thus his stress upon the inner coherent relations of the Holy Trinity was particularly significant in upholding the bond between the soteriological and ontological understanding of the Faith inherent in the homoousion that had been central to the Nicene appropriation and interpretation of the Gospel (Cf. “Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity,” The Christian Doctrine of God, pp. 168-169)

Well, it’s getting late, and I am weary. Wrestingly with what the Scriptures and Creeds really say about the Unity and Diversity of the Three Persons, their unity and harmonious cooperation in the works of creation and redemption, and then seeking to accurately and appropriately link that with the issues connected with women in ministry and leadership that we have been discussing–well, it’s very demanding work, to say the least. And I really wanted to address the Trinitarian issues Mark brought up, maybe add to Cheryl’s comments on Christ’s humilation and exaltation in Phil. 2:5-11, which Mark also brought up, and one last thing about 1 Cor 11:3, which started my discussion on the Trinity. What do you think Cheryl? Should I write another comment for this post, or have I gone on long enough? I don’t want to wear out my welcome here.