Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application

Wake Forest, NC

• Language: English
• Publisher: BH Publishing Group
• Release date: Oct 1, 2018
• ISBN: 9781433651397

Book preview

This is a much needed book by Southern Baptists on how to be trinitarian and what are the implications of the Trinity for human relationships. This is a robust conversation among leading Southern Baptist theologians on whether there is any eternal submission/subordination between the divine persons and to what extent husband and wife are an analogy for trinitarian relations. A must read for anyone interested in trinitarian theology and what it means to call a doctrine ‘biblical.’

—Mike Bird, academic dean and lecturer in theology, Ridley College

This little volume offers readers a window into an important ongoing conversation in evangelical life about the doctrine of the Trinity and its implications for human relationships and gender debates. Here, readers will find helpful insights from exegesis, tradition, and theological method, as well as a healthy, God-honoring model for navigating our theological disagreements. Highly recommended.

—Rhyne Putman, associate professor of theology and culture, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

The doctrine of the Trinity has gained a position of prominence in evangelical theology over the past few years largely due to (often heated) debates surrounding the eternal relations of the Father and the Son. While debates are rarely pleasant, they are often necessary, especially when doctrines of supreme importance are at stake. The present volume contains clear and up to date chapters by Bruce Ware, Malcolm Yarnell, Matthew Emerson, and Luke Stamps that represent various views of the Trinity held among Southern Baptist theologians today, along with an introduction and conclusion by Keith Whitfield that ably maps the issues at stake. With discussions marked by charity, as well as incisive analysis and critique, contributors debate issues such as the eternal functional subordination of the Son, the nature of the God-human relationship, and theological method, making this volume useful for a broad evangelical readership. My prayer is that it will serve not only Southern Baptists but also all confessional Protestants in retrieving and renewing our confession of faith in the blessed Trinity, who alone is worthy of our praise.

—Scott Swain, president and James Woodrow Hassell Professor of Systematic Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary

Trinitarian Theology

Copyright © 2019 by B&H Academic

Published by B&H Academic

Nashville, Tennessee

All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-4336-5139-7

Dewey Decimal Classification: 231.044

Subject Heading: TRINITY / GOD / DOCTRINAL THEOLOGY

Scripture quotations marked CSB are taken from The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible®, and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked ESV are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. The ESV® text has been reproduced in cooperation with and by permission of Good News Publishers. Unauthorized reproduction of this publication is prohibited. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked HCSB are taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible®. Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used with permission by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NASB are taken from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

The web addresses referenced in this book were live and correct at the time of the book’s publication but may be subject to change.

Cover design and illustration by Darren Welch.

Printed in the United States of America

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • 24 23 22 21 20 19

VP

To our friend Steve McKinion and his family,

who, before this project started,

and while the project was being worked on,

have been kept by our triune God

and

have cast their faith consistently on him.

Introduction

BY KEITH S. WHITFIELD

At the 2014 Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), a small group of professors from SBC seminaries and universities ate dinner together at La Tavola in Baltimore, Maryland. Over the course of the meal, we envisioned starting a fellowship for SBC professors to provide an opportunity to network across Southern Baptist institutions, to promote the role of the professor in Southern Baptist life, and to encourage scholarship in the churches of the SBC.

As I write this introduction of Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application, the Southern Baptist Professor Fellowship has met annually in San Diego, Atlanta, San Antonio, and Providence during the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The Fellowship has also hosted a couple of small topical events. At the 2015 Atlanta meeting, we held a small breakfast event at which Bruce Ware, Steve McKinion, and Malcolm Yarnell were invited to discuss appropriate methods for forming the doctrine of the Trinity and implications for applying trinitarian doctrine to complementarianism. We considered the proper application of Augustine’s partitive exegesis and trinitarian reading of Scripture. Panelists interpreted both John 8:42 and 1 Cor 15:28 as they addressed the Son’s relationship to the Father with respect to divine works in the immanent and economic Trinity. Finally, we asked whether there are certain boundaries that should be observed when applying trinitarian theology to the realm of human life and relationships. This book is a product of that conversation. Matthew Emerson and Luke Stamps contributed to this book in the place of Steve McKinion, who needed to step away from the project to care for his family during his youngest son’s leukemia treatment.

Contemporary Trinitarian Debates within Evangelicalism

While the interactions in this book are between Southern Baptist theologians, the occasion for this book is situated within Evangelical concerns over trinitarian theology. In recent years, debates over trinitarian doctrine have emerged within evangelicalism. Three features of this doctrine have been central to these discussions. One of those points of discussion relates to whether the classical (or Latin) and social (or Eastern)¹ conceptions of the Trinity are both appropriate biblical models for conceptualizing the Trinity.² The difference between the classical and social models has been examined in modern theology, but the renewed interest in trinitarian theology and the influence of the contemporary applications of these models situated the importance of this topic in evangelicalism. The church affirmed that God has one substance (ousia) and eternally and fully exists as three distinct persons (hypostases in Greek, personae in Latin). But exactly how one should understand the relationship between the substantial unity and personal plurality of the Godhead has been a point of theological debate. The classical and social models differ in large part based on where one starts in formulating their trinitarian doctrine and the emphasis one places on aspects of their conception. The classical model prioritizes the unity of the persons, because they share the divine essence and divine operations. This model seeks to demonstrate how one divine essence can exist in three distinct persons. The social model, which some claim follows the Cappadocians, starts with the analogy of persons in relation and affirming that the divine hypostases are fully personal in the modern sense of the term, emphasizing persons as having distinct personalities.³ The social trinitarian model faces the challenge of explaining how the three persons in these terms are in fact one.⁴

The next trinitarian debate pertains to the doctrine of Eternal generation. Athanasius used the phrase to communicate the Son’s oneness with the Father. The doctrine is expressed in the Nicene Creed in the phrases begotten of the Father and light of light. Stephen Holmes and others argue that eternal generation is an essential feature of orthodox trinitarian formulation, because the doctrine is central to the doctrine of the Trinity, soteriology, and God’s purpose for revealing himself.⁵ Many evangelicals, however, have not affirmed the doctrine of eternal generation, and have questioned its significance for trinitarian theology and Christology.⁶ In recent years, there has been some movement toward a consensus on affirming the doctrine of eternal generation. Yet, not everyone affirming this doctrine is clear on what it means or why it is important.

The final evangelical trinitarian debate considers whether eternal functional subordination (EFS) is the proper theological category for conceiving the eternal relationship between divine persons in the triune life. EFS affirms that the divine persons are ontologically equal and one, but, at the same time, the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father eternally and functionally. Throughout 2015–2016, this discussion received renewed interest in response to the publication of One God in Three Persons edited by Bruce Ware and John Starke.⁷ Specifically, in June 2016, Liam Goligher and Carl Trueman challenged the claim that the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father eternally in terms of their divine functions. The debate was vigorously discussed throughout the summer, with more than 200 blog posts published on the topic in a little more than two months. Evangelical theologians such as Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Denny Burk, Mark Thompson, and Mike Ovey have affirmed some articulation of the EFS position. Evangelical theologians such as Liam Goligher, Carl Trueman, Darren Sumner, Mark Jones, Scot McKnight, Matt Emerson, Luke Stamps, Scott Swain, and Fred Sanders believe that EFS represents a move away from traditional Christian orthodoxy.

There are at least five critical questions in this debate. First, is EFS of the Son and the Spirit to the Father taught in Scripture? The Bible indicates that the Son submits to the Father while he is incarnated (John 5:19), and this submission seems to continue into the future, at least in some sense (1 Cor 15:27–28). This position also teaches that the Son has been submissive to the Father from eternity. The biblical question is, what is meant by the Father sending the Son (John 3:17; 1 John 4:14) and by the Father being the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3)? Is eternal functional subordination entailed in the very language of Father and Son?

Second, is the EFS of the Son an innovative theological position? Perhaps another way to ask the question is, was EFS affirmed by the early expositions of trinitarian doctrine? Wayne Grudem has argued that EFS has been consistently taught, and he provides extensive citations of how it has been affirmed throughout the history of the church.⁸ Many others have argued that the church did not teach EFS, and would not have affirmed it as a way to conceive of the eternal relationships between the Father and the Son. They argue instead that historically the divine taxis properly reveal the relations and the distinctions between the divine persons. Further, they argue that the divine names reveal the taxis, but do not entail EFS.⁹

The third question raised by this debate is, if you affirm EFS, does that entail affirming a separation of the divine will? Many who affirm the classical trinitarian doctrine argue that the claim that the Son eternally submits to the Father implies two wills in God.¹⁰ For the Son to submit to the Father’s authority, there must be a distinction between the will of the Father and the will of the Son. Because will has historically been a property of nature and not person, affirming a separation in the divine wills is theologically problematic. To affirm a distinction between the Father’s will and the Son’s will after the incarnation is acceptable, but before the incarnation, it means God has two wills and implies a denial of divine simplicity.

The fourth question leads us back to the second terrain we crossed relating to evangelical trinitarian debate. Does the EFS of the Son deny the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son? As previously mentioned, this doctrine has been denied in recent years by evangelicals for various reasons. Their theological judgments on this doctrine have been based largely on certain hermeneutical and methodological convictions and questions about what the doctrine of eternal generation means. For those who affirm what some call the classical view of the Trinity, eternal generation is an important doctrine that expresses the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, as eternal procession expresses the unique relationship between the Father and the Spirit. Eternal generation for them does not conceive of a hierarchy in the Godhead. It communicates relationship of origin. Eternal generation conceptualizes relationship of distinction.¹¹

Finally, should the relationships between the Father and Son be used to ground and explain the roles between men and women? The relevance of the Trinity as a theological basis for the complementary male-female relationships in the home, church, and broader societal domains has been a point of debate within evangelicalism for some time. While this question no doubt relates to some exegetical considerations around texts like 1 Cor 11:3, the question is more directly about how the analogy of being informs one’s theological method.

Southern Baptists and Trinitarian Theology

Early in the dustup over the publication of One God in Three Persons, on his blog, Michael Bird raised the ire of SBC theologians when he wrote, Given the centrality of this school of thought around Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware, I propose—for discussion—whether it is apt to start referring to ‘Southern Baptist Homoianism.’¹² After suggesting the use of this theological reference for Southern Baptist theologians, he added, Comments for and against appreciated!¹³ This project is not a 60,000-word comment for or against a blog post. It is, however, a response to a question Bird’s comment, perhaps unintentionally, raises. Is there a consensus among Southern Baptists on the method of formulating trinitarian doctrine and how that doctrine may be applied to human relationships?

One might suppose that Southern Baptist confessional documents would supply a sufficient starting place to answer this question. We do find in these documents that some Southern Baptist confessions have in fact lacked the precise trinitarian language that reflects trinitarian orthodoxy. The problem implicit in these statements, however, does not suggest any form of subordination. Rather, some of the documents did not explicitly affirm the reality of distinct triune persons. Thus, Douglas Blount suggests that the 1925 and 1963 editions of the Baptist Faith and Message fail to affirm unequivocally the Baptist commitment to God’s triunity,¹⁴ opening the possibility for someone to affirm the statement and yet deny that God subsists as three persons. In the 1963 edition, the article reads: [T]he eternal God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.¹⁵ This language was appropriated from the Abstract of Principles, and represents a less precise doctrine compared to the trinitarian statement found in the New Hampshire Confession, on which the drafters of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) relied heavily. New Hampshire’s article on the Trinity represents more clearly trinitarian orthodox: That there is one, and only one, living and true God . . . revealed under the personal and relative distinctions of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; equal in every divine perfection, and executing distinct but harmonious offices in the great work of redemption.¹⁶ In 2000, the committee that revised the BF&M removed the potential problem by adding the word triune, so that it now reads, "The eternal triune [italics added] God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being."

Southern Baptists cooperate under broad confessional commitments. We are not theologically uniform. Throughout our history, theological differences and debate within the SBC has been common. We have engaged in theological refinement at meetings of local Baptist associations, in Baptist state papers, and from both the pulpit and the floor of the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. We continue to debate our theological disagreements to clarify our statements, not for the simple delight in nuance, but because we believe theology matters for the health of local congregations, the witness to Christ in our communities, and the cooperative work of Southern Baptist churches. We want all confessing Southern Baptists to have a deeply formed faith. We want strong churches that teach and live the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all (Jude 3 CSB). Theological discussions help us think clearly about our faith as we seek the best way to conceptualize and articulate what we believe, so that the church can flourish in living her faith around the world with a clear and compelling witness to Christ. We believe that our theological conversations, done well, can facilitate meaningful cooperation. While our theological differences within the bounds of the BF&M are not insignificant, they should not divide us or restrain our partnership to magnify Christ and expand his kingdom. In this book, trinitariansim is discussed by Southern Baptists differently within the bounds of the BF&M.

In the first chapter, Bruce Ware claims that the nomenclature Father, Son, and Holy Spirit reveals a prevailing authority-submission structure within the Trinity. He describes his view as eternal relations of authority and submission (ERAS) and establishes a preference for that description over eternal functional subordination (EFS). He argues that conceiving the eternal relationship between Father and Son need not compromise the eternal unity or equality of the Godhead. The functional distinctions aid us in conceptualizing the threeness of God without compromising God’s essential unity. In chapter 4, Ware responds to Yarnell’s and Emerson and Stamps’s chapters by affirming places of agreement in terms of trinitarian doctrine and key methodological commitments. He also illuminates where he differs with Emerson and Stamps’s critique of ERAS. Throughout this interaction, Ware establishes additional support for his position in light of the concerns expressed by Emerson and Stamps in their chapter.

In the second chapter, Yarnell offers a trinitarian method for theological anthropology. He explores the proper relationship between anthropology and theology proper, the perspicuity of divine revelation, and the nature of the triune God revealed in divine names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yarnell’s theological anthropology is based on humanity being created in the image of God. He argues that there are sound reasons to think that the relations within God provide a pattern for human relations, including male and female relations. In his responses to Ware, and Emerson and Stamps in the fifth chapter, he raises methodological concerns with correlating too closely our anthropological claims with our doctrine of God. Thus, he raises reservations regarding the concept of an eternal relation of authority and submission in the Trinity. While Yarnell commends Emerson and Stamps’s holistic theological method and thick biblicism, he states that his method is less reliant on tradition. Nevertheless, a significant portion of his response chapter depends on a theological reading of Scripture with the tradition.

In the third chapter, Matthew Emerson and Luke Stamps propose