The doctrine of the Trinity came under intense scrutiny last summer (2016), but it wasn’t from unbelieving philosophers or Jehovah’s Witnesses. A debate raged for the better part of three months amongst evangelical theologians, concentrating within the complementarian camp. This intramural controversy seriously threatened to dissolve the unity of complementarians and evangelicalism as a whole.
The contention was over the issue of the Son’s eternal submission to the Father. Here’s the question: is Jesus, as the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally subordinate to the Father in an economic sense, even if he is equal in the sense of substance or essence?
In the video below, Michael Bird describes (with his typical comedic flair) how the controversy, which centered on the meaning and extent of the Son’s relationship to the Father, played out amongst evangelical theologians. Michael contributed to the debate himself, and at one point suggests that, rather than speaking of the Son’s “subordination,” a term that reeks of Arianism, we should talk in terms of the Son’s “obedient self-distinction.”
Furthermore, Michael questions the popular idea that human marriage is a reflection of the hierarchy inherent in the Trinity, a view he sees as unhelpful and a bit absurd: human marriage is not “two guys and a eunuch.”
This video is worth watching in order to gain a balanced perspective on this critical debate that has threatened to tear evangelicalism apart. Check it out, and then head over to the Logos Talk blog, where Dr. Peter Leithart weighs in on the recent debate concerning relationships in the Trinity:
Watch Drs. Wayne Grudem, Millard Erickson, Fred Sanders, Bruce Ware, and Kevin Giles make a case for their conclusions in one of the most pressing debates in contemporary theology: Is God the Son subordinate to God the Father in eternity, or not?
Get it for 40% off, and don’t miss all the other courses available in Mobile Ed’s Tough Topics Sale.
Kenneth Macari says
June 1, 2017 at 6:40 pmYes, Michael. They are Semi-Arians!!!! Grudem and Ware argue for this in order to justify the Complementarian perspective that women may not be leaders of a local church—that only men can be ordained ministers of Word and Sacrament. Their American semi-Dispensationalist leanings obscure their understandings of the Nicene and
Chacedonian perspectives. They could use a grounding in the perspectives of Karl Barth, Thomas Torrance, Khaled Anatolios and contemporary American Patristic scholars as Christopher Hall, Everett Ferguson and Matthew Levering
Chip Fields says
June 3, 2017 at 1:28 pmThat’s not how I see it. In the world’s economy, different roles tend to equate to different levels of importance. Not so with the Trinity. God’s economy is not the world’s economy. Further, attacking the analogy between the Trinity and marriage (ontological equality, economic subordination) because three persons are involved in the Trinity is absurd, since all analogies break down at some point.
Rob says
June 4, 2017 at 2:44 amHuh? The video just ends there?
Tavis Bohlinger says
June 5, 2017 at 12:10 pmHi Rob, there is a Part 2 coming soon. Hang tight for that one, and be sure to check out Bird’s lecture in the Mobile Ed Trinity Perspectives course.
Francis Noel says
June 5, 2017 at 12:05 amWhen in doubt…Just go to the creed that we all profess…especially the part that goes…”…consubstantiálem Patri…”
Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
Factórem cæli et terræ,
Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sǽcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
Per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
Descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
Ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
Passus, et sepúltus est,
Et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
Et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
Iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
Cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
Qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
Qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum.
Et expécto resurrectiónem mortuórum,
Et vitam ventúri sǽculi. Amen.[52]
John T. Jeffery says
June 5, 2017 at 5:33 amThe first three months of the Trinity Debate beginning 3 JUN 2016 certainly saw the heaviest traffic, but it hadn’t tapered off much by the last quarter of 2016. See the 28th edition of the Trinity Debate Bibliography on Books at a Glance at http://www.booksataglance.com/blog/twenty-eighth-updated-edition-trinity-debate-bibliography/ [accessed 5 JUN 2017]. This bibliography includes documentation of the debate traffic as follows (number of posts in parentheses):
2016 (313): JUN (144), JUL (58), AUG (27), SEP (22), OCT (13), NOV (25), DEC (24);
2017 (27): JAN (14), FEB (5), MAR (6), APR (2).
Tavis Bohlinger says
June 5, 2017 at 12:08 pmThanks, John. This is an excellent resource on the debate!
William Lefranc says
June 5, 2017 at 1:19 pmGod is one. He has revealed Himself in three distinct persons: The Son is no less than the Father, while the Holy Spirit is not less than the Son. At the same token, the Father is no better than either the Son and/or the Holy Spirit
We have one God, not three. Because the Son submits to the Father, it does not mean the Father is better than the Son. Each member of the holy Trinity are equal to each other, but each one has a distinct role that defines who God really is.
For us to question the submission of the Son to the Father is to miss the opportunity to recognize the beautiful character of God in relation to one another.
The Father is not the boss and He does not order around the Son or the Spirit. It is in fact a dance of love where the Father limitlessly loves the Son, while the Son limitlessly loves the Father. God is one., not three.
Rod Rogers says
June 5, 2017 at 8:44 pmIt seems to me that the eternal subordination of the Son and the eternal sonship of the Son are two sides of the same coin. It’s a shame John Macarthur was hassled into changing his position on the eternal sonship issue. The problem seems to be that the doctrines of men carry more weight than scripture. God help us.
Sean says
April 5, 2018 at 8:13 pmMacarthur was not hassled into changing his position on eternal Sonship. He changed his position years ago, not recently, after being convicted that the Son of God has always existed. He once believed that the Son was not eternal, which is an erroneous doctrine.
Rod Rogers says
April 6, 2018 at 9:17 amNot knowing anything about you, let me give you some advice. Your comment, “He changed his position years ago” regardless of having nothing to do with what I said, is subjective. Years ago, may mean one thing to you and an entirely different thing to me (MacArthur’s Incarnational Sonship was first published in 1983 in his commentary on Hebrews. His recant of this position appeared in 2001 in Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6, no. 1 (2001): 21-23.). Interesting that you “know” that John MacArthur (check your spelling or maybe we are speaking of two different MacArthur’s) was not hassled into changing his position. That is somewhat misleading considering what John himself said, “Still, controversy continued to swirl around my views on “incarnational sonship,” prompting me to reexamine and rethink the pertinent biblical texts”. Controversy was not the only thing MacArthur was concerned about. Those in the Independent Fundamental Churches of America were threatening to remove him from the fellowship. I believe that is why John MacArthur “changed his mind”.
I find you sloppy in your statements. To say, “He once believed that the Son was not eternal, which is an erroneous doctrine.”, is ambiguous at best and not what John MacArthur said. A quote from him will prove this, “The “incarnational sonship” view, while admittedly a minority opinion, is by no means rank heresy”. If you think John MacArthur spoke heresy I suggest you contact him and enlighten him on this new truth.
Stephanus Karnadhi says
June 7, 2017 at 9:34 pmGreetings from Indonesia. I’m a bit sad that respected theologians debated about Trinity, sorry.. but it reminds me about the poem of 6 Indian blind men & an elephant.. i’ve watched only a few video .. let me share as a blind man .. i think the difference between creature n Creator is so vast n however intelegent we are, we can only peek through a pinhole to heaven. The analogy of difference is not as black paper n white paper, but as black paper with multy-colored full orb metropolitan! God is wholy other, incomprehensible. God is in multi-billion-dimension compared to this three dimensional world we are so fond of. I like what Beth Felker Jones says in her video: its a dance of love. The analogy of a functional family is still the best we can imagine, n God is pleased to use that relationship as picture of Trinity relationship. When parents submit to their children’s wishes it doesnt make them less than parents, it just shows their love. If ever Father submits to Son’s is it degrading His Fatherhood? So the Son willingly, lovingly, happily submit to Father, its not military- like obedience.
In many occasions, husbands n wives says the same things, thinks the same thought at the same time. So why cant Father n Son n Holy Spirit think n say the same thing at the same moment. It doesnt have to be Father initiate things first.
Lastly, thank you, Logos, for the 14 days trial of mobile eds.. I enjoy every moment of it, n has been blessed. God bless you.
Lothloria says
February 11, 2020 at 5:50 amVery true. How can we, mere humans, bound by time and culture, claim to know exactly what the Trinity is? Such a mystery! 3 persons in 1. It smacks of pride to me. And personally, I would go to the Bible, first, and to common sense, second. Not a Latin creed centuries old. Creeds are not God breathed. And in the Bible, God is presented as Father and Jesus Christ as Son and as our brother. Common sense tells us that “sons” are submitted to their “fathers” usually. I don’t need any more than that. Trying to be too precise is just too dangerous. we live by faith, like the faith of little children. As for complementarianism, leaving aside Paul’s and Peter’s injunctions to the wife to be submissive to her husband, any impartial look at Genesis shows a hierarchy (not in nature but in roles) between man and woman. It’s only because the world has changed so much these last decades that the church is desperately trying to justify putting women in authority with no Biblical example to sustain this view. (Deborah, time of the Judges, time of anarchy, probably very much like the times we’re living in). It’s just compromise with the world.
James Sheets says
June 8, 2017 at 12:19 pmI understand Grudem and Ware’s argument as an area that needs to receive further study, but the real problem is they use that argument to support the argument against women holding leadership positions in the Body of Christ. One really does undermine the other.
Bill says
June 10, 2017 at 5:18 pmIt is nice to have different speakers with different perspectives like the counterpoint series but on video. However, a lot of the problems would be solved if one stuck with Scripture and Scripture alone and not creeds from the 3-5th century as the foundation. Scripture shows the Son as the one GIVEN rulership, authority, power, judgment, lordship, etc. 1 Cor 15:28 highlights that the Son will indeed clearly show himself as subject to the one “God” who is “the Father.” (1 Cor 8:6) In addition, the Son “became” man not “put on” but was indeed “lower than angels.”-Hebrew 2:9 True Christianity should be based on the Bible, not as some of the speakers anachronistically highlight, such as Fred Sanders. To force it to agree with our preconceived ideas is eisegesis at its best. Our Lord the powerful Christ with all his authority and piercing eyes still has one who is his God-The Father (Rev 3:12).
Kenneth Macari says
June 12, 2017 at 1:03 pmBill seems to be hung up with one can interpret Scripture in isolation from later Christians in their wrestling with these issues. Too much of American evangelicalism boils down to “Jesus and me and the Bible make three!” I am a pastor in the Presbyterian Church USA and am considered almost too conservative in my circles theologically. The Reformation Confessions as the Second Helvetic, Belgic and Westminster, the Anglican Thirty Nine Articles, Heidelberg Catechism as well as the Lutheran Book of Concord are very helpful. A great resource is Creeds of the Church by John Leith
Bill says
June 12, 2017 at 1:20 pmKenneth,
I just feel the foundation should be scripture and not creeds. Creeds can be studied to see how much they align or deviate from what is God-breathed. However, as Christ is the foundation for the congregation, the Bible is the foundation for truth. Much of the lingo is post-biblical. eg. 3 person in one being…. Dual nature of Christ. Where does the Bible teach that? Does that mean Christ has two centers of consciousness? One that knows all things and one that is limited by human nature? If two centers of thinking how is that one person? etc. Taking 400 years to develop a doctrine does not make it truth. If so one could claim the Presbyterian church is finally finding the truth with homosexuality. See review of Milton Coalter in Interpretation 71.(3) Review of Secular Faith: How culture has trumped religion…
Steve says
April 13, 2018 at 11:19 pmCan you direct me to any updates information on this debate? Is there a list of books written about it anywhere?
John T. Jeffery says
April 14, 2018 at 3:53 amSee “The Trinity Debate Bibliography: The Complete List” (7 MAR 2018), on Books at a Glance at http://www.booksataglance.com/blog/trinity-debate-bibliography-complete-list/ accessed 12 APR 2018].
Also see “Second Update to Divine Simplicity: A Bibliography of Reviews of and Responses to Reviews of James Dolezal. All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism” (23 MAR 2018), on Books at a Glance at http://www.booksataglance.com/blog/second-update-to-divine-simplicity-a-bibliography-of-reviews-of-and-responses-to-reviews-of-james-dolezals-all-that-is-in-god-evangelical-theology-and-the-challenge-of-classical-christian-theism/ [accessed 12 APR 2018].
John T. “Jack” Jeffery
Pastor, Wayside Gospel Chapel
Greentown, PA