(ACTS 18)”
6 One Essence, One Goodness, One Power Nancy Hedberg
12 An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity Stanley N. Gundry
Chr i s t i an s fo r B i bl i ca l Equa l i t y | www.cb e in t e
r nat i ona l . o rg
We believe that the sole living God who created and rules over all
and who is described in the Bible is one Triune God in three
coeternal, coequal Persons, each Person being presented as distinct
yet equal, not as three separate gods, but one Godhead, sharing
equally in honor, glory, worship, power, authority, rule, and rank,
such that no Person has eternal primacy over the others.
15 An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity William David
Spencer
20 CBE and the Doctrine of the Trinity Kevin Giles
22 Human Interpersonal Relationships and the Love of the Trinity
Maria L. Boccia
27 Book Review: Nancy Hedberg’s Women, Men, and the Trinity William
David Spencer
28 Book Review: Millard Erickson’s Who’s Tampering with the
Trinity? John Jefferson Davis
30 Poem: Heaven’s Terms for Ending the Lethal Punch-and-Judy Show
William David Spencer
2 • Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011
deanStuartBartonBabbage,I learnedabouttheprecioustrea-
surebequeathedtoChristianposterityinsuchstatementsasthe
CreedofNicaea, theChalcedonianDefinitionof theFaith, the
Apostles’Creed.Ialsolearned,tomysurprise,thatsuchdecla- rations as
the Southern Baptist “Faith and Message” were also creeds, as was
the statement of belief in my own independent
Baptistbirthchurch.
Acreed,fromtheLatincredo,meaning“Ibelieve,”wassimply
anaffirmationofwhatanindividual,orachurch,oragroupsuch
asaparachurchorganization,oradenominationbelievesarethe central
tenets of the faith that may not be changed. These are what are
called the dogmatic declarations—the unifying prin-
ciplesthatdefinethefaithbeingespoused.
In evangelical Christianity, we have (hopefully) many areas
inwhichweallowvarietyofconviction.Wecanvaryinchurch structure;
inwhat liquidelements(alcoholicornon)weusein
theLord’sSupper;inwhenwebaptize,howmuchofthebodywe
needtocoverwithwater,andhowmanytimeswedoitforeach
individualbeliever;inhowformalourworshipstylesare;inwhat
version(s)oftheBiblewedeemacceptableforthepublicreading
oftheScriptures;toitemsaspersonalaswhetherbody-piercing and
tattooing are demonic or simply artistic, or as formal as
whetherrobesarerequiredonclergyornot,andsoon.
ThequestionofwhetherJesusisfullyGodandfullyhuman
andtheonlywaytosalvationisnot,however,negotiableincon-
servativeChristiancircles.
AsNanceyMurphyhasnoted inher illuminatingbookBe- yond Liberalism
and Fundamentalism, when one moves away
Oneoftheepiphanicmomentsofmyfaith
cameaboutinnorthPhiladelphiaatwhat had been Temple University’s
theologi- cal school, redubbed Conwell School of Theology after
Russell Conwell, the Civil War officer whose coming to Christian
faith was profoundly influenced by a de- vout and devoted
assistant, Johnny Ring. Johnnyseemedaperfectcandidateforthe
ministrywhenhislifewasabruptlycutoff
in“thewarbetweenbrothers.”Severelywoundedhimselfandleft
fordeadforanightattheBattleofKennesawMountain(Geor- gia), Conwell
eventually embraced Johnny’s God.1 Years later,
nowaBaptistpastor,hewasaskedbyayoungdeacontoteach
himtopreachandrespondedinthegrandstyle,foundingTem-
pleCollegeinPhiladelphia,“thecityofbrotherlylove,”perhaps as much a
tribute to the young believer Johnny Ring. Temple blossomed into
the university with a theological seminary, the latter becoming
independent and soon acquiring a new name,
Gordon-ConwellTheologicalSeminary,whenBillyGrahambro-
keredamergerwithanotherseminary,GordonDivinitySchool,
whichwasalsoleavingitspresentcampus.
ThePhiladelphiabranch,onlydestined to run thatone last year,
1969,washousedappropriately in theoldWidenerMan-
sion,theformerPhiladelphiaPublicLibrary.There,amidanew
setofbooks,allChristianandprofound,anda faculty that fa- vored
European and high-church professors, assembled by the
wiseAustralianAnglicanchurchhistorianandformercathedral
Priscilla
Papers(issn0898-753x)ispublishedquarterlybyChristiansforBiblicalEquality,©2011.
122WestFranklinAvenue,Suite218,Minneapolis,MN55404-2451.Foraddresschangesandotherinformation,phone:612-872-6898;
fax:612-872-6891;ore-mail:
[email protected].
Priscilla
PapersisindexedbyChristiansforBiblicalEquality,theChristianPeriodicalIndex(CPI),AmericanTheologicalLibraryAssociation’s(ATLA)NewTestament
Abstracts(NTA),andReligious&TheologicalAbstracts(R&TA).Inaddition,Priscilla
PapersislicensedwithEBSCOPublishing’sfull-textinformationallibraryproducts.
Editor • William David Spencer
BookReviewEditor • Aída Besançon Spencer
President/Publisher • Mimi Haddad
EditorsEmerita • Carol Thiessen† & Gretchen Gaebelein
Hull
BoardofReference:MiriamAdeney,CarlE.Armerding,MyronS. Augsburger,
Raymond J. Bakke, Anthony Campolo, Lois McKinney Douglas, Gordon D.
Fee, Richard Foster, John R. Franke, W. Ward
Gasque,J.LeeGrady,VernonGrounds,DavidJoelHamilton,Roberta Hestenes,
Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Donald Joy, Robbie Joy, Craig S. Keener,
John R. Kohlenberger III, David Mains, Kari Torjesen Malcolm,
Brenda Salter McNeil, Alvera Mickelsen, Virgil Olson, LaDonna
Osborn, T. L. Osborn, John E. Phelan, Kay F. Rader, Paul A. Rader,
Ronald J. Sider, Aída Besançon Spencer, William David
Spencer,RuthA.Tucker,MaryStewartVanLeeuwen,TimothyWeber,
JeanetteS.G.Yep
Editor’s Reflections
DISCLAIMER:FinalselectionofallmaterialpublishedbyCBEinPriscilla
Papersisentirelyuptothediscretionoftheeditor,consultingtheologians,andCBE’s
executive.Pleasenotethateachauthorissolelylegallyresponsibleforthecontentandtheaccuracyoffacts,citations,references,andquotationsrenderedandprop-
erlyattributedinthearticleappearingunderhisorhername.NeitherChristiansforBiblicalEquality,northeeditor,northeeditorialteamisresponsibleorlegally
liableforanycontentoranystatementsmadebyanyauthor,butthelegalresponsibilityissolelythatauthor’sonceanarticleappearsinprintinPriscilla
Papers.
Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011 • 3
fromanyofthesefoundationaltenets,onehasmadeaparadigm
shiftfromconservative to liberal.Sheexplains thatonecannot
simplyslipdownaslipperyslideofplummetingdoctrine.One
needstochangeone’sviews.2JesusiseitherLordofallorLordof
some,Godornot-God,humanornot-human,thesoledoorto
salvationorjustoneofmanywindowslookingin.
As I keep telling my own students, Jesus cannot be “most
unique”or“veryunique”or“moreunique.”Jesusiseitherunique—
theonlymemberofthecategoryofGod-Among-Us-in-Human- Form—or not
unique. There are not degrees of uniqueness any
morethantherearedegreesofegalitarian,sincethingsareeither
equalortheyarenot.Thesewordsindicatesomethingabsolute.
InChristiandoctrine,statingthatacoretenetisanabsolute
andunchangeableaspectofwhatachurchbelieves,anunalter-
abledogmafoundationaltothatchurch’sfaith,iswhatdeclaring
a“WeBelieve”confessionisallabout.
Themostfamousandenduringofthe“Webelieve”statements,
orcreeds,ofcourse,dealwiththenatureofGod.Thefirstgreat
creeds,itcanbeargued,actuallyappearintheBibleitself.Itrace
thefirstgreat“Webelieve”towhatiscalledtheShema,the“Hear,
Israel,”namedintheHebrewstyleforitsfirstwordsofdeclara-
tioninDeuteronomy6:4,(literally)“Hear,Israel,theLord,your God(s),
the Lord is one (or united).” What using the singular word
for“Lord”—the foursacred lettersofGod’sname,called the
Tetragrammaton—in conjunction with the plural word for God, Elohim
(“Gods”) meansinthiscontexthasbeenthesubject
ofmuchdebate.Manyevangelicalsseeitastheforeshadowingof
therevelationofGod’striunenature,oneofmanysuchplacesin
theBiblewhereJesustookthoseastonishedtravelerstoEmmaeus,
asreportedinLuke24:13–35,as“beginningwithMosesandwith
alloftheprophetsheexplained(orinterpreted,diermneu)to
theminalltheScripturesthethingsconcerninghimself ”(v.27).
IhavelongfeltthatwhattheApostleJohninthefirstchapter
orprologuetohisgospelissettingoutisacreedalstatementashe
combatstheperniciousteachingofCerinthus,theEbionites,the
Nicolaitians.3Alloftheseteacherssoughttoalterthefaithonce
receivedbythesaints.
CerinthuswasaNeoplatonistwhoviewedJesusaslessthan
God,sinceJesuscreatedtheworld,and,inthePlatonistperspec-
tive,matterisevilandGodcannottouchit.Alesserdemiurgeem-
anatingfromtheDivineMonad(Godseenasanon-Trinitarian,
Unitariandeity)musthavebeenthecreator.ButJohnestablishes
inhisstatementthatthecreativewordthatemanatedoutfrom
GodinGenesis1wasadistinctpersonofGod,bothdistinctbut
unitedindeity:“andtheWordwaswithGod”(“with,”pros,be-
ingaprepositiondrawnfromthewordfor“face,”prospon,thus
meaningdistinct fromor “face to facewithGod”), and, at the
sametime,that“WordwasGod”(John1:1).
I believe that John is drawing out the same lesson that the Shema
wasteaching:thatGodispluralyetone.Wecallthisthe “Three
inOne”qualityofGod: theTrinity.4Ourzealous Jeho-
vah’sWitnessesfriendsmayinsistthattheterm“Trinity”isnot
intheBible,butthetermwascreatedtoexplainthisconceptof
divinepluralityinsingleness,thethree-in-onenessofGod,that
weseeallovertheBible.Thisiswhattheologyisallabout:articu-
latingconceptsinhelpfulterms.Thosetermsarethengathered
upintostatementsthathelpusunderstandandconfessourcen-
tralbeliefs:thecreeds.
Generationaftergeneration,thechurchhashadtostandup
anddeclarewhatitbelievesjustasIsraelregularlyconfessedthe Shema
thatGodfirstdelivered throughMosesasGod’speople
stoodonthefarsideoftheJordanRiver,poisedtoenteraland
fulloffalsefaithsthatwouldseektopollutethetruerevelation
thathadbeengiventotheminorderforthemtoblessothersasa
nationofpriests(Gen12:2–3).
The Apostle John, as we saw, stated this faith again in the
openingofhisgospel.PauldiditinColossians1:15–20andPhi- lippians
2:5–11. Emperor Constantine had church leaders do it
againattheCouncilofNicaeawhenmoreNeoplatonists,spurred
bythesaintlyappearingpreacherAriusandhispowerfulpatron
theoverseerEusebiusofNicomedia,soughttoestablishthatJesus
wasalesserGodthantheFather.Acenturyandaquarterlater,
theequalityintheTrinityandtherevelationoftheincarnationof
thatpersonintheTrinitywhocametoearthasJesusChrist,fully
human,fullyGod,hadtobereaffirmedagainattheCouncilof
Chalcedon.Downthroughtheages,confessionafterconfession
becamenecessaryasthechurchcontinuedtoreaffirmitscentral
tenets.Manyofthesehavebecomefamous:the Westminster Con- fession of
Faith, the Scots Confession, the Second Helvetic Confes-
sion.Someemergedfromgreatconflictandthreatsnotonlyto
thefaith,butalsototheverynatureofthechurchasChrist’sand
notsomeotherearthlypower’s,asthe Theological Declaration of Barmen
thatdeclaredthatJesusChristaloneandnotAdolfHitler
wastheLordofthechurch.
Inshort,periodicallythechurchneedstodeclareoneormore
ofitscentralbeliefswhenitsensesthesearethreatened.Thisis
not“creepingcreedalism”;thisislivingconfession.
Recently,manyofushavebeendismayedbyarisingmove-
mentamongsomeinconservativeChristianitytodrawdistinc-
tionsofdegreeofrankbetweenthepersonsoftheTrinity.These
evangelicalsand fundamentalistsaremotivatedbyabelief that
therearedegreesofrankamonghumanbeingsthatreflectour creation in the
imageofGod,who isalsostratified.Notwant-
ingtobecomeheretical,thesesincerebelievershaveconsciously tried to
avoid making that paradigm shift into liberalism that
seesadifferenceinrankasalsoadifferenceinbeing.
As all of us know, the dividing line between a theological liberal
and a theological conservative is not in essence about
whetherwethinkthatgivingacupofwatertoathirstypersonis
partofJesus’gospelmessageorapreludetoit.Thelineisdrawn
betweenwhetherwebelievethatGodtheFatherisGodandJesus
andtheHolySpiritarelesserbeings,orwhetheronebelievesthat
GodisoneGodinthreecoeternalandcoequalpersons.Among theological
liberals, Jesus is often identified as a human being
whoapprehendedGodinafullerwaythantherestofusandthe
HolySpiritasthepowerofGodworkingonearth.Theological liberalism is
at its core essentially akin to Unitarianism. Theo-
logicalconservatismidentifiesJesusChristandtheHolySpiritas
4 • Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011
coequalandcoeternalpersonswithintheGodheadinregardto
being.Thereisnodisagreementbetweenevangelicalegalitarians
andconservativegenderhierarchistsonthispoint.Allofusare
TrinitarianinregardtoGod’sbeing.
Wherethedisagreementliesiswhetheraneternaldifference
inrankindicatesanessentialdifferenceinbeinginthepersons
oftheTrinity.Forsome(butnotall)gen- der hierarchists, permanently
imprinted (soastosay)intheessenceofeachdivine person is a presumed
stratified position inrank, theFatherbeingfirst inposition
(callingtheshots,onemightsay)and(to
somewhoholdthisposition),therefore,firstinpowerandglory
andhonoraswell,theSonandHolySpiritwaitingforandacting
upontheFather’sordersinaone-waysubordinationrelationship.
Thispositionisheldbythosewhoalsoespousethatwomen,as
JesusandtheSpirittotheFather,reflectthisone-waysubordina-
tiontomen.
Itisimportanttonote,however,thatnotallwhoareconvinced
thattheBibleteachesthatmenhavetheultimatedecision-mak-
ingresponsibilityinthehomealsoespousethatasimilarstrati-
ficationofrankingexistsintheTrinity.Theseevangelicalsseea
separatedynamicworkingintheGodheadthantheoneworking
inhumanity.Theyseenonecessarycorrespondencebetweena
womaninthehomeandthepersonoftheGodheadwhobecame
JesusChrist(God’sanointedMessiahandGod-Among-Usinhu-
manflesh)ortheOneidentifiedtousastheHolySpirit.Jesus, as God’s
“Son” on earth, hardly corresponds to a human wife. Further,
toposit theHolySpiritas femaleand impregnatedby
theFatherandemployingthehumanMaryasasurrogatemother seems
anthropomorphic to the point of being pagan, God the
FatherhavingbecomeZeusandtheHolySpiritHera.Nosuch
explanationofthebirthofJesusispresentedintheBible.Inthe
Bible’saccount,GodtheFatherhasnodirectactionintheSon’s
birth.TheHolySpirit,notGodthe“Father,”overshadowsMary
(episkiaz,Luke1:35).Instead,GodtheFatheristhepersonofthe
TrinitywhoexhortedtheGodheadtocreatehumanity(Gen1:26)
andfromwhom,Jesusexplains,weinheritGod’skingdom(Matt
25:34).GodisFatherintermsofbeingthesourceofheavenlyin-
heritance,notintermsofsexualproduction,therebyeliminating
suchGreekpaganthinking.Finally,theGodheadisnotaninsti-
tution,asismarriage,butisthedivinemysteryoftheDeity—that
GodisoneGodinthreecoeternal,coequalpersons.
Further, any analogies in the Scriptures that could be con-
struedasone-waysubmissionintheGodheadarerecognizedby many gender
hierarchists along with egalitarians as comment-
ingonatemporaryincarnationalsubmissionofJesusinorderto
demonstratetheproperobedienceofhumanscollectivelytoGod
aswellastobringabouthumansalvation.
Afterthosegraciousactions,asCalvinputit,onceJesushad
fulfilledtheroleofhumanity’s“Lord,”“thenhereturnsthelord-
shiptohisFathersothat—farfromdiminishinghisownmajes-
ty—itmayshineallthemorebrightly.Then,also,Godshallcease
tobetheHeadofChrist,forChrist’sowndeitywillshineofitself,
althoughasofyetcoveredbyaveil,”sinceJesus“willceasetobe
theambassadorofhisFather,andwillbesatisfiedwiththatglory
whichheenjoyedbeforethecreationoftheworld.”5
Inotherwords,Jesus’submissiontotheFatherintheincarna-
tionwastemporary,justaswesubmittoabossatwork.Itdoes
notmeanthatourbossisqualifiedeternallytogiveusordersaf-
terworkhoursorafterourjobisdoneand
foreverafter.Suchaprivilegewouldonly
occurifourbossweresomehowinessence
superiortousinbeingand,therefore,eter-
nallyequippedtoruleoverus.Whattrou-
blesallofusegalitariansandthosegender
hierarchists who reject the eternal subordination view of Jesus
andtheHolySpirit,whicheversideofthegenderdebatewefall
on,isthatsuchapositionwouldindicateanessentialdifference
inthenaturesoftheFatherandtheSonandtheSpirit.Tosuggest
thattheessenceoftheFatheristocommandeternally,whilethe
essenceoftheSonandSpiritistosubmiteternally,istodescribe
adifferenceinessencesthatdeterminesaneternaldifferencein
function.But,thenatureofdeityistobeunique.And“unique,”
aswenotedearlier,doesnotsupportsuchdegreesofdifference.
Thisisthestruggletodefinethedistinctionbetweentheeternal
facesorpersonalitiesorpersons intheGodheadthat thegreat
NicaeanscholarAthanasius,thedefenderoftheNicaeancreed,
underwentwhenheconcludedthatJesus“hasequalitywiththe
Fatherbytitlesexpressiveofunity,andwhatissaidoftheFather, is said
inScriptureof theSonalso,allbuthisbeingcalledFa-
ther.”6Neitherofthepersonswecallthe“Second”and“Third”of
theTrinityisinferiorinbeingorinranking(oringlory,honor,
power)totheOnewecalltheFirstPerson.Equalityofessence
meansjustthat.Noinequalitiesofattributescanbebuiltineter-
nallytothenatureoftheOneinThree.Therefore,GodtheSon
cannotbeeternallysubordinatetoGodtheFatherandalsore-
mainofthesameuniquesubstanceoftheFather.
Suchconcerntoremainhistoricallyorthodoxtothescriptural
revelationandthegreatorthodoxconfessionsofthechurchhas
promptedusegalitariansandsomegenderhierarchiststounite
toformanewconfessionalstatement:acreed,ora“Webelieve,”
thatwearecalling“AnEvangelicalStatementontheTrinity.”In this
issueofPriscilla Papers and in thebookeditedbyDennis Jowers and
Wayne House, The New Evangelical Subordination- ism? Perspectives
on the Equality of God the Father and God the
SonfromWipfandStockPublishers,wearedebutingourcreedal
statement.Itisdisplayedonthecoverofthisissueanddiscussed
withinit.StanleyGundryprovidesabiblicalcommentary.Ipres- ent a
theological commentary I drafted in consultation with a
numberofotherconcernedscholars.KevinGilesalsoprovides
apopularcommentaryontheissue.Alongwiththese,scholars
NancyHedbergandMariaBocciabothpresentdiscussionsofthe issues
involved.Apoemandbookreviews roundoutwhatwe
hopewillbeausefulandprovocativepresentationthatwillhelp
ourreadersnegotiatethecurrentdiscussion.
Once, a student from a nonevangelical seminary who was considering
taking my Systematic Theology 1 course asked me
Theological conservatism identifies
coequal and coeternal persons within
the Godhead in regard to being.
Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011 • 5
attheopeningofmyfirstlecture,justasIbegantointroducethe
Trinity,whetheranyofthiswasimportant.Smilingsweetlyatme, he asked,
“Does it really matter what we believe about Jesus—
whetherhe’sGodorjusthumanorwhetherthere’sreallyaTrinity
ornot?Afterall,IhavemybeliefaboutGod,andyouhaveyour
belief,andthesefolkshavetheirbelief.Isn’tthemostimportant
thingthatwealljusttrytogetalong?”
“Actually, itdoesmatter,” Ihad to reply. “Howwe treatone
anotherisextremelyimportant.ButwhatwebelieveaboutJesus
andtheTrinityisessentialtoourfaith.Wedon’tjustmakeitup
aswegoalong.Allovertheworld,peoplegiveuptheirlivesand
dieforwhattheybelieve.Youcan’tsimplydismisstheessential pointsof
faithas irrelevant,becausewhatwebelievemotivates howweactand,
therefore,howwetreatoneanother.Theyare
intrinsicallyandinseparablyrelated.”
What we believe about the Godhead—whether the One we
worshipisinternallyandthuseternallystratifiedinrankorwheth-
ertheTrinity isa fullyequaldivinecommunity—isessential to
preservingthetenetsofwhatmakesourfaithtruetowhatGod
hasrevealed.Ourbeliefalsodoesdirectlyaffecthowweregard
and,thus,treatoneanother,bothinourapproachtorelationships
betweenwomenandmen,but,aswell, inhowwedealwithall
thedifferentnationalitiesandtypesofpeopleweencounteracross
ourworld.Wedoneedtoexpendtheefforttogetitright.
Blessings,
Notes
1. SeeAgnesRushBurr,Russell H. Conwell and His Work (Philadel-
phia,PA:JohnC.Winston,1926),125–34.IfirstheardtheJohnnyRing
accountwhenIwasastudentatConwellin1969.AsIrecall,therendi-
tionIheardwasthatJohnnywasdeterminedtostudyfortheministry,
andthedecisionto foundTemplewas inpartaneffort tohelpyoung
menlikehim.IamindebtedtochurchhistorianDr.GarthRosell,who
graciouslyprovidedtheBurrdatatohelpmeclarifythisaccount.
2. Thewaysheputs it is:“While it iscertainlypossibleforfunda-
mentaliststo‘slidedowntheslipperyslope’toevangelicalism,itisnot
equallypossibletoslidefromevangelicalismtoliberalism.Thereisan
invisiblewall inbetween;a ‘paradigmshift’ isrequired.”NanceyMur-
phy, Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism: How Modern and Post-
modern Philosophy Set the Theological
Agenda(ValleyForge,PA:Trinity, 1996),ix.
3. Irenaeus offers a helpful introduction to these heterodoxies in
book1,chapter26,ofhisAgainst the Heresies (NewYork,NY:Paulist,
1992),90–91.
4. Onecanfindaprovocativediscussionofthe“threeinoneandone
inthree”inlateChristianwriterPseudo-Lucian’sdramaticphilosophi-
caldialogue“ThePatriotorThePupil,”inLucian,trans.M.D.Macleod,
TheLoebClassicalLibrary,vol.8(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity,
1967),437;e.g.“Themightygodthatrulesonhigh/Immortaldwelling
inthesky,thesonofthefather,spiritproceedingfromthefather,three
inoneandoneinthree[.]ThinkhimyourZeus,considerhimyourgod.”
5. JohnCalvin,Institutes of the Christian Religion,ed.JohnMcNeill,
trans.FordLewisBattles,vol.2(Philadelphia,PA:Westminster,1960),
486,485(2.14.3).
6. Athanasius, The Epistle of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexan-
dria, Concerning the Councils Held at Ariminum in Italy and at
Selecucia in
Isauria,trans.J.H.Newman(Oxford:JohnHenryParker,J.G.F.and
J.Rivington:1842),3.21.50.
u
Does Christ Submit to the Church? 978-0-8010-2700-0 • 176 pp. •
$19.99p
Does Christ submit to the church? Should Christians submit to one
another? What about husbands and wives? In this volume, theologian
Alan Padgett offers a fresh look at the ethics of submission,
gender roles, and servant leadership in the New Testament. Through
his careful interpretation of Paul’s letters and broader New
Testament teaching, the author shows how Christ’s submission to the
church models an appropriate understanding of gender roles and
servant leadership. As Christ submits to the church, so all
Christians must submit to, serve, and care for one another.
“Exploring critical questions regarding biblical interpretation, As
Christ Submits to the Church offers a thoroughly Christian
understanding of submission and service within marriage and the
church. Alan Padgett opens much sky over the heads of those engaged
in the evangelical conversation on gender and authority. This book
is well worth our time and attention.” —Mimi Haddad, president,
Christians for Biblical Equality, www.cbeinternational.org
Available in bookstores or by calling 800.877.2665. Like us on .
Subscribe to Baker Academic’s electronic newsletter (E-Notes) at
www.bakeracademic.com.
6 • Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011
One Essence, One Goodness, One Power NancyHedberg
NANCY HEDBERG, D.Min., is Vice President for Student Life at Corban
University in Salem, Or- egon. Her books include Hear Me With Your
Heart, A Rooted Sorrow, Rings of Grass, and Women, Men, and the
Trinity. She and her husband, LeRoy, have three grown children and
five grandchildren.
In the late 1970s, I first came across the claim that within the
TrinitytheSonisfunctionallysubordinatetotheFather.1Ihad
beentaught—andstillbelieve—thattheFatherandtheSonare
equal.Period.Thiscounterclaimchallengedthatassumptionand
plantedaquestioninmymind.Forthemostpart,Iputtheques-
tionasideformanyyears.Ihadmyhandsfullasastay-at-home
mom,freelancewriter,andpart-timestudentatourcommunity college. My
general attitude toward the doctrine of the Trinity
duringthoseyearscouldbesummedupinCarlHenry’srhetori- calquestion:
“Is thedoctrineof theTrinitya futile intellectual
efforttoresolveinherentlycontradictorynotionsofdivineunity
anddivineplurality?Areorthodoxevangelicalsdriventosaythat
anyonewhorejectsthisdoctrinemaylosehissoulwhereasany-
onewhotriestoexplainitwilllosehismind?”2Ididnotgetit,
andIdidnothavetimetothinkaboutit.Nevertheless,aquestion
hadbeenplanted,andalthoughitwentundergroundformany years, it never
quite went away. As is often true in such cases,
whenthequestionreappearedlater,itwasnotwithavengeance
exactly,butcertainlywithrenewedurgency.Itbecamethefocus
ofmydoctoraldissertationandthe topicofmybook,Women, Men, and the
Trinity.
ThedoctrineoftheTrinityisoneofthecoredistinctivesofthe
Christianfaith—somewouldsaythecoredistinctionofChristi-
anity.Althoughitisimpossibletograspcompletely,itisimpor-
tantandworthyofexploration.Inaddition,in1Corinthians11:3,
PaullinkstherelationshipsbetweenGodastheheadofChrist,
andmanastheheadofwoman,inawaythatsuggeststhatabet-
terunderstandingoftherelationshipwithintheTrinitycanim-
pactourunderstandingofhumanrelations,especiallythemale/
femalerelationship.
OurprimarysourceforunderstandingthenatureoftheTrin-
ity,andforobtainingGod’sperspectiveontherelationshipbe- tween men
and women, is the Bible. Although less important than the Bible,
the historical, orthodox Christian view is also
important.Thatiswhatwewillbeexploringinthisarticle.The
orthodoxChristianviewistheconventionalsetofbeliefsheldby
Christiansdownthroughtheages.Amongtoday’s theologians,
thereisdisagreementregardingtheorthodoxviewoftheTrin- ity. Has the
Son historically been considered functionally sub-
ordinatetotheFather?Didtheearlychurchfathersconsiderthe
FatherandSonequal inbothessenceandfunction?IstheSon
equaltotheFatherinwhoheis,butsubordinateinhisauthority,
works,andoperations?
Tobesubordinatedistobeplacedbelowanotherinpoweror
importance.Subordinationism,ontheotherhand,oftenrefersto
adistinctdoctrine,theviewthatthereisahierarchywithinthe
Trinityandthat theSon iseternallyandontologicallysubordi-
natetotheFather.Mostevangelicalswouldagreethatthistypeof
subordinationism,thebeliefthattheSoniseternallysubordinate to the
Father in the essence of his being, was proposed in the fourth
century and condemned as heretical. At the same time, many current
gender hierarchists3 claim that functional subor-
dinationispartofourorthodoxevangelicalheritage.4Everyone agrees
theSon submitted to theFatherduringhis incarnation.
ThecurrentdebateisbetweenthosewhobelievetheFatherand
theSonareeternallyequalinbothessenceandfunction(egalitar-
ian)andthosewhosaythat,althoughtheSoniseternallyequalto
theFatherintheessenceofhisbeing,heiseternallysubordinate
infunctionandauthority(hierarchist).
Ofcourse,inthisbriefarticle,itisnotpossibletopresentan exhaustive
review of Christian theologians. Instead, I have se-
lectedafew—Augustine,Warfield,Athanasius,Basil,JohnofDa-
mascus,JohnCalvin,KarlRahner,andKarlBarth—torepresent
theorthodoxview.Whenweexploretheviewsofthesepromi- nent theologians
in regard to sonship, authority, and function,
wewillseethattheydonotsupportthehierarchalclaimregard-
ingfunctionalsubordination.But,beforeIaddressthosespecific
topics,letusobservehowthedoctrineoftheTrinitydeveloped.
Development of church doctrine
Oneofthemostcriticalissuestheearlychurchfacedwastheclar-
ificationofchurchdoctrine.Theearlyyearsofthechurchwere
markedbydebates,persecution,heresies,religiousabuse,andthe
formationofvariouscreeds.Today,weholdthedoctrineofthe
TrinityasabasictenetofChristianity.Butoneofthechallenges
oftheearlychurchwastoformulatethisdoctrineinawaythat
upheldthedeityofChristwithoutthreateningtheOldTestament
beliefthatthereisonlyoneGod.ThedoctrineoftheTrinityisnot
spelledoutinScripture,anddisputesintheearlychurchabound-
edastheologianswentfromoneextremetoanother,sometimes defining God
as three loosely connected Gods (tritheism) and
atothertimesmeldingtheFather,Son,andHolySpiritintoone
Godwhomanifestedhimselfindifferentmodes(modalism).5
UpuntiltheCouncilofNicaeainAD325,thedoctrineofthe
Trinitywassomewhatfluid.Oneofthemajordebatesatthattime involved
Arianism. Arianism was rooted in the belief that the
SonwassubordinatetotheFather.Thisvieweventuallyevolved
intoteachingsthatdeniedthedeityofChrist.Movingawayfrom
thesubordinationistdoctrinesoftheseearlyspeculativetheolo-
gians,theCouncilofNicaeacondemnedAriusandhisteaching.6
The creed written at Nicaea stressed the equality of the Fa-
therandtheSonandthedeityofChrist,statingthatChristwas
“theonly-begottenoftheFather...begotten,notmade,ofone substance
[Greek homoousian] with the Father.”7 The Creed of
Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011 • 7
NicaeaiswidelyrecognizedasfoundationaltoChristianortho-
doxyinregardtotheTrinity.Forthemostpart,thedoctrineof
theTrinityclarifiedduringthefourthcenturyhasbeendefended
downthroughtheyears.
AtthetimeoftheReformation,numeroustheologicalpremis-
eswerethoroughlydebated,soitshould
benosurprisethatoneoftheissuesthat
surfacedwasthedoctrineoftheTrinity.
Opponentsofthedoctrineconsideredit unscriptural and irrational.8
Although thedoctrineitselfcameunderattack,it
doesnotappearthatsubordinationwithintheTrinitywasama-
jorissueforthosewhosupportedtheTrinitariandoctrineitself.
ItseemstheReformersconsideredequalityamongthemembers
oftheTrinityanissuesettledbyearlychurchcreedsandtreated
itasagiven.9
In thecurrentdebateamong theologians regarding thehis-
torical,orthodoxviewof theTrinity, several themesrecur.The first
one that I want to explore is the issue of sonship. Closely
relatedtosonshiparetheissuesofbegottennessandbeingsent.
Sonship, begottenness, and being sent
BothhierarchistsandegalitariansconsidertheCreedofNicaea
tobeacriticaldocumentoutliningorthodoxdoctrine.And,in- terestingly,
both egalitarians and hierarchists use it to support their points
of view. This is possible because they come to the
creedwithdifferentassumptions.Hierarchistsassumethatcon-
ceptssuchassonship,begottenness,andbeingsentindicatesub-
ordination.10Egalitarians,ontheotherhand,believethatthese
conceptsinandofthemselvessimplyindicateaspectsofTrinitar-
ianrelationshiphavingtodowithdistinctionsoffunctioninhu-
manredemption,notsubordinationor lesserauthority.11Since
hierarchistsandegalitariansseethissodifferently,Iwaseagerto
seewhatearlytheologiansactuallyhadtosayaboutbegottenness
andsonship.
Basil(330–397),aprominentearlytheologian,understoodbe-
ingsentandbeingbegottenasmattersofdistinctionandidenti- fication,
not subordination. He took the phrase “begotten, not
made”tosuggestequalglory.12Augustine(354–430),recognized
widelyasoneofthemostimportantChristiantheologiansofall time,
pointed out that references to the Son being sent by the
FatherandbegottenoftheFatherdonotsuggestsubordination
orinequality.Hesaid,“Hisbeingsentwastheworkofboththe
FatherandHisWord;thereforethesameSonwassentbytheFa-
therandtheSon,becausetheSonHimselfistheWordoftheFa-
ther.”13Augustinestressedtheindivisibilityofboththesubstance
andworksoftheGodheadandarguedthatbeingsentorbegot- tendidnot
indicate thatonepersonof theGodhead isgreater
andoneislesser.14Augustineconsistentlypointsoutthatsonship
doesnotnecessitateinferiorityorsubordination.15
Wecanseethisillustratedevenonthehumanlevel.Forin-
stance,wouldwesaythattheauthorityofJessewasgreaterthan
thatofhissonDavid?ThatAbrahamremainedsubordinatetohis father,
Terah? Although authority and submission characterize
afather/childrelationshipforagiventimeorincertaincircum- stances,
they are not the defining characteristics of earthly fa-
ther/sonrelationships,muchlessrelationshipswithintheTrinity.
MarkStrauss,anadvocateforinclusivelanguage,explainswhyit
isnotaccuratetosubstitutechild forson
ingender-inclusivebibli-
caltranslations.Althoughheisspeaking toadifferent issue,
thepointhemakes is significant: “Theuseof ‘Child’ could carry
implications of immaturity that ‘Son’doesnot. Jesus is themightySon
ofGodinallthegloryandmagnificence
ofhisexaltationasheirofallthings(seeHeb1:3).Heisnotan
immaturechild.”16
This is incontrast to thosewhobelieve that theFatherand
Sonrelationship is inherentlyoneof submissionandauthority
andthatthissubmissive/authoritativeaspectoftheirrelationship
primarilydifferentiatesthepersonsoftheGodheadfromonean-
other.17ForAugustine,thesendingoftheSonwasajointendeav-
orinvolvingboththeFatherandtheSon.Itwasaboutdiversity,
equality,andunity,notauthorityandsubmission.
As I mentioned earlier, during and following the Reforma-
tion,therewasnotmuchdebateaboutthedoctrineoftheTrin-
ity.However,BenjaminB.Warfield(1851–1921),aprofessorwho
taughtatthetheologicalseminaryatPrinceton,tookpainstoex-
plainhowheunderstoodbegottennessinrelationshiptoequal-
ity.Inadditiontoclarifyingthatbegottennessdidnotnecessitate
subordination,WarfieldassertedthattheSon’scomingtoearth
inhumanformwasvoluntaryandthatbiblicalpassagesreferring
totheSon’ssubordinationduringtheincarnationdidnotreflect
onhiseternalstandingwithintheGodhead.18
Augustine,Basil,andWarfieldarethreeinfluentialtheologians
whoaddressedsonship,begottenness,andbeingsent.Far from
advocatingthefunctionalsubordinationoftheSontotheFather,
theseprominenttheologiansarguedthattheFather/Sonrelation-
shipwithintheTrinityismarkedbyunityandequality.Butwhat
didearlytheologianshavetosayabouttheSon’sauthority?
Power and authority
Ofparticularinterest iswhetherithasbeenhistoricallyunder-
stoodthattheFatherandtheSonareequalinpowerandauthor-
ity.Althoughthereisaslightdifferenceinmeaning,Iamassum- ing that,
unless specified otherwise, references to God’s power
alsoreferencehisauthority.
Athanasius(300–373),whoinhistimesometimesstoodalone
againstArianism,pointedoutthat,althoughduringtheincarna-
tionJesussubmittedhimselftotheFather,whenitcametothe
resurrection,theSonraisedhisownbody19—thathewasanac-
tive,ratherthanapassive,participantalongwiththeFather.20He
saidthatnooneshoulddoubtthat“HeisverySonofGod,having
HisbeingfromGodasfromaFather,WhoseWordandwisdom andWhosePowerHe
is.”21Athanasius saw theFatherand the Sonunitedintheirpower.
In On the Holy Spirit, Basil also affirmed the equality of
Christ’spower.WritinginresponsetotheargumentthattheSon
For instance, would we say that the
authority of Jesse was greater than that
of his son David? That Abraham remained
subordinate to his father, Terah?
8 • Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011
received commandments from the Father in a way that would
suggesthisinferiority,BasilsaysthattheFatherandtheSonare
equalinessence,power,andworks.22Basilalsoarguedthatbe-
ingseatedattherighthandoftheFather(Heb1:3)isnotaseat
ofinferiority,butastationofequality.23Itisdifficulttoimagine
BasilsupportingtheideathattheSonisequaltotheFatherines-
sence,butpermanentlysubordinatein power and authority. Both
Athanasius andBasiltakepainstoexplainthatthe
FatherandtheSonareeternallyunited
andequalinrank,power,andworks.
About three hundred years after Athanasius and Basil, John of
Damascus (c. 675–c. 749) wrote Fountain of Wisdom. Hispurposewas to
collect andcondense the quintessential opinions and works of the
great theologians whohadprecededhim.HisbookConcerning the Orthodox
Faith has been described as the most important of his writings and
“one of the most notable works of Christian antiquity.”24 In a
chapterontheTrinity,JohnofDamascussaysthattheunityof
thepersonsoftheTrinityinregardtoauthorityisdemonstrated
bytheir“beingidenticalinauthorityandpowerandgoodness.
...Forthereisoneessence,onegoodness,onepower,onewill,
oneenergy,oneauthority,oneandthesame,Irepeat,notthree
resemblingeachother.”25
Itseemssignificantthat,inaworkwrittenfortheexpresspur-
poseofepitomizingtheopinionsoftheearlytheologians,Johnof
Damascusadamantlyaffirmsthatwithintheessentialonenessof
theTrinitythereisalsoonenessofauthority.HowcantheFather
andSonbe“identicalinauthority”andyetbedifferentiatedby
theFather’sauthorityandtheSon’ssubmission,assomeclaim?
JohnCalvin,oneofthemostinfluentialReformationtheolo-
gians,acknowledgedorderingwithintheTrinity,butinhiscom-
mentaryon1Corinthians,henotedthatanyimpliedsubordina- tion is
restricted to Jesus’ incarnation. He said that Christ was “inferior
to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature.”26
IntheInstitutes,Calvinagainreferstotherelationshipbetween
theFatherandtheSon,thistimeinregardtothefuture:“God
willthenceasetobetheheadofChrist,andChrist’sownGod-
headwillthenshineforthofitself,whereasitisnowinamanner
veiled.”27CalvinunderstoodthatJesussubmittedduringthein-
carnationandinhisroleasmediator,buthesawthissubmission
astemporal,noteternal.Hebelievedthat,whenweseeGodas
heis,wewillseethattheFatherisnolonger“theheadofChrist,” but that
thepersonsof theTrinityareequal in theirgloryand majesty. While I
do not necessarily agree with Calvin’s under-
standingof“headship,”itisclearthathesawChrist’ssubmission
duringtheincarnationastemporalandnotanindicationofhis
eternalauthorityandstatuswithintheGodhead.
There is considerable agreement among theologians down through
thecenturies that thepersonsof theTrinityare equal
inpowerandauthority.Inthenextsection,wewillexplorethe amazing unity
within the Godhead and consider what theolo-
gianshavehadtosayaboutequalityinregardtotheirfunctions
andoperations.
Function
Ashasalreadybeennoted,Basilwasoneoftheearlytheologians
whorecognizedtheequalityofpowerwithintheTrinityandun-
derstoodbegottenness to indicate equalglory rather than sub-
ordination.Healsodefendedthe functionalequalityandunity
within the Godhead. Citing John 5:19, hesaid that
theSondoeswhateverhe seestheFatherdoingandthatthereis no
distinction between their works.28
ThiswasAthanasius’sunderstandingas well:“WhentheSonworks,theFather
istheWorker....whentheFathergives
graceandpeace,theSonalsogivesit.”29AthanasiussawtheFa-
therandtheSonfunctioningtogether,notoneinsubordination
totheother.
WehavenotedthatthereisnodebateabouttheSon’ssubmis-
sionduringtheincarnation.Everyonerecognizesthat,duringhis
timeonearth,theSonsubmittedtotheFather.But,inhiscom-
mitmenttoclarifytheeternalequalityofthepersonsoftheTrin-
ity,Augustinemakesamind-bendingobservation:Hesaysthat
theSon’ssubordinationduringtheincarnationwasinpartsub-
ordinationtohimself.30Likewise,Augustine insisted thatPaul’s
statementin1Corinthians15:27–28abouttheFathersubjecting
allthingstotheSondoesnothaveimplicationsregardingatop-
downdelegationwithintheGodhead,butratherindicatesanin-
separable,reciprocaltypeofsubjection:“Lethimnotthinkthat
thewords‘HehassubjectedallthingstotheSon,’aretobeunder-
stoodoftheFatherinsuchawayastothinkthattheSonhasnot
subjectedallthingstoHimself....FortheoperationoftheFather
andtheSonisinseparable.”31InAugustine’sview,theonenessof
theFatherandSonissocompletethat,iftheFatherissubjecting
allthingstohimself,theSonisparticipatinginthatactofsubject-
ing.Inanotherplace,Augustinenotedthatthe“willoftheFather
andtheSonisone,andtheiroperationisinseparable.”32
Prominent early theologians such as Augustine, Athanasius,
andBasildescribedthefunctionalequalityofGodtheFatherand God
theSonandarticulated that theiroperationscouldnotbe
separated.Ifthereisnoindicationofaseparationbetweentheop-
erationsofoneandtheoperationsoftheother,itisdifficulttosee
howonecouldbeeternallyfunctionallysubordinatetotheother.
Evenso,thereisanothermatterthatcomesupinregardtothe
Trinity.Manytheologiansmakeadistinctionbetweentheeco- nomic Trinity
and the immanent Trinity. The immanent Trin- ity has to do with the
intrinsic nature of the Triune God. The
economicTrinitycanbeidentifiedwiththeactsoftheTrinityas
revealedtousincreationandredemption.33KevinGilespoints
outthatGod’srevelationtousismarkedbybothtruthandre-
straint:“ThisdistinctionbetweentheimmanentTrinityandthe
economicTrinityallowsthatthereismoretoGodthanwhatis
revealedtousbutthatwhatisrevealedistrueandaccurate.God
isnototherthanheisinrevelation.”34
Some theologians assume a hierarchy within the economic
Trinity.35ThetemptationistoequatetheimmanentTrinitywith
equalityofessenceandtheeconomicTrinitywithsubordination
In Augustine’s view, the oneness of the
Father and Son is so complete that, if the
Father is subjecting all things to himself, the
Son is participating in that act of subjecting.
Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011 • 9
offunction.However,thatisamistake.Althoughtheincarnation
hasaprominentplaceinGod’srevelationregardingredemption,
andweallunderstand theSon submitted to theFatherduring
histimeonearth,God’srevelationtousregardingtheoperations of
theSonwithin theeconomicTrinitygoeswellbeyond that. When we
consider what the Bible reveals to us about the role
oftheSonincreation36(Col1:15–20),sanctification(Eph5:26),
judgment(2Tim4:1),andmediation(Heb4:14–16),wecansay
withsomeassurancethatthefunctionoftheSonwithintheeco- nomic Trinity
as revealed through God’s work in creation and
redemptionislargerinscopethanJesus’timeonearthduringhis
incarnation.ThefunctionoftheSonisnotlimitedtohissubmis-
sionasfleshedoutintheincarnation,andtheeconomicTrinity
asawholeisnotnecessarilydistinguishedbyahierarchyofroles.
KarlRahner(1904–1984)wasaCatholictheologianwhogave the economic
Trinity careful consideration. Karl Barth (1886– 1968) was another
fairly recent theologian who weighed in re-
gardingtheTrinity.Bothplaceheavyemphasisonunitywithin
theGodhead.KarlRahnerwasconcernedwithassuringthatthe
doctrineoftheTrinityremainedrelevant.OneofRahner’spri- mary
concerns was to make a connection between the Trinity
andhumanity.37To thatend,hemakes thestatement that“the
‘economic’Trinityisthe‘immanent’Trinityandthe‘immanent’ Trinity is
the ‘economic’ Trinity.”38 Although this statement
couldsuggestthatanysubordinationwithintheeconomicTrin- ity would
mean eternal ontological subordination as well, that
doesnotseemtobehisintent.Heexplains,“Therehasoccurred
insalvationhistorysomethingwhichcanbepredicatedonlyof one divine
person,”39 suggesting that only the Son could have
participatedintheincarnation.Butitisnotclearthatheisatthe
sametimesayingthat,becauseonlytheSoncouldhavepartici-
patedintheincarnation,andthatduringtheincarnationtheSon
wassubordinatetotheFather,itmeansthattheSoniseternally
subordinated, because he clarifies, “[T]here exists in God only
onepower,onewill,onlyoneself-presence,auniqueactivity,a
uniquebeatitude,andso forth.”40Clearly,hisprimaryconcern
hasmoretodowithmakingarealconnectionbetweentheTrin-
ityandhumanity,andhethusattemptstoerasewhatmaybea false and
misleading distinction between the economic Trinity
andtheimmanentTrinity.
KarlBarthmaintained that the threepersonsof theTrinity
acttogether:“Noattribute,noactofGodisnotinthesameway
theattributeoractoftheFather,theSonandtheSpirit.”41Ina
discussionregardingtheSon’sparticipationincreationandre-
demption,Barthsays,“IftheSonhasashareinwhatwascalled
thespecialworkoftheFather,ifHeworkswiththeFatherinthe
workofcreation,thenthismeans,atleastinthesenseofAthana-
siusandthetheologywhichfinallytriumphedinthefourthcen-
tury,thatHeisofoneessencewithHim.”42Farfromsuggesting
thattheSonisequalinessencebutsubordinateinworks,Barth
saysthatitistheSon’sveryparticipationinGod’sworksthatcon-
firmhisonenesswiththeFather:“Inorderthatallthingsmight
bemadebyHim,inorderthatHemightbetheMediatorofcre- ation, He Himself
had to be God by nature.”43 If I understand
Barthcorrectly,heissayingthattheSon’sfunctionconfirmshis
essentialequalitywiththeFather.Thisisatotalabout-facefrom
thehierarchalviewoffunctionalsubordination.Farfromunder-
standingtheworksoftheSonasassignedtohimbyhisauthori-
tativeFather,BarthunderstandstheworksoftheFatherandthe
Sontobeone,theworksoftheSonconfirminghisdeity.
Thereisrelationship,andanorderingofrelationship,butun-
lessoneassumesthatorderingimplieshierarchy,orthat“sonship”
implieslessauthority,theseformulationsIhaveciteddonotin-
dicateeternalfunctionalsubordinationoftheSontotheFather.
Summary
The question at hand is whether there is an eternal functional
subordinationoftheSontotheFather.Certainly,overtheyears,
therehavebeentheologianswhohavesupportedfunctionalsub-
ordinationorwhoseviewsaresoambiguousitisimpossibleto
discerntheirperspectiveonthistopic.However,inmyreading,
andespecially inexamining the thinkingofprominent theolo- gians
such as Augustine, Athanasius, Basil, John of Damascus, Warfield,
Calvin, Rahner, and Barth, I have detected far more
emphasisonequalityofbothessenceandfunctionthanonfunc-
tionalsubordination.Itisdifficultformetoseehowhierarchists
canclaimthatthetimeless,orthodoxChristianviewisthatthe
SonisfunctionallysubordinatetotheFather.Furthermore,em- bedded in
thedebateofwhether there is aneternal functional subordinationof
theSon to theFather isa troublingquestion.
IsitpossiblefortheSontobeeternally functionallysubordinate
withoutalsobeingontologicallysubordinate?Eternalontological
equalityisassumedbybothegalitariansandhierarchists.How-
ever,iftheFatherandSonareunitedintheirattributes,works, word, will,
thought, deeds, authority, operations, power, rank,
glory,majesty,truth,goodness,andmercy,astheseearlytheolo-
gianswehavecitedclaim,thenwhatismeantbyfunctionalsub-
ordination?Ispermanentfunctionalsubordinationevenpossible
withoutontologicalinequality(meaningthatbeingsubordinated
ispermanentlyapartoftheessenceofoneortwoofthepersons
oftheTrinityandsubordinatingandrulingisapermanentpart
ofanother,sothattheessencesarenotexactlythesame)?
Ibelievethisisacriticalunderlyingquestionthatislargelyre-
sponsibleforthecurrentimpassebetweenhierarchistsandegali-
tariansregardingtheTrinity.Itisobviousthat,in1Corinthians
11:3,PaulistryingtomakesomesortofconnectionbetweenGod
astheheadofChristandmanastheheadofwoman.ButIdonot
believewecanassumeheisreferringtoarelationshipthatishier-
archicalorbasedononepersonhavingauthorityovertheother.
Instead,Ibelieveheisusingthetermheadaspartofahead-and- body
metaphor, illustrating unity and interdependency. This is
consistentwiththewayPaulusesthismetaphorthroughoutthe
bookof1Corinthians,anditseemsconsistentwiththeviewsof
theseearliertheologianswhoviewedthepersonsoftheTrinity
asunitedintheirauthorityandworks.Thus,althoughanumber of prominent
theologians today claim that the Son is eternally subordinate to
the Father in function and authority and posit
thatthisisthehistoricalorthodoxviewofthechurch,Idonot
10 • Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011
seethistheorysupportedbythechurchfathersorbythemajor-
ityoftheologiansthroughoutthehistoryofChristianity.There-
fore,churchhistorydoesnotsupporttheclaimsofhierarchists
regardingfunctionalsubordinationwithintheTrinity,andtheir
claimsshouldnotbeusedasanargumentforthefunctionalsub-
ordinationofwomen.
WeconcludewiththiswisesummaryfromJohnofDamas-
cus:“Forthereisoneessence,onegoodness,onepower,onewill,
oneenergy,oneauthority,oneandthesame,Irepeat,notthree
resemblingeachother.”44
Notes
1. GeorgeKnight,The New Testament Teaching Regarding the Role
Relationship of Men and Women
(GrandRapids,MI:Baker,1977),55–56.
2. CarlF.H.Henry,God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 5 (Waco,
TX:Word,1982),165.
3. The terms complementarian and egalitarian are most common-
lyusedwithin thegenderdebate.For termsspecifically related to the
Trinity,seeMillardErickson’sbookWho’s Tampering With the Trinity?
(GrandRapids,MI:Kregel,2009).Ericksonusesthetermgradational
authoritytodescribethosewhobelievethereisaneternalhierarchywith
theFatherinauthorityovertheSon.Heusesthetermequivalent author-
ityforthosewhobelievetheFather,Son,andHolySpiritareeternally
equaland thesubordinationof theSonwas limited toa specific time
andpurpose.
4. ThomasR.Schreiner,“HeadCoverings,Prophecies,andtheTrin- ity,” in
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper
andWayneGrudem(Wheaton,IL:Crossway,1991),129.
5. P.P.Enns,The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago,IL:Moody,
1997),199.
6. Enns,Moody Handbook,199. 7. Enns,Moody Handbook,420. 8.
JustoL.González,A History of Christian Thought,vol.3(Nash-
ville,TN:Abingdon,1975),101–02. 9. KevinGiles,The Trinity and
Subordinationism(DownersGrove,
IL:InterVarsity,2002),167. 10. Bruce A. Ware, “Equal in Essence,
Distinct in Roles: Eternal
FunctionalAuthorityandSubmissionamongtheEssentiallyEqualDi-
vinePersonsoftheGodhead”(paperpresentedatthe58thannualmeet-
ingoftheEvangelicalTheologicalSociety,Washington,DC,November
16,2006),12.
11. KevinGiles,Jesus and the Father (GrandRapids,MI:Zondervan,
2006),52.
12. Basil,On the Holy Spirit,(Crestwood,NY:St.Vladimir’s,1980), 31.
13. Augustine, On the Trinity, II.5.9,
http://www.newadvent.org/
fathers/130102.htm,citedJune27,2007. 14. Augustine,Trinity,
IV.20.27. 15. Augustine,Trinity, II.1.3. 16.
MarkL.Strauss,Distorting Scripture? (DownersGrove,IL:Inter-
Varsity,1998),181. 17. Ware says that the distinction of persons in
the Godhead is
“manifestbytheinherentauthorityoftheFatherandinherentsubmis- sion
of the Son.” Bruce Ware, “Equal in Essence,” 10. Grudem makes this
same point, assuming the Father/Son relationship is necessarily one
of authority/submission. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan,1994),251.Also,Grudemseestheauthority/submissionre-
lationshipwithintheTrinityas the“meansbywhichFather,Son,and
HolySpiritdifferfromoneanotherandcanbedifferentiatedfromone
another.” Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Sisters, OR:
Mult- nomah,2004), 433.
18. BenjaminBreckinridgeWarfield,The Person and Work of Christ
(Philadelphia,PA:PresbyterianandReformed,1970),39,56.
19. See,forexample,John2:19. 20. See,forexample,Rom10:9. 21.
Athanasius,On the Incarnation (Crestwood,NY:St.Vladimir’s,
1996), 63–64. 22. Basil,On the Holy Spirit,39. 23. Basil,On the
Holy Spirit,30. 24. Catholic Encyclopedia,
s.v.“SaintJohnDamascene,”http://www
.newadvent.org/ccathen/08459b.htm,citedDecember7,2007. 25.
JohnofDamascus,“ConcerningtheHolyTrinity” inAn Exact
Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, BookI,ChapterVIII,http://www.ccel
.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.viii.html?highlight=john, 37,
cited De- cember7,2007.
26. JohnCalvin,Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to
the Corinthians,vol.1,trans.JohnPringle(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdma-
ns,1948),353.
27. Calvin,Institutes of the Christian
Religion,II.xiii.3,trans.Henry
Beveridge,esq.(OakHarbor,WA:LogosResearchSystems,1997).
28. Basil,On the Holy Spirit,39. 29. Athanasius,Against the
Arians,Discourse III,XXV,11,inNicene
and Post Nicene Fathers,2ndseries,vol.4,ed.PhilipSchaffandHenry
Wallace, Christian Classics Ethereal Library,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/
schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.iii.html,citedNovember10,2007.
30. Augustine,On the Trinity, II.2. 31. Augustine,On the Trinity,
I.15,22. 32. Augustine, On the Trinity in The Fathers of the
Church, vol.
45, trans.StephenMcKenna (Washington,DC:CatholicUniversityof
AmericaPress,1963),61.
33. WayneGrudemsaysthat,whenspeakingoftheeconomy of the Trinity,
thewordeconomy isusedinthesenseofordering of activities: “The
‘economyof theTrinity’means thedifferentways the threeper-
sonsactastheyrelatetotheworldand...toeachotherforalleternity.”
Grudem,Systematic Theology,248.KevinGilesexplains theeconomic and
immanentTrinityas follows: “The former refers to theTrinityas
revealedinGod’sunfoldingworkofcreationandredemptioninhistory;
thelatterreferstotheessentialbeingofthetriuneGod,whichnohuman
couldevercompletelycomprehend.”Giles,Trinity,28.
34. Giles,Trinity,28. 35. “Within the Holy Trinity the Father
leads, the Son submits to
Him, and the Spirit submits to both (the Economic Trinity). But it
is also true that the threePersonsare fullyequal
indivinity,power,and
glory(theOntologicalTrinity).”RaymondC.Ortlund,Jr.,“Male-Female
EqualityandMaleHeadship,”inRecovering Biblical Manhood and Wom-
anhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
1991),103.
36. Inregardtocreation,Augustinesays,“Forifsomethingswere
madebytheFather,andsomebytheSon,thenallthingswerenotmade
bytheFather,norallthingsbytheSon;butifallthingsweremadeby
theFather,andallthingsbytheSon,thenthesamethingsweremadeby
theFatherandbytheSon.TheSon,therefore,isequalwiththeFather,
andtheworkingoftheFatherandtheSonisindivisible.”Augustine,On the
Trinity,1:12.
37. KarlRahner,The Trinity, trans.JosephDonceel(NewYork,NY:
Seabury,1974),73.
38. Rahner,Trinity,22. 39. Rahner,Trinity,23. 40.
Rahner,Trinity,75,emphasisoriginal. 41. KarlBarth,Church Dogmatics,
vol.1,ed.G.W.BromileyandT.
F.Torrance,trans.G.W.Bromily(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1975),375. 42.
Barth,Church Dogmatics,442. 43. Barth,Church Dogmatics,442. 44.
JohnofDamascus,“ExpositionoftheOrthodoxFaith,”inNicene
and Post Nicene Fathers,2ndseries,vol.9,ed.PhilipSchaffandHenry
Wallace(NewYork,NY:Cosimo,2007),10.
Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011 • 11
“Myths about women are trumpeted all around us,
so how do we separate the myths from the truth
about us? This doctoral track enables you to explore
women’s realities in a changing world so that you can
minister effectively to them.” -Alice Mathews, Ph.D.
Doctor of Ministry
More tracks can be found at www.gcts.edu/dmin
U P C O M I N G T R A C K S
12 • Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011
An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity StanleyN.Gundry
STAN GUNDRY is Executive Vice President and Editor-in-Chief for the
Zondervan Corporation. He has served as a pastor and taught Bible,
theology, and church history at Moody Bible Institute and Trinity
Evan-
gelical Divinity School. Stan served as president of the
Evangelical Theological Society and on its executive committee as
well as serving on the CBE Board, for a time as co-chair.
Currently, he is also Adjunct Professor of Historical Theology at
Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. He has pub- lished seven books
and many articles.
Weconfess theonetrueandlivingGod,Creatorofeverything
andRulerovertheentirecreation.Hehasuniquelyrevealedhim-
selfinthelivingWord,Jesus Christ,andinthewrittenWord,the
Bible,asOneTriuneGod—threecoeternalandcoequalPersons. Each Person
is distinct, yet there is only one essence or Being who is God, not
three separate Gods. Each Person of the One TriuneGodsharesequally
inhonor,glory,worship,power,au-
thority,andrank.TheBibleneversuggeststhatanyonePerson
oftheTrinityhaseternalsuperiorityorauthorityovertheothers,
orthatoneisineternalsubordinationtoanother.TheSon’ssub-
missionandobediencetotheFatherwerevoluntaryandrelated
specificallytothetimeduringwhichhehumbledhimself,took
onhumannature,anddwelledamongusasaservant.
The biblical1 testimony
Isaiahprophesied,anditwasfulfilledthroughMary,thatavirgin
wouldconceiveandgivebirthtoasonwhosenamewouldbeIm-
manuel,whichmeans“Godwithus.”Thissonwasalsogiventhe
nameJesus,meaning“theLordsaves”(Isa7:14;Matt1:20–23).
Jesus,theeternalWord,alreadyexistedinthebeginning.“The
WordwaswithGod,andtheWordwasGod.HewaswithGodin
thebeginning.”ThissameWord“becameflesh”inthepersonof
Jesusand“madehisdwellingamongus.”IntheincarnateWord,
humankindsawthe“gloryoftheoneandonlySon,whocame
fromtheFather”(John1:1–14).
Christ Jesus, “being in very nature God, did not consider
equalitywithGodsomethingtobeusedtohisownadvantage;
rather,hemadehimselfnothingbytakingtheverynatureofa
servant,beingmadeinhumanlikeness....Hehumbledhimself
bybecomingobedienttodeath—evendeathonacross!There-
foreGodexaltedhimtothehighestplaceandgavehimthename that
isaboveeveryname, thatat thenameof Jesuseveryknee should bow, in
heaven and on earth and under the earth, and
everytongueacknowledgethatJesusChristisLord,totheglory
ofGodtheFather(Phil2:5–11).”
TheSondidnotdivesthimselfofhisdeity,butthetextdoes
saythathehadequalitywithGodthathegaveupbytakingthe
verynatureofaservantduringthetimeofhisIncarnation.He
voluntarilyhumbledhimself,becomingobedienttothepointof
deathonthecross.Aservantisonewhodoesthebiddingofan-
other,andtheveryfact that theSontook on the very nature of a
servantsuggeststhat,beforetheSoncameinhumanlikeness,
hewasnotaservantoronewhosubjectedhimselftoanother’s
will.AftertheSon’searthlyministryastheobedientservant,the
Fatherexaltedhimtothehighestplacesothatallcreationbows
beforehimandacknowledgeshimasGod.Similarly,“Duringthe daysof Jesus’
lifeonearth,” theSonwasreverentlysubmissive,
and,“Sonthoughhewas,helearnedobedience,”againsuggest-
ingthatobediencewassomethingunusualorunexpectedfrom
God’sSon(Heb5:7–8).PeterandPaulalsoaffirmthattherisen
SonisnowattherighthandofGod(Acts2:33;Col3:1),andJesus
toldhisdisciplesthat“allauthorityinheavenandonearth”had
beengiventohim(Matt28:18).Theevidenceseemsclear—the
Son’ssubordinationtotheFatherwastemporary,noteternal,and
relatedonlytothetimeofhisearthlyministry.
Some actions of God are more frequently attributed to one Person of
the Trinity in particular. Nevertheless, many times within
Scripture, actions that are attributed to one member of the Trinity
are also attributed to another member of the Trin-
ity.2Thesetooareevidencethatthereisfullandeternalequality
amongthePersonsoftheTrinityandnoeternalsubordinationor
rigidhierarchyofroles.
n Creation. BoththeFatherandtheSonare theagents in the
Creation(Gen1and2;John1:2–3,10;Col1:16;Heb1:10).
n Choosing.BoththeFatherandtheSonareinvolvedinpredes-
tinationorchoosing(Rom8:29;1Pet1:2;John6:70;13:18;Acts
1:2,24;9:15;Matt11:27).
n Sending the Spirit.BoththeFatherandtheSonareassociated
withthesendingoftheHolySpirit(John14:16,26;15:26;16:7).
n Access to the Father.Thebeliever’saccesstotheFatherisassoci-
atedwithboththeSonandtheSpirit(John14:6;Eph2:16,18).
n Indwelling.Father,Son,andHolySpiritalllivewithinbeliev-
ers(John14:16–20,23;15:5;Rom8:9–11;2Cor13:5;Col1:27;
Gal2:20;1Cor3:16;6:19).
n Intercession.TheSonintercedesonthebeliever’sbehalfwith the Father
(Heb 7:25; Rom 8:34), but so also does the Holy
Spirit(Rom8:26–27).
n Gift giving.TheFatheristhegiverofgoodgiftstohumankind (Matt7:11;
John3:34;6:32–33;Rom4:17;15:5; 1Cor15:57–58;
1Thess4:8;1Tim6:13;Jas1:5,17;1Pet5:5),butsoalsoarethe
SonandtheSpirit(John5:21;6:33,63;14:27;1Cor12:11;2Cor.
3:6).Inthisselectionoftexts,itisespeciallynoteworthythat
eachPersonoftheTrinityissaidtogivelife.
n Preservation.InJohn10:28–30,JesussaysthatheandtheFa-
therpreserveJesus’sheep;notonlyareidenticaltermsused
todescribetheactionofJesusandtheFather,butJesuscon-
cludeswiththistellingstatement,“IandtheFatherareone.”
n Love.God’sloveforhisownisattributedtoboththeFather
andtheSon(John3:16;15:9–12;Rom8:35–39).
n Judgment.Attheconsummationofthisworld,theSonexer-
cisessupremeauthorityasjudge(Matt25:31–46;2Cor5:10),
Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011 • 13
but the judgment seat is also the judgment seatofGod the
Father(Rom14:10).
n Prayer.MostofteninScripture,prayerisofferedtotheFather,
butnotexclusivelyso.BelieversalsoofferprayerstotheSon
(Acts7:59–60;2Cor12:9–10;Rev22:20).
When we discuss the Trinity, we must acknowledge that our
wordsarehaltingattemptstodescribeinfinitehumanlanguage
themysteryoftheBeingoftheinfiniteandeternalGod.Butone
thingseemscrystalclear—thewrittenWordandthelivingWord bear witness
that there is a unity of the Persons of the Trinity
suchthattheactionsandattributesofonePersonoftheTrinity are not the
actions or attributes of that Person exclusively, but
arebytheirverynaturetheactionsandattributesofGodhim- self, and
therefore in some sense the actions and attributes of
eachPersonoftheTrinity.Thisisthemostfittingwaytogivefull
weighttothosetextsthatspeakoftheunityandequalityofthe
Persons(John5:17–19;10:30;14:7–11,23;17:20–23;compareMatt
28:20withJohn16:7).WhileaffirmingtheunityofthePersons,
wemustalsoaffirmtheTrinityofthePersonstestifiedtointhe
baptismalformula(Matt28:19).
The Athanasian Creed
WesternChristiansinthelatefourthorearlyfifthcenturiessum- marized
their understanding of God in what later came to be
knownastheAthanasianCreed.Inthiscreed, theFather,Son, and Spirit
are described as one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, three
“coeternal” and “coequal” Persons, each fully God
butstilloneGod,notthree—sothattheyshareequallyinpower
andauthority,andnoneisgreaterorlessthananother.Similarly,
AugustinearguesthatwhatissaidofonememberoftheTrinity
canalsobeunderstoodoftheothers.3
Summary
InseekingtobearwitnesstotheirbeliefthattheGodrevealedin
ScriptureandinJesusChristisoneandthreeatthesametime,
theearlychurchrejectedtheideathattheFather,Son,andSpirit
relatedtooneanotherhierarchicallyandthattherewasaneter-
nalsubordinationwithintheTrinity.Withregret,wemustwarn
thatanyviewoftheTrinitythatpositsaneternalsubordination
amongthePersonsoftheTrinity,inspiteofitsbestintentions, cannot do
full justicetotheevidenceofScripture,diminishesthe magnitude and
significance of the Incarnation, undercuts the unity of the
Trinity, and tends to diminish the full deity of the
SonandtheSpirit.WiththeAthanasianCreed,webelievethat
confessingOneTriuneGodinthreecoeternal,coequalPersons,
eachsharingeternally,equally,andfullyinthehonor,glory,wor-
ship,power,authority,andrankthatbelongalonetoGod,best
representstheOnetrueGodrevealedinJesusChristandinthe
Bible.Wecallonourfellowevangelicals,whethertheywishtobe
knownasegalitariansorcomplementarians,ornosuchlabelat
all,tojoinusinthisreaffirmationoftrinitarianismthatisatthe
coreofhistoricChristianorthodoxy.
Notes
1. BiblicalquotationsarefromtheNewInternationalVersion.
2.IwishtoexpressmyindebtnesstotheworkofMillardJ.Erickson,
Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?(GrandRapids,MI:Kregel,2009),es-
peciallychapter4,“TheBiblicalEvidence,”109–38.
3. Augustine,On the Trinity,1.9.19.
A charitable gift annuity allows you to establish
a charitable contribution toward Christians
for Biblical Equality for future generations, take
an immediate charitable tax deduction, and be
assured of an annuitized income stream for life.
It is a way of realizing your heart’s desire for the
future of CBE’s expanding ministry
and of making a difference in the lives that follow.
For more information about charitable gift annuities, call
612-872-6898 or email
[email protected].
Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn— –
Psalm 22:30–31for he has done it.
14 • Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011
Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011 • 15
An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity
The Statement
WebelievethatthesolelivingGodwhocreatedand
rulesoverallandwhoisdescribedintheBibleisone
TriuneGodinthreecoeternal,coequalPersons,each Person being
presented as distinct yet equal, not as
threeseparategods,butoneGodhead,sharingequally in honor, glory,
worship, power, authority, rule, and rank, such that no Person has
eternal primacy over theothers. A theological commentary
Athanasius, the defender of the Nicaean Creed, correctly explained
the faith once delivered to the saints.
ObjectingtoattemptsofhisdaytoreduceJesusChrist(andthe
HolySpirit)tosecondary(andtertiary)statusinbeing,author-
ity,andpower,Athanasiuspointedoutthat,hadhisopponents
understoodJesus“tobetheproperoffspringoftheFather’ssub- stance,as
theradiance is fromlight, theywouldnoteveryone
ofthemhavefoundfaultwiththe[Nicaean]Fathers;butwould have been
confident that the Council wrote suitably” (3.9.39).1 Therefore,
our guidance in constructing this statement comes
fromtheBibleandthehelpfulexplanationsofAthanasius,from
whoseinsightswedrawthelistofequalattributesattheendof
ourstatement.ForAthanasius,equalityofattributesistheproof
forequalityofsubstance(being).Losethefirstandonelosesthe
second.SohedeclaresoftheChrist,“ThisiswhyHehasequality
withtheFatherbytitlesexpressiveofunity,andwhatissaidof
theFather,issaidinScriptureoftheSonalso,allbuthisbeing
calledFather.”2
Athanasius illustrates his position by citing Bible verses in which
Jesus claims to possess all the Father possesses, for ex-
ample,beingnamed“God,”“the Almighty,”“Light,”making“all
things”anddoing“whatsoever”theFatherdoes,“beingEverlast- ing” with
“eternal power and godhead.” He also notes parallel Scriptures
inwhich theSonand theFatheraredescribedwith
thesameterms:“beingLord...through whom [are] all things,”
being“LordofAngels”and“worshippedbythem,”“beinghon-
ouredastheFather,forthat they may honour the Son, Hesays,as they
honour the Father;beingequaltoGod,He thought it not rob- bery to be
equal with God,” “beingTruth,”“Life,”being“The Lord God”and“The God
of Gods,”whoforgivessins,being“the King of
glory,”as“DavidinthePsalm”states“oftheSon”and“God”
verifies(3.20.49),“My glory I will not give to another.”Athanasius
concludes,“Ifthenanythinkofotherorigin,andotherFather,
consideringtheequalityoftheseattributes,itisamadthought”
(3.21.50).3
Therefore, maintaining an understanding of the equality of
theattributesofeachPersonoftheTrinityis,forAthanasius,nec-
essarytomaintainaproperconfessionofeachPerson’sequality
ofsubstance.Reduceone’sbeliefintheequalstatusoftheattri-
butesofanyofthePersonsoftheGodheadandonehaselimi-
natedone’sproofoftheexistenceoftheTrinity,havingreduced
one’sunderstandingofthedoctrinetoanascendingrelationship
ofthreegodsintandem.Ariusmadesuchamistakewhenhede-
clared,“ThusthereisaThree,notinequalglories.Notintermin-
glingwitheachotheraretheirsubsistences.Onemoreglorious
thantheotherintheirgloriesuntoimmensity”(2.2.15).
Instead, having established the equality of the Father and
Son’sgloryandotherattributesinthesequotationsfromtheDe Synodis,
AthanasiusproceedstothequestionofrankinEpistulae quattuor ad
Serapionem, explaining,“Butofsuchrank[taxis]and
naturetheSpiritishavingtotheSon,sotheSonhastotheFa- ther.”4TheSermo
contra Latinos confirms,“ButtheFatherisfirst
notaccordingtotime,andnotaccordingtorank,surelynot!”5
God is unique.
WehavenoprecedentinourworldforunderstandinghowGod
canbeoneandatthesametimethree.Wemistakethenatureof
theGodheadbypositingthreePersonsintandem,oneeternally
exercisingauthorityovertheothersashumanchiefexecutiveof-
ficersexerciseauthorityovertheirsubordinatestaff.Weimpose human
conduct in our fallen world onto the relationships in
heaven’sperfectone.But,sincethereisnoexactpointofrefer-
enceforGodinourcontingentworld,wemustrelyuponGod’s
revelationofGod’snature.Suchspecificdivinerevelationisre-
cordedintheBibleintheformofaffirmations,suchas“Hear,Is-
rael,theLord(singular)yourGod(plural),theLord(singular)
isone”(Deut6:4).Theinterchangeableuseof thesingularand
pluralnamesofGodshowsthatGodisunique.
God is not limited to human gender.
ChristiansdifferovertheirunderstandingofGod’sintentionfor the
ecclesiastical and domestic relationship between the gen- ders.
But, this topic should be included under the doctrine of
humanityandnotoftheTrinity,sinceGodisneithermalenor
female(aswelearnfromDeut4:15–16),andGodisnotlimited
totwoPersons,butisoneGodinthreePersons.Thus,nodirect
andspecificanalogicalcorrespondenceexistsbetweenonemale
andonefemaleinrelationshiporinchurchserviceorallfemales
andallmalesinrelationshiporinchurchserviceandtheperfect
loverelationshipswithinthemonotheisticGodheadoftheTrin-
ity.Further,theattempttoignoretheHolySpiritandforgesome
sortofcorrespondingrelationship tohumangenderoutof the
incarnational,metaphoricaldesignationsof“father”and“son”is
atbestlogicfaultandatworstheterodox.
Written by William David Spencer in consultation with Aída Besançon
Spencer, Mimi Haddad, Royce Gruenler, Kevin Giles, I. Howard
Marshall, Alan Myatt, Millard Erickson, Steven Tracy, Alvera
Mickelsen, Stanley Gundry, Catherine Clark Kroeger, and other
theologians, exegetes, philoso- phers, and church historians. To be
included in the upcoming book The New Evangelical Subordinationism?
Perspectives on the Equality of God the Father and God the Son.
Used by permission of Wipf and Stock Publishers, www
.wipfandstock.com. Sign your name in support of the Evangelical
State- ment on the Trinity by visiting
www.TrinityStatement.com.
16 • Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011
AthanasiuswarnsagainstoverlyanthropomorphizingTrini- tarian
familial language. He counters the charge that his insis-
tenceonequalityintheTrinityreducestwoPersonsoftheGod- head to
“brothers”: “One isnotFatherand theOtherSon,but they are brothers
together.”6 Athanasius answers that equality
doesnotmeanthatonePersonintheGodheadcannotbeidenti- fiedas
“father,” as another takesonfleshandentersourworld
asaninfantwhoisthechildofdivineintervention(bytheHoly
Spirit,whoisanotherPersonoftheTrinity[Luke1:35])andhu-
manchildbirth(seePhil2:5–11),andhecitesnumerousexamples
ofhumanparentsbegettingchildren.Yet,hewarnsthatthishu-
manunderstandingmustbeconfinedtoourhumanrealm.We
mustapproachtheeternalby“castingawayhumanimages,nay, all
thingssensible,andascendingtotheFather, lestwerobthe
FatheroftheSoninignorance,andrankHimamongHisown
creatures”(3.23.51).
Insummary,Athanasiusinsiststhatequalityofattributesdem-
onstratesequalityofsubstance(being)intheOneTriuneGod.
God exercises perfect cooperative relationships.
Godmodelsperfectlove,respect,cooperation.AlthoughJesusin
hishumanincarnationwaslimitedinvariousways(Phil2:6–8),
includinginknowledge(e.g.,Matt24:36;Mark13:32),athisas-
censionhereturnedtohisformerplaceofauthorityandglory, where he
receives prayer and grants power from heaven (Acts
7:56,59;Luke24:49).Ineternity,thePersonsoftheTrinityknow each other
intimately. As 1 Corinthians 2:10 tells us, the Spirit
searchesthethoughtsoftheothers.ThePersonsoftheGodhead
indwelleachother(John17:21),expressingperfectloveandmu- tual
glorification (John 17:1; 23–24), each sharing cooperatively
inhumanity’screation,redemption,andsanctification.7Godex-
emplifiesaunityindiversitythatweshouldemulatebetweenthe
gendersandpracticeintheglobal,multicultural,mutualsubmis-
sionandrespectfulcooperationofallhumans.
Voluntary deference as part of the salvific plan
DeferencewithintheTrinityismutual:theFatherdeferstothe
Sontocarryouttheplanofsalvation,asdoestheHolySpirit,and
sotheSonishonoredasheinturndeferstoFatherandSpirit.All
mutuallyhonoranddefertooneanother.
Suchdeferencedidnotrevealapermanentsuperiorityofone
PersonoftheTrinityovertheOtherstoJohnCalvin,whowrote:
WeoughtalsotounderstandwhatwereadinPaul:afterthe judgment “Christ
will deliver the Kingdom to his God and
Father”(1Cor.15:24p.).SurelytheKingdomoftheSonofGod
hadnobeginningandwillhavenoend.Butevenashe lay concealedunder the
lownessoffleshand“emptiedhimself,
takingtheformofaservant”(Phil.2:7;cfVg.), layingaside the splendor
of majesty, he showed himself obedient to his Father (cf.Phil.
2:8).Havingcompleted this subjection, “he
wasatlastcrownedwithgloryandhonor”(Heb.2:9p.).
ThemissionofJesusChristwasnotsimplytoleadhumanityin
righteousandobedientliving,aswasthetaskofthefirsthumans.
Christ’smissionwasgreater,havingtoredeemfallenhumanity,
afterwhich,Calvinexplains,“SothenwillheyieldtotheFather
hisnameandcrownofglory,andwhateverhehasreceivedfrom
theFather,that‘Godmaybeallinall’(1Cor15:28).”Toperform
thismission,Christbecomesour“Mediator”andour“Lord,”a
title,Calvinnotes,that“belongstothepersonofChristonlyin
sofarasitrepresentsadegreemidwaybetweenGodandus.”But
onceChristhascompletelyfulfilledtheroleofhumanity’s“Lord,”
Calvinexplains,“Thenhereturnsthe lordshiptohisFatherso that—far
from diminishing his own majesty—it may shine all
themorebrightly.Then,also,GodshallceasetobetheHeadof
Christ,8forChrist’sowndeitywillshineofitself,althoughasyet
itiscoveredbyaveil.”Calvinadds,theincarnateSecondPerson
oftheTrinity“willceasetobetheambassadorofhisFather,and
willbesatisfiedwiththatglorywhichheenjoyedbeforethecre-
ationoftheworld.”9
B. B. Warfield agreed that the term “Lord” indicates “func- tion”10
inChrist’smission,ascanbe seen inhisexplanationof
why“PaulmightverywellcallChrist‘Lordoverall’butnot‘God over all.’’’
To him, “‘Lord over all’ would have meant, however,
preciselywhat‘Godoverall’means.”11Warfieldspecificallydenies
thatPaulincurrentlyspeakingofChristas“Lord”placedhim
onalowerplanethanGod.Paul’sintentionwaspreciselythe opposite,viz.,
toputhimonthesameplanewithGod;and
accordinglyitisas“Lord”thatalldivineattributesandactivi-
tiesareascribedtoChristandallreligiousemotionsandwor-
shiparedirectedtohim.Ineffect,theOldTestamentdivine
names,Elohimontheonehand,andJehovahandAdhonai
ontheother,areintheNewTestamentdistributedbetween
GodtheFatherandGodtheSonwithaslittleimplicationof
differenceinrankhereasthere.12
Instead, forWarfield,“despite thisearthlyoriginofHishuman
nature,Heyetisandabides(presentparticiple)nothinglessthan
theSupremeGod, ‘Godoverall [emphatic],blessed forever,’”13
“our‘greatGod’(Titus2:13).”14“PaulcouplesGodourFatherand
theLordJesusChristinhisprayeronacompleteequality.”15Even
“theadjective‘onlybegotten’conveystheidea,notofderivation and
subordination, but of uniqueness and consubstantiality,”16
sinceJesus“placesHimselfinaposition,notofequalitymerely, but of
absolute reciprocity and interpenetration of knowledge
withtheFather.”17Clearly,bothCalvinandWarfieldaffirmthat a
temporary (not eternal) submission of one of the Persons of
theGodheadintheincarnationwasamutuallyagreed-uponpart
ofGod’splanforsavinghumanityfrometernalcondemnation, wherein a
Person of the Godhead became fully human, while
remainingfullyGod(John1:1,14).18JesusChrist,God-Among-
Us,“pitchedthetentofabody”(sknn,John1:14),muchasthe
tabernacle,thetentofmeeting,wasplacedinthecenterofIsrael’s
encampmentsothathumanscouldencounterGodfacetoface.
AccordingtotheBible,thereissalvationthroughnoothername than that of
Jesus Christ and through no other means but the
deathofJesusChristforoursins(John3:16;Acts4:12;1Tim2:5–
6).HumanswitnessedthespiritofservanthoodthatGodvalues
anddisplays.Itwasexemplifiedbytheonce-and-for-allsacrifice
ofGod-Among-Ustorestorehumanity toGod’s favor through
God’sgrace(Heb10:14).God’smutualdeferencemodelsavirtue
forbothmenandwomentofollow.
Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011 • 17
Avoiding elements of Arianism
Suggestions that superiority and inferiority of authority eter-
nallyexistamongthePersonsoftheGodheadareproblematic. All God’s
attributes are essential. We should not posit distinc- tive,
unequal attributes that divide God’s substance. If divine
attributes are ranked in a hierarchy, then it necessarily follows
thatthelowerrankedareofinferiorquality.Therefore,itiscon-
tradictorytosaythattheysharetheidenticalsubstance(ousia),
andyetthedegreeofeachattributecandifferaccordingtorank.
SuchaneternaldistinctionmakestheSonlessinauthoritythan theFather,
therebydividingandseparating theoneGod.Such
radicalsocialTrinitarianismendsupastritheism.Affirmingone
Godinthreecoeternal,coequalPersonsis,therefore,necessary
topreserveandperpetuatetheonefaithoncegiventothesaints.
Notes
1. AllquotationsofAthanasiusarefromThe Epistle of S. Athanasius,
Archbishop of Alexandria, Concerning the Councils Held at Ariminum
in Italy and at Seleucia in Isauria (or De
Synodis),inMembersoftheEng- lishChurch,Select Treatises of S.
Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, in Controversy with the
Arians, trans.J.H.Newman(Oxford:JohnHen-
ryParker,J.G.F.andJ.Rivington:1842),exceptwhereotherwisenoted.
2. PunctuationisthatofthetranslatoroftheDe Synodis. 3.
Thisconcernforandattentiontotherelationshipbetweenequal-
ityinsubstanceandattributescanbeseenin“TheWestminsterConfes-
sionofFaith,”9:1,whichrecognizes,“TheHolySpirit,thethirdPerson
intheTrinity,proceedingfromtheFatherandtheSon,ofthesamesub-
stanceandequal inpowerandglory, is, togetherwith theFatherand Son,
to be believed in, loved, obeyed, and worshipped throughout all
ages,”inThe Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Part I:
Book of Confessions
(Louisville,KY:TheOfficeoftheGeneralAssembly,1999),
131.“TheWestminsterShorterCatechism”continuesthisequationinits
answertoQuestion6:“TherearethreePersonsintheGodhead:theFa-
ther,theSon,andtheHolyGhost;andthesethreeareoneGod,thesame
insubstance,equalinpowerandglory”(Constitution of the Presbyterian
Church,175).“TheWestminsterLargerCatechism”slightlyamplifiesthis
statement in itsanswer toQuestion9: “Therebe threepersons in the
Godhead:theFather,theSon,andtheHolyGhost;andthesethreeare
onetrue,eternalGod,thesameinsubstance,equalinpowerandglory;
althoughdistinguishedbytheirpersonalproperties”(Constitution of the
Presbyterian Church,196).
4. Thesaurus linguae graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works,
vol.
26,p.580,line24,accessed23Feb.2006,availablefromhttp://stephanus
.tlg.uci.edu/inst/textsearch,translationbyWilliamDavidSpencer.
5. Literally:“mayitnothappen!m genoito.”Thesaurus linguae grae-
cae, vol.28,p.829,line47,translationbyWilliamDavidSpencer.One
willnoticethattheSermo contra Latinos hasbeenpaidlittleattention
intheliterature.Thisisdoubtlessbecause“theBenedictineeditorsde-
clareddubiousorspuriousallofthesermonsattributedtoAthanasius,” as
JohannesQuastenhas lamented,adding,“Acarefulexaminationof
thegreatnumberlistedbyA.Erhhardwhichsofarhasnotbeenmade,
willmostprobablymodifythisjudgmentandprovesomeofthemgenu- ine”
(Patrology, vol. 3 [Utrecht: Spectrum, 1960], 50). The question of
whichworksofAthanasius(andhowmuchofeach)aregenuinecontin-
uestobedebated.Insomecases,decisionsmadebyinternalevidence
appearsubjective,dependinglargelyonhowthewordingofaparticular
pieceseems tohavestruckaparticularcriticataparticular time.For
example,LouisElliesDuPininhisBibliotheca Patrum; Or, A New His-
tory of Ecclesiastical Writers, 2nded., trans.WilliamWotton
(London: AbelSwallandTim.Childe,1693)decided,inregardtosermons,“The
HomilyupontheseWords,My Father hath given me all things” isamong
the“manyotherWorksofSt.Athanasius,ofwhichtheChronology is
notknown,whichitconcernsustodistinguishwellfromthosethatare
doubtful or supposititious” (33). Such distinguishing was done
some-
timesbyexternalevidence(ashistoricalattestationofexternalauthor-
ship),but, inaddition,bywhetherDuPin judgedapiecewas“in the
StileofSt.Athanasius” (34).So, amonghispronouncements,he rules in
favor of “The Homily of the Sabbath and of Circumcision,” which,
hedecides,“isnotwhollyofSt.Athanasius’sStile,buttheDifferenceis
veryinconsiderable,”whileherules,withBernardoDeMontfauconand
notEichorn,againstthegenuinenessofDe Virginitate.Thisparticular
book,whichremains thesubjectofa lively internetdebate,ofcourse, is
thrown intoquestionbecauseof theway the“threehypostases”are
discussed(see,amongmanyothers,ArchibaldRobertson,“Prolegom-
ena”inNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ASelectLibraryoftheChristian
Church,2ndseries,vol.4,ed.PhilipSchaffandHenryWace[Peabody,
MA:Hendrickson,1892,1999], lxv).But,DuPin’sdecisionisbasedas
muchonhisopinionthatthisbook“hasnothingoftheStyleofSt.Atha-
nasius”(34),since“ThisBookiswritteninalowStileandcontainsPre-
ceptsabouttheQualityofthechildishClothesofVirgins:Therearein
itExpressionsunworthyofSt.Athanasius,aswhenhecallsaVirgin,the
DancerofJesusChrist”(35).Afterhavingwrittenthis,DuPinendshis
discussionbyagreeingwithPhotius’scommendationofAthanasiusfor his
“wonderful Artifice: He observes all along an admirable fitness of
ExpressionandalwaysadaptshisStiletotheSubjectofwhichhetreats, and
to thePersons towhomhe speaks” (46).Current readerswillno
doubtrecallArchibaldRobertson’sreminderthatAthanasiuswas,after
all,“aChristianpastor...engagedinpreaching,”whose“simplicityled
Philostorgius...topronounceAthanasiusachildascomparedwithBa-
sil,Gregory,orApollinarius”(Prolegomena,lxvi).Againstsuchconflict-
ingopinions,thetenuousnessofrelyingonacriterionofwhatsounds
likeanauthor’sstyletoacritictodetermineauthorship,orrelyingona
previouscompilerwhohasdonejustthat,isveryunreliable.Today,lin-
guisticstudyisacomplexenterprisedemandingnumerousoperations, such
as analyzing syntactical and transposition sentence changes, as-
sessingverbdensity,abstractversusconcretenouns,anduseofadverbs
andadverbialclauses,doinglogicaldiagramming,applyingLeoSpitzer’s
18 • Priscilla PapersVol.25,No.4Autumn2011
philological circle,performingpropositional reduction,andexecuting
othersuchoperations.Further,“accordingtoseverallinguists,100,000
words are needed to prove authorship” (see Aída Besançon Spencer’s
stylistic study Paul’s Literary Style [Lanham, MD: University Press
of America, 1998], 21, 149). And, even then, one is wise to be
cautious. Further, determination by style is difficult to make when
no uniform
scholarlyopinionexistsonthequalityorbreadthofAthanasius’swrit-
ingstyle, since judgmentsrange fromPhotius’sglowingendorsement,
“ReadvariouslettersofAthanasius,somecontainingakindofApology
forhisflight.Thestyle iselegant,brilliant,andclear, fullofgraceand
persuasiveness”(Bibliotheca or Myriobiblon,
trans.J.H.Freese(London:
SPCK,1920),32,accessed1June2011,availablefromhttp://www.tertul-
lian.org/fathers/photius_02preface.htm,)toBertholdAltaner’sdimmer
assessment:“OnthewholeAthanasiusis littleconcernedwithliterary
form;hecertainlyshowseverywhereclarityandprecisionof thought,
buthiswritingssufferfromdefectivearrangementofhismaterialaswell
asfromfrequentrepetitionsanddiffusiveness”(Patrology,trans.Hilda
C.Graef [Freburg:Herder,1960],314).Whenwefactorintherealization
thattheimmenselyaccomplishedbutstilllargelyprescientificBernard
DeMontfauconandhiseditorsdismissedtheentirecorpusofsermons
intheircompilationsof1698andafterward,andthattheimpactofthat
decisioncanbeseenintheassignmentofthesehomiliesas“dubious”
or“spurious”byMigne(whocontinuestodatetheSermo contra Lati- nos
inthe300s),Lampe,andotherswhofollowed,onecanonlypause
andhopethatthequestionoftheauthenticityofeachsermonthatwas
traditionallyassignedtoAthanasiuswilleventuallyhaveitsownmore
contemporary,scientific,andaccurateexploration.Inthemeantime,the
carefulapproachistobearcautioninmindandregardthepresentdocu-
mentaseitherbyAthanasius(astraditionallyidentified)orbyoneofthe
Athanasianpartyauthorsattempting to followhis theologyandwrite
inthespiritofAthanasius’sthought.Thestatementcitedinourtextis
includedinadiscussionofthetheoryofthe“eternalemergence”ofthe
SonandSpirit,whichseekstoclarifythattheSpiritis“conjoinedandto-
getherandnotbeinginferioraccordingtotheemergenceaftertheSon.
...ForjustastheSonimmediatelyandcloselyisoutofthefirst,which
implies theFather, soalso theSpirit is immediatelyoutof theFather,
withreferencetotheeternalemergence.ButtheFatherisfirstneither
accordingtotime,noraccordingtorank—surelynot!”Aswecansee,
theSonandSpiritproceeding fromtheFathermaybeunderstoodas
order,butwithoutaneternallyhierarchicalordering.Inaddition,wecan
noticethisconcernisalsoexpressedintheSecondHelveticConfession:
“Thustherearenotthreegods,butthreepersons,consubstantial,coe-
ternal,andcoequal;distinctwithrespecttohypostases,andwithrespect
toorder, theonepreceding theotheryetwithoutany inequality” (ch.
3,“OfGod,HisUnityandTrinity,”“TheSecondHelveticConfession,” inThe
Constitution of the Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.], Part I: Book of
Confessions,56).
6. InaMay1537lettertoSimonGrynée,therectoroftheAcademy of Basle,
John Calvin reports he was labeled a Sabellian for claiming
JesusChristwas“thatJehovah,whoofHimselfalonewasalwaysself-
existent”(inotherwordsautotheos).ThisisnotedbyCharlesHodge(see
hisSystematic Theology [GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1952],467 [vol.I,
ch.4,sec.6A].ReferencingIgnatius,Athanasiusmakesasimilarpointto
thatofCalvin,that,strictlyspeaking,“theSonwasingenerate,”sincethe
SecondPersonoftheTrinitywasnotcreated,thoughtheSonwasgener-
ateintheincarnation(De Synodis, 3.17.46):“Wearepersuadedthatthe
blessedIgnatiuswasorthodoxinwritingthatChristwasgenerateonac-
countoftheflesh,(forHewasmadeflesh,)yetingenerate,becauseHeis
notinthenumberofthingsmadeandgenerated,butSonfromFather” (De
Synodis,3.18.47).CharlesHodge,however,seemstodisagree,seeing
the“fatherswhoframedthat[Nicene]Creed”as“denyingtotheFather
anypriorityorsuperioritytotheotherpersonsoftheTrinity,”butyet
being“theMonas,ashavinginorderofthoughtthewholeGodheadin
Himself;sothatHealonewasGodofHimself(autotheos, inthatsenseof
theword),”being“greaterthantheotherdivinepersons”(465).Inregard
to“theFather,Son,andSpirit,”Prof.Hodgebelievesin“theirabsolute
unityastosubstanceoressence,andtheirconsequentperfectequality;
andthesubordinationoftheSontotheFather,andoftheSpirittothe
FatherandtheSon,astothemodeofsubsistenceandoperation”(462),
offeringquotationsofscholarsancientandcontemporarytohimself,in-
cludingProf.Waterland,whoclaims,“Thetitleofho Theos [theGod],
beingunderstoodinthesamesensewithautotheos,was,asitoughttobe,
generallyreservedtotheFather,asthedistinguishingpersonalcharacter
ofthefirstpersonoftheHolyTrinity”(465).Hodge,however,cautions
that“neithertheBiblenortheancientcreedsexplain”whatis“meant”
bytheterm“sonship,”and,infact,“itmaybesomethingaltogetherin-
scrutableandtous incomprehensible”(468).Still,drawingonhuman
analogy,hehimselfbelieves,“Intheconsubstantial identityofthehu-
mansoulthereisasubordinationofonefacultytoanother,andso,how-
everincomprehensibletous,theremaybeasubordinationintheTrinity
consistentwiththeidentityofessenceintheGodhead”(474).Likewise,
AugustusHopkinsStrongalsonotesthechargeofSabellianismagainst
Calvin(Systematic Theology [OldTappan,NJ:FlemingH.Revell,1907],
334[vol.1,pt.4,ch.2,sec.4c])andhimselfstates,“TheNewTestament
callsChristTheos, butnotho theos. Wefranklyrecognizeaneternalsub-
ordinationofChristtotheFather,butwemaintainatthesametimethat
thissubordinationisasubordinationoforder,office,andoperation,not
asubordinationofessence”(342[I.4.2.5:3d]).Prof.Strongbelieveshis
anthropomorphicviewof“thepossibilityofanorder,whichyetinvolves
noinequality,maybeillustratedbytherelationbetweenmanandwom-
an.Inofficemanisfirstandwomansecond,butwoman’ssoulisworth
asmuchasman’s”(ibid.).Suchdistinctionscanbe traced in theearly
churchtoOrigeninhisCommentary on John, book2,section13(p.98),
wherehesuggestsofJohn1:1,“Johnhasusedthearticlesinoneplaceand
omittedtheminanotherveryprecisely,andnotasthoughhedidnotun-
derstandtheprecisionoftheGreeklanguage.InthecaseoftheWord,he
addsthearticle‘the,’butinthecaseofthenoun‘God,’heinsertsitinone
Women, Men, and the Trinity What Does It Mean to Be Equal?
ere is a gridlock in churches today regarding the role of women. is
debate extends beyond the relationship between men and women. In 1
Corinthians 11:3, when Paul says, “the head of woman is man, and
the head of Christ is God,” he is drawing a parallel between the
relationship of men and women and the relationship of the Father
and the Son within the Trinity. is book explores the controversial
theological premise that, while maintaining equality of essence,
functio