[Updated 7/8/16]
(*) = Essential Posts.
Earlier today I found myself trying to explain to a friend what has been happening in the Reformed world in terms of the latest discussions regarding the Trinity and the Eternal Functional Subordination of the second person of the Trinity. The trickiest part about explaining it to him was keeping all the different posts straight. In order to help out both myself and anyone else who is either trying to keep up, or get caught up I have compiled (chronologically) this list of links which I believe to be helpful to anyone who is interested. I plan to keep this updated as things progress. This will be an ever evolving post. The earlier entries are articles that have laid the groundwork for where we find ourselves now, and they are certainly relevant. As readers pass along more information and relevant pieces of information I will add them to the timeline, so this list may be worth checking in on periodically.
2004
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, September 2004
"Toward a Biblical Model of the Social Trinity: Avoiding Equivocation of Nature and Order" by J. Scott Horrell
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/47/47-3/47-3-pp399-421_JETS.pdf
2006
Book: Jesus and the Father, by Kevin Giles
https://books.google.com/books?id=ACwJIt_bpn4C
2013
International Journal of Systematic Theology, April 2013
"The Obedience of the Eternal Son" by Scott Swain and Michael Allen
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijst.12009/full
"'Eternally Begotten of the Father' An Analysis of the Second London Confession of Faith’s Doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son" by Stefan T. Lindblad
http://s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/arbca_carlisle_pa/2013-eternal-generation-of-the-son---full.pdf
2015
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society:
*"Eternal Functional Subordination and the Problem of the Divine Will" by D. Glenn Butner, Jr.
https://www.academia.edu/11771377/Eternal_Functional_Subordination_and_the_Problem_of_the_Divine_Will
May 22, 2015
Rachel Miller:
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/continuing-down-this-path-complementarians-lose/
Review of One God in Three Persons by Steve Holmes
http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507
May 31, 2015
Alistair Roberts:
https://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-social-trinitarianism-and-ectypal-theology/
June 1, 2015
Response to Holmes' Review by Fred Sanders
http://scriptoriumdaily.com/generations-eternal-and-current/
May 28, 2015
Rachel Miller:
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/does-the-son-eternally-submit-to-the-authority-of-the-father/
June 3, 2016
*Liam Goligher:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/is-it-okay-to-teach-a-complementarianism-based-on-eternal-subordination#.V1syV_krIuU
June 6, 2016
*Liam Goligher:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/reinventing-god#.V1syRfkrIuV
June 7, 2016
*Carl Trueman:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/fahrenheit-381
June 8, 2016
Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/the-coming-war-nicene-complementarians-vs-homoian-complementarians/
June 9, 2016
*Bruce Ware's Response:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/god-the-sonat-once-eternally-g.php
*Carl Trueman's Rejoinder to Ware:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-surrejoinder-to-bruce-ware
*Wayne Grudem's Response:
http://cbmw.org/public-square/whose-position-on-the-trinity-is-really-new/
Carl Trueman's Rejoinder to Grudem:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-rejoinder-to-wayne-grudem
Mark Thompson:
http://markdthompson.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/ers-is-there-order-in-trinity.html
Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/more-on-the-calvinist-complementarian-divide-on-the-trinity/
*Denny Burke:
http://www.dennyburk.com/a-brief-response-to-trueman-and-goligher/
Jeff Waddington:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/some-thoughts-on-the-current-c.php
June 10, 2016
John Calvin/Carl Trueman:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-guest-post
Mark Jones:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/why-did-the-son-become-incarnate-because-he-submitted#.V1roHfkrIuU
Darren Sumner (for a Barthian's perspective):
https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/some-observations-on-the-eternal-functional-subordination-debate/
*Mike Ovey:
http://oakhill2.ablette.net/blog/entry/should_i_resign/
Scott McKnight
(read the comments section, especially for interaction between Alistair Roberts and McKnight):
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/10/the-battle-rumbles-along/
June 11, 2016
Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/gods-will-and-eternal-submission-part-one
Steve Hays:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/fahrenheit-381.html
*Donald Macleod:
http://www.donaldmacleod.org.uk/dm/subordinationism-out-of-the-blue/
June 12, 2016
Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/even-more-on-the-complementarian-calvinism-debate-on-the-trinity/
Steve Hays:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/gender-and-trinity.html
June 13, 2016
*Michael Bird/Michel Barnes:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-michel-r-barnes-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate-on-the-trinity/
*Michael Bird/Lewis Ayres:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-lewis-ayres-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate/
Todd Pruitt (Reflecting on Barnes/Ayres):
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/1517/barnes-and-ayers-weigh-in#.V16rRPkrIuU
Andrew Wilson (a nice article summarizing the issues):
http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/submission_in_the_trinity_a_quick_guide_to_the_debate
Owen Strachan:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2016/06/the-glorious-godhead-and-proto-arian-bulls/
Aimee Byrd:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-plea-to-cbmw
Derek Rishmawy:
https://derekzrishmawy.com/2016/06/13/on-trinitarian-controversy-why-its-not-always-terrible-and-how-to-go-about-it/
Denny Burke:
http://www.dennyburk.com/the-obedience-of-the-eternal-son/
*D. Glenn Butner, Jr.:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/eternal-submission-and-the-sto.php
Fred Sanders:
http://scriptoriumdaily.com/18-theses-on-the-father-and-the-son/
Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/eternal-subordination-of-wills-nein
June 14:
*Liam Goligher Responding to Mike Ovey:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/dr-liam-goligher-responds-to-dr-mike-ovey
Carl Trueman:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/motivated-by-feminism-a-response-to-a-recent-criticism#.V2C6ZvkrIuU
Paul Helm/B.B. Warfield:
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2016/06/warfield-on-trinity.html
Mike Ovey:
http://www.credomag.com/2016/06/14/can-michael-bird-read-my-mind-alas-it-seems-not-mike-ovey/
Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/biblicism-socinianism-and-arid-scholasticism
June 15:
Alistair Roberts:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-eternal-subordination-of-t.php
Andrew Moody:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-1
Michael Bird (response to Fred Sanders):
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/fred-sanderss-18-theses-on-the-father-and-the-son/
Mark Jones:
https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/06/15/propositions-questions-fred-sanders-trinity/
June 16:
Darren Sumner:
https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/what-is-the-immanent-trinity-a-clarification-for-the-eternal-subordination-debate/
Caleb Lindgren (Christianity Today):
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/gender-trinity-proxy-war-civil-war-eternal-subordination.html
Matthew Barrett:
http://www.credomag.com/2016/06/16/better-late-than-never-the-covenant-of-redemption-and-the-trinity-debates-matthew-barrett/
John Stevens:
http://www.john-stevens.com/2016/06/are-we-all-heretics-now-reflections-on.html?m=1
June 17:
Mike Riccardi:
http://thecripplegate.com/making-sense-of-the-trinity-efs-debate/
Alistair Roberts:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-eternal-subordination-of-t-1.php
Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/subordination-in-the-pactum-and-the-irony-of-ess
June 18:
Keith Johnson:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son-a-biblical-idea
June 20:
Andrew Moody:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-2
Wayne Grudem:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php
Owen Strachan:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2016/06/wayne-grudem-critiques-liam-golighers-historical-theology/
Mark Jones:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/wayne-grudems-historical-theology
Liam Goligher:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-letter-to-professors-grudem-and-ware#.V2mJ-1d8XzI
June 21:
Carl Trueman:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/once-more-unto-the-breach-and-then-no-more-a-final-reply-to-dr-grude
Michael Bird:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/update-on-the-complementarian-trinity-debate/
Luke Isham:
http://thinkingofgod.org/2016/06/subordination-dust-observations-complementarian/
June 22:
Wyatt Graham:
http://thecripplegate.com/the-complementarian-trinity-debate-a-summary-of-its-beginning/#more-88886
June 23:
Christopher Cleveland:
https://mereorthodoxy.com/trinitarian-controversy-inevitable/
Mark Baddeley:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-3
June 24:
Christ the Center Roundtable Discussion of the Trinity Controversy:
http://reformedforum.org/ctc445/
Jamin Hübner:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/24/subordinationism-some-major-questions/
Carl Trueman:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/06/the-ecumenical-consequences-of-the-peace
June 25:
Matthew Crawford:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/matthew-crawford-clarifying-nicene-trinitarianism-with-cyril-of-alexandria/
June 28:
Albert Mohler:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/06/28/heresy/
Carl Trueman (response to Mohler):
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-reply-to-dr-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism#.V3NPtbgrIuW
Ian Hamilton:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-trinitarian-debate-some-re.php
Liam Goligher:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/on-the-word-heresy#.V3ULa7grIuV
June 29:
Bobby Grow:
https://growrag.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/maximus-the-confessors-response-to-the-efs-in-the-trinity/
June 30:
Matt Emerson:
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/06/30/an-attempt-to-arbitrate-the-trinity-debate/
July 1:
Lewis Ayres:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/07/lewis-ayres-on-the-meaning-of-nicene-orthodoxy/
July 4:
Bruce Ware:
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/07/04/knowing-the-self-revealed-god-who-is-father-son-and-holy-spirit/
July 5:
Mark Jones:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-fulfilled-prophecy-and-another-guest-post-from-mark-jones#.V3xvZbgrIuU
Liam Goligher:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/we-cannot-but-speak#.V3xvTrgrIuU
July 6:
Mark Baddeley:
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-5
Andrew Wilson:
http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/complementarianism_in_crisis
July 7:
Todd Pruitt:
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/lets-all-be-nicene#.V35Rq6JQSvR
Darren Sumner:
https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/the-heart-of-the-matter-for-eternal-subordination/
July 8:
Bruce Ware:
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/07/08/an-open-letter-to-liam-goligher-carl-trueman-and-todd-pruitt-ontrinitarian-equality-and-distinctions-guest-post-by-bruce-ware/
Thanks Adam for collecting all these articles and posts in one place. Very Interesting discussion!
ReplyDeleteMark Jones just posted this 12th June 2016 http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/gods-will-and-eternal-submission-part-one
ReplyDeleteThanks, Andrew!
ReplyDeleteAnd even more by Michael Bird on 12th
ReplyDeletehttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/even-more-on-the-complementarian-calvinism-debate-on-the-trinity/
Great job in putting this together. Thanks so much.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, Adam. In terms of print resources that predate this month's dust-up, all credit should be given to the work of Kevin Giles. A great place to start is his 2006 volume Jesus and the Father (Zondervan): https://books.google.com/books?id=ACwJIt_bpn4C
ReplyDeleteThe final one you have is Andew Wilson, not Walker... helpful roundup with concise questions. Thanks for your work, bro.
ReplyDeleteNice catch!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd another one, thanks.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.donaldmacleod.org.uk/dm/subordinationism-out-of-the-blue/
And Fred Sanders
ReplyDeletehttp://scriptoriumdaily.com/18-theses-on-the-father-and-the-son/
Two more responses:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/fahrenheit-381.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/gender-and-trinity.html
Some related background material:
ReplyDeletehttp://archive.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/cman_115_4_beckwith.pdf
http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/115-04_350.pdf
Helm reproduces Warfield:
ReplyDeletehttp://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2016/06/warfield-on-trinity.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/father-son-man-and-woman.html
ReplyDeletehttps://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-social-trinitarianism-and-ectypal-theology/
ReplyDeleteHere is one from Andrew Moody
ReplyDeletehttps://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-1
And one by Michael Bird, commenting on Fred Sanders
ReplyDeletehttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/fred-sanderss-18-theses-on-the-father-and-the-son/
Mark Jones on Fred Sanders
ReplyDeletehttps://calvinistinternational.com/2016/06/15/propositions-questions-fred-sanders-trinity/
Adam, here's another that looks like it was missed:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.credomag.com/2016/06/14/can-michael-bird-read-my-mind-alas-it-seems-not-mike-ovey/
Here's a couple more
ReplyDeletehttp://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/gender-trinity-proxy-war-civil-war-eternal-subordination.html
Matthew Barrett
http://www.credomag.com/2016/06/16/better-late-than-never-the-covenant-of-redemption-and-the-trinity-debates-matthew-barrett/
I came across this contribution that says something that should be heard:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.john-stevens.com/2016/06/are-we-all-heretics-now-reflections-on.html?m=1
Here's another:
ReplyDeletehttp://newcitytimes.com/news/story/subordination-in-the-pactum-and-the-irony-of-ess
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/keeping-up-with-mark-joneses.html
ReplyDeleteMark Jones actually had a 3 part series over at New City Times:
ReplyDeletePart 2:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/eternal-subordination-of-wills-nein
Part 3:
http://newcitytimes.com/news/story/biblicism-socinianism-and-arid-scholasticism
Here's another:
ReplyDeletehttps://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/06/19/its-vital-to-talk-about-motivation-in-the-debate-about-eternal-relations-of-authority-and-submission-eras-part-1/
Barbara,
ReplyDeleteThat post has a little too much mind-reading, guesswork, and assumptions about the motivations of the participants in this debate for me to consider adding it to the list. I do not consider statements like this helpful:
"I don’t believe them. I think they know, deep in their hearts, that they are doing it. And they don’t want to admit it."
"I believe they would like to keep women and wives in the position of children."
"I believe they are fighting to maintain their male privilege."
[Your beliefs are not arguments, and I do not find them persuasive, especially in light of the other guesswork your post contains. The posts above deal with the questions at hand and are intended to be helpful for those wanting to understand the debate.]
"I’m guessing that they closed comments because the commenters started talking about character and motivation."
[Actually, none of the sites sponsored by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals have comments, so this "guess" of yours is factually wrong and calls into question the quality of the other guesses and assumptions that compose your blog post. You mention multiple times in your post your frustration with the fact that they "shut down comments," but as I stated you can remove this as one of your grievances. They never shut it down because it was never started up to begin with. Here is the Alliance's official position on comments: "Alliance websites and blogs are directed and edited by ordained pastors and theologians, seeking to provide insights into the important doctrines and debates of our day. It was not designed to be a public square where all ideas share equal footing. However, your opinions are important to us." http://www.alliancenet.org/node/36308]
Thank you for replying to me, Adam Parker.
DeleteI have added an UPDATE to that post. I realised, after it was published, that comments had NOT been closed on Liam Goligher's posts at Mortification of Spin.
You are right that Alliancenet does not allow comments on the blogs which Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt write. But Aimee Byrd, who is the third member of the Mortification of Spin team, DOES allow comments on her blog.
And since Liam Goligher's posts have been guests post on Aimee's blog, they ARE receiving comments.
I had misconstrued what happened there. The comments I had submitted which were not published on Aimee's blog were comments that contained links. Since I discovered my error, I have been submitting more comments on Dr Liam Goligher's guest posts at Aimee's blog, and each of those comments has been published.
As soon as I realised I had misconstrued things, I publicly apologised at my post, and explained that I had been in error. And I privately apologised to Aimee Byrd.
The series of articles I am writing at A Cry For Justice is not yet finished. I have published two posts in that series so far. In the next post, I will be giving documentary evidence for why I believe Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem are fighting against having to accord the same degree of respect to women that they accord to men.
My documentary evidence will be pretty extensive, with items going back to at least 2008.
Thank you once again, Adam, for taking the time to reply to my comment. I very much appreciate that. And I appreciate your courtesy in the way you expressed your views. :)
Another one by Andrew Moody
ReplyDeletehttps://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-2
Fred Sanders
http://scriptoriumdaily.com/a-plain-account-of-trinity-and-gender/
Grudem at Ref21
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php
and
Goligher at MOS
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-letter-to-professors-grudem-and-ware
NB draw your attention to Malcolm Davy's comment immediately above re. Sanders and Moody.
Some more - mostly summarising and commenting
ReplyDeleteMichael Bird
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/update-on-the-complementarian-trinity-debate/
Luke Isham
http://thinkingofgod.org/2016/06/subordination-dust-observations-complementarian/
I don't think this is currently on the list:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.credomag.com/2016/06/21/meet-my-good-friend-john-owen-one-will-distinct-acts-and-the-covenant-of-redemption-matthew-barrett/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTwo more:
ReplyDeletehttp://thecripplegate.com/submission-and-salvation-in-the-trinity/
http://thecripplegate.com/the-trinitarian-beat-goes-on/
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/self-demotion.html
ReplyDeleteOwen Strachan
ReplyDeletehttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2016/06/wayne-grudem-critiques-liam-golighers-historical-theology/
Ticking the box so i get notified of further comments.
ReplyDeletehttp://thecripplegate.com/the-complementarian-trinity-debate-a-summary-of-its-beginning/#more-88886
ReplyDeleteYou may want to consider this contribution:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.retrochristianity.org/2016/06/16/some-thoughts-on-intra-trinitarian-relationships-in-the-earliest-church-fathers/
What appears to be an earlier post from the Gospel Coalition, but currently being freshly posted by various individuals. A helpful statement on the eternal generation of the Son germane to the current debate:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son-a-biblical-idea
By Ps Sam Powell, who blogs at My Only Comfort.
ReplyDeletePost is titled — "Unintended (?) Consequence"
https://myonlycomfort.com/2016/06/20/unintended-consequence/
Here are some more:
ReplyDelete3rd in series on TGC Australian site - Mark Baddeley
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-3
Also might have missed later one by Owen Strachan
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2016/06/wayne-grudem-critiques-liam-golighers-historical-theology/
My 2cents:
ReplyDeletehttp://puritanreformed.blogspot.sg/2016/06/my-thoughts-on-recent-trinitarian.html
And another one by Scot McKnight
ReplyDeletehttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/24/subordinationism-some-major-questions/
Trueman post at firstthings
ReplyDeletehttp://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/06/the-ecumenical-consequences-of-the-peace
Interesting post on why this sort of controversy is inevitable
https://mereorthodoxy.com/trinitarian-controversy-inevitable/
Matthew Crawford via Michael Bird
ReplyDeletewww.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/matthew-crawford-clarifying-nicene-trinitarianism-with-cyril-of-alexandria/
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/trinitarian-designations.html
ReplyDeleteHi there
ReplyDeleteI think you missed these two
Here are some more:
3rd in series on TGC Australian site - Mark Baddeley
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-3
Second one by Owen Strachan
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2016/06/wayne-grudem-critiques-liam-golighers-historical-theology/
This is a gold mine, thank you. There has also been some great discussion going on Reddit:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/4p64of/efsess_trinity_complementarianism_megathread_post/
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/nominal-protestants.html
ReplyDeleteTrueman replies to Mohler:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-reply-to-dr-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism#.V3LrO1cbd31
Reformation21 tries to pour more ointment:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-trinitarian-debate-some-re.php
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/06/is-wayne-grudem-heretic.html
ReplyDeleteGoligher at MOS defends the use of 'heresy' (even though he'd not used it before and even after having nice chats with the lovely Grudem and Ware):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/on-the-word-heresy#.V3ROsVcbd30
Note the first comment on Goligher's MOS blog. The pactum may be the achilles heel of narrowly pro-nicene reformed confessionalists. Also Allen and Swain to whom both Goligher and Trueman appeal not only defend 'Reformed Catholicity' but also the Son's eternal obedience (see both the essay and article titled 'The Eternal Obedience of the Son' (2013))
DeleteHefin, greetings - regarding Allen and Swain and the article you mention, I thought it helpful to clarify that the title is actually - The Obedience of the Eternal Son, rather than The Eternal Obedience of the Son. This is significant because as I understand it I don't think they are really advocating the ESS that is at issue in this controversy. Their thesis is simply this: "The obedience of the eternal Son in the economy of salvation is the proper mode whereby he enacts the undivided work of the Trinity ‘for us and our salvation’. More fully, the obedience of the Son is the economic extension of his eternal generation to a Spirit-enabled, creaturely life of obedience
Deleteunto death, and therefore the redemptive foundation for his bringing of ‘many sons to glory’ (Heb. 2:10)."
Michael Allen has recently stated - "The early church read the Bible teaching that there was a divine order (taxis) relating to origin though not to what we would call authority, obedience/submission, etc. (Note: even when medievals like Thomas would use the term auctoras or subauctoras, they did not mean it in the way that a quick Anglicizing of the word might suggest; rather, they meant it in the specific sense of origin.) That eternal order finds expression, however, in the economy of salvation wherein the Son does obey the Father's command. The key, however, is that the economy extends the inner life of God and cannot be reduced, as such, to it."
Just wanted to offer that clarification.
Sorry for the late reply - I only just saw this. All very helpful. I don't see Swain and Allen as supporters of Grudem/Ware ESS etc. However, "That eternal order finds expression, however, in the economy of salvation wherein the Son does obey the Father's command" goes against the billiard ball trinitarianism of Goligher. Economy expresses something imminent. Generation is no "bare relation."
DeleteI think you are making a fair point on the economy expressing something of the imminent. There does seem to be a dimension involved here that some arguing for the classical position and against ESS are not acknowledging. Have you listened to the program on Christ the Center dealing with the controversy? I found it to be very helpful. Here's the link: http://reformedforum.org/ctc445/
Deletehttps://calvinistinternational.com/2016/06/29/madness-gods-evangelicals-complementarianism-trinity/
ReplyDeleteThanks for the list.
ReplyDeleteI've posted a few on this issue. Here's just a couple of them:
https://growrag.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/a-response-to-scot-mcknights-post-to-the-social-trinitarians-and-complementarians-and-to-the-conservative-calvinists/
https://growrag.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/a-response-to-al-mohler-on-tradition-and-the-trinity-with-reference-to-richard-muller/
I've been planning on highlighting the Butner essay from JETS too. I think his critique is pretty devestating, and at least provides some really good critical critique in identifying what's at stake.
Here's what I just posted highlighting Butner's fine essay.
ReplyDeletehttps://growrag.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/maximus-the-confessors-response-to-the-efs-in-the-trinity/
Adam, here is a post that has something very important to say in this controversy. Would that all participants would heed, what I think, are very wise words:
ReplyDeletehttps://secundumscripturas.com/2016/06/30/an-attempt-to-arbitrate-the-trinity-debate/
Lewis Ayres (via Michael Bird)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/07/lewis-ayres-on-the-meaning-of-nicene-orthodoxy/
Link to that article by Scott Swain and Michael Allen, since it appears to have not been offered up yet...
ReplyDeletehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijst.12009/full
https://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-4
ReplyDeletehttps://calvinistinternational.com/2016/06/29/madness-gods-evangelicals-complementarianism-trinity/
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/07/04/knowing-the-self-revealed-god-who-is-father-son-and-holy-spirit/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/we-cannot-but-speak?utm_content=buffer4068d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.V3vFX3X3anN
ReplyDeletehttps://australia.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-ordered-godhead-5
ReplyDeletehttp://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-fulfilled-prophecy-and-another-guest-post-from-mark-jones#.V3w6RKJQSvR
https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2016/07/05/confessional-orthodoxy-and-evangelical-union/
http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/complementarianism_in_crisis
ReplyDeleteThe post on 4th of July from Luke Stamps is actually from Bruce Ware (via Luke Stamps blog)
ReplyDeleteJust a couple notes on the Mark Baddeley piece. The quote from Athanasius' Against the Arians 2.14.3-4 doesn't work for his point. Athanasius is discussing how one being called a "servant" or said to be "made" does not deny that he is a natural son and of the same essence. He then explains that "servant" and "made" apply to the Son in His manhood:
ReplyDelete"Hence it holds that the Apostle's expression, 'He made,' does not prove that the Word is made, but that body, which He took like ours; and in consequence He is called our brother, as having become man. But if it has been shown, that, even though the word 'made' be referred to the Very Word, it is used for 'begot,' what further perverse expedient will they be able to fall upon, now that the present discussion has cleared up the word in every point of view, and shown that the Son is not a work, but in Essence indeed the Father's offspring, while in the Economy, according to the good pleasure of the Father, He was on our behalf made, and consists as man? For this reason then it is said by the Apostle, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him;' and in the Proverbs, even creation is spoken of. For so long as we are confessing that He became man, there is no question about saying, as was observed before, whether 'He became,' or 'He has been made,' or 'created,' or 'formed,' or 'servant,' or 'son of an handmaid,' or 'son of man,' or 'was constituted,' or 'took His journey,' or 'bridegroom,' or 'brother's son,' or 'brother.' All these terms happen to be proper to man's constitution; and such as these do not designate the Essence of the Word, but that He has become man."
Also his quote from Against the Gentiles, 46 completes with:
"But being present with Him as His Wisdom and His Word, looking at the Father He fashioned the Universe, and organised it and gave it order; and, as He is the power of the Father, He gave all things strength to be, as the Saviour says : What things soever I see the Father doing, I also do in like manner. And His holy disciples teach that all things were made through Him and unto Him; 8. and, being the good Offspring of Him that is good, and true Son, He is the Father's Power and Wisdom and Word, not being so by participation , nor as if these qualifies were imparted to Him from without, as they are to those who partake of Him and are made wise by Him, and receive power and reason in Him; but He is the very Wisdom, very Word, and very own Power of the Father, very Light, very Truth, very Righteousness, very Virtue, and in truth His express Image, and Brightness, and Resemblance. And to sum all up, He is the wholly perfect Fruit of the Father, and is alone the Son, and unchanging Image of the Father."
I hardly think that Athanasius had any thought of subordination in his proof to the heathen that the Father was not alone when He created.
But a good piece nonetheless.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/lets-all-be-nicene#.V35Rq6JQSvR
ReplyDeleteSam Waldron's 2011 Trinity blogposts should be added to this list. http://alindsey4.blogspot.com/2016/07/trinity-blogposts-by-dr-sam-waldron.html
ReplyDeleteDarren Sumner
ReplyDeletehttps://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/the-heart-of-the-matter-for-eternal-subordination/
Bruce Ware responds:
ReplyDeletehttps://secundumscripturas.com/2016/07/08/an-open-letter-to-liam-goligher-carl-trueman-and-todd-pruitt-ontrinitarian-equality-and-distinctions-guest-post-by-bruce-ware/
I'm glad you liked it.
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find on closer reading that in that section Athanasius is running multiple arguments- both that usually such language of 'made' applies to Christ's genuine humanity, and that when it does apply to the Word it means 'begotten' because there is an analogy between the two, as I gestured at in the post.
Even your quote above indicates that: "But if it has been shown, that, even though the word 'made' be referred to the Very Word, it is used for 'begot,' " - that's the part of his argument I focused on in my post, as that is the bit interesting for our debate, and it is a facet of his thought of which most seem to be unaware.
With Against the Gentiles 46 - absolutely that's how he goes on. How you think that counters the point I'm making there I can't see. I would have thought my two posts on his thought depended on passages such as the one you quote, and build out from them to his use of obedience and command language.
I suspect it all depends on what you mean by 'subordination' in your sentence at the end. It'd probably be more useful if you replaced that with a clear statement of what you think Athansius isn't saying that you think I'm claiming he is saying.
Mark
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThank you for the response.
DeleteIt seems to me that the whole force of Athanasius’ argument in Discourse II, and especially in that section, is to argue against the notion that the Son is a “work” of the Father and not a natural offspring and therefore of the same substance. So he uses many examples to show that a son is not a work of a father, but an offspring of nature. Hence, he concludes, anywhere there are phrases in the Scripture that sound like the Son of God is a work they really ought to be referred to His humanity. Even right 2.4 which you quote, we read:
“For if, though they hear Solomon called a servant, they acknowledge him to be a son, are they not deserving of many deaths , who, instead of preserving the same explanation in the instance of the Lord, whenever they hear 'Offspring,' and 'Word,' and 'Wisdom,' forcibly misinterpret and deny the generation, natural and genuine, of the Son from the Father; but on hearing words and terms proper to a work, immediately drop down to the notion of His being by nature a work, and deny the Word; and this, though it is possible, from His having been made man, to refer all these terms to His humanity?”
He is not in these passages, “Discussing scriptural terms which seem to indicate the Son's inequality”, nor attempting an analogy. His whole argument is that the Son is not a work of the Father but the offspring of nature, and that phrases which seem to be otherwise, refer to His humanity. This is the principle of the “double account” in scripture that Athanasius often presses (see Discourse 3.29) in order to refute the Arians.
Further, no such analogy is possible with Athanasius nor “a link between gender relationships and the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son”. He writes in Defense of the Nicene Tradition 5.24:
“Further, let every corporeal reference be banished on this subject; and transcending every imagination of sense, let us, with pure understanding and with mind alone, apprehend the genuine relation of son to father, and the Word's proper relation towards God, and the unvarying likeness of the radiance towards the light: for as the words 'Offspring' and 'Son' bear, and are meant to bear, no human sense, but one suitable to God…”
He further states in De Synodis 3.49, unlike any analogy:
“This is why He has equality with the Father by titles expressive of unity, and what is said of the Father, is said in Scripture of the Son also, all but His being called Father…. And in a word, all that you find said of the Father, so much will you find said of the Son, all but His being Father, as has been said.”
As for the Gentiles 46 passage, all I think he is saying there is that when the Father created, speaking the words, “let us make”, that this proves that He was not alone, for he was speaking to someone. This was proof to the heathen of the Word in creation. And given the rest of his writings, I would find it hard to think that he was using command and obedience language proper. The words of His command were by the Word according to Athanasius.
I know I probably sound terribly argumentative, so apologize in advance. Thank you for your time on this subject and may God bless your work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSome editorial changes you might want to make: At the beginning of this post it says "[Updated 6/16/16]," but as of 11 JUL 2016 there are entries through 8 JUL. The month on this last entry was inadvertently posted as June. The year is wrong for the following post: Keith Johnson, “Is the Eternal Generation of the Son a Biblical Idea?” (18 JUN 2012), on The Gospel Coalition at https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son-a-biblical-idea [accessed 11 JUL 2016]. The dates are wrong for the following posts: Ian Hamilton, “The Trinitarian Debate: Some Reflections and Cautions” (27 JUN 2016), on reformation 21 at http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-trinitarian-debate-some-re.php [accessed 11 JUL 2016]; and Bobby Grow, “Maximus the Confessor’s Response to the EFS in the Trinity” (30 JUN 2016), on The Evangelical Calvinist at https://growrag.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/maximus-the-confessors-response-to-the-efs-in-the-trinity/ [accessed 11 JUL 2016]. Thanks for all you hard work putting this together!
ReplyDeleteFYI: My bibliography on this debate, "The 2016 Trinity Debate: A Bibliography; Is it Okay to Teach a Complementarianism Based on Eternal Subordination?" has been posted to my friend Fred Zaspel's Books at a Glance web site at http://www.booksataglance.com/blog/2016-trinity-debate-bibliography-okay-teach-complementarianism-based-eternal-subordination/.
ReplyDeleteBunch more stuff on Ref 21 and Mortification of Spin:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/07/the-eternal-subordination.php
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/bavinck-on-trinitarian-error#.V4SFmVc0ODA
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/1517/stefan-lindblad-responds-to-bruce-ware#.V4SFkVc0ODB
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/1517/a-mythological-godhead#.V4SFilc0ODB
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/the-looking-glass-war-responding-to-bruce-ware#.V4SFglc0ODB
There's heaps of other stuff out there I'm sure but I found this somewhat helpful:
ReplyDeletehttps://thepatrologist.com/2016/06/14/some-humble-thoughts-from-me-on-the-complementarian-trinitarian-debate/
And this, even if it's not entirely on my page:
https://thepatrologist.com/2016/07/06/a-few-more-thoughts-on-the-recent-trinity-debates/
And the patrologist provides a complementary blogroll to this one:
ReplyDeletehttps://thepatrologist.com/2016/06/10/blogstorms-digital-teacups-new-calvinists-and-nicene-trinitarianism/
I can't get your website to publish my response. Made multiple attempts and it keeps getting eaten. Any suggestions?
ReplyDeleteMark Baddeley
Hi Mark
ReplyDeleteIt seemed your comment post partly work, because I got three emails with your fairly long contents.
Maybe also there is a limit when it actually went to display.
Malcolm
Hi Malcolm,
ReplyDeleteI'll take the hint (from providence and yourself) and conclude that this isn't the best format for the discussion.
Brad, thanks for taking this conversation as far as we got. If you want to take it further on the comment section of the TGC post, or a blog of your own, I'm happy to chew it over further. You certainly weren't too aggressive, although I would have liked to have pushed you a bit more on these issues and seen your push back to test who had the better read of sources. Grace be with you.
Mark Baddeley
https://ochuk.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/is-there-hierarchy-in-the-trinity/#more-2738
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/07/incipient-modalism-in-efs-debate.html
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/07/submission-and-simplicity.html
https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/08/22/bruce-ware-teaches-that-a-wifes-lack-of-submission-threatens-her-husbands-authority-and-he-responds-to-this-threat-by-abusing-her/
ReplyDeletehttps://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/08/31/wayne-grudem-cbmw-dont-seem-interested-in-reducing-domestic-abuse/
ReplyDeletehttp://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2016/09/thinking-outside-box.html
ReplyDeleteANOTHER BIBLIOGRAPHY on the TRINITY DEBATE:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.booksataglance.com/blog/tenth-updated-edition-trinity-debate-bibliography/
This is the tenth edition. It will have future editions. The person compiling it is
John T. “Jack” Jeffery
Pastor, Wayside Gospel Chapel
Greentown, PA
Church email: waysidegospelchapel@yahoo.com