Chapter 14.—Error of Those Who Think that There Is No Absolute Right and Wrong.

22. But when men unacquainted with other modes of life than their own meet with the record of such actions, unless they are restrained by authority, they look upon them as sins, and do not consider that their own customs either in regard to marriage, or feasts, or dress, or the other necessities and adornments of human life, appear sinful to the people of other nations and other times. And, distracted by this endless variety of customs, some who were half asleep (as I may say)—that is, who were neither sunk in the deep sleep of folly, nor were able to awake into the light of wisdom—have thought that there was no such thing as absolute right, but that every nation took its own custom for right; and that, since every nation has a different custom, and right must remain unchangeable, it becomes manifest that there is no such thing as right at all. Such men did not perceive, to take only one example, that the precept, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them,”¹ cannot be altered by any diversity of national customs. And this precept, when it is referred to the love of God, destroys all vices when to the love of one’s neighbor, puts an end to all crimes. For no one is willing to defile his own dwelling; he ought not, therefore, to defile the dwelling of God, that is, himself. And no one wishes an injury to be done him by another; he himself, therefore, ought not to do injury to another.²

Footnotes

1. n34: Matt. 7:12. Comp. Tobit 4:15. ↩
2. ECF 2.2.1.2.3.14; NPNF¹, II, 562. ↩

Users have requested Migne’s 161-volume Patrologia Graeca many times. It seems that Logos is now giving some serious thought to pursuing it. Bob Pritchett, President and CEO of Logos, recently wrote this in the Logos Greek newsgroup:

We’ve recently been talking about Migne’s Patrologia Graeca and hearing from some users how it could be a great addition to Logos Bible Software.

. . .

While page images are available in our own SeminaryLibrary.com and some other sources, as far as we know there is no full-text electronic edition. And at 161 volumes of Greek text, much of it with parallel Latin, Patrologia Graeca would be our biggest pre-pub project ever. (We estimate that the keyboarding cost alone would be 5 times that of ICC.)

I am interested in your thoughts. Would you want PG in full text? What would it be worth? Is it only useful as the whole, or would you be interested in acquiring it in parts? (Century by century, starting with the earliest?)

Would your campus library be likely to purchase a more expensive online license to share across campus? (Migne’s Patrologia Latina is available this way, from a library database provider. I don’t know the cost, but have been told it’s tens of thousands of dollars.)

Does you library have Migne’s PG? If not, does it wish it did?

Thanks!

— Bob

Have any interest in it? Visit the Logos Greek newsgroup, and let Bob know.

Then perhaps we could go after Migne’s 217-volume Patrologia Latina, which will go nicely with the massive Oxford Latin Dictionary—and then eventually the (currently) 41-volume Patrologia Orientalis.

Update: This last statement expresses my own wishful thinking and in no way represents the intentions or desires of the company—just in case you were wondering.

Kevin Giles’s The Trinity & Subordinationism is easily one of the worst books I have ever read.¹ I say that not because I disagree with the position he defends (i.e., the Son is not in any sense eternally subordinate to the Father); I’m still in the process of evaluating the evidence. Rather, I make that statement based primarily² on what the book itself sets out to do.

Giles’s goal in T&S is to move beyond the exegetical impasse regarding eternal subordination in the Trinity by appealing to tradition.

Quoting biblical texts and giving one’s interpretation of them cannot resolve complex theological disputes. . . . I believe this approach [to "doing theology"] should . . . be abandoned today because it always leads to a “text-jam.” . . . What we have today is a bitter stalemate (3).

This is so, he argues, because “given enough time, a clever theologian could find texts and interpretations to prove almost anything.”

Part of what Giles hints at as a solution to this problem is to move away from individual texts to “the ’scope’ of Scripture—the overall drift of the Bible, its primary focus, its theological center.” But this biblical-theological sparring will likely prove to be no more promising than exegetical sparring, for surely one’s exegesis of individual texts informs his understanding of “the scope of Scripture” and “its theological center.” Ultimately, then, the debate comes back to the proper exegesis of specific texts.³

What Giles sees as the real solution is tradition. Finding the orthodox view of the Trinity, the view accepted by the best theologians of the church throughout its history, is the only way to solve the disagreement.

To bring resolution to this matter we need to determine who is in fact accurately reflecting historical orthodoxy (6).

This book is predicated on the view that the Bible can often be read in more than one way, even on important matters. This comment is uncontroversial because it is undeniable. History gives innumerable examples of learned and devout theologians who have differed from others in their interpretation of the Bible on almost every doctrine or ethical question imaginable. In relation to the doctrine of the Trinity my argument is that the tradition should prescribe the correct reading (9).⁴

Giles then sets out to demonstrate that the orthodox tradition unequivocally rejects the eternal subordination of the Son to Father in any sense. I think he fails at this task, which I hope to demonstrate in a later post. But the problems with T&S go deeper than a misreading of tradition.

His very strategy is problematic for several reasons:

1. It fails to reckon seriously with the fact that the same impasse exists in the interpretation of historical texts as exists in the interpretation of biblical texts; complementarians, like egalitarians, are convinced that tradition is indisputably on their side. Giles’s himself acknowledges this, making his thesis and strategy all the more puzzling.
2. It wrongly assumes that church historical texts are easier to interpret and somehow immune to the diversity of readings that plagues the interpretation of biblical texts.
3. It easily allows for a convenient defining of orthodox tradition in a question-begging sort of way (i.e., orthodox tradition is the tradition that agrees with one’s own view—in Giles’s case, that rejects the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father in any sense). Giles quickly dismisses those Protestants who have held to the eternal subordination of the Son: “They do have Hodge on their side, as well as the Protestant subordinationists in the period between the Reformation and the mid [sic] twentieth century—when the doctrine of the Trinity went into ‘exile’ and a state of ‘decay’—but appealing to those who are patently mistaken and in error does not give weight to their case. Two wrongs don’t make a right (107).” Give me a break! This is question begging of the worst kind!
4. It assigns to tradition too weighty a role in determining proper exegesis and theology. The last century has witnessed progress in perhaps every field of biblical and theological studies. If the tradition were indeed the standard for exegesis and theology, the Reformation would never have happened, and few if any real theological advances would ever be made.
5. It is inconsistent with how he handles tradition when he thinks the tradition is wrong (e.g., slavery and the subordination of women). When should tradition control exegesis, and when should exegesis be allowed to depart from tradition? When it agrees with the position one is defending? Surely there’s a better way to correlate exegesis and tradition.

Giles’s strategy fails. He has done nothing more that demonstrate that complementarians and egalitarians disagree not only on the proper interpretation of Scripture, but also on the proper interpretation of history. His selective reading of history, which often conveniently reads more out of texts than what they actually say, will convince no thinking complementarian. The impasse continues.

See my previous two posts:

• The Father = The Trinity
• Economic Trinitarian Relations

Footnotes

1. I should clarify that I have read and am referring to only his section on the Trinity, which is its own distinct unit. ↩
2. I’ll probably follow up this post with the book’s other problems, such as (1) misunderstanding and misrepresenting complementarians, (2) selective reading of history, (3) eisegesis of historical texts, (4) category confusion, etc., etc. Here’s one example of misrepresentation to give you an idea of the way Giles interacts with complemenatarian Trinitarianism throughout the book: “Rather than working as one, the divine persons have been set in opposition—with the Father commanding and the Son obeying.” I wrote this in the margin, “Opposition?!!! What a massive misrepresentation!” I challenge Giles to show one complementarian who considers the Father and the Son to be in a relationship of opposition! ↩
3. I don’t think Giles really intends this as a solution to the debate, but merely as an escape from or quick and easy counter to the exegesis of his opponents. ↩
4. Giles does not believe that one of these interpretations is correct and the others are not. He says later that “many conservative evangelicals . . . have [wrongly] be lead [sic] to believe there can only be one correct interpretation of any given text (10).” In his view, there may be multiple correct interpretations. As culture changes, the proper interpretation (not application) of Scripture changes. ↩