Phil Gons

Bible & Tech

You are here: Home / Archives for eternal subordination

eternal subordination

Ware–Grudem vs. McCall–Yandell on the Trinity

by

Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Thomas McCall, and Keith YandellA few weeks ago, a friend informed me of this upcoming debate between Bruce Ware & Wayne Grudem and Tom McCall & Keith Yandell. It’s very relevant to my dissertation topic, so I’m looking forward to hearing the results. Hopefully audio and transcripts will be made available.

I read a paper from Tom McCall several months ago on this subject and was not very satisfied with his approach. I think he oversimplifies matters and confuses categories (especially regarding the notion of essence—much like Kevin Giles does). I have had the privilege recently of interacting with Bruce Ware a little on these matters. While I don’t necessarily agree with everything as he states it and am still in the process of working through some of these issues, I’m far more comfortable with Ware’s approach.

[Read more…] about Ware–Grudem vs. McCall–Yandell on the Trinity

Moulton on 1 Corinthians 15:28

by

Moulton-Howard-Turner Greek Grammar CollectionI just installed the new Moulton-Howard-Turner Greek Grammar Collection from Logos.

It comes with the four volumes of A Grammar of New Testament Greek:

  • Vol. 1: Prolegomena by James H. Moulton
  • Vol. 2: Accidence and Word-Formation by James H. Moulton and Wilbert F. Howard
  • Vol. 3: Syntax by Nigel Turner
  • Vol. 4: Style by Nigel Turner

It also includes Turner’s volume Grammatical Insights into the New Testament.

[Read more…] about Moulton on 1 Corinthians 15:28

John Frame on 1 Corinthians 15:28 and Eternal Subordination

by

In his section on the Trinity in The Doctrine of God,1 Frame gives four lines of explanation for texts that teach that the Son is in some sense less than or subject to the Father. He is commenting specifically on John 14:28; and 1 Corinthians 11:3; and 15:28.

In his first comment, Frame offers what strikes me as a potentially helpful perspective on the issue of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Complementarians and egalitarians agree that during the incarnation the Son was functionally subordinate to the Father. Where they disagree is (1) how long that subordination lasts and (2) on what basis it exists. Frame thinks it lasts eternally on the basis of His eternal humanity.
[Read more…] about John Frame on 1 Corinthians 15:28 and Eternal Subordination

  1. Cf. the Logos John Frame Collection. [↩]

The Failed Strategy of “Trinity & Subordinationism”

by

trinity-and-subordinationism.jpgKevin 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).

[Read more…] about The Failed Strategy of “Trinity & Subordinationism”

  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! [↩]