In my circles the blogosphere is buzzing about the debate between Christ's submission to the Father within the Trinity and some of the historical views concerning Eternal Generation (EG). Two evangelical giants, Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem have written about a way of understanding Christ's submission to the Father with a different picture than the way it has been talked about historically. Historically, the Christian tradition has largely held to a position called Eternal Generation (EG) or Eternal Begottenness, where Christ is begotten, not created, and specifically begotten in an eternal sense. There was never a time where Christ did not exist, but he does derive his "origin" eternally from the Father. Ware and Grudem instead posit a position called Eternal Functional Subordination (EFS) that stands as an alternative to EG. The main idea is that the authority of the Father and the submission of the Son is an eternal relation. Meaning, the submission did not just begin at the incarnation, it has been a part of the inner Trinitarian relationship since before creation. This relation does not have anything to do with generation or origin (even if its eternal), but the relation is instead a functional way the inner life of God has always existed. The caveat of course is that this authority and submission is not ontologically rooted in their essence, but simply a functional reality of the inner life of the Trinity. I won't restate all the arguments, the historical developments, and all the nuances here because others already have done that sufficiently well. Darren Sumner has a good summary
here.
However, while I was reading Sumner's summary, he offers two critiques of EFS that interest me but seem to me to leave Ware and Grudem's position unfazed:
Get ready. Take a breath. First is what he calls his theological critique. He says since Ware presses functional subordination between the Father and Son into eternity, so to speak, it leaves it at odds with another theological doctrine: divine simplicity. Divine simplicity argues among other things that God does not have a multiplicity of attributes. And so if Ware's position says the Son for instance has something like the "attribute of submissiveness," and the Father has a different "attribute of superiority," than it leaves EFS standing in tension with divine simplicity. But this is not a terribly substantive critique. First, all Ware would need to highlight again is the qualities of submission and authority are functional not ontological. They are not expressions of their internal essence, but more like a functional disposition. If that's the case, EFS can get along with divine simplicity quite well. Related to that, metaphysicians, and especially realists, often make a big deal about the distinction between an attribute and a relation. Ware is arguing that functional subordination is a relation and does not need to be committed to the position that relations are reducible to attributes. The ability to create an abstract noun (submissive-NESS) from the relational distinction, does not mean it is an "attribute" in an ontological sense. And even if it is, then even EG would succumb to this critique. Remember, eternal generation says the distinctions between the members of the Trinity are a relation of origin. The relation of begotteness, unbegottenness, etc. If the relation of divine submissiveness is reducible to a full-fledged attribute in Sumner's ontology such that it compromises divine simplicity than it would seem the traditional EG relations of begotteness and unbegotteness would suffer the same fate.
His second critique is methodological. The method by which Ware defends his view of the relationship of the members of the Trinity and then compares it to the marriage relationship is self-referential. It is circular. The reason, he says, is because Ware uses natural theology to show that the relationship between the Father and the Son is analogous to the human father-son relationship concerning authority and then uses that understanding of the Father and the Son to make an analogy about authority in marriage. Whatever Sumner makes of the analogies is one thing, but Sumner clearly mischaracterizes Ware's moves as "natural theology." Natural theology uses other sources of knowledge besides revelation to build a theology. Sumner admits that God as Father and Son comes from revelation. And that the bible itself makes the analogy between sonship and Jesus, and fatherhood and God the Father. Whether the authority structures of sonship and fatherhood are part of what the bible is communicating about God in this analogy is certainly debatable. But to dismiss it as a "natural theology" move is just a misunderstanding of natural theology. To call something "natural theology" does not mean it merely uses human observation or reasoning; every theology does that! If that's what natural theology is, then every piece of literature ever written on theology is "natural theology." Natural theology bases its knowledge of God exclusively on human observation or abstract reasoning. Once you bring in revelation into your doctrine of God you have stopped using "natural theology." Therefore, since Ware starts his argument with revelation about God as Father and Son, he was never even in the ballpark of natural theology.
If anyone is curious, I'm very sympathetic to EFS picture of God's internal relations although I would say there is something else that creates the distinction between the persons of the Trinity. Even though EG is the traditional view, I have found many of the exegetical and philosophical arguments for it quite unconvincing.
However, while I was reading Sumner's summary, he offers two critiques of EFS that interest me but seem to me to leave Ware and Grudem's position unfazed:
Get ready. Take a breath. First is what he calls his theological critique. He says since Ware presses functional subordination between the Father and Son into eternity, so to speak, it leaves it at odds with another theological doctrine: divine simplicity. Divine simplicity argues among other things that God does not have a multiplicity of attributes. And so if Ware's position says the Son for instance has something like the "attribute of submissiveness," and the Father has a different "attribute of superiority," than it leaves EFS standing in tension with divine simplicity. But this is not a terribly substantive critique. First, all Ware would need to highlight again is the qualities of submission and authority are functional not ontological. They are not expressions of their internal essence, but more like a functional disposition. If that's the case, EFS can get along with divine simplicity quite well. Related to that, metaphysicians, and especially realists, often make a big deal about the distinction between an attribute and a relation. Ware is arguing that functional subordination is a relation and does not need to be committed to the position that relations are reducible to attributes. The ability to create an abstract noun (submissive-NESS) from the relational distinction, does not mean it is an "attribute" in an ontological sense. And even if it is, then even EG would succumb to this critique. Remember, eternal generation says the distinctions between the members of the Trinity are a relation of origin. The relation of begotteness, unbegottenness, etc. If the relation of divine submissiveness is reducible to a full-fledged attribute in Sumner's ontology such that it compromises divine simplicity than it would seem the traditional EG relations of begotteness and unbegotteness would suffer the same fate.
His second critique is methodological. The method by which Ware defends his view of the relationship of the members of the Trinity and then compares it to the marriage relationship is self-referential. It is circular. The reason, he says, is because Ware uses natural theology to show that the relationship between the Father and the Son is analogous to the human father-son relationship concerning authority and then uses that understanding of the Father and the Son to make an analogy about authority in marriage. Whatever Sumner makes of the analogies is one thing, but Sumner clearly mischaracterizes Ware's moves as "natural theology." Natural theology uses other sources of knowledge besides revelation to build a theology. Sumner admits that God as Father and Son comes from revelation. And that the bible itself makes the analogy between sonship and Jesus, and fatherhood and God the Father. Whether the authority structures of sonship and fatherhood are part of what the bible is communicating about God in this analogy is certainly debatable. But to dismiss it as a "natural theology" move is just a misunderstanding of natural theology. To call something "natural theology" does not mean it merely uses human observation or reasoning; every theology does that! If that's what natural theology is, then every piece of literature ever written on theology is "natural theology." Natural theology bases its knowledge of God exclusively on human observation or abstract reasoning. Once you bring in revelation into your doctrine of God you have stopped using "natural theology." Therefore, since Ware starts his argument with revelation about God as Father and Son, he was never even in the ballpark of natural theology.
If anyone is curious, I'm very sympathetic to EFS picture of God's internal relations although I would say there is something else that creates the distinction between the persons of the Trinity. Even though EG is the traditional view, I have found many of the exegetical and philosophical arguments for it quite unconvincing.
No comments:
Post a Comment