Theology
Defining Subordinationism
Subordinationism.
Most theological text books mention a trinitarian error called, ‘subordinationism’ but they do not agree on how this error is to be defined. Possibly this is the most inadequately defined of all the major trinitarian heresies.
1. The emergence of the term ‘subordinationism’.
In the fourth century, several groups of theologians who could not accept the use of the word homoousios (one in being) to define the Father-Son relationship in the creed of Nicea (325) were lumped together and called ‘Arians’- followers of Arius - by the Nicene fathers. Some of them insisted that they were not followers of Arius.[1] Later, the term ‘Arianism’ became a term either to designate those who in some way questioned the full divinity of the Son, or, as a catch-all pejorative term to designate any who deviated from to be teaching on the Trinity given in the creeds and later in the Reformation confessions.[2] From the middle of the sixteenth century until the late nineteenth century the term ‘Anti-Trinitarianism’ was often used as a synonym for the very broad understanding of ‘Arianism’ just mentioned.[3] In the middle of the nineteenth century it came to be recognised that a specific and precise term was needed to speak of those who, in differing historical times, proposed that in some way the Son and/or the Spirit were subordinated to the Father in the immanent Trinity. First, the English term ‘subordinationism’ began to be used for this purpose, and then later in German, ‘subordinationismus.’[4] From then on, this error could be contrasted with the errors of tritheism and modalism, and Arianism recognised as but one form of subordinationism. This technical term immediately discloses something about this theological error. It has to do with the sub-ordering or ranking of the Son and/or the Spirit below the Father; the hierarchical ordering of the trinitarian persons.
Loving Scripture, Living Egalitarian
This article appeared in the print version of Mutuality, THE CBE International journal as "Text or Pretext: Loving Scripture, Living Egalitarian"
I was raised complementarian. More importantly, I was raised in something of a theological echo chamber where my complementarian convictions went undisputed. All diligent Bible readers would obviously conclude that men were to lead, and even more obviously, that women were not to be pastors. What could be simpler?
Monogenēs once more.
Following the 2016 Evangelical Theological Society annual conference in San Antonia where Dr. Bruce Ware and Dr. Wayne Grudem publicly announced that they had been wrong to deny the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, the word monogenēs has become a hot topic.
This word has become contentious because both Ware and Grudem said that they can now accept the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son because they have been persuaded that monogenēs in fact means “only begotten” and thus there is good biblical support for this doctrine.
Ware and Grudem both appealed to the work of Dr Lee Irons (see https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lets-go-back-to-only-begotten). He argues that monogenēs means “only begotten” and thus there is good biblical support for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. Since the conference, Dr Denny Burk has enthusiastically been putting the same argument (http://www.dennyburk.com/category/theologybible/).
WOMEN, MEN AND MINISTRY
WOMEN, MEN AND MINISTRY by Peter Corney
The following takes a ‘meta theological’ or overall Biblical narrative approach in trying to answer the question – ‘What are the big Biblical ideas that help us to find our way in these issues?’
- Creation: We are all made in the image of God and therefore equal – Gen 1:27. Both the man and the woman are given the role to rule over creation – Gen 1:28. In marriage they are described as “one flesh”, a unity of equality - Gen2:24-25. It should also be noted that the Hebrew word translated as “helper” to describe the woman in Gen 2:18 means one that corresponds to the man or the other side of the coin and is most commonly used of God inthe OT. But the fall disturbs all this and introduces inequality and oppression –“he will rule over you” – Gen 2:16. The fall introduces into our natures the propensity to “the will to power” 1, usually over others and frequently men over women. There are of course many other ramifications of this disturbance in the created order like fear and shame – Gen 3:8-10. The whole plan of salvation is to rectify this disturbance and restore Gods original intentions, which of course includes the relationship between men and women.
Slavery, Apartheid and Women
You can appeal to the Bible and be dead wrong; you can even justify what is evil and sinful.
(This paper was a talk given orally at a CBE meeting in Melbourne, the slavery part based on what I say in my book, The Trinity and Subordinationism (on the subordination of the Son, women and slaves). The ‘reflections’ section at the end was added in the light of the discussion that followed. It is not a polished work ready for publication.)
Kevin Giles
Our “complementarian” opponents are absolutely convinced that what they teach on the man-woman relationship is what the Bible teaches. To reject their teaching, they tell us confidently, is to reject the Bible, and because the Bible is literally God’s words, this means it is to disobey God himself. One Sydney theologian told me publicly, after I had given a lecture outlining the CBE position, “You reject what Scripture plainly teaches. Those who disobey God, go to hell”.
We Australian evangelical Anglicans face some weighty opponents: the archbishop of Sydney and his predecessors, the current principal of Moore Theological College and his predecessors, most of the staff of Moore College, and in the United States, Don Carson, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware and almost every lecturer in the five large Southern Baptist seminaries.
When faced with such weighty opposition, it is very helpful to note that we find exactly the same dogmatic, vehement opinion voiced by the best of Reformed theologians in regard to slavery in the 19th century and Apartheid in the 20th century. They too appealed to the Bible with huge confidence, claiming that it unambiguously supported slavery and Apartheid. However today virtually all evangelicals say they were mistaken in their understanding of the Bible, that the Bible condemns slavery and Apartheid, and that these things are not pleasing to God!
Let me now tell this story in a bit more detail.
