The Current Trinitarian Civil War: Where Are We Now and Lessons Learned Along the Way

Photo Credit: Reformed Theological Seminary

In 2016 a theological firestorm erupted when Dr. Carl Trueman and friends posted an article by Dr. Liam Goligher titled, "Is it ok to teach complementarianism based on eternal subordination?   In this "Mortification of Spin" piece Goligher poured gas on a fire in hopes of lighting up Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware's position concerning EFS (and by extension any other theologian who does not teach eternal generation and eternal procession).  This particular article included loaded charges with claims that Dr. Grudem and Dr. Ware are actually "reinventing the doctrine of God."  Liam went onto to say, "What we have is in fact a departure from biblical Christianity as expressed in our creeds and confessions. Out of that redefinition of God their teaching is being used to promote a new way of looking at human relationships which is more like Islam than Christianity; more concerned with control and governance than with understanding the nuances of the relationship of the Son with His Father in eternity on the one hand and how that differs from the roles they adopt in the economy of redemption on the other. They make this move by failing to distinguish between God as He is in Himself (ontology) and God as He is in Christ in outworking of the plan of redemption (economy). They are in turn doing great dishonor to Christ. They collapse the intra-Trinitarian life of God into the roles adopted by the persons to accomplish our redemption."  Now whether you are Baptist, Presbyterian, or Independent" them by fighting words."  In my judgement the shot heard round the (blogosphere) world started the Trinitarian Civil War of 2016. 

For many months a slew of blog articles, podcasts, and 'vlogs' weighed in on this hotly contested intramural debate.  As a non-celebrity, pastor-theologian I shared some initial thoughts and concerns with my congregation and friends (note here and here).  Personally, I sympathized with the theological formation that Dr. Trueman subscribes to as it seems consistent with the intent of the Nicene Creed.  In my understanding of church history the Nicene Creed's statement, "God from God and Light from Light" is a non technical way of highlighting eternal generation and eternal procession.


Having said that, I am not convinced that Ware/Grudem/Strachen's view of (functional) eternal subordination is a heresy.  Smith's conclusion seemed to be more balanced wherein he writes that Dr. Robert Reymond's view, which denies eternal generation, is "defective" but is certainly not, "heretical;" (of course much of the fuss here has to do with Ware/Grudem/Strachen's eternal functional subordination' view). As a related footnote it should be noted that the leading Baptist scholars at CBMW are not the only theologians who view eternal generation and eternal procession as an extra-biblical explanation of the infinite and mysterious Trinity (Deut. 29:29).  In the aforementioned article, two Reformed scholars (Loraine Boettner and Robert Reymond) are cited as those who find no biblical basis for these doctrines as well.  In addition to this, during a 2016 Doctoral of Ministry question and answer session Dr. MacArthur said that the concepts of eternal submission, eternal procession, and eternal generation are theological deductions (and may not be the best way of articulating the relevant Scriptural texts).  I am hoping MacArthur's forthcoming systematic theology textbook will explain his position in greater detail.

Suffice it to say, Dr. Albert Mohler voiced many of the same concerns that I stated in a related article titled, "Heresy and Humility."  At the the end of this article Dr. Mohler basically tells Goligher, Trueman and company to publicly retract some of their loaded accusations and careless words.  Writing, "Recent charges of violating the Nicene Creed made against respected evangelical theologians like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware are not just nonsense — they are precisely the kind of nonsense that undermines orthodoxy and obscures real heresy. Their teachings do not in any way contradict the words of the Nicene Creed, and both theologians eagerly affirm it. I do not share their proposals concerning the eternal submission of the Son to the Father, but I am well aware that nothing they have taught even resembles the heresy of the Arians. To the contrary, both theologians affirm the full scope of orthodox Christianity and have proved themselves faithful teachers of the church. These charges are baseless, reckless, and unworthy of those who have made them.

Theologians almost never agree on every issue, nor is such agreement possible. What is required is absolute fidelity to Scripture and valid affirmation of the fundamental creeds of the Church, along with specific denominational and institutional confessions. Complementarianism need not be linked doctrinally to eternal submission, and it is in no way required by the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Clearly, for some of these current critics, complementarianism appears to be the real issue. For others, a rejection of modern evangelicalism seems to be the underlying concern. Whatever the case, they endanger the very orthodoxy they claim to champion by making reckless charges they cannot possibly sustain.

The real danger here is that this kind of controversy confuses the church about the real danger of heresy. That is what is at stake when claims are made that Nicene orthodoxy or pro-Nicene developments have been denied, even if the word heresy is not used. The danger of heresy is ever present. As Harold O. J. Brown warned, the gates of hell often come very close to the church. Confusing the questions endangers the church, and no faithful theologian would willingly risk that danger. There are serious theological issues and historical questions at issue in this debate. Evangelicals have often lacked an appreciation (or even a serious consideration) of the Trinitarian and Christological developments that began with Nicaea, but continued well through Chalcedon. This is a time for cool heads, fraternal kindness, and clear thinking — and for all of us, a good dose of both historical theology and theological humility."

A CLOSING WORD (OR TWO):

1) Theological controversy is beneficial if/when it drives us back to our Bibles and knees. 

In the aftermath of this Trinitarian Civil War many Christians have prayerfully reexamined their theological convictions, exegetical conclusions, and various presuppositions by studying related texts, the ancient creeds, and various biblical and systematic theology writings.  This is the sanctifying benefit of theological dog fights. 

The following resources are well worth your time: A) Conference on the Doctrine of the Trinity at RTS

B) Submission and Subordination in the Trinity lectures at 2016 ETS meeting.

C) Trinity Debate Timeline.

D) Essential Trinity.  A new book edited by Drs. Carl Trueman and Brandon Crowe.

E) One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life.  A new book on the holy Trinity edited by Dr.Bruce Ware.

F) Machens Warrior Children article by Dr. John Frame (recommended to me by Dr. Will Varner).  

G) Is the Eternal Generation of the Son Really a Biblical Idea by Justin Taylor

H) My article on applying theological triage to this intramural debate.

2) Theological controversy is not helpful if such controversies keep us from our biblical priorities.

I am a child of God, husband, father, pastor, church member, son, brother, etc.  If I were to try and keep up with all of the related articles, audio recordings, and books related to this recent controversy I would neglect these God-given roles and responsibilities and thus sin against our Triune God; (a sad irony wouldn't you say?).   Even if one spent all of their free time researching this subject they still would not be able to keep up with the internet and/or the printing press; (The following website is the "twenty fourth updated edition of the Trinity debate" with links to thousands of related articles).  Many more trees will likely die before this conversation begins to wane. 

3) Both sides claim that the other side has taken cheap shots during this heated debate.

During a 2017 Q and A session at TMS Dr. Carl Trueman said it upsets him when people accuse him of being a "closet egalitarian" (i.e. a Christian feminist).  Ironically, during this same talk, Trueman implied that this debate became so explosive because it touches "structures of power and financial enterprises."  It appeared to me that this comment was a veiled shot aimed at CBMW and certain individuals at SBTS.  Stay tuned.

4) Both camps claim that the other side has taken their respective positions to places they themselves have never gone.  

I am thinking now of statements like, "The logical trajectory of this position is _______."  "Such a defective view of the Trinity inevitable leads to _____."  "My position has been misrepresented" has become an all too common refrain.

5) If "behind every erroneous doctrine there are legitimate questions, (even if the solutions to the stated questions are wrong)," then everyone should listen carefully to the questions and tensions that the "other side" has raised during this debate in effort to strengthen our biblical convictions.  

May the Spirit of God guide His redeemed people into all truth as we seek to bring glory and honor to our Triune God.  Both sides of this debate can surely join together in singing, "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God Almighty.  God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!"