What do you think?
Rate this book
Who's Tampering with the Trinity?: An Assessment of the Subordination Debate
In his most recent scholarly work, theologian Millard J. Erickson examines the various views concerning subordination within the Trinity and also looks at the discussion throughout the history of the church. In addition to providing rigorous theological analysis of the subject, Erickson exposes flaws in familial implications derived from the Trinity. This increasingly debated topic has finally received a thorough, careful, and objective treatment in Who's Tampering with the Trinity.
- GenresTheology
272 pages, Paperback
First published April 16, 2009
11 people are currently reading
68 people want to read
About the author
Millard J. Erickson
47 books43 followersMillard J. Erickson (PhD, Northwestern University) has served as a pastor and seminary dean and has taught at several schools, including Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Western Seminary (Portland and San Jose), and Baylor University. He has also held numerous visiting professorships, both in the United States and internationally, and is the author of many books. Erickson lives in Mounds View, Minnesota.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 14, 2011
In 2009-2010 I began to hear of a discussion about the eternal subordination of Jesus in the Trinitarian scheme. It's main proponents are Wayne Grudem from Phoenix Seminary and Bruce Ware from Southern Seminary. The eternal subordination of Jesus basically proposes an eternal hierarchy of authority among the three persons of the Trinity. The Father is the supreme authority with the Son and Spirit eternally submitted to his authority.
Scouring the interwebs, I ran across a book by one the best known theologians in Christianity, Millard Erickson. Erickson wrote the theological tome that we called the "Big Green Monster" when I was in seminary. His thoroughness in his theological writings is held in high regard. Regarding the subject of eternal subordination, Erickson has made a wonderful contribution to the discussion with this book Who's Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate (2009, Kregel Publishers).
In addressing this topic, Erickson sets out to look at eternal subordination from the perspectives of its major proponents and then compare them to those who argue for a temporal subordination of Jesus, one in which his subordination was limited to his time on earth. Doing so, Erickson traces the recent history of the arguments beginning in the 1870's. He also looks at the historical documents cited by both sides. He then examines the biblical arguments, the philosophical issues and finally the implications of each view.
Here is what Erickson says about the discussion:
He also notes that neither side are heretics. They love God, and love the Scriptures. In addition, he suggests that there is no middle ground in this discussion, no third way out. It is one or the other, based on the arguments made.
At the end of each chapter, Erickson, gives his summary of who he feels is correct in their presentation of their argument, their interpretation of the historical documents and the biblical position. Then at the end of the book, Erickson sums up the entirety of his thoughts.
Thoughts:
I am admittedly not one who has read many of the primary sources Erickson references. In addition, I have read philosophy, but not been educated in philosophy. For those sections, I can only trust the judgment of Erickson who is a master theologian and philosopher. However, in his other chapters, specifically the biblical argument and practical implication chapters, I would say that he has presented both sides appropriately and has come to his conclusions appropriately. His writing is easy to read and process, though there are moments when you need to be willing to wade into the deep end of historical theology and philosophy pools. Ironically, philosophy is an area Christians and pastors need to wade deeply in, but too often we have chosen the practical and methodological over the theological and philosophical.
I also admit I am hesitant about sharing with you Erickson's conclusions for two reasons. The first, is that you need to read this book. This is an important book with potentially grave implications. This line of thinking has become popular among a large subset of American Christianity. The second reason is that it is taught in my tribe, specifically three Southern Baptist Seminaries: Southwestern, Southeastern, and Southern.
With that said, I will simply quote Erickson's conclusions with the note that he terms those who believe in eternal subordination gradationists and those who do not, equivalents:
Scouring the interwebs, I ran across a book by one the best known theologians in Christianity, Millard Erickson. Erickson wrote the theological tome that we called the "Big Green Monster" when I was in seminary. His thoroughness in his theological writings is held in high regard. Regarding the subject of eternal subordination, Erickson has made a wonderful contribution to the discussion with this book Who's Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate (2009, Kregel Publishers).
In addressing this topic, Erickson sets out to look at eternal subordination from the perspectives of its major proponents and then compare them to those who argue for a temporal subordination of Jesus, one in which his subordination was limited to his time on earth. Doing so, Erickson traces the recent history of the arguments beginning in the 1870's. He also looks at the historical documents cited by both sides. He then examines the biblical arguments, the philosophical issues and finally the implications of each view.
Here is what Erickson says about the discussion:
Each group contents that its view is the true biblical one, and can be shown to be so by a careful study of the Scriptures. Each also claims that it has the support of history-indeed that it is the view that has always been held by the church. Each also holds that the advocates of the opposing view have adopted the view they have on this issue because of a prior commitment on another issue - the relationship of men and women in the church and in the family - in order to justify that prior commitment. They believe the other theology has distorted the traditional formulation of the doctrine of the trinity.
He also notes that neither side are heretics. They love God, and love the Scriptures. In addition, he suggests that there is no middle ground in this discussion, no third way out. It is one or the other, based on the arguments made.
At the end of each chapter, Erickson, gives his summary of who he feels is correct in their presentation of their argument, their interpretation of the historical documents and the biblical position. Then at the end of the book, Erickson sums up the entirety of his thoughts.
Thoughts:
I am admittedly not one who has read many of the primary sources Erickson references. In addition, I have read philosophy, but not been educated in philosophy. For those sections, I can only trust the judgment of Erickson who is a master theologian and philosopher. However, in his other chapters, specifically the biblical argument and practical implication chapters, I would say that he has presented both sides appropriately and has come to his conclusions appropriately. His writing is easy to read and process, though there are moments when you need to be willing to wade into the deep end of historical theology and philosophy pools. Ironically, philosophy is an area Christians and pastors need to wade deeply in, but too often we have chosen the practical and methodological over the theological and philosophical.
I also admit I am hesitant about sharing with you Erickson's conclusions for two reasons. The first, is that you need to read this book. This is an important book with potentially grave implications. This line of thinking has become popular among a large subset of American Christianity. The second reason is that it is taught in my tribe, specifically three Southern Baptist Seminaries: Southwestern, Southeastern, and Southern.
With that said, I will simply quote Erickson's conclusions with the note that he terms those who believe in eternal subordination gradationists and those who do not, equivalents:
At this point, I would ordinarily terminate my discussion of a theological dispute. Although the two views are quite different from one another, each falls within the boundaries of traditional orthodoxy. Neither view has ever been condemned by an official body of the church. In general, the gradational view more closely resembles the traditional Eastern view of the Trinity, and the equivalence view is a variety of the Western approach to the doctrine. I have no concern that the gradationists who have written and spoken so forcefully in support of their view are not fully orthodox in their doctrine of the Trinity, as well as the other major doctrines of the Christian faith. I have no fear that any of them will, within their lifetimes, move beyond the boundaries of orthodoxy.
Having said this, however, I do have a concern, and significant one. Although the stated doctrine of the gradationists is orthodox, I believe that it contains elements that logically imply an unorthodox dimension of the doctrine of the Trinity. I have in mind here the idea of ontological equality combined with the eternal and necessary supremacy of authority of the Father over the Son and the Holy Spirit. As I argued in the philosophical chapter, I believe this is an unstable position. For if one member always and everywhere is functionally superior to the other, then there must be an ontological basis for this difference. In other words, while explicitly rejecting the idea of ontological subordination, this view actually implies it, and thus contains an implicit ontological subordination.
...
I am concerned to preserve the orthodox tradition, in this case, with respect to the crucial doctrine of the Trinity. I issue this sincere plea to the gradationists: "Please think through the implications of your view, observe the body of evidence against it, and reconsider the idea of the eternal functional superiority of the Father over the Son and the Holy Spirit."
February 18, 2019
This book is certainly worth reading, for any who are interested in the debate concerning the subordination of the Son to the Father. The debate may not appear to have major implications, per se, but as Erickson point out, it seems that affirming the Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son implies the eternal ontological subordination of the Son. If this is true, then some form of Arianism is just a step away. In light of this, Erickson appeals to those who hold to the ESS, inviting them to consider this consequence seriously, and to not pursue this doctrine any further. The debate concerning the ESS seems to have attached a number of social issues to the debate (i.e. social relationships between husband and wife, father and children, pastor and church assembly, and so on). After reading Erickson, my initial thoughts (that these social issues are red-herring, and a distractuon from the actual debate) has been confirmed. One's postition on the ESS has (or should have) no immediate bearing on one's position on the social issues mentionned above.
July 9, 2016
In responding to the subordinationist debate on the Trinity, Erickson gives us much more than a snapshot of the current battle. He gives us a model on how to do systematic (or missional, if you are in the PCA) theology. He examines biblical, historical, philosophical, theological, and pastoral implications for both views. He is generally stronger on 1,3,4, and 5. The historical section is a little weak.
Erikson says Hodge taught a gradational view of the Trinity, as did Augustus Strong. Hodge did no such thing. Hodge (and to a lesser degree Strong) emphasized the “order” in the Trinity, but an epistemological order--from the Father through the Son in the Spirit--does not imply a gradation or a submission. Or if it does we need to see an argument to the effect.
And this is partly why Ware’s position is so tricky. When Ware highlights a certain order or “taxis” in the Trinity, he is not wrong. But when he says, “This means submission” he is beyond the evidence.
The main problem with Ware is that he is almost right. His problem is that he doesn’t let the early reflections on the Trinity anchor him so he wouldn’t fall in error. It’s not enough, as Athanasius noted, to say the Son (or Spirit) is homoousios with the Father. We must also note that the Trinitarian relations are homoousion. This is what keeps the Greek Patristic reflection from slipping into error. They are able to say there is a certain taxis in the Trinity without lapsing into subordinationism: the homoousion safeguards them.
Similarly, Grudem isn’t entirely wrong. He asks, “If not for x (Grudem’s view) how can the Persons be distinguished? This problem stems from the assumption of extreme divine simplicity. Given the essence’s identification with the attributes, how can one really speak of this or that? Traditionally, the Western church distinguished the Persons by calling them “relations of oppositions.” Grudem (correctly) doesn’t take this route. But he thinks the Persons are distinguished by roles and functions, rather than by modes of origination (as the Fathers said).
The Biblical Evidence
The problem with “son-language:” the ancient fathers were hesitant, pace Bruce Ware, to read human concepts of fatherhood/sonship back into the eternal Trinity. It bordered close to idolatry. It’s one thing to say that the “Fatherhood of God” is the archetype from which all fathers are derived. That’s true. It’s quite another thing to define Fatherhood of God by the derivative.
Further, “Son” doesn’t always mean “lesser in authority.” Jesus is called “The Son of Man.” Does that mean Jesus is inferior to the idea of men? Jesus is called the Son of David. Does that mean he is inferior to David?
Erickson mentions it but doesn’t develop it. Let’s go back to the order of the Trinity: From the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. According to the gradationist model, with each term there is a diminution of authority. Logically, then, the Holy Spirit should be the bottom-rung. But if that is the case, then why is the Holy Spirit “casting Jesus” (εκβαλλω) into the wilderness (Mark 1:12)?
Philosophical Considerations
Ware says that the hierarchical structure of authority is part of the essence of the Trinity (Ware 2005, 21), that it “marks the very nature of God.” Erickson points out the problem with this line of reasoning: if authority over the Son is an essential attribute, the the subordination of the Son is essential. This means they are neither homoousion in essence or in relation (Erickson 172).
With regard to Grudem Erickson examines his argument:
G1: Differences of person require different roles
GC: Therefore, distinctions of persons require differences of authority
Erickson points out that Grudem is missing a key premise: “Differences of role require differences of authority” (185). And since they have not proved this (and if they had, they would be semi-Arians, given Ware’s earlier claim), then they must forfeit the debate.
Cons:
(1) Erikson seems to think that if you hold to the eternal generation, you have to hold to it literally in order for it to make sense, yet no Father ever said this.
(2) He is aware of Giles’s use of dyotheletism to criticize th EFS position, but he doesn’t like it.
Aside from these criticisms, the book is compelling, succinct, and occasionally fun to read.
Erikson says Hodge taught a gradational view of the Trinity, as did Augustus Strong. Hodge did no such thing. Hodge (and to a lesser degree Strong) emphasized the “order” in the Trinity, but an epistemological order--from the Father through the Son in the Spirit--does not imply a gradation or a submission. Or if it does we need to see an argument to the effect.
And this is partly why Ware’s position is so tricky. When Ware highlights a certain order or “taxis” in the Trinity, he is not wrong. But when he says, “This means submission” he is beyond the evidence.
The main problem with Ware is that he is almost right. His problem is that he doesn’t let the early reflections on the Trinity anchor him so he wouldn’t fall in error. It’s not enough, as Athanasius noted, to say the Son (or Spirit) is homoousios with the Father. We must also note that the Trinitarian relations are homoousion. This is what keeps the Greek Patristic reflection from slipping into error. They are able to say there is a certain taxis in the Trinity without lapsing into subordinationism: the homoousion safeguards them.
Similarly, Grudem isn’t entirely wrong. He asks, “If not for x (Grudem’s view) how can the Persons be distinguished? This problem stems from the assumption of extreme divine simplicity. Given the essence’s identification with the attributes, how can one really speak of this or that? Traditionally, the Western church distinguished the Persons by calling them “relations of oppositions.” Grudem (correctly) doesn’t take this route. But he thinks the Persons are distinguished by roles and functions, rather than by modes of origination (as the Fathers said).
The Biblical Evidence
The problem with “son-language:” the ancient fathers were hesitant, pace Bruce Ware, to read human concepts of fatherhood/sonship back into the eternal Trinity. It bordered close to idolatry. It’s one thing to say that the “Fatherhood of God” is the archetype from which all fathers are derived. That’s true. It’s quite another thing to define Fatherhood of God by the derivative.
Further, “Son” doesn’t always mean “lesser in authority.” Jesus is called “The Son of Man.” Does that mean Jesus is inferior to the idea of men? Jesus is called the Son of David. Does that mean he is inferior to David?
Erickson mentions it but doesn’t develop it. Let’s go back to the order of the Trinity: From the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. According to the gradationist model, with each term there is a diminution of authority. Logically, then, the Holy Spirit should be the bottom-rung. But if that is the case, then why is the Holy Spirit “casting Jesus” (εκβαλλω) into the wilderness (Mark 1:12)?
Philosophical Considerations
Ware says that the hierarchical structure of authority is part of the essence of the Trinity (Ware 2005, 21), that it “marks the very nature of God.” Erickson points out the problem with this line of reasoning: if authority over the Son is an essential attribute, the the subordination of the Son is essential. This means they are neither homoousion in essence or in relation (Erickson 172).
With regard to Grudem Erickson examines his argument:
G1: Differences of person require different roles
GC: Therefore, distinctions of persons require differences of authority
Erickson points out that Grudem is missing a key premise: “Differences of role require differences of authority” (185). And since they have not proved this (and if they had, they would be semi-Arians, given Ware’s earlier claim), then they must forfeit the debate.
Cons:
(1) Erikson seems to think that if you hold to the eternal generation, you have to hold to it literally in order for it to make sense, yet no Father ever said this.
(2) He is aware of Giles’s use of dyotheletism to criticize th EFS position, but he doesn’t like it.
Aside from these criticisms, the book is compelling, succinct, and occasionally fun to read.
May 16, 2013
Short Review: Not only a good summary of the suboridination debates, but an excellent example of how to evaluate theology and deal with intractable theological disagreements. I have not read anything by Erickson since undergrad systematic Theology, but this was well worth reading.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/tampering-with-the-t...
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/tampering-with-the-t...
December 8, 2022
This book is a really great but does not age well. The book is a great historical summary of the major players in the eternal functional subordination movement up to the point of publication. Erickson presents the arguments of the EFS movement well. However, Erickson’s critique of EFS falls more along the line of ontology and questioning the unified essence of the Godhead within EFS standards. Most opponents of EFS have moved away from this type of reasoning and have chosen to focus on dyothelite Christology and questions about divine and human will to challenge EFS. Erickson mentions these types of questions but does not spend time developing them. While a great book up to a point, it is not up to date on contemporary scholarship in the topic. You can trust me, I just wrote a ThM term paper on the subject.
July 26, 2024
Wish there was more discussion of exegesis, especially of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. I also with a discussion of the pactum salutis was included. Some discount the notion, but it seems to give a good explanation of subordination and equality among the persons. I came away from the book with a better understanding of an important debate. Highly recommend.
March 4, 2016
This was the best book I've read on the subordination debate. Erickson gives the most balanced and fair approach of any other author I've read on the subject. Though he sides more with Giles on the complimentarian side (which he calls equivalence-authority), he writes nothing like Giles (nor Grudem, Knight, or Ware on the opposing side). Erickson is much more gracious and seems much more careful in his analysis. His undergrand and graduate work in philosophy have obviously made impact in this area.
If you want an honest assessment of the subordination debate (specifically, eternally functional subordination, not the ontological sort of the Arians), then this is probably the best book you could pick up on the subject. The chapter on practical implications make this much more than a historical survey or simply a summary of two distinct theological positions. How you pray (and to whom you pray), worship/praise, ecclesiastic office, gender roles, all derive, at least in part, from where one stands on the subject.
If you want an honest assessment of the subordination debate (specifically, eternally functional subordination, not the ontological sort of the Arians), then this is probably the best book you could pick up on the subject. The chapter on practical implications make this much more than a historical survey or simply a summary of two distinct theological positions. How you pray (and to whom you pray), worship/praise, ecclesiastic office, gender roles, all derive, at least in part, from where one stands on the subject.
November 29, 2012
A helpful orientation to the debate over subordination within the conservative evangelical world... Weighing in on Grudem and Ware going after the likes of Kevin Gile and even those farther to the left like the feminists... Cf. Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, & Relevance by Bruce A. Ware. Anyway, I am not persuaded that Ware, Grudem, et all are right - nor does the other side of the debate require liberalism or feminism... Orthodoxy doesn't have this problem, because their theological method is much different but alas I digress. Given Western categories as the basis, this would serve well as a "wake up call" that there is more to the conversation than you will get from the reformed Baptist camp. Good book for that reason.
March 24, 2010
This book was terrific. I had done alot of historical research myslelf on the subordination issue and Erickson articlates the debate in layterms. I have been scratching my head for years in regard to "functional philosophy" Erickson uncovers such a fallacy that has finally put my mine at rest.
September 9, 2014
I still hold to a gradation view of the trinity but this book has made me question my position. This book has brought forth some interesting questions and opened my mind further regarding this theology. I appreciate his approach in writing and will reference the book in future study.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews