February 3rd, 2010

live-blogged by Chipper Flaniken

(Streaming video is available here)

Welcome to the live blog for the “All Israel” conversation at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School!

Please see below for an official advertisement concerning the conversation. The live blog will begin momentarily.

——————————————————————————————-

On February 3, 2010 from 7pm-9:30 in ATO Chapel at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the Henry Center, in conjunction with Chosen People Ministries, will host a conversation entitled “‘All Israel’ and the Church: A Conversation on Scripture, Eschatology, and Evangelism”. Conversational partners will include Dr. Mitch Glaser of CPM, Dr. Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, Dr. Willem VanGemeren of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Dr. John Feinberg of TEDS, and the moderator, Dr. Richard Averbeck of TEDS. All are welcome and invited to this free event.

The following outlines possible avenues of discussion:

In Romans 11 Paul makes the case that God has not cast off his people Israel, despite their rejection as a nation of Jesus, their Messiah. His final argument that God isn’t finished with Israel is that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:25-27). What did Paul mean and how will this come to pass? Who constitutes “Israel,” the biological seed of Abraham or his spiritual seed? Is the salvation in view spiritual, national, socio-economical, or all of these? Has this promise been fulfilled during the NT era by individual Jews and Gentiles turning to Christ and hence “filling up” the “all Israel?” Or is the promise to be fulfilled in the end-times at the return of Christ? If the latter, will only those biologically Jewish be saved, or will there also be a massive turning to Christ among the Gentiles? Whatever the answers to such questions, what are the implications for how Christians should understand the modern state of Israel? And, of most practical importance, how should one’s understanding of Rom 11:25-27 impact one’s attitudes toward and efforts in evangelizing Jews?

——————————————————————————————-

How and When Will All Israel Be Saved?

Conversation with Dr. Feinberg, Dr. Moo, Dr. VanGemeren, Dr. Averbeck (moderator), and Dr. Glaser beginning shortly!

Introductory comments by Dr. Averbeck (moderator) and opening prayer.

Dr. Averbeck is professor of Old Testament and Semitic languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has been at Trinity since 1994.

Dr. Douglas Moo – former professor at TEDS for about 20 years, now teaching at Wheaton College. He is the author of A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, as well as several other commentaries and books.

Dr. John Feinberg – Chair of the Department of Biblical and Systematic Theology and professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has been at Trinity since 1983. Author of “No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God”.

Dr. Willem VanGemeren – Director of the Doctor of Philosophy in Theological Studies program and professor of Old Testament and Semitic languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has taught at Trinity since 1992.

Dr. Mitch Glaser – President, Chosen People Ministries – involved in Jewish evangelism in several countries.

Main passage for the evening is Romans 11:25-27

Four questions for evening panel:

1. How does Romans 11 fit into Paul’s argument in the book as a whole?
2. To whom does Paul refer when he speaks of all Israel in Romans 11:26?
3. What is your understanding of how and when Israel will be saved?
4. How does your understanding of Scriptures relate to your views of Jewish evangelism today and into the future?

Comments from Dr. Moo:

Question 1:

Will provide little argumentation and little nuance given time constraints

Look at Romans from several perspectives:

A. Takes Romans 9-11 to be integral to Romans as a whole

B. We must make sure that we do not forget Romans 1-8 when trying to understand Romans 9-11.

For example, there are significant issues in Romans 4 concerning the “people of God”.

Thus, people in Romans 1-8 seem to have no ethnic discrimination – spiritual ancestor is Abraham.

C. There is much about “the land” in the Old Testament, but not a lot about the land in the New Testament

see Romans 4:13 – “heir of the world”

Main Point: There seems to be a universalizing hermeneutic in Romans.

Question 2:

If Abraham is indeed the father of those who believe…we might expect the word “Israel” to naturally appear in Romans 9-11.

Also – Galatians 6:16 – Paul uses the word “Israel” to describe the “church”.

But Dr. Moo does not believe Paul does this in Romans 11.

He notes that there is a distinction in verse 25 between Israel and the Gentiles.

Therefore, when Paul predicts “All Israel” will be saved…there is an ethnic component to this, but it does not mean all the Jews that have ever lived. The phrase has a “representative” significance according to a significant number of Jewish people – but not all.

Question 3:

When will All Israel be saved?

There are indications that Paul might be thinking of a process through history. All Israel is being saved…when all of the elect of both Jews and Gentiles are saved. This seems unlikely…

Why might the temporal situation be important?

Dr. Moo: Thinks a significant number of Jews will be saved when Christ returns in glory.

Why? Focus on key verses – note importance of “until” in verse 25.

This naturally suggests there will be a change in the situation at some point in time.

This hardening of the Israelites will cease at a certain time…there will be a significant turning to Christ among the Jewish people.

Question 4:

What are the implications of all of this?

Dr. Moo: seems to be a clear pattern of Old Testament prophecies finding fulfillment in the new people of God in the New Covenant era.

So Romans 11:25-27 – how does it fit into this pattern? Dr. Moo thinks there is a contrast here between Jews and Gentiles. Text “pushes him in that direction”. It forces him to that conclusion about ethnic Israel. But he does not draw many significant consequences from that claim.

Also, it seems as though the promise Paul makes here in Romans 11 does not mean that the Jews will inhabit a certain land.

Finally – what about Jewish evangelism?

Dr. Moo: No significant basis in this text or others that there should be a particular focus on the Jews as far as evangelism. The Gospel should be taken to all nations.

Comments from Dr. Feinberg

Question 1:

Jesus is the savior for all people groups.

God promised great things to Israel in the past, but will they be fulfilled? Have these promises been canceled?

The trustworthiness of God and Gospel are at stake.

So what does Paul say in chapter 9? Israel has an election to privilege, which is not the same as an election to salvation.

Salvation is for a remnant – not from merit – but from grace.

Chapter 10 – Paul shows that Jews who do not turn to Christ…they can’t blame anyone but themselves

Chapter 11 – What about the promises to Israel unconditionally? Chapters 9-10 don’t clearly answer these questions

Paul addresses this in chapter 11. Verse 1 – God has not cast away the Israelites

Why?

There is still a remnant of Jews coming to Christ – such as Paul

Israel’s falling away is part of a divine strategy to win Gentiles and Israelites to Christ.

God will reap a whole number of Israelites

In sum:  God’s promises to Israel will be fulfilled despite the delay! God’s Word can be trusted.

Question 2:

What is the meaning of “All Israel”? It seems as though Romans 9-11 are about ethnic Israel, otherwise it is hard to see how they fit into the book. If not, the contrasts in chapter 11 make very little sense.

But what does “all” mean?

- Doesn’t refer to every Jew that has ever lived…many did not have right relationships with God

- Doesn’t think this is a reference to the church

- Paul doesn’t intend to include OT believers

- Paul doesn’t think that all NT believers will be saved…but a remnant will be saved.

So to what does “All” refer?

See Romans 11:25 – Part of the Jewish nation during the age when Paul was writing will be spiritually blinded. But the blindness will be temporary until the Gentiles have been received in “fullness”.

Paul contrasts current spiritual blinding with future spiritual sight.

Question 3:

When will the future come? No specific date in Scripture.

Dr. Feinberg things it will become at the second Advent

So does “All” refer to every Jew alive at this Second Advent? Possibly, but it also might just refer to the nation as a whole. Some might still be turned away.

A judgment of sheep and goats will come according to Jesus…so these goats may be only Gentiles and the sheep Jews…but Jesus doesn’t say this.

Never underestimate the sinful obstinacy of mankind!

God is certainly able to save every Jew alive.

How will they be saved?

Zechariah 12 – post-exilic passage

What does Zechariah 12 say? Seems to predict a day in which God will fight for Israel and confuse the enemy of Israel. Israel’s enemy will be defeated. But also…

…verse 10 – grace will be poured out on the people of God

Thus, the Israelites will be moved to plead for forgiveness and then turn towards the Lord.

Again, when will this be fulfilled?

In the climatic battle at Armageddon at the end of the Tribulation. Jesus seems to confirm this in Matthew 24.

Dr. Feinberg: None of what I presented contradicts Paul’s explanation in Romans 9-11

Question 4:

Romans 11 is not a mandate for Jewish evangelism…the Great Commission is.

But this should be an encouragement to bring the Gospel to the Jews. There is no evidence that the fullness of Jews has been brought in. The remnant is incomplete. Evangelism to the Jews is not futile!

In the coming day…the nation as a whole will respond to Christ.

How far are we from these events? Hard to know…but the Tribulation could start this year for all we know.

Also, seeds sown could bear fruit in in the future when Jews look upon Christ and repent.

Regardless of how far we are from these events…we should be obedient to the Great Commission, and we don’t want to see anyone experience a Christ-less eternity.

The passages tonight encourage us to evangelize.

Comments from Dr. VanGemeren

Question 1:

Paul has a concern for all people…the voice of God in Scripture is an echo of the Creator.

At the same time, Paul argues that all  people may be spiritual children of Abraham (see Romans 4). Abraham received inheritance…and all with faith in Christ will share in this.

Paul sees himself as a representative of Israel called to be a light to the Gentiles. The Jewish people have received much light, and as such he is called to be a light to the nations.

Paul is zealous in his ministry to the Gentiles in order to provoke Israel to jealousy (see Romans 11). He is jealous for salvation for both groups.

Also, there is a mystery in Romans 11 and Romans 16. Paul knows that his mission is in accordance with Scripture and the mystery of God.

Where God has accorded to him an insight as to redemptive history…the prophets didn’t understand this.

Question 2:

There was a hardening, but there is and will be a believing community from Israel. Paul thinks that Israel will again be a part of the people of God. He is speaking of ethnic Israel…not necessarily a political reality

God’s purposes with Israel are not over yet. His gifts and his calling are irrevocable (Paul’s).  And note that the citations he uses demonstrate that he depends on the OT for his descriptions and understanding as described in Romans 11

All of these acts are in accordance with the Scriptures…mysterious as to how it will work out. Salvation is by grace…but of course not every Jew will be saved!

God has loved all humanity as he may have mercy on all of them. He shows mercy to humanity! So all Jewish people, guilty and unfaithful, may call on God and be saved!

Israel’s salvation is brought together with the Gentiles.

But…

1. Israel is “the natural branches” – close relatives of God

2. They are still the beloved according to Abraham. Isaiah 41:8.

3. Most importantly – as Paul received a dramatic vision of Christ…so it may be that the Redeemer will come to dramatically save the Israelites

So, the salvation of ethnic Israel must and will be part of the nations.

Questions 3 and 4:

Israel is not at the center of Paul’s Gospel…the center is Jesus Christ!

Paul sees himself as an ambassador to the world. He does not simply address individuals, nor does he limit himself to the Christian church. He lays claim to the cosmos.

At the same time, Paul’s commitment to Scripture raises the question of God’s fidelity. Romans 9-11: Paul wrestles with the place of Israel in redemptive history. The OT books were the Scriptures for Paul. See Isaiah – representative texts. Paul is truly a representative of others.

Paul so well knows these texts that he is able to comment on the order as presented in the OT texts. So Paul provides a bridge between these two worlds. History from one sequence of events helps us see what God is doing in the context of Paul.

This is what Paul means by “mystery”. Isaiah 59 – Paul’s citation of this text makes the most sense in response to all of Isaiah as a whole

Paul sees a vision of the new humanity. Israel will be sharing in the benefits of God’s goodness. Paul’s provocation to jealousy for the Israelites therefore comes from his understanding of Isaiah’s condemnation of Israel for rejecting God’s goodness. From this it is clear that the Jews cannot bring themselves into God’s presence.

Then we see that the “Redeemer will come from Zion” – this is what motivates Paul! Salvation is God’s alone…Israel and the nations alone cannot produce salvation (see Isaiah 59:20, Romans 11:26).

Isaiah 60:19 – the Lord will be the everlasting light (for the Jews).

- God will come and intervene on the behalf of his people. But the freedom of God’s mercy does not allow us to predict the form or the time during which this will unfold. Israel strayed from the Scriptures…even at Pentecost the Jews became more Torah focused. Torah wisdom was central, and it became more divisive.

Finally, how do Christians communicate with Jews?

- evangelical Christians have a unique privilege of building bridges. But we are often not aware of the discussions that have been transpiring over the past 2,000 years! We need to educate ourselves…studying the Second Temple period is recommended. We have islands that evangelicals are not aware of. We are often unaware of God’s continuing grace during the Second Temple period.

Evangelicals must not think that Israelites are either all right or all wrong. Anti-Semitic leanings are to be absolutely condemned, but our fear of it should not lead us to opposite extremes either.

Comments from Dr. Mitch Glaser

Intro: Dr. Glaser is  Messianic Jew from Brooklyn. Became a Christian during the Jesus Movement out in California. He “takes Romans 9-11 personally” – as he assumes Paul does as well.

Question 1:

Thinks that Paul uses Romans 9-11 as an attempt to bear his soul to the Israelites. It is evangelism in and of itself.

- The “All Israel” in Romans 9-11 refers to all ethnic Jews that accept Jesus Christ as Savior before the Second Coming.

- The fullness of God’s promises will not come to the Jews until they accept Christ.

Additional points:

- Dr. Glaser thinks Romans 9-11 refers to a cataclysmic, End Times event. So Dr. Glaser is looking to evangelize to the Last Gentile (laughter).

- Jeremy Cone – Harvard Theological review – quoted Origen…the fullness of the Lord’s portion will not be complete until the Israelites come to faith in the End Times. This will complete the fullness.

- Robert Murray M’Cheyne agrees, so does Spurgeon

Spurgeon quote: the day will come when the Israelites will be gathered…but until then the glory of the church will not be complete.

Question 2:

Who is All Israel?

It seems impossible that “all Israel” includes Gentiles. There seems to be a clear distinction here.

“All Israel” will be ethnic Jews that receive the fullness of God’s promises before the Second Coming. Again, this will be a cataclysmic event.

Question 3:

Jerusalem will be saved…God will intervene (reference to Dr. Feinberg Sr. and his comments on the matter).

Important to note that God takes the initiative in pouring out his Spirit. The nation of Israel will not be saved by weapons of war made by human hands…but by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit will lead the Jews to repentance.

So Romans 11 is a fulfillment of Zechariah 12

Question 4:

For the church to evangelize the world without evangelizing the Jews in disgraceful

Romans 1:16 – must view this passage in view of Romans 11. It implies a priority rather than a sequential order of events. Same language as Matthew in seeking “first the kingdom of God”

So there must be a priority of concern…and Paul focused on Gentiles of course…but it did not lessen his concern for the Jewish people. He often evangelized to the Jews before he evangelized to the Gentiles

Thus, Paul’s behavior in Acts is a commentary on his language in Romans 11

J Hudson Taylor story

- we learn that one mission does not negate our command for another mission!

- Gentiles have a lot of love for the Jewish people, but sometimes Dr. Glaser often feels like evangelism to the Jews feels like a great omission rather than part of the Great Commission

- There is a uniqueness to Jewish evangelism in regards to the special role the Jews play in God’s soteriological plan.

Reaching Jews for the gospel must be a priority concern for all Christians since it the final step before the second coming

We need to connect Romans 11 to Romans 10 – all who call on the Lord will be saved. No distinction at the foot of the cross. Jewish people are saved the way Gentiles are saved. The Word of God produces faith in the hearts of those who believe in every age!

- We are God’s instruments of those who be part of the End Time Remnant. The Gospel must be preached to the Jews, no matter when that day will come.

Romans 11:11 – Salvation has come to the Gentiles to makes them jealous. Paul sees a special role for the Gentiles in bringing Jews to faith…so of these Gentiles will be in the audience today, or perhaps watching on screen!

Five Minute Break for Refreshments

Questions from Speakers to Fellow Speakers

Dr. Glaser to Dr Moo – something dramatic happens when the Jews accept Christ it seems in Romans 11, do you agree?

-Dr. Moo agrees…the resurrection will occur

-Dr. VanGemeren – His hope is that there will be salvation of Israel, and then the consummation of the ages.

Dr. VanGemeren to Dr. Moo – doesn’t think that all prophecy is fulfilled through the church (which Dr. Moo seems to think). There is a special role for Israel in the final days.

Dr. Feinberg – because of unconditional nature of OT covenants…there is something in store for the Israelites. Romans 11:25-27 is about the salvation of Israel per se.

Dr. Moo – Sees the pattern of fulfillment in the NT, but Dr. Moo thinks that people in this era fulfill that pattern. Christ fulfills the prophecies, which are extended to the church and not Israel as a nation necessarily

Dr. Moo to Dr. Glaser on evangelism – Dr. Moo doesn’t think that Jewish evangelism should be a priority. Points to Romans 2 and the reversal of the Romans 1:16 pattern.

Dr. Averbeck to Dr. Glaser and Dr. VanGemeren – what about this issue of the land?

- Dr. Glaser – what about all the prophesies that speak about the land and the kingdom that are not quoted in the NT? Do we have the right to say that because some prophecies are fulfilled by the church, that therefore all will be fulfilled by the church? Dr. Glaser thinks not.

- Dr. VanGemeren – God is faithful, but he is also sovereign and free. Let’s not bind him with our interpretations. The NT accords with Moses and the Prophets, but it is not a one-to-one relationship per se.

Question and Answer: End of Live Blog

live-blogged by Andy Naselli

(Streaming video is available here.)

Live from the chapel on the campus at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:

Students, faculty, and guests are gathering for a much anticipated Trinity Debate on this question: “Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?”

1. Participants

Affirmative

• Bruce Ware (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
• Wayne Grudem (Phoenix Seminary)

Negative

• Tom McCall (TEDS)
• Keith Yandell (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

2. Opening Statements (30 min. each)

Affirmative

Wayne Grudem:

I. Scripture indicates the authority of the Father and the submission of the Son to the Father’s authority from before the foundation of the world until the eternal state.

• A. Authority and submission prior to creation (Eph 1:3-5; Rom 8:29; 2 Tim 1:9; Eph 1:9-11; 3:9-11)
• B. Authority and submission indicated by the eternal names “Father” and “Son” (John 1:14; 17:24; Heb 9:14)
• C. Authority and submission in the process of creation (John 1:1; Heb 1:1-2; 1 Cor 8:6)
• D. Authority and submission prior to Christ’s earthly ministry (John 3:16-17; Gal 4:4; 1 John 4:9-10)
• E. Authority and submission in Christ’s earthly ministry (John 6:38; 8:28-29; 15:9-10)
• F. Authority and submission after Christ’s ascension into heaven
  • 1. In Christ’s ministry as Great High Priest (Heb 7:23-25; Rom 8:34)
  • 2. In his pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:32-33)
  • 3. In his receiving revelation from the Father and giving it to the church (Rev 1:1)
  • 4. In his sitting at God’s right hand—a position of authority second to that of the Father himself (Acts 2:32-33; Eph 1:20-22; Heb 1:3; Pss 110:1; 45:9; Rev 2:26; et al)
• G. Authority and submission after the final judgment (1 Cor 15:26-28)
• H. Conclusion: The consistent, uniform testimony of Scripture is that the Father, by virtue of being Father, eternally has authority to plan, initiate, command, and send, authority that the Son and Holy Spirit do not have. The Son, by virtue of being Son, eternally submits joyfully and with great delight to the authority of his Father. It is only in a sinful world deeply marred by hostility toward authority, and overly focused on status and power, that cannot see that submission to the authority of the Father is the great glory of the Son. Authority, and submission to authority, are a wonderful part of the great glory of the Father and the Son, and this will be their glory for all eternity. “Do Relations of Authority and Submission Exist Eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?” Absolutely, undeniably, gloriously, yes.

Bruce Ware:

II. Support for the authority of the Father and the submission of the Son from Church History

1. Nicene Creed (325/ 381 A.D.)
2. Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D.)
3. Athanasian Creed (4th–5th century AD)
4. Thirty-nine Articles (Church of England, 1571)
5. Westminster Confession of Faith (1643–46)
6. Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742)
7. Geoffrey Bromiley (1984)
8. Novatian’s Treatise Concerning the Trinity
9. Hilary of Poitiers
10. Augustine, in De Trinitate
11. Anselm (1033-1109)
12. Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274)
13. John Calvin (1509–1564)
14. Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
15. Augustus H. Strong (1836–1921)
16. B. B. Warfield (1851–1921)
17. Louis Berkhof (1873–1957)
18. Philip Schaff (1819–1893)
19. J. N. D. Kelley
20. Francis Hall
21. A. M. Hills
22. William Pope
23. P. T. Forsyth
24. Colin Gunton
25. Gerald O’Collins
26. John Frame
27. J. Scott Horrell

III. Theological Implications from Scripture, as Supported from Historical Sources, regarding the authority of the Father and the submission of the Son

Everything in Scripture on this subject indicates the submission of the Son to the Father—in eternity past, in the incarnation, and in eternity future.

1. The only confidence we have in knowing God is by his self-disclosure.
2. The Son and Spirit each possesses eternally and fully the identically same divine nature as is possessed by the Father. Every attribute of deity possessed by the Father is possessed fully and equally by the Son and Spirit, since all three possess fully and eternally the undivided divine essence.
3. For the Father truly to be the Father, he must be the eternal Father of the Son; for the Son truly to be the Son, he must be the eternal Son of the Father. If one were to dismiss the manifold Scriptural indicators we’ve considered here and posit instead an ultimately egalitarian structure of the immanent Trinity, one would not only have departed from every single indicator Scripture offers; in addition, one is left without any clear means of distinguishing the Father, Son, and Spirit from one another.

IV. Concluding Affirmations and Denial

1. We affirm an “equality of identity” (and not merely an “equality of kind”) among the Persons of the Trinity—the strongest form of equality there is, in principle. Hence there exists a full and eternal equality among the three Persons each of whom possesses fully and eternally the identically same divine essence, i.e., the one, eternal, and undivided divine essence.
2. We affirm the Nicea-Constantinople declaration that the Son is fully homoousios with the Father and hence is of the same nature as the Father; the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) are equally God and fully God, while there is one and only one God.
3. We affirm the eternal, absolute, and non-reciprocal role relations among the three Persons of the Godhead, with the Father as supreme in role as highest in authority, the Son second and under the authority of the Father, and the Spirit third and under the authority of the Father and the Son. This is in no wise is a subordination of nature or essence. We affirm that some properties that are distinct to each Person are essential to their personal identities, and we also affirm, without conflict or contradiction, that all properties true of the divine essence are possessed fully and eternally by each of the three divine Persons without exception and without qualification.
4. We deny altogether as entirely misleading and fallacious the assertion that the Son’s eternal submission to the Father (i.e., the Son’s eternal functional subordination to the Father) entails a denial of the complete and eternal essential equality of the Son and the Father. Eternal functional subordination is fully compatible with and in no way contradicts the fully equality of essence of the Trinitarian Persons and the homoousios of the Son with the Father. Therefore, we affirm that relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the essentially equal Persons of the Godhead.

Negative

Tom McCall:

I. Introduction

We are going to make two main arguments:

1. There are no good reasons to hold to the position advocated by Drs. Grudem and Ware.
2. There are very good reasons for orthodox Christians to reject their account.

What this debate is not about:

1. biblical authority
2. philosophical theology versus biblical theology (i.e., philosophy versus the Bible)

II. There are no good reasons to accept the view of Grudem and Ware.

• A.  The “Indirect Biblical Argument”: Surely—barring theological anti-realism—the personal distinctions within the Trinity do not depend upon human recognition of them for their existence! It may be an interesting fact about us that we might not know much (or perhaps anything) about the personal distinctions other than by the revelation that we have, but such an admission says nothing about the nature of the Triune God.
• B. The “Direct Biblical Argument”: Grudem and Ware argue that if 1 and 2 then 3. (See below.) They also argue that if 1 and 4 then 5. But this would mean that if 1 and 6 then 7!

1. If one divine person sends another, then the divine person sent is eternally and necessarily subordinate to the divine person who sends.
2. The Son is sent by the Father.
3. Therefore, the Son is eternally and necessarily subordinate to the Father.
4. The Spirit is sent by the Son (John 15:26).
5. Therefore, the Spirit is eternally and necessarily subordinate to the Son.
6. The Son is sent by the Spirit (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1).
7. Therefore, the Son is eternally and necessarily subordinate to the Spirit.

The biggest problem with (1) is that it is assumed but not supported. Also, (5) contradicts (7).

Surely 1 Corinthians 15:28 underdetermines the issue.

Keith Yandel:

III. There are good reasons to reject the view of Grudem and Ware.

Grudem and Ware embrace “role subordinationism” (hereafter, RS), which may be defined as follows:

The Son is permanently subordinate to the Father and the Father is permanently authoritative over the Son. If God is eternal—having no temporal properties, being “outside of time”—then the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. If God is everlasting—without beginning or end, being forever “in time”—than the Son is everlastingly subordinate to the Father. What I say tonight will apply equally to either view of God and time.

1. Grudem and Ware hold RS (i.e., the Son is permanently subordinate to the Father).
2. If RS is true, it is either necessarily true (could not possibly be false) or it is non-necessarily true (it is true, but under some possible condition it would be false).
   Metaphysical Doctrine One (MD1): The Trinitarian persons are distinct from one another only in virtue of there being relations of subordination and authority that hold among them.
3. MD1 is an important part of the reason given for accepting RS and MD1 is a metaphysical claim that is not the correct exegesis of any biblical passage.
4. MD1 is an important part of the reason offered for accepting RS, and MD1 is a metaphysical claim, and thus a philosophical claim, so an important part the defense of RS is a philosophical defense.
   Metaphysical Doctrine Two (MD2): The Trinitarian persons are distinct from one another only in virtue of relations that hold among them.
5. Even if the Trinitarian Persons are distinct from one another only in virtue of relations that hold between them, it does not follow that those relations include subordination and authority.
6. RS proposes an account of what it is in the Trinity that is the basis for the distinction between the Persons, but in the way in which it does this (by reference to presuppositional relations), it simply assumes that which it is allegedly explains. If RS is non-necessarily true, then there are more versions of RS than first met the eye. Here are four:
   • RS1: The Father is permanently subordinate to the Son.
   • RS2: The Father is permanently subordinate to the Holy Spirit.
   • RS3: The Father and the Son are permanently subordinate to the Holy Spirit.
   • RS4: The Son is permanently subordinate to the Holy Spirit.
7. At least one proponent of RS claims that the authority-subordination relations that hold between two Trinitarian persons are not necessary after all.
8. If the authority-subordination relation of the Son and the Holy Spirit is reversed by, and so dependent on, the fact of the Son being incarnate, why can’t—indeed, why isn’t—the subordination of the Son to the Father dependent on the Son being incarnate?
9. If RS is presented as a non-necessary truth, each of these other versions of RS (RS1-RS4), which are possibly obtaining conditions, could hold.
10. If the Trinitarian Persons all equally meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for being God, then any subordination or authoritarian relations among them that is not freely chosen for some temporary purpose is arbitrary in the light of their being equally God. This point in fact applies to the view that RS is a necessary truth as well as to the view that RS is a non-necessary truth.
11. If RS is offered as a necessary truth, then it strictly entails that the Father has an essential property that the Son lacks, and the Son has an essential property that the Father lacks; the same holds of course for the Father and the Holy Spirit and the Son and the Holy Spirit; hence, if RS is presented as a necessary truth, then the three Trinitarian Persons do not have the same nature.
12. If the Trinitarian Persons do not have the same nature, then we no longer have simply RS; RS, viewed as a necessary truth, entails ontological subordinationism, and all four of us agree that ontological subordinationism is false.
13. The ontological subordinationists saw something that the RSs have ignored; they saw that orderings or ranking, holding within a Trinity of beings that all have the divine nature, that were not adopted for particularly freely chosen purposes. and did not hold separately from those purposes, were simply arbitrary—justified by, and following from, nothing in the nature of the Persons; they were unwilling to ascribe this arbitrary condition to God; they saw the choice as being between subordinationism and lack of Trinitarian ranking; they made the wrong choice, but they saw the right alternative. Role Subordination is an attempt to build a house on a part of the philosophical and theological landscape that simply is not there to be built upon.

Conclusion: There are two possible versions of RS. Taken as a necessary truth, it is flatly contradictory. It claims both that ontological subordinationism is false and then entails that ontological subordinationism is true. Taken as a non-necessary truth, it ascribes an arbitrary relation to the Persons of the Trinity and entails that other versons of role subordinationism are logically possible (and, for all we know, hold true relative to conditions of which we know nothing). So the doctrine is either self-contradictory or metaphysically perfectly arbitrary.

3. Rebuttals (10 min. each)

[Note from Naselli: I'm afraid I'm not keeping up quickly enough here. See the audio/visual for more.]

Affirmative

Wayne Grudem:

1. Incarnational events (Jesus was tired, submitted to his parents, etc.) do not necessarily demonstrate eternal truths about his deity.
2. Grudem’s Systematicc Theology mentions subordination, not subordinationism. (Grudem acknowledged an typo in his ST that implied that Jesus is part of creation.)
3. “Do we presuppose these relations? No, we find them in Scripture.

Bruce Ware:

1. The entirety of biblical revelation from God about himself as Father, Son, and Spirit is what motivates Ware’s claim. One wonders what motivates their claim.
2. All of God’s revealed truth has come in the economy of revelation, yet theologicans have inferred some truths about God that are thought to be necessary about God as God (e.g., God’s holiness). God is eternally what he declares himself to be.
3. The magnitude of the charge of ontological subordination (i.e., the Arian heresy!) here is matched only by the magnitude of the oversight in making the charge. McCall and Yandell’s view, on the other hand, resembles modalism.

Negative

Tom McCall:

1. Calling the McCall-Yandell view modalism is, if not a cheap shot, a moderately priced one.
2. re arguments from Scripture: It is simply not the case that only the Father is authoritative over creation (cf. Heb 1:10). Even if successful, the argument does not move us to their conclusion.
3. re arguments from tradition: McCall contests Ware’s use of Aquinas.

Keith Yandell:

1. I’ve never been accused of being a modalist because I’m not one.
2. If a relation changes, it is not a necessary relation.
3. Can there be two perfectly resembling things that are nevertheless qualitatively the same?
4. Calvin’s interpretation of 1 Cor 15:24

4. Follow-up (5 min. each)

Affirmative

Wayne Grudem: 

1. If God is not what he reveals himself to be in the Bible, then how can we know anything about God? McCall-Yandell are saying that God reveals himself as Father and Son but that he does not necessarily have to be that.
2. Thanks for saying that we are not Arians. As far as modalism, we don’t want to accuse you of that if that is not what you hold. But please tell us a difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit.
3. What does all of Scripture say? Massive support for our position from Scripture and tradition are significant arguments.

Bruce Ware:

1. Yandell misunderstood Ware’s book on the Trinity. For better context, see p. 95 of Ware’s book.
2. Aquinas argues that it would not be fitting for the Father or Spirit to take on flesh.

Negative

Tom McCall:

1. Both Calvin and Aquinas take the other view.
2. We affirm what Scripture teaches about God: the Son is subordinate and equally and fully divine. But we look for another way to understand this subordination, and Grudem-Ware have not addressed this.
3. Consider Philippians 2:5-11. Jesus gave up authority. (Servant contrasts with authority.) Jesus became a servant via incarnation. Jesus acquired something that was not present before. Cf. Hebrews 5:8 (Jesus learned obedience).
4. If there are ways of reading subordination passages that call into question the divinity passages, then we need to look for another way to understand the subordination passages.

Keith Yandell:

1. I don’t quibble with Dr. Ware with what he intended to say, but it is a contradiction to say that (1) Jesus was subordinate to the Spirit during the incarnation and (2) the Spirit is eternally subordinate to the Son.
2. There is no reason that an omnipotent God cannot create any number of things that perfectly resemble each other. Re the Trinity, their properties are distinct because they necessarily belong to what they belong to, and the existence of each depends on the existence of the other.

5. Final Comments (5 min. each)

Affirmative

Wayne Grudem:  

1. Repeat question: What about the entire testimony of Scripture? Does this tell us nothing about God? God did not have to be this way if we postulate some other kind of God. How can we know anything about God for sure outside of Scripture?
2. Necessary subordination does not imply that the Son is an inferior being. The Father and Son have eternal differences.
3. What properties distinguish Father, Son, and Spirit? Specify them. If you deny Father, Son, and Spirit, then you have Person A, Person A, and Person A.

Bruce Ware: 

1. Re Yandell’s quotation of Ware, the context of what Ware said does not support Yandell’s conclusion.
2. Ware does not understand the basis of the charge against Grudem-Ware. Why does an eternal function require an ontological difference? E.g., a janitor under the authority of a President: both are ontologically equal as human beings. The equality in the Trinity is a full equality of identify; you can’t get stronger than that. We don’t wish to diminish the equality of the Father, Son, and Spirit. But there is an eternal role difference between the Father and the Son; the Father is the Father eternally, and the Son is the Son eternally (and this involves authority and submission).

Negative

Keith Yandell:

1. Yandell repeated his argument: (1) If Son is subordinate in all possible worlds, then the Son is necessarily subordinate; (2) if the Son is necessarily subordinate, then the Son is essentially subordinate; (3) if the Son is essentially subordinate but the Father is not, then the Son and Father are not homoousios. Thus, RS entails ontological subordinationism.
2. How can the members of the Trinity be different? The answer to the question is philosophically re basic identity among different items.
3. We accept Scriptural authority, and we’re not trying to replace theology with philosophy. They are the ones who brought the philosophy—not me.
4. Yandell quoted B. B. Warfield, “The Necessity of Systematic Theology.”
5. The Father says, “Thou art my Son. This day have I begotten you.” That sounds like a reference to Bethlehem to me. Scriptural talk about begetting is about Bethlehem; the Son was begotten when Jesus was conceived and born.

6. Questions from the Audience (15 minutes)

1. Question to Yandell from Phil Gons: “If the Son is necessarily the Son and the Father is necessarily not the Son, then the Son is essentially the Son and the Father is essentially not the Son. Thus the Son is essentially different from the Father. You must deny homoousion on the basis of your own premises.” Yandell’s reply: “Why?” Ware spoke up from his chair something like, “We could explain this to you.”
2. Question to McCall-Yandell: Please respond to Grudem-Ware’s exegesis. McCall’s response: Grudem-Ware quoted too many Scripture texts to respond to them. There is not necessarily a ranked hierarchy. We all agree that there are three categories and that two of them (earthly ministry and “eternity future”) are not at issue here. This leaves only the category of “eternity past,” and McCall pointed out that he has responded to representative passages (such as the “sentness” of the Son argument). Ware suggested that we often don’t pay enough attention to the pronouns; we tend to think generically of God.
3. Question to Grudem-Ware: Please address function and appropriation. (There’s not a text that says that God is necessarily holy, but what do we conclude?)
4. Question to McCall re Calvin on autotheos: Calvin affirms eternal regeneration. The Son’s divinity as such is not derived. He is God in himself.
5. Question to Grudem: What non-Scriptural tool was most helpful to resolve the Scriptural deadlock re Arianism? I don’t think that there was an exegetical impasse re Arianism. Historically, the church misunderstood the begetting language, but the church never denied that there was a difference in relationship. McCall-Yandell have given us nothing to define the differences.
6. Question to Ware re eternality and necessity: Could God be different than God is in any essential way that God is? No, what is eternal is likewise necessary. I’m still waiting to hear from Grudem-Yandell what distinguishes Father from the Son and why this is not modalism.
7. Yandell response to Ware: Grudem-Ware have not followed or understood anything of what Yandell has said about metaphysics (esp. re the discernability of identicals). Each is his own bearer of properties. You can have perfectly resembling distinct various properties.
8. Question to Grudem re how the submission of the Son to the Father will be played out eschatologically: The Son is going to be our great High Priest eternally. The Son sits at the right hand of the Father. We don’t know what all the eternal function differences will be. We don’t know what Scripture doesn’t tell us about.
9. Question to Ware-Grudem re subordination being functional not ontological but that the function is necessary: [Grudem] It is not ontological because all three persons share the one undivided essence; there is one being of God. But in that being, there are dinstictions of properties. They relate to each other as expressed in the terms Father and Son. So No, there is no difference in being; there is a difference in relationship, and that relationship is eternal because they have been Father, Son, and Spirit eternally. [Ware] The Son does not use his power to do anything that he chooses to do; he uses his power to fulfill the will of the Father. He is under the authority of the Father in the use of all of the attributes that are common to the Father and the Son.
10. McCall: In their view, the Son is omnipotent, and the Father is the one with authority.
11. Yandell: The difference between the positions that we take on this issue and the positions taken on the positions in the world that I live in (he teaches at UWM) are enormous.

a report live-blogged by Andy Naselli

This evening is part of the annual Trinity Debates, “a series of discussions on challenging issues related to the church, theology, and the Christian life.”

Harold Netland vs. Paul Knitter

(more…)