Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? (Part 6) An Objection to the Doctrine of Eternal Generation: Is it “Subordinationism”

by Sam Waldron | Aug 31, 2011 | Systematic Theology

The rumor has lingered in evangelical circles over the last couple of centuries that the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is “subordinationism.” One may hear this rumor already in the writings of Princeton’s B. B. Warfield and his opinion that the Nicene Creed contains remnants of subordinationism. It also comes out in Millard Erickson’s expressed fear that those who defend the eternal functional subordination of the Son are opening a path to Arianism for their spiritual descendants.

Any number of responses may be made to this rumor. The first is that the Nicene Creed affirms in the strongest possible ways the full and true deity of the Son. As we have seen, it affirms that the Son is “very God … being of one substance with the Father.”

The second is that this rumor misunderstands the nature and background of Ante-Nicene Subordinationism. This subordinationism was based on the Logos Speculation that arose within Greek Platonism. To make a long story short, the Logos Speculation was adopted and applied to Christian theology by Justin Martyr and Origen. It was based on the Greek doctrine of an utterly remote God or Supreme Being incapable of coming into contact with finite reality. In order to create and communicate with finite creation the Supreme Being brought forth a subordinate being called the Logos who was by definition and necessity less transcendent and remote from finite reality. Necessarily (in order to fulfill his philosophical function) this Logos possessed only a diluted or mediating form of deity.

When this philosophical construct was used to explain the Trinity, it had a number of evil results. One was the notion that the deity or being of the Son was less than the being of the Father. To put this another way, the Logos Speculation had everything to do with the hierarchy of being taught by Greek philosophy in which everything from the Supreme Being to the world was arranged on a scale of being. One’s place on the scale of being was determined by the level (or density) of being one possessed. Thus, for a Christian Platonist on the scale of being the Father was higher than the Son, the Son higher than the Spirit, the Spirit higher than the created world, men higher than women, and fauna higher than flora and both higher than rocks and dirt. Now this kind of Subordinationism is utterly absent from the Nicene Creed. It is the person of the Son that is generated by the Father. His deity is exactly the same as that of the Father’s.

The third problem with this rumor is that it leads and must lead to the conclusion that both Augustine and Calvin taught Subordinationism since both taught the eternal generation of the Son by the Father. Since even Egalitarians cite Augustine and Calvin as teaching a doctrine of the Trinity that fully equalizes the persons, the implication or notion that they were subordinationists is nonsense.

The fourth problem with this rumor is that it confuses two very different kinds of subordination. To put this another way, those who foster this rumor assume that there are only two kinds of subordination discussed in relation to the Trinity, when actually there are three. All Christians, including Erickson and the Egalitarians, believe that there is subordination in the economy of redemption. We may call this economic subordination. Their mistake is that they think there is only one other kind of subordination—subordination of essence or essential subordination. While they correctly see this kind of subordination to be wrong and false, they do not realize that this is not the kind of subordination implied in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed actually teaches a third kind of subordination. It is neither economic nor essential subordination. It is the subordination of the persons of the Son and Spirit to the Father. Since the Greek word used to describe a real, personal distinction in the Trinity is hypostasis, we may call this personal or hypostatic subordination. Personal or hypostatic subordination is entirely different than the essential subordination of the Logos Speculation or Logos Christology.

Furthermore, since this distinction between essence and person is vital to the Trinity, there should be no logical problem for any Trinitarian in denying a subordination of essence while affirming a subordination of person. It is a subordination of person and not essence that the modern defenders of the eternal functional subordination of the Son (like Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, and John Piper) intend to teach. They are emphatically not guilty of the Subordinationism of Justin Martyr and Origen.

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.

Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? (Part 5) The Nicene Doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son

by Sam Waldron | Aug 24, 2011 | Systematic Theology

In my previous blogs posts I have cited a little of the biblical and historical evidence for the doctrine called the monarchy of the Father. This doctrine is clearly articulated in the first words of the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” But the real emphasis of the Nicene Creed makes explicit the monarchy of the Father by affirming the eternal generation of the Son. Here are the key words which state it in the second paragraph: “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made…”

Perhaps the first order of business for contemporary Christians is to really understand the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. The simplest way to do this is to work through the above statement phrase by phrase.

The Lord Jesus Christ is “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father.” This affirms that there is an organic relationship between God the Father and God the Son similar to that of an earthly father-son relationship. Of course, it is not that Scripture and the Nicene Creed borrow the human father-son relationship after the fact to illustrate this Trinitarian relationship. It is rather that the human father-son relationship was created to illustrate this divine relationship in the Trinity. As with all human analogies for the divine, there are limits beyond which this analogy must not be taken. I will mention one of them below. Yet the Nicene Creed stresses that this analogy holds with regard to the point of begotten-ness. The Son is “begotten” of the Father. This means that the person of the Son is somehow derived from the person of the Father and dependent upon it. It also means that this derivation and dependence is filial in character. Or to put it from the standpoint of the Father it is paternal in nature. It is not a bare derivation. Nor is it the same as the relationship of derivation and dependence sustained by the person of the Spirit to the Father and the Son through His eternal procession from Them. Eternal Procession does not create a Father-Son relationship. Eternal generation does.

The immediate objection which students of mine have made to this doctrine over the years is that it implies that the Son is not eternal. They have difficulty putting the concepts of derivation and eternity together. However we may further respond to this natural objection, it is clear that the Nicene Creed had no difficulty in putting these two concepts together. It does so explicitly in the words which follow those we have been discussing: “begotten of the Father before all worlds.” The intent of these words is to stress that the generation of the Son is not temporal (taking place in time), but eternal (taking place before all worlds—the ages of space-time existence.)

Another natural objection to the doctrine of eternal generation which occurs in the minds of many is that this doctrine must mean that the Lord Jesus is not truly, really, and in the highest sense God. The contemporary controversy with the Jehovah’s witnesses and other modern Arians has perhaps led some evangelicals to be suspicious of the historic doctrine of eternal generation. Again the very next words of the creed refute this suspicion. The Lord Jesus, it asserts, is “very God of very God.” Though eternally generated—in fact, for the authors of the Nicene Creed, because he is eternally generated—the Son of God is really and truly God. While this assertion may not fully express the later explicit assertion by Calvin of the “self-existence of the Son,” it certainly prepares the way for it. Sometimes the Nicene Creed has actually been accused of containing remnants of the Subordinationism of some forms of Ante-Nicene Trinitarianism. This remarkable assertion (which implies that Athanasius and his fellows were Subordinationists) is refuted by this phrase.

Eternal generation is also sometimes misunderstood as implying that the Son is created. But this is exactly and precisely what the doctrine does not mean. Because of His eternal generation, and diametrically opposed to the Arian doctrine, the Lord Jesus is “begotten not made.”

The phrase, “being of one substance with the Father,” is probably the most important phrase in the entire creed. It contains the key Greek word, homoousias, which affirms that that the Son possesses the very same being as the Father. This word was at the center of the controversy with the Arians and the Semi-Arians in the fourth century. Against them it affirms that the Son is not merely like (homoios) the Father, nor merely like-essenced (homoiousias) to the Father, but that the Son has the same essence as the Father. It is nonsense to say that the Nicene Creed is guilty of the Subordinationism associated with the Logos Christology of the 2nd and 3rd centuries in light of this assertion.

But the Creed ends this important section by once more affirming that this eternal relationship lies behind the historical relationship of the persons of the Trinity. Because He is the eternally begotten Son of God, it is through or by Him that the Father made the world: “by whom all things were made…” The eternal Son of God is the instrument and means by which God the Father made everything (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17). He is, thus, subordinate to the Father in the act of creation.

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.