Over at New City Times, Mark Jones responds to Owen Strachan with Biblicism, Socinianism, and “Arid” Scholasticism.
Jones takes particular issue with Strachan for likening opponents of trinitarian subordination to scholasticism. All I can say is whoa and wow, Jones does not hold back!
In a surprising move, TGC-Australia has come out in support of trinitarian subordination with the first of a series of posts by Andrew Moody and Mark Baddeley on The Ordered Godhead.
It is easy to argue, “we need to just follow the plain teaching of the Scriptures” and not be so dependent upon a “New Scholasticism,” but less easy to convince readers this method yields better results than what the church has already arrived at. The Fathers, the medievals, the Reformers, and the Post-Reformation Reformed theologians were men of the Word. I venture to guess that they were far more comfortable with the Scriptures than we are today. It seems to me that Strachan et al have replaced all of the scholastic tools that have been developed over the years with their own scholastic tool, the tail (complementarianism) wagging the dog (God).
This current Trinitarian debate is serious. It is not just a question of whether Adam’s reward was Heaven or continued life in the Garden; it is not a question of whether the Mosaic covenant is in some sense a covenant of works; rather, we are dealing with the doctrine of God and the Trinity. Whether we like it or not, the Nicene Creed is the point of unity. Those who reject it are divisive. Those who claim that there is an inherent principle of subordination or submission in the ontological Trinity according to God’s ad intra necessary will are also making an argument that really has paltry historical support. If your exegesis is so natural that it causes some of the best patristic, Reformation, and Post-Reformation scholars in the world to raise serious questions in response, maybe, just maybe, you need to re-think your exegesis in light of the rest of God’s word and the history of interpretation.
The primary charge made by Trueman and Goligher is that, by describing the Trinity as a hierarchical society, complementarians have veered away from Nicea toward a tritheist or Arian dividing of the Godhead. These are serious charges, and Mark and I will be responding to them at length.
I have a question for TGC-Australia: Is this the official position of the TGC council?