The Eternal Generation of the Son<\/a> targets Evangelical theologians who deny the Son\u2019s eternal generation. He also challenges Evangelical theologians who teach that the Son is \u201cfunctionally\u201d but not ontologically subordinate to the Father, or subordinate in \u201crole\u201d though not in being, or eternally under the authority of the Father. I agree with Giles that the doctrine of eternal generation is true, biblically rooted and theologically fruitful, not to mention an axiom of the Christian tradition for a millennium and a half. But on the issue of functional subordination or \u201chierarchy,\u201d some of Giles\u2019s turns of argument muddle rather than clarify; he sometimes attributes positions to his opponent that I doubt his opponents would accept. My point here is not to defend Giles\u2019s opponents, but to offer a plea for clarity and charity. A few infelicities will illustrate.<\/p>\nOn historical theology: Giles writes that the Cappadocians called the Father the \u201ccause,\u201d \u201csource,\u201d and \u201corigin\u201d of the Son, while simultaneously denying that \u201ccausation in divine life implies or indicates the subordination of what is caused. . . . Basil argues that fire is the \u2018cause\u2019 of light and Gregory of Nyssa that the sun is the \u2018cause\u2019 of light, and in neither case an the light be separated or subordinated in time or rank to what caused it.\u201d Thus, though \u201ccaused\u201d by the Father, \u201cthe Son is of the same being, power and rank as the Father. Oneness in divine being is what unites them as equals, and this is predicated on the Father as the arche<\/em> and the eternal begetter of the Son, which results in their oneness in power, inseparable operations, unity of will, and mutual indwelling.\u201d <\/p>\nGiles acknowledges that \u201cthe way they speak of the Father as the Monarche<\/em> (mia arche<\/em>) of the Son and the Spirit has been criticized by Western theologians,\u201d who see this as a hint that \u201cat the very least conceptually gives pre-eminence to the Father.\u201d He quotes Gregory of Nazianzus\u2019 effort to address this problem: \u201cI am afraid to use the word origin (arche<\/em>), lest I should make him [the person of the Father] the origin of inferiors, and thus insult him by precedence of honor. For the lowering of those who are from him is no glory to the source\u201d (142). Yet he goes on to insist that \u201cthe Cappadocian fathers were totally opposed to hierarchical ranking in divine life\u201d (143). He offers a catena of quotations opposing \u201csuperiority and inferiority in attributes\u201d and \u201cunequal degrees of Godhead\u201d and inequality \u201cin substance or natures.\u201d He quotes Robert Letham\u2019s summary: \u201cAll three persons are God in themselves. None is more and none is less God than the others\u201d (143). <\/p>\nIn context, this is part of an argument to show that contemporary Evangelicals are out of step with the tradition, but so far as I can see he hasn\u2019t demonstrates that. From the information that Giles provides, it seems clear that his opponents would fully agree that the Father and Son are utterly equal in their Godhood. And it\u2019s hard to see how Giles\u2019s claim that the Cappadocians were \u201ctotally opposed to hierarchical ranking in divine life\u201d fits with his acknowledgement that some of their statements suggest a \u201cpre-eminence\u201d in the Father.<\/p>\n
Theologically: Giles says that the distinction between ontological subordination and subordination in \u201crole and authority\u201d makes no difference: \u201cA necessary<\/em> and eternal<\/em> subordination of the Son in role and authority in the immanent Trinity implies the ontological subordination of the Son. If the Son is necessarily and eternally subordinated, his subordination defines his being<\/em> as the Son. His subordination is, then, what indelibly distinguishes him from the Father. What is more, arguing for the eternal subordination of the Son in authority reflects one of the basic elements of Arianism. . . . For the Arians subordination in being implied subordination in authority and vice versa\u201d (212). <\/p>\nWell, no. That doesn\u2019t follow at all. Yes, an eternal subordination of the Son implies that subordination defines his being as the Son<\/em>. Giles\u2019s own phrase is crucial. \u201cFunctional subordination\u201d is, for these Evangelical theologians, an aspect of the personal particularity of the Son; it doesn\u2019t define His being as eternal God, but His hypostatic existence as Son. One might say that because the eternal sonship of the Son defines His being and so necessarily implies that He is a different being from the Father. His sonship \u201cindelibly distinguishes him from the Father,\u201d and so implies that the Father and Son are ontologically distinct. That is perfect Arianism; but denying the conclusion (that the Son is a different being from the Father) doesn\u2019t entail denying the premise (that sonship defines the Son\u2019s being as Son).<\/em> Of course it does. What else could?<\/p>\nGiles argument slops together things that his opponents, on Giles\u2019s own testimony, want to keep distinguished. The Son is subordinate as Son, even while being utterly equal in deity. To say that his opponents employ \u201cone of the basic elements of Arianism\u201d is an egregious guilt-by-association. Giles calls the Son \u201cSon\u201d; so do Arians. Therefore, he is employing \u201cone of the basic elements of Arianism.\u201d<\/p>\n
Both sides have failed to grasp fully the logic of Trinitarian theology, and its radical disruption of ordinary ontological assumptions. Giles denies subordination of all kinds on the apparent assumption that all subordination is or implies ontological inferiority. He rejects the idea that the Son is somehow \u201cdependent\u201d on the Father as a step toward Arianism. By the logic of Trinitarian theology, though, gift and reception, sending and being sent, action and passion are internal to the life of God. Father, Son, and Spirit live eternally in mutual<\/em> dependence.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Kevin Giles\u2019s The Eternal Generation of the Son targets Evangelical theologians who deny the Son\u2019s eternal generation. He also challenges Evangelical theologians who teach that the Son is \u201cfunctionally\u201d but not ontologically subordinate to the Father, or subordinate in \u201crole\u201d though not in being, or eternally under the authority of the Father. I agree with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[139],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18231","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-trinity"],"yoast_head":"\n
Clarity in Trinitarian Debate<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Kevin Giles's The Eternal Generation of the Son targets Evangelical theologians who deny the Son's eternal generation. He also challenges Evangelical\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Clarity in Trinitarian Debate\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Kevin Giles's The Eternal Generation of the Son targets Evangelical theologians who deny the Son's eternal generation. He also challenges Evangelical\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Leithart\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-06-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Peter Leithart\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@PLeithart\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Peter Leithart\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/\",\"name\":\"Clarity in Trinitarian Debate\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-06-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d\"},\"description\":\"Kevin Giles's The Eternal Generation of the Son targets Evangelical theologians who deny the Son's eternal generation. He also challenges Evangelical\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Clarity in Trinitarian Debate\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/\",\"name\":\"Leithart\",\"description\":\"My blog is a public notebook, featuring essays, notes, and explorations on Scripture, theology, literature, politics, culture.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d\",\"name\":\"Peter Leithart\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"Peter Leithart\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/PLeithart\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/author\/pleithart\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Clarity in Trinitarian Debate","description":"Kevin Giles's The Eternal Generation of the Son targets Evangelical theologians who deny the Son's eternal generation. He also challenges Evangelical","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Clarity in Trinitarian Debate","og_description":"Kevin Giles's The Eternal Generation of the Son targets Evangelical theologians who deny the Son's eternal generation. He also challenges Evangelical","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/","og_site_name":"Leithart","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/","article_published_time":"2016-06-30T00:00:00+00:00","author":"Peter Leithart","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@PLeithart","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Peter Leithart","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/","name":"Clarity in Trinitarian Debate","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-06-30T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-30T00:00:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d"},"description":"Kevin Giles's The Eternal Generation of the Son targets Evangelical theologians who deny the Son's eternal generation. He also challenges Evangelical","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/06\/clarity-in-trinitarian-debate\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Clarity in Trinitarian Debate"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/","name":"Leithart","description":"My blog is a public notebook, featuring essays, notes, and explorations on Scripture, theology, literature, politics, culture.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d","name":"Peter Leithart","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","caption":"Peter Leithart"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/","https:\/\/twitter.com\/PLeithart"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/author\/pleithart\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18231","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3021"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18231"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18231\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}