2 of 2

Yandell backed McCall's argument with a series of philosophical proofs. He contended that Ware and Grudem held doctrine that cannot be argued exegetically from any biblical text. He worked toward a climax that argued Ware and Grudem's view of subordination actually undermines the Trinity with a form of Arian heresy, though he did not employ that loaded term. The Arians, defeated by Athanasius at Nicaea in the fourth century, believed that Jesus was created a little lower than the Father. In Ware and Grudem's view, Yandell said, "The Son has as an essential property being subordinate to the Father and of course the Father lacks that property. So the Father has an essential property — a property that is part of the Father's nature — that the Son does not have as part of the Son's nature, and the Son has an essential property — a property that is part of the Son's nature — that the Father does not have as part of the Father's nature. This entails that the Father and the Son do not share the same nature after all."

Both sides employed technical, nuanced arguments derived from Scripture with help from philosophy. Subsequent responses between the two sides brought greater clarity to the perspectives that separate them. Ware and Grudem argued that in the economic Trinity of the Bible (the three persons as seen in the outworking of the "economy" of salvation) we see the relations between the three as they always have been and will be. But Yandell countered that what sounds biblical from Ware and Grudem actually comes through a filter of Greek philosophy that obscures the meaning of the Incarnation and Pentecost.

Yet the crowd, which filled the TEDS chapel nearly to capacity, hung on the scholars' words for two and a half hours. Yandell shared that his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin would regard this debate as pointless, like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. So would many evangelicals, I suspect. But as the evening progressed, the intensity of discussion reminded us why the early church fought with such prolonged fervor over the Trinity. What could be more exciting and more important than sharpening each other's understanding of the nature of God?

Collin Hansen is a CT editor at large and author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists.

Update: This is Wayne Grudem's response to "Anathemas All Around."

Thank you for the factual summary of the debate, which included the main arguments on both sides. But the word "anathemas" in the title gave entirely the wrong impression of a debate that was marked by a gracious tone on both sides and friendly personal interaction before and after.

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

The Henry Center site has the opening statements and a liveblog on the debate.

Kevin Giles discusses this issue in a paper for Christians for Biblical Equality (which has several other articles on the Trinity debate) and in his 2006 book, Jesus and the Father (Zondervan).

Grudem and Ware have a Q&A on the issue at the website for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (which has several other articles on Trinity debate). Ware has a related article at The Resurgence website.

Previous Theology in the News columns are available on our site.

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

October (Web-only) 2008, Vol. 52