Themelios, Volume 36, Issue 1
180 Pages
English

Themelios, Volume 36, Issue 1

Description

Themelios is an international, evangelical, peer-reviewed theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith. Themelios is published three times a year online at The Gospel Coalition (http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/) and in print by Wipf and Stock. Its primary audience is theological students and pastors, though scholars read it as well. Themelios began in 1975 and was operated by RTSF/UCCF in the UK, and it became a digital journal operated by The Gospel Coalition in 2008. The editorial team draws participants from across the globe as editors, essayists, and reviewers.
General Editor: D. A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Managing Editor: Brian Tabb, Bethlehem College and Seminary
Consulting Editor: Michael J. Ovey, Oak Hill Theological College
Administrator: Andrew David Naselli, Bethlehem College and Seminary
Book Review Editors: Jerry Hwang, Singapore Bible College; Alan Thompson, Sydney Missionary & Bible College; Nathan A. Finn, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Hans Madueme, Covenant College; Dane Ortlund, Crossway; Jason Sexton, Golden Gate Baptist Seminary
Editorial Board:
Gerald Bray, Beeson Divinity School
Lee Gatiss, Wales Evangelical School of Theology
Paul Helseth, University of Northwestern, St. Paul
Paul House, Beeson Divinity School
Ken Magnuson, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Jonathan Pennington, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
James Robson, Wycliffe Hall
Mark D. Thompson, Moore Theological College
Paul Williamson, Moore Theological College
Stephen Witmer, Pepperell Christian Fellowship
Robert Yarbrough, Covenant Seminary

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Published 16 February 2015
Reads 0
EAN13 9781725234505
Language English
Document size 4 MB

Legal information: rental price per page €. This information is given for information only in accordance with current legislation.

dEsCriptioN hemelios IS an InTeRnaTIOnal eVangelIcal TeOlOgIcal jOuRnal TaT exPOunDS anD DefenDS Te ISTORIc CRISTIan faIT. iTS PRImaRY auDIence IS TeOlOgIcal STuDenTS anD PaSTORS, TOug ScOlaRS ReaD IT aS Well. iT WaS fORmeRlY a PRInT jOuRnal OPeRaTeD bY rtsF/UCCF In Te Uk, anD IT became a DIgITal jOuRnal OPeRaTeD bY he GOSPel COalITIOn In 2008. he neW eDITORIal Team SeeKS TO PReSeRVe RePReSenTaTIOn, In bOT eSSaYISTS anD ReVIeWeRS, fROm bOT SIDeS Of Te ATlanTIc.
hemeliosIS PublISeD TRee TImeS a YeaR excluSIVelY OnlIne aT WWW.TeGOSPelCOalITIOn.ORg. iT IS PReSenTeD In TWO fORmaTS: pdF (fOR cITIng PagInaTIOn) anD HtML (fOR gReaTeR acceSSIbIlITY, uSabIlITY, anD InfilTRaTIOn In SeaRc engIneS).hemeliosIS cOPYRIgTeD bY he GOSPel COalITIOn. reaDeRS aRe fRee TO uSe IT anD cIRculaTe IT In DIgITal fORm WITOuT fuRTeR PeRmISSIOn (anY PRInT uSe RequIReS fuRTeR WRITTen PeRmISSIOn), buT TeY muST acKnOWleDge Te SOuRce anD, Of cOuRSe, nOT cange Te cOnTenT.
Editors Book rEviEw Editors GeneraL Editor:d. A. CaRSOnOLd TestamentSYstematic heoLogY and BioeticsTrinity Evangelical Divinity ScooldanIel sanTOSHanS MaDueme2065 Half Day Road Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie— Trinity Evangelical Divinity Scool Deerfield, IL 60015, USAHalf Day Road; D-632CPAJ 2065 TemelIOS@TegOSPelcOalITIOn.ORgRua Maria Borba, 15 Deerfield, IL 60015, USASao Paulo, SP, Brazil 01221-040anS.maDueme@TegOSPelcOalITIOn.ORgConsuLting Editor:CaRl r. tRuemanDanIel.SanTOS@TegOSPelcOalITIOn.ORgWestminster heological Seminary Etics(buT nOT BIOeTIcS)and PastoraLia Cestnut Hill, P. O. Box 27009New Testamentdane oRTlunD Piladelpia, PA 19118, USAAlan hOmPSOnCrossway Sydney Missionary & Bible College Managing Editor:CaRleS AnDeRSOn1300 Crescent Street PO Box 83 Oak Hill heological College Weaton, IL 60187, USA Croydon, NSW 2132, AustraliaCase Side, Soutgate Dane.ORTlunD@TegOSPelcOalITIOn.ORg alan.TOmPSOn@TegOSPelcOalITIOn.ORg London, N14 4PS, UKcaRleSa@OaKIll.ac.uKMission and CuLtureHistorY and HistoricaL heoLogYJaSOn sexTOn NaTan A. FInnAdministrator:AnDReW daVID NaSellISouteastern Baptist heological Seminary St Mary’s College Grace Bible Curc P. O. Box 1889 University of St Andrews 107 West Road Wake Forest, NC 27588, USASout Street Moore, SC 29369, USAnaTan.finn@TegOSPelcOalITIOn.ORgSt Andrews, KY16 9JU TemelIOS@TegOSPelcOalITIOn.ORg Scotland jaSOn.SexTOn@TegOSPelcOalITIOn.ORg EditoriAL BoArd GeRalD BRaY,Beeson Divinity Scool; olIVeR d. CRISP,University of Bristol; wIllIam kYneS,Cornerstone Evangelical Free Curc; ken MagnuSOn,he Soutern Baptist heological Seminary; JOnaTan pennIngTOn,he Soutern Baptist heological Seminary; JameS rObSOn,Wycliffe Hall; MIcael haTe,Duram University; MaRK d. hOmPSOn,Moore heological College; GaRRY wIllIamS,he Jon Owen Centre, London heological Seminary; paul wIllIamSOn,Moore heological College; sTePen wITmeR,Pepperell Cristian Fellowsip.
ArtiCLEs ARTIcleS SOulD geneRallY be abOuT 4,000 TO 7,000 WORDS (IncluDIng fOOTnOTeS) anD SOulD be SubmITTeD TO Te ManagIng EDITOR Ofhemelios, WIc IS PeeR-ReVIeWeD. ARTIcleS SOulD uSe cleaR, cOncISe EnglIS, fOllOWInghe SBL Handbook of Style(eSP. fOR abbReVIaTIOnS), SuPPlemenTeD bYhe Cicago Manual of Style. heY SOulD cOnSISTenTlY uSe eITeR Uk OR UsA SPellIng anD PuncTuaTIOn, anD TeY SOulD be SubmITTeD elecTROnIcallY aS an emaIl aTTacmenT uSIng MIcROSOfT wORD (.DOc OR .DOcx exTenSIOnS) OR rIc texT FORmaT (.RTf exTenSIOn). sPecIal caRacTeRS SOulD uSe a UnIcODe fOnT.
rEviEws he bOOK ReVIeW eDITORS geneRallY SelecT InDIVIDualS fOR bOOK ReVIeWS, buT POTenTIal ReVIeWeRS maY cOnTacT Tem abOuT ReVIeWIng SPecIfic bOOKS. AS PaRT Of aRRangIng bOOK ReVIeWS, Te bOOK ReVIeW eDITORS WIll SuPPlY bOOK ReVIeW guIDelIneS TO ReVIeWeRS. th Printed by Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8 Ave., Eugene, OR 97401. www.wipfandstock.com. ISBN:978-1-62564-953-9
E d i t o r i A L
hemelios36.1 (2011): 1–3
oN ABUsiNG MAttHEw 18
 D. A. Carson 
D. A. Carson is researc professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity Scool in Deerfield, Illinois.
eVeRal YeaRS agO i WROTe a faIRlY ReSTRaIneD cRITIque Of Te emeRgIng cuRc mOVemenT aS IT Ten 1 TesblOg POSTS. heRe WeRe OTeR ReSPOnSeS, Of cOuRSe—SOme aPPROVIng anD gRaTeful, SOme TOugTful exISTeD, befORe IT mORPeD InTO ITS PReSenT DIVeRSe cOnfiguRaTIOnS. haT lITTle bOOK eaRneD me SOme Of Te angRIeST, bITTeRneSS-laceD emaIlS i aVe eVeR ReceIVeD—TO SaY nOTIng, Of cOuRSe, Of anD WanTIng TO DIalOgue. BuT Te OneS TaT DISPlaYeD Te gReaTeST InTenSITY WeRe TOSe WOSe InDIgna-TIOn WaS WITe OT becauSe i aD nOT fiRST aPPROaceD PRIVaTelY TOSe WOSe POSITIOnS i aD cRITIcIzeD In Te bOOK. waT a YPOcRITe i WaS—cRITIcIzIng mY bROTeRS On OSTenSIble bIblIcal gROunDS Wen i mYSelf WaS nOT fOllOWIng Te BIble’S manDaTe TO ObSeRVe a ceRTaIn PROceDuRe nIcelY laID OuT In MaTT 18:15–17. dOubTleSS TIS SORT Of caRge IS becOmIng mORe cOmmOn. iT IS RegulaRlY lInKeD TO Te “GOTca!” menTalITY TaT manY blOggeRS anD TeIR ReSPOnDenTS Seem TO fOSTeR. peRSOn A WRITeS a bOOK cRITIcIzIng SOme elemenT OR OTeR Of ISTORIc CRISTIan cOnfeSSIOnalISm. A feW blOggeRS ReSPOnD WIT mORe eaT Tan lIgT. peRSOn B WRITeS a blOg WIT SOme SubSTance, ReSPOnDIng TO peRSOn A. he blOgOSPeRe lIgTS uP WIT aTTacKS On peRSOn B, manY Of Tem aSKIng peRSOn B RaTeR accuSInglY, “dID YOu cOmmunIcaTe WIT peRSOn A In PRIVaTe fiRST? if nOT, aRen’T YOu guIlTY Of VIOlaTIng WaT JeSuS TaugT uS In MaTTeW 18?” hIS PaTTeRn Of cOunTeR-aTTacK, WIT mInOR VaRIaTIOnS, IS flOuRISIng. tO WIc aT leaST TRee TIngS muST be SaID: (1) he SIn DeScRIbeD In Te cOnTexT Of MaTT 18:15–17 TaKeS Place On Te Small Scale Of WaT TRanSPIReS In a lOcal cuRc (WIc IS ceRTaInlY WaT IS enVISageD In Te WORDS “Tell IT TO Te cuRc”). iT IS nOT TalKIng abOuT a WIDelY cIRculaTeD PublIcaTIOn DeSIgneD TO TuRn laRge numbeRS Of PeOPle In manY PaRTS Of Te WORlD aWaY fROm ISTORIc cOnfeSSIOnalISm. hIS laTTeR SORT Of SIn IS VeRY PublIc anD IS alReaDY DOIng Damage; IT neeDS TO be cOnfROnTeD anD ITS Damage unDOne In an equallY PublIc WaY. hIS IS quITe DIffeRenT fROm, SaY, Te SITuaTIOn WeRe a belIeVeR DIScOVeRS TaT a bROTeR aS been bReaKIng IS maRRIage VOWS bY SleePIng WIT SOmeOne OTeR Tan IS WIfe, anD gOeS TO Im PRIVaTelY, Ten WIT One OTeR, In Te OPe Of bRIngIng abOuT genuIne RePenTance anD cOnTRITIOn, anD OnlY Ten bRIngS Te maTTeR TO Te cuRc. tO PuT Te maTTeR DIffeRenTlY, Te ImPReSSIOn One DeRIVeS fROm ReaDIng MaTT 18 IS TaT Te SIn In queSTIOn IS nOT, aT fiRST, PublIclY nOTIceD (unlIKe Te PublIcaTIOn Of a fOOlIS buT InfluenTIal bOOK). iT IS RelaTIVelY PRIVaTe, nOTIceD bY One OR TWO belIeVeRS, YeT SeRIOuS enOug TO be bROugT TO Te aTTenTIOn Of Te cuRc If Te OffenDeR RefuSeS TO TuRn aWaY fROm IT. BY cOnTRaST, Wen Nt WRITeRS aVe TO Deal WIT
1 d. A. CaRSOn,Becoming Conversant wit te Emerging Curc: Understanding a Movement and Its Im-plications(GRanD raPIDS: ZOnDeRVan, 2005).
1
EDITORIal
falSe TeacIng, anOTeR nOTe IS STRucK: Te gODlY elDeR “muST OlD fiRmlY TO Te TRuSTWORTY meSSage aS IT aS been TaugT, SO TaT e can encOuRage OTeRS bY SOunD DOcTRIneand refute tose wo oppose it(tITuS 1:9 ). dOubTleSS One can TInK uP SOme cOnTemPORaRY SITuaTIOnS TaT InITIallY mIgT maKe One ScRaTc One’S eaD anD WOnDeR WaT Te WISe cOuRSe SOulD be—OR, TO fRame Te PROblem In Te cOnTexT Of Te bIblIcal PaSSageS juST cITeD, WeTeR One SOulD ReSPOnD In Te lIgT Of MaTT 18 OR Of tITuS 1. FOR examPle, a lOcal cuRc PaSTOR maY eaR TaT a lecTuReR In IS DenOmInaTIOnal SemInaRY OR TeOlOgIcal cOllege IS TeacIng SOmeTIng e juDgeS TO be OuTSIDe Te cOnfeSSIOnal camP Of TaT DenOmInaTIOn anD POSSIblY fRanKlY eReTIcal. LeT uS maKe Te SITuaTIOn mORe callengIng bY POSTulaTIng TaT Te PaSTOR aS a anDful Of STuDenTS In IS cuRc WO aTTenD TaT SemInaRY anD aRe beIng InfluenceD bY Te lecTuReR In queSTIOn. iS Te PaSTOR bOunD bY MaTT 18 TO TalK WIT Te lecTuReR befORe callengIng Im In PublIc? hIS SITuaTIOn IS TRIcKY In TaT Te PuTaTIVe falSe TeacIng IS PublIc In One SenSe anD PRIVaTe In anOTeR. iT IS PublIc In TaT IT IS nOT a meRelY PRIVaTe OPInIOn, fOR IT IS ceRTaInlY beIng PROmulgaTeD; IT IS PRIVaTe In Te SenSe TaT Te maTeRIal IS nOT PublISeD In Te PublIc aRena, buT IS beIng DISSemInaTeD In a clOSeD lecTuRe all. iT SeemS TO me TaT Te PaSTOR WOulD be WISe TO gO TO Te lecTuReR fiRST,but not out of obedience to Matt 18, wic really does not pertain, buT TO DeTeRmIne juST WaT Te VIeWS Of Te lecTuReR ReallY aRe. He maY cOme TO Te cOncluSIOn TaT Te lecTuReR IS KOSeR afTeR all; alTeRnaTIVelY, TaT Te lecTuReR aS been mISunDeRSTOOD (anD anY lecTuReR WIT InTegRITY WIll WanT TO TaKe PaInS nOT TO be SImIlaRlY mISunDeRSTOOD In Te fuTuRe); OR agaIn, TaT Te lecTuReR IS DISSImulaTIng. He maY feel e aS TO gO TO Te lecTuReR’S SuPeRIOR, OR eVen IgeR. MY POInT, OWeVeR, IS TaT TIS cOuRSe Of acTIOn IS ReallY nOT TRacIng OuT JeSuS’ InSTRucTIOn In MaTT 18. he PaSTOR IS gOIng TO Te lecTuReR, In Te fiRST InSTance, nOT TO RePROVe Im, buT TO finD OuT If TeRe ReallY IS a PROblem Wen Te TeacIng fallS In TIS ambIguOuS caTegORY Of nOT-quITe-PRIVaTe anD nOT-quITe-PublIc. (2) in MaTT 18, Te SIn In queSTIOn IS, bY Te auTORITY Of Te cuRc, excOmmunIcable—In aT leaST TWO SenSeS. First, Te OffenSe maY be SO SeRIOuS TaT Te OnlY ReSPOnSIble DecISIOn TaT Te cuRc can maKe IS TO TRuST Te OffenDeR OuT Of Te cuRc anD VIeW Im OR eR aS an uncOnVeRTeD PeRSOn (18:17). in OTeR WORDS, Te OffenSe IS excOmmunIcablebecause of its seriousness. in Te Nt aS a WOle, TeRe aRe TRee caTegORIeS Of SInS TaT Reac TIS leVel Of SeRIOuSneSS: majOR DOcTRInal eRROR (e.g., 1 tIm 1:20), majOR mORal faIluRe (e.g., 1 COR 5), anD PeRSISTenT anD ScISmaTIc DIVISIVeneSS (e.g., tITuS 3:10). heSe cOnSTITuTe Te negaTIVe flIPSIDe Of Te TRee POSITIVe “TeSTS” Of 1 JOn: Te TRuT TeST, Te ObeDIence TeST, anD Te lOVe TeST. in anY caSe, TOug We DO nOT KnOW WaT IT IS, Te OffenSe In MaTT 18 IS excOmmunIcable becauSe Of ITS SeRIOuSneSS. Second, Te SITuaTIOn IS Suc TaT Te OffenDeR can acTuallY be excOmmunIcaTeD fROm Te aSSemblY. in OTeR WORDS, Te OffenSe IS excOmmunIcablebecause organizationally it is possible to excommunicate te offender. BY cOnTRaST, SuPPOSe SOmeOne In, SaY, pIlaDelPIa WeRe TO claIm TO be a DeVOuT CRISTIan WIle WRITIng a bOOK TaT WaS In ceRTaIn WaYS DeePlY anTI-CRISTIan. suPPOSe a cuRc In, SaY, tOROnTO, CanaDa DecIDeD Te bOOK IS eReTIcal. suc a cuRc mIgT, i SuPPOSe, DeclaRe Te bOOK mISguIDeD OR eVen eReTIcal, buT TeY ceRTaInlY cOulD nOT excOmmunIcaTe Te WRITeR. dOubTleSS TeY cOulD DeclaRe Te OffenDeRpersona non grataIn TeIR OWn aSSemblY, buT TIS WOulD be a fuTIle geSTuRe anD PRObablY 2 cOunTeR-PRODucTIVe TO bOOT. AfTeR all, Te OffenDeR mIgT be PeRfecTlY accePTable In ISownaSSemblY.
2 hIS aRgumenT cOulD be RaTceTeD uP TO Te DenOmInaTIOnal leVel fOR TOSe WO—mISTaKenlY, In mY VIeW—TInK TaT “cuRc” In MaTT 18 aS TaT SORT Of mulTI-aSSemblY ORganIzaTIOn In VIeW.
2
hemelios
in OTeR WORDS, TIS SORT Of OffenSe mIgT be excOmmunIcable In Te fiRST SenSe—I.e., Te falSe TeacIng mIgT be juDgeD SO SeVeRe TaT Te OffenDeRdeservesTO be excOmmunIcaTeD—buT IS nOT excOmmunIcable In Te SecOnD SenSe, fOR Te ORganIzaTIOnal RealITY IS Suc TaT excOmmunIcaTIOn IS nOT PRacTIcable. he POInT TO ObSeRVe IS TaT WaTeVeR Te OffenSe In MaTTeW 18, IT IS excOmmunIcable InbotSenSeS: Te SIn muST be SeRIOuS enOug TO WaRRanT excOmmunIcaTIOn, anD Te ORganIzaTIOnal SITuaTIOn IS Suc TaT Te lOcal cuRc can TaKe DecISIVe acTIOn TaT acTuallY meanS SOmeTIng. weRe One OR Te OTeR Of TeSe TWO SenSeS DOeSnotaPPlY, neITeR DOeS MaTTeW 18. one mIgT Of cOuRSe aRgue TaT IT IS Te PaRT Of PRuDenTIal WISDOm TO WRITe TO auTORS befORe YOu cRITIcIze Tem In YOuR OWn PublIcaTIOn. i can TInK Of SITuaTIOnS WeRe TaT maY OR maY nOT be a gOOD IDea. BuT Suc ReaSOnIng fORmS nO PaRT Of Te aRgumenT Of MaTTeW 18. (3) heRe IS a flaVOR Of PlaY-acTIng RIgTeOuSneSS, Of DISPROPORTIOnaTe InDIgnaTIOn, beInD Te cuRRenT ROunD Of “GOTca!” gameS. if peRSOn B caRgeS peRSOn A, WO aS WRITTen a bOOK aRguIng fOR a ReVISIOnIST unDeRSTanDIng Of Te BIble, WIT SeRIOuS eRROR anD POSSIblY WIT eReSY, IT IS nO PaRT Of WISDOm TO “tuT-TuT” Te naRROW-mInDeDneSS Of peRSOn B anD SmIle cOnDeScenDInglY anD DISmISSIVelY OVeR Suc juDgmenTalISm. haT maY PlaY Well amOng TOSe WO TInK Te gReaTeST VIRTue In Te WORlD IS TOleRance, buT SuRelY IT cannOT be Te OnORable PaT fOR a CRISTIan. GenuIne eReSY IS a Damnable TIng, a ORRIble TIng. iT DISOnORS GOD anD leaDS PeOPle aSTRaY. iT mISRePReSenTS Te gOSPel anD enTIceS PeOPle TO belIeVe unTRue TIngS anD TO acT In RePReenSIble WaYS. of cOuRSe, peRSOn Bmaybe enTIRelY mISTaKen. peRaPS Te caRge peRSOn B IS maKIng IS enTIRelY mISguIDeD, eVen PeRVeRSe. in TaT caSe, One SOulD DemOnSTRaTe Te facT, nOT IDe beInD a PROceDuRal maTTeR. AnD WeRe peRSOn B IS aDVancIng SeRIOuS bIblIcal aRgumenTaTIOn, IT SOulD be eValuaTeD, nOT DISmISSeD WIT a PROceDuRal SleIgT-Of-anD anD a WROng-eaDeD aPPeal TO MaTTeW 18.
3
hemelios36.1 (2011): 4–6
M i N o r i t y r E p o r t
knOW yOuR LImITS: he keY secReT Of heOlOgIcal COnTROVeRSY
 CarL Trueman 
Carl Trueman is Academic Dean, Vice President of Academic Affairs, and Pro-fessor of Historical heology and Curc History at Westminster heological Seminary in Piladelpia, Pennsylvania.
n a cOnVeRSaTIOn laTe In IS lIfe, GOeTe cOmmenTeD TaT Te SecReT Of aRTISTIc genIuS laY In Self-lImI-i TaTIOn. one mIgT PeRaPS aPPlY Te Same TODaY TO TeOlOgIcal cOnTROVeRSY. inDeeD, WIle KnOWIng One’S lImITS IS ImPORTanT TO maKIng aPPROPRIaTe cOnTRIbuTIOnS TO manY aReaS, IT IS VITal In TeOlOgY. hIS IS eSPecIallY TRue aT a TIme lIKe TIS, Wen TecnOlOgY maKeS Te POSSIbIlITY Of exceSS an OmnIPReS-enT RealITY. AS WIT mOST PIeceS Of aDVIce, TIS IS, Of cOuRSe, mORe Of a ‘DO aS i SaY’ maTTeR RaTeR Tan a ‘DO aS i aVe DOne.’ we all maKe mISTaKeS; OPefullY, aS We age, TeIR fRequencY—OR aT leaST TeIR VaRIeTY— DecReaSeS; buT juST becauSe One DOeS nOT alWaYS lIVe uP TO One’S OWn STaTeD STanDaRDS DOeS nOT mean TaT TOSe STanDaRDS ceaSe TO be ValID. LImITaTIOn IS PaRTIculaRlY ImPORTanT In TeOlOgIcal cOnTROVeRSY fOR TRee maIn ReaSOnS: TIme, callIng, anD cOmPeTence. All TRee aRe clOSelY cOnnecTeD. ouR TIme IS TO be SPenT On Te TIngS TO WIc We aRe calleD, anD We aRe geneRallY calleD TO TOSe TIngS In WIc We exIbIT a ceRTaIn DegRee Of cOmPeTence. huS, fOR me TO SPenD cOnSIDeRable TIme eac DaY beTWeen eIgT In Te mORnIng anD SIx In Te eVenIng TRYIng TO maSTeR Te STePS Of a fOxTROT OR TangO WOulD be TIme WaSTeD: TWO lefT feeT, nO SenSe Of RYTm, anD a famIlY DePenDenT uPOn a SalaRY baSeD uPOn TeacIng anD aDmInISTRaTIOn all InDIcaTe TaT mY PRIORITIeS SOulD lIe elSeWeRe. in TeOlOgIcal cOnTROVeRSY, TIS meanS TaT We muST alWaYS aSSeSS WeTeR a PaRTIculaR cOnTROVeRSY IS One In WIc We SOulD engage. HeRe aRe SOme baSIc RuleS TO elP uS lImIT Te baTTleS WIc We aRe PRePaReD TO figT. he fiRST queSTIOn TO aSK OneSelf IS TIS: dOeS TIS ISSue ImPacT mY lOcal cuRc OR mY DenOmInaTIOn? FORgeT nebulOuS IDeaS Of Te cuRc aS SOme amORPOuS, WORlDWIDe cOnglOmeRaTe, anD TInK cOncReTelY, lOcallY, anD DenOmInaTIOnallY. ofTen TeRe IS SufficIenT TROuble On OuR OWn DOORSTePS TO maKe Ome Te PRIORITY. he inTeRneT can cReaTe Te IlluSIOn TaT Te WORlD IS SmalleR Tan IT ReallY IS. CeRTaInlY, IDeaS, InfORmaTIOn, anD neWS Of eVenTS can be TRanSmITTeD OVeR VaST DISTanceS In Te TWInKlIng Of an eYe. A blOg POSTeD In NeW yORK can be InSTanTlY ReaD In JaKaRTa; an e-bOOK launceD In LOnDOn IS ImmeDIaTelY
4
hemelios
ReaDY fOR DOWnlOaDIng In CaPe tOWn. hIS meanS TaT TIngS In One cOunTRY can aVe ImPlIcaTIOnS elSeWeRe, buT We neeD TO uSe DISceRnmenT befORe We DecIDe TO ReSPOnD. 1 rOb Bell’S RecenT bOOK On ell IS a gOOD examPle Of TIS. he PROmOTIOnal VIDeO WaS aVaIlable 2 OnlIne. wITIn a SORT PeRIOD Of TIme TeRe WaS alSO muc Web SPeculaTIOn abOuT Te bOOK’S cOnTenT. AT 3 Te RequeST Of a fRIenD, i cRITIqueD Bell’S uSe Of a quOTaTIOn fROm LuTeR, buT i DID nO mORe. wY? well, DeSPITe Te VOlume Of DIScuSSIOn On Te Web, Te bOOK aS aD nO ImPacT aS faR aS i can Tell uPOn Te PeOPle In mY cuRc. MY callIng IS fiRST anD fORemOST TO Tem; anD In beIng a gOOD lOcal cuRcman, mY TIme anD emOTIOnal eneRgY muST be fOcuSeD On TaT PaRTIculaR cOnSTITuencY. heY aRe mORe cOnceRneD abOuT maKIng buDgeT anD abOuT ealT ISSueS, emPlOYmenT, anD Te mYRIaD DIfficulTIeS Of Real lIfe Tan TeY aRe abOuT Te POP-TeOlOgY Of Te laTeST mega-cuRc SenSaTIOn. sOme maY ReSPOnD TaT TIS InDIcaTeS TaT i am DelInquenT In mY DuTIeS TO Te WIDeR cuRc. iS TIS nOT a caSe Of SOmeOne TaKIng a RaTeR ISOlaTIOnIST, OSTRIc-lIKe aPPROac? waT aPPenS In Te TRenDY mega-cuRc TODaY WIll aPPen In Te unTRenDY TInY-cuRc TOmORROW, OR SO Te aRgumenT gOeS. i WIll cOnceDe TaT TeRe IS a ceRTaIn POWeR In TIS, buT We neeD TO RemembeR TWO TIngS. FIRST, TeRe IS an aWful lOT Of junK OuT TeRe In Te cuRc-WORlD, anD TeRefORe One muST alWaYS uSe DISceRnmenT In DecIDIng WIc baTTleS TO figT. one SImPlY cannOT figT Tem all. one muST aVe SOme cRITeRIa fOR SelecTIOn, anD WeTeR OR nOT IT aS an ImmeDIaTe ImPacT uPOn One’S ImmeDIaTe cOnSTITuencY WOulD Seem TO aVe a DecenT claIm TO beIng One Of Te mOST ImPORTanT. secOnD, all CRISTIanS aVe a ReSPOnSIbIlITY TO elP buIlD uP TeIR lOcal cuRc. paRT Of TaT InVOlVeS POSITIVe acTIOnS: fOR examPle, encOuRagIng eac OTeR anD beaRIng One anOTeR’S buRDenS. paRT Of IT alSO InVOlVeS RefRaInIng fROm ceRTaIn acTIOnS WIc mIgT leaD OTeRS aSTRaY; anD One Suc acTIOn WOulD be InTRODucIng ceRTaIn eRRORS TO PeOPle WO WOulD OTeRWISe be blISSfullY unaWaRe Of Tem. huS, If nObODY In mY cOngRegaTIOn IS WReSTlIng WIT OPen TeISm’S nOTIOn TaT GOD DOeS nOT KnOW Te fuTuRe, TeRe IS lITTle gOOD PuRPOSe SeRVeD In me SPenDIng a gReaT Deal Of TIme elabORaTIng all Of Te aRgumenTS fOR OPen TeISm anD Ten RefuTIng Tem. CeRTaInlY, i maY Well aDDReSS Te queSTIOn Of GOD’S fOReKnOWleDge aS i PReac TROug Te BIble. i WIll nOT be able TO aVOID IT aT SOme POInTS; buT i WIll aDDReSS IT OnlY Wen Te TexT DemanDS IT OR SOmebODY In Te cOngRegaTIOn RaISeS IT aS an ISSue. sOmeOne maY POSe a fuRTeR ObjecTIOn TO mY aPPaRenT ISOlaTIOnISm aT TIS POInT: YeS, tRueman, YOu aVe lOcal cuRc anD DenOmInaTIOnal ReSPOnSIbIlITIeS; buT YOu aRe alSO a TeaceR aT a SemInaRY anD SOmeOne WOSe WORDS aVe an ImPacT beYOnD Te unDReD OR SO PeOPle YOu See In cuRc eVeRY sunDaY. AgaIn, TeRe IS a ceRTaIn fORce TO TIS, buT In ReSPOnSe i WOulD mOVe TO Te SecOnD lImITIng facTOR In cOOSIng WIc cOnTROVeRSY TO engage: cOmPeTence. heRe IS, Of cOuRSe, a Place fOR geneRalISm. EVeRY CRISTIan aS TO be a geneRalIST aT SOme leVel: We aRe all SuPPOSeD TO SPeaK Te gOSPel TO eac OTeR anD TO TOSe OuTSIDe Te cuRc, fOR examPle. he cOmmanDS TO buIlD uP Te bODY, TO gIVe a ReaSOn fOR Te
1 rOb Bell,Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and te Fate of Every Person Wo Ever Lived(NeW yORK: HaRPeRone, 2011). 2 EDITOR’S NOTe: FOR a elPful SummaRY Of Te cOnTROVeRSY, See tOnY reInKe, “he rOb Bell debaTe: A reaDeR’S dIgeST, WIT suggeSTeD reSOuRceS,”eCettseaSapsV.C.Jrfmoeiw(MaRc 16, 2011),TTP://SOVeReIgn-gRacemInISTRIeS.ORg/blOgS/cj-maaneY/POST/2011/03/16/rOb-Bell-LOVe-wInS-debaTe-summaRY.aSPx. 3 CaRl tRueman, “EaSY vIRTueS anD CRuel MISTReSSeS: BaSIc ADVIce On HOW TO inTeRPReT LuTeR,”Reforma-tion 21(MaRc 9, 2011),TTP://WWW.RefORmaTIOn21.ORg/aRTIcleS/eaSY-VIRTueS-anD-cRuel-mISTReSSeS.PP.
5
MInORITY rePORT
OPe We aVe, anD TO caRRY fORWaRD Te GReaT COmmISSIOn DO nOT aPPlY OnlY TO TOSe WIT an M.dIV. heY aPPlY TO all CRISTIanS. NeVeRTeleSS, Te LORD aS PROVIDeD Te cuRc WIT SPecIalISTS. JuST aS manY cOngRegaTIOnS enjOY Te PReSence In TeIR membeRSIP Of a PlumbeR WO IS able TO Deal exPeRTlY WIT ISSueS Of PIPeS anD WaTeR SuPPlY anD DRaInS, SO Te cuRc aS PeOPle WO SPecIalIze In TeOlOgY, bIblIcal STuDIeS anD OTeR DIVISIOnS Of Te TeOlOgIcal cuRRIculum. huS, Te facT TaT i am nOT cOmPeTenT TO engage ceRTaIn ISSueS aT a ceRTaIn leVel SOulD cauSe me TO lImIT Te baTTleS i figT. JuST aS i maY be able TO unblOcK a DRaIn aT Te cuRc buT SOulD leaVe Te fiTTIng Of a neW bOIleR TO an exPeRT, SO i can engage mOST TeOlOgIcal cOnTROVeRSIeS aT Te leVel WIc a TYPIcal CRISTIan mIgT STRuggle WIT Tem; buT i muST RealIze TaT mY abIlITY TO DO SO aT a IglY TecnIcal leVel IS lImITeD TO mY aRea Of SPecIalIzeD TRaInIng. hIS leaDS TO mY final ObSeRVaTIOn. i SOmeTImeS WOnDeR If Te ReaSOn SO manY TeOlOgIanS, amaTeuR anD PROfeSSIOnal, lIKe TO engage In OnlIne TeOlOgIcal cOnTROVeRSY aS aS muc TO DO WIT Tem WanTIng a PIece Of Te acTIOn aS DeSIRIng TO elP Te cuRc. LIKe TOSe PeOPle WO STOOD aROunD WeePIng anD WaIlIng afTeR Te DeaT Of MIcael JacKSOn anD YeT WO aD nO PeRSOnal RelaTIOnSIP WIT Im aT all, SO i SuSPecT manY maKe TemSelVeS feel ImPORTanT bY engagIng In TeOlOgIcal cOnTROVeRSIeS WIc, bY Te cRITeRIa abOVe, aRe nOne Of TeIR buSIneSS. once, fOR examPle, SOmeOne aS WRITTen a gOOD RefuTaTIOn Of rOb Bell’S uSe Of scRIPTuRe OR ISTORIcal SOuRceS, TeRe IS ReallY nO neeD fOR Te ReST Of uS TO DO anYTIng buT RefeR OTeRS TO Suc. AT leaST, TaT IS Te caSe unTIl SOmeOne aS exPOSeD Te RefuTaTIOnS TemSelVeS aS WeaK OR InaDequaTe. ManY finD TeOlOgIcal cOnTROVeRSY TO be a fun ObbY. haT IS a VeRY naïVe VIeW. FOR TOSe WO aVe been InVOlVeD In Suc WeRe RePuTaTIOnS, lIVelIOODS, anD, aT ceRTaIn TImeS anD PlaceS, eVen lIVeS aVe been On Te lIne, IT IS a nIgTmaRe. we SOulD engage In IT OnlY Wen IT ImPacTS Te Small PaTc Of Te KIngDOm In WIc We aVe ReSPOnSIbIlITY, anD OnlY TO Te exTenT TaT OuR abIlITIeS allOW uS TO DO SO WIT cOmPeTence. LImITaTIOn In POlemIc, aS fOR GOeTe In aRT, IS Te SecReT Of TRue gReaTneSS.
6
hemelios36.1 (2011): 7–25
tRInITaRIan AgencY anD Te ETeRnal subORDInaTIOn Of Te sOn: An AuguSTInIan peRSPecTIVe
 Keit E. Jonson 
Keit Jonson (PD in Cristian heology and Etics, Duke University) is te director of teo-logical education and development for Campus Crusade for Crist. He also serves as a guest professor of systematic teology at Reformed heological Seminary. He is autor of Retinking te Trinity and Religious Pluralism: An Augustinian Assessment (IVP, fortcoming).
n RecenT YeaRS a DebaTe aS emeRgeD amOng cOnSeRVaTIVe eVangelIcalS OVeR Te “eTeRnal funcTIOnal i SubORDInaTIOn” (EFs) Of Te sOn. AT Te cenTeR Of TIS DISPuTe IS Te queSTIOn Of OW We aRe TO unDeR-STanD ScRIPTuRal TeacIng RegaRDIng Te naTuRe Of Te sOn’SeternalRelaTIOnSIP TO Te FaTeR. iS Te ObeDIence Of Te sOn TO Te FaTeR lImITeD meRelY TO Te IncaRnaTIOn, OR DOeS IT alSO exTenD TO Te sOn’S 1 eternalhe TRInITaRIan TeacIng Of Te cuRc faTeRS PlaYS a cenTRal ROleRelaTIOnSIP WIT Te FaTeR? In TIS DISPuTe. pROPOnenTS anD OPPOnenTS Of EFs accuSe One anOTeR Of “TamPeRIng WIT Te tRInITY,” 2 anD TeY aPPeal TO PaST TeOlOgIanS TO SubSTanTIaTe (OR DenY) TIS claIm. one Of TeSe TeOlOgIanS IS AuguSTIne Of HIPPO (354–430). COnSIDeR Te cOnTRaSTIng InTeRPReTaTIOnS Of Te FaTeR/sOn RelaTIOnSIP In AuguSTIne’S TRInITaRIan TeOlOgY TaT aRe OffeReD bY BRuce waRe (WO affiRmS EFs) anD keVIn GIleS (WO DenIeS EFs):
AS AuguSTIne affiRmeD, Te DISTIncTIOn Of peRSOnS IS cOnSTITuTeD PRecISelY bY Te DIffeRIng RelaTIOnS amOng Tem, In PaRT manIfeSTeD bY Te IneRenT auTORITY Of Te FaTeR anD 3 IneRenT SubmISSIOn Of Te sOn.
1iT IS ImPORTanT TO DISTInguIS Te SubmISSIOn Of Te sOn TO Te FaTeR In IS uman naTuRe (In Te IncaR-naTIOn) fROm Te claIm TaT Te sOn IS funcTIOnallY SubORDInaTe TO Te FaTeR In IS DIVIne naTuRe fROm all eTeRnITY. BOT SIDeS In Te EFs DebaTe affiRm TaT Te sOn lIVeD a lIfe Of ObeDIence TO Te FaTeR In IS “STaTe Of umIlIaTIOn” (cf. pIl 2:5–8). pROPOnenTS Of EFs (e.g., GeORge knIgT, BRuce waRe, waYne GRuDem, JOn damS) maKe Te aD-DITIOnal claIm TaT an eTeRnal RelaTIOn Of SubmISSIOn anD auTORITY exISTS beTWeen Te FaTeR anD Te sOn buT InSIST TaT TIS SubORDInaTIOn IS “funcTIOnal” anD nOT “OnTOlOgIcal.” oPPOnenTS Of EFs (e.g., GIlbeRT BIlezIKIan, MIllaRD ERIcKSOn, keVIn GIleS) DenY TaT Te sOn IS, In anY WaY, eTeRnallY SubORDInaTe TO Te FaTeR. 2 COmPaRe Te fOllOWIng aSSeRTIOnS: “iT cannOT be legITImaTelY DenIeD TaT Te eTeRnal SubORDInaTIOn Of Te sOn IS an ORTODOx DOcTRIne anD belIeVeD fROm Te ISTORY Of Te eaRlY cuRc TO Te PReSenT DaY” (sTePen d. kOVac anD peTeR r. scemm JR., “A defenSe Of Te dOcTRIne Of Te ETeRnal subORDInaTIOn Of Te sOn,”JETS42 [1999]: 464). “‘tRaDITIOn,’ RaTeR Tan beIng On TeIR [I.e., EFs PROPOnenTS] SIDe, IS TeIR STROngeST OPPOnenT” (keVIn GIleS,he Trinity and Subordinationism: he Doctrine of God and te Contemporary Gender Debate[dOWneRS GROVe: ivp, 2002], 106). 3BRuce A. waRe,Fater, Son, and Holy Spirit: Roles, Relationsips, and Relevance(weaTOn: CROSSWaY, 2005), 79–80.
7
tRInITaRIan AgencY anD Te ETeRnal subORDInaTIOn Of Te sOn
AuguSTIne lIKeWISe gIVeS nO SuPPORT WaTSOeVeR TO Te IDea TaT CRIST IS eTeRnallY SeT 4 unDeR Te FaTeR’S auTORITY. he PuRPOSe Of TIS eSSaY IS TO exPlORe Te naTuRe Of TRInITaRIan agencY In AuguSTIne’S TeOlOgY anD 5 TO cOnSIDeR Te ImPlIcaTIOnS TaT AuguSTIne’S POSITIOn mIgT aVe fOR Te EFs DebaTe. BY “TRInITaRIan agencY” i SImPlY mean Te WaY In WIc FaTeR, sOn, anD HOlY sPIRIT WORK TOgeTeR In cReaTIOn, PROVIDence, anD ReDemPTIOn. UnDeRSTOOD In TIS WaY, TRInITaRIan agencY IS DIRecTlY RelaTeD TO Te EFs DISPuTe InaSmuc aS SuPPORTeRS anD OPPOnenTS Of EFs OffeR DIffeRIng accOunTS Of Te manneR In WIc Te FaTeR anD sOn WORK TOgeTeR. wY AuguSTIne? FIRST, AuguSTIne’S TeacIng On Te tRInITY IS bY faR Te mOST InfluenTIal In Te 6 ISTORY Of Te weST. secOnD, DeSPITe POPulaR PORTRaYalS TO Te cOnTRaRY, IS TRInITaRIan DOcTRIne SaReS muc In cOmmOn WIT Te GReeK-SPeaKIng TeOlOgIanS Of Te EaST (e.g., Te CaPPaDOcIanS: BaSIl Of 7 CaeSaRea, GRegORY Of NYSSa, anD GRegORY Of NazIanzuS). in TuRnIng TO AuguSTIne, One DRaWS uPOn WaT IS aRguablY Te mOST RePReSenTaTIVe VeRSIOn Of TRInITaRIan DOcTRIne In Te ISTORY Of Te cuRc 8 amOng CaTOlIcS anD pROTeSTanTS. FInallY, aS We aVe Seen abOVe, bOT SIDeS In Te EFs DISPuTe aPPeal TO AuguSTIne’S TeacIng On Te tRInITY.
4 keVIn GIleS,Jesus and te Fater: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent te Doctrine of te Trinity(GRanD raP-IDS: ZOnDeRVan, 2006), 190. 5 iT SOulD be nOTeD TaT SOme DIVeRSITY Of PeRSPecTIVe exISTS amOng eVangelIcal PROPOnenTS Of EFs. FOR examPle, SOme EFs PROPOnenTS affiRm Te eTeRnal geneRaTIOn Of Te sOn (e.g., JOn damS) WIle OTeRS DenY IT (e.g., BRuce waRe). in aDDITIOn, SOme PRefeR TO SPeaK Of Te “eTeRnalrelationalSubORDInaTIOn” Of Te sOn TO Te FaTeR (e.g., rObeRT dOYle). 6 NOT eVeRYOne VIeWS AuguSTIne’S Influence aS POSITIVe. AccORDIng TO cRITIcS lIKe COlIn GunTOn, CORne-lIuS planTInga, anD CaTeRIna LaCugna, AuguSTIne’S TeOlOgY “begInS” WIT a unITY Of DIVIne SubSTance (WIc e allegeDlY “PRIORITIzeS” OVeR Te DIVIne PeRSOnS); IS TRInITaRIan ReflecTIOn IS OVeR-DeTeRmIneD bY neO-plaTOnIc PIlOSOPY; IS PSYcOlOgIcal “analOgY” TenDS TOWaRD mODalISm; anD e SeVeRS Te lIfe Of Te TRIune GOD fROm Te ecOnOmY Of SalVaTIOn bY fOcuSIng On Te ImmanenT tRInITY. LeWIS AYReS anD MIcel BaRneS, OWeVeR, aVe cOnVIncInglY DemOnSTRaTeD TaT TeSe cRITIcISmS aRe baSeD On funDamenTal mISReaDIngS Of AuguSTIne’S TRInITaR-Ian TeOlOgY. see LeWIS AYReS,Augustine and te Trinity(CambRIDge: CambRIDge UnIVeRSITY pReSS, 2010); IDem, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approac to Fourt-Century Trinitarian heology(NeW yORK: oxfORD UnIVeRSITY pReSS, 2004), 363–83; anD MIcel r. BaRneS, “reReaDIng AuguSTIne’S TeOlOgY Of Te tRInITY,” Inhe Trinity: An Interdisci-plinary Symposium on te Trinity(eD. sTePen t. daVIS, danIel kenDall, anD GeRalD o’COllInS; NeW yORK: oxfORD UnIVeRSITY pReSS, 1999), 145–76. see alSO NeIloRmeROD,he Trinity: Retrieving te Western Tradition(MIlWauKee: MaRqueTTe UnIVeRSITY pReSS, 2005). 7 ManY cOnTemPORaRY naRRaTIVeS Of Te ISTORY Of TRInITaRIan DOcTRIne aSSume WITOuT WaRRanT TaT SIgnIfi-canT DIffeRenceS exIST beTWeen eaRlY “weSTeRn” aPPROaceS (WIc emPaSIze DIVIne unITY) anD eaRlY “EaSTeRn” aP-PROaceS (WIc emPaSIze a TRInITY Of DIVIne PeRSOnS). hIS PROblemaTIc aSSumPTIOn can be TRaceD TO Te WORK Of a nIneTeenT-cenTuRY JeSuIT, héODORe De régnOn. tRencanT cRITIcISmS Of TIS POlaRIzIng PaRaDIgm can be fOunD In MIcel r. BaRneS, “de régnOn recOnSIDeReD,”AugStud26 (1995): 51–79; anD IDem, “AuguSTIne In COnTemPO-RaRY tRInITaRIan heOlOgY,”TS56 (1995): 237–50. 8 BecauSe Of IS STaTuS aS “dOcTOR Of Te CuRc” (doctor ecclesiae), meDIeVal TeOlOgIanS TReaTeD AuguS-TIne aS a RelIable auTORITY WOSe TeacIng On Te tRInITY maY be emPlOYeD aS fOunDaTIOnal elemenTS In TeOlOgI-cal aRgumenTaTIOn becauSe TeY aRe Seen aS faITful exPReSSIOnS Of scRIPTuRe anD cOncIlIaR TeacIng. hIS IS nOT TO SuggeST TaT AuguSTIne’S DOcTRInal STaTemenTS POSSeSSeD Te Same KInD Of auTORITY aS scRIPTuRe. raTeR TeY POS-SeSSeD a “PRObable” auTORITY—SOmeTIng leSS Tan Te ulTImaTe auTORITY Of HOlY scRIPTuRe buT ceRTaInlY muc mORe Tan unTeSTeD TeOlOgIcal OPInIOnS. hIS meDIeVal PRacTIce OffeRS an aPT analOgY fOR mY engagemenT WIT AuguSTIne’S TRInITaRIan TeOlOgY In TIS eSSaY.
8
hemelios
BecauSe AuguSTIne’S accOunT Of TRInITaRIan agencY can be unDeRSTOOD OnlY In Te bROaDeR cOnTexT Of Te RelaTIOnS amOng Te DIVIne PeRSOnS, i begIn bY examInIng Te DIVIne RelaTIOnS aS PReSenTeD InDe 9 trinitate. NexT, i OuTlIne IS accOunT Of TRInITaRIan agencY. FOR AuguSTIne, Te WORKIng Of Te FaTeR, Te sOn, anD Te HOlY sPIRIT IS InDIVISIblY Te WORK Of Te TReead extra(I.e., In cReaTIOn, PROVIDence, anD ReDemPTIOn). AT Te Same TIme, In TIS SIngle acT, Te DIVIne PeRSOnS WORK In an ORDeReD anD IRReVeRSIble manneR accORDIng TO TeIR RelaTIVe PROPeRTIeSad intra. i clOSe bY cOnSIDeRIng Te ImPlIcaTIOnS Of AuguSTIne’S accOunT fOR Te EFs DebaTe.
1. he Relations of te Divine Persons inDe trinitate
in BOOK i OfDe trinitate, AuguSTIne elPfullY SummaRIzeS Te LaTIn PRO-NIcene TeacIng On Te 10 tRInITY. HIS SummaRY cOnTaInS fOuR TemeS aRRangeD In cIaSTIc faSIOn: A—inSePaRable equalITY Of Te DIVIne PeRSOnS  B—real DISTIncTIOnS amOng Te DIVIne PeRSOnS  B’—dISTIncTIOn Of PeRSOnS In Te ecOnOmY Of SalVaTIOn 11 A’—inSePaRable acTIOn Of Te DIVIne PeRSOnS In Te ecOnOmY Of SalVaTIOn iT WIll be elPful TO quOTe AuguSTIne aT lengT: [A] he PuRPOSe Of all Te CaTOlIc cOmmenTaTORS i aVe been able TO ReaD On Te DIVIne 12 bOOKS Of bOT TeSTamenTS, WO aVe WRITTen befORe me On Te TRInITY WIc GOD IS, aS been TO Teac TaT accORDIng TO Te ScRIPTuReS FaTeR anD sOn anD HOlY sPIRIT In Te InSePaRable equalITY Of One SubSTance PReSenT a DIVIne unITY; anD TeRefORe TeRe aRe nOT TRee gODS buT One GOD; [B] alTOug InDeeD Te FaTeR aS begOTTen Te sOn, anD TeRefORe e WO IS Te FaTeR IS nOT Te sOn; anD Te sOn IS begOTTen bY Te FaTeR, anD TeRefORe e WO IS Te sOn IS nOT Te FaTeR; anD Te HOlY sPIRIT IS neITeR Te FaTeR nOR Te sOn, buT OnlY Te sPIRIT Of Te FaTeR anD Of Te sOn, ImSelf cOequal TO Te FaTeR anD Te sOn, anD belOngIng TO Te TReefOlD unITY. [B’] iT WaS nOT OWeVeR TIS Same TRee (TeIR TeacIng cOnTInueS) TaT WaS bORn Of Te VIRgIn MaRY, cRucIfieD anD buRIeD unDeR pOnTIuS pIlaTe, ROSe agaIn On Te TIRD DaY anD aScenDeD InTO eaVen, buT
9 All cITaTIOnS OfDe trinitateaRe TaKen fROm AuguSTIne,he Trinity(TRanS. EDmunD HIll; BROOKlYn: NeW CITY, 1991). 10 pRO-NIcene TeOlOgY IS nOT meRelY a SImPle ReaSSeRTIOn Of Te TeacIng Of NIcaea. iT RePReSenTS an InTeR-PReTaTIOn Of NIcaea TaT emeRgeD In Te SecOnD alf Of Te fOuRT cenTuRY. AYReS (Augustine and te Trinity, 43) WRITeS, “BY TIS TeRm [PRO-NIcene] i RefeR TO TaTinterpretationOf NIcaea anD Of eaRlIeR NIcene TeOlOgIeS WIc fORmeD Te cOnTexT fOR Te eSTablISmenT Of CaTOlIc ORTODOxY unDeR Te emPeRORS heODOSIuS anD GRaTIan TROug Te acTIOnS Of Te cOuncIlS Of COnSTanTInOPle anD AquIleIa, TROug ImPeRIal DecRee, anD TROug Te SlOW muTual RecOgnITIOn Of a numbeR Of DIffeRenT PRO-NIcene PaRTIeS. hIS TeOlOgY IS nOT SufficIenTlY DefineD bY RefeR-ence TO NIcaea alOne, buT OnlY bY RefeRence alSO TO a numbeR Of Te KeY PRIncIPleS WITIn WIc NIcaea WaS InTeR-PReTeD aS TeacIng a faIT In TRee cOORDInaTe DIVIne RealITIeS WO cOnSTITuTe One naTuRe, POWeR, WIll anD SubSTance.” 11 AuguSTIne, Of cOuRSe, DOeS nOT exPlIcITlY SaY TaT e InTenDS TO aRRange TeSe In “cIaSTIc” fORm. hIS juDgmenT IS mY OWn. 12 in TIS SummaRY, AuguSTIne SPeaKS abOuT Te “tRInITY WIc GOD IS” (de trinitate quae Deus est). hIS PRaSe IS nOT uSeD bY anY Of AuguSTIne’S PReDeceSSORS anD RePReSenTS an ImPORTanT alTeRnaTIVe TO meRelY affiRmIng Te FaTeR aSDeus. see AYReS,Augustine and te Trinity, 100.
9