Comments on: The Spirit of Truth and Power

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:45:54 +0000

Jordan, I don’t have the book with me, but as I recall he didn’t really use any examples as much as just spoke about the Patristic era in general. I don’t take his point to be controversal in any meaningful sense, so I don’t think he felt the need to make his case that way. In terms of subordination, I think there are probably some nuances, but he was focusing on the reality that God the Father is the source of divinity that the other two persons partake in. There is equality, but there was never a question that the Father was the source. I still think Samuel Clarke’s book does a good job of pointing this out, he just doesn’t understand that it doesn’t lead to an ontological subordination.

By: Jordan Barrett

Jordan Barrett — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:02:18 +0000

That would be a fair reply and I am also struggling to think of an example where someone has given an adequate non-subordinationist reading.

Who are his patristic examples? I can imagine a few different versions of “subordinationism” among various church fathers (as you can see, I’m still waiting on the book via ILL)

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 19:51:39 +0000

Ok, I see your point. Not to put words in McCormack’s mouth, but if I were to guess his response it would be either: 1. the stronger statement, that a non-subordinationist reading of scripture is simply not legitimate, or 2. the more judicious, that he has yet to see an interpreter give an adequate non-subordinationist reading. The other problem I think he would add, as would I, is that a non-subordinationist reading of the Trinity simply has no corrolation to the Patristic understanding of the Trinity.

The pushback could be that this aspect of Patristic thought isn’t necessary for an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, and as long as they could make their case biblically then McCormack would have to argue against them on those grounds. McCormack just doesn’t seem to think that either 1. the case can be made biblically, and 2. that another agenda isn’t driving the desire to make that case.

By: Jordan Barrett

Jordan Barrett — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:37:09 +0000

I’m happy to try again: I think it’s a poor move to say that subordinationism is biblical and antisubordinationism isn’t and conclude that such a view is merely a mythological construct or that it must necessarily be speculative. What about those who see antisubordinationism as a genuine/faithful reading of Scripture?

I apologize if this is still unclear.

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:15:26 +0000

Jordan, I’m not sure I understand the thrust of your point. McCormack’s point, as I understand it, is that the subordinationism found in patristic accounts, is the most low-flying biblical-exegetical aspect of their argumentation, such that a rejection of subordinationism is a rejection of biblical revelation when it comes to the Trinity. The question for him isn’t primarily what kind of subordination, although he addresses that, but is simply that some kind is necessary.

By: Jordan Barrett

Jordan Barrett — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:38:08 +0000

Maybe I’m thinking this b/c I only read your few quotes from McCormack, but why is it that a rejection of subordination must stem from either a mythological or speculative standpoint? I’m not sure why this can’t simply be another possible way of reading the texts. I would be surprised if McCormack was this simplistic and hope that it isn’t merely speculative/mythological anti-subordination vs. biblical subordination.

What kind of subordinationism is McCormack arguing for (e.g. functional)?