Friday, June 03, 2016

Dr. Liam Goligher, over at Aimee Byrd's blog, explains why complementarians who argue for eternal subordination to defend a gender norm are heretics who collapse the economic trinity into the ontological trinity

Some of us Reformed types who aren't officially scholars have been saying that complementarians who are set on eternal subordination of the Son seem eager to reverse-engineer the very nature of the Trinity itself to prove a point about gender roles in America, and that this is at best a heretical gambit.

Well, it's not like there's just me who has expressed this idea.  Aimee Byrd features a guest writer who lately posted part 1 of ... you can read this excerpt if you're not inspired to go follow the link:

  http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/is-it-okay-to-teach-a-complementarianism-based-on-eternal-subordination#.V1H8Mmf2a70

...
 
the teaching of some contemporary evangelical scholars and pastors: they are presenting a novel view of God; a different God than that affirmed by the church through the ages and taught in Scripture. This is serious. It comes down to this; if they are right we have been worshipping an idol since the beginning of the church; and if they are wrong they are constructing a new deity - a deity in whom there are degrees of power, differences of will, and diversity of thought. Because, mark this, to have an eternally subordinate Son intrinsic to the Godhead creates the potential of three minds, wills and powers. What they have done is to take the passages referring to the economic Trinity and collapse them into the ontological Trinity. [emphasis mine]
 
I am an unashamed biblical complementarian. The original use of that word took its cue from the biblical teaching about the differences yet complementarity of human beings made in the image of God while not running away from the challenges of applying biblical exhortations for wives to submit to their own husbands in the Lord or the prohibition on ordination for women in the church. With only those two caveats, as Calvin told John Knox, women may be princes in the state, but not pastors in the church. But this new teaching is not limiting itself to that agenda. It now presumes to tell women what they can or cannot say to their husbands, and how many inches longer their hair should be than their husbands!  They, like the Pharisees of old are going beyond Scripture and heaping up burdens to place on believers' backs, and their arguments are slowly descending into farce
 
They are building their case by reinventing the doctrine of God, and are doing so without telling the Christian public what they are up to. What we have is in fact a departure from biblical Christianity as expressed in our creeds and confessions. Out of that redefinition of God their teaching is being used to promote a new way of looking at human relationships which is more like Islam than Christianity [emphasis mine]
...

No comments: