Published Articles (Peer-reviewed) by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
Andrews University Seminary Studies, 2017
Over the last forty years, the debate over gender roles in the home, church, and society has esca... more Over the last forty years, the debate over gender roles in the home, church, and society has escalated in an unprecedented way among evangelical Christians due to the introduction of an alien argumentation that grounds the permanent, functional subordination of women to men in the being of God. This argumentation—which is termed “neo-subordinationism” in this article—states that there is a prescriptive hierarchical ordering of the immanent Trinity that is recognizable through the economic Trinity. In this Trinitarian hierarchy, the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be ontologically equal but eternally subordinated in role and authority to the Father, with the Holy Spirit also functionally subordinated to the Son (for those who accept the filioque). Likewise, women are ontologically equal but permanently subordinated to men in role and authority. As such, they cannot serve in certain leadership capacities in the home, church, or society. This novel argument has shifted the gender debate from discussing anthropology and ecclesiology to theology proper, a shift that has been called the “turn to the Trinity.”
This article argues that, while theology proper should inform all other areas of theological studies, reading perceived differences of gender roles into the immanent Trinity has serious systematic consequences. Thus, the equality of the Trinity should be preserved by excluding neo-subordinationism from the debate on gender roles. This is accomplished, first, by briefly reviewing the history of the gender debate with a particular focus on the emergence of modern complementarian and egalitarian perspectives and the entrance of neo-subordinationism into complementarian argumentation among evangelicals generally and Seventh-day Adventists specifically. Second, four significant problems of neo-subordinationism for Christian theology are discussed: (1) its failure to adequately account for all the canonical data, (2) its inherent logical inconsistencies, (3) its inaccurate reporting of church history, and (4) its ramifications for soteriology and the character of God. Finally, the article concludes with some recommendations for how to proceed in the gender debate without injuring intra-Trinitarian ontology.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Published Book Reviews by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
Andrews University Seminary Studies, 2018
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Andrews University Seminary Studies, 2018
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Published Book Notices by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
Andrews University Seminary Studies, 2018
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Andrews University Seminary Studies, 2018
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Andrews University Seminary Studies, 2018
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Andrews University Seminary Studies, 2018
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Paper Presentations by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
Presented on Friday, February 15, 2019, during the 15th Annual Seminary Scholarship Symposium at ... more Presented on Friday, February 15, 2019, during the 15th Annual Seminary Scholarship Symposium at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary on the campus of Andrews University in Berrien Springs, MI.
In Rom 5:6–8, Paul related a robust contrast between divine love, as it was concretely expressed in the death of Christ, and the greatest conceptions of human love of his time. However, much disagreement among scholarship exists regarding this contrast, particularly over its structure and the identification of δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ in Rom 5:7. This paper explores some of these scholarly perspectives and then applies contextual, structural, grammatical-syntactical, and historical-cultural analyses to provide a fresh look at this passage, uncovering its beautiful chiastic arrangement. This chiastic structure is helpful (1) in unlocking the meaning of δικαίου as any morally upright person and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ as a patron or benefactor in Rom 5:7 and (2) in illuminating its contribution to Paul’s overall contrast between divine and human love. When understood in this way, Rom 5:6–8 powerfully communicates the rarity and conditionality of humanity’s greatest expressions of love in contrast to the surprisingly initiatory, unconditional love of God, as it was demonstrated in Christ’s selfless death for morally weak, ungodly sinners. Thus, divine love profoundly unveils the shallowness found in the greatest displays of human love and reaches beyond them to impenetrable depths.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Presented on Wednesday, November 14, 2018, during the 70th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theo... more Presented on Wednesday, November 14, 2018, during the 70th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society and the 2018 Autumn Symposium of the Adventist Theological Society in Denver, CO. Many New Testament scholars have noted significant differences between the theology of the undisputed Pauline writings and that of Colossians. One of these differences is the abundance of pneumatology in the former and its apparent absence in the latter. Most scholars agree that pneumatology is a central theme for Paul, but some of them question its presence in Colossians and, therefore, challenge its claimed Pauline authorship (Col 1:1; 4:18). Other scholars see the presence of the Spirit permeating the content of this epistle in a way that corresponds with typical Pauline theology. This debate raises the question: if Colossians is assumed to be Pauline base on its internal claim, where is the Spirit?
This study seeks to answer this question by conducting an exegetical and intertextual analysis of pneumatological language and concepts in Colossians and the undisputed (primarily) and disputed (secondarily) Pauline writings for the purpose of determining (1) the degree to which the Spirit is present in Colossians and (2) whether or not there is correspondence between the pneumatological content of the undisputed Pauline writings and that of Colossians. This analysis leads the study to conclude that, while pneumatology may be seen as featuring less prominently in Colossians when compared to the undisputed and disputed Pauline writings, it is not altogether absent from it. Rather the Spirit is present in four explicit (Col 1:8, 9; 2:5; 3:16) and several implicit references (of which only seven are discussed) that have deep linguistic and conceptual connections to the pneumatological content in the traditional Pauline corpus. The paper also offers some preliminary suggestions, that need further investigation, for why pneumatology may be less prominent in Colossians than in the rest of the Pauline literature.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Presented on Tuesday, November 13, 2018 during the 70th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theolog... more Presented on Tuesday, November 13, 2018 during the 70th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Denver, CO.
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of intra-Trinitarian relations—referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS) or alternatively as eternal relations of authority and submission (ERAS). Current supporters of EFS/ERAS, such as Wayne A. Grudem and Bruce A. Ware, affirm that the three persons of the Trinity—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—are fully equal ontologically, but deny equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. Those who maintain this view assert that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although EFS/ERAS continues to grow in popularity in some circles, there are other evangelical theologians, such as Kevin N. Giles and Millard J. Erickson, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join EFS/ERAS proponents in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity. They alternatively assert what can be called temporary, functional subordination (TFS), meaning that the Son and the Spirit were subordinate in function to the Father only during the times in which they accomplished their respective missions in the plan of redemption.
This paper seeks to test the two theses of EFS/ERAS and TFS regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions? This case study is not intended to definitively settle the debate between EFS/ERAS and TFS—though its aim is to be a small step toward the resolution of this theological conflict—but it is intended (at the least) to advance the dialogue taking place among evangelicals regarding intra-Trinitarian relations.
Specifically, the paper (1) explores whether there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit or a variety of ordering patterns in the NT by building on Roderick K. Durst’s research in Reordering the Trinity: Six Movements of God in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2015); (2) ascertains whether the economic actions of the Son and the Spirit in the plan of redemption are distinct, shared, or both; and (3) examines the major historical, christological movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit. Conducting this case study leads the paper to conclude preliminarily that the NT textual evidence on these three points suggests that (1) various ordering patterns of the Son and the Spirit are used in the NT, (2) the Son and the Spirit share in (at least) many of the same economic roles and functions, and (3) the Son and the Spirit submit to one another at various historical moments in the plan of redemption. Thus, the Son and the Spirit do not relate to one another in a unilateral-hierarchical order, but in a mutual-reciprocal relationship of complete equality.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Presented on Friday, February 10, 2017, during the 13th Annual Seminary Scholarship Symposium at ... more Presented on Friday, February 10, 2017, during the 13th Annual Seminary Scholarship Symposium at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary on the campus of Andrews University in Berrien Springs, MI.
Many New Testament scholars have noted significant differences between the theology of the undisputed Pauline writings and that of Colossians. One of these differences is the abundance of pneumatology in the former and its apparent absence in the latter. Most scholars agree that pneumatology is a central theme for Paul, but some of them question its presence in Colossians and, therefore, challenge its claimed Pauline authorship (Col 1:1; 4:18). Other scholars see the presence of the Spirit permeating the content of the letter in a way that corresponds with typical Pauline theology. Most, however, recognize some pneumatological references, but these are seen to be few and limited. This debate raises the question: If Colossians is a Pauline epistle, where is the Spirit?
This study seeks to answer this question by conducting an in-depth exegetical and intertextual analysis of pneumatological language and concepts in the undisputed Pauline writings and Colossians for the purpose of determining (1) the degree to which the Spirit is present in Colossians and (2) whether or not there is correspondence between the pneumatological content of the undisputed Pauline writings and that of Colossians. This analysis leads the study to conclude that, while pneumatology features less prominently in Colossians than in the undisputed Pauline writings, it is not altogether absent from it. Rather the Spirit is present in four explicit (Col 1:8, 9; 2:5; 3:16) and many implicit references (of which only seven are presented) that have deep linguistic and conceptual connections to the pneumatological content in the undisputed Pauline writings.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Presented on Wednesday, November 16, 2016, during the 68th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theo... more Presented on Wednesday, November 16, 2016, during the 68th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Fall Symposium 2016 of the Adventist Theological Society in San Antonio, TX.
Over the last forty years, the debate over gender roles in the home, church, and society has unprecedentedly escalated among Evangelical Christians—including Seventh-day Adventists—due to the introduction of an alien argumentation that grounds the permanent functional subordination of women to men ontologically in the being of God. This argument, which I have termed “neo-subordinationism,” states that women are ontologically equal but functionally subordinate to men because of a prescriptive hierarchical order that exists in the immanent Trinity and is recognizable through the economic Trinity. In this Trinitarian hierarchy the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be ontologically equal but eternally subordinate in role and authority to the Father with the Holy Spirit also functionally subordinate to the Son. This novel argument has shifted the gender debate from anthropology and ecclesiology to theology proper, a shift that has been called the “turn to the Trinity.” While theology proper should inform all other areas of theological studies, reading perceived differences of gender roles into the immanent Trinity has serious systematic consequences.
This paper argues that the unified equality of the Trinity must be preserved by excluding neo-subordinationism from the discussion on gender roles. This is accomplished first by briefly reviewing the history of the gender debate with a particular focus on the emergence of modern complementarian and egalitarian perspectives and the entrance of neo-subordinationism into complementarian argumentation among Evangelicals generally and Seventh-day Adventists specifically. Second, four significant problems of neo-subordinationism for Christian theology are discussed: (1) its failure to adequately account for the whole of canonical data, (2) its inherent logical inconsistencies, (3) its inaccurate reporting of church history, and (4) its ramifications for soteriology and the character of God. Finally, the paper concludes with some recommendations for how to proceed in the gender debate without injuring intra-Trinitarian ontology.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Presented on Friday, February 6, 2015, during the Student Religious Studies Conference of the Mid... more Presented on Friday, February 6, 2015, during the Student Religious Studies Conference of the Midwest Society of Biblical Literature at Olivet Nazarene University in Bourbonnais, IL.
In Romans 5:6-8, Paul related a robust contrast between the love of God as it was concretely expressed in the death of Christ and the deepest conceptions of human love. However, a great deal of disagreement among scholarship exists regarding the passage’s contrast, particularly over the identification of δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ in v. 7. This paper explores some of these scholarly perspectives and applies literary, syntactical, and historical-cultural analyses to provide another look at the meaning of v. 7 and how it contributes to Paul’s overall contrast between human love and the love of God.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Poster Presentations by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
Presented on Thursday, February 8, 2018, and Friday, February 9, 2018, during the 14th Annual Sem... more Presented on Thursday, February 8, 2018, and Friday, February 9, 2018, during the 14th Annual Seminary Scholarship Symposium at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary on the campus of Andrews University in Berrien Springs, MI.
Statement of the Problem
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of the Trinity-referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS), but will hereafter be called "neo-subordinationism." Neo-subordinationism affirms that the three persons of the Trinity-Father, Son and Holy Spirit-are fully equal ontologically, but denies equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. It asserts that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although neo-subordinationism continues to grow in popularity, there are many evangelical theologians, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join neo-subordinationists in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, essential, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity.
Purpose
This poster seeks to test the theses of these two positions regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions?
Methodology
This poster seeks to answer this question through an exegetical and canonical-theological analysis of relevant NT textual data by (1) exploring whether there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit, (2) ascertaining whether the Son and the Spirit share any economic actions in the plan of redemption, and (3) examining the major historical, christological movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit.
Conclusions
Conducting this analysis leads this poster to conclude that there is no unilateral-hierarchical ordering of the Son and the Spirit in the NT. Rather the Son and Spirit share in many of the same economic actions and mutually submit to one another at various historical moments in the plan of redemption. Thus, the Son and the Spirit do not relate to one another in a unilateral-hierarchical order, but in a mutual-reciprocal love relationship of complete equality.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Presented on Saturday, November 18, 2017, during the Fall Symposium 2017 of the Adventist Theolog... more Presented on Saturday, November 18, 2017, during the Fall Symposium 2017 of the Adventist Theologica Society in Boston, MA.
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of the Trinity—referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS), but will hereafter be called “neo-subordinationism.” Neo-subordinationism affirms that the three persons of the Trinity are fully equal ontologically, but denies equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. It asserts that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although neo-subordinationism continues to grow in popularity, there are many evangelical theologians, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join neo-subordinationists in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, essential, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity.
This poster seeks to test the theses of these two positions regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions?
This poster seeks to answer this question through an exegetical and canonical-theological analysis of relevant NT textual data by (1) exploring whether or not there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit, (2) ascertaining whether or not the Son and the Spirit share any economic actions in the plan of redemption, and (3) examining the major historical movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Presented on Friday, November 17, 2017, during the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Adventist Society f... more Presented on Friday, November 17, 2017, during the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Adventist Society for Religious Studies in Boston, MA.
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of the Trinity—referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS), but will hereafter be called “neo-subordinationism.” Neo-subordinationism affirms that the three persons of the Trinity are fully equal ontologically, but denies equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. It asserts that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although neo-subordinationism continues to grow in popularity, there are many evangelical theologians, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join neo-subordinationists in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, essential, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity.
This poster seeks to test the theses of these two positions regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions?
This poster seeks to answer this question through an exegetical and canonical-theological analysis of relevant NT textual data by (1) exploring whether or not there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit, (2) ascertaining whether or not the Son and the Spirit share any economic actions in the plan of redemption, and (3) examining the major historical movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Conference Presentations by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
Presented on Saturday, January 26, 2019, during the Sixth Theological Inter-denominational Sympos... more Presented on Saturday, January 26, 2019, during the Sixth Theological Inter-denominational Symposium of the Schol of Theology and Religion, University of the Southern Caribbean, in Port of Spain, Trinidad. This presentation is the second part of a two-part presentation. The first part was presented on Friday, January 25, 2019. This presentation examines the writings of Ellen G. White in order to discover how she understood the nature of the Holy Spirit.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Presented on Friday, January 25, 2019, during the Sixth Theological Inter-denominational Symposiu... more Presented on Friday, January 25, 2019, during the Sixth Theological Inter-denominational Symposium of the Schol of Theology and Religion, University of the Southern Caribbean, in Port of Spain, Trinidad.
This presentation is the first part of a two-part presentation. The second part was presented on Saturday, January 26, 2019. This presentation highlights some principles for understanding history and doctrinal development and will chart the development of the doctrine of the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit in Seventh-day Adventist history. The writings of the key Seventh-day Adventist thought leaders, as well as the crucial events, that eventually led to the current theological position of the denomination are explored.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Presented on Friday, January 25, 2019, during the Sixth Theological Inter-denominational Symposiu... more Presented on Friday, January 25, 2019, during the Sixth Theological Inter-denominational Symposium of the Schol of Theology and Religion, University of the Southern Caribbean, in Port of Spain, Trinidad.
This presentation examines the current trend in evangelical Christianity (including Seventh-day Adventists) to understand the Trinity in hierarchical terms of authority and submission and will analyze these claims biblically, logically, historically, and theologically.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Presented on Thursday, January 24, 2019, during the Sixth Theological Inter-denominational Sympos... more Presented on Thursday, January 24, 2019, during the Sixth Theological Inter-denominational Symposium of the Schol of Theology and Religion, University of the Southern Caribbean, in Port of Spain, Trinidad.
This presentation explores the triunity of God’s nature in Scripture from a Seventh-day Adventist point of view.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Published Articles (Peer-reviewed) by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
This article argues that, while theology proper should inform all other areas of theological studies, reading perceived differences of gender roles into the immanent Trinity has serious systematic consequences. Thus, the equality of the Trinity should be preserved by excluding neo-subordinationism from the debate on gender roles. This is accomplished, first, by briefly reviewing the history of the gender debate with a particular focus on the emergence of modern complementarian and egalitarian perspectives and the entrance of neo-subordinationism into complementarian argumentation among evangelicals generally and Seventh-day Adventists specifically. Second, four significant problems of neo-subordinationism for Christian theology are discussed: (1) its failure to adequately account for all the canonical data, (2) its inherent logical inconsistencies, (3) its inaccurate reporting of church history, and (4) its ramifications for soteriology and the character of God. Finally, the article concludes with some recommendations for how to proceed in the gender debate without injuring intra-Trinitarian ontology.
Published Book Reviews by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
Published Book Notices by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
Paper Presentations by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
In Rom 5:6–8, Paul related a robust contrast between divine love, as it was concretely expressed in the death of Christ, and the greatest conceptions of human love of his time. However, much disagreement among scholarship exists regarding this contrast, particularly over its structure and the identification of δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ in Rom 5:7. This paper explores some of these scholarly perspectives and then applies contextual, structural, grammatical-syntactical, and historical-cultural analyses to provide a fresh look at this passage, uncovering its beautiful chiastic arrangement. This chiastic structure is helpful (1) in unlocking the meaning of δικαίου as any morally upright person and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ as a patron or benefactor in Rom 5:7 and (2) in illuminating its contribution to Paul’s overall contrast between divine and human love. When understood in this way, Rom 5:6–8 powerfully communicates the rarity and conditionality of humanity’s greatest expressions of love in contrast to the surprisingly initiatory, unconditional love of God, as it was demonstrated in Christ’s selfless death for morally weak, ungodly sinners. Thus, divine love profoundly unveils the shallowness found in the greatest displays of human love and reaches beyond them to impenetrable depths.
This study seeks to answer this question by conducting an exegetical and intertextual analysis of pneumatological language and concepts in Colossians and the undisputed (primarily) and disputed (secondarily) Pauline writings for the purpose of determining (1) the degree to which the Spirit is present in Colossians and (2) whether or not there is correspondence between the pneumatological content of the undisputed Pauline writings and that of Colossians. This analysis leads the study to conclude that, while pneumatology may be seen as featuring less prominently in Colossians when compared to the undisputed and disputed Pauline writings, it is not altogether absent from it. Rather the Spirit is present in four explicit (Col 1:8, 9; 2:5; 3:16) and several implicit references (of which only seven are discussed) that have deep linguistic and conceptual connections to the pneumatological content in the traditional Pauline corpus. The paper also offers some preliminary suggestions, that need further investigation, for why pneumatology may be less prominent in Colossians than in the rest of the Pauline literature.
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of intra-Trinitarian relations—referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS) or alternatively as eternal relations of authority and submission (ERAS). Current supporters of EFS/ERAS, such as Wayne A. Grudem and Bruce A. Ware, affirm that the three persons of the Trinity—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—are fully equal ontologically, but deny equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. Those who maintain this view assert that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although EFS/ERAS continues to grow in popularity in some circles, there are other evangelical theologians, such as Kevin N. Giles and Millard J. Erickson, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join EFS/ERAS proponents in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity. They alternatively assert what can be called temporary, functional subordination (TFS), meaning that the Son and the Spirit were subordinate in function to the Father only during the times in which they accomplished their respective missions in the plan of redemption.
This paper seeks to test the two theses of EFS/ERAS and TFS regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions? This case study is not intended to definitively settle the debate between EFS/ERAS and TFS—though its aim is to be a small step toward the resolution of this theological conflict—but it is intended (at the least) to advance the dialogue taking place among evangelicals regarding intra-Trinitarian relations.
Specifically, the paper (1) explores whether there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit or a variety of ordering patterns in the NT by building on Roderick K. Durst’s research in Reordering the Trinity: Six Movements of God in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2015); (2) ascertains whether the economic actions of the Son and the Spirit in the plan of redemption are distinct, shared, or both; and (3) examines the major historical, christological movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit. Conducting this case study leads the paper to conclude preliminarily that the NT textual evidence on these three points suggests that (1) various ordering patterns of the Son and the Spirit are used in the NT, (2) the Son and the Spirit share in (at least) many of the same economic roles and functions, and (3) the Son and the Spirit submit to one another at various historical moments in the plan of redemption. Thus, the Son and the Spirit do not relate to one another in a unilateral-hierarchical order, but in a mutual-reciprocal relationship of complete equality.
Many New Testament scholars have noted significant differences between the theology of the undisputed Pauline writings and that of Colossians. One of these differences is the abundance of pneumatology in the former and its apparent absence in the latter. Most scholars agree that pneumatology is a central theme for Paul, but some of them question its presence in Colossians and, therefore, challenge its claimed Pauline authorship (Col 1:1; 4:18). Other scholars see the presence of the Spirit permeating the content of the letter in a way that corresponds with typical Pauline theology. Most, however, recognize some pneumatological references, but these are seen to be few and limited. This debate raises the question: If Colossians is a Pauline epistle, where is the Spirit?
This study seeks to answer this question by conducting an in-depth exegetical and intertextual analysis of pneumatological language and concepts in the undisputed Pauline writings and Colossians for the purpose of determining (1) the degree to which the Spirit is present in Colossians and (2) whether or not there is correspondence between the pneumatological content of the undisputed Pauline writings and that of Colossians. This analysis leads the study to conclude that, while pneumatology features less prominently in Colossians than in the undisputed Pauline writings, it is not altogether absent from it. Rather the Spirit is present in four explicit (Col 1:8, 9; 2:5; 3:16) and many implicit references (of which only seven are presented) that have deep linguistic and conceptual connections to the pneumatological content in the undisputed Pauline writings.
Over the last forty years, the debate over gender roles in the home, church, and society has unprecedentedly escalated among Evangelical Christians—including Seventh-day Adventists—due to the introduction of an alien argumentation that grounds the permanent functional subordination of women to men ontologically in the being of God. This argument, which I have termed “neo-subordinationism,” states that women are ontologically equal but functionally subordinate to men because of a prescriptive hierarchical order that exists in the immanent Trinity and is recognizable through the economic Trinity. In this Trinitarian hierarchy the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be ontologically equal but eternally subordinate in role and authority to the Father with the Holy Spirit also functionally subordinate to the Son. This novel argument has shifted the gender debate from anthropology and ecclesiology to theology proper, a shift that has been called the “turn to the Trinity.” While theology proper should inform all other areas of theological studies, reading perceived differences of gender roles into the immanent Trinity has serious systematic consequences.
This paper argues that the unified equality of the Trinity must be preserved by excluding neo-subordinationism from the discussion on gender roles. This is accomplished first by briefly reviewing the history of the gender debate with a particular focus on the emergence of modern complementarian and egalitarian perspectives and the entrance of neo-subordinationism into complementarian argumentation among Evangelicals generally and Seventh-day Adventists specifically. Second, four significant problems of neo-subordinationism for Christian theology are discussed: (1) its failure to adequately account for the whole of canonical data, (2) its inherent logical inconsistencies, (3) its inaccurate reporting of church history, and (4) its ramifications for soteriology and the character of God. Finally, the paper concludes with some recommendations for how to proceed in the gender debate without injuring intra-Trinitarian ontology.
In Romans 5:6-8, Paul related a robust contrast between the love of God as it was concretely expressed in the death of Christ and the deepest conceptions of human love. However, a great deal of disagreement among scholarship exists regarding the passage’s contrast, particularly over the identification of δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ in v. 7. This paper explores some of these scholarly perspectives and applies literary, syntactical, and historical-cultural analyses to provide another look at the meaning of v. 7 and how it contributes to Paul’s overall contrast between human love and the love of God.
Poster Presentations by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
Statement of the Problem
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of the Trinity-referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS), but will hereafter be called "neo-subordinationism." Neo-subordinationism affirms that the three persons of the Trinity-Father, Son and Holy Spirit-are fully equal ontologically, but denies equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. It asserts that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although neo-subordinationism continues to grow in popularity, there are many evangelical theologians, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join neo-subordinationists in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, essential, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity.
Purpose
This poster seeks to test the theses of these two positions regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions?
Methodology
This poster seeks to answer this question through an exegetical and canonical-theological analysis of relevant NT textual data by (1) exploring whether there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit, (2) ascertaining whether the Son and the Spirit share any economic actions in the plan of redemption, and (3) examining the major historical, christological movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit.
Conclusions
Conducting this analysis leads this poster to conclude that there is no unilateral-hierarchical ordering of the Son and the Spirit in the NT. Rather the Son and Spirit share in many of the same economic actions and mutually submit to one another at various historical moments in the plan of redemption. Thus, the Son and the Spirit do not relate to one another in a unilateral-hierarchical order, but in a mutual-reciprocal love relationship of complete equality.
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of the Trinity—referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS), but will hereafter be called “neo-subordinationism.” Neo-subordinationism affirms that the three persons of the Trinity are fully equal ontologically, but denies equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. It asserts that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although neo-subordinationism continues to grow in popularity, there are many evangelical theologians, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join neo-subordinationists in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, essential, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity.
This poster seeks to test the theses of these two positions regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions?
This poster seeks to answer this question through an exegetical and canonical-theological analysis of relevant NT textual data by (1) exploring whether or not there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit, (2) ascertaining whether or not the Son and the Spirit share any economic actions in the plan of redemption, and (3) examining the major historical movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit.
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of the Trinity—referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS), but will hereafter be called “neo-subordinationism.” Neo-subordinationism affirms that the three persons of the Trinity are fully equal ontologically, but denies equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. It asserts that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although neo-subordinationism continues to grow in popularity, there are many evangelical theologians, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join neo-subordinationists in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, essential, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity.
This poster seeks to test the theses of these two positions regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions?
This poster seeks to answer this question through an exegetical and canonical-theological analysis of relevant NT textual data by (1) exploring whether or not there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit, (2) ascertaining whether or not the Son and the Spirit share any economic actions in the plan of redemption, and (3) examining the major historical movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit.
Conference Presentations by Matthew L Tinkham Jr
This presentation is the first part of a two-part presentation. The second part was presented on Saturday, January 26, 2019. This presentation highlights some principles for understanding history and doctrinal development and will chart the development of the doctrine of the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit in Seventh-day Adventist history. The writings of the key Seventh-day Adventist thought leaders, as well as the crucial events, that eventually led to the current theological position of the denomination are explored.
This presentation examines the current trend in evangelical Christianity (including Seventh-day Adventists) to understand the Trinity in hierarchical terms of authority and submission and will analyze these claims biblically, logically, historically, and theologically.
This presentation explores the triunity of God’s nature in Scripture from a Seventh-day Adventist point of view.
This article argues that, while theology proper should inform all other areas of theological studies, reading perceived differences of gender roles into the immanent Trinity has serious systematic consequences. Thus, the equality of the Trinity should be preserved by excluding neo-subordinationism from the debate on gender roles. This is accomplished, first, by briefly reviewing the history of the gender debate with a particular focus on the emergence of modern complementarian and egalitarian perspectives and the entrance of neo-subordinationism into complementarian argumentation among evangelicals generally and Seventh-day Adventists specifically. Second, four significant problems of neo-subordinationism for Christian theology are discussed: (1) its failure to adequately account for all the canonical data, (2) its inherent logical inconsistencies, (3) its inaccurate reporting of church history, and (4) its ramifications for soteriology and the character of God. Finally, the article concludes with some recommendations for how to proceed in the gender debate without injuring intra-Trinitarian ontology.
In Rom 5:6–8, Paul related a robust contrast between divine love, as it was concretely expressed in the death of Christ, and the greatest conceptions of human love of his time. However, much disagreement among scholarship exists regarding this contrast, particularly over its structure and the identification of δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ in Rom 5:7. This paper explores some of these scholarly perspectives and then applies contextual, structural, grammatical-syntactical, and historical-cultural analyses to provide a fresh look at this passage, uncovering its beautiful chiastic arrangement. This chiastic structure is helpful (1) in unlocking the meaning of δικαίου as any morally upright person and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ as a patron or benefactor in Rom 5:7 and (2) in illuminating its contribution to Paul’s overall contrast between divine and human love. When understood in this way, Rom 5:6–8 powerfully communicates the rarity and conditionality of humanity’s greatest expressions of love in contrast to the surprisingly initiatory, unconditional love of God, as it was demonstrated in Christ’s selfless death for morally weak, ungodly sinners. Thus, divine love profoundly unveils the shallowness found in the greatest displays of human love and reaches beyond them to impenetrable depths.
This study seeks to answer this question by conducting an exegetical and intertextual analysis of pneumatological language and concepts in Colossians and the undisputed (primarily) and disputed (secondarily) Pauline writings for the purpose of determining (1) the degree to which the Spirit is present in Colossians and (2) whether or not there is correspondence between the pneumatological content of the undisputed Pauline writings and that of Colossians. This analysis leads the study to conclude that, while pneumatology may be seen as featuring less prominently in Colossians when compared to the undisputed and disputed Pauline writings, it is not altogether absent from it. Rather the Spirit is present in four explicit (Col 1:8, 9; 2:5; 3:16) and several implicit references (of which only seven are discussed) that have deep linguistic and conceptual connections to the pneumatological content in the traditional Pauline corpus. The paper also offers some preliminary suggestions, that need further investigation, for why pneumatology may be less prominent in Colossians than in the rest of the Pauline literature.
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of intra-Trinitarian relations—referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS) or alternatively as eternal relations of authority and submission (ERAS). Current supporters of EFS/ERAS, such as Wayne A. Grudem and Bruce A. Ware, affirm that the three persons of the Trinity—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—are fully equal ontologically, but deny equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. Those who maintain this view assert that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although EFS/ERAS continues to grow in popularity in some circles, there are other evangelical theologians, such as Kevin N. Giles and Millard J. Erickson, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join EFS/ERAS proponents in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity. They alternatively assert what can be called temporary, functional subordination (TFS), meaning that the Son and the Spirit were subordinate in function to the Father only during the times in which they accomplished their respective missions in the plan of redemption.
This paper seeks to test the two theses of EFS/ERAS and TFS regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions? This case study is not intended to definitively settle the debate between EFS/ERAS and TFS—though its aim is to be a small step toward the resolution of this theological conflict—but it is intended (at the least) to advance the dialogue taking place among evangelicals regarding intra-Trinitarian relations.
Specifically, the paper (1) explores whether there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit or a variety of ordering patterns in the NT by building on Roderick K. Durst’s research in Reordering the Trinity: Six Movements of God in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2015); (2) ascertains whether the economic actions of the Son and the Spirit in the plan of redemption are distinct, shared, or both; and (3) examines the major historical, christological movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit. Conducting this case study leads the paper to conclude preliminarily that the NT textual evidence on these three points suggests that (1) various ordering patterns of the Son and the Spirit are used in the NT, (2) the Son and the Spirit share in (at least) many of the same economic roles and functions, and (3) the Son and the Spirit submit to one another at various historical moments in the plan of redemption. Thus, the Son and the Spirit do not relate to one another in a unilateral-hierarchical order, but in a mutual-reciprocal relationship of complete equality.
Many New Testament scholars have noted significant differences between the theology of the undisputed Pauline writings and that of Colossians. One of these differences is the abundance of pneumatology in the former and its apparent absence in the latter. Most scholars agree that pneumatology is a central theme for Paul, but some of them question its presence in Colossians and, therefore, challenge its claimed Pauline authorship (Col 1:1; 4:18). Other scholars see the presence of the Spirit permeating the content of the letter in a way that corresponds with typical Pauline theology. Most, however, recognize some pneumatological references, but these are seen to be few and limited. This debate raises the question: If Colossians is a Pauline epistle, where is the Spirit?
This study seeks to answer this question by conducting an in-depth exegetical and intertextual analysis of pneumatological language and concepts in the undisputed Pauline writings and Colossians for the purpose of determining (1) the degree to which the Spirit is present in Colossians and (2) whether or not there is correspondence between the pneumatological content of the undisputed Pauline writings and that of Colossians. This analysis leads the study to conclude that, while pneumatology features less prominently in Colossians than in the undisputed Pauline writings, it is not altogether absent from it. Rather the Spirit is present in four explicit (Col 1:8, 9; 2:5; 3:16) and many implicit references (of which only seven are presented) that have deep linguistic and conceptual connections to the pneumatological content in the undisputed Pauline writings.
Over the last forty years, the debate over gender roles in the home, church, and society has unprecedentedly escalated among Evangelical Christians—including Seventh-day Adventists—due to the introduction of an alien argumentation that grounds the permanent functional subordination of women to men ontologically in the being of God. This argument, which I have termed “neo-subordinationism,” states that women are ontologically equal but functionally subordinate to men because of a prescriptive hierarchical order that exists in the immanent Trinity and is recognizable through the economic Trinity. In this Trinitarian hierarchy the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be ontologically equal but eternally subordinate in role and authority to the Father with the Holy Spirit also functionally subordinate to the Son. This novel argument has shifted the gender debate from anthropology and ecclesiology to theology proper, a shift that has been called the “turn to the Trinity.” While theology proper should inform all other areas of theological studies, reading perceived differences of gender roles into the immanent Trinity has serious systematic consequences.
This paper argues that the unified equality of the Trinity must be preserved by excluding neo-subordinationism from the discussion on gender roles. This is accomplished first by briefly reviewing the history of the gender debate with a particular focus on the emergence of modern complementarian and egalitarian perspectives and the entrance of neo-subordinationism into complementarian argumentation among Evangelicals generally and Seventh-day Adventists specifically. Second, four significant problems of neo-subordinationism for Christian theology are discussed: (1) its failure to adequately account for the whole of canonical data, (2) its inherent logical inconsistencies, (3) its inaccurate reporting of church history, and (4) its ramifications for soteriology and the character of God. Finally, the paper concludes with some recommendations for how to proceed in the gender debate without injuring intra-Trinitarian ontology.
In Romans 5:6-8, Paul related a robust contrast between the love of God as it was concretely expressed in the death of Christ and the deepest conceptions of human love. However, a great deal of disagreement among scholarship exists regarding the passage’s contrast, particularly over the identification of δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ in v. 7. This paper explores some of these scholarly perspectives and applies literary, syntactical, and historical-cultural analyses to provide another look at the meaning of v. 7 and how it contributes to Paul’s overall contrast between human love and the love of God.
Statement of the Problem
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of the Trinity-referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS), but will hereafter be called "neo-subordinationism." Neo-subordinationism affirms that the three persons of the Trinity-Father, Son and Holy Spirit-are fully equal ontologically, but denies equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. It asserts that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although neo-subordinationism continues to grow in popularity, there are many evangelical theologians, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join neo-subordinationists in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, essential, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity.
Purpose
This poster seeks to test the theses of these two positions regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions?
Methodology
This poster seeks to answer this question through an exegetical and canonical-theological analysis of relevant NT textual data by (1) exploring whether there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit, (2) ascertaining whether the Son and the Spirit share any economic actions in the plan of redemption, and (3) examining the major historical, christological movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit.
Conclusions
Conducting this analysis leads this poster to conclude that there is no unilateral-hierarchical ordering of the Son and the Spirit in the NT. Rather the Son and Spirit share in many of the same economic actions and mutually submit to one another at various historical moments in the plan of redemption. Thus, the Son and the Spirit do not relate to one another in a unilateral-hierarchical order, but in a mutual-reciprocal love relationship of complete equality.
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of the Trinity—referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS), but will hereafter be called “neo-subordinationism.” Neo-subordinationism affirms that the three persons of the Trinity are fully equal ontologically, but denies equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. It asserts that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although neo-subordinationism continues to grow in popularity, there are many evangelical theologians, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join neo-subordinationists in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, essential, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity.
This poster seeks to test the theses of these two positions regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions?
This poster seeks to answer this question through an exegetical and canonical-theological analysis of relevant NT textual data by (1) exploring whether or not there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit, (2) ascertaining whether or not the Son and the Spirit share any economic actions in the plan of redemption, and (3) examining the major historical movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit.
Over the last forty years, the Trinity has become a central topic of debate among evangelical theologians in all disciplines due to the popularization of a newer conception of the Trinity—referred to by many as eternal, functional subordination (EFS), but will hereafter be called “neo-subordinationism.” Neo-subordinationism affirms that the three persons of the Trinity are fully equal ontologically, but denies equality in terms of roles, functions, and authority. It asserts that there is a unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern that is essential to the triune God in which the Son is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father, and the Spirit is exclusively subordinated in function and authority to the Father and the Son (for those who accept the filioque clause) in eternity. Although neo-subordinationism continues to grow in popularity, there are many evangelical theologians, who have heavily criticized this conception of the Trinity, declaring it to be a significant departure from Scripture and traditional Christian orthodoxy. While these scholars join neo-subordinationists in upholding the full ontological equality of the Trinitarian persons, they adamantly disagree with an eternal, essential, unilateral hierarchy in the Trinity.
This poster seeks to test the theses of these two positions regarding intra-Trinitarian relationships by way of a case study on the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the New Testament (NT) in order to answer the following research question: does the NT portray the relationship between the Son and the Spirit as a unilateral-hierarchical relationship in which the Spirit is eternally subordinated in role, function, and authority to the Son or as a mutual-reciprocal relationship in which they equally share authority and have overlapping roles and functions?
This poster seeks to answer this question through an exegetical and canonical-theological analysis of relevant NT textual data by (1) exploring whether or not there is a consistent, unilateral-hierarchical ordering pattern of the Son and the Spirit, (2) ascertaining whether or not the Son and the Spirit share any economic actions in the plan of redemption, and (3) examining the major historical movements of the Trinity in the NT to determine if there is a unilateral-hierarchical or mutual-reciprocal relationship between the Son and the Spirit.
This presentation is the first part of a two-part presentation. The second part was presented on Saturday, January 26, 2019. This presentation highlights some principles for understanding history and doctrinal development and will chart the development of the doctrine of the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit in Seventh-day Adventist history. The writings of the key Seventh-day Adventist thought leaders, as well as the crucial events, that eventually led to the current theological position of the denomination are explored.
This presentation examines the current trend in evangelical Christianity (including Seventh-day Adventists) to understand the Trinity in hierarchical terms of authority and submission and will analyze these claims biblically, logically, historically, and theologically.
This presentation explores the triunity of God’s nature in Scripture from a Seventh-day Adventist point of view.
This presentation discusses some of the key interpretative principles and evaluates different methodological approaches in the study of the triune God in order to find a way forward for how Seventh-day Adventists should approach this important doctrine of the church. Principles, such as God's mystery, divine accommodation, partitive exegesis, and univocal vs. equivocal vs. analogical reading, are explored.