Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 167:668 (Oct 2010)
Article: Book Reviews
Author: Matthew S. DeMoss

BSac 167:668 (October-December 2010) p. 486

Book Reviews

By The Faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary

Matthew S. DeMoss

Editor

Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate. By Millard J. Erickson. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009. 272 pp. $19.99.

Erickson, one of the most respected theologians of recent decades, presents an analysis of debate between those who advocate equal authority within the eternal Trinitarian relations versus others who contend that God the Son is eternally subordinate to the authority of the Father. After briefly tracing his involvement in the debate the author states, “My aim here has been to investigate as thoroughly and fairly as possible the alternative positions on the subject before attempting to decide which is the more adequate theory” (p. 11).

The work begins with a general overview of the two sides of the debate (chaps. 1-2). Erickson shifts away from somewhat common terminology to define Trinitarian complementarianism as the “gradational-authority view” and the egalitarian perspective as the “equivalent-authority view.” That the popular terminology related to the gender-debate has weaknesses is surely true (both sides claim the term “complementarianism”), but whether Erickson’s authority-oriented terminology adequately addresses the tensions is less persuasive.

The author establishes a well-organized structure for the discussion (chap. 3) and proceeds to evaluate biblical, philosophical, theological, and practical dimensions of the debate (chaps. 4-8). Here the work traces the larger dimensions of the controversy and provides background to the current discussion. In forming his case Erickson follows his dialectical approach of assessing two sides, in this case especially the arguments of Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem over against those of Gilbert Bilezikian and Kevin Giles. Committed to the inerrancy of the Bible, Erickson nevertheless contends that exegesis itself does not carry the day because presuppositions and personal motivations influence one’s understanding of the text. He gives significant attention to philosophic issues (chaps. 3 and 6) that together with theological issues (chap. 7) necessarily contribute to one’s doctrine of God. In light of some passages that affirm the equality of the Son with the Father, Erickson deduces that biblical texts that refer to the Son’s subjection to the Father are related only to salvation history. “Thus they do not count as evidence in support of an eternal supremacy of the Father and an eternal subordination of the Son” (p. 138). Passages referring to divine order in creation (John 1:1-18; You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe