Contra Barrett (Part 2): EFS and "hierarchy inside God"

For EFS, the position of supremacy wihtin the Trinity belongs to the Father alone, not to the Son, and definitely not to the Spirit, who has the least authority of all. The Father alone is "supreme among the persons of the Godhead."¹³ He alone has "ultimate supremacy," and he alone is "supreme in the Trinity." ¹⁴. The Father "stands above the Son," and the "Father has absolute and uncontested supremacy, inluding authority over the Son and Spirit,"¹⁵ The Father "stands above the Son" and is "supreme within the Godhead."¹⁶

EFSers were adamant that these indications of supremacy and subordination tell us who the persons are apart from creation and salvation. They are even person-defining. Just as subordination distinguishes the Son as Son, so too does supremacy distinguish the Father as Father within the Trinity. Apart from these roles there is no Trinity, a point Grudem also stressed repeatedly.¹⁷(Matthew Barrett, Simply Trinity, 217)

13. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 46-51

14. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 65

15. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 49, 153, emphasis added.

16. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 51.

17. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 251. C.f. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism, 47, 433; Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womandhood, 457, 540.

.

.

So it appears that McCall confuses two sets of properties that are distinguished within the ERAS position: (1) properties possessed fully and eternally by the Father, by the Son, and by the Spirit, of the one and undiviede essence—properties, then, that are the essential attributes of God comprising the eternal nature of God, which is the one and same divine nature possessed fully and eternally by the Father, and by the Son, and by the Spirit— and (2) properties possessed distinctly by the Father, and other properties possessed distinctly by the Son, and yet other properties possessed distinctly by the Spirit, as properties of each of their respective persons&mdassh;distinctly relational and personal properties, which must not be confused with the essential attributes of the one common divine nature. When advocates of ERAS state that the Son possessed eternally the property of being under the authority of the Father, they also propose this as a relational property of the Son's personhood and not an atttribute of the Son's essence. [Bruce A. Ware, "Does Affirming an Eternal Authority-Submission Relationship in the Trinity Ential a Denial of Homoousios?: A Response fo Millard Erikcson and Tom McCall," in Bruce A. Ware and John Starke, eds., One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 245]

In the previous installment, we have seen how Matthew Barrett distorts Bruce Ware's words. While Ware argues for the application of ERAS to our roles in life, Barrett states that Ware is teaching that the trinity is a relational community in those very same sentences. But besides asserting thus, Barrett also asserts that Ware (and EFS) teaches a "hierarchy inside God." Is Barrett right in that representation?

On the surface, Barrett's argument seems convincing. Flipping to the pages referenced in endnotes 13 to 16, one can see the exact words, and the immediate context seem to support Barrett's argument. However, in order to get a grasp at what EFS teaches, one must read what EFS teaches in general, and interpret Ware's words accordingly.

We read, in a later article written in a more recent book, One God in Three Persons, that Ware conceives of properties in two levels: (1) properties of the one essence, and (2) properties of each person. In other words, personal properties do not affect the one essence. While less clear in his older book Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is more charitable to interpret what he says about any distinctions of the persons as pertaining to their personal properties, not each person as to their one essence. As I have said in my review of that book, "uncharitable interpretations are available for those who do not read the cues properly." But taking the charitable reading is to see that the mountain of evidence mustered by Barrett should be recognized as pertaining not to the divine essence and to each person in their essential relations, but to their personal relations. Now, does that answer all concerns? I am not claiming that it does, but at least such a charitable reading should show us that the references mustered by Barrett is at the least misleading.

Now, is there "hierarchy inside God"? It depends on what you mean by the term "hierarchy"? If by "hierarchy," it is implied that there are grades of being, or that one person is superior to the other in nature, then EFS rejects "hierarchy" altogether. If by "hierarchy" one means higher and lower roles, higher and lower distinctions, then it could be argued that some EFSers would assert that to be true. However, I myself would reject "hierarchy" altogether, because I do not believe even a difference in roles and eminance in functions indicate any higher or lower status of any sorts.

Therefore, to the question, the short answer is that, "no, there is no hierarchy in the being of God," "maybe, there might be a functional hierarchy among the persons of the Godhead," and "no, distinctions in roles and eminance are not hierarchical among the persons of the Trinity." Barrett's statement that EFS believes in "hierarchy inside God" is at best misleading, and at worst in error.