Contra Barrett (Part 5): On the new post-2016 EFS

At first, Ware prommises he is orthodox and Nicene, but the more he elaborates, the more noticeable it becomes that he is dissatisfied with the way the Nicene fathers and the Great Tradition have articulated the Trinity. For example, the oorthodox "appeal to divine apprpopriations falls short of expressing fully what Scripture indicates regarding the functional relations." "Yes, the order of operations ad extra is expressive of the order of relations ad intra, but saying only this excludes a significant portion of scriptural indications." What exactly is excluded and "missing""? Authority. Hierarchy. Inside the Trinity. Without authority-submission within the immanent Trinity, Ware believes the Father sending the Son is but a "mechanical" and "impersonal outworking of the relations of origin." (Matthew Barrett, Simply Trinity, 224)

The fallout from the 2016 ESS fiasco did indeed result in some positive changes, in that more orthodox language and concepts were adopted by many biblicists. Nevertheless, according to Barrett, all changes are at best cosmetic and at worst make the "heresy" even worse. Reacting to Bruce Ware's 2019 article, Barrett charges that (1) Ware is "dissastified with the Nicene fathers and the Great Tradition," and Barrett thinks that anyone who thinks the Nicene doctrine of God is not the pinnacle of orthodoxy to be one of at least questionable faith, and (2) still thinks that EFS teaches authority-submission within the immanent Trinity. We will look at these in turn.

First, Barrett is highly critical of anyone who is "dissatisfied with the Nicene fathers" and the 'Great Tradition.' Note here the elevation and capitalization of the "Great Tradition." But just what is this "Great Tradition"? Barrett is using it as a short form for classical theism, but not just any classical theism but Thomism. Saint Thomas Aquinas is now his patron saint it seems! But this whole idea that there is a Great Tradition which holds to everything Barrett is teaching is a mirage. Thomas Aquinas's view is not the only claassical theist view concerning the doctrine of God. This is not to mention the total neglect of Eastern Orthodox views with its idea of the essence- energies distinction. The "Great Tradition" Barrett is promoting is as much a modern phenomenon as EFS. The only difference is one has Saint Thomas while the other doesn't.

It must be noted that the doctrine of God is never static. The idea that even pro-Nicene thought is the same as Thomist classical theism is a figment of Barrett's imagination. If the Nicene doctrine of God is the pinnacle of orthodoxy, then why should the charge that Thomas Aquinas is "dissastified with the Nicene faith" not be true, since he adds to the Nicene doctrine of God as well? The fact of the matter is that everyone by virtue of being a theologian "adds to" the Nicene faith, as long as one attempts to formulate what one believes to be the biblical view of the Trinity.

That goes to the heart of the problem with Barrett's attack on Bruce Ware. It is false to think that dissastifaction with the Nicene fathers is a bad thing, because everyone including Barrrett alters or improves upon the beliefs of others. The only difference is that some are more honest about their theological project than others. Barrett himself is not content with the Nicene faith but embraces Thomas' views of the Trinity. And, as we shall see in future posts, Barrrett's view of the Trinity is itself not the same as older classical theist views.

Secondly, Barrett doubles down on his accusation that EFS teaches that authority and submission is within the immanent Trinity. However, he gave no proof that this is the case. As I have mentioned earlier, any talk of the inner life of the Trinity should not be read as pertaining to the immanent Trinity. Since immanent Trinity refers to God in His being, and EFS is not about being but function, therefore EFS by definition is not about the immanent Trinity, no matter what Barrett says.