Three In One: Analogies for the Trinity (William David Spencer)

TITLE: Three In One: Analogies for the Trinity

AUTOR: David Spencer

PUBLISHER: Kregel Academic (November 15, 2022)

I’ve always been a little suspicious about the analogies we use when explaining the doctrine of the Trinity. “God is like water because it is a vapor, liquid, and solid.” “God is like an egg because there is a yoke, a white, and a shell.” “God is like…” name your metaphor that attempts to 1 the 3. Over the years I have come to believe that we do this because we want to deal with any possible notions of a contradiction.

William Spencer’s book Three In One: Analogies for the Trinity thoroughly deals with Trinitarian analogies. As a Distinguished Adjunct Professor at Gordon-Conwell Spencer acknowledges the complex style that many in his field of Theology write with. Therefore he expresses one of his goals is to write this book as “plainly” and “engagingly as possible.” Not only do I think he met that goal but I highly recommend this volume to anyone trying to better their understanding of the Trinity.

As we see from the sub-title the question that Spencer deals with is Trinitarian analogies. Spencer sets out to determine whether or not it is appropriate to use images when explaining the Trinity. He writes, “…because the Trinity is so other than anything in our world that it must have been revealed from outside our realm of understanding. So maybe we should not try to illustrate God.”(P36) To this Spencer’s conclusion is one of discernment. He still sees the need to illustrate God but to do so in such a way that we don’t misrepresent His Triune nature. Therefore Spencer will spend several chapters attempting to understand Jesus’ approach to using imagery culminating in the imagery of light for the Triune God.

In review are the usual analogies that we are all familiar with and even a few that we aren’t very familiar with. Spencer divides these up into images that move and change. More specifically he examines the water imagery for the Trinity. He then reviews nonhuman images that are static. This is where he discusses images such as the egg, the shamrock, nature, and various others. Next, he looks at human images that are static like our bodies, one person yet three parts. Lastly, he looks at the image of God as a divine family. Spencer does a good job of pointing out the benefits of this type of imagery but ultimately does not find them to be beneficial.

This is a useful book that would help believers understand this essential doctrine in a more robust way and perhaps be able to communicate it more effectively. Spencer helpfully deals with the challenges of using different analogies and explains their lack of explanatory force. He also provides a possible solution found in the imagery of light. This is a very readable volume which makes it very useful. I would give it 5 out of 5 stars. 

---

This book has been provided courtesy of Kregel Academic without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.  

The Kingdom Question: Acts 1

It was recently brought to my attention that the first chapter of the book of Acts refutes the idea of Christ’s present reign.  Historically the church has seen the Biblical understanding of God’s kingdom as a present reality that becomes fully actualized at Christ’s second coming.  In contemporary evangelical circles there has been a push to set God’ kingdom out after Christ’s second coming during a 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth.  In light of this question and the one put to me I went back to the text and this is what I found.

The claim that Acts 1 refutes the idea of an existing kingdom comes from a question raised by the disciples.  The question was this:

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:6-8 ESV)

The argument by the millennialists (those who would like to see God’s kingdom established in a future millennium) is, if in fact God’s kingdom is a present reality why wouldn’t our Lord just say it here in this passage?  In other words His response to this question should have been something like, “the kingdom is presently being restored to Israel.”  Since He did not say that then the kingdom must be a future reality not a present reality.  We would call this argument fallacious since it creates a false dilemma.  Either Jesus uses this question to explain a present reality or the kingdom must be a future reality.  Obviously when we think of the numerous reasons why a thing isn’t so we realize this is overly simplistic reasoning.  In fact it is the kind of reasoning John Mac Arthur employs in his lecture “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is Pre-millennial”.

Since we do not know the thinking of our Lord when He answered the question in the way that He did, we are left with the task of having to figure this one out by looking at the text of Scripture.  First we know that Jesus began his earthly ministry proclaim that the kingdom of God is at hand (Matt 3.2, Mark 1.15).  It is clear from our Acts passage that some of the disciples still believed that the Messiah was a political ruler who would stomp out the Romans and reclaim Israel.  However, Acts 2 Peter tells a different story.

Before looking at Acts 2 there are some remarks to be made with regards to Acts 1.  Notice, our Lord begins by saying “It is not for you to know.”  As students we need to be aware that there are things that are not for us to know and we have to be careful that we don’t speculate about these things.  However, what our Lord does tell them is that they will receive power and they will be witnesses not only in Jerusalem, not only in Judea and Samaria, but to the end of the earth.  This was very different from the popular notion of the concurring Messiah.  Now we turn the page to Acts 2.

In Acts 2 we see these very things take place.  That is they received the power of the Holy Spirit and their witness has spread to the end of the earth.  However, there is something important to notice in Peter’s interpretation of David’s prophecy.  Namely, the one that they thought would rule from David’s thrown and restore Israel 2 Samuel 7 is none other than Christ our Lord.

“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,
“‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:29-36 ESV)

Therefore, Peter is using David’s prophecy to show its fulfillment in our Lord’s Ascension to the right hand of the Father where He is ruling and reigning.  Peter gives us no indication of a return to OT type and shadow, and no indication of a second or a future reign.  Peter is saying this is the fulfillment of OT prophecy so that when we see the Holy Spirit being poured out at Pentecost we can then know and understand Christ’s kingship.  Prior to this the disciples couldn’t fathom what a true restoration of Israel’s kingdom would like.  Now they see what they thought restoration was greatly underestimated by them.  

Quote Of The Day

“We must stress that the basis for our faith is neither experience nor emotion but the truth as God has given it in verbalized, prepositional form in the Scripture and which we first of all apprehend with our minds.” -Francis Schaeffer (The New Super-Spirituality, IVP, 1972, p. 24.)

Euthyphro Dilemma

Lets think about ethics for a minute because I think there has been some confusion over some key metaphysical issues in theology.  

In Plato’s Euthyphro a dialogue takes places between Euthyphro and Socrates over the nature of piety.  Euthyphro begins throwing out different definitions for piety which Socrates socratically dismisses in a way that only Socrates can.  For our purpose we want to focus in on the second definition that Euthyphro gives.  Here he says that “piety is what all the gods love, and impiety is what all the gods hate.”  What is interesting is what Socrates says in response, “do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because they love it?”

Socrates’ question is one of those locus classicus questions some times referred to as the “Euthyphro Dilemma.”  What Socrates is getting at if I might amplify is:

Q.1 God command X because it is morally obligatory.

Or

Q.2 X is morally obligatory because God commanded it. 

How one answers these questions has much to say about her understanding of God.

Q.1 assumes that X is independent of God.  That is to say that moral actions are right or wrong in themselves.  This was the understanding that both Socrates and Euthyphro both agree on, the gods love piety because it is pious.  

Having made their appeal for Q.1 necessarily means they must reject Q.2 on the basis that the god’s loving the pious does not explain why the pious is the pious.  Or in our example above God commanding X does not explain X.  

Lastly, both Q.1 and Q.2 cannot both be true because to say that “God commands X because it is morally obligatory and X is morally obligatory because God commands it” is circular reasoning.  In either case Socrates’ initial question goes unanswered.  Namely, what is the nature of moral laws?

The problem is in Socrates’ question itself “do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because they love it?”  It creates an either or situation or false dilemma without the possibility of a third option.  Namely, that the nature of morality is God Himself.  

God is moral and is the standard of morality therefore when it comes to moral laws He looks only to Himself.  Q.1 fails to answer the question because it assumes moral laws are independent of God.  If moral laws are independent of God then they exist outside of God requiring God’s obedience.  Thus these moral laws would be deified above God and command as His obedience to them is required. If that was the case He would then lose His God like qualities and cease to be God.  

The bottom line is that God does not conform to nor does He simply create moral laws.  Rather, moral laws reflect His character. That is to say that moral laws are a reflection of the way God acts and expects us to act in moral situations.

Book Review

40 Questions About Biblical Theology – November 24, 2020
by Jason DeRouchie (Author), Oren Martin (Author), Andrew Naselli (Author), Kregel Academic (November 24, 2020), 400 pp., 978-0825445606.


I would like to begin with a kudo to Benjamin Merkle, Series Editor for the 40 Questions series. If you are not familiar the series covers a broad range of theological, Biblical, and hermeneutical topics. What is unique about this series is that each volume follows an interrogative approach to each topic answering 40 of the most relevant questions on the subject at hand. I have found these volumes to be timely, thorough, and very accessible to all types of readers. So if you haven’t already done so do a quick search through the series and review the different topics. It would be well worth your time.

40 Questions About Biblical Theology (40Q)is one more addition to the 40 Question series. This book is divided into five sections: Defining Biblical Theology, Exploring Method in Biblical Theology, Illustrating Biblical Theology-Tracing Themes, Illustrating Biblical Theology-The Use of Earlier Scripture In Later Scripture, and Applying Biblical Theology. Each section provides the reader with questions relevant to the section. Each section also ends with a summary of the chapter as well as reflection questions. The book ends with a helpful Scripture index.

Question one begins with the important question “What do we mean by “Biblical Theology”? The answer given “Biblical theology is a way of analyzing and synthesizing the Bible that makes organic, salvation-historical connections with the whole cannon on its own terms, especially regarding how the Old and New Testaments progress, integrate, and climax in Christ.”(P.20) If you think of the analogy of a house. There are many essential parts like the roof, the walls, doors, and windows, all of which make up what we know as “house”. However, without the framework none of these essential parts would have a place to rest. Biblical theology is very much like the framework that supports our central understanding of Scripture which is Christ.

Throughout theological history the “framework” has taken on different modes. The book lists three in particular. They are, Dispensational Theology, Covenant Theology, and Progressive Covenantalism. The preference of this book is Progressive Covenantalism. The differences between these theological systems is the difference between discontinuities and and continuities between the Old and New Testament. For example many Dispensationalist will describe discontinuities of God’s redemptive plan where Covenentalists view God’s redemptive plan as one continuous plan from Genesis to Revelation. As the book correctly observes Dispensational Theology sees discontinuities throughout Scripture. Covenantal Theology on the other hand views a continuity throughout Scripture. According to the authors Progressive Covenantalism also sees the continuous nature of God’s redemptive plan but at the same time recognizes the newness of the New Covenant.          

My thoughts on this volume. I think it’s great. It is important for the church today to openly read and discuss Biblical Theology and the fact that 40Q does this from a covenantal perspective is all the more important. Moreover, this is not the kind of subject restricted for the ivory towers only. This should be discussed and understood at every age of believer. This volume is very helpful when it comes to understanding the issues and explaining the concepts. The authors are very capable and as Thomas R. Schreiner has said, “We benefit as readers in having an Old Testament scholar, A New Testament Scholar, and a Systematic Theologian working together on the project.” It is true that this interdisciplinary approach has given the subject a certain depth I haven’t seen in other treatments on the same subject.

My personal rating for this volume is 5 out of 5 stars.



This book has been provided courtesy of Kregel Academic without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.  

Book Review

The ESV Expository Commentary on Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, and Galatians is a helpful tool for teachers, lay leaders, and for personal devotion. The goal of each commentator-which I think was successfully achieved-was to produce a commentary that was exegetically sound, biblically theological, and application minded to name just a few of the commentary’s characteristics.  The contributors to this volume are:

Series Editor: Iain M. Duguid Series Editor

Series Editor: James M. Hamilton Jr.

Series Editor: Jay Sklar

Romans: Robert Yarbrough

1 Corinthians: Andrew Naselli

2 Corinthians: Dane Ortlund

Galatians: Frank Thielman

Each book provides a discussion of the historical background, genre, purpose, theology, as well as other relevant topics. Following the introduction, each book is broken down into sections, verses, section overview, outline, commentary, and response which provides a summary as well as practical application. I have provided a screenshot below of Romans 1:1 to get a feel for the accessible reading style.  

My personal rating for this volume is 5 out of 5 stars.

From the publisher:

Designed to help the church understand and apply the overarching storyline of the Bible, the ESV Expository Commentary is broadly accessible, theologically enriching, and pastorally wise. It features clear, crisp, and Christ-centered exposition and application from a team of respected pastor-theologians. With exegetically sound, broadly reformed, biblical-theological, passage-by-passage commentary, this volume was written to help pastors and Bible readers around the world understand the riches of God’s Word.

---

This book has been provided courtesy of Crossway without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.

Book Review

TITLE: Bavinck: A Critical Biography

AUTHOR: James Eglinton

PUBLISHER: Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020

I have to admit I was excited about reading James Eglinton’s Bavinck: A Critical Biography. My interest in Bavinck (1854-1921) came as a result of my early readings of Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987). From Van Til it doesn’t take long to notice the name Herman Bavinck which repeatedly comes up in Van Til’s texts, footnotes, and lectures. Van Til was so influenced by Bavinck he used to say of Bavinck’s Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Reformed Dogmatics) is “the greatest and most comprehensive statement of Reformed systematic theology in modern times.” From such a glowing endorsement I became interested in Bavinck the theologian and have gained a wealth of insight yet without ever really knowing very much about Bavinck the man.

Bavink lived during a great transitional period in Dutch life. The Netherlands had migrated from an authoritarian monarchy to a state-sponsored liberal democracy. Under the state, there were many restrictions over religion. The government executed full control over religion from the songs that were sung to the sermons preached by the pastor. These state sponsored Churches were not known for their brimming orthodoxy but appear to have been institutions for the propagation of modernity. Out of this modernist movement were churches who opposed the heterodoxy of the state-sponsored churches and stood for orthodox Reformed Christianity. Against the backdrop of these modernist Churches, the orthodox Calvinistic Churches seemed out of place or out of touch with the new modernity. It was out of this tension between orthodoxy and modernity that Bavinck emerged as one of the most important theologians in Dutch history and one of the shining lights of Christendom. 

As a young man, he received a traditional rigorous education. He was trained in the classical languages, Humanities, Music, Mathematics, and Logic. He transferred to the University of Leiden where his Christian convictions were at odds with the student party life. “Three hundredth anniversary of founding of Leiden, I was not in a festive mood and thus didn’t enjoy it much I saw the teeming crowd, that only uses the day as a reason for excess and debauchery, and then I thought, how little God is recognized for what he gives us.” “In those early student days, Bavinck found it hard to feel at home in a city where few felt any need to live Coram Deo. Life in Leiden was jarringly secular.”  While that kept him from certain aspects of student life his pastor at Leiden was able to mentor Bavinck and taught him to have a more integrated existence on campus. But it wasn’t just the social life at Leiden that Bavinck found troubling.  Many of his Professors were celebrity liberal Theologians whose teachings challenged the teachings of his upbringing. For Bavinck, his college experience wasn’t just academic. He had to learn to exist in an environment that was hostile to his faith and at the same time learn how to engage it with his conservative orthodoxy. It was that dualistic approach that became his method for his entire career. For some, it has caused so much confusion that some writers view him as a double-minded figure. But for Eglinton, this ability to speak orthodoxy into the modernist vernacular simply demonstrated Bavinck’s genius. Bavinck went on to become a Pastor, Professor, Theologian, Journal editor, and Statesman. 

I’m not sure if anyone-besides Eglinton- has written a critical biography on Herman Bavinck yet. A “critical biography” sounds like something one would write to dismantle and poke holes in a person’s life and expose hypocracies or theological inconsistencies. But, a critical biography looks at the sources of the individual’s life and allows them to speak for themselves. Letters, notes, essays, publications, diaries, newspaper articles all become the subject of inquiry in a critical biography so that it wouldn’t be as if the biographer was simply telling the story he wants to tell about the individual void of any significant evidence. Good or bad the critical biography gives a well-examined account of the individual’s life and because of his extensive research into Bavinck there is no one better suited to give that account than Eglinton.

Bavinck consists of five parts that are in order of chronology as they progress through Bavinck’s life. Among the five parts are eleven chapters broken into five parts chronologically progressing through Bavinck’s life. Part one covering the first three chapters discusses Bavinck’s life and family context and begins with his childhood and early schooling. Part two develops further into his early education and part three explains his life as a pastor. Parts four and five discuss professorship at both Kampen and Amsterdam. Bavinck is a fantastic read that many in the church today can identify with. I would give Bavinck by James Eglinton 5 stars out 5. 

James P. Eglinton is the Meldrum Senior Lecturer in Reformed Theology at the University of Edinburgh. He previously served as senior researcher in systematic and historical theology at the Theologische Universiteit Kampen. He is the author of Bavinck: A Critical Biography (Baker, 2020), and Trinity and Organism (Bloomsbury, 2012). He edited and translated Herman Bavinck on Preaching and Preachers (Hendrickson, 2017), co-edited and co-translated Christian Worldview (Crossway, 2019), and co-edited Neo-Calvinism and the French Revolution (Bloomsbury, 2012). He also serves as associate editor of the Journal of Reformed Theology.

---

I received a complimentary unfinished digital manuscript of this book from the publisher through Netgalley for review purposes. My comments are independent and my own. Quotations could change in the finished book. Pages for quotations are not provided due to receiving an unfinished manuscript.

Book Review

Title:  40 Questions About Typology And Allegory

Author: Mitchell L. Chase

Publisher: Kregel Academic. Grand Rapids, MI, 2020, (316 pages).

I would like to begin with a kudo to Benjamin Merkle, the Series Editor for the 40 Questions series. If you are not familiar the series covers a broad range of theological, Biblical, and hermeneutical topics. What is unique about this series is that each volume follows an interrogative approach to each topic answering 40 of the most relevant questions on the subject at hand. I have found these volumes to be timely, thorough, and very accessible to all types of readers. So if you haven’t already done so do a quick search through the series and review the different topics. It would be well worth your time.

Generally speaking, the terminology of “typology” and “allegory” are typically associated with modern schools of liberal interpretation. We often regard “literal” interpretation as the gold standard for Biblical hermeneutics. However, upon further investigation, we come to realize that even Jesus and the Disciples made use of these strategies which renders the claim to “literal” interpretation as overly simplistic. Having said that I want to make mention that the claim to literal interpretation came as a response to those liberal interpreters who drew false conclusions by invoking typological and allegorical interpretations. The confusion of the proper use of these literary devices is the reason why this volume is so important for Biblical study today. In this volume, Chase answers the fundamental questions to help Bible readers understand the appropriate use of both strategies typology and allegory.

The book is broken down into four parts. Part 1 discusses the Bible’s grand narrative. Chase argues that the whole of Scripture is about Christ (Jn.5:39) as he walks through the books of the Old and New Testament demonstrating that point. As the history of redemption unfolds we notice how later texts use earlier texts through various genres and figures of speech to create a consistent story of redemption. Part one is foundational for what comes in the preceding chapters. Parts 2 and 3 are very interesting because it is here that Chase not only discusses and explains what typology and allegory are but he goes further to explain how they were used throughout church history. There is also a section where Chase discusses the Quadriga which I am sure the reader will find very interesting. Part 4 concludes with a reflection on typology and allegory and their significance in Bible interpretation.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I will be candid here. I wasn’t very excited about reading a book on typology and allegory. However, as I worked my way through the text I began to recall how significant this is to understand the Bible’s grand narrative. Scripture is replete with foreshadow that made sense to the multitude who arrived for John’s baptism, but for 21st century American’s these types and shadows translate to very little without a proper understanding of these literary devices. This raises another point. Namely that these devices can be used to create alternative conclusions that were never intended by the book’s author. That is the reason that Chase discusses the proper execution of typology and allegory. He discusses external controls that keep the reader from concocting alternative conclusions under the auspices of type and allegory. 

My only regret concerning 40 Questions About Typology And Allegory is the lack of discussion on the Quadriga. The Quadriga was a method of looking at scripture through allegorical, tropologica, anagogical, and literal sense. This type of exegesis was more common in the Middle Ages than at any other time in church history. While this is a subject that interests me I can’t put the blame on Chase. He did his part in giving an introduction to the subject. Perhaps there will be another volume in the 40 questions series on the Quadriga.

Mitchell L. Chase is the senior pastor of Kosmosdale Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, and an adjunct professor at Boyce College in Louisville.

Rating: 5 out of 5

---

This book has been provided courtesy of Kregel Academic without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.

Book Review of What the Bible Says about Abortion, Euthanasia, and End-of-Life Medical Issues

Grudem, Wayne A.  What the Bible says about abortion, euthanasia, and end-of-life medical decisions. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway. ISBN 9781433568305 (trade paperback) | ISBN 9781433568329 (pdf) | ISBN 9781433568312 (mobi) | ISBN 9781433568336 (epub)

What the Bible Says about Abortion, Euthanasia, and End-of -Life Medical Issues, a straight forward title from an author whose known for his straight forward approach to all forms of theological discourse. In this volume Wayne Grudem offers his readers answers to some of the most perennial ethical questions with clear Biblical insight and a reader friendly style of writing.

What I found most interesting in this work is how Grudem speaks from multiple perspectives in this book. He begins the subject of abortion from the perspective of a theologian as he presents the biblical arguments against abortion. His explanation of person-hood is among the best as he works through the texts of Old and New Testament. From this the reader gets a thorough view of the relevant Biblical texts.

Where most discussions end Grudem takes the discussion one step further as he removes his Theologian hat and dawns his Pastoral hat. Here his discussion and tone change as he begins to address those who have fallen into sin. This part of the book is very beneficial to those who have gone through an abortion or those who are intervening for someone who is considering it. Here Grudem presents his pastoral heart as his intention isn’t argument for argument’s sake but to point his reader to repentance and faith in Christ.

When his discussion shifts to euthanasia and end of life decisions Grudem continues with his clear explanations and argumentation. He provides an analysis of biblical examples against euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. He also works through the thorny distinction between killing and allowing someone to naturally die which was very helpful.

I found this book to be very informative and well organized for anyone who is interested in the topic. I did not mention this above but Grudem also discusses these topics from a legal and scientific stand point. I thought the content here was very interesting but it left me thinking there was more that could have been covered. Either way I would definitely recommend this book and give it 5 stars.

My personal rating 5 stars out of 5.  

---

This book has been provided courtesy of Crossway without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.

Book Review of Trinity Without Hierarchy

Trinity Without Hierarchy: Reclaiming Nicene Orthodoxy in Evangelical Theology

Michael F. Bird & Scott Harrower, Trinity Without Hierarchy: Reclaiming Nicene Orthodoxy in Evangelical Theology, Kregel Academic, 2019, ISBN 978-0-8254-4462-3.

Trinity Without Hierarchy (TWH) is written within the context of a Trinitarian debate. The subject of this debate is the relation between persons of the Trinity. More specifically, does the doctrine of the Trinity teach us a hierarchy of being between the persons of the Trinity and hence a hierarchy of being within mankind? In the 4th century Athanasius, responding to Arius’ teaching that had been circulating throughout the church, left us with a non-subordinationist non-hierarchical affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity that stated among other things, 

And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.     

However, apparently the question hasn’t been thoroughly answered. TWH is written in response to modern writers who want to suggest that hierarchy or subordination does exist between persons of the Trinity.

Suggestions of hierarchy and subordination in Trinitarian theology are not necessarily baseless beliefs. Typically these categories of hierarchy and subordination are defended through the observation of economic distinctions within the Trinity. These observations are then used to explain distinctions between persons and even gender roles to support a complementarian viewpoint. The question then becomes, is it necessary to posit hierarchy and subordination within the Trinity in order to maintain complementarianism? It is the central thesis of TWH to explain that a complementarian perspective does not necessarily require one to believe in hierarchy within the persons of the Trinity. Hence the title of the book.  

TWH demonstrates this central thesis by offering a collection of essays written from various perspectives. Some of the authors come from egalitarian backgrounds while others are complementarian. However, each is united in a non-subordinationist non-hierarchical approach to the doctrine of the Trinity. The result is a consistent view of Nicene orthodox Trinitarian theology without hierarchy. That is to say that each of the authors maintain that “the Trinity consists of one God who is three distinct and equal persons, and the distinctions do not entail subordination or hierarchy.”

This is an important topic even for those not interested in Trinitarian Theology. It is beneficial to have a working knowledge or at the minimum familiarity of the arguments being represented. This doesn’t seem like a topic that is going away any time in the near future, especially with the current cultural climate’s antagonism against Christianity. Such topics need to be discussed if for no other reason than to refute these false notions.  I personally have benefited from the cursery read that I gave it and have appreciated the books organization and broad range of subtopics as they relate to a proper understanding of Trinitarian complementarianism.

My personal rating 5 stars out of 5.  

---

This book has been provided courtesy of Kregel Academic without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.