Confrontation is rooted in the Second Great Command, which calls us to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39).  Isn’t it interesting that the Old Testament call to love your neighbor as yourself is tied to this call to frank rebuke [he is commentating on Leviticus 19:15–18]?  A rebuke free of unrighteous anger is a clear sign of biblical love, but I am afraid we have replaced love in our relationships with being “nice.”  Being nice and acting out of love are not the same thing.  Our culture puts a high premium on being tolerant and polite.  We seek to avoid uncomfortable moments, so we see, but do not speak.  We go so far as to convince ourselves that we are not speaking because we love the other person, when in reality we fail to speak be we lack love.

Please don’t misunderstand.  True love is not offensively intrusive or rude.  But the Bible repudiates covering sin with a facade of silence.  It teaches that those who love will speak, even if it creates tense, upsetting moments.  If we love people and want God’s best for them, how can we stand by as they wander away?  How can we let them deceive themselves with excuses, blame, and rationalizations?  How  can we watch them get more and more enslaved by the fleeting pleasures of sin?  How can we let a sufferer add to his suffering by the way he responds to his own experience?  True love is neither idle nor timid.  It is other-centered and active.

The truth is that we fail to confront, not because we love others too much, because we love ourselves too much.  We fear others misunderstanding us or being angry with us.  We are afraid of what others will think.  We don’t want to endure the hardships of honesty because we love ourselves more than we love our neighbors.  Yet we know that the depth of love in a relationship can be judged by the degree of honesty that exists.  Biblical rebuke is motivated by the Second Great Command.

Paul David Tripp, Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands, pg. 199–200 (emphasis original)

Paul Tripp recently made a video about this very issue below.  He is quickly becoming one of the single largest influences on my Christian thought and practice. If you are not familiar with any of his books I highly commend him to you as an author and preacher.

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. (5:13–15)

This verse makes me reorient my thinking to the communal aspect of my salvation instead of an individualistic focus. I don’t mean that my salvation itself is communal, but my salvation has communal implications.  God has not saved me to then lead a life bent on my own ways and desires; instead, he has saved us for something much better—to serve one another.

When I originally did a study in Galatians and focused on this section I had a great quote from F.F. Bruce.

“The call to free­dom, then, is a call to one­ness in Christ and to lov­ing ser­vice within the believ­ing com­mu­nity. The lib­erty of the gospel is not to be exer­cised in iso­lated inde­pen­dence. The Chris­t­ian does not emu­late the self-sufficiency of the Stoic…his suf­fi­ciency is in Christ, and he is involved in the inter­de­pen­dent and lov­ing fel­low­ship of the peo­ple of Christ.” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, pg. 241)

It’s an amazing think to ponder how we are saved to be slaves, redeemed to be servants, and die so that we may live.

Understanding how to counsel someone biblically and sanctification in our own lives involves balancing these two important truths, and it has become a conversation again due to its relevance on a number of theological issues.  If you aren’t familiar with these ideas then here are a few articles I commend to you.  It should provide an introduction to the terms, and I’d love to hear some thoughts from anyone on how they are finding the proper balance in their own Christian lives.

• Be Who You Are: Indicative and Imperative by Elyse Fitzpatrick
• Imperatives – Indicatives = Impossibilities by Justin Taylor
• Indicative and Imperatives by Douglas Wilson
• Gospel Indicative/Gospel Imperatives by Donn Arms

If you want this issue expounded upon specifically in regards to Biblical Counseling read the following by Stuart Scott.

• Biblical Counseling: Gaining a Balanced Picture on God’s Counsel by Stuart Scott
  

Today I come before family, friends, and the congregation of Auburndale Baptist Church to be joined together in fellowship through the ordinance of baptism. Important in the process of being baptized is to reflect on the work God has done on my behalf through his marvelous grace. God works providentially in our pre and post conversion lives, and it is important to recognize the goodness of God through all of it.

God preserved me through tremendous sin and disobedience. High school and a couple of years during college was a dark time caught in the depths of drug and alcohol addition. Drugs and alcohol were used by me, and many others, in the pursuit of finding lasting and meaningful satisfaction devoid of the presence of God. The addiction climaxed to an enslavement to cocaine that consumed all my material goods and relationships with friends and family. It was not until another stretch of excess that I found myself in complete despair and what many addicts describe as their “low moment.” At that time I resolved to be free of this addiction.

God used outpatient addiction treatments and Alcoholics Anonymous to grow in me a desire for him but at the time my understanding of God was nebulous and relative. Turning to new age postmodernism and Eastern mysticism seemed the natural step as I entered into college. It was however Christians in Campus Crusade for Christ that God used to teach me that these philosophical systems would not provide what I really needed—namely, freedom from my paralyzing sin.

I was taught in Crusade the life and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was here that I was taught that Christianity, unlike all other religions and philosophies, teaches that I and all of mankind are enslaved to a sinful nature and a broken relationship with God and only he could provide the necessary means for forgiveness and a restored relationship. I learned that the eternal God came down the earth he created in the fullness of time to redeem his people from the curse of the Fall and our own sinfulness. Jesus, the sinless God-man, obeyed where his people failed, and he was put on a cross where God the Father put the sins of his people on him and received the judgment and alienation from the Father that sinful people deserved. Christ did not simply bear our sins in his body, but he arose three days later victorious over death; and he later ascended to the right hand of the Father where he serves as the mediator and king of his people. Accepting this truth, through the gift of God, not only provided forgiveness of sin but also God provides the righteousness of Christ making us holy and acceptable to God.

By receiving baptism, I publicly proclaim my acceptance and faith in the work of Christ on my behalf and also my desire to serve him in whatever capacity he may call me. I have been raised from spiritual death to life through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit signified in the waters of baptism, and I eagerly anticipate the resurrection of my body and an eternity spent beholding the majesty of the triune God. It is my privilege to join Auburndale Baptist Church in our common profession of this gospel message and live together in covenant community encouraging each other in holiness and faithfulness.

“When once the light of divine Providence has shone in the believer’s heart, he is relieved and liberated, not only from the extreme fear and anxiety which had previously oppressed him, but from all worries. Because, as he rightly rejects the idea of chance, he can confidently put himself in God’s hands. What a comfort! He knows that his heavenly Father has all things in his power, directs them as he wills and rules them by his wisdom, so that nothing can happen unless he orders it. He also knows that, accepted by God’s love and entrusted into his angels’ care, he cannot be harmed by fire, water or weapon unless the sovereign God allows it. […] How is it that their confidence never fails? It can only be that while the world seems to go on its random way, they know that God is at work everywhere, and they can be secure in this. When the devil and evil men attack, the believer is strengthened by remembering and thinking about Providence, otherwise he would panic. He has plenty of reasons for comfort as he realises that the devil and all the ungodly are reined in by God, so that they cannot conceive, plan or carry out any crime, unless God allows it, indeed commands it. They are not only in bondage to him, but are forced to serve him. It is the Lord’s prerogative to enable the enemy’s rage and to control it at will, and it is in his power to decide how far and how long it may last, so that wicked men cannot break free and do exactly what they want […]“
John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.17.11 (trans. Beveridge, Calvin: The Institutes of the Christian Religion, eds. Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne, 81–82):

For the class, we have to do several profiles of important figures in early church history, and I would liked to share those summaries in a series on this blog. Each summary will contain an overview of their life, major works, and if applicable any theological controversy that the individual engaged in. In addition, I would like to include an excerpt of their writings if it is available. Dr. Haykin stresses primary sources in his teaching method and including excerpts from these writers is helpful.

Defining the “Church Fathers”

This series will be focused on the “church fathers” or also known as the Patristics. Before we begin, it would be helpful to define who the church fathers were. In his book Rediscovering the Church Fathers,¹ Haykin defines a church father by quoting from The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:

“[Authors] who wrote between the end of the 1st century…and the close of the 8th century…[they also] defended the Gospel against heresies and misunderstandings; they composed extensive commentaries on the Bible, explanatory, doctrinal, and practical, and published innumerable sermons, largely on the same subject; they exhibited the meaning and implications of the Creeds; they recorded past and current events in Church history; and they related the Christian faith to the best thought of their own age.“²

We will see through each person that we profile that they contributed to a wide range of Christian living and theological issues. The tumultuous time after the Apostles was filled with brave men and women who fought for the truth of the Gospel and a biblical worldview, and their contributions are as relevant today as they were then. Our world of rampant idolatry, sensuality, hostility to the Gospel, and relativistic thought is very close to the worldview and cultural issues dealt with by early Christians.

Why Study the Church Fathers?

All of this begs a question: Why should I care? These men and women lived centuries ago, and surely we have progressed beyond the questions dealt with by the early church right? As mentioned in the last section, the truth is that our current context is very similar to the Greco-Roman world of the church fathers. To neglect the questions they grappled with and wrote on would be a profound mistake.

In contemporary Evangelicalism, this is a popular “no creed, just Jesus” mentality, and to think this is the height of presumption and folly. The Christian faith contains propositional truths, and it was necessary then and now to be people defined by doctrine. When we move away from confessional orthodoxy we open the door to an onslaught of heresy. Instead, we need to turn to church history for wisdom and insight, and this is especially true in our technological culture that only values what is new and leads us to view anything in the past as inferior.

Dr. Haykin in lectures I attended, and in his book on the church fathers he outlines several reasons we should study the church fathers.³

• Christianity is a historical religion: The Bible is the story of God’s work in history, and it doesn’t end with the Apostolic age. History’s climax is the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus; and all of history progresses towards the time when he will come and culminate history.
• Nothing is really new: Solomon declares in Ecclesiastes 1:9c that “there is nothing new under the sun,” and he says this for good reason. Our culture today deals with variations of Gnosticism, Modalism, Atheism, Relativism, and other heresies all of which the church has dealt with in her history.
• Study of church history builds humility: When you read how these men and women labored in the defense of the Gospel it builds a thankful humility. It also makes you realize how little you really know. It’s amazing to think about how much we owe to people we have never met.
• Liberates us from the tyranny of the present: Our present world, now more than ever, values what is transient, new, and shiny. Church history makes us value things absent in our cultures.
• Gives us models for imitation: Reading about great apologists, theologians, and pastors gives us incredible examples in which to emulate.
• They aid our apologetics and biblical interpretation: The church fathers dealt with issues we face today and defended the faith with clarity and precision. The church fathers also produced an abundance of commentaries and exegesis on biblical texts, and they are helpful in many instances to understand the Bible.
• To clarify bad press about the fathers: Modern attacks against early church history (such as Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code) horribly misrepresent the early church and church fathers. It is important we understand what these men and women actually wrote and believed.
•  To receive spiritual nurture: Reading Augustine’s and Patrick’s writings are two examples of incredible spiritual zeal and edification. When we interact with these titans of our faith we can receive abundant spiritual encouragement.

I look forward to sharing with you great stories of these incredible heroes. I hope they provide the same encouragement I have received in my brief but soon to be life-long study.

Footnotes

1. Michael A.G. Rediscovering the Church Fathers: Who They Were and How They Shaped the Church (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2011).
2. “Patristics,” in F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 1233. Quoted in Haykin, Rediscovering the Church Fathers, 16.
3. Haykin, Rediscovering the Church Fathers, 17–28.

“One of the great failings of the church is that we have done so little to let women know how valuable and glorious their family ministry is. My wife has said to me, ‘Bryan, you must understand that all my choices are attackable. It does not matter which choices I make—there are some women in the church who will criticize me for not fulfilling what they say is my proper role. If I stay at home all the time, some will say I have abandoned my gifts. If I go to work full time, some will say I have abandoned my children. And if I try to divide my time wisely, then I am open to attack from all.’ Thus I am obligated to assure my wife that I value her and the decisions she makes according to biblical priorities. I must conscientiously affirm that nothing is more precious to me, and that nothing is more valuable to our family, than my wife’s fulfillment of her biblical responsibility, so that she is not improperly swayed by trends or traditions.

Our church simply cannot expect to be heard in this society without trumpeting the glory and value of the biblical purposes women serve. We cannot even expect women in the church to believe our assertions of their spiritual equality if what we also hear within our church walls is derision of their questions, insensitivity to their predicaments, flip answers, needless exclusion from the use of biblical gifts, and political put-downs (whether intended or not).

It can be so disconcerting and discouraging in churches that hold the truth of Scripture dear and that speak clearly of the preciousness of women in God’s family economy for women to find themselves the object of the jests, jibes, and insensitivity of men. We may understand (but cannot accept) the explanation that those in biblically conservative churches are only reacting to the feeling that we are under siege from the forces of our society. If we really think that we will uphold biblical priorities by embarrassing, intimidating, and demoralizing those God places among us, then we are doing much more to reveal our insecurity that to promote orthodoxy. We cannot expect Christian wives to desire the role God has designed for them if the church does not vigorously defend the dignity of that responsibility and give honor to those who assume it.“
Bryan Chapell, Ephesians (pg. 299–300, commentating on Ephesians 5:33)

While others have taken Erickson’s position of the members of the Trinity being eternally equal in authority, his work will be the focus on my analysis defending the equivalence view. Erickson, in his book Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, has extensive sections purporting to support his views from historical theology, philosophy, and various theological dimensions. Due to space limitations we will only have time to deal with arguments against my defense of the gradational view above as well as some additional passages.¹

Erickson seems to spend more time providing passages and arguments to make the gradational view seem less likely then to positively prove that the equivalence view is correct. In a counter to my first position he offers a bevy of passages that speak of the Son “choosing” and electing as opposed to just the Father. This section lives under a header purporting to demonstrate that different members of the Godhead perform the same actions. He mentions passages such as Matthew 11:27, John 6:70, and Acts 9:15 that attribute election to the Son. He also mentions passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:27, which attributes the choosing of giving gifts to the Spirit, but no gradationist would deny that each member of the Godhead acts in these events according to their respective roles. Erickson’s fault is then deducing that this then means there is no eternal authority structure within the Godhead. Stephen Wellum in his critique of Erickson’s work rightly proclaims, “in all of those actions there is an order to them given that there are three distinct persons who share the identically same nature.“²

Erickson also mentions texts which he believes make the gradational view unlikely. He mentions the fact that Jesus preferred to be called the “Son of Man.“³ While Erickson’s point can be duly noted it is still not debated that he still attributes the title “Son” to himself and this relationship is still in relation to his Father.⁴ Erickson, rather puzzlingly, seems to believe that when Jesus claimed equality with God in John 5:18 that it argues against the idea of submission in eternity past. Wellum notes correctly that the verse is included in a larger context in which Jesus confirms his dependence on authority from the Father, “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself” (5:26).⁵

Erickson provides passages that he believes disprove that the Son will be under submission of God the Father in the eschaton including passages such as Revelation 3:21, 7:17, and 22:3.⁶ It is instructive to note that just because the Son sits at the throne with his Father that none of the passages Erickson uses clearly abrogate the truth that the Son still sits under a position of authority to the Father. This is comparable to the redeemed sharing the throne with Christ, yet this doesn’t deny that Christ has authority over us.⁷ Instead of Erickson’s attempt to dismiss this line of argumentation as “contradictory” he fails to offer any compelling evidence to support an equivalent understanding of all these texts.

Lastly, it is worth noting passages that Erickson finds troublesome for gradationists. His claim is that passages such as Philippians 2:4–11 and Hebrews 5:8 teach that Jesus learned obedience and submission only in the incarnation.⁸ However, just because these passages are incarnational in context doesn’t disprove the truth of submission in eternity past and future.⁹ Moreover, if we take Erickson’s logic in regards to Hebrews 5:8 in particular, then we must also apply that to very next verse which says Jesus was, “being made perfect.” Would Erickson conclude Jesus wasn’t perfect in eternity past and future by his logic applied to verse eight?

Conclusion

It is clear God the Son eternally submits to the authority of the Father, and this truth has enormous amounts of application in our lives before God. We, as Christians, can look at the revelation of God as having an intrinsic authority structure as a wonderful truth for us. Its implications are far-reaching and lovely in the home, church, and society. When we see that submitting to authority as well as having rightfully established authority is a mark of Godliness we understand more clearly the grandeur of our Trinitarian God.

Footnotes

1. I would also love to deal with his practical implications chapter, as we never want to do theology divorced from application. For a look at the practical implications of eternal authority in the Godhead see Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, p. 131–158.
2. Stephen Wellum, “Irenic and Unpersuasive: A Review of Millard J. Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?” The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-15-No-2/Irenic-and-Unpersuasive-A-review-of-Millard-J-Erickson-Who-s-Tampering-with-the-Trinity (accessed April 11, 2011). Wellum also provides an incredibly helpful quote from Letham (p. 404–405) stating that all three members of the Godhead are involved by (in regards to election), “[but] one in particular is directly evident.”
3. Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, p. 116.
4. Wellum.
5. Ibid. In this section Erickson also mentions Isaiah 9:6 and Psalm 2:7, but Wellum critiques the poor use of these passages by Erickson. Also helpful is John MacArthur’s article where he recanted incarnational sonship, and in the article he provides a helpful understand of “begetting” from Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 1:5. See John MacArthur, “Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ.” Grace to You. http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A235_Reexamining-the-Eternal-Sonship-of-Christ (accessed March 16, 2011).
6. Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, p. 114.
7. Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than One Hundred Disputed Questions (Sisters: Multnomah, 2004), 412. Quoted in Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, p. 114.
8. Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, p. 119–121.
9. Wellum.

In the following pages we will examine biblical and theological evidence that the Son’s position as eternally under the authority of God is in fact correct. The arguments will focus on three: the electing work of God the Father electing “in the Son” (eternity past), the Father sending the Son as well as titles used by Jesus and the biblical writers (incarnation), and finally texts that support that Jesus will eternally be next to but underneath the Father’s authority (eternity future).

The Electing Work of God in the Son

Several important statements are made in the first chapter of Ephesians that speak about the electing work of God the Father through the Son. Both Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem speak at length on this particular passage.¹ Although the whole passage from verses 1–12 is instructive, there are several phrases that teach the Father did this work through the Son as his submissive agent. Paul uses phrases like “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world”² (1:4) and “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ” (1:5).³ Clearly, there are positions attributed to both from eternity past. The Father has a specific role and the Son has a role given to him by the Father in election. The Father wills that salvation take place “in the Son” and all good things would come “through the Son.” These roles could not have been attributed to another person of the Trinity; for instance, the Son could not have sent the Father and the Father could not have been the one who became incarnate.⁴

God Sending the Son and the Designations of “Father” and “Son”

Grudem mentions other passages⁵ that have a bearing on this idea of God sending the Son as an act of authority and submission. Most famously is John 3:16 that God gave his Son, and right after that, in verse 17, John continues, “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” This is an important statement because it attributes the sending of the Son into the world to the Father. Another passage is Galatians 4:4 which reads, “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son.“⁶

In addition to these passages that speak of the authoritative relationship between the Father and Son in eternity past, we must not forget to highlight one of the clearest in 1 Corinthians, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (11:3).⁷ There is clear biblical evidence for the idea that the Father sent the Son and the Son submits in joy.

It should also be instructive to us when and how God uses certain titles to speak of himself in his self-revelation. These designations imply that the Father and Son are of the same substance yet there exists authority of the Father over the Son. As Bruce Ware notes, “we must admit that God’s self-revelation would indicate an identity of the Persons of Father and Son which also marks their respective roles.“⁸ Grudem also mentions how these designations bring to mind a familial context where, “the father directs and has authority over the son, and the son obeys and is responsive to the directions of the father.“⁹

These designations give ample strength to the argument that what is further revealed in the economic Trinity is meant to be reflective of the relationship in the immanent Trinity. The Godhead is designated as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in eternity past, in the incarnation, and also in eternity future. Charles Hodge also agrees when he states, “The Second Person is called Son, not because of any relation assumed in time, but because of his eternal relation to the First Person [Father].“¹⁰

The Submission of the Son in Eternity Future

Another important argument for the eternal sonship of Christ is the position Christ assumed after his resurrection and ascension. Those of the gradational variety favor the view that Christ remains submissive in eternity future, and those of the equivalent conviction assume that the Son returns to an equal place of authority with the Father after his ascension. Let us consider several passages that have a bearing on this question.

One of the most pronounced and important passages on this issues is 1 Corinthians 15:24–28. In particular, the last passage reads, “When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all” (15:28). Letham notes that this passages refers to when the Son “hands back” the kingdom to the Father after redemption is accomplished,¹¹ and Ware notes this as well including the truth that even though all of creation is subject to the Son, the Son is still subject to the Father.¹² Erickson even mentions this passage as one of the strongest in favor of the gradational view.¹³

Other passages speak of Jesus sitting at the “right hand” of the Father. These include Jesus’ mention of this position in the eschaton (Matt 26:64), Stephen’s heavenly vision with Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:55–56), and Paul’s statement that the Son is now “at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us” (Rom 8:34). These passages are instructive because of the imagery: Jesus and the biblical writers want us to see that the Son resumes his exalted place next to but not over or equal to the authority of the Father.

Footnotes

1. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 250. See also Bruce Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit p. 51–53.
2. All verses are quoted from the New American Standard Version (NASV) unless otherwise noted. All emphasis has been added.
3. See also Bryan Chapel, Ephesians (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2009), 24–25.
4. Both Grudem and Letham have thoughtful discussions about why these roles could not have been otherwise. See Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 249–50 and Letham, The Holy Trinity, p. 390–91. This is also an objection raised by George Zeller and Renald Showers, The Eternal Sonship of Christ: A Timely Defense of this Vital Biblical Doctrine (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1993), p. 94.
5. Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 249. Millard Erickson also lists many other passages illustrating the conscious understanding of Jesus being sent (p. 111). Particular to note are John 6:38, 10:36, and 1 Peter 1:18–21.
6. Phillip Graham Ryken also mentions in his commentary on Galatians that this verse teaches that, “His sonship is eternal.” Phillip Graham Ryken, Galatians (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2005), 160.
7. Ware, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, p. 77.
8. Ibid., p. 87–88
9. Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 249.
10. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1872), 472.
11. Letham, The Holy Trinity, p. 418.
12. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, p. 84–85.
13. Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, p. 114–115. One would think Erickson would devote time to this passage due to its clarity, but he never offers his own exegesis. Instead he only offers a quote from John Calvin (p. 164–165). Important to note is that Grudem also uses this passage to support the future submission of the Son (Systematic Theology, p. 249).