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).

Introduction

In his work on the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance, Bruce Ware has given us ample reason to care deeply and passionately concerning the need to know who God is as he has revealed himself:

“Without question, there are aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity that are beyond our comprehension, but since God has deemed it good and right to reveal to us what he has about how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate and work, we must endeavor to understand what he’s told us.”¹

In recent debates, evangelicals have more clearly thought about the roles within the members of the Godhead. Most notably, the question of whether the three persons of the Trinity have a functional authority structure in eternity past as well as in eternity future has come under scrutiny. Therefore, the objective of this work is three-fold: (1) outline the positions in the debate regarding specifically the eternal relationship between the Father and Son,²  (2) defend the position that Christ is indeed the Son in eternity past, in his incarnation, as well as eternity future, and (3) defend against biblical data presented against the eternal sonship of Christ.

The Two Sides: Outline and Terminology

One of the most important, yet most difficult, tasks in Christian theology is concisely and clearly explaining the terminology used for discussion. This debate has often been called the “subordination debate,” but I do not find using the term “subordination” helpful.³ Instead, Millard Erickson, in his work Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?,⁴ has given us some helpful terms to frame the debate.

Erickson coins the first side (and the one defended in this work) the gradational view.⁵ He describes this view as, “the Father is the supreme member of the Trinity, possessing the highest authority, and the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to him and submit to his authority.”⁶ In this view there has never been a time where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had the same level of authority. It has been true in eternity past and future that there is a taxis or ordering amongst the persons of the Trinity. This view clearly upholds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same nature and are all equally God, yet in their very nature there is an authority structure. Modern theologians that have supported this view include Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Robert Letham, and Charles Hodge.

On the other side of the debate is a position Erickson calls the equivalence view.⁷ In this view the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally equal in authority. Of course, proponents of the equivalence view do recognize that in the incarnation there was a definite authority structure for the purpose of the redemptive mission. Here, the difference is stated to be one of a difference between the immanent and economic Trinities. While those espousing the gradational view will defend that the authority structure shown in the economic Trinity is reflective of what takes place in the immanent Trinity,⁸ those who defend the equivalence view do not acknowledge this relationship. Millard Erickson summarizes the issue of temporal authority for the equivalent side:

“A temporary functional subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father has been established for the purpose of carrying out a particular mission. But when that mission is completed, the three persons’ full of quality of authority will resume.”⁹

The equivalent view has also had modern theologians vigorously defend this doctrine. These theologians include Benjamin Warfield, Kevin Giles, Stanley Grenz, and Millard Erickson.¹⁰

While there might be slight variance among certain wording or other nuances between the two sides, these are the two main positions weighing in on the question of whether there is an eternal authority and submission structure within the Godhead. In the following section we will examine the biblical and theological support for the gradational view.

Footnotes

1. Bruce Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), p. 15.
2. While I wish this paper has the space to speak about the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son space simply won’t allow it. For a helpful and thought-provoking discussion on this see Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, p. 103–130.
3. The reason for this is that this terminology could be too easily confused for the subordinationism of Arianism. It is important to note that neither side mentioned in this debate holds to the Arian form of subordination; both sides equally affirm that Jesus is of the same homoousios as the Father. For Arius it was an ontological subordination, but for proponents of an eternal taxis it is only functional subordination. To avoid this possible confusion I will not use this term except in quotes. See Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2004), 399.
4. Millard Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?: An Assessment of the Subordination Debate (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2009).
5. To emphasize again, this term does not imply gradations of deity.
6. Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, p. 17.
7. Ibid., 18.
8. Letham, The Holy Trinity, p. 401.
9. Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, p. 18.
10. The focus of this polemic will be directed towards Millard Erickson. However, Millard Erickson does provide a helpful overview of supporters for the equivalent position in Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, p. 55–81.

Psalm 145: Extoling the Majesty of God

Upon reading this Psalm, one cannot escape the utter dependency with which David writes in this Psalm. David realizes that every good gift is from God and consequently he praises God and declares that he will bless his name forever. David ascribes greatness to God, and this greatness is so profound that it is described as “unsearchable.”

Unlike most of Israel’s inhabitants, David understands the purposes of God in great acts of redemption and grace. From the Exodus and Passover to the giving of the law and settling in the Promised Land—God does these things so that his name will be made known. David understands that what God desires is that his people will “declare [His] mighty acts,” and these acts are filled with power, greatness, goodness, grace, and mercy. All the people around Israel and the generations of the people of Israel were to understand the greatness and majesty of the Lord in the covenant relationship.

David also remarks that those who humble themselves before the Lord will be exalted and receive boundless grace. Those who “bow down” to the Lord receive their food, even the satiation of their desires, but the most important gift is the nearness granted by the Creator. Those who bless his name and fear him will receive salvation from destruction, and will see the ultimate grace of God—nowhere is this more evident than in the death and resurrection of God’s Son.

Realizing two great truths from this Psalm impacts our personal lives and ministries. First, we must learn to bow ourselves to the will of the one who is merciful to us. However, receiving these great gifts from God does not come without a cost, as if we can receive these gifts but God have no expectation of us. His expectation is the second truth from this Psalm: we must bless and praise the name and works of our God. God has made it abundantly clear in this Psalm, and in countless other passages throughout the biblical narrative, that the purpose of his work of redemption is that his name will be extolled amongst the nations. When we look at the gifts and mercies of God apart from this truth, we are led to a foolish thought that God wants to bless us because of who we are, yet the Bible nowhere presents such a claim. In spite of our fallen will and disobedience, God redeems and restores us so that his name will be praised. If our lives and any form of public ministry aren’t grounded in this truth, then what we perceive to be ministry is only something we are misguidedly doing for ourselves and not what God intends.

Isaiah 40: God Is Not Like the Other gods

This section of Isaiah focuses on demonstrating the greater power and majesty of the Lord over the created and false gods. Isaiah wants Israel to return in repentance by seeing afresh the wonderful power of God. Israel’s trust should be in the word of the Lord, because only the Lord’s word will stand forever; and, much like Psalm 140, that word should not remain silent but should be shouted from a high mountain.

The Lord is not like other gods who do not care for their people. The true and living Lord cares for us, as we are his flock. The language is personal and demonstrates a care unlike any other since the Lord will hold us in his bosom (a sign of closeness and comfort). Then begin the many rhetorical questions that demonstrate powerfully that these other “gods” are in fact not gods at all. Only the omnipotent Lord can measure the earth’s waters and weigh the mountains. Unlike with man and the other false gods no one counsels or directs the Lord. His understanding is greater than all, and his power so vast that the nations themselves are no more than a drop in the bucket.

God is also not like us in that we need others for sustenance and comfort. No craftsman can build a god or image like this; no, the true God humbles all the powers and principalities under his reign and power. No human invention or ingenuity can exceed or even match the understanding of the Lord. It is comforting to know that the Lord does, in fact, not need us for anything. While it is popular today for some to believe that God has an inherent need for our company, that picture of God is an idol, and God through Isaiah dispels that terrible understanding. Instead of feeling as though God somehow “needs” us, we should be struck with wonder that he ever created us and redeemed us at all. It was nothing in us but only his good pleasure that we have this glorious inheritance.

To be effective in God’s eyes for his name, we must first have a correct understanding of ourselves particularly in relation to God. If we think ourselves worthy of his grace and mercy then we diminish his character and reduce the cross to something obligatory. However, when we use passages like Isaiah 40 to recalibrate our minds around the truth that God is not like us or our fashioned gods, then we can be far more useful in God’s work both here and in the nations. We must have a God-entranced view of all things, and we must never reduce the power, wisdom, and grace of God to something less that what it actually is. If we consider ourselves worthy or powerful before God, we misrepresent who God is and what he does, and this can have disastrous consequences for our own sanctification and our ministry to others. Let us reset our thinking to be saturated with the power of God, and in doing so we will bring more honor to him and be more effective in his service.

Psalm 1: Delighting in the Law of the Lord

A striking contrast is made in this Psalm between two types of people. The first person loves the words and counsel of the wicked, scoffers and sinners; but the second person is enamored with the law (word) of the Lord. The Psalmist doesn’t see a middle ground between the two persons: you are either firmly grounded and seek the word of God or you don’t. Using language of permanence (tree firmly planted, fruit yielding, unwithering tree) the Psalmist sees a direct correlation to growth and prosperity between the man who seeks first the counsel of the Lord for his life. Those that choose to be around flattering tongues and those who scorn the word of God only reap destruction and one day will not stand through the Lord’s righteous judgment.

The application is clear and apparent to one who seeks to know God and serve his sovereign plan. I have to ask myself which of the two persons am I that the Psalmist describes. Do I seek first scorners, or is my first inclination to God and what he says in his word? On this point, do I truly desire a ministry that is sanctioned and blessed by God? If so, then everything that takes place through that work can not be of my own concoctions or what the world tells me is good but instead of what God’s word says is righteous and holy. My first desire is that my family and I will grow in the grace and knowledge of God and the second is that others will come to know God through what God is doing through me. Surely then, both of these must be based on God’s word.

Psalm 19: The Supremacy of God’s Word

God’s revelation is total, and the Psalmist uses strong language to make that point vividly. There is no excuse for the man to stand before God in judgment and say God did not reveal himself to him. The very expanses of creation (heavens) testify to the power, wonder and majesty of the true and living God. This revelation is also not partial either; the revelation reveals itself from day to day, night to night and it goes forth to the ends of the earth. But as glorious as God’s revelation through the created order is, it cannot compete with his special and instructive revelation—his word. God’s written word is perfect, restores the soul, enlightens the eyes and rejoices the heart.

God’s word also should move us to doxology and prayer as this Psalmist has displayed. It should move us to an appreciation for his work on our behalf. As was displayed in this Psalm it should also remind us to continually ask God to complete in us our long sanctification process. We should ask God to reveal even those transgressions that are hidden, and ultimately we need to ask God that our thoughts and words be pleasing to him who has created the heavens and revealed to us his word.

Our lives and ministries must reflect the Psalmist’s love for God and his word. It is perfectly acceptable to be moved in wonder and awe at the power of God demonstrated in creation, but we cannot look to creation as our source of ultimate revelation and authority. Only what has been revealed in God’s word can move us to such thanksgiving and praise since only in God’s word is the work of Christ clearly displayed. We also cannot have trust that God’s general revelation will move others to an understanding of God and his will and word. His revelatory work in creation is done that none may have an excuse before him, but only those that hear of God’s redemptive work in Christ will not be destroyed by God in judgment. This truth should move us all the further towards a deep desire to teach and preach God’s word to those who do not know it.

2 Timothy 3:1–4:8: When Everything Else Fails, God’s Word Doesn’t Fail

It is nothing new that those depraved of mine and soul will oppose God’s word and his people. The Bible itself is a self-attestation to this truth through all sixty-six books. God’s word provokes two responses in people: either you scorn his word and deny its power, or you love his word and seek its power. Paul’s instruction to Timothy was as relevant in the first century A.D. as it is to those who have ministerial aspirations two thousand years later.

It is instructive that Paul wants Timothy to focus (largely) on one thing in this letter to him—the word of God. Through all of Paul’s instruction to Timothy he wants Timothy to look back to the sacred writings knowing that they were “God-breathed” and written for our instruction (this also extends to the New Testament as well as Paul admonishes to Timothy to remember his “teaching” in verse ten). This admonition is necessary for Paul’s encouragement to stand strong and “preach the word” as espoused in chapter four. Clearly, the power behind Timothy’s ministry (and ours) is not in our own words but the word of God clearly on display. God’s word must not just be read but understood by the preacher so that he may be equipped to apply the word, rebuke those who extort it and exhort God’s people.

There is a phrase in this section that particularly strikes me as instructive, and that is Paul’s encouragement to Timothy to “fulfill your ministry.” Nothing would be worse then to come up short in what God has called us to do in this world, and we have confidence that when he calls us to this work he enables us to fulfill it. The words still resonate with me to keep constantly guarded to ensure I seek this goal. There is nothing greater that I desire than to have God tell me that I have fulfilled what he has called me to do and that I was a “good and faithful slave [servant]” (Matt 25:21, 23). This ability to hear this from God is only made possible by a continual immersion in and love for God’s word. The promise that God’s word never returns void (Isa 55:11) is a continual encouragement that his word never fails to accomplish what he intends to accomplish. This stirs in me a desire to hold fast to the word of God.

After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:21–23)

This passage is interesting on two accounts. First, it’s said that Paul and his companians returned back to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch; and when they returned they then appointed elders in those churches. The argument goes that by this passage Paul planted churches without elders and yet they still remained churches. As a result of this, elders are not a necessary to be a biblical local church (it is worth noting that those I talked to about it said wisdom would dictate elders are there, but they are not necessary to constitute). I think there are a few reasons to not immediately fall for this seemingly obvious interpretation. The ramifications are enormous, and it should be thought through first.

Basing Doctrine on Historical Narrative

Historical narrative is an interesting and often difficult genre in applying to biblical doctrine. While it certainly can contribute, I believe we should interpret less clear passages of scripture by clearer ones. Due to the very clear biblical precedents for elders in a local church taught in the pastoral epistles this makes me pause. Acts inparticular is an interesting book to make especially sweeping ecclesiastical judgements.

The flow of Acts is one of maturation in the early church on several doctrines. Before Acts 10 there was still confusion on how Gentiles can come in to a covenantal relationship with God, and before Acts 15 there was also confusion on how “Jewish” a Gentile needed to be. The passage in Acts 14 is around the culmination of his first of three missionary journeys. Clearly, this passage should be thought of in light of other maturation passages of Acts. Due to the fact that this precedent of coming back to establish churches with elders never occurs after this incident signifies to me a historical aberration and not the norm (similar to the events of Pentecost with the Holy Spirit coming on believers despite modern Pentecostal beliefs).

We are also left to wonder whether Paul saw these believers as meeting in God ordained churches? They simply could have been meeting on a more informal basis, and Paul’s return was to establish them as biblical churches. Paul also constantly dealt with persecution and most likely drove him from those areas before he could finish what he wanted to accomplish (Acts 14:2). The people in those churches would’ve had familiarity with the leadership structure of the Jews, and it’s not stated there were not men leading as elders but simply not ordained to the role.

The Dating of 1 Timothy

First Timothy has some of the clearest doctrinal statements about leadership in the local church. If the dating of 1 Timothy was after the events of Acts 14 I would also be lead to believe that 1 Timothy is mature exposition of Paul’s doctrine about local church leadership and not the narrative that happens in Acts 14. As it turns out, the majority consensus about the dating of 1 Timothy is near the end of his life somewhere around his first imprisonment mentioned in Acts 28:16 which would be somewhere around 60 A.D.

This dating speaks of a more mature and robust understanding of what God ordains for a local church. This maturation is natural and seen happening in many of the apostles throughout the New Testament. This was Paul’s teaching at the height of his ecclessiastical maturity, and he later told Timothy to pass along his theological doctrines to other men who could also lead (2 Tim 2:2).

Conclusion

Based on these various thoughts I believe it to be theologically irresponsible to make such a strong statement about eldership based on this passage from Acts 14. I believe Paul, and God’s intention, is that elders are a necessary element to the foundation and continuation of a healthy New Testament church.