The Trinity

Well, we spent three weeks talking about the doctrine of the Trinity, and I didn't know at the end of last week if I'd spent one more week or not, but I thought, and one or two of you encouraged me afterward, said, you know, why don't you do that? There have been some controversies about the doctrine of the Trinity, and it has to do with this question. Now, last week, well, we talked about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, last three weeks, actually, all three persons being fully God and yet in God. So in the one God, we have three persons. How can that be? We keep finding different passages of Scripture that affirm this, but it really never explains how we can have one being, but three different persons who act differently and relate to each other differently in the one God. So the Father sends the Son into the world. The Son actually takes on a human nature and becomes man so that in the person of Christ, in the person of Christ, we have a human nature and a divine nature in one person. We'll talk more about that when I get to chapter 26 in systematic theology, right now we're only on chapter 14, so it'll be a few weeks yet. We'll talk more about how that can be, but the Father doesn't become man and come and die for our sins. The Holy Spirit doesn't come and die for us, it's just the Son. So the Son does some things that the Father and the Spirit do not do, and then Jesus returns to the Father and sends the Holy Spirit to us. The Holy Spirit is doing some things that the Father and Son do not do. In the course of talking about the Trinity last week and the week before, I talked about the fact that the Father has a leadership role or an authority with regard to the Son and the Father and Son together have a leadership role or authority with regard to the Holy Spirit. So the Father sends the Holy Spirit into the world and then Jesus talks about the Holy Spirit whom I will send you from the Father, or he talks about the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, both are true. And this has been held through the history of the Church. What this means is that though they are equal in deity, equal in value, equal in importance, there is equality in many ways. All three persons are fully, but there is also a lot of difference. And particularly with regard to authority, the Father has authority that the Son does not have. The Father has a leadership role that the Son does not have. The Father sends the Son into the world, for example. Can you see this way, way, way in the back? Yes? Barely? I know it's not the best lighting because we've got this stage set up here, but we'll make do. Okay. No. That's fine except about, oh, in the last 10 years or so, there's been some challenge to this idea that the Father has a leadership role that the Son does not share in the Trinity. And so here we go. How many, you all have this outline now? Anybody need the outline? And back here, can we get a few more of those outlines way over in the back and just keep your hand in the air until somebody comes and gets you an outline. Egalitarians or angelical feminists around 1997 began to deny the eternal submission of the Son to the Father. Why? Why? Why did they want to do this? Because the doctrine of the Trinity contradicted their most basic assumption. And here's what these people said. But I'm going to call them egalitarians. That's kind of a common term that has been used in theological discussion where people who say there's no difference in role between husband and wife. And they have different interpretations for the verse that says, the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church or says, husbands love your wives as Christ love the church and wives submit to your husbands as the church is subject to Christ. They kind of do all sorts of interpretations of those things and they say, you know what? In marriage, who's the leader? Well, it depends on who has leadership gifts. Sometimes the wife has leadership gifts. Sometimes the husband has leadership gifts. But there's no leadership that just belongs to the husband because he's husband. That would be any egalitarian view. And many people who hold this view, and I talk to at professional meetings, and I debate on radio shows and things like that from time to time. And I think they're incorrect. Why did they want to challenge this idea of the trinity? Because the doctrine of the trinity contradicted their most basic assumption. Here is what they say. If husband and wife are different in authority, they can't be equal in value. And if they're equal in value, they can't be different in authority. They say you can't have both. So they say to me, no, wait, look, you say that husband and wife are equal in value. I say, yes, absolutely. They both created the image of God, Genesis 1, and they say, okay, they're equal in value. So you don't have any leadership role for the husband. I say, no, there is a leadership for the husband. The Bible says that again and again. Husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. And they say, oh no, if there is a different role for the husband, then they're not equal. And I say, well, it's equal in value, but it's different in authority. And they say, that can't be, okay, that's there. And then I look at the drinity, equal value. They're both father and son are equally God, but there's a different role, different authority. So there's a parallel. And they should have said, okay, Wayne, you're right. I mean, and they could have said, I think Margaret added a comment back there. I'm not going, I'll hear about it later. I'll find out later, no, okay, they should have said, okay, Wayne, you're right. But instead around 1997 or so, they started saying, guess what? Wayne grew them and his friends are wrong about the trinity. Well, that's what I want to talk about this morning. So they say you can't have both equality and difference unless it's voluntary and temporary. I'll explain that in a few minutes. My argument and the argument of others in church history has been, you can have both equal and value in value and difference in authority look at the trinity. And so here is a diagram. Just as the father has authority with respect to the son, but they're equal in value, you have a quality in difference. So the husband and marriage has authority with respect to the wife, you have equality and difference. But in marriage, husband and wife are equal in value and husband should honor their wives and wife should honor their husbands. We wouldn't do very well without each other, we need each other very much, we depend on each other. First Corinthians 113 says this explicitly, I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ. The head of a wife is her husband and the head of Christ is God. And I've written three long, long articles defending, I mean, 40, 50, 70 page articles on technical analysis of Greek words, defending the idea that head here means person in authority. I won't go into that, but that's been a side debate, which we could talk about another time. But the egalitarian writings have started, especially with Gilbert Belizekian, have started to deny the eternal submission of the son to the son. So here is Gilbert Belizekian, retired Wheaton College theology professor, and also founding elder of Willow Creek Community Church. Gilbert lives still in the Wheaton area, and when he and I have debated from time to time at professional society meetings and on national radio, and whenever I teach courses on biblical manhood and womanhood, when I was back in Illinois, I used to invite him to come and take a whole class hour and present his view and students could interact with him, they loved it, he loved it, so we get along, but we definitely disagree on this issue. Here's what Dr. Belizekian says. He says, it is much more appropriate on theologically accurate to speak of Christ's self-humiliation than rather than his subordination. Nobody subordinated him, and he was originally subordinated to no one. So here he's denying this eternal difference between father and son in rule. The frame of reference for every term that has found inscripture to describe Christ's humiliation pertains to his ministry and not to his eternal state. So what he's saying, during the time Jesus was on earth, yes, to the father, he's too much in the Bible to get around that, but he's saying it was just temporary. Just like in a church committee, you could have a temporary arrangement where somebody's the chairman and other people do what the chairman said. Just like in a job, someone could be a boss and someone could be the employee who do what the boss says, but just for the time you're working there, it's temporary, but it's not eternal. Belizekian says because there was no order of subordination within the Trinity prior to the second person's incarnation. He's saying before Jesus became man, there wasn't this father-son authority. So we made no such thing after its completion. That is a very strange sentence, completion, incarnation. There were, we made no such thing after its completion, completion of the incarnation. What does that mean? That means Jesus is going to stop being God and man at some point. My goodness. I don't think anybody in the history of the church has taught that, that he's going to give up his human nature. He's going to come back on earth and reign as king. For all the earth Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever. So this is a very, very doubtful statement after the completion of the incarnation. Well we go on. Belizekian says, if we must talk of subordination, it is only a functional or economic subordination that pertains exclusively to Christ's role in relation to human history. Because of its temporary character, Christ's subjection does not lend itself as a model for a permanent, generically defined male, female hierarchy. Now he tends to use pejorative language like hierarchy and other things, it's just the way he talks. But see where he's going, no permanent role difference in the Trinity, therefore it's not a model for male, female roles. He goes on and says, we ingrute him states about the clause, the head of Christ as God, that it indicates a distinction in role in which primary authority and leadership among the persons of the Trinity has always been and will always be the possession of God the Father. That's, of course, he's quoting me, exactly. But even if he had in this passage word of mean authority, neither the pattern or its context indicates any indication that this headship describes an eternal state. In this text, Paul's referring to the relationship that prevails between God and Christ in the context of Christ's ministry to men and women within human history. So this is a book called Community 101, a little guide to Christian doctrine that he published in 1997, saying it's only during Christ's life on earth, is he right? Note that Bill Ezekin is willing to say, just to be fair to him, he's willing to say you can have equal value in different authority if it's voluntary and temporary as in a job or if a husband and wife agree on different leaders for certain tasks based on interest and ability, he doesn't mind that. But not if it's based on who you are, for example, just being a husband or wife. And not if it's unlimited duration, for example, for your whole life, for your whole marriage, which, you know, if you're married for your whole life. So that's why the parallel with the Trinity is important. Some egalitarians realize, and I think they're probably right in this. They realize that if they lose this argument, they lose the whole debate. Why? Because if the sun was eternally subject to the father, this, if this was an eternal relationship right here, yet also equal in value and deity, then the fundamental egalitarian claim is wrong. You can have equal value and different authority in the very being of God forever, equal value and different authority forever. And therefore, you can have equal value and different being and different authority among people and in marriage. The Echin has been followed by others, has been followed by others who deny that the sun is eternally subject to the father. Rebecca Grutois, good news for women. She's a seminary graduate who's a freelance writer now. Her husband, Douglas Grutois, is a philosophy professor at a conservative Baptist seminarian Denver. He's written some very, very helpful things. But Rebecca is an ardent feminist or egalitarian evangelical feminist. Kevin Giles, the Trinity and subordinationism published by Interversity Press in 2002. This is Bill Zekin's book, Community 101. And this is Giles's book, The Trinity and subordinationism. Kevin Giles is Vicar of St. Michael's Church in North Carlton, Australia. He's an Australian, Episcopalian pastor, basically. And he has taken to writing quite a bit on this. And then Kevin Giles, I just found out this week, Kevin Giles has another book, Jesus and the Father. Modern evangelicals re-invent the doctrine of the Trinity. I just ordered it. It hasn't come yet. Who are these modern evangelicals? Hmm, I wonder. But I just looked last night on Amazon.com. There's one review by a guy who predictably always puts in his own little reviews of evangelical feminists. He gives him five stars and he loves them. Here's what he learned from this book. He said, we see how some evangelicals like Wayne Grudem are rewriting history and word definitions in order to promote the Aryan idea of the eternal subordination of the sun in order to promote the subordination of women and family and church. The Aryan idea, Aryans are the people that said the sun was created, Aryans are the Jehovah's Witnesses today. This is preposterous. And it's preposterous because my systematic theology book has been out since 1994 and it clearly denies Aryanism, argues strongly against Aryanism and so this is just misrepresentation. But it's a free world and we have freedom of speech and people can write what they want even if it's not as reliable as it might be. Is there anybody else who has followed this argument? These people are not sort of, shall I say, people of large, they're not professors of theology or anything like that. But Millard Ericsson also has questioned, although he's been more careful on this, he's questioned the eternal subordination of the sun in God in Three Persons, a book by Baker 1995. However, it's not as certain or blatant he's questioning from the idea of church history and not arguing from scripture. Millard Ericsson is also an egalitarian or an evangelical feminist. So there's a certain group of people with a certain orientation and a certain question who have taken this position. But Millard Ericsson, he has a systematic theology book similar to mine in size and it's widely used and it's very good in many, many ways. As I have, he was a past president of the evangelical theological society just a few years ago as well. Okay, now, how would I answer this? Answers to the egalitarian claims. There is substantial testimony in scripture that the sub-subject to the Father before he came to live on earth, before it wasn't just during the time of his life on earth. For instance, God so loved the world that he gave his only son. Whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. He gave his only son. That means the Father was the Father and the Son was the Son before this time. He had to be the Father in order to send his son. They had to have a Father's Son relationship. It isn't just, oh, one day before the angel Gabriel became to Mary, the Father and Son were talking and said, hey, would you look? See what you've got to do there? You'd have to say, oh, the Trinity is just Person A, Person A and Person A. Three persons with no difference. And Person A says to Person A, hey, would you like to be the Son? Okay, I'll be the Son. Okay, then I'll be the Father. You see, once you go that way, you start saying there's a change in the Trinity and that's a pretty dangerous thing. So the Father had to be the Father long before the Son came to earth in order to plan and then be able to give his Son. In fact, when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, that implies there's a long period of waiting until it is the right time and then God sent forth his Son. And the idea of the Father giving him Son, his Son implies a headship, a unique authority for the Father before the Son came to earth. And so the claim that Jesus' submission to his Father was only during his time on earth is incorrect. And Belizeekin limits it to Philippians 2 when Christ took the form of a servant, was born in the likeness of men, but that's not correct because there was Father and Son before the Father sent the Son. And you could go back farther than that. There was a difference in roles in creation. And so John 1, 3, talking about the Son, all things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made. Before Jesus took on a human nature, we have this picture of the Trinity, before he took on a human nature, even then the Father created through the Son. So the universe came into being in this, the Father commanded. And the Son was the powerful Word of God that brought the universe into being. All things were made through him. The Father works through the Son. Hebrews 1, 2 speaks that way. In these last days, he, the Father, has spoken to us by his Son whom he appointed the air of all things. Again, that assumes an authority role for the Father through whom also he created the world. So the Father creates through the Son. There are other verses like that that I went into about two weeks ago and were on the other outline. It's always from the Father through the Son. That implies a difference in roles before creation. That's a long time ago. How long? Well, once we get to this point, we're talking about something eternal, aren't we? If it's before creation, then it never really began. It means that the Father and Son related to each other as Father and Son before creation. Or eternally. And there are other places like that. In other places, the Bible speaks of different roles for Father and Son before creation. This contradicts Belizeekian's argument, a contradicts Kevin Giles's argument, a groutoices argument, and Melodirix's argument. Ephesians 1, 3-5. This is going way back into the councils of God before the world was made. It's going back into eternity, past, and saying, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. Even as He, this is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, He the Father, shows us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love, He predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ. So it's the Father choosing us in the Son, looking forward to the fact that we're going to be saved someday, choosing us and predestining us in the Son when, before the foundation of the world, how do the egalitarians and these arguments, they ignore them. This is eternal. This is an eternal relationship. And sadly, Melodirix doesn't deal with these verses. He talks about, oh, this is a certain warfield, maybe a warfield in church history, and analyzes one of his writings. In love, He predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, Romans 8.29, those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so the Father choosing in the Son, 1 Peter 1, 2, similarly, Revelation 13, 8, and other verse, all who dwell on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has been written before the foundation of the world, in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. So way back before the foundation of the world, you've got a book of life, and it's the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. And that is before the foundation of the world, the crucifixion of Christ, that He would die for our sins, that the Son would die for our sins, that was planned before the foundation of the world, Father and Son having a different role, eternally. Trent, I lost my screen up here again. It just seems to not like my trainitarian teaching, this projector, I don't know. Question number two, Christ was also subject to the authority of the Father while He was on earth as a man. Now, Belizeekin and others will agree with this. He said, the Father is greater than I, Jesus says, the Son can do nothing of His own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing. The Father judges no one, but is given all judgment to the Son. That means He's delegating authority, that means the Father has the primary authority. They agree with this, but I would come back and say, well, if you agree during His life on earth, that the Son has a different authority, is subordinate to the Father, He is still fully God, and so even during His life on earth, you have full deity or equality in value, and you have difference in role. So I think that there really isn't a place for the egalitarian to score many debating points by saying it's only during His time on earth, still fully God and has a different role. Answer number three, after Christ returns to heaven, then what happened? He was still subject to the authority of the Father, so we go to eternity past, we go to creation, we go to salvation or redemption, and then we look after Christ, is raised from the dead, ascends into heaven, what's the situation then? Belizeekin said, he's only subject to the Father during the incarnation, or during His life on earth rather, but look what happens. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe by His word of power, after making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high. What does it mean in the biblical world to sit at someone's right hand? Are you first or second in authority? Second. Second. Ember, mother of James and John says, let my son sit at your right hand, they're not, she's not asking that Jesus would be subject to them. She's asking they'd be in second place, sit at the right, and Joseph is at Pharaoh's right hand. He's the second in command, but when the Bob that Jesus is at the right hand of the majesty on high, that means the Father is still in charge. What does Belizeekin say about this? He says, well, they're both on the throne, so it must be equal. I mean, that's literally what he says. They're both on the throne. He's at the right hand, so he's on the throne, so they're sharing, they're equal on the throne. But I don't think he does not give an answer to the fact that to be at someone's right hand in the ancient world, or even today, to be at the right hand of the president, that would mean to be second in command, wouldn't it? But to be at the right hand doesn't mean you're the person in charge, and I just put the verses up here to demonstrate there are a lot of verses that say this, and just go through them really quickly. Matthew 26, 64, you'll see the son of man seated at the right hand of power. Mark 14, 62, you'll see the son of man seated at the right hand of power. Luke 22, 69, the son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God. Acts 2, 33, being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit. So again, there's a Father initiator's son carrying out. Acts 5, 31, God exalted him at his right hand as leader and savior. Stephen, Acts 7, 55 to 56, he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and he said, behold, I see the heavens open, and the son of man standing at the right hand of God. Romans 8, 34, Jesus Christ who was raised, who was at the right hand of God, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, Jesus is at the right hand of God. That means he's subject to the authority of the Father after his ministry on earth. And then it says, who indeed is interceding for us, the Greek word here, end to Kano means to bring requests, bring petition. The son is bringing requests to the Father. That also is consistent with the idea of someone who is subject to the authority of the Father. He's interceding for us. That he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places. Ephesians 1, 20, Glossians 3, 1, Christ, seated at the right hand of God. Hebrews 1, 3, sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high. Hebrews 1, 13, quoting Psalm 110, sit at my hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. Hebrews 8, 1, we have such a high priest, 1, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven. Hebrews 10, 12 to 13, he sat down at the right hand of God. Hebrews 12, 2, he is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Do you think I need any more verses? Let's try a few more. Who has gone into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. Nowhere is this pattern reversed. Nowhere, it's repeated again and again and again throughout the New Testament. Nowhere is it said that the Father sits at the Son's right hand. Nowhere does the Son give the Father the authority to sit with him on his throne. Never. The supreme authority always belongs to the Father. The egalitarian claim that Jesus was subject to the Father only during his life on earth is therefore incorrect. I'm going to read a paragraph here from a book in which I've responded in some detail to Bill Ezekin and Kevin Giles and Rebecca Grutois and Millard Ericsson. The book is called Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, an analysis of more than 100 disputed questions, but I'm only going to talk about this one. Here's a paragraph from page 414. The relationship between Father and Son that is seen in so many passages is never reversed. Not in predestination before the foundation of the world. Not in creation. Not inciting the Son. Not in directing what the Son would do. Not in granting authority to the Son. Not in the Son's work of redemption. Nor in the Son's return to sit at the Father's right hand. Not in the Son's handing over the kingdom to guard the Father. Never. Never does Scripture say that the Son sends the Father into the world. Or the Holy Spirit sends the Father or the Son into the world. Or that the Father obeys the commands of the Son or the Holy Spirit. Never does Scripture say that the Son predestined us to be conformed to the image of the Father. People of planning, directing, sending and commission belongs to the Father only. And just as Father and Son are equal and different, so God has made husband and wife to be equal and different. These verses imply that someone can be subordinate to in authority to someone else, but still be equal in personhood and being and importance. So number four, and now this is just to go into more detail on what happens in the future. And so number four, the Son will forever be subject to the authority of the Father because first Corinthians 1528 says, when all things are subjected to Him, Christ, then the Son, Himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things in subjection under Him that God may be all in all. So this is Paul looking forward after all the conflicts have ended, after Christ has come back and He reigns on the earth, then what happens? Then also at that time, as has been through an eternity pass and through all the history of the world, then also the Son will be subjected to Him, but all things in subjection under Him that God may be all in all. What does Dr. Bill Ezekin say about this? He says, this really doesn't have anything to do with anything eternal, any inference relative to an eternal state of subjection that would extend beyond this climactic fulfillment is not warranted by this text or any other biblical text. It sounds like he's saying, well, the Son will be subject to the Father just for one more minute and then it'll all change again. But this verse, this verse marks the beginning of the eternal state after all of history is culminated and noverse even hints that this situation will never end. In fact, Hebrews 138 says, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. A Father-Son relationship, therefore in which the Father is head and has the leading, initiating, directing, sending role, and the Son has the role of obeying and delighting and the will of the Father has been the pattern from eternity past, in creation, in redemption, in the church age and will be the pattern forever. And this is repeating, now just as the Father and Son are equal and different, God has made husband and wife to be equal and different. Now, I'm just going to recall something that I wrote when I was just a young theology professor in my third year of teaching, I guess, in 1979, I wrote this, a proper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity may well turn out to be the most decisive factor in finally deciding the current debate, and I was talking about the debate over the roles of men and women in marriage and the church and Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society of Book Review are published in 1979, and I think that's proving to be true that people see that the doctrine of the Trinity that seems so obscure actually has a lot of practical application for our daily life. Now, the question is, what about the history of the church? Am I in line with the history of the church, or is Kevin Giles, this vicar from Australia got right and saying that I'm out of line and changing the doctrine of the Trinity? I don't think I'm out of line, but let's see. The Christian church throughout history has affirmed both the subordination of the son of the father with respect to their roles and the equality of the son with the father with his there being. Remember what Bill Ezekiel said? He said, there was no order of subordination within the Trinity prior to the second person's incarnation. I think I've given probably 20 or 25 verses that deny that. And then he says there will remain no such thing after its completion, whatever that means. There's only a functional subordination that pertains to Christ's role in human history. That's what he said. And then he says, except for occasional and predictable deviations. I don't know what he means by that. This is the historical biblical trinitarian doctrine that has been defined in the creeds and generally defended by the church, at least in the Western church throughout the centuries. He gives no footnots, no evidence, it's just an assertion, but I think he's incorrect on this. My response is that historical Christian creeds affirm both equality and subordination. They affirm that Jesus was fully God, but the Nicene Creed says, for instance, that Jesus Christ is begotten of the Father before all worlds begotten not made. It didn't have to do with his being, but as I explained it a while ago, they understood that this begotten have to do with having a father's son relationship eternally. That's in the Nicene Creed, and he said at the hand of the Father, that's in the Nicene Creed talking about not temporary, but even now in the church age. The Calcedonian Creed, or 51, begotten before all ages of the Father, that has to do with the Father's son relationship. The Son is of the Father alone not made nor created, but begotten. He sits on the right hand of God in the Athenation Creed, the 39 articles, which is the doctrinal statement of the Church of England, 1571. The Son is begotten from everlasting of the Father, and that means there's a difference in role between father and son. Westminster Confession of Faith, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, 1643 to 1646. Now, when we get into theology professors and church history professors, experts in the history of doctrine, who explain this, here's how they explain it. Charles Hodges, who taught at Princeton, I don't know for decades, Charles Hodges published a systematic theology book in three volumes in the 1860s and 1870s that I still used at Westminster Seminary in the 19s. It was in print as the standard theology book used by many people throughout the world for over a hundred years. It's a massive volume, an unbelievably ariodite, scholarly man, and completely orthodox scholar who taught at Princeton, one of the greatest theologians that America has ever produced. He says, the Nicene doctrine, that is the Trinitarian doctrine taught in the Nicene Creed, includes the principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority. The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation. The creeds are nothing more than a well-ordered arrangement of a faxist scripture which concerns the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert that a distinct personality of Father, Son, and Spirit, and their consequent perfect equality, so we have equality here, and the subordination of the Son to the Father and the Spirit to the Father and Son as to the mode of subsistence and operation. These are scriptural facts to which the creeds in question had nothing, and it is in this sense that they have been accepted by the Church Universal. So Hodge, a monument here in the history of theology, is saying, what I'm saying, he's saying there's been this eternal difference, and the Church Universal has held that. Now along comes a pastor in Australia who says, who says, Grudum is wrong. I think he's contrary to the whole history of the Church in saying that, even though Baker and Zander van are publishing his, or Interversity Press and Zander van are publishing his stuff. And so my answer is, we made ascribe the difference in relationship and other terms, such as later as later, as theologians did, we can speak of the eternal subordination of the Son in role or relationship, and still say we are holding to the historic Trinitarian doctrine, but we should not deny that there is any eternal difference in relation between the Father and the Son, as Bill Ezekiel and others do, and still claim to hold the historic Trinitarian doctrine of the Church. I think it is they who are deviating from that doctrine. It's a responsible scholarship, and this is taken from my book, to accuse all those who hold the historic doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father of tampering with the double trinity. Okay, no, I've got a few more quotes, but Bob, is this a 9.15 morning for us? Okay, I've got to make a judgment call here as to whether to stop and interact with you. Let's see if I can go quickly through this. Augustine, the one is, why did the Son, why was the Son sent by the Father, why didn't, why wasn't the Father sent by the Son, we said simply that the one is the Father and the other is the Son, that's what I'm saying, why did the Father sent the Son, because he was the Father, there was a difference, he had initiating and directing role, and yet that the Son is sent by the Father, not because one is greater and the other less, but because one is the Father and the other is the Son, the one is bigger and the other is forgotten. Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son, all that language in the trinitarian controversy had to do with this difference in relationship, located in 9.25, okay, because I want another five minutes and then we'll interact here. John Calvin, 15.09 to 15.4, to the Father is attributed to the beginning of activity, and the fountain and wellspring of all things, to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the order disposition of all things, we must not seek an eternity before and after, nevertheless, the observance of an order is not meaningless or superfluous, when the Father is thought of as first, then from him the Son, and finally from both the Spirit, again, he uses a little bit different language, but there is a priority to the Father, he initiates, he begins, Augustus Strong, now AH Strong wrote a systematic theology book from about 1900 to 1960, was used in all the baptist seminaries in the world or most of them, basically until Mill leader Ericsson's book came along and then a few others have come along, such as my own, but Strong, again, says 1836 to 1921, Father Son and Holy Spirit, well equal in essence and deity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office, and operation, the subordination of the person of the Son, to the person of the Father is to be officially first, the Son second of the Spirit third is perfect with equality, priority is to serially, superiority, the same thing I'm saying. Lewis Birkhoff, 1873 to 1957, Professor at Calvin Seminary, before I wrote my systematic theology book, I used Birkhoff's book, systematic theology, again, in the 20th century, maybe the leading figure, well, you've got a few others, but one of the leading figures in all of American theology and greatly knowledgeable in the history of doctrine, Birkhoff says the subordination of the Son to the Father and of the Spirit to the Father and Son is not in any way inconsistent with true equality. This is interesting. He says we have an analogy of such priority and subordination, for instance, in the relationship which exists between the husband and wife and the human family. I didn't make this up. It's been around a long time. Philip Schaff, Schaff is a Lutheran scholar. Schaff is, I don't know if he's the greatest historian in the history of theology and the history of the church, but he may be, multi-volume on the history of the Christian church. Schaff says the Nicene Father still teaches. This is back to the Nicene Creed, 325, 381. He's explaining them. Teach like their predecessors a certain subordination is in which seems to conflict with the doctrine of consubstantiality. That means they have the same being. But we must distinguish between the subordination of essence, Ussia, and the subordination of hypothesis, of order and dignity. The former was denied the latter a firm. Sorry for all the big words. He's saying there is a subordination of order or working in the Nicene fathers. Jeffrey Bromley, now retired, was a professor for many many years at Fuller, one of the most conservative professors at Fuller, Professor of Church History. And again, an exceptionally competent church historian, Bromley writing the new dictionary of theology says eternal generation is the phrase used to denote the interternetary relationship between the father and son as is taught by the Bible. There's a divine slumship prior to the incarnation. Sorry Dr. Bill Ezekin. And there is a distinction of persons within the Godhead and between these persons there is a superiority and subordination of order. Bromley says eternal in the ancient creeds, eternal reinforces the fact that the generation is not merely economic because of human salvation as in the incarnation. But it's essential and that as such it cannot be construed in the categories of natural human generation. Thus it does not imply a time when the sun was not as Aryan as am argued. Nor does this subordination imply inferiority. The phrase corresponds to what God has shown us of himself and his own eternal being. It finds expression in the phrases begotten of his father before all worlds and begotten before the worlds. Athanasian and I see concrete. Let's see. Do I have time here? There's kind of another objection. It's not in your outline. Sarah Sumner teaches that Azusa Pacific University now professor. She says, she's got another twist on this. I'll just mention this. To whom is Christ finally subjected? God. Christ's son is subject to the triune God of three persons. Not true. He's subject to the father. He's not subject to the Holy Spirit. So she's got a mistake here. The son is subjected to the God and father and in that sense the son is subjected to himself. This is the doctrine of the, my answer is Sarah, a former student of mine. This is not the doctrine of the trinity. I don't know. And I don't know if she took doctrine of the trinity from me but she's got it messed up. This sounds more like ancient modalism. The view that there's only one person in God than trinitarianism. The sun is not subjected to the whole being of God. The sun is subjected to the father. The sun doesn't pray to the whole being of God and prays to the father. There's a distinction in the activities of the persons. Kevin Giles, how does he make his argument? Look at this. In seeking to make a response to my fellow evangelicals subordinate the son of the father, I do not appeal directly to particular scriptural passages to establish who is right and wrong. Woo, very interesting. I seek rather to prove that orthodoxy, he means hit church history, rejects this way of reading the scriptures. Giles admits, I can see immediately the New Testament can be read to teach the sun is eternally subordinated to the father. But then he says, I'm not going to use scripture. He's got a whole book by Interverses saying, hmm, I'm not going to use scripture. People can argue scripture different ways. I'm going to argue church history. Okay? But then he seriously, seriously misrepresents church history and differs with these summary statements by really many experts in the history of doctrine. So, Interversity Press publishes it and I found out last week that my friends at Zander van have published it too, but they are also pushing an evangelical feminist agenda. So, Miller Erickson questions the idea of eternal subordination, but he fails to treat any of the passages just mentioned. And again, he's just dealing with one figure in church history, primarily, a man named Warfield, that I think he really hasn't fully understood. One more thing before we let's point B. This is the other side of your outline. There's one more idea. Egalitarians or evangelical feminists have also started to teach mutual submission within the Trinity. Within the Trinity, just the father submits to the sun, so there's no unique authority for the father in relation to the sun. Here's the idea. I would say that the Trinity provides a pattern for the relationship between the husband and wife. So, there's equality, but there's a difference in authority. Egalitarians have come back and said, you know what? I have to thinking about this a while. We think that there is a mutual submission. Life submits to husband, husband submits to wife. Nobody's in charge. And I say, wait a minute, that's not the pattern of the Trinity. And Stanley Grins says, oh, guess what? There's mutual submission in the Trinity, too. The father submits to the sun. Stanley Grins actually, Stanley Grins sadly, just died of a massive brain hemorrhage in his early 50s, just last year. But before he died, I've talked with him at the professional side of me. I said, stand where is there anything in the Bible where it says the father obeys the sun or the father submits to the sun. He could give me no passage from scripture. Well, as anybody in the history of the church held to the father submits to the sun, he could give me a quote from anybody. It's no recognized teacher in church history, but he's still as argued that. I'm going to skip over that. He said, basically he says, well, the father couldn't be the father unless he had a son. That would be like saying, if I didn't have a wife, I would not be a husband. Therefore, I must have no unique authority as a husband and there must be mutual submission of my marriage. Or if I did not have a child, I would not be a parent. Therefore, I must have no authority as a parent and there must be mutual submission. That's confusing the categories. It's saying if there wasn't a marriage, there wouldn't be a marriage, but it doesn't say anything about authority. Or if there wasn't a Trinity, there wouldn't be a Trinity, but it doesn't say anything about authority. So I think that's a kind of a word trick, it's not really a persuasive argument. My response is that no passage of scripture and no recognized writer throughout the history of the church supports the idea of mutual submission and the Trinity. It's an egalitarian invention created to justify the egalitarian ideal of mutual submission and marriage. And here's what I think the problem is, if you say there's no unique authority for the father, what you end up having then, you don't know that there's any difference between father and son. You basically, I think, end up having a Trinity that looks like this, person A, person A in person A, where there's no differences between them. And ultimately, I think that egalitarian tampering with this doctrine in the Trinity and arguing for mutual submission, that's tampering and messing with the idea of eternal differences in roles among the persons. And I think that is going to lead in the direction of modalism, that is just one person in God, hasn't gone there yet, but that's the tendency that it's going to have. Conclusion, the idea of authority and submission never began. It existed forever in the very being of God. Authority and submission did not begin with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1987, nor with patriarchal men in the Old Testament, nor in the fall of Adam and Eve and Genesis. The idea of authority and submission never began. It has always existed in the eternal relationship between the father and the son. And what does that mean for practical terms? It means in marriage that we can have equality and difference in authority and mutual respect and honor. And it shouldn't be thought of as demeaning or devaluing of a wife with respect to her husband, but just as the father greatly honors the son. So the husband should greatly honor and value and respect his wife. And love is what? Yet there is a leadership role that belongs to the husband. And that's the payoff for us. It also has payoff in terms of how we think about authority generally, authority of government, authority of our boss in the workplace, authority of the elders in a church, authority of parents in the family. We have in our society a strong tendency that says, resist all authority, authority is bad. If you're in charge, that's fine. But if you're under authority, try to get out of it. And the Bible isn't that way. It shows that the son eternally subject to the authority of the father. And yet that is his glory. His glory to do the father's will. And he delights in it. And he is honored as a result of it. And so the idea of authority is not itself evil. It's something that exists eternally in the very being of God. Okay, we have about four or five minutes that we can do some interaction and some questions. I hope it wasn't too boring for you that I did that. But part of the reason I did it is it kind of gives you a little window into professional debates in my own life. And I thought it wouldn't hurt to kind of understand that. Okay, Kathy, John. That's great. Okay, so I'm going to repeat for the tape. Is this why the doctrine of the Trinity is important? Because it has payoff and marriage? Or well, I'll say in 2006, it's why it's important. There are other reasons why the doctrine of the Trinity is important. Muslims deny it. Jehovah's Witness says deny it. They have distorted view of God and it leads to a distorted view of how we should live our life. And it leads to I think a loss of salvation because you don't have a fully divine son who can die for our sins. And there are some other things. But right here, here's one payoff. And it's just one example of how if people deny the Trinity, they go wrong in other areas eventually. And that's happened historically in other ways. In New England, the Unitarians denied the Trinity and they just became totally liberal, for instance. So yeah, yeah, what else? Anything else? Yeah. Gene. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting. Gene is talking about the Muslim attack, Muslims historically attacking the Christians saying you believe in three gods or something like that. And it is interesting that other religions who are not Christian end up attacking the doctrine of the Trinity. And it's it's almost predictable. They'll either say, if you believe in one God, you can't have three persons. That's what the Muslims say. Or if you believe in three persons, they can't be equal. That's what the Jehovah's Witnesses say. But they deny that you can have three persons and one being of God. And that's it's easy to deny because there's nothing like it in creation. We don't know and it's like God's being. And so it's for us to understand or even picture. And so it's it's kind of easy for other religions to take pot shots at it in kind of a simple way. But yeah, that's where they'll attack. It's good. Yeah. What else? Anything else? I can't see here. What's your name? Doc, I have not watched more than five minutes of TBS in my life as far as I know. So I can't

I'm not saying that it's not good. I just at age 13 decided I wasn't going to watch TV very much for the rest of my life. And so that's a 50 that's a 45 years ago. And so so I just don't. But but I have heard that there are some speakers that have been allowed on there, not that they official Trinity Broadcasting network would probably believe in the Trinity. You think. But what has happened, there are these what's called these Wondrous Pentecostal or these Jesus-only people and they kind of seem like genuine Christians. They've maybe been given some air time too. So that's a that's a concern yeah. Okay, anything else Diane? It did in Genesis 1 to 26 to 27 where God said to them, let's see, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion. And so where they made them co-regions, the analogy perhaps would be king and queen. But Adam still had a leadership role. But but there's still much authority that's given within the family within the household and within areas of business for instance, the Proverbs 31 woman who has her own business considers a field and buys it with a fruit or handshake plants, a vineyard or merchandise is a profitable thing. So there are roles of there are already that are appropriate for women as well as men. And as princes and princesses or kings and queens I suppose God has called us to have share in rule over the creation which is wonderful. But I think there's still a male headship there in marriage which is what I'm talking about right now. Okay, good. Well I can't see. Oh yeah John

Bill is Echin, yes. Yes. I believe that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today today and forever. I think the yesterday mean while he was on earth and today while he's in heaven and then forever. And so yes, he will return in the same manner as you saw him go into heaven. He will come back in his in his human nature. Now in glorified nature with the brightness of the glory of God surrounding him and he will rule over the creation but he will exist as God and man forever. Yeah.

And that's that's how we will see him and we'll be like him Edie. Right. Do I want to talk about roles outside of marriage for men women? Sure, sometime. But I think I think there's a leadership role for I think there's a leadership role the Bible signs to men in marriage and the church. So we have only male elders and male senior pastor here. It's got still Bible but we have lots of women in very prominent and influential ministries here. It's got still Bible church with having a lot of responsibility. And so there's both but there is a leadership role that's restricted to men. And I think that the Bible only says that with regard to

marriage and the church. So I am going to vote I'm going to vote for one of those and call that Rosadi or Carolyn Allen. When I mail in my ballot as a state representative I don't think there's anything in the Bible that prohibits women serving in government for instance. And those are the two candidates in my district and I have my opinion on which one is better, which I'm not going to divulge while I have the microphone on but I'll tell any of you after class if you want to come up. Okay. So next week are you ready to talk about when the earth was created and how many along the days of creation were? All right. We go to creation next week although the days of creation will probably be about the third week into it. Let's pray. Lord, we give you thanks. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God three and one. We thank you that you eternally have existed in a way that is so amazing and wonderful and beyond our comprehension. And Father, we thank you that we can pray to you as Father whom we love and adore and who cares for us. Lord Jesus Christ, we thank you that you are our Savior who has come and died for us. So here's our prayers who ever lives to make intercession for us. We thank you that you are exalted to a place of great glory and honor at the right hand of the Father and you will reign eternally. I always thank you that you dwell within us that you intercede for us according to the will of God. You guide and lead and empower us We thank you for who you are. And we praise you, God three and one. Amen. See you next week.