Tag Archives: Christianity

•

1 Cor. 15:24-28 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, 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.

This is a fairly short segment in Craig Keener's paper, "Is Subordination within the Trinity Really Heresy? A Study of John 5:18 in Context".

Let me remind all reading that Keener is an egalitarian and has no reason to see eternal submission of Christ as a basis for his stand in the gender role conversation. Further, he reminds us that there is no need to accuse either side of heresy or "tampering with the Trinity".

The first segment (John 5) is here.
In this first segment is Scripture, with my comments block-quoted/inset.
1) Christ reigns now.

Christ is currently at the right hand of the Father (which is traditionally, a place of equal power and authority, and lesser rank) - we have a current example of submission.

2) then comes the end, when Christ delivers the kingdom to God the Father.

"The end" - this makes this an eschatological passage; one that tells us of the end of history (the future). Even then, the action of Christ is to deliver the kingdom to His Father, not to keep it for Himself.

3) after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

For those who believe that a Christian marriage is an authority structure and that the husband is the authority, this tells us that THAT AUTHORITY WILL END at this point.

4) AFTER destroying the last enemy, the final enemy to be destroyed is death.

That is a comforting piece of Scripture...death will be destroyed.

5) FOR God has put all things under Christ's feet.

God is the One who put Christ into power; Christ's authority (as Christ said many times while He walked the earth) was the authority of His Father.

6) BUT [emphasis mine] when it says äll things are put in subjection", it is plain that the Father is excepted

Scripture is telling us that the Father is NOT in subjection to Christ - the Father is excepted.

7) When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him,

Here is a Scriptural, Biblical example of the FUTURE and ESCHATALOGICAL submission of the Son to the Father.

8) that God may be all in all.

New Advent puts it: The Son also himself shall be subject unto him... That is, the Son will be subject to the Father, according to his human nature, even after the general resurrection; and also the whole mystical body of Christ will be entirely subject to God, obeying him in every thing.

MY QUESTION AND POINT (I think that the question must have gotten lost in the shuffle many times) is that if we have a past, present and future (creative, redemptive and eschatological) example of the Son in submission to the Father...where does Scripture tells us when this submission ends?

If there is no place that Scripture tells us that the submission of the Son ends; that He grasps full equality not only in essence and person, but also in His role in relationship to the Father, then the teaching that eternal submission is false is teaching from silence.

Keener's comments (bolded emphasis mine):

In some sense the messianic king and Son of man must reign forever (Isa 9:7; Dan 7:14; Luke 1:3233), but Jewish people also usually affirmed that God himself would reign more directly in the final time (Exod 15:18; Ps 146:10; Mic 4:7).40 So Paul's first hearers probably would not have found his point difficult to grasp.

Depending on how much weight one hangs on the grammatical details here, scholars debate the extent to which Paul shares with some of his contemporaries the view of an intermediate messianic kingdom. Some believe Christ's reign refers to his present reign concluded by death being placed under his feet at the believers' resurrection (1 Cor 15:25-26), others to a later period based on the succession of "thens" suggested in 15:23-24. In either case, in the end Christ himself will be plainly subordinated to the Father (15:28) in a more complete way than he is before that day (15:27), though he sits already at the Father's right hand (cf. Acts 2:34-35).

At that point, God will be "all in all" (1 Cor 15:28). This refers to his unchallenged authority over all else, in this context presumably including the Son. (...)

Despite some thorny questions about the meaning of some of Paul's language here, which we have not endeavored to resolve, this passage appears to affirm the Son's willing and loving subordination to the Father in the future era. For Paul, then, Jesus' deity (e.g., 1 Cor 8:6) is presumably not incompatible with his recognition of the Father's higher rank, even in the eternal future. Paul's wording does not indicate the sense in which the Son submits to the Father-it surely differs from the sense in which the rest of creation submits to both of them (Rev 22:3). But it does suggest that the Father and Son embrace roles that remain distinct in some respects even in eternity.

• 17 Comments

•

 

Thirteen Verses about the Father and the Son

  1. But 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. (1 Corinthians 7:3) - all verses are from the ESV
  2. Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ (John 8:54)
  3. yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor. 8:6)
  4. When all things are subjected to him, 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. (1 Cor. 15:28)
  5. so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:10-11)
  6. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Col 3:17)
  7. but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Heb. 1:2)
  8. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (John 5:21-23)
  9. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (John 5:26)
  10. Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, (John 10:25)
  11. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. (John 12:49)
  12. but Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. (Heb 3:6)
  13. We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.(Romans 6:4)

•

Chapter 3.—What Augustin Requests from His Readers. The Errors of Readers Dull of
Comprehension Not to Be Ascribed to the Author. (from "On the Trinity")

"(...)6. I expect, indeed, that some, who are more dull of understanding, will imagine that in some
parts of my books I have held sentiments which I have not held, or have not held those which I
have. But their error, as none can be ignorant, ought not to be attributed to me, if they have deviated
into false doctrine through following my steps without apprehending me, whilst I am compelled
to pick my way through a hard and obscure subject (...)

•

This is an "NLP" term that I have heard in reference to Christianity. It took me a while to understand it, but I'm getting there.

"The map is not the territory."

What does this mean? To me, it means that it doesn't really matter how long you look at the map, the map is not a substitute for experiencing the territory.

I can show you a google map of Lake Tahoe. I can even link to a satellite photo.

I can show you this:

and I can show you this: (I like this one from the air, because you can clearly see the airstrip and I had seen a little plane landing there)...

But are the maps and the photos identical to feeling the sun on your face and the sound of the skis and taste of the snow when you fall face first into the snowbank?  Is looking at the satellite image the same as listening to the wind in the trees and feeling it in your face as you move down the (bunny) hill?
We would all agree...yes. Of course. Reading is not the same as living.

"The map is not the territory."

In the same way, reading is not the same as doing. I had never been on downhill skis before. I read instructions and I read websites and I listened to descriptions and directions.

But that "map" is not the territory either. Reading and listening is not the same as having somebody ski in front of you, showing you, guiding you, reminding you of everything you had heard and read, encouraging you to "do as I do".

"The map is not the territory."

Here is where I apply it to a Christian walk. "The map is not the territory." Scripture can be compared to the map

(and please, don't attempt any accusation that I'm lessening the authority of Scripture by making it into a mere "map"...for more reading about my views of Scripture, see

Anyway..."The map is not the territory".

Scripture is the revelation of God, the Written Word, God's Word to His bride. **Somewhat** akin to reading love letters when you could be in your sweetie's arms.  (But only "somewhat" because the Spirit indwells us to teach us what the Word is telling us.)

The Bible is like the map and life is like the territory.

The Bible tells us how to life and the Spirit teaches us how to apply it (like the stuff I read about skiing and my friend telling me how to apply it.  And (like the one who showed me "how to") Scripture also tells us about examples to follow.

At the top of the list (In Scripture) is Christ - to be "Christ-like" is what we strive for.

1 Peter 2:21
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

We also Scripture telling us about human examples to follow.

Philippians 3:17
Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.

1 Thessalonians 1:7
so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.

2 Thessalonians 3:9
It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate.

1 Timothy 4:12
Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.

James 5:10
As an example of suffering and patience, brothers, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

1 Peter 5:3
not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

These are examples to imitate.

2 Thessalonians 3:7
For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you,

Hebrews 13:7
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.

(side note:  the Greek word is transliterated "mimeomai" - like mimic...mime.)

We might call those we "imitate" as examples "role models"- although that role is more encompassing in a personal relationship.  Scripture says to consider the outcomes of our leaders lives...and imitate their faith.

We are told to find examples...consider the outcomes...and imitate.

• 12 Comments

•

I'm finding that I don't like the word "subordinationism". There are better words to describe the belief that we're talking about. However...that appears to be the "word of the day".

Craig Keener (an egalitarian) wrote a rather long article: "Is subordination within the Trinity really heresy? A study of John 5:18 in context."
In the opening page he writes:

Nor, in fact, do Christological views coincide as closely with views on gender roles as some of the advocates of either position claim. Thus, for example, I frequently talk with Christians who espouse a complementarian view of gender roles while expressing surprise that anyone would deny the full equality in all respects of the Father and the Son. By contrast, I and some other scholars I know who support a very broad range of women's ministry affirm the Son's subordination to the Father. To be sure, that subordination may be voluntary, and we do not draw from it the same conclusions many of our complementarian colleagues do; but the fact remains that one's view on gender roles does not enable one to predict one's view of relations within the Trinity, or vice-versa. I do see evidence for the Son's subordination to the Father in rank; I also believe that evangelicals who differ on the matter should do so charitably. (emphasis mine)

The article begins at John 5:18

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV) (emphasis mine)

(A) Does Jesus Claim "Equality"? (5:18)

Jesus is "God the Son", but He is also acting as an agent for the Father. Keener makes the point that when we say that Christ as claiming equality with the Father in this passage, we are following the logic of Christ's enemies, not the actual words of Christ. Yes...clearly Christ is communicating His deity in this passage, but equality of roles with the Father? Keener believes not:

But while Jesus claims deity at various points in this gospel (e.g., 8:58; 20:2829), he also denies equality of rank with his Father. This is particularly clear in his response to those who think he has claimed such equality (5:19-30). Jesus does this by calling attention to his role as Son and agent. (emphasis mine).

In verses 19-23 we see the following points

  • Jesus is following the example of His Father
  • Jesus is saying that He can do nothing of His own accord
  • Jesus has been given authority by His Father

Nowhere in this passage does Christ claim equality - He claims Sonship, with delegated authority and obedience.

(B) Jesus as God Son

Keener brings up a point that I had not heard of or thought of. Jesus was obediently following His Father's example. In the Jewish culture, how did a son learn his trade? By following his father's example - apprenticeship.

Nevertheless, this part of the discourse is framed with Jesus' claim not to act "from himself," or on his own initiative or authority (5:19, 30),25 fitting the Jewish conception of the agent who carries out his commission? Jesus elsewhere emphasizes that he does nothing "from himself" (5:30; 7:17-18, 28; 8:28, 42; 14:10), as the Spirit does not (16:13), and that the disciples cannot produce anything profitable from themselves (15:5).

(c) Jesus as God's Agent

In this section, Keener touches on the argument that yes-Christ was subordinate for the duration of His incarnation. But Keener points out that since Christ was "sent", that the submission started (at least) a little while before His birth.

Also, as a "representative agent" He carried the full authority of the Sender. This was in accordance with the time;

Agency represented commission and authorization, the sense of the concept which provides a broad conceptual background for early Christian agency. In many cases, at least in our later sources, the agent's own legal status was comparatively low. Indeed, under rabbinic rulings, even slaves were permitted to fill the position.32 Yet agents bore representative authority, because they acted on the authority of the one who sent them. Thus perhaps the most common rabbinic maxim concerning a person's agent is that "he is equivalent to the person himself."33 In the broader Mediterranean world envoys or messengers were backed by the full authority of those they represented. (...)

Even when one sent one's son (Mark 12:6), the messenger position was necessarily one of subordination to the sender. Although the concept of agency implies subordination, it also stresses Jesus' functional equality with the Father in terms of humanity's required response: he must be honored and believed in the same way as must be the Father whose representative he is (e.g., Tohn 5:23; 6:29).

(and I'm just a third of the way through the article...)

We have the framework for Christ's submission, obedience, subordination, and agency for the duration of His ministry while He walked this planet - and (at least a little) prior to.
Still...that does not provide proof that this submission is eternal.

Next up: section II: 1 Corinthians 15:28.

• 11 Comments

•

Q: What is "subordinationism"?

A: Very simply put (and there are many nuances), subordinationism is the belief that there is a hierarchy within the Godhead (Trinity) that has the Father as the head, with the Son and the Spirit flowing from the Father and in an equal, but submissive role. The main reason for this little series of posts is the way that it relates to the conversation on gender roles - I'm not sure that it plays a huge part, but the conversation did spark my curiosity.

Q: Is this the heresy of "Arianism"?

A: No. What was defined as heresy at the Council of Nicea

  • Arianism taught that Christ is a created being - of "like substance", but not the "same substance" - sort of a "lesser god" or "created god".
  • Arianism denied the full deity of Christ.
  • Ariansim denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.

Q: What is different about the two?

A: Subordinationism declares that each member of the Trinity are individual persons, yet fully unified in will and purpose; each member of the Trinity is fully God.  James White, in "The Forgotten Trinity" puts in this way: There is One "WHAT" (the Godhead/Trinity).  Within that one WHAT, there are three "WHOS" (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).  To deny that the persons of the Trinity are indeed three persons, is a denial of the Trinity that is known as "modalism" - held to by "Oneness" churches.
The Son and the Spirit are "generated" from the Father, yet all three are eternal and fully God and fully equal in person, dignity and deity. Are we confused yet? This is why the Trinity is called a "mystery".

Other helpful terms:

"ekporeusis"

"The monarchy of the Father"

"filioque"

"Eternal Sonship"

It is a mistake to confuse the belief of eternal submission with the heresy of Arianism.

• 14 Comments

•

First, the basic definition of "heresy", since this is a word that has been used in connection with "subordinationism".

Heresy:

From merriam-webster:

1
  • a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
  • b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
  • c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2
  • a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
  • b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

I think it is important to understand that in order to have a "heresy", you have to have an authority to proclaim it OR to have an absolute, definitive theory, opinion, practice or doctrine to which to adhere (and be contrary to).

POINT: If you choose to level an accusation of "heresy", you should have an authoritative church body that represents "the Church" as a whole. If you cannot do this, you are choosing, either as a single person or small body, to proclaim orthodoxy and/or heresy outside of the "body" as a whole.

Accusations of heresy are serious business. False accusations are more serious yet. We should be very cautious when using such words as "heresy" or "blasphemy", lest we bear false witness against brothers and sisters in Christ.

I have little trouble examining doctrine against "historical proclamations" of heresy.  There was a time that was much closer to the cross and the apostles then we are now.  There was a time when the church was united; before the church in Rome and the Eastern Church separated.  Before that time, the young church had several councils that gathered together, examined Scripture and proclaimed "orthodoxy".

So...who decides?

A Church Council is an official ad hoc gathering of representatives to settle Church business. Such Councils are called rarely and are not the same as the regular gatherings of church leaders (synods, etc). An ecumenical council is one at which the whole Church is represented. The three major branches of the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) recognize seven ecumenical councils: Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), Nicea II (787). Further ecumenical councils were rendered impossible by the widening split between Eastern (Orthodox, Greek-speaking) and Western (Catholic, Latin-speaking) Churches, a split that was rendered official in 1054 and has not yet been healed. (from PBCC.org)

I'll let folks do their own search for the "seven ecumenical councils" - because which of the three major branches will cite different sources, yet all three branches recognize a group of seven councils on which all agree.

In short...if these seven councils agree that a doctrine is "heresy", all three major branches of Christianity today (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) will agree.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils:

  • The Council of Nicea, 325
  • The Council of Constantinople, 381
  • The Council of Ephesus, 431
  • The Council of Chalcedon, 451
  • The Council of Constantinople II, 553
  • The Council of Constantinople III, 680
  • The Council of Nicea II, 787

To wrap it up, these seven ecumenical councils of the early church met to BOTH unite the church on essential doctrine and to separate those who teach heresy from those who teach truth.

I believe that if a teaching is not found (or condemned) in these seven councils, it becomes more difficult to level an accusation of "heresy". Again, we should be very careful when doing so.

• 14 Comments

•

From Complegalitarian:

So if the relationship is sour, it *must* be because she's not acknowledging his leadership well enough. If she agrees with everything he says and complies in every single way, then there won't be any problems, now will there?

(No problems, but not much of a REAL relationship to speak of, either)... 🙁

I see that particular emphasis as being abusive in and of itself, even if the guy does not resort to physical violence, the emotional violence done to a woman in that kind of a "relationship" is enormous. In effect she ceases to exist.

I guess I would need to ask what "kind of 'relationship'" is being referred to?  Complementarian?  If it is complementarian marriages in general, it becomes more difficult to believe that egalitarians do not see all complementarian men in general are abusive.

If there is a different "kind of 'relationship'" being referred to, it would be helpful to know exactly what is being referred to?

I do have a few thoughts on "ceasing to exist".

Do we "cease to exist" when we are in Christ?  (Since Scripture refers multiple times in both New and Old Testaments as God / Christ relating to His peoples as husband and wife, it's a reasonable thing to do).

Is God / Christ being abusive when He gives us His commandments?

ALSO:  is dying to one's self necessarily a bad thing?  If the giving up on one's self leads to a greater tie of "one-flesh", why is that bad?  Especially since BOTH parties may be required to do exactly that.

• 74 Comments

•

QUESTION:

How submissive should a wife be?

In what way should a wife BE submissive to her husband?

Whether or not the husband leads, whether or not you call your husband "leader", what does the Bible say about the submission of a wife?

Submit unless he tries to lead, in which case all bets are off?

Submission until submission is hard?

Submission until you don't agree on something? Anything?

Submission to the point of where he asks you to sin?

Submission to the point where he sins against you?

Submission until he is abusive?

Submission to the point of death?

If a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, what does that mean?

Does the church submit to the Lord Jesus Christ as her authority?  What example does that set (or does not set) for wives?
There is a point to the questions. Submission of a wife is a tenet of both egalitarian and complementarian marriages. The difference (as I see it anyway) is the way the husband relates to (submits to the needs of)  the wife, not the submission (or not) of the wife. Egalitarianism does NOT say the wife should not submit. (I think) that egalitarianism teaches that the wife and husband should submit equally to each other and in the same way (if there is a difference in the way that egalitarians believe that a husband and wife (in general terms, not in a particular relationship) submit to one another), this is something I would like to learn of - with sources from CBE).

AGAIN: the questions are about how a wife relates to her husband. PLEASE do not speculate or comment on how you believe husbands are to relate to their wives.

• 9 Comments

•

I posted the (short) list of how CBMW sees egalitarian teaching:

  • God created male and female as equal in all respects. Gen. 1:26-27 makes no distinction between woman and man insofar as both are equally made in His image (i.e., ontological equality), and both are given the responsibility to rule over His creation (i.e., functional equality).
  • Sin introduced into God’s created order many manifestations of disorder and corrupted relationships. Among the chief examples of sin’s defilement is the introduction of an illegitimate hierarchy in the relationship between woman and man.
  • 1. Gen. 1:26-27 - shows that man and woman share the same human nature, both are made in God’s image, and both are given God’s commission to rule the earth. Not only is there equality of being or nature between man and woman, there is also, importantly, equality of function or task - both are commanded to rule. And note: no distinction is made to give the man a superior position in this rulership.
  • 2. Gen. 2:18 - woman as “helper” is best understood as one who comes to complement (i.e., make complete something that is incomplete). So, far from the woman being subordinate to the man, this shows how indebted man should be to the woman.
  • 5. 1 Cor. 12:7-11 - Clearly, God distributes His gifts to His people as He so wills, but one’s gender is not a factor in His giving any particular gift to a person. Women and men alike are recipients of all of God’s gifts (e.g., see 1 Cor. 11:5 for a statement of women having the gift of prophecy). Since God’s spiritual gifting is gender-neutral, and since God expects His gifts to be used in the church, it follows that men and women alike are equal in their exercise of gifts in the church.

How are these false?  If this is not generally correct, why not explain how, rather than make accusations?

Another person speculated about integrity and further speculated about insecurity about a blogger using their personal information in a wrong way (so I set this blog to not require any personal information in an effort to reassure that any attack that might be leveled at my integrity with personal information  need not be a concern)

What I was doing was attempting to answer concerns about CBMW teaching.  I quoted commenters questions and concerns and then quoted CBMW in an attempt to answer that concern.

(NOTE:  when objecting to CBMW teaching, I seldom see CBMW quoted or linked to and there are many claims of wrong teachings - or worse, accusation of lies (resorting to falsehood, which has a much different meaning that "believing falsehood") without citation.)