Tag Archives: Scripture

•

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.

•

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.

• 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.

• 13 Comments

•

This is at the request of a commenter, Elena.

Elena (for reference, Elena is a member of the Roman Church) posted an article with “problems” with the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”. Quite frankly, I am on vacation and I have no desire to continue a senseless argument with somebody who has no desire to listen, only to argue. I’m going to close comments on the original post, so as to keep this on track.

Because I have no desire to drag this out into senseless and meaningless debate (again), I am placing limits on the debate. Each person entering into the debate will have a limit of 5 posts in which to put forth their arguments/rebuttals. This includes me (but not posts regarding administrative stuff). There is a limit of 40 posts in this thread, at which point comments will be turned off. (I don’t expect to have that many, since this is a new blog and I don’t think I have that many visitors, but it seems like enough time for whoever might pass by to get their word in). You may defend the doctrine, the problems, the reasons, the reasons for suppressing. As long as it pertains to “sola Scriptura”, it is not off topic in this thread.

Here is the doctrine: Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines.

That’s it. That’s the doctrine that seems to be the most hated by Rome.

As far as I know, these “problems” have never been considered problems by the officers of the Roman church or the bishop of Rome. The article was written by James Akin, a Roman Catholic, but I could not find where it was endorsed in any way by the Vatican. The teachers of the Roman church have always read Scripture out loud and have still considered it “Scripture”.

  1. Requires ability to [print!)

This “problem” says that in order for a person to have complete faith in the Bible for infallible rule, a person cannot have it read to them, they must be able to read it for themselves. This is silly. The Bible (God’s Word set down in writing) is God’s Word, whether it is read by the person receiving it, or read out loud. It is infallible, whereas man and tradition are not.

From the time Scripture was written on sheepskin, it was infallible and it remains infallible, and the method by which it is received is not relevant – it is still Scripture, just as Shakespeare is Shakespeare, whether silently read, or acted out on stage.
2. Requires mass distribution of bibles!
This “problem” says that in order for a person to be able to say, “that’s what the Bible says and that’s my final authority”, that person has to have his or her own personal copy. From the time that Scripture was written on sheepskin, nobody ever said that it wasn’t infallible because it was read out loud.

Scripture needs to be distributed, but not everybody has to have their own copy – even the Jews read the Torah and still considered it Torah.
3. Requires Christians be able to read! (this one I will address one of the comments)
…but also because the person needs to be able to go over the passage multiple times
I trust that God’s Word will not return unto Him void. Where the Spirit moves, there will be understanding. Besides, anywhere there is somebody who can read, there is probably somebody who can be asked, “what about…?”

4. Must have scholarly materials available.This “problem” is saying that if you want to depend fully on God’s Word, you have to also depend on the works of man.

Why? If the Bible is the final authority, why depend on the works of man? That’s the whole point.

5.Need time to study! ..."If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn't have time to do this, especially not in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat and sleep and recreate.

I recently watched “The Magdalene Sisters” – these imprisoned young women didn’t have time to recreate and barely had time to eat and sleep. But there was somebody reading the Bible while they ate. Possibly the only thing that was right.

In Old Testament times very few families could afford their own scrolls, yet even when all that was written was the law, Scripture exhorted them to that “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.” Jews were to “Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.”

These were people who were under the working conditions described above. Thus, since the Bible expected it, I believe it is possible.

6.Sola scriptura pre supposes universal adequate nutrition
What this “problem” is saying is that God in not powerful enough to work without the hearer having proper nutrition, but Rome is.

Personally, I have more faith in the power of God than that. In other parts of the world, people are starving and Christianity is flourishing – it’s because of the power of God, not the power of food.

7.Must be skilled in evaluating arguments
What this “problem” appears to be saying is that accepting only Scripture as your authority is not enough, you have to be able to think for yourself. While thinking is helpful in arguing, I know many people with a simple faith that need not turn to arguments. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” means just that. They can (and do) fall on Scripture (God said it and I believe it).

The question that popped up in my mind: What do people who cannot think embrace, if not Scripture? Is that why people follow those who think for them?

Part 2
The hatred of “sola Scriptura” by Roman Catholics begs the question, “why?”

Why is “Scripture alone” so heavily condemned by the Roman church?

(History lesson) By 500 AD the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. Around that time Rome decided that only Latin was a suitable language for the Bible (and how many people knew Latin?) and that anybody found in possession of a Bible not in Latin would be executed.

Why was it so important to Rome that the church control Scripture, that they were willing to kill those who wanted to read it?

Why were Bibles not in Latin burned?

There were many abuses and persecutions – I am speaking strictly of the attempts by the Roman church to so subdue the population as to keep them from the Scripture.

Why? What was the Roman church so afraid of?