by Sam Waldron | Oct 19, 2011 | Systematic Theology
In my last blog post I had occasion to mention the great Trinitarian benediction of 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” No less a Reformed stalwart than B. B. Warfield notes that in this text the order of the persons is Son, Father, Spirit and argues from this fact that the order in which the persons are mentioned is not uniform and not suggestive of an ad intra order in the Trinity. Millard Erickson mentions the little known fact that Warfield approaches Egalitarian views of the Trinity in his book, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?
Though Warfield is a great theologian, he is simply wrong at this point. I will hazard a guess at why in coming posts. Against Warfield and others who argue that this variation in the order of mention in 2 Corinthians 13:14 implies that there is no certain order between the persons of the Trinity, a number of cogent counter-arguments may be brought.
First, there is a normal order in the mention of the persons followed in Scripture. Cf. in Paul who is the prime source of Warfield’s thesis these references: Rom. 1:7, 1 Cor. 1:3, 8:6, Eph. 1:2, 6:23,Phil. 1:2, 2:11, 1 Thess. 1:1, 2 Thess. 1:1, 1 Tim. 1:2, 1:1, 2 Tim. 1:2, Tit. 1:4, Philemon 3, Col. 1:3, Eph. 1:3, 2 Cor. 1:3. Warfield notwithstanding, we cannot think that the order of Matt. 28:18; John 1:1, 14; or John 3:16 might be changed. Occasional texts which vary this order ought not to be used to contradict this normal order if another explanation is available.
Second, there may be many reasons why the order of mention may sometimes vary. If the Father in some cases is mentioned after the Son, it may be that the structure is climactic.
Third, when the theological and exegetical background of 2 Corinthians 13:14 is examined, its unusual order is seen to be consistent with the traditional Trinitarian order. Here are several reasons why. (1) In 2 Corinthians 13:14 the Father is named “the God.” Literally, the Greek may be rendered “the love of the God.” Certainly, this name indicates the primacy of the Father. (2) The mention of “the love” of the Father leads us to a number of texts which affirm that the source of our salvation is the electing love of the Father. Christ is sent by the Father is consequence of this electing love.
Ephesians 1:4-6 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
Romans 8:37-39 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
(3) Since the fountain of salvation is the electing love of the Father, what we ought to discern in 2 Corinthians 13:14 is not the disruption of any order in the Trinity. Rather we ought to discern an order which actually confirms the traditional order of mention. In 2 Corinthians 13:14 Paul traces the grace of the Son (a reference to His willingness to come and die for us—2 Corinthians 8:9)—up to the fountain of the Father’s love. The Spirit is then sent down to apply to us the subjective and inward benefits that stem ultimately from the Father’s love.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Oct 12, 2011 | Systematic Theology
Another telling rebuttal of the notion that the peculiar roles of the Trinity in redemption are not eternal is that the New Testament makes clear that redemption itself arises from the electing love of the Father. Notice three passages as specimens of this teaching.
Ephesians 1:4-6 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
Romans 8:37-39 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
In each of these passages election is the work of the Father. It is the Father who in love predestined us to the adoption as sons. This makes it very likely that the great Trinitarian benediction of 2 Corinthians 13:14 in mentioning the love of “the God,” a standard description of the Father in the New Testament is referring to the love by which He elected us: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”
The peculiar roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit did not begin with history. They are present in eternity past—embedded in the eternal Trinity itself.
Some theologians attempt to evade this biblical teaching by reference to an eternal covenant in which there was an agreement among the persons of the Trinity to assume certain roles in redemption. They say: The modes of operation in the economic Trinity are determined not by the eternal roles fulfilled by the various persons in the Trinity, but by a pre-mundane covenant of redemption.
This argument assumes that a covenant is a pactum or contract with the connotation of bilateral discussion between equal parties. It is now commonly recognized that this is not the biblical meaning of (especially divine) covenants. Berith and diatheke rather speak of a unilateral arrangement like a last will and testament (Heb. 9:15-17) or an imposition of a treaty on a conquered people by a conquering king. This is the teaching of John Murray, The Covenant of Grace (N. P.: Tyndale Press, 1977) 5f; Meredith G. Kline, the Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963) 27. Indeed, the Greek word for a contract is suntheke, but the New Testament (and Septuagint) word for covenant is diatheke, a word with a clearly more unilateral flavor. This climate of thought is not hospitable to the use being made of covenant by those who deny eternal generation in favor of explaining the economy of redemption by the covenant of redemption.
Also telling against this use of the covenant of redemption are the two major biblical descriptions of it. Titus 1:2 speaks of this covenant as follows: “in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.” (This is the ESV translation and is much more literal than that of the NASB.) Again the article precedes God in the Greek. Thus, the verse speaks of the Father making a promise to the Son before the world began. 2 Timothy 1:9 also speaks of this covenant: “who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.” In no biblical description of the covenant of redemption is there any mention of the persons of the Trinity arbitrarily choosing roles for themselves in redemption. There is only the mention of the promise of the Father to the Son and the purpose of the Father in the Son. There is, of course, agreement of a kind, but it is the joyful agreement of a submissive Son to a Father’s glorious plans.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Oct 6, 2011 | Systematic Theology
Those who oppose the Eternal Sonship of Christ have invented some very clever evasions of the biblical evidence. They have argued that the use of the term, Son, is proleptic and merely anticipates the sonship which he would take up in His incarnation. Others (admitting how unnatural such a reading is of the key passages) have opined that the term, Son, while used of the pre-existent and eternal state, only conveys His equality with the Father and nothing further.
What both of these evasions fail to account for, it seems to me, is that the very passages in question not only teach the eternal sonship of Christ, but the eternal fatherhood of the Father. Look at them again.
John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
John 10:36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God ‘?
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law
1 John 4:9-14 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins….We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
Hebrews 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
The order of the Trinity for which these blogs have been arguing is taught by several things in these passages. First, the primacy of the Father is taught by the way in which “the God” (The article is present in each of the above passages mention of God) and “Father” are interchanged in these passages. Second, the order of the Trinity is made clear by the explicit statement that the Father sent the Son.
Will the evasions invented by the opponents of eternal sonship also work for the eternal fatherhood of the first person of the Trinity? Does the term, Father, merely indicate His equality of nature with the Son? Since when? Is the term, Father, merely applied to the person of the Trinity who sends His Son proleptically? Was He no Father until the birth of Jesus? Then why not say that He was not “the God” until then? If Father is proleptic, why not say that identifying the Father as “the God” is also proleptic (as He is identified in John 3:16, 17; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:1; and 1 John 4:10). Surely the Nicene Creed with its doctrines of the monarchy of the Father, the eternal generation of the Son, the eternal procession of the Spirit is greatly to be preferred as the correct solution for reading these texts!
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 28, 2011 | Systematic Theology
Those who oppose the doctrine of eternal generation also oppose the idea that the persons of the Trinity have in eternity distinct personal characteristics and roles. They teach, therefore, that the economy of redemption is arbitrary and reveals nothing about the identity and roles of the persons of the Trinity in eternity. Some add that the economy of redemption is simply an arbitrary, covenantal arrangement which might have been very different. The person we call the Son might have sent the person we call the Spirit to die on the cross, and both of them might have sent the person we call the Father to apply the work of redemption.
In contrast to this, historic Trinitarianism has taught that there was propriety in the roles assumed by the persons of the Trinity in the economy of redemption. Significantly supporting this view is the fact that the order of the economy of creation is precisely the same as the order of the economy of redemption. Redemption not only occurs from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, Creation is also from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. Last time we saw this order in John 1:1-3. John’s reading of Genesis 1 is that the Father creates the world through His Word and that the Spirit (brooding on the face of the deep) brings this creation to perfection. There are many texts that straightforwardly affirm this order of creation as being from the Father through the Son.
Hebrews 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him.
It is very significant, then, that the economy of creation is the same as that of redemption. It seems to me, however, that the significance of this economy of creation goes even further. When the Trinity springs out of eternity and into time through the work of creation, the order is from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. The reason is that this is the order embedded in the eternal Trinity itself. Creation does not change this order. It only reveals in the order of creation an order that existed in the Trinity itself. The only alternative to this is the notion that the order of the Trinity in time reveals nothing about the order of the Trinity in eternity. Even laying aside all the evidence against this which we have already seen, this notion is in itself unacceptable. The whole purpose of creation and redemption is the manifestation of the glory of God. To deny the revelatory character of the order of creation and redemption with regard to the Trinity is opposed to the whole over-riding rationale of God’s creating and redeeming purpose.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 21, 2011 | Systematic Theology
The opponents of eternal sonship may convince themselves that they have refuted it by offering several plausible reasons why Christ is called the Son of God before His incarnation which do not require that He is eternally generated by the Father. The problem with their argumentation is that it entirely forgets or neglects many related aspects of the biblical data. One such piece of data is the other name given to the Son of God before the creation of the world. According to John 1:1-3 before the creation of the world He is the Word of God.
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Notice several things about this famous and pivotal assertion of the Apostle of John. First, it clearly affirms the full deity of Christ. Not withstanding all the evasions of Jehovah’s Witnesses and others, the clear meaning of the third clause of verse 1 in this context is that the Word is as to His substance, nature, or being God.
Second, in the first two clauses of verse 1 two persons are distinguished. While in the third clause no definite article precedes God, the definite articles are used with the noun, Word, and the noun, God, in the first two clauses: So one person is “the Word” and the other person is called “the God.” This clearly means that “the Word” is the Word of “the God.” These names clearly suggest the derivative character of the person of “the Word” and the primacy of the person called “the God” in this context. To put this in more familiar terms, the Son is described as the eternal Word of the Father.
Third, an intimate personal relationship is ascribed to the two persons in the second clause of verse one. The Greek preposition pros is used in the clause that is translated “and the Word was with God.” Pros has for its root meaning, toward. Thus, it might be translated and “the Word was toward the God.” This already suggests the idea of a personal relationship. We are not, therefore, surprised to find that the use of pros with the accusative (which is what we have here) has for one of its uses (according to the Greek lexicon) the “denoting of a friendly relationship.” “The Word” was oriented toward “the God” in a loving personal relationship.
Fourth, the Word is, then, associated with the Father in the work of creation. The Bible begins with the words: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” John, thus, affirms that at that period in the beginning—at the creation of the world—“He was in the beginning with God.” Verse 3, therefore, goes on to assert that the Father created the world (everything that was created) through the Son: “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” This clearly implies two things. First, it affirms that the Son is Himself not created, because everything that came into being came into being through Him. Second, it affirms that He was the subordinate means of creation. The Father made all things, but He made all things “through” His Son. John is thinking of the statement of in Genesis 1:3, “And God said.” God created the world through His Word and that Word has become incarnate in Jesus Christ. The preposition, dia, used here denotes means, agency, or instrumentality. The Son was the instrument or means or agent though which the Father made the world. His eternal, subordinate, personal relationship to the Father as His Word comes to expression in the work of creation as He is the subordinate means of creation.
The eternal Wordship of Christ plainly implies His eternal Sonship and the role of eternal, personal subordination to the will of the Father that He gladly fulfills.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
