On Thursday, May 24th, 2007, at Mars Hill Church's West Seattle campus, Brant Bosserman gave the fourth of a five-part lecture series called "Christianity and..." Brant's topic was Christianity and Trinitarian Worldview.
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 13. The Unity of the Divine Essence in Three Persons Taught, in Scripture, from the Foundation of the World.
This chapter consists of two parts.
The former delivers the orthodox doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity. This occupies from sec. 1-21,and may be divided into four heads; the first, treating of the meaning of Person, including both the term and the thing meant by it, sec. 2-6; the second, proving the deity of the Son, sec. 7-13;the third, the deity of the Holy Spirit, sec. 14 and 15; and the fourth, explaining what is to be held concerning the Holy Trinity.
The second part of the chapter refutes certain heresies which have arisen, particularly in our age, in opposition to this orthodox doctrine. This occupies from sec. 21 to the end.
The present paper will evaluate "Subordinationism in the Godhead, A Re-emerging Heresy," a transcript of a lecture given by Gilbert Bilezikian at the National Conference of Christians for Biblical Equality at Wheaton College in August, 1993, and distributed by the same group. Dr. Bilezikian was assigned the title (p. 17).
According to the lecture, it was St. Augustine who provided "a definitive statement on the Trinity" in the fifth century (p. 2), putting an end to Subordinationist tendencies found in some earlier patristic writings (pp. 2-4). As Dr. Bilezikian sees the matter, the "historical Biblical trinitarian doctrine that has been defined in the creeds and defended by the church" was the affirmation that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal, interdependent, and one in substance; their identity of essence, he stresses, precludes "any form of hierarchy, order or ranking" (p. 5) and establishes "the functional equality of the persons of the Trinity" (p. 9). All statements in scripture that seem to place the Son under the Father refer to the Son's temporary, incarnate state of humiliation, which he assumed voluntarily in order to redeem the world (pp. 6-9). The idea that the Son's obedience was appropriate to his position within the Divine Triad raises, in Dr. Bilezikian's view, the specter of "some coercion or obligation by reason of superior force or authority" (p. 6), by which he would have been "dragged to his death against his will--kicking and screaming" (p. 8), and entails projecting on heaven our "pathetic dysfunctional human hierarchies" (p. 20). It may be inferred that Dr. Bilezikian thinks any trinitarian doctrine that specifies an hierarchy, order, or ranking among the Divine Persons, to be a "pagan infiltration" into Christianity, a "weird procession of three divinities lined up by order of seniority" (p. 6), indeed, a form of Subordinationism.
It is no easy matter to define the holiness of God. For anything like a complete discussion of the content of God's holiness you will want to look at the other articles in this issue of Reformation & Revival Journal. In this article we will narrowly confine ourselves to a single observation about God's holiness: God's holiness demands a corresponding holiness and righteousness in us. God Himself has plainly commanded: "I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44). This, of course, was spoken to His ancient people, Israel, but when we turn to the New Testament we hear it repeated to the church of Jesus Christ:
As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "You shall be Holy, for I am Holy" (1 Peter 1:14–16).
In other words, we are to be like God. We are to be like God in our moral character. Nor is this pious advice to be taken or left aside as the moment dictates. This is basic to the entire Christian life. If we are not holy we will never "see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14). In the baldest of terms, "It is holiness or hell."
When it comes to spiritual formation, the Reformed tradition has deep cisterns from which to drink. While probably not too different from "discipleship" as traditionally practiced, "spiritual formation" evokes fertile images of growth, slow maturation, and gentle becoming. It is a focused attention upon the interior life, where our life in and with Christ stubbornly refuses to be measured by the amount of our Christian activity, however exemplary it may be. Spiritual formation is radical Christianity, yet it takes place in the most ordinary everydayness of our lives.
Even Calvin's polemical works breathe with this orientation towards spiritual formation. His Institutes of the Christian Religion gives forth wonderful gems when subjected to intense analysis. But like the Scriptures, there are more elusive pearls that can be found only when an entire book is read in one sitting. I'll never forget the experience of reading the book of Revelation quickly, where I saw the forest for the first time, rather than the trees. There are themes and nuances in Calvin's Institutes that may be hindered by intense analysis and scrutiny, where one does not breathe in the book as a whole, but only in fits and spurts. And perhaps for this reason the Institutes is rarely consulted for spiritual formation. Although it is obvious that I have never read the Institutes in a day, let alone a week (and not just because I have young children!), I would encourage its broad perusal for the nurturing of our interior lives. Calvin, at least, would approve.
For those who associate Calvin with dry dogmatics or rigid political regimes, it often comes as a surprise that Calvin's writings nearly dance with the spiritually formative theme of union with Christ. It functions less as a dogma to believe than a reality to discover. The "systematic" Calvin, who was later to be admired, is more of an anachronism, for he viewed doctrine not as the communication of beliefs about God but as a personal experience of the gospel. Over the centuries, various branches of Calvin's theological tree were hacked off and probed, often without reference to the whole. This could not help but skew Calvin's fairly balanced theology and undermine its devotional aim of communion with Christ—creating fear and trembling rather than a taste of the "fatherly favor of God."1 It must not be forgotten that Calvin was first and foremost a pastor who was intent on forming a people for union with Christ. With this in mind, a reading of the Institutes quickly shows that union with God is not just for the end of our life, but is to be the heartbeat of our life now.
Introduction
To someone not conversant with contemporary theological writings, it may come as something of a surprise to learn that the historic doctrine of the Trinity is undergoing considerable scrutiny, reassessment, reformulation, and/or defense.1 To many, this doctrine, perhaps as much or more than any other, seems so abstract and unrelated to life that they might wonder just why the interest. What is here that would warrant and elicit such concentrated attention? What is at stake in this doctrine that would provoke such interest and concern?
To many, what is at stake is simply this: the integrity and reality of the Christian faith itself. Donald Bloesch surprised many in the theological world with the publication in 1985 of his book entitled, The Battle for the Trinity.2 He charged the feminist rejection of the Bible's own and traditional theology's predominantly masculine language for God as a rejection of the Trinity itself and, as such, the imposition of a different faith (i.e., not the Christian faith) onto those quarters of the church inclined to accept the feminist critique. And, such charges and concerns have continued unabated. Consider, for example, the sobering words of Duke University Professor of Systematic Theology, Geoffrey Wainwright:
The signs of our times are that, as in the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity occupies a pivotal position. While usually still considering themselves within the church, and in any case wanting to be loyal to their perception of truth, various thinkers and activists are seeking such revisions of the inherited doctrine of the Trinity that their success might in fact mean its abandonment, or at least such an alteration of its content, status, and function that the whole face of Christianity would be drastically changed. Once more the understanding, and perhaps the attainment, of salvation is at stake, or certainly the message of the church and the church's visible composition.3
It is common when speaking of the Divine happiness to say that God is infinitely happy in the enjoyment of Himself, in perfectly beholding and infinitely loving, and rejoicing in, His own essence and perfection, and accordingly it must be supposed that God perpetually and eternally has a most perfect idea of Himself, as it were an exact image and representation of Himself ever before Him and in actual view, and from hence arises a most pure and perfect act or energy in the Godhead, which is the Divine love, complacence and joy. The knowledge or view which God has of Himself must necessarily be conceived to be something distinct from His mere direct existence. There must be something that answers to our reflection. The reflection as we reflect on our own minds carries something of imperfection in it. However, if God beholds Himself so as thence to have delight and joy in Himself He must become his own object. There must be a duplicity. There is God and the idea of God, if it be proper to call a conception of that that is purely spiritual an idea.
If a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that passed in his mind, all the series of ideas and exercises in every respect perfect as to order, degree, circumstance and for any particular space of time past, suppose the last hour, he would really to all intents and purpose be over again what he was that last hour. And if it were possible for a man by reflection perfectly to contemplate all that is in his own mind in an hour, as it is and at the same time that it is there in its first and direct existence; if a man, that is, had a perfect reflex or contemplative idea of every thought at the same moment or moments that that thought was and of every exercise at and during the same time that that exercise was, and so through a whole hour, a man would really be two during that time, he would be indeed double, he would be twice at once. The idea he has of himself would be himself again.
Note, by having a reflex or contemplative idea of what passes in our own minds I don't mean consciousness only. There is a great difference between a man's having a view of himself, reflex or contemplative idea of himself so as to delight in his own beauty or excellency, and a mere direct consciousness. Or if we mean by consciousness of what is in our own minds anything besides the mere simple existence in our minds of what is there, it is nothing but a power by reflection to view or contemplate what passes.
Answer - Into three parts: the first is about God the Father and our creation; the second about God the Son and our redemption; the third about God the Holy Spirit and our sanctification.
