The Henry Center is pleased to announce that the audio and video files for both the lecture and interview with Dr. Phil Ryken of Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, PA are now posted and ready for viewing and reflection.  These events took place on October 1 and 2, 2008 at the TEDS campus in Deerfield, IL.

Video of “The Suffering and the Glory: Pastoral Ministry in Union with Christ”
Audio of “The Suffering and the Glory: Pastoral Ministry in Union with Christ” 

Video of Ryken Interview (with Steve Farish and Owen Strachan)
Audio of Ryken Interview (with Steve Farish and Owen Strachan)

The Center hopes that visitors to this site will find both the lecture and interview of great personal benefit and spiritual reflection.  We were extremely pleased with Dr. Ryken’s searching lecture and insightful interview and trust that viewers will discover the same.  Please do feel free to spread these resources far and wide across the Internet.

David Wells of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary will be speaking at ATO Chapel next Wednesday, October 29th at 3pm on behalf of the Henry Center’s Scripture & Ministry Lecture Series.  His free lecture is entitled, “How, Then, Should We Preach to Postmodern Persons?”

In anticipation of this stimulating lecture, the Center asked him a teaser question:

What is a postmodern person?

“Postmodern is how we are speaking about our current cultural mood.  While in some ways we become more and more modern—more technological advances, more information, more medical breakthroughs, and more things—in terms of a world-and-life view, we are adrift.

The old Enlightenment paradigm with its belief in unaided, naturalistic reason, human potential, and the prospect of progress have all collapsed.  In the way we think about our lives, we are not modern but postmodern because we think about ourselves differently from what was true up though the 1960’s.”

For more such insight, join us next Wednesday, October 29th at 3pm in the ATO chapel for a free lecture.

The Henry Center is pleased to announce that the second annual Trinity Debate was a resounding success.

The debate on the question “Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?” is concluded.  The event drew 450 people; lasted for two-and-a-half hours; drew many excellent questions from the audience; brought people from as far away as Louisville, KY; was successfully webcasted, live-blogged, and covered by Christianity Today; and above all, featured high-level theological discussion of Scripture and the things of God.  For that, we are most grateful, and most pleased.  Events like this show that there is indeed a great hunger for discussion of theological matters, contrary to what some might think and some might say.

We at the Henry Center are very thankful for all who came out and all who tuned in by webcast.  Please do check the site in coming weeks for video of the debate.  We may also post statements from the debate participants.  Thanks are due to our excellent debate participants, who modeled charity in their sometimes-spirited discussion of a most excellent doctrinal matter, that of the holy Trinity.

live-blogged by Andy Naselli

(Streaming video is available here.)

Live from the chapel on the campus at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:

Students, faculty, and guests are gathering for a much anticipated Trinity Debate on this question: “Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?”

1. Participants

Affirmative

• Bruce Ware (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
• Wayne Grudem (Phoenix Seminary)

Negative

• Tom McCall (TEDS)
• Keith Yandell (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

2. Opening Statements (30 min. each)

Affirmative

Wayne Grudem:

I. Scripture indicates the authority of the Father and the submission of the Son to the Father’s authority from before the foundation of the world until the eternal state.

• A. Authority and submission prior to creation (Eph 1:3-5; Rom 8:29; 2 Tim 1:9; Eph 1:9-11; 3:9-11)
• B. Authority and submission indicated by the eternal names “Father” and “Son” (John 1:14; 17:24; Heb 9:14)
• C. Authority and submission in the process of creation (John 1:1; Heb 1:1-2; 1 Cor 8:6)
• D. Authority and submission prior to Christ’s earthly ministry (John 3:16-17; Gal 4:4; 1 John 4:9-10)
• E. Authority and submission in Christ’s earthly ministry (John 6:38; 8:28-29; 15:9-10)
• F. Authority and submission after Christ’s ascension into heaven
  • 1. In Christ’s ministry as Great High Priest (Heb 7:23-25; Rom 8:34)
  • 2. In his pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:32-33)
  • 3. In his receiving revelation from the Father and giving it to the church (Rev 1:1)
  • 4. In his sitting at God’s right hand—a position of authority second to that of the Father himself (Acts 2:32-33; Eph 1:20-22; Heb 1:3; Pss 110:1; 45:9; Rev 2:26; et al)
• G. Authority and submission after the final judgment (1 Cor 15:26-28)
• H. Conclusion: The consistent, uniform testimony of Scripture is that the Father, by virtue of being Father, eternally has authority to plan, initiate, command, and send, authority that the Son and Holy Spirit do not have. The Son, by virtue of being Son, eternally submits joyfully and with great delight to the authority of his Father. It is only in a sinful world deeply marred by hostility toward authority, and overly focused on status and power, that cannot see that submission to the authority of the Father is the great glory of the Son. Authority, and submission to authority, are a wonderful part of the great glory of the Father and the Son, and this will be their glory for all eternity. “Do Relations of Authority and Submission Exist Eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?” Absolutely, undeniably, gloriously, yes.

Bruce Ware:

II. Support for the authority of the Father and the submission of the Son from Church History

1. Nicene Creed (325/ 381 A.D.)
2. Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D.)
3. Athanasian Creed (4th–5th century AD)
4. Thirty-nine Articles (Church of England, 1571)
5. Westminster Confession of Faith (1643–46)
6. Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742)
7. Geoffrey Bromiley (1984)
8. Novatian’s Treatise Concerning the Trinity
9. Hilary of Poitiers
10. Augustine, in De Trinitate
11. Anselm (1033-1109)
12. Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274)
13. John Calvin (1509–1564)
14. Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
15. Augustus H. Strong (1836–1921)
16. B. B. Warfield (1851–1921)
17. Louis Berkhof (1873–1957)
18. Philip Schaff (1819–1893)
19. J. N. D. Kelley
20. Francis Hall
21. A. M. Hills
22. William Pope
23. P. T. Forsyth
24. Colin Gunton
25. Gerald O’Collins
26. John Frame
27. J. Scott Horrell

III. Theological Implications from Scripture, as Supported from Historical Sources, regarding the authority of the Father and the submission of the Son

Everything in Scripture on this subject indicates the submission of the Son to the Father—in eternity past, in the incarnation, and in eternity future.

1. The only confidence we have in knowing God is by his self-disclosure.
2. The Son and Spirit each possesses eternally and fully the identically same divine nature as is possessed by the Father. Every attribute of deity possessed by the Father is possessed fully and equally by the Son and Spirit, since all three possess fully and eternally the undivided divine essence.
3. For the Father truly to be the Father, he must be the eternal Father of the Son; for the Son truly to be the Son, he must be the eternal Son of the Father. If one were to dismiss the manifold Scriptural indicators we’ve considered here and posit instead an ultimately egalitarian structure of the immanent Trinity, one would not only have departed from every single indicator Scripture offers; in addition, one is left without any clear means of distinguishing the Father, Son, and Spirit from one another.

IV. Concluding Affirmations and Denial

1. We affirm an “equality of identity” (and not merely an “equality of kind”) among the Persons of the Trinity—the strongest form of equality there is, in principle. Hence there exists a full and eternal equality among the three Persons each of whom possesses fully and eternally the identically same divine essence, i.e., the one, eternal, and undivided divine essence.
2. We affirm the Nicea-Constantinople declaration that the Son is fully homoousios with the Father and hence is of the same nature as the Father; the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) are equally God and fully God, while there is one and only one God.
3. We affirm the eternal, absolute, and non-reciprocal role relations among the three Persons of the Godhead, with the Father as supreme in role as highest in authority, the Son second and under the authority of the Father, and the Spirit third and under the authority of the Father and the Son. This is in no wise is a subordination of nature or essence. We affirm that some properties that are distinct to each Person are essential to their personal identities, and we also affirm, without conflict or contradiction, that all properties true of the divine essence are possessed fully and eternally by each of the three divine Persons without exception and without qualification.
4. We deny altogether as entirely misleading and fallacious the assertion that the Son’s eternal submission to the Father (i.e., the Son’s eternal functional subordination to the Father) entails a denial of the complete and eternal essential equality of the Son and the Father. Eternal functional subordination is fully compatible with and in no way contradicts the fully equality of essence of the Trinitarian Persons and the homoousios of the Son with the Father. Therefore, we affirm that relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the essentially equal Persons of the Godhead.

Negative

Tom McCall:

I. Introduction

We are going to make two main arguments:

1. There are no good reasons to hold to the position advocated by Drs. Grudem and Ware.
2. There are very good reasons for orthodox Christians to reject their account.

What this debate is not about:

1. biblical authority
2. philosophical theology versus biblical theology (i.e., philosophy versus the Bible)

II. There are no good reasons to accept the view of Grudem and Ware.

• A.  The “Indirect Biblical Argument”: Surely—barring theological anti-realism—the personal distinctions within the Trinity do not depend upon human recognition of them for their existence! It may be an interesting fact about us that we might not know much (or perhaps anything) about the personal distinctions other than by the revelation that we have, but such an admission says nothing about the nature of the Triune God.
• B. The “Direct Biblical Argument”: Grudem and Ware argue that if 1 and 2 then 3. (See below.) They also argue that if 1 and 4 then 5. But this would mean that if 1 and 6 then 7!

1. If one divine person sends another, then the divine person sent is eternally and necessarily subordinate to the divine person who sends.
2. The Son is sent by the Father.
3. Therefore, the Son is eternally and necessarily subordinate to the Father.
4. The Spirit is sent by the Son (John 15:26).
5. Therefore, the Spirit is eternally and necessarily subordinate to the Son.
6. The Son is sent by the Spirit (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1).
7. Therefore, the Son is eternally and necessarily subordinate to the Spirit.

The biggest problem with (1) is that it is assumed but not supported. Also, (5) contradicts (7).

Surely 1 Corinthians 15:28 underdetermines the issue.

Keith Yandel:

III. There are good reasons to reject the view of Grudem and Ware.

Grudem and Ware embrace “role subordinationism” (hereafter, RS), which may be defined as follows:

The Son is permanently subordinate to the Father and the Father is permanently authoritative over the Son. If God is eternal—having no temporal properties, being “outside of time”—then the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. If God is everlasting—without beginning or end, being forever “in time”—than the Son is everlastingly subordinate to the Father. What I say tonight will apply equally to either view of God and time.

1. Grudem and Ware hold RS (i.e., the Son is permanently subordinate to the Father).
2. If RS is true, it is either necessarily true (could not possibly be false) or it is non-necessarily true (it is true, but under some possible condition it would be false).
   Metaphysical Doctrine One (MD1): The Trinitarian persons are distinct from one another only in virtue of there being relations of subordination and authority that hold among them.
3. MD1 is an important part of the reason given for accepting RS and MD1 is a metaphysical claim that is not the correct exegesis of any biblical passage.
4. MD1 is an important part of the reason offered for accepting RS, and MD1 is a metaphysical claim, and thus a philosophical claim, so an important part the defense of RS is a philosophical defense.
   Metaphysical Doctrine Two (MD2): The Trinitarian persons are distinct from one another only in virtue of relations that hold among them.
5. Even if the Trinitarian Persons are distinct from one another only in virtue of relations that hold between them, it does not follow that those relations include subordination and authority.
6. RS proposes an account of what it is in the Trinity that is the basis for the distinction between the Persons, but in the way in which it does this (by reference to presuppositional relations), it simply assumes that which it is allegedly explains. If RS is non-necessarily true, then there are more versions of RS than first met the eye. Here are four:
   • RS1: The Father is permanently subordinate to the Son.
   • RS2: The Father is permanently subordinate to the Holy Spirit.
   • RS3: The Father and the Son are permanently subordinate to the Holy Spirit.
   • RS4: The Son is permanently subordinate to the Holy Spirit.
7. At least one proponent of RS claims that the authority-subordination relations that hold between two Trinitarian persons are not necessary after all.
8. If the authority-subordination relation of the Son and the Holy Spirit is reversed by, and so dependent on, the fact of the Son being incarnate, why can’t—indeed, why isn’t—the subordination of the Son to the Father dependent on the Son being incarnate?
9. If RS is presented as a non-necessary truth, each of these other versions of RS (RS1-RS4), which are possibly obtaining conditions, could hold.
10. If the Trinitarian Persons all equally meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for being God, then any subordination or authoritarian relations among them that is not freely chosen for some temporary purpose is arbitrary in the light of their being equally God. This point in fact applies to the view that RS is a necessary truth as well as to the view that RS is a non-necessary truth.
11. If RS is offered as a necessary truth, then it strictly entails that the Father has an essential property that the Son lacks, and the Son has an essential property that the Father lacks; the same holds of course for the Father and the Holy Spirit and the Son and the Holy Spirit; hence, if RS is presented as a necessary truth, then the three Trinitarian Persons do not have the same nature.
12. If the Trinitarian Persons do not have the same nature, then we no longer have simply RS; RS, viewed as a necessary truth, entails ontological subordinationism, and all four of us agree that ontological subordinationism is false.
13. The ontological subordinationists saw something that the RSs have ignored; they saw that orderings or ranking, holding within a Trinity of beings that all have the divine nature, that were not adopted for particularly freely chosen purposes. and did not hold separately from those purposes, were simply arbitrary—justified by, and following from, nothing in the nature of the Persons; they were unwilling to ascribe this arbitrary condition to God; they saw the choice as being between subordinationism and lack of Trinitarian ranking; they made the wrong choice, but they saw the right alternative. Role Subordination is an attempt to build a house on a part of the philosophical and theological landscape that simply is not there to be built upon.

Conclusion: There are two possible versions of RS. Taken as a necessary truth, it is flatly contradictory. It claims both that ontological subordinationism is false and then entails that ontological subordinationism is true. Taken as a non-necessary truth, it ascribes an arbitrary relation to the Persons of the Trinity and entails that other versons of role subordinationism are logically possible (and, for all we know, hold true relative to conditions of which we know nothing). So the doctrine is either self-contradictory or metaphysically perfectly arbitrary.

3. Rebuttals (10 min. each)

[Note from Naselli: I'm afraid I'm not keeping up quickly enough here. See the audio/visual for more.]

Affirmative

Wayne Grudem:

1. Incarnational events (Jesus was tired, submitted to his parents, etc.) do not necessarily demonstrate eternal truths about his deity.
2. Grudem’s Systematicc Theology mentions subordination, not subordinationism. (Grudem acknowledged an typo in his ST that implied that Jesus is part of creation.)
3. “Do we presuppose these relations? No, we find them in Scripture.

Bruce Ware:

1. The entirety of biblical revelation from God about himself as Father, Son, and Spirit is what motivates Ware’s claim. One wonders what motivates their claim.
2. All of God’s revealed truth has come in the economy of revelation, yet theologicans have inferred some truths about God that are thought to be necessary about God as God (e.g., God’s holiness). God is eternally what he declares himself to be.
3. The magnitude of the charge of ontological subordination (i.e., the Arian heresy!) here is matched only by the magnitude of the oversight in making the charge. McCall and Yandell’s view, on the other hand, resembles modalism.

Negative

Tom McCall:

1. Calling the McCall-Yandell view modalism is, if not a cheap shot, a moderately priced one.
2. re arguments from Scripture: It is simply not the case that only the Father is authoritative over creation (cf. Heb 1:10). Even if successful, the argument does not move us to their conclusion.
3. re arguments from tradition: McCall contests Ware’s use of Aquinas.

Keith Yandell:

1. I’ve never been accused of being a modalist because I’m not one.
2. If a relation changes, it is not a necessary relation.
3. Can there be two perfectly resembling things that are nevertheless qualitatively the same?
4. Calvin’s interpretation of 1 Cor 15:24

4. Follow-up (5 min. each)

Affirmative

Wayne Grudem: 

1. If God is not what he reveals himself to be in the Bible, then how can we know anything about God? McCall-Yandell are saying that God reveals himself as Father and Son but that he does not necessarily have to be that.
2. Thanks for saying that we are not Arians. As far as modalism, we don’t want to accuse you of that if that is not what you hold. But please tell us a difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit.
3. What does all of Scripture say? Massive support for our position from Scripture and tradition are significant arguments.

Bruce Ware:

1. Yandell misunderstood Ware’s book on the Trinity. For better context, see p. 95 of Ware’s book.
2. Aquinas argues that it would not be fitting for the Father or Spirit to take on flesh.

Negative

Tom McCall:

1. Both Calvin and Aquinas take the other view.
2. We affirm what Scripture teaches about God: the Son is subordinate and equally and fully divine. But we look for another way to understand this subordination, and Grudem-Ware have not addressed this.
3. Consider Philippians 2:5-11. Jesus gave up authority. (Servant contrasts with authority.) Jesus became a servant via incarnation. Jesus acquired something that was not present before. Cf. Hebrews 5:8 (Jesus learned obedience).
4. If there are ways of reading subordination passages that call into question the divinity passages, then we need to look for another way to understand the subordination passages.

Keith Yandell:

1. I don’t quibble with Dr. Ware with what he intended to say, but it is a contradiction to say that (1) Jesus was subordinate to the Spirit during the incarnation and (2) the Spirit is eternally subordinate to the Son.
2. There is no reason that an omnipotent God cannot create any number of things that perfectly resemble each other. Re the Trinity, their properties are distinct because they necessarily belong to what they belong to, and the existence of each depends on the existence of the other.

5. Final Comments (5 min. each)

Affirmative

Wayne Grudem:  

1. Repeat question: What about the entire testimony of Scripture? Does this tell us nothing about God? God did not have to be this way if we postulate some other kind of God. How can we know anything about God for sure outside of Scripture?
2. Necessary subordination does not imply that the Son is an inferior being. The Father and Son have eternal differences.
3. What properties distinguish Father, Son, and Spirit? Specify them. If you deny Father, Son, and Spirit, then you have Person A, Person A, and Person A.

Bruce Ware: 

1. Re Yandell’s quotation of Ware, the context of what Ware said does not support Yandell’s conclusion.
2. Ware does not understand the basis of the charge against Grudem-Ware. Why does an eternal function require an ontological difference? E.g., a janitor under the authority of a President: both are ontologically equal as human beings. The equality in the Trinity is a full equality of identify; you can’t get stronger than that. We don’t wish to diminish the equality of the Father, Son, and Spirit. But there is an eternal role difference between the Father and the Son; the Father is the Father eternally, and the Son is the Son eternally (and this involves authority and submission).

Negative

Keith Yandell:

1. Yandell repeated his argument: (1) If Son is subordinate in all possible worlds, then the Son is necessarily subordinate; (2) if the Son is necessarily subordinate, then the Son is essentially subordinate; (3) if the Son is essentially subordinate but the Father is not, then the Son and Father are not homoousios. Thus, RS entails ontological subordinationism.
2. How can the members of the Trinity be different? The answer to the question is philosophically re basic identity among different items.
3. We accept Scriptural authority, and we’re not trying to replace theology with philosophy. They are the ones who brought the philosophy—not me.
4. Yandell quoted B. B. Warfield, “The Necessity of Systematic Theology.”
5. The Father says, “Thou art my Son. This day have I begotten you.” That sounds like a reference to Bethlehem to me. Scriptural talk about begetting is about Bethlehem; the Son was begotten when Jesus was conceived and born.

6. Questions from the Audience (15 minutes)

1. Question to Yandell from Phil Gons: “If the Son is necessarily the Son and the Father is necessarily not the Son, then the Son is essentially the Son and the Father is essentially not the Son. Thus the Son is essentially different from the Father. You must deny homoousion on the basis of your own premises.” Yandell’s reply: “Why?” Ware spoke up from his chair something like, “We could explain this to you.”
2. Question to McCall-Yandell: Please respond to Grudem-Ware’s exegesis. McCall’s response: Grudem-Ware quoted too many Scripture texts to respond to them. There is not necessarily a ranked hierarchy. We all agree that there are three categories and that two of them (earthly ministry and “eternity future”) are not at issue here. This leaves only the category of “eternity past,” and McCall pointed out that he has responded to representative passages (such as the “sentness” of the Son argument). Ware suggested that we often don’t pay enough attention to the pronouns; we tend to think generically of God.
3. Question to Grudem-Ware: Please address function and appropriation. (There’s not a text that says that God is necessarily holy, but what do we conclude?)
4. Question to McCall re Calvin on autotheos: Calvin affirms eternal regeneration. The Son’s divinity as such is not derived. He is God in himself.
5. Question to Grudem: What non-Scriptural tool was most helpful to resolve the Scriptural deadlock re Arianism? I don’t think that there was an exegetical impasse re Arianism. Historically, the church misunderstood the begetting language, but the church never denied that there was a difference in relationship. McCall-Yandell have given us nothing to define the differences.
6. Question to Ware re eternality and necessity: Could God be different than God is in any essential way that God is? No, what is eternal is likewise necessary. I’m still waiting to hear from Grudem-Yandell what distinguishes Father from the Son and why this is not modalism.
7. Yandell response to Ware: Grudem-Ware have not followed or understood anything of what Yandell has said about metaphysics (esp. re the discernability of identicals). Each is his own bearer of properties. You can have perfectly resembling distinct various properties.
8. Question to Grudem re how the submission of the Son to the Father will be played out eschatologically: The Son is going to be our great High Priest eternally. The Son sits at the right hand of the Father. We don’t know what all the eternal function differences will be. We don’t know what Scripture doesn’t tell us about.
9. Question to Ware-Grudem re subordination being functional not ontological but that the function is necessary: [Grudem] It is not ontological because all three persons share the one undivided essence; there is one being of God. But in that being, there are dinstictions of properties. They relate to each other as expressed in the terms Father and Son. So No, there is no difference in being; there is a difference in relationship, and that relationship is eternal because they have been Father, Son, and Spirit eternally. [Ware] The Son does not use his power to do anything that he chooses to do; he uses his power to fulfill the will of the Father. He is under the authority of the Father in the use of all of the attributes that are common to the Father and the Son.
10. McCall: In their view, the Son is omnipotent, and the Father is the one with authority.
11. Yandell: The difference between the positions that we take on this issue and the positions taken on the positions in the world that I live in (he teaches at UWM) are enormous.

We at the Henry Center are making final preparations for tonight’s debate.  Please note that the start time is 7pm Central Standard Time.  Click here to watch the debate at or even some time before 7pm.  We’re excited to know that Christianity Today will be covering the debate, and we’ve heard from folks in Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio and numerous other states that they will be traveling many miles to attend this event.

In coming weeks, after video and audio are edited, we will post these materials on the HCTU homepage.  Check back in 2-3 weeks’ time to access that content.

The Henry Center is very pleased to debut excerpts from the opening statements of our debate participants.  Please note that the debate is just three days away.  It will be held at 7pm this Thursday, October 9 at 7pm in ATO chapel on the campus of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL.  It is free and open to all.

Debate question: Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead? 

1.  From the side of Dr. Grudem and Dr. Ware:

“Scripture gives us a few glimpses into inter-Trinitarian relationships in eternity past:

Ephesians 1:3-5 –  3 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, 4 even as he [the Father] chose us in him [the Son] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.  In love 5 he [the Father] predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his [the Father’s] will.

This passage speaks of acts of God “before the foundation of the world.”  This is clearly pre-incarnation.. And what is there? The Father is the one who chooses and predestines, and the Son is already (prior to creation) designated as the one who would be our Savior and earn our adoption as God’s children.

It does not say “the Father and Son chose us.” It says the Father chose us in the Son.  It does not say, “The Father suggested some people for salvation and the Son agreed on some and disagreed on others.”  It says the Father chose us in the Son. (And this is true no matter whether you take a common Arminian view that this refers to choosing a group of people (those who would believe) or a Reformed position that it included specific people who were chosen.) On either view, it happened before the foundation of the world and it indicates a unique authority for the Father – an authority to determine the entire history of salvation for all time, for the whole world.”

2.  From the side of Dr. McCall and Dr. Yandell:

“First, let me say what this debate is not about.  It is not about biblical authority.  All of us who are involved in this debate hold to the full and final authority of Scripture.  Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Keith Yandell, and I are in full and hearty agreement about the authority of the Bible.

Nor is this debate about “philosophical theology” versus “biblical theology.”  Just as both sides accept the authority of Scripture, so also both sides in this debate employ terms and concepts that are drawn from philosophy – Drs. Ware and Grudem as well as Dr. Yandell and I refer to “essence,” to “being” to “substance,” to “person.”  Both sides draw distinctions between “ontology”or “being,” on one hand, and “function” or “economy” on the other.  Both sides use philosophical terms and concepts, and I’m sure that both do so not only out of deference to tradition but also out of the conviction that such tools are genuinely useful (and perhaps even indispensable).

So this debate is not about “philosophy versus the Bible,” nor can it properly be adjudicated by counting how many verses are quoted.  Any of us could produce long lists of biblical texts that say that the Son submits to the Father in the economy of salvation, and we can just as readily produce lists of texts that show (explicitly or implicitly) that the Son is fully divine.  The important questions, however, are not “who quotes the most verses?” but “how are these  passages to be interpreted theologically?”, “do they actually support the theological conclusion that is said to be drawn from them?”  In responsible discourse in Trinitarian theology, the vital question is not “who cites the most biblical texts rather than resorting to arcane philosophical discourse?”  Instead, the vital methodological questions are “are these passages properly interpreted, and do they support the view in question?” and “are the important ontological claims adequately understood, and are these claims defensible?””

Please do join us for this stimulating debate.  We will also host a webcast of this event–visit the Henry Center website just prior to 7pm to begin viewing.

live-blogged by Andy Naselli

Live from the chapel on the campus at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:

Students, faculty, and guests are gathering for a much anticipated lecture by Dr. Phil Ryken. At 3:00 PM CST, Ryken is scheduled to present the latest Scripture and Ministry lecture (sponsored by the Henry Center): “The Suffering and the Glory: Pastoral Ministry in Union with Christ.”

About Phil Ryken

From Ryken’s bio (which also lists most of his books):

Dr. Ryken holds degrees from Wheaton (B.A.), Westminster (M.Div.), and the University of Oxford (D.Phil.). He is on the Board of Trustees at both Wheaton College and Westminster, and is an Executive Board Member with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

Philip Graham Ryken is Senior Minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, where he has preached since 1995. He is Bible Teacher for the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, speaking nationally on the radio program Every Last Word. Dr. Ryken was educated at Wheaton College (IL), Westminster Theological Seminary (PA) and the University of Oxford (UK), from which he received his doctorate in historical theology. He lives with his wife (Lisa) and children (Josh, Kirsten, Jack, Kathryn, and Karoline) in Center City, Philadelphia. When he is not preaching or playing with his family, he likes to read books, shoot baskets and ponder the relationship between Christian faith and American culture.

Lecture Overview

Here is how the Henry Center has described the lecture:

What is the meaning and purpose of suffering in the work of pastoral ministry? What hope do we have that preaching the gospel will make a lasting difference for Christ? The rich biblical doctrine of union with Christ provides a complete theological and practical context for understanding both tragedy and triumph in the ordinary work of the pastor.

Philip Ryken has experienced both the cross and the empty tomb in his ministry at Philadelphia’s historic Tenth Presbyterian Church, where he has preached for thirteen years. The author of thirty Bible commentaries and other books on Christianity, culture, and the church, Dr. Ryken has a passion for the local church and for connecting people in ministry to the life-giving work of the crucified and risen Christ.

1. Introduction

• Seminaries are often criticized for teaching practical theology that is not all that practical.
• But seminaries also teach theology that is not all that theological.
• Philippians 3:10-11: “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.”
• Thesis: Pastoral ministry is exercised in union with Christ, both in his humiliation and in his exaltation—the suffering and the glory.

2. The Doctrine of Union with Christ

• Being connected to Christ is one of the central concerns of the NT.
• Paul repeatedly emphasizes the necessity of being found “in Christ” (e.g., Phil. 3:9; Eph 1:3; 2 Cor 5:17).
• Union with Christ is central to systematic theology, including predestination, election, justification, adoption, and sanctification.
• Every aspect of salvation is wrapped up in union with Christ.
• Union with Christ was a prominent theme in the theology of the Reformers (e.g., Calvin), post-Reformation theologians (e.g., Beza, Zanchius), Puritans (e.g., John Preston), and Princetonian theologians (e.g., Archibald Alexander).

3. I Want to Know Christ

• Puritans often distinguished the work of Christ into his humiliation and his exaltation.
• Humiliation is the work of Christ in suffering and dying for sin.
• Exaltation is the work of Christ in conquering sin and death through his resurrection and ascension.
• Both humiliation and exaltation are clearly in view in Philippians 3:10-11. The kais in verse 10 are epexegetical: what follows serves to explain what Paul meant by knowing Christ. He meant personally knowing Christ in his crucifixion and resurrection.
• In order to attain this knowledge of Christ, Paul had to declare spiritual bankruptcy (Phil 3:4-7).
• Paul knew Christ already, of course, but knowing Christ only made Paul want to know him all the more. He wanted to become ever more closely identified with the crucified and glorified Christ.
• Paul’s aspiration to know Christ in his humiliation and exaltation usually is taken as a general comment on the Christian life, but what the apostle says about being united to Christ in suffering and glory should also be considered from the vantage point of Christian ministry. Paul was writing these words not simply as a Christian, but also as a minister of the gospel.
• The doctrine of union with Christ thus provides the paradigm for a theology of pastoral ministry.

4. Becoming Like Him in His Death

• To follow the pattern of Christ’s own ministry, in which the cross came before the crown, one must begin with the sufferings of the ministry. Pastoral ministry is not a matter of life and death, but a matter of death, then life (cf. Rom 8:17; 1 Pet. 4:13).
• The biblical history of gospel proclamation is primarily a story of suffering. For every success there seem to be dozens of failures.
• Example: Most of the Old Testament prophets were called to suffer (cf. Jer 1:17-19; Isa 6:8-10). Many faced rebellion from God’s people. Other suffered persecution (e.g., Elijah, Jeremiah). They anticipated the sufferings of Christ (cf. Heb 11:26). They suffered in union with Christ (cf. Luke 24:25-27; 1 Pet 1:11).
• Jesus suffered many indignities at the hands of the evil men who plotted to have him killed. He was unlawfully arrested, unfairly accused, unjustly convicted, and unmercifully beaten. But he endured his greatest sufferings on the cross, where he died a God-forsaken death. Stephen challenged the Sanhedrin, “Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him” (Acts 7:52-53).
• At the time of his death, the preaching ministry of Jesus Christ could hardly be judged anything except a failure. The main thing it seemed to accomplish was getting him killed.
• Jesus’ followed suffered as well (e.g., Peter, Stephen, Paul). These men suffered all these things because they were united to Jesus Christ in his sufferings and death. In the context of his gospel ministry, Paul became like Christ in his death.

5. The Fellowship of Sharing in His Sufferings

• What does this litany of misery teach about pastoral ministry? A call to pastoral ministry is not to be trifled with. Any minister who knows his Bible can hardly expect to escape suffering—specifically suffering for the cause of Christ.
• An authentic pastoral theology must be adequate to the task of ministry under conditions of the most extreme hardship. Being united to Christ in the ministry of his gospel always involves conflict within the church and some measure of opposition from without. “The sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives” (2 Cor 1:5).
• Nevertheless, many ministers are surprised by suffering because they have failed to grasp the implications of pastoral ministry in union with Christ. How rare it is—especially in America—to find a minister who desires fellowship with Christ if it includes sharing in his sufferings.
• Paul’s joy in his suffering is striking (Col 1:24; 2 Cor 12:10).
• There were two reasons for Paul’s readiness to share in Christ’s sufferings: (1) It was necessary for the evangelization of the lost (Col 1:24). (2) It afforded a deep, personal knowledge of Christ.
• This does not mean that suffering needs to be sought out. The kind of spiritual intimacy that Paul sought comes not only from outward suffering, but also inwardly from dying to self (cf. 2 Cor 4:5a; 1 Cor 1:23a; Gal 2:20). As one aspect of his union with Christ, the pastor must die to self in all its hideous forms: self-indulgence, self-aggrandizement, self-love, and self-will. He must be dead to pride, dead to financial gain, dead to recognition and approval.

6. The Power of His Resurrection

• Paul’s ministry a gospel ministry grounded in Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
• The power of Christ’s resurrection is the life-giving power of God the Holy Spirit. (This is Trinitarian theology.) The Holy Spirit is the effective transforming agent of God’s resurrection power (cf. Rom 1:4; 8:11).
• The resurrection gives power for gospel ministry. It was not until Jesus was raised from the dead that his preaching achieved lasting effect.
• The resurrection was not simply the basis for the apostles’ message, but it was also the source of their power.
• Through the preaching of the risen Christ, the Spirit is inaugurating the glories of the coming age. Practical theology is not merely a theology of the cross but a theology of glory.
• The Spirit has the power to regenerate, sanctify, and glorify.
• The Spirit is at work not only in a minister’s evident successes, but also in his apparent failures. Paul viewed his ministry from the vantage point of the cross (suffering) and empty tomb (glory).
• Many of the greatest glories of preaching are deferred benefits. The hope of deferred glory is of particular encouragement to men who are discouraged by their apparent fruitlessness in gospel ministry.
• Charles Spurgeon: “Set small store by present rewards; be grateful for earnests by the way, but look for recompensing joy hereafter.”
• The apostle Paul was looking for that recompensing joy (Phil 3:14, 20b-4:1a; 1 Thess 1:19-20).

7. Conclusion

• The exaltation of a pastoral ministry, which is rarely glimpsed in this life, will be fully displayed only at the Second Coming, when God will reveal his Son in the risen church.
• When—somehow—we attain to that resurrection, we will know Christ’s power to the fullest measure.

The lecture closed with Q&A. The audio for the lecture and Q&A should be available shortly here.