Post #29 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - the phrase "whose kingdom shall have no end" and evaluating millennial views

Introduction:

    In the last post of this series on the Nicene Creed, we looked at the Nicene Creed's confession of Jesus coming in glory here Growing Christian Resources: Post #28 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "and He shall come again, with glory". I closed out that last post by noting how the Kingdom of God is the domain of the reign of the Son of God. What divides theologians concerns the issue of the millennial kingdom that it referred to throughout Scripture.

    I pondered some on the debate over the nature of Christ's reign as it relates to the doctrine of the millennium. Is the revelation of the glory of the King mainly in Heaven now with a final manifestation meant to then resurrect the saints, judge unbelievers, and usher in the New Heavens and New Earth (the broad outline of so-called "amillennialism" and "post-millennialism")? 

    Or will the glory of God through Christ, through His Kingdom, involve an earthly physical stage of a 1,000 years duration, beginning with the resurrection of the just and concluding with the resurrection of the unjust, final judgment, and New Heavens and Earth?

    For those who want to appeal to the Nicene Creed to support pre-, a-, or post-millennialism, the Creed itself will not lend proof for either school of thought. Suffice to say though the whole debate over the millennium must reckon with which view most clearly shows Christ revealing the glory of His deity in such a way to flood the whole earth and cosmos, as well as to show He is the decisive revelation of God. 

    In today's post I wanted to revisit where I ended in the last post and evaluate the four leading millennial viewpoints against the next statement in the Nicene Creed: "who kingdom shall have no end". What we will do is briefly define what the main schools of thought are on the millennium, how such a discussion is relevant to this phrase in the Nicene Creed, and then offer some final reflections.

Four views of the millennial reign of Christ

    To keep this post at a minimal length, I will confine our survey of the millennial views to the Biblical text of Revelation 20, which tends to be the main hotbed of contention among the four schools. 

1. Premillennialism - Those who hold to this teach that when Christ returns, He will set up a literal earthly kingdom for 1,000 years, followed by a brief loosing of Satan to deceive the nations, the Great white throne judgment and then the bringing in of the "New Heavens and New Earth". The reason for the name "premillennialism" is due to the prefix "pre" referring to "before" and "millennium" being "1,000 years". Two variations exist within the Premillennial interpretation which for now we will just list their names. These two variations could also count as two of the four millennial views, since each of them have vast amounts of literature associated with them, as well as leading commentators and interpreters. 

a. Classical Premillennialism 

    Sometimes called "Post-Tribulational Premillennialism", this version of premillennialism is so-called because of its claim to be the oldest eschatological view on the millennium, hence "classical premillennialism". Early interpreters such as Irenaeus of Lyons (180 A.D.) and Papias (mid-second century) championed this position, known in their day as "chiliasm". The most notable proponent of this position in recent times was the late George Eldon Ladd.

b. Dispensational Premillennialism.

    Sometimes called "Pre-tribulational Premillennialism", this position is represented by those in the early church who anticipate the soon return of Christ at anytime for His church. Medieval theologians such a Jehoiakim Fiore, and more recently by John Nelson Darby, twentieth century dispensationalism (men such as John Walvoord and J. Dwight Pentecost), and progressive dispensationalists today (such as Darrell Bock) have advocated this view. 

2. Amillennialism.

 

   This position teaches that Christ began His reign at His ascension into Heaven and is ruling and reigning over a spiritual kingdom right now. Early forerunners of this position didn't so much express themselves as "Amillennial" as they did their opposition of the classical premillennialism noted above - i.e. "chiliasm". One of the earliest forerunners to this view was Cyprian of Carthage, who wrote in chapter 27 of his book "On The Unity of the Church" in the mid-3rd century:

"The Lord’s coming will be sudden; let Him find us vigilant, not distracted by the world’s deceit. If we hold fast to His precepts, the devil will not overcome us. Awake, therefore, and reign with Christ, for only those who watch shall receive the crown."

     Being that it denies a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ, the term "A-millennialism" is used (a=no and millennium = 1,000 years).  History (according to this view) will continue in its downward spiral and at the end Christ will return, judging the world and Satan, and bring about the new heavens and new earth. Cyprian of Carthage was an early forerunner, with Augustine of Hippo (4th-5th century) being the first to truly systematize it into a workable eschatological model. Modern theologians such as Sam Storms and Jay Adams are among more noteworthy defenders of it. 

3. Post Millennialism 

    This position teaches that Christianity will continue to increase until the whole world is taken over by the gospel.  Though not every individual will be saved, yet post-millennialists contend that every nation will eventually see many of their people saved.  It generally teaches that the church will continue to evangelize until so many people are converted that Christ will then return at the end of the future golden age or "millennium" )post = "end" millennium= 1,000 years).  

    Post-millennialists take passages such as Psalm 2 and missionary passages such as Matthew 28:18-20 to refer to the triumph of the gospel over unbelief. Admittedly, if there was one view I wish I believed, it would be this one (due to its optimistic outlook on the triumph of the Gospel). Older theologians such as Jonathan Edwards and more recent ones such as the late R.C. Sproul and Greg Bahnsen have ably expressed its tenets. represent this viewpoint. 

    As for myself, I tend to land in the pre-tribulational, premillennial camp. Readers may explore this blogsite, where I have written posts in the past delving into far more detail on the above positions just outlined, as well as my own understanding.

    In the next post I'll continue on to deal with the interpretive issues involved in the discussion about the millennium and the relevance of this discussion to how we understand the Nicene Creed's "whose kingdom shall have no end".

P2 Book Review: Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett's "The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond"

Introduction:

    In the last post I began to review the book: "The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond" by Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett. On page 26 of their book, Childers and Barnett offered the following definition of faith deconstruction: "Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard." 

    In my last post I covered the first two parts of the book that readers may review here: Growing Christian Resources: P1 Book Review: Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett's "The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond" In today's post I want to conclude my review of Childers and Barnett's book by summarizing it's third part, followed by some final takeaways.

Part three of the book: #Hope

    The third part of the book offers hope for those who are deconstructing or for those who have loved ones or friends that are undergoing this process. In the opening chapter of this third part, Childers and Barnett share the story of a man who had gone through a decade long period of deconstruction. When he started having children, he realized he needed to know what he was going to teach them about God. 

    He prayed God would guide him to whatever the answer may be. To his shock he felt God leading him to a church where the pastor was, in his words, "fanatical about something called discipleship". The Pastor gently led the man into the Scriptures and would ask questions like "what is the author saying here?" Over time, the man was guided back to the historical view of the Bible as God's Word, was discipled or taught how to think like and live like Jesus and was able to lead His family in that same direction. 

    As the authors recounted that story, they then offered what would be a pathway of hope in the remaining chapters of the book.

    In their next chapter entitled "questions", the authors pointed out how one of the reasons people deconstruct is because they do not feel like they have the liberty to ask tough questions. In sharing findings of a poll conducted by the Fuller Youth Institute, the following statistic was cited:

"According to our study...over 70% of churchgoing high schoolers report having serious doubts about their faith. Sadly, less than half of those young people shared their doubts and struggles with an adult or friend. Yet these students opportunities to express and explore their doubts were actually correlated with greater faith maturity. In other words, it's not doubt that's toxic to faith; it's silence." 

    As the authors go forward, they note the need to make sure the church offers good answers to questions, as well as knowing how to discern when a questioner is asking questions in search of truth versus asking questions for the sake of finding an exit out of the faith (page 218). The ending of the chapter has a good section on what the authors call "how to doubt well". 

    First, express your question. Secondly, express your question in the context of a community of believers whom you trust. Thirdly, understand the question and its implications (this comes about as you and fellow believers work through the question raised). Fourthly, seek the answers with the goal to finding the truth. Fifthly, Jesus can handle our doubts, which implies cultivating a prayer life before the Lord as one works through their doubts.

    The authors then move on to the third chapter of part three they entitle "advice". I really liked this chapter because it aids those who are trying to help someone going through the deconstruction process. The authors note the following steps.

1. Pray for that person.

2. Stay calm and stay in their life. 

3. Do some triage, which is to say, ask evaluative questions about the person deconstructing. 

-What is your relationship to the person?

-Do you have trust built with the person to engage them in conversation?

-How old are they?

-What do they understand deconstruction and what they're experiencing to mean?

-Have they been hurt by the church?

-Are they struggling with their sexuality?

-Have they concluded that biblical ethics are oppressive?

-Are the confused about certain passages of Scripture in the Old Testament?

4. Set boundaries and respect theirs.

    Then in the final chapter of the book, the authors offer closing thoughts on how the disciples were working through doubts between Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. 

    The final chapter, entitled "Saturday", uses the day after the crucifixion to frame the closing of the book. Tim Barnett summarizes this final chapter with these words on page 249:

"I still have lots of questions. Christianity isn't tidy, and neither is the church. As long as there is a church, there will be church hurt. As long as there is a cursed creation, there will be suffering. As long as there is mystery, there will be unanswered questions. But as long as there is a risen Savior, there is hope."

    The book closes with a prayer for those who are deconstructing. The last two sentences capture the intent of the prayer: "Help me to trust you with this relationship, knowing that you will work all things together for good for those who love you and are called according to your purpose. May the beauty of the Gospel be on display in my life that it might be beautiful to all who see."

Final Takeaways.

    Overall, I found this book helpful in getting introduced to the topic of Christian deconstruction. As I read through the book, I thought through something I heard Norman Geisler, one of the foremost Christian Apologists of our time say was the top opposing worldviews of Christianity. He noted that naturalism, pluralism, and relativism were at the top of his list. 

    When one reads or hears Christian deconstruction accounts, these three worldviews are woven into their process. As Childers and Barnett pointed out in their definition of Christian deconstruction, the denial of objective truth in favor of relativism reigned in the thoughts of those who have went through some sort of "deconversion". 

    Many either reduce their view of God, change Him all together, or deny His existence, with many "exvangelicals" going into progressive Christianity, agnosticism, or secular humanism - hence drifting into a naturalistic worldview. Then, those who deconstruct come to believe that Christianity is among a plethora of options - thus the increase of pluralism. 

    In the recent "State of Theology" poll conducted by Ligonier Ministries and Lifeway Research in 2025, when given the statement, "God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam", 47% of self-professed evangelical Christians agreed with the statement (see the link here The State of Theology) 

    The book challenged me as a Christian leader to take seriously the task of equipping people in the church I pastor with tools for defending their faith, discipleship opportunities, and making sure people know that they can ask their questions and find reliable answers. May the Lord help us in this troubled age with the only hope: Jesus Christ in the Gospel. 

P1 Book Review: Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett's "The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond"

Introduction:

    I recently finished reading a book that highly recommend for anyone who is either struggling with their Christian faith or who knows someone who has went through the process known as "deconstruction". In this post and the next, I'll offer a review of Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett's book: "The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, why it's destructive, and how to respond".

What is deconstruction?

    On page 25, Alisa Childers cites online personality Melisa Steward, a former professing evangelical Christian, whom she says epitomizes the deconstruction process. Childers then observes: 

"Deconstruction is not about getting your theology right. It's not about trying to make your views match reality. It's about tearing down doctrines that are morally wrong to you to make them match your own internal conscience, moral compass, true authentic self, or whatever else it's being called these days."

    On page 26, the authors offer their definition of deconstruction:

"Faith deconstruction is a postmodern process of rethinking your faith without regarding Scripture as a standard."

    As the authors go further in explaining deconstruction, they note how certain people have tried to use the term in a good and bad sense to describe anytime someone critically examines their Christian faith, the doctrines they profess, and the institution of the local church. The authors conclude that trying to utilize the term deconstruction is inadvisable. They describe deconstruction as follows on page 19:

"For the majority of people from the broader culture in the deconstruction movement, the Bible is seen as a tool of oppression to be rejected, not a standard of truth to be affirmed". 

They later add: "In fact, most major deconstruction platforms bristle at the idea that anything other than one's personal conscience should guide an individual toward breaking free from oppressive systems (perceived or actual) and toxic theology, which is defined as any doctrine or practice that someone deems harmful". 

Overall contents of the book.

    Childers and Barnett's book is divided into three main sections. 

Section One of the Book: #Exvangelical

    The first is called "#Exvangelical", dealing with the movement known as deconstruction, its beginnings, and helpful definitions. Alisa Childers went through a period of time where she deconstructed her faith. Tim Barnett is a Christian apologist and main speaker for the Christian apologetics ministry "Stand to Reason". 

    By the combination of Childers' experience and Barnett's Christian apologetics expertise, the opening chapters of the book provide helpful explanations of what deconstruction is and does. In the one chapter they call "fallout", they cite those who have deconstructed and the loved ones of those who have done so as describing the process filled with claims of "freedom" mixed with a profound sense of grief. 

Section #2 of the Book: #Deconstruction.

    The second section of the book delves into "deconstructing deconstruction" or explaining the process in detail. Barnett and Childers note on page 77:

"Every act of deconstruction contains three basic elements: (1) a process of deconstruction, (2) a belief being deconstructed, (3) a person deconstructed." 

    So, what factors contribute to a person starting the process of deconstructing? In Childers and Barnett's research, as well as what I've observed in the lives of those whom I've known going through this process, the following factors are noted.

1). The problem of evil and suffering. 

2). Perceptions that certain Christian doctrines are toxic (examples being male headship in marriage, purity culture or the idea of sexual abstinence before marriage, the Bible's rejection of homosexuality, church scandals and hiding of such, abuse in the church, perceived contradictions in the Bible or inconsistencies).

3). Any present or past political climate and Christians equating Christianity with objectionable platforms of political parties involved.

4). Not knowing how to handle doubts and thus concluding it's better to jettison Christian beliefs than to deal with the doubts.

    As they rightly point out, deconstruction doesn't happen overnight but represents what has been a long-term process of gradual pulling away from church life, prayer, and Bible reading. In my own research I've listened to around a dozen or so deconstruction stories over the years and have even experienced close people in my own life go through such situations. Anecdotally, Childers and Bernett's conclusions are on point.

    Perhaps the most valuable section in the second part of the book had to do with the matter of objective truth. As they note, all who undergo deconstruction embrace a relativistic or subjective view of truth. On pages 102-103 the authors discuss objective truth vss the relativistic view of truth. First, they cite Christian philosopher Douglas Groothius:

"A belief or statement is true only if it matches with, reflects or corresponds to the reality it refers to....In other words, for a statement to be true, there must be a truth maker that determines its truth."

    When Groothius speaks of a "truth-maker", he is talking about any object outside of ourselves to which our mind observes, sees, and concludes to be there as a real detail of the external world. Whenever anything matches with that reality, it is said to fulfill the conditions of truth, since truth is (in the words of the late Christian apologist Norman Geisler) "telling it like it is". For example, my cat is in the same room I'm typing this blogpost. The cat would be a "truth-maker", an object outside of my mind with which I can perceive with my senses and which I can say to myself: "there is truly a cat in front of me, trying to get my attention". My conclusion about the cat is true (it corresponds with reality) because the cat himself is there. 

    This idea of "objective truth" or "correspondence view of truth" contrasts with the deconstructionist's view of "relative truth". As the authors note, and as I myself have noted in listening to former professing evangelical Christians who have deconstructed, they'll speak of "what is true for them". 

    In the deconstructionist view of truth, objective truth claims are nothing more than "power claims" that attempt to oppress those around them. Reading life and doctrine through the dual lens of "oppressor/oppression" is drawn from the popularity of critical theory which makes truth out to be what personally enables someone to align with what culture defines as an oppressed group and opposing an oppressor group. For those who deconstruct, evangelical Christianity is full of "oppression" and people getting their way, all in the name of so-called "objective truth". 

    Ironically, to deny objective truth and claim that no one has the corner market on truth is itself an objective truth claim. As the authors go along throughout the rest of the second part of the book, they rightly note that with the denial of objective truth also comes the denial of the possibility of meaning. 

    Deconstruction as a process among former-professing evangelicals draws its impulse partly from a philosophical movement known by the same name. That movement, promoted by such philosophers as Jacques Derrida and Paul Riceour, claimed we could never know the true meaning of an author or any given text. Time and distance between us and the author, coupled with the changing meanings of words makes the quest for "what the author means" a fool's errand per the literary critics who espouse deconstruction. In the end, the reader is the one who has to determine the text's meaning. 

    It is this impulse that feeds into the contemporary movement of Christian faith deconstruction. In the final analysis, the goal in faith deconstruction is not to arrive at "truth" (since there is no one truth) or even new meaning (since meaning eludes even the most persistent seeker according to their view). Instead, the person who deconstructs can only hope to arrive at inner peace with themselves and chart a course that will help them live out their own personal view of truth. 

    In the next post I'll continue with this book review, noting what we find in the third part of the book and important takeaways for the reader. 

An Overview Of The Doctrine Of The Trinity P5: Concluding Truth Pair: The Trinity in unity and the unity in Trinity.

Introduction:

    We've spent the last several posts exploring what I have called "an overview of the doctrine of the Trinity". In these posts I have proposed four pairs of truths about the God of the Bible that can help us summarize this teaching.

1. Truth Pair #1 God's oneness of being and plurality of Personhood. 

2. Truth Pair #2 God the Father's eternal act of begetting and God the Son being eternally begotten.

3. Truth Pair #3 God the Father and the Son's eternal out-breathing of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son.

4. Truth Pair #4 The Trinity in unity and the unity in Trinity.   

Truth Pair #4 The Trinity in unity and the unity in Trinity. 

    We arrive today at the series conclusion by what will be a focus on that final truth pair. I have decided to call this final pairing of truths by this title by what we read in the Athanasian Creed, dating back to at least the sixth century. Here is how the opening portion of the Creed begins:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost."

    The reader may notice that this final truth pair sounds somewhat similar to the first truth pair we observed at the beginning of this series. God's oneness of being and plurality of Personhood states the twin pillars upon which the doctrine of the Trinity is built. How these two pillars of the Biblical revelation of God relate and unite is a matter of mystery on the one hand and one of utmost priority to embrace by the Christian on the other hand. 

    When we then look at the second and third truth pairings, we see an attempt to expound the fact of the Three Persons of the Trinity relating to one another eternally in their continual origination from the one Divine essence which they all share. To clarify: the Father begets the Son as the unoriginated Father, with the Son being eternal and without beginning from Him; then the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, equal to them and being the bond between them. 

    We see the terms "beget" (John 3:16 for example) and "proceed" (John 15:26) in the Biblical text that tell us "that" the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct from one another as otherwise co-equal Persons while note revealing "how" exactly the undivided oneness of being is shared between them. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 states in its opening paragraph of its article on God:

"The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being."

    It is upon reflecting on the relating activities of the Father, Son, and Spirit that we arrive at our fourth true pairing, noting how we observe a "Trinity in unity" on the one hand, while observing at the same time we are witnessing a "Unity in Trinity". This final truth pairing is an attempt to give us the clearest summary of the total witness of Scripture on the revelation of the Triune God. Three passages of Scripture, each dealing with the practical ramifications of the doctrine, will help us see this final point. 

The Triune God in our evangelism

Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Here we see Jesus expressing the making of disciples and believer's baptism in "the name", signifying the One Divine nature or essence, then the three Persons of the Trinity "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". The entirety of the Christian life centers on the God who is Trinity in unity and Unity in Trinity. 

The Triune God in our prayer life.

Ephesians 2:18 "for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father." Paul here writes of the order by which we proceed in prayer. We aim or direct our prayers to God the Father how? "Through Him", that is, the Son, who is the mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5) and most certainly the one way of access to the Father in prayer (Hebrews 10:19-25). 

    But then, how are we assured that our prayers make it to the Father? By having "our access in (or by) one Spirit". Paul echoes this in passages such as Romans 8:26-27, where even there we see the mediation of the Son who "searches the hearts and knows the mind of the Spirit" and of course the Spirit Himself who "intercedes with groanings to deep for words". 

    In prayer, our requests go along the circuit of the Spirit bring the request to the Son, who in turn intercedes with the Father on our behalf in Heaven, and then the answer comes back down to us by the Spirit. This is where we see the doctrine of the Trinity increasing confidence in prayer. 

The Trinity in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:20ff, "unless Christ be raised from the dead, we are of most men miserable". All Three Persons were involved in the resurrection of the incarnate Son in an inseparable way from one another. For sure, it was the Son who died on the cross, experiencing death through His humanity. Jesus proclaimed in John 10:17 that the Father loves Him due to His ability to lay down His life and to take it up again. 

    This "inseparable operating" work of the Trinity in the resurrection gives us the basis for the whole Christian faith. The Spirit of God is the One who worked to bring forth the Son in His humanity from the dead by way of raising His body from death to glory and immortality (see Romans 8:9-11). The Father is the Person in the Trinity who validated the Son's once and for all work by raising Him from the dead (Romans 6:3-6). 

    In short: The Father authorized the resurrection, the Son acted forth by His humanity in His own resurrection, then the Spirit applied the same power of God as God to the animating and transformation of Christ's humanity to a physical resurrection from the dead. All three Persons were a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, preserving their distinct roles in the resurrection on the one hand (the Son was raised from the dead, not the Spirit nor the Father); while on the other hand the resurrection was an act of God, by God, for God. 

Closing thoughts:

    It is really my hope these last several posts have caused the reader to see the doctrine of the Trinity in a clearer light. May we see the doctrine of the Trinity as so central to Christian thinking that we can scarcely imagine living for Jesus Christ without it. 

An Overview Of The Doctrine Of The Trinity P4: The Holy Spirit as the ambassador of the Trinity

Introduction:

    In our last three posts we have looked at what I am calling "four pairs of truths" that we can use to summarize the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

1. Truth Pair #1 God's oneness of being and plurality of Personhood. 

2. Truth Pair #2 God the Father's eternal act of begetting and God the Son being eternally begotten.

3. Truth Pair #3 God the Father and the Son's eternal out-breathing of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son.

4. Truth Pair #4 The Trinity in unity and the unity in Trinity.   

    We have so far looked at the first two pairs of truths and intend to explore the third pair in this post. 

The doctrine of the Trinity is a compound doctrine

    The doctrine of the Trinity is what I sometimes call a "compound doctrine", meaning it is arrived at by careful considerations stemming from other areas of Biblical doctrine. Let me lay out three other key doctrines which the Bible links together to form the doctrine of the Trinity.

Theology proper or the doctrine of God

      We have found that when we look at the doctrine of God or theology proper, we conclude from Scripture the teaching of monotheism or the oneness of God's being and attributes. But then, we also see the Bible emphasizing the revelation of God as Personal by firstly identifying Him as the Father. We can note three senses of what is meant by God as the Father. To begin, God is the Father to the people He chose to redeem, adopting them as His own (Exodus 4:22; Romans 8:14-16). That is, He is Father to saved sinners as their Adoptive Father, and they as His adopted sons and daughters. He is the source of their salvation.

    Second, God the Father is the source of all things as the Creator of all things (see Deuteronomy 32:6 and Acts 17:25-26). Now why does this matter? Biblical monotheism reveals God as not only transcendent and infinite in His perfections, but also immanent or deeply in contact with every point in creation and more importantly - a Personal God.

    Then thirdly, God as the Father is eternally the Father who begets the Son. This final designation was covered in the last post. To say God the Father begets the Son is not a relation of Creator to creature, but instead an eternal relation of origin wherein the Father and Son have co-eternally, co-equally related to one another in the Godhead, with the Father viewed as the source of the relation and the Son the eternal recipient thereof. In this understanding, the Father cannot be "the Father" apart from the Son. Furthermore, the Father's communication of His own essence to the Son is what ensures the eternal co-equality of the Son while distinguishing the Son from the Father in regards to the Son being the only-begotten Son of the Father. 

     Thus, the doctrine of God is the first major doctrine that is used in bringing us to the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine of Christology or the doctrine of Christ. 

   We also observe the revelation of a second personage connected to the Father, which the Old Testament reveals indirectly through the theophanies of the Angel of the Lord, the pillar of fire and cloud, and through visions such as Isaiah's heavenly king vision in Isaiah 6. Once we arrive in the New Testament, this second personage is revealed as the Word (John 1:1) or the Son (Hebrews 1:5-11), co-equal and as much God as the Father, incarnating Himself to be also truly man at the same time (John 1:14). 

    Not only in the Person of the Son do you have another acting subject within the Godhead (i.e. the Divine essence or nature) that is the same in power, authority, and perfections as the Father, but One who is distinct from the Father in regards to His identity. 

    To put it another way, the Son is God as much as the Father is God, yet Scripture reveals the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father. I've already spelled out in the last point what is entailed when the Scripture reveals the Son as "only-begotten". It is these revelations of the power of the Father and the deity of the Son that point us to the need for the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Person and work of the Holy Spirit

    It is in the Bible's revelation of the Holy Spirit that we see the full circle of God's revelation completed. The Holy Spirit brings to us the inner-life of God, the relating of the Father and the Son, and Himself is united to them as One God. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 confesses the Holy Spirit in its opening sentences on its article about the Holy Spirit:

"The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, fully divine. He inspired holy men of old to write the Scriptures. Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ." 1

    The way the Holy Spirit is related to by the Father and the Son and in how He goes forth from them as the totality of the revelation of God will comprise our focus in this post. 

Truth Pair #3 God the Father and the Son's eternal out-breathing of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son.

    As we've observed the three main doctrines that comprise the doctrine of the Trinity terminating upon the Person of the Holy Spirit Himself, we can now see why our third main truth pair is important for our overall study. 

    Let me bring our discussion into clearer view by nicknaming this point as "The Holy Spirit as the Ambassador of the Trinity". Why? When I was a boy growing up, my father had ordered a weekly subscription to Schwan's ice cream delivery. Every Friday the Schwan's truck would pull into our driveway to bring us a 3-gallon tub of ice cream and frozen novelties. The tag-line that advertised the Schwan's deliver person was this: "The Schwan's man is the ambassador of goodness". When he came, he would open up the truck and pull out the goodies, so to speak. We got to sample all that was inside the truck.

    When I think of the Person of the Holy Spirit, He brings to us the inner life of God, since He Himself is truly God by nature as much as the Father and the Son are truly God by nature. John 16:13-15 is where I base this analogy:

"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."

    The Holy Spirit as the "Ambassador of the Trinity" does what He does because He comes forth from the Father and the Son or "Proceeds" forth from them as breath from a person's mouth. The combined testimonies of John 14:26-27 and John 15:26-27 are taught by Jesus to reveal the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father through the Son. In Romans 8:9 the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of God" (referring to His relating to the Father) and in the same verse, along with Philippians 1:19; and 1 Peter 1:11 He is called "The Spirit of Christ" (referring to His relating to the Son). 2

    This procession or "coming forth" of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son keeps in mind two important truths about all three Persons. 

    First, the Father and the Son being the relational source of the Holy Spirit shows their equality of power and glory to one another - a point we've noted already in our last two posts. Then second, the Holy Spirit's divine nature is upheld, since He as "the breath" of deity means He is as much God as the Father as God and as the Son is God, with all three being One God. 

    We will end there for now. My hope is the reader is beginning to gain a sense of the wonder, the splendor, and the awe the doctrine of the Trinity evokes. The Triune God of the Bible is certainly knowable as it pertains to His revealing of Himself in the Bible. Nevertheless, as we trace the contours of this precious doctrine, we find there are points and places within it that evade full comprehension. We can never cram God into a box that comprehends Him, since He exceeds the bounds of the human mind. We can though know Him since He has revealed Himself by the Spirit's by-product of the Divinely revealed Scriptures and the incarnation of the Son in Jesus Christ. 

Endnotes:

1. Baptist Faith and Message 2000 - The Baptist Faith and Message

2. I've laid out in simple form the historic doctrine known as "the filoque", which stands for in Latin "and the Son". It was a phrase added to the Nicene Creed by the Council of Toledo in 589 A.D. to specify the equality of the Father and the Son in their relating to the Holy Spirit, and He with them. This move was rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church and consequently would lead to an eventual schism reaching its full head in 1054 A.D. between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church bodies. 

An Overview Of The Doctrine Of The Trinity P3: God the Father's eternal act of begetting and God the Son being eternally begotten.

Introduction:

    To review, we covered the first pair of truths that help us in beginning a study of the doctrine of the Trinity: God is one in being and a plurality in Personhood. Readers who want to review the last post may click on the link here Growing Christian Resources: An Overview Of The Doctrine Of The Trinity P2: God's Oneness of Being and Plurality of Personhood. I referred to this pairing as two pillars upon which we begin to understand the Biblical revelation of the Triune God. In this post we will introduce a second pair of truths that focus attention upon the Person of the Father and the Person of the Son. 

    In the Triune God we often see several pairs of truths associated with the four main ones we're focusing upon in these posts. One important pairing to keep in mind is how the Father and Son are united in essence while distinguished from one another. Another important pairing of truths aside from the four main ones involves the Holy Spirit's union to the Father and the Son while He relates to them and they to Him.1 I mention these two other pairings of truths so that we can keep in mind that first major pairing we looked at last post (God is one in being and plural in Person). 

The main passages used to support the Father begetting the Son and the Son being begotten of the Father.

   To remind ourselves again, those who argue for the eternal generation (i.e. "begottenness" of the Son) teach that the Son of God is "eternally generated", meaning that that Father eternally communicates to Him the entire Divine nature, point for point, with all perfections. For example, John MacArthur in his book "Essential Christian Doctrine", lists Scriptural verses that feature some main Divine attributes shared between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

           Father           Son     Holy Spirit

Eternal: Deut 33:27            Jn 1:1       Heb 9:14

Omnipotent: Mt 19:26         Re 1:8       Lk 1:35

Omniscient: Lk 16:15          Jn 16:30   1 Cor 2:10-11

Omnipresent: 1 kgs 8:27      Mt 28:20   Ps 139:7

Immutable:   Mal 3:6           Heb 1:10-12  Heb 9:14

Loving:        1 John 4:8       Eph 5:2      Rom 15:30

Holy:           Lev 11:45        Heb 7:26-27  Ro 1:4

Truth:          Jn 3:33           Jn 14:6         Jn 15:26

    What this list shows us is, for example, that God is not three eternals, three omnipotents, three omnisciences, and so forth; rather He is One in each of these Perfections as expressed in the Three Persons. Jesus spoke of He and the Father as "One" in John 10:30 in reference to "being"; yet clearly distinguishing between Himself and the Father (i.e. "I and the Father"). The Athanasian Creed summarizes this point as follows:

"What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated,         the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is immeasurable, the Son is immeasurable, the Holy Spirit is immeasurable. The Father is eternal,       the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal beings; there is but one eternal being. So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings; there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being."

     Also, the distinguishing characteristic of the Son, "begottenness", is conveyed by the Father to Him, with the Father Himself being the unbegotten Person, hence distinguishing Him in identity from the co-equal and co-eternal Son. 

    There are proof texts that theologians in favor of this doctrine appeal as direct evidence for the doctrine, and then a handful of passages that theologians would say are indirect proof-texts.

Direct proof-texts for the eternal generation of the Son from the Father

John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

John 3:16 “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."

John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

1 John 4:19 "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 addition to these five Johannine proof texts, a few others that convey the teaching of the eternal generation of the Son are used. In Proverbs 8:24-25, Wisdom is personified and described as "brought forth" from God before creation of anything else: 

“When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. 25 “Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills I was brought forth." 3

Indirect Proof Texts

    Although the following other passages do not use the term "only-begotten", the idea of the Son being eternally generated by the Father is resident in their various phrases. Colossians 1:16-17 "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. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything." I've highlighted four phrases in Paul's words here in Colossians. 

    The first three bolded phrases portray the Son as responsible for creation, rather than being created, as some groups like the Jehovah Witnesses would advocate. The term "firstborn" is a Greek noun that refers to inheritance more so than just mere birth-order. The Son of God was promised in eternity, by the Father, that He would inherit all of creation before it was made (compare Psalm 2:8; 82:8).

    There are other indirect proof texts we could offer, but for sake of space let me submit Psalm 2:7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You." The word "today" in context is not referring to there at that moment. Sometimes in the Bible, the term "day" can refer to an indeterminate period of time, or even eternity itself.

The importance of the Son being begotten of the Father

    I'll lay out three major points about the Son being begotten of the Father as a way to arrive at its meaning as found in the Bible.

1. Eternal generation (and thus "begotten") explains why the Son is eternal. 

    First, those who argue for the eternal generation (or begottennness) of the Son teach that Father eternally communicates to Him the entire Divine nature (or at least His identity as the Son). According to theologian Matthew Barrett, the Divine essence is shared without division from The Father to The Son: 

"The concept takes us to the very heart of what it means for the Son to be a Son. He is eternally from the Father, which is why He is called Son. To be more specific, from all eternity, the Father communicates the one, simple, undivided divine essence to the Son."2

    The eighteenth century Baptist Theologian John Gill explains eternal generation a little differently as the Father communicating the Son's identity, whilst both share in the common essence:

"It is better to say, that they are self
existent, and exist together in the same undivided essence; and jointly, equally, and as early one as the other, possess the same nature’. Thus, there is not one person who, in the personal ordering of the Trinity, communicates the essence to the others. There are simply three, who relate personally to one another in the essence, with each person possessing the essence of himself." 3

 

   Both explanations of eternal generation fall within the pale of Bible-believing orthodoxy and views that draw from the Nicene Creed's confession of the Son being "begotten, not made". Eternal generation or begetting of the Son firstly explains why the Son is eternal. Notice a second general observation.

2. Eternal generation explains why the Son is the Son, and why the Father is the Father. 

    Then secondly, the distinguishing characteristic that defines the Son as "the Son" is in how the Father begets Him or what theologians call "filiates". Filiation conveys to the Son His identity as the Son, as noted already in my quotation of John Gill.

3. The Son being begotten has relevance in modern evangelism

    I recall years ago a group of Jehovah Witnesses handing out pamphlets advertising a local conference at their "Kingdom Hall" meeting place: 

"Come hear about how Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World".

    I pointed out to them that according to their theology, there is no way Jesus Christ could be Savior of the World. I took them to the above passages I cited. I concluded that they either had to admit their theology was in error, or stop proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Savior of the World. They of course would not do either. 

    Nevertheless, the phrase "begotten, not made" safeguards the central affirmation of the Gospel that the Apostle Peter affirms in Acts 10:38 "Jesus Christ is LORD". Or again, Paul writes in Romans 10:9 "If you will confess with your mouth Jesus is LORD, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

    Both Scriptures cited above use the Divine title "LORD" or "Jehovah/Yahweh" to show the Son's equality with the Father, as well as to demonstrate that He is able to save sinners just as much as the Father, since He Himself is God. 

Endnotes:

1. Theologians call the relations between the Father, Son, and Spirit "eternal relations of origin." 

2. John Gill. Body of Divinity. Pages 98-99, Book 2. Consulted from the Digital Version available on Internet Archive here Gill's complete body of practical and doctrinal divinity: : being a system of evangelical truths, deduced from the Sacred Scriptures. : Gill, John, 1697-1771 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

3. True God from True God - Credo Magazine

An Overview Of The Doctrine Of The Trinity P2: God's Oneness of Being and Plurality of Personhood.

Introduction:

    In our last post we began a series I'm calling "An Overview Of The Doctrine Of The Trinity" here Growing Christian Resources: An Overview Of The Doctrine Of The Trinity P1: Four Pairs Of Truths That Comprise The Doctrine Of The Trinity. Today is the first pair of four pairs of truths which comprise the teaching. Let me list the four headings as I laid them out in the last post and then expound some on the first one.

1. Truth Pair #1 God's oneness of being and plurality of Personhood. 

2. Truth Pair #2 God the Father's eternal act of begetting and God the Son being eternally begotten.

3. Truth Pair #3 God the Father and the Son's eternal out-breathing of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son.

4. Truth Pair #4 The Trinity in unity and the unity in Trinity.   

    With those four pairs of truth in mind, let's expound briefly on the first one.  

Truth Pair #1 God's oneness of being and plurality of Personhood. 

    When we study the Bible to understand what God is and who He is, we come away with two broad clusters of truth: 

A. God is one in being and three in Personhood. God being one God is affirmed throughout Scripture (Deut. 4:35; 6:4-5; 32:39; Ps 18:31; Isaiah 40:18; 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:5; Mark 12:29). The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 begins its article on God with this sentence: "There is one and only one living and true God." God is one in being. 

B. We then understand the second important pillar of the doctrine of the Trinity - He is a plurality of Persons. He being a plurality of three Persons is also affirmed, whether it be by use of Divine titles that show Yahweh and the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament, or in passages that show two of the three Persons (Genesis 1:2; Proverbs 30:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6) or all three (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14) in the New Testament. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 asserts:

"The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being."

What is meant by "Person" and "Being" when discussing the Trinity?

Two terms must be defined before going further into our study. 

A. What is meant by a Divine Person?

    First, what is meant by "person" when studying the Trinity? When we refer to the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit as "Persons", we refer to how they are active, eternal subjects within the Divine nature or Godhead.1 All three share in the Divine nature in such a way as to each be truly God in the fullest sense. In sharing the one, undivided Divine essence or nature, there is one will and one mind among the three Persons. This observation is demonstrated in how God at times will use plural pronouns to describe how He is acting in creation (Genesis 1:26) and in salvation (John 14:23).

    We must remind ourselves that as we meditate on the Trinity, we are entering into the realm of mystery, meaning unless God has revealed the details of truth to us from Scripture, we can only respond in worship, rather than full analysis. 

    There will be aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity that are clear from Scripture, others which we can draw conclusions from indirect connections in the Bible, and still others that evade our comprehension. 

B. What is God's being? 

   The second term we need to define is "being", or what is also called "essence" or "nature". When we talk of God's being, nature, or essence, we refer to what God is in His existence and attributes. 

       God's existence and attributes are unique from all other things, since God is eternal and without beginning, existing before everything else. God's attributes are each an excellency, a perfection, and total revelation of God's being. In other words, we don't have God's being on one side and His attributes stacked off in a corner on the other side. Rather, God's being is His attributes and vice-versa declaring to us that when you focus on one attribute, you have all that God is in that perfection along with all the others!3 

    When we talk of God's being or nature, we also will use the related term "character" which covers consideration of His being and attributes. The Bible will make reference to "the Divine nature" (Romans 1:18-20) for example, with older translations using the term "Godhead", to point out God's essence, nature, and thus His deity. 2

    With those two terms defined, we now can move forward by considering this question: how does Scripture help us bridge these two general truths of unity in being and plurality in personhood? 

1. The glory of God as a bridge between discussion of the Divine nature and the Trinity. 

    The Biblical teaching on the glory of God is the first way the Bible bridges the revelation of God being one in being and a plurality of three persons. For example, Psalm 19:1 tells us how "the heavens declare the glory of God", with "glory of God" gesturing toward contemplation of God in all that He is as revealed through the general revelation of creation. 

    We then see God's glory as a theme in a key Trinitarian passage, reminding us in Hebrews 1:3 of how the Son is "the radiance of God's glory, and the exact representation of His being". The term "God" in Hebrews 1:3 refers to the Person of the Father, of whom the Son discloses in His effulgence as the Divine Son. God's glory bridges any discussion of the Divine Godhead to the Persons in the Godhead. 

2. The Old Testament's preparation for the full revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament. 

    Not only does God's glory help us bridge between discussion of God's oneness of being and Triune identity, but also the Old Testament revelation of God. Genesis 1 reveals what we could call the "twin pillars" of any Biblical doctrine of God - God's oneness of being and plurality of personhood. 

    Genesis 1:1 squarely tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. The Hebrew text utilizes a singular masculine verb in the third person to tell us of a singular God verbalizing everything into existence. Yet, the subject of the sentence, "God", is the Hebrew name for God "Elohim", which is a plural masculine noun. This intriguing point of Hebrew grammar gestures toward our main thesis in this first truth pairing: One God in being and plural in Personhood. 

      We see this same sort of phenomenon in Genesis 1:26, with the third masculine singular verb for "make" in reference to the making of man as male and female. Yet, the subject of that verb in the sentence is the Hebrew name of God "Elohim". 

    Furthermore, Genesis 1:26 also includes pronoun "our" in reference to the image He would stamp into the moral and spiritual make-up of the man and woman. God is no doubt a singular entity, Creator of all things. At the same time, this one God is a plural personality. 

    Throughout the Old Testament revelation we see references hinting at the personages in the Godhead. For instance, we see "The Spirit" (Genesis 1:2) and "The Son" in Psalm 110:4 and Proverbs 30:4. 

    The Old Testament doesn't get to the level of detail we find in the New Testament revelation to how it ties together the oneness of God with the plurality of personality. Nonetheless, The Old Testament sets up for what would be that eventual bringing together of the complete picture of "One God in Three Persons" observed in the New Testament.  

3. The mutual indwelling of Father, Son, and Spirit as One God by nature.  

     Jesus' teaching on the doctrine of God is a quantum leap forward in the progressive revelation of Scripture in bridging God's oneness of nature and plurality of personality. As only Jesus could do, He utilizes the language of what theologians call "mutual indwelling", which is to say the "Father is in me and I in the Father" type of expressions. For instance, we read Jesus' words in John 14:10-11

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves."

    What Jesus taught in John 13-17 about Himself, the Father, and Holy Spirit being One in unity and distinct in identity moves our understanding forward in formulating a Biblical doctrine of God that affirms a oneness in being and three in identity.    

Endnotes:

1. The term "Person" has quite a history in the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity. I used the phrase "eternal, acting, subject" as a summary of the more technical term used by systematic theologians: "subsistence" or "hypostasis". Both terms are respectively of Latin and Greek origin, and refer to how the Father, Son, and Spirit are concrete, eternal subjects that eternally have ever acted within the Divine nature. The closest example of where we find the Greek word "hypostasis" in the New Testament used in this way is where the Son of God is deemed "the exact representation of His being" in Hebrews 1:2-3. The Son's co-equality and co-eternality of nature shared with the Father is such that the Son is Himself truly God just as much as the Father Himself is truly God. In the early third century, the Latin Church Father Tertullian began to use the Latin term "persona", with later writers using the Latin term "subsist" to refer to how the Persons of the Trinity act and relate to one another in their sharing of the One Divine nature. 

2. There is overlap in meaning when it comes to the terms "nature", "being", and "essence". 

3. This particular quality of God's being is called "Divine Simplicity", meaning God has no parts. We don't have a part of God's being in His love, another part in His holiness, and so forth. Rather, God is all holy, all loving, and so forth. He doesn't merely have love, He is love by nature  - i.e. the loving God (1 John 4:8). He doesn't merely have holiness, He is holy (Psalm 99:1). This is what we mean by God being His attributes.