Doctrine of God

Have you ever tried to look directly at the sun? It is not possible to look at it with the natural eye as the brightness is overpowering and can cause damage. However, if the sun is partially obscured by hazy clouds, one can look through them and get a sense of its shape and see it clearer and in a safer way. Scientists use protective telescopes and equipment to study the sun, but no one has experienced the surface firsthand.

In a similarly parabolic way, we can grasp more of who God is because he does not reveal his full glory to us. I find it beautifully ironic that by graciously veiling himself we see him better yet will not know him completely. Though he is transcendent, he condescends to reveal himself immanently in ways our finite minds can comprehend, most clearly in the incarnation. Even without looking directly at the sun we experience its warmth and brightness. So also with God, we can experience his attributes without a full understanding.

To begin the undertaking of creating a doctrine of God I will look at how God has revealed himself in the scriptures and consider how the church has wrestled through theology of God’s nature and character, particularly with the conception of trinitarian thought in the early church and creedal formation. The functions and interactions within the Trinity continue to be discussed and debated today and I will give special attention to the doctrine of Eternal Functional Subordination and how my views and key idea interact. It is of particular concern to me because of the practical ways it impacts my ministry and possibilities as a woman.

The giving of a name in ancient culture was a far weightier endeavor than naming typically is today. A person’s name was sometimes a prophecy over them or spoke to character that would define their life. God’s character is partially revealed in scripture by his names and attributes. The word El is a standard Semitic word for god and its plural form, Elohim, can refer to false gods or other spiritual beings. However, in the scriptures when the plural form Elohim is used with a singular verb it speaks of the one true God. This may hint at the plurality and diversity of God. Another way God is named is by using the term El paired with words describing God’s attributes such as: holy, righteous, ruler, and exalted. These phrases create titles that speak to who God is. In Moses’ encounter with the burning bush the divine name is introduced (Ex. 3:11-15). Moses asks God who he should tell the people has sent him. God replies, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” God tells Moses “I am who I am” (Ehyeh) and instructs him to tell Israel “He is (Yahweh) has sent me to you.” The divine name Yahweh translates to ‘He is’ and speaks to his independent existence and distinction (Fairbairn Lecture 8-1). This divine name is also combined with various attributes to elucidate his character. Another term used to describe God is Adonai. Adon means “master” and Adoni means “my master.” In the Old Testament when the plural form of this word, Adonai, is used it means “my masters” and refers only to God. The form is plural but has a first singular suffix and is possibly representative of his majesty or as another indication of his diversity. It is conceivable both are true if the use of majestic plural or ‘Royal We’ came about as a reflection of the majesty with which God has spoken of himself.

God has revealed himself over time and in many ways. In the word we come to understand God as a being who is above all and unique among all (1 Tim. 1:17). The scriptures emphatically express that God is one (Deut. 6:4) but also speak to the truth that within God there is a diversity of persons. In saying ‘persons’ we must understand this as an analogical term to get at the concept we now identify as the Trinity. The scriptures refer often to God as Son and God as Spirit (Col. 1:15-20, Acts 5:3-4). We must hold the truths together that God is one and is described in three distinct persons. Logically this is a conundrum, one the early church struggled to parse out into words.

God’s diversity and plurality is not something that just originated with the New Testament, however. In Genesis 1:26 God says, “Let us make mankind in our image.” Here we see plural form used right from the beginning. The next verse goes onto describe how God created man in his own image and includes the parallel statement in singular terms, “male and female he created them.” An argument can be made that because God created humans in his own image it was not good that man should be alone. By himself Adam could not reflect image of God’s beauty in diversity. The unity of God can be reflected in the marriage and oneness of these of two distinct entities of male and female at creation. Elsewhere in scripture the three persons are also spoken of in unity and equality. The foremost place this is found is the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20. A baptismal candidate is baptized in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This text became a formula that was used in the very early tradition of the church and there is no hint of subordination (Erickson 299).

As the early church grappled with attempts to understand the relationship between the three, theologians like Tertullian held that they were differing manifestations of the same power without separation and invented the word ‘Trinity.’ Later, efforts were made to clarify the relationship between Christ and God resulting in two forms of Monarchianism. The first, Dynamic Monarchianism stressed the sole sovereignty of God. Theodotus maintained that Jesus was an ordinary man upon whom the Spirit descended at baptism to perform God’s works. The term dynamic refers to the presence of God working through Jesus but not within him. The second, Modalistic Monarchianism, affirmed the full deity of Jesus but held that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are identical and successive revelations of the same person (Erickson 304). In later years Arius clashed with others over the nature of Christ. The Emperor Constantine intervened in the conflict and called the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea, which condemned Arius’ teaching. He was heavily influenced by the teachings of Origen on subordination of the Son to the Father and combined them with his assertion of the eternal generation of the Son. Arius, and his later followers claimed that since God was one, no substance of God could be shared with any other being and reduced the Son to a demigod. This view was denounced at the council of Nicea, and once the matter of Jesus’ divinity reached a consensus, there was substantial thought given to how the Spirit related. The Cappadocians did important work to defend the divinity of the Spirit. From that point came two understandings of how the Godhead could be envisioned. The eastern view focused on the distinctives of the three persons and how they constitute a single God while the western approach began from the unity of God who consists of three persons (Fairbairn Lecture 8-3).

Various views on the Son’s and Spirit’s roles and functions within the Godhead were circulating and led to the convening of the First Council of Constantinople. Though the Arian view of the Son’s generation was denounced at the Council of Nicea it continued to hold political and theological dominance in the East until this time. The first Council of Constantinople set forth a theology that condemned these views as heresies and reaffirmed Nicene orthodoxy (Elwell). Though scripture does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity it testifies to paradoxical truths that theologians have labored to unite in a way that all can grasp. Athanasius argued the church needed to expand its theological vocabulary beyond the Bible to explain the deeper themes contained within. Creeds were developed that primarily used the language of scripture to express these truths as well as new words coined to elucidate the complex ideas. As Adam was given the task to name the animals God created, so these theologians gave new names to the truths they found in the scriptures. The word Homoousios literally means ‘same substance’ and became an important theological term to describe the oneness between the persons of the Trinity. Though the term is not exhaustive it lays the groundwork that has been built upon. Truly, the development of trinitarian thought is an excellent exercise in working towards comprehension without arriving. We may say we now have a better grip on comprehending God through this work, but the finer details of trinitarian theory are still being debated today.

One such contemporary debate considers how the divine persons of the Trinity are differentiated with regards to authority. Some argue the Father is the supreme being within the Trinity and the Son and Spirit are eternally subordinate to Him. Erickson terms this view, gradational authority, while others label it Eternal Subordination of the Son or Eternal Functional Subordination (hereafter EFS). A main advocate for EFS is Wayne Grudem and he argues, “Authority and submission between the Father and the Son, and between the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, is a fundamental difference (or probably the fundamental difference) between the persons of the Trinity” (Grudem 47). Erikson concludes that the persons of the Trinity possess an equivalent authority, a viewpoint that admits there is a functional subordination of the Son to the Father and of the Holy Spirit to both the Father and Son. Unlike EFS it contends this was only temporarily limited to the tasks the Son accomplished in his earthly ministry and the Spirit fulfills regarding salvation (Erickson 307). By contrast, Grudem disagrees that submission to the Father was limited to the earthly ministry of Christ, but rather the Son is eternally subject to the Father. In so doing he links this view as proof for the subjugation of women to their husbands: “Just as God the Son is eternally subject to the authority of God the Father, so God has planned that wives be subject to the authority of their husbands” (Grudem 46). Additionally, he extends this view from marriage to include male and female roles within the church. Though EFS rightly rejects the ontological subordination of Arius it does not account for the philosophical problems that unequal roles within the Trinity create. Kevin Giles argues that EFS must be rejected because the divine persons should not be differentiated based on their being, work, or function but rather by stressing their identity, relations to each other, and origins. “The general consensus is that differentiation can only be construed by stressing the personal identity of the divine three (Father, Son and Spirit), by stressing their differing relations (the Father is the Father of the Son, the Son is the Son of the Father, etc.) and by stressing their differing origins (the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeding) (Giles p.14). If the subordination of the Son and Spirit are necessary characteristics and essential qualities, it is difficult to conclude that this difference does not imply inferiority. The doctrine of EFS may not be completely outside the bounds of orthodox trinitarianism but it does provide an off ramp towards tritheism and modalism so extra care should be used to warn against those dangers and examine the fruit that comes from the doctrine to see if it is healthy.

As I consider God, I have tasted and seen the Lord is good (Ps. 34:8). I discover who he is in his precious word, but my understanding of God is not simply a scholarly pursuit of knowledge. I find my refuge in him and I experience his presence and it confirms what is found in his word. His goodness is clearly attested to in scripture. He cannot be tempted with evil (Jam. 1:13), he is too pure to look on evil or tolerate wrong (Hab. 1:13), he is just (Job 34:12), and holy (Lev. 11:44-45). His holiness and perfection are what we are called to reflect (Matt. 5:48). He is not only good with regards to righteousness, but he is also good in a benevolent way. His kindness, love, and faithfulness to his people are exhibited in his concern for them, most evident in sending his son as an atoning sacrifice for sins (1 Jn. 4:10). Benevolence without any power would make for a well-intentioned yet impotent god. Thankfully, our God shows himself to be infinite with respect to power (Jer. 32:27), wisdom (Rom. 11:33), and time (Ps. 90:1-2). Because he is all powerful and loving he can be trusted. Since he does not change (Mal. 3:6) he is dependable and worthy of our trust. God is immeasurable and, in some respects, it is impossible to define him. The word “de-fine” means to fix or mark the limits of. We cannot pin him down or mark his limits because he is an in-finite God. He resists being defined by his nature but is generous to bring a partial understanding to our finite minds. Our inability to fully understand and describe God is partly due to the limits of our human language. To rephrase the hymn, there is no way to fully explain him in words even if all the sky were made of parchment and the oceans made of ink (how much less in this short paper). Nevertheless, his transcendence does not impair his ability to be near or immanent with us. He is throughout the whole universe (Jer. 23:24) and yet the theme of presence and dwelling with his people is found throughout the scriptures from the Garden of Eden, to filling the temple, to the sending of the Holy Spirit. In everything he is above and beyond all we can think or imagine and yet he graciously veils himself so that we can see a bit of his brilliance.

This paradox ties in with my key idea that God Alone is Certain, We Walk by Faith. As I labor to write this paper, my smallness and inadequacy to the task continues to be impressed upon me. I echo the Psalmist in asking “What is mankind that you are mindful of them?” (Ps. 8:4). Humility has been a crucial aspect of my theological studies and so I must amend my key idea to include it; God Alone is Certain, We Walk in Humility by Faith.

God’s perfection is centered on certainty in his being. We often err because we do not have all the relevant information, but because God knows all he is not limited in good judgement and is certain on all things. We are not wise enough to see all or understand where our actions may lead so we must have faith that God knows what is best. In crafting this doctrine, it would be idolatry to believe we could bring God under the control of our objective knowledge. I do not claim to fully understand how God is both imminent and transcendent, but I know they are both true and I must hold those both together in paradox. Similarly, both the unity and diversity of God are true and even after thousands of years and millions of pages of ink spilled towards understanding there are still debates on how to best understand the persons of the Trinity. In general, I believe when we encounter these challenging paradoxes forcing a simple resolution does not adequately explain away the complexities and leads closer to errors. When it comes to foundational issues, like who God is, we must work even harder towards understanding and trust he will show us what is needed and direct our paths. The road of orthodoxy is wide, and conclusions on these issues will vary, but the historic creeds act as guardrails to help us traverse well. For doctrines like EFS that steer closer to heresy we need rumble strips and clear warnings to keep us from going off the road.

The context of my ministry is within a local church that adheres to a complementarian viewpoint. For the first of its 40 years the pastors seemed to agree with Grudem and the doctrine of EFS and placed hard, yet unwritten, rules around what women were permitted to do within the church. In the past ten years the leadership has reviewed the fruit of those rules and found it to be rotten. In that time the elders did theological work to strengthen and clarify roles in the church. This led to crafting a lengthy doctrinal paper that instituted some changes that Grudem would label as inappropriate (Grudem 97). A year after the paper was given to the congregation and preached and explained, I was the first woman to teach a mixed group of adults during the Sunday school hour, just before the church shut down because of COVID-19. I joined staff last fall as the Director of Adult Discipleship and my work involves adult education and discipleship, but not in a pastoral capacity. As I have researched the theories on the Trinity it has felt very close to home, often evoking strong emotions and thoughts. I see firsthand the practical implications and importance of understanding the doctrine of God.

Within the work of my ministry, knowing God’s goodness and his greatness enables me to persevere and serve well. The divine mysteries of God must be wrestled with in humility. God has not left knowledge about himself undiscoverable so I must place a priority on my own pursuit of him before I seek to serve others. He rewards those who diligently seek him wholeheartedly and promises to draw near to us as we draw near him. Because he is holy, I must live a life of purity, desiring to honor him in all that I do. In humility I accept the limitations on how well I can express the doctrine of God and yet I steadfastly pursue the Lord.

Bibliography

Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology : A Biblical and Systematic Introduction. Second ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

Elwell, Walter A. 1996. Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Erickson, Millard J. 2013. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Giles, Kevin. 2002. The Trinity & Subordinationism : The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Grudem, Wayne A. 2012. Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth : An Analysis of More Than One Hundred Disputed Questions. Crossway reprint ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway.