The Importance of Trinitarian Orthodoxy for True Worship

The doctrine of the Trinity is the most important doctrine of the Christian faith because it tells us who the God is that we worship.[1] In the progressive unfolding of redemptive history, God has disclosed Himself to be one being (ousia) who exists in three co-equal, co-essential and co-eternal persons (hypostaseis): Father (1 Cor. 8:6), Son (John 3:16) and Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14-16).[2] As such, those who are to be regarded as worshippers of God must worship Him in spirit and in truth (John. 4:24). Scripture testifies that the authentic worshipper of God makes every effort to submit their personal expressions of worship offered unto Him exclusively to the Biblical instructions outlining how one is to approach the thrice-holy Deity (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8). Therefore, to ascribe honor to any other rendition of deity that does not exemplify that of the triune God revealed in Scripture is to rob Him of His glory and commit the heinous sin of idolatry (Rom. 1:18-23). Unfortunately, as seen in contemporary evangelicalism, it is the doctrine of the Trinity that has perhaps been subjected to the most willful ignorance by laypersons and clergymen alike.[3] Perhaps now more than ever before, American Christianity is in dire need of a resurgence of orthodoxy within the realm of Theology Proper.

According to the bi-annual State of Theology survey conducted by LifeWay Research and Ligonier Ministries, “many within the evangelical church are confused about what the Bible teaches [about God]… The evangelical world is in great danger of slipping into irrelevance when it casually forgets the Bible’s doctrine [of God.].”[4] Tragically, this poll that was designed to canvass the theological climate of American evangelicalism has uncovered that many self-identifying evangelicals performed worse than those who chose not to specify as being an evangelical. Moreover, this theological assessment demonstrated that more than half of those self-identifying evangelicals surveyed believe that Jesus is the “first and greatest being created by God” (Arianism) and that the Holy Spirit is “a divine force but not a personal being” (Pneumatomachianism).[5] What does research such as this disclose to a watching world? Answer: Most people who self-identify as evangelical Christians—whether clergy or laity—are heretics.

Shocking revelations such as these indicate the theological crisis that presently encompasses American evangelicalism with respect to knowledge of the Most High, in supplementation to highlighting that when it comes to doctrinal obfuscation, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccles. 1:9). What has been historically and confessionally declared as erroneous in the discipline of theology will inevitably find ways to surface and seek to cause the body of Christ to fall from its steadfastness to sound doctrine (2 Pet. 3:17). Although this is the battle that the church catholic has always faced since its inception and will continue to face until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, there remains the unfailing hope that God will always provide a faithful remnant on the Earth to be stalwarts for His truth as revealed in Scripture (1 Kings 19:18; 2 Kings 19:4; Rom. 11:5). When canvassing the hallows of church history, one of God’s most faithful servants for safeguarding Trinitarian orthodoxy was that of Basil of Caesarea.[6] The contemporary church in America would do well to follow in the example modeled by this titan of Trinitarian orthodoxy. Indeed, few ancient churchmen have exhibited such steadfast and immovable (1 Cor. 15:58) commitment to Biblical orthodoxy on matters relating to the doctrine of God than that of Basil of Caesarea (AD 329-AD 379.)

A Brief Survey of the Life and Ministry of Basil of Caesarea

Born into a wealthy aristocratic family and educated in the finest academic institutions throughout Caesarea, Constantinople, and Athens, Basil was intellectually stretched and firmly established as a prodigious scholar from a very young age.[7] Ironically, he would later come to lament over his time vainly pursuing “that wisdom which God has made foolish” as an unregenerate sinner.[8] For this Patristic saint, the verdict that stems from the possession of secular knowledge void from the apprehension of God-centered wisdom can be altogether summarized as “worthless” and “illusory.”[9] By the sovereign grace of God, Basil’s fixation with things below was transitioned unto things above (Col. 3:1-2) in AD 356. It was through beholding the “wonderful light of the truth of the Gospel” and “[mourning] deeply for [his] miserable life” that Basil surrendered himself to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.[10] The immediate landscape and everlasting legacy of the fourth-century church catholic would never be the same as a result.

It would be an understatement to say that Basil’s attention to detail in matters related to the proper worship of God was revolutionary during the fourth century. During his two decades worth of ministry, Basil was known for his selfless service of others and Christlike humility. For example, when financial hardships struck Cappadocia during the 370s, Basil singlehandedly saved his region from undergoing irreparable famine and strife by liquidating the vast majority of his sizable inheritance.[11] Moreover, with the assistance of his younger brother (Gregory of Nyssa), Basil’s close friendship with Gregory of Nazianzus enabled him to develop a Christian community where instruction in Scripture and theology could transpire.[12] Despite its connotations with asceticism and monasticism, Christian communities of this nature were very important contexts for discipleship and catechetical training during the Patristic era of church history.[13] Needless to say, Basil was rigorously dedicated to serving others, seeking to assist his fellow countrymen with any of their temporal needs and cultivating fellowship amongst God’s people throughout the duration of his Christian life.

However, all of Basil’s terrific work in exhibiting the love of Christ to his neighbor was made even more manifest when viewed against the backdrop of his efforts to safeguard Trinitarian orthodoxy within the broader life of the church. Basil’s contributions to Theology Proper were imperative in the establishment of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and his understanding of intra-Trinitarian processions enabled him to defend the complete deity of the Holy Spirit against the fourth century Pneumatomachian heretics.[14] The legacy of Basil’s life and ministry reflects a man who viewed every facet of his existence as a platform to worship God in a manner that was in keeping with Scripture, as well as directing others to do the same for themselves. Given the fact that modern church historians have obtained more information about Basil of Caesarea than any other Christian of the ancient world apart from Augustine of Hippo,[15] it is a shame that many contemporary Believers do not devote more time to studying his extensive contributions to theological inquiry. It is Basil’s unrivaled mastery of Theology Proper that not only best served the church of his day but also ought to be thoroughly canvassed by any self-identifying Christian in this present era.

The Contemporary Threat of EFS to Trinitarian Orthodoxy

As previously alluded to in passing, the doctrinal health of mainstream evangelicalism in America has plummeted to dangerous depths of incompetency, even amongst those who would identify themselves as theologically conservative or confessionally Reformed Christians.[16] One of the most alarming trends of the present day, pertaining directly to the doctrine of God, has come to be known as the doctrine of the eternal functional subordination of the Son (EFS).[17] EFS was originally offered as a solution to protect the doctrine of complementarianism[18] as traditional views on gender roles in marriage and in the life of the church were subject to intense scrutiny in recent decades.[19]

This doctrinal position argues that there is an eternal act of the Son submitting to the Father within the intratrinitarian life of the Godhead that does not necessitate an ontological inferiority or difference between the Son and the Father.[20] Advocates of the EFS doctrinal position point to the analogy of specific God-ordained human relationships as justification for their position (1 Cor. 11:3; Gal. 3:28).[21] The classical Christian theistic commitment, on the other hand, asserts that the Son submits to the Father in history, but the Son’s submission in history does not mean that this is how one can distinguish the Son from the Father in eternity. Instead, the Son proceeds from the Father on mission eternally, which expresses itself in temporal submission during that mission. The Son, then, differs from the Father because the Son eternally proceeds from the Father, not because the Son is in a subordinate relationship to the Father within the Godhead itself from eternity past.[22] When the EFS theological conviction is surveyed from a Biblical and historical standpoint, one will see that it cannot stand as an accurate representation of how the intratrinitarian relationship between the Father and the Son ought to be understood in light of Scriptural revelation because it necessarily implies a multiplicity of wills/consciousnesses in the Godhead which logically yields a type of tritheistic, intratrinitarian subordinationism.[23]

Conversely, what can be seen in the prevalent condition of mainstream American evangelicalism is a shocking parallel to what was witnessed in theological compromise transpiring within the fourth century surrounding what was to be confessed as the Biblical teaching on the doctrine of God. As can be historically affirmed, after the Nicene Creed was concretized, Emperor Constantine and many other prominent church leaders were convinced that Arius and adherents to his false teaching about God had been dealt with far too harshly.[24] The result of this compromise led to the condemned church leaders being favorably welcomed back into the church catholic in AD 327, and an indefinite resolution would not ultimately be made until the delineation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in AD 381.[25] Given the lasting ramifications that arose within the community of faith as a result of not proactively dealing with the theological slide into heterodoxy that was experienced in the fourth century, the twenty-first-century church would do well to glean crucial insight regarding how she can allow the Word of God (not external pressures or circumstances) to be the sole authority and compass for constructing her theological confessions of faith (2 Tim. 3:15-17).

What the Church Can Learn from Basil of Caesarea

Few people in church history can be said to have lived by this previously postulated affirmation as resolutely as Basil of Caesarea. Shining like the brightest star in the darkest night, Basil can be credited with continuing to confess and teach Nicene (Biblical) orthodoxy despite his contemporaries having caved to the surrounding pressures to merely agree to disagree with the heretical position that it had condemned. His faithfulness was one of the strongest contributing factors to the institution of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which was not drawn up until two years following his death.[26] In keeping in step with classical Christian theistic commitments on Theology Proper, Basil was unapologetically committed to “the faith in the three persons of the Godhead.”[27] As demonstrated in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19, it is the singular name of the three that “determines doxological ultimacy: the Father along with the Son and the Holy Spirit are to receive equal honor and worship.”[28] This was a man who the triune God had appointed to stand firm to the apostolic tradition (2 Thess. 2:15) that had been documented and preserved in holy Writ.

Basil of Caesarea was faithful to upholding the Biblical witness of the co-equality, co-essentiality, and co-eternality of the three Persons subsisting within the Godhead. In light of these theological commitments, for Basil, there was no trace of ontological or functional subordination within the divine essence. Rather than adopt the prevailing explanations of the day for who God had revealed Himself to be (Arianism), Basil relentlessly clung to what the Bible had disclosed about the Most High. This was, indeed, a true worshipper of the triune God, having rightly confessed and experienced the glory of “the knowledge of God [that] is from the one Spirit through the one Son to the one Father.”[29]

In 2020, as has been the case in nearly every preceding generation of church history, the contemporary church in America is now faced with many of the same challenges. With doctrinal error spreading like gangrene throughout self-identifying Christendom, now is the time for faithful men and women to champion theological orthodoxy, even if it is unpopular to do so. It is at this point in which studying the life, ministry, and theology of Basil of Caesarea would prove to be so helpful for many laity and clergy who seek to defend the Trinitarianism that has been once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 1:3). As such, may God lead many twenty-first-century Christians to commit themselves to studying this Patristic theologian so that they will be encouraged to press on in their efforts to safeguard and champion Trinitarian orthodoxy.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Works Cited

Basil. “Letters of Saint Basil of Caesarea: Letter 223.” CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 223 (St. Basil). Accessed December 1, 2020. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202223.htm.

Blair, Leonardo. “Most Evangelicals Believe God Accepts Worship of All Religions, Study Shows.” The Christian Post. The Christian Post, October 16, 2018. https://www.christianpost.com/news/most-evangelicals-believe-god-accepts-worship-of-all-religions-study-shows.html.

Brown, Peter. “The Homoousios Controversy and Semi-Arianism.” Jesus Christ God, Man and Savior Week Six: God the Son at Nicaea and Constantinople, October 5, 2014. https://scalar.usc.edu/works/jesus-christ-god-man-and-savior-week-six-god-the-son-at-nicaea-and-constantinople/the-homoousios-controversy-and-semi-arianism.vismedia.

Butner, D. Glenn. The Son Who Learned Obedience: A Theological Case Against the Eternal Submission of the Son. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2018.

“Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Mission & Vision.” CBMW- Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Accessed December 1, 2020. https://cbmw.org/about/mission-vision/.

Dolezal, James E. All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017.

Early, Joseph E. A History of Christianity: An Introductory Survey. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2015.

Haykin, Michael A. G. The Spirit of God: The Exegesis of 1 and 2 Corinthians in the Pneumatomachian Controversy of the Fourth Century. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Hildebrand, Stephen M. On the Holy Spirit: Saint Basil the Great. Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011.

Knox, John S. “The Monastic Movement: Origins & Purposes.” Ancient History Encyclopedia. Ancient History Encyclopedia, November 30, 2020. https://www.ancient.eu/article/930/the-monastic-movement-origins–purposes/.

Nichols, Stephen J. “What’s the State of Theology?” Tabletalk, October 25, 2018. https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/whats-the-state-of-theology/.

Ragusa, Daniel. “Not Duty Bound: Geerhardus Vos on the Covenant of Redemption.” Reformed Forum, June 26, 2016. https://reformedforum.org/geerhardus-vos-covenant-of-redemption/.

Schaff, Philip. “Homiletical Works.” Philip Schaff: NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works – Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Accessed December 1, 2020. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vi.ii.v.html.

“Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective.” The Gospel Coalition. Accessed December 1, 2020. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/trinitarian-agency-and-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-an-augustinian-perspective/.

[1]           Nancy Guthrie, “Help Me Teach the Bible: Scott Swain On Teaching the Trinity,” The Gospel Coalition, August 24, 2017, accessed December 1, 2020, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/help-me-teach-the-bible-scott-swain-on-teaching-the-trinity.

[2]           Joseph E. Early, A History of Christianity: An Introductory Survey (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2015), Pages 89-90.

[3]           See James E. Dolezal, All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017).

[4]           Leonardo Blair, “Most Evangelicals Believe God Accepts Worship of All Religions, Study Shows,” The Christian Post (The Christian Post, October 16, 2018), accessed December 1, 2020, https://www.christianpost.com/news/most-evangelicals-believe-god-accepts-worship-of-all-religions-study-shows.html.

[5]           Stephen J. Nichols, “What’s the State of Theology?,” Tabletalk, October 25, 2018, https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/whats-the-state-of-theology/.

[6]           See Stephen M. Hildebrand, On the Holy Spirit: Saint Basil the Great (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011).

[7]           Michael Haykin, Rediscovering the Church Fathers (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), Page 108.

[8]           “Letters of Saint Basil of Caesarea: Letter 223,” CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 223 (St. Basil), accessed December 1, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202223.htm.

[9]           Philip Schaff, “Homiletical Works,” Philip Schaff: NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works – Christian Classics Ethereal Library, accessed December 1, 2020, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vi.ii.v.html.

[10]         “Letters of Saint Basil of Caesarea: Letter 223,” CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 223 (St. Basil), accessed December 1, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202223.htm.

[11]         Joseph E. Early, A History of Christianity: An Introductory Survey (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2015), Page 87.

[12]         Early, Page 88.

[13]         John S. Knox, “The Monastic Movement: Origins & Purposes,” Ancient History Encyclopedia (Ancient History Encyclopedia, November 30, 2020), https://www.ancient.eu/article/930/the-monastic-movement-origins–purposes/.

[14]         Michael Haykin, Rediscovering the Church Fathers (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), Pages 118-129.

[15]         Haykin, Page 105.

[16]         See D. Glenn Butner, The Son Who Learned Obedience: A Theological Case Against the Eternal Submission of the Son (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2018).

[17]         This theological position has also been referred to as Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission (ERAS) and/or Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS).

[18]         Complementarianism is the teaching that masculinity and femininity are ordained by God and that men and women are created to complement or complete each other. Complementarians believe that the gender roles found in the Bible are purposeful and meaningful distinctions that, when applied in the home and in a local church, promote the spiritual health of both men and women. As such, there are particular roles in the home and in the church in which God has uniquely designed for women and men to operate. These specific, God-ordained roles highlight husbands as the spiritual leaders in the home and elders as the spiritual leaders in a local church. According to Complementarianism, wives are to be submissive to their husbands in the home, and like other laymen, women are to be submissive to the (male) elders in a local church. Key passages that are relevant to the doctrine of Complementarianism: 1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Tim. 2:9-15; 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9.

[19]         See “The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Mission & Vision,” CBMW- Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, accessed December 1, 2020, https://cbmw.org/about/mission-vision/.

[20]         “Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed December 1, 2020, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/trinitarian-agency-and-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-an-augustinian-perspective/.

[21]         Examples of God-ordained relationships between human beings that involve functional subordination without necessitating ontological inferiority: wives submitting to husbands, children submitting to parents, or laywomen and laymen submitting to the male leadership figures (elders) in a local church.

[22]         Millard Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordinationism Debate (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009), 172.

[23]         Daniel Ragusa, “Not Duty Bound: Geerhardus Vos on the Covenant of Redemption,” Reformed Forum, June 26, 2016, https://reformedforum.org/geerhardus-vos-covenant-of-redemption/.

[24]         Peter Brown, “The Homoousios Controversy and Semi-Arianism,” Jesus Christ God, Man and Savior Week Six: God the Son at Nicaea and Constantinople, October 5, 2014, https://scalar.usc.edu/works/jesus-christ-god-man-and-savior-week-six-god-the-son-at-nicaea-and-constantinople/the-homoousios-controversy-and-semi-arianism.vismedia.

[25]         Peter Brown, “The Homoousios Controversy and Semi-Arianism,” Jesus Christ God, Man and Savior Week Six: God the Son at Nicaea and Constantinople, October 5, 2014, https://scalar.usc.edu/works/jesus-christ-god-man-and-savior-week-six-god-the-son-at-nicaea-and-constantinople/the-homoousios-controversy-and-semi-arianism.vismedia.

[26]         Michael Haykin, Rediscovering the Church Fathers (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), Pages 126-127.

[27]         Michael A. G. Haykin, The Spirit of God: The Exegesis of 1 and 2 Corinthians in the Pneumatomachian Controversy of the Fourth Century (Leiden: Brill, 1994), Pages 37-38.

[28]         Haykin, Page 38.

[29]         Ibid.