Mark Ward: KJVO "Sinful Anger," the "Evasion" of the Confessional Bibliologians, and Success

Mark Ward wrote, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, which I read.  He's taken on a goal of dissuading people from the King James Version to use a modern version of the Bible.  He also has a podcast to which someone alerted me when he mentioned Thomas Ross and me.  I checked back again there this last week and he did one called, "Is My Work Working?"  In it, he said he received three types of reactions to his work.

KJV "SINFUL ANGER"

Ward said he received more than 100 times praise than anything else.  The next most reaction he said was "sinful anger" from KJV Onlyists.  Last, he received the least helpful criticism from opposition.

Critical text proponents very often use KJVO behavior as an argument.  It does not add or take away from Ward's position.  Ward reads his examples of "sinful anger," and well more than half didn't sound angry to me.  They disagreed with him.

My observation is that critical text advocates do not have better conduct.  They disagree in a harsh manner and with ridicule.  Ward himself uses more subtle mockery, sometimes in sarcastic tones.  It just shouldn't come as a point of argument.  Many in the comment section of his podcast use sinful anger.  Ward does not correct them or point out their sinful anger.  It seems like Ward likes it when it points the other direction.

In these moments, Ward talks about his own anger.  He finds it difficult not to be angry with these men.  Why even mention it?  Just don't talk about it at all.  Deal with the issue at hand.  I'm not justifying actions of Ruckmanite types.  They're wrong too.  Both sides are wrong.  This is an actual argument though of critical text supporters -- how they are treated.  It comes up again and again, because they bring it up.

"EVASION" OF THE CONFESSIONAL BIBLIOLOGIANS

Ward says that few to almost none answer a main argument of his book, which he's developed further since it's publication.  They don't concede to his "false friends" with appropriate seriousness.  He says they don't think about false friends.  He provides now 50 examples of these that appear many times in the King James Version.  He includes the confessional bibliologians in this, which would be someone who believes in the superiority of the Textus Receptus of the New Testament.  Their position might be perfect preservationism, Textus Receptus, confessional bibliology, or ecclesiastical text.  He used the confessional title, referring to men like Jeff Riddle.

I've answered him in depth.  Ward is just wrong.  Hopefully calling him wrong isn't considered sinful anger.  "He said I was wrong!!"  King James Version supporters all over buy Bible For Today's Defined King James Version.  It provides the meaning of those words in the margin.  Lists of these from King James Version proponents are all over the internet, and books have been written by KJV authors (the one linked published in 1994) on the subject.

Ward says that every time he brings that up to Textus Receptus men, they sweep it away like it doesn't matter, then turn the conversation to textual criticism.  That's a very simplistic way of himself swatting away the Textus Receptus advocate.  They turn to textual criticism because the critical text and the  Textus Receptus are 7% different.  Many words differ.  That matters more.  It also denies the biblical doctrine of preservation.

The members of churches where men preach the KJV hear words explained.  Sure, some KJV churches rarely preach the Bible. Talk about that.  Where men preach expositional sermons from the KJV, relying on study of the original languages, they explain words to their people.  They care.  I have been one of those and the KJV doesn't hurt our church in any way.  Personally I read the KJV Bible twice last year and this year I'm on pace for one Old Testament and two New Testament.

SUCCESS

Is success how much praise one receives for what he does?  Is that the measurement?  That is a very dangerous standard of success?  That is what Ward uses as his standard in his video.  In Jeremiah 45:5, God told Baruch:  "And seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not."  We don't succeed when we receive praise.  We succeed when we are faithful to what God said, whether we're praised or not.  Seeking for praise is discouraged in scripture.  Many faithful Bible preachers received far more harsh treatment than Ward.  It's not even close.

True success is finding what God says and doing it.  It's not success to turn a church away from the King James Version to a modern version, even if Ward supports that outcome.

Learn how to lead an evangelistic Bible study

 You can find my latest post on how to lead an evangelistic Bible study with a seeking lost person here.

The Seriousness of Religious Authority As Illustrated by Russia and Ukraine

Some reading may have heard that the Russia invasion of Ukraine relates to the religion in these two countries.  They might consider it a religious war.  I will go back to give perspective on this issue and then dovetail with something from the last few days.

No one has more authority than God.  In fact, God possesses all authority and any group has authority only because of God.  To say that you have authority means that you function for God and even speak for God.  People who want to stay in good standing with God will do what God's authority says.  It's like God telling them.  Disobeying this authority, since it is from God, is disobeying God.  This could also relate to someone's eternal destiny, this often going along with the authority claim.

The true church authorized by Jesus Christ, the only church, is local only.  Jesus started it in Jerusalem in the first century during His earthly life as seen in Matthew 16:18 and 18:15-17.   The New Testament book of Acts records that first church reproduced other assemblies with scripture as their sole authority.  The Lord Jesus Christ gave the true church authority, autonomy, with Him as the Head of each true church (Eph 1:22, 5:23, Col 1:18).

A true church has authority.  It is serious enough that Jesus says the church looses and binds (Matthew 16:9, 18:18).  It makes authoritative declarations as to whether someone is in the church or out.  If someone is loosed, the true church regards him as unsaved.  When the church sends someone out of the church, 1 Corinthians 5 says the church delivers this person unto Satan (5:5).  These are true or real occurrences.  They aren't games being played.  It's very serious.

HISTORY

In the fourth century AD a counterfeit church arose in Rome.  It claimed Christ's authority through a bogus claim of Petrine successionism (Petrine Theory).  This spurious organization with the influence of Roman Emperor Constantine turned the church into a state church, the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic meaning universal.  One could place the date at 313AD with the Edict of Milan, 325 with the Council of Nicea, 337 with the baptism of Constantine, or 380 with the Edict of Thessalonica.  This institution, which preached a false gospel, claimed an authority it did not possess.

Nevertheless, for purposes of rule, Constantine split the empire into East and West in 330AD and the empire divided after the death of Theodosius I in 395AD.  Roman Catholicism was still unified until it split into two in 1054, the Great Schism.  The Orthodox Church (called Eastern Orthodox) formed from the division.  The schism much related to authority, as the Eastern Church rejected the infallibility and unique authority of the Pope.

The authority of Eastern Orthodoxy describes itself a fellowship of self-headed churches, the term "autocephalous."  Orthodox churches recognize the preeminence of Constantinople, called the primacy of the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople.  This means Constantinople is a first among equals.  The Orthodox hold that God's authority passes down directly to Orthodox bishops and clergy through the laying on of hands.  They consider this apostolic succession and each Orthodox.  Each bishop has a territory, called a "see," that he governs.

Roman Catholicism invented its own authority by procuring a non-existent apostleship.  Eastern Orthodox then appropriated it as its own.  It's difficult to estimate, but stats say 1.3 billion Roman Catholics and 220 million Orthodox in the world, top two of Christendom in numbers.  Neither of them possess authority.  When they talk about authority, it's not true.  They say they have it.  They don't.  Yet, if a religious organization says it is from God, we shouldn't be surprised when it acts like they have authority.

Of all the autocephalous churches of the Orthodox by far the largest is the Russian Orthodox with over 100 million.  It is known as the Moscow Patriarchate.  This Orthodox church started when the early, original Russian prince, Vladimir I, was baptized by the Patriarchy of Constantinople in 988.  The center of Russian Orthodoxy was Kiev.  It remained under Constantinople authority until 1488, when it moved to Kiev as an autocephalous church.  The Russian Orthodox Church moved then to Moscow in 1686 when the region of Kiev came under authority of the Tsars there.

I zoom forward to the period after the Soviet Union.  The atheistic Soviet Empire swallowed religions.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church emerged again.   Alexy Ridiger first became Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1990.  This continued under Patriarch Kirill in 2009, who remains in that position.

CONSIDERING AMILLENNIALISM

Not only did and does the Roman Catholic Church not have authority, but it operates with a corrupt system of interpretation of scripture.  The Eastern Orthodox and its autocephalous churches continued that system of allegorization or spiritualization of the Bible.  These denominations within Christendom rationalized themselves with an eschatological and ecclesiological program called amillennialism.

According to amillennialism, the kingdom of God exists on earth in the present age in a universal church, a kind of spiritualized nation Israel.  In the Old Testament passages about Israel, someone can read in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church.  They then function like a nation that authoritatively enforces the precepts of the Bible as seen through the lens of church authority.  This explains a Christian holy war fought on behalf of the church.

Amillennialism says there is no literal millennium where Christ comes to rule for a thousands years on the earth.  The "a" of amillennialism means "no," as in "no millennium.  This view allowed for a state church that functioned like a kingdom.

An inquisition that tortures or puts to death heretics also comes from authority allowed by an amillennial eschatology.  The church does the work of God by punishing sinners and implementing what God said.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

In 2018 the Patriarch of Constantinople, the foremost of the autocephalous churches, gave autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox.  This formed a Ukrainian Orthodox Church, taking the jurisdiction of the Ukraine, the region of original Russia and the initial Russian Orthodox Church from the Patriarch of Moscow.  Not all of the Orthodox Churches operate under the authority of the Ukrainian Patriarch but under the Moscow Patriarch, who now is Patriarch Kirill.

The Associated Press reported that just this week Kirill came out in support of the invasion of Ukraine by saying the following:

Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, leader of Russia’s dominant religious group, has sent his strongest signal yet justifying his country’s invasion of Ukraine — describing the conflict as part of a struggle against sin and pressure from liberal foreigners to hold “gay parades” as the price of admission to their ranks.

Kirill, a longtime ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, had already refrained from criticizing the Russian invasion – alienating many in the Ukrainian Orthodox churches who had previously stayed loyal to the Moscow patriarch during a schism in their country. Several of these former loyalists are now snubbing Kirill in their public prayers, with some demanding independence from the Moscow church even as their country’s political independence is imperiled.

Kirill, in a sermon delivered Sunday before the start of Orthodox Lent, echoed Putin’s unfounded claims that Ukraine was engaged in the “extermination” of Russian loyalists in Donbas, the breakaway eastern region of Ukraine held since 2014 by two Russian-backed separatist groups. [He] focused virtually all of his talk about the war on Donbas — with no mention of Russia’s widespread invasion and its bombardment of civilian targets.

Kirill on Sunday depicted the war in spiritual terms.

“We have entered into a struggle that has not a physical, but a metaphysical significance,” he said.

He contended that some of the Donbas separatists were suffering for their “fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power.”

He claimed that this unnamed world power is posing a “test for the loyalty” of countries by demanding they hold gay pride parades to join a global club of nations with its own ideas of freedom and “excess consumption.”

God holds all authority.  When He looked down on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, he saw the corrupt lifestyles.  This included homosexual or same sex activity.  God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.  Within the nation Israel, God expected punishment of death upon such behavior in Leviticus 18 and 20.

The fall of communism in Russia left a vacuum of authority the Russian Orthodox Church filled.  Putin had become antagonistic to communism.  The Russian Orthodox Church filled that void in harmony with his nationalistic thinking.  This mirrors such a historical figure as Henry VIII in England in his role in the Anglican Church.  He put many opponents to death.  This arose from a belief held called "the divine right of Kings."  Henry was also the head of the state church in England, which like the Russian Orthodox, borrowed from the amillennialism of Roman Catholicism.

Putin may rationalize his acts according to an Eastern worldview.  He sees the corruption, decline, and decay of the West.  The West in hypocritic fashion commits its own barbaric acts by murdering its own children through abortion.  Putin sees a Ukraine following in the trajectory of the West with its gay parades and then its separation from the state religion of Russia.  Kirill expresses this.  Many Russians still dwell in the Ukraine both ethnically but also religiously.  They still submit to the Moscow Patriarchy.

I'm not saying I support Putin's position, just that this is a matter of authority.  God is still on the throne.  He's not ruling through the Russian Orthodox, but its strong adherents at least admit that God rules in some manner.  They follow a historical position without a biblical basis.  This is not inferior to those who do not give acquiescence in any way to God's authority, even if they see themselves as having superior values.

RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY

God reigns.  Authority exists.  The United States and Western nations reject Divine authority.  They face consequences for their rebellion.

The Orthodox do not possess genuine Divine authority, but many of them recognize it exists.  Indications of belief in Divine authority appear all over historical monuments of the United States.  It is seen in the founding documents.  Statements like "In God we trust" evince these foundations.  Even if a nation stops acknowledging the authority of God, it is still subject to His reign.

The Globalist and Leftist Institution and Media Use of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Many reading know President Trump's expressing genius to Putin is his way of playing American leftists.  He is also fond in calling those in power, "our stupid leaders."  Those on the left turn this into Trump and his supporters advocating for Putin and Russia.  When the media calls Trump a Putin supporter, he doesn't back away from his "genius" language, because he won't submit to their lie. This works nicely with the Russia narrative invented by the left between 2016 even until today.  They conform that narrative, which is a lie, to the Russian invasion.  The globalist left supports the Ukraine, which makes the invasion difficult to sort.

The left didn't support Ukraine.  President Obama gave them blankets.  Trump gave them javelins, perhaps the most effective weapon against Russian conventional warfare.  Ukraine did not gain NATO membership under any president.  The country became useful in the Obama years for Vice President Biden to benefit through its corruption.  Ukraine did not gain membership because of a malfeasance utilized by Biden and his son, Hunter.  Trump dug into the corruption by asking Zelensky for help with the investigation, attempting to tie U.S. aid to elimination of criminal crookedness.  The left impeached Trump for that.

Russia took Crimea under Obama and Biden.  Russia invades Ukraine under Biden.  Putin does nothing against Trump.  Trump hurts Putin, because he increased oil production until the United States became energy independent.  The lowered prices hurt Putin more than anything.  Look at the gas prices now.  This helps Putin, and President Biden does not ban Russian oil exports.  The United States then looks to Venezuelan oil production instead of increasing U. S. generation.

Putin in a religious manner sees the Ukraine as Russian.  Russian history started with Kiev, the Rus emerging there in the 10th century AD.  Vladimir I adopted a unique Russian Orthodoxy in 988.  When a cynical Putin became mistrustful of a Communism and a secular state, he embraced his version of religious nationalism, somewhat like a leader of a Moslem nation.  Like conservative Jews see Palestine as Israel, Putin sees Ukraine as Russian.  His version of Russian Orthodoxy plays a role in his aggression, irrationality, and brutality, much like a grand inquisitor burns heretics at the stake.

Trump understood the nationalistic instinct of Putin.  Yes, Putin wants to make Russia great again and with a religious fervor.  I'm sure he saw men like Putin in business.  He could respect his opposition in the business world and on the world scene without supporting them.  He states recognition of their toughness, a trait missing in those who allow homeless to defecate in our streets.

If the media and the Democrat Party cared about Zelensky and Ukraine, why did they not urge Obama or Biden to do more before the invasion?  They care now, because they see an opportunity to blame on inflation and the related high gas prices.  If they care about border security in the Ukraine, why not in our own country?

The underdog Ukrainians stand against Putin.  By nature, Americans reject imperialism.  The United States fought an imperialistic power for its own freedom.  Americans want a free Ukraine.  The left commandeers Zelensky like they did during the impeachment.

The left doesn't represent freedom.  Their wokeness didn't stand for Hong Kong against China.  President Biden and his son Hunter took money from China.  The left rejects freedom of speech.  They're for allowing perversion, a college male swimmer winning medals against women in the name of transgenderism.  They elevate a transgender general wearing a dress in the United States military.  The left doesn't want the freedom of adversarial speech.  They shut-down and cancel political opposition to vaccines, vaccine mandates, Covid origination, Covid restrictions, religious freedom, the Russian conspiracy, critical race theory, and voter fraud.  They don't allow creation in the school system.

First amendment freedom originates for political speech.  The left shuts down speech.  They control the public schools like Putin puts down his protestors.  Theirs and Putins are a religious fervor each with their own totalitarian values.

The United States has its own religion that sacrifices babies to abortion, defunds the police, and stops energy production for their apocalyptic eschatology.  When they pose to support the Ukraine, they calculate this for opposition to Trump.  They see a political opportunity.

I support the Ukraine.  Some doctrine consistent with true American values should guide our present and future involvement.  I'm against Putin.  However, everyone should understand the left's intentions of using this war for furthering its own agenda.  I don't know if Putin is worse than the leftists who appropriate the Ukraine to further their insidious causes.

John 20:28 and the Jehovah's (False) Witness Organization

 Learn how you can use John 20:28 in evangelizing members of the Watchtower Society in my latest blog post here.

If There Is No Secular State, then It Does Matter What Religion Rules

What do you think?  Is the Constitution of the United States a religious document?  You say, "Nooooo."  Okay, why?  I think many people would say, "Separation of church and state."  One part of the first amendment perhaps someone, maybe you, latches on to.  It's called the "establishment clause."  It reads:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Without giving him an endorsement, but instead maybe giving him a disclaimer, perhaps you've seen the "church lady" that Dana Carvey does, and the line she says:  "Isn't that special?!?"  We've got an establishment clause.  Aren't we special?  I mean, we are going to make no law respecting an establishment of religion, cross my heart and hope to die.  Is that true though?

Every nation has a ruling religion.

I grew up being taught great respect of the United States Constitution.  This was an amazing document of government.  You're not a patriotic American if you don't love the Constitution.  It seems a major verbiage of a conservative is, "I love the Constitution of the United States."  You've got your little pocket Constitution.  You could mock someone who doesn't know it, like Jesus with the Pharisees, "Have you not read?"

 

Everything about the founding of the country, however, connected itself at least at the beginning with the Declaration of Independence, which was the founding document, with God.  Most of all, there's this:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."  And then there's this:  "the laws of nature and of nature's God."

 

Before the Constitution, the federal government fell under the Articles of Confederation, which didn't do much, but it did result in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which included this:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

As Congress then enacted the Ordinance, it put this into affect by having religious requirements.  I'm not going to go into detail, but there are trails of official government documents in both the federal government in then in the new states for religion.

 

There's not just that.  You know the argument behind the entire structure of the American government, the three branches, separation of powers, and checks and balances, expressed in the Constitution.  All of this, people say, is about an understanding of the depravity of man.  Man is by nature evil, not good.  Our government protects men from themselves.  It assumes the worst about them.  There's much more to tease out there as far as enumerating powers essentially for the protection of liberty.

 

If a group of men are saying that the founding of the country is about God, the function of it is about God, and then the structure of it admits that man can't do it, because he's depraved, it's putting religion right at the top.

 

The Bible shows and history illustrates that all men are religious.  All government is religious.  In other words, there is no such thing as neutrality.  There is no truly secular state.  That is sheer fiction.  It is an idea pushed upon the Constitution by implying, insinuating, or inferring its religious foundation without plainly stating it.

 

Is same sex marriage secular?  What about abortion, is it secular?  Evolution?  Is hatred of God secular?  No to all of these.  All of these are the evidence of a religion, the wrong religion that is in charge.

 

The only religion that has dedicated itself to stay out of the public square is true religion.  True religionists allow paganism to reign in the land through many various means.

 

If we are dealing in truth, which is the only way to deal, then everything revolves around God and His pure revelation, the Bible.  That is the truth.  Lies are also religious, but they are a faulty, failing foundation.  We don't do better by lying to say that the truth is only a religion, and what the state is doing is secular.  No.  They are both religious.  One is religion based upon the truth, and the other is a religion based upon lies.

 

Men are God's creatures.  God rules over men.  Men should act like it.  When they don't act like it, they are failing.  They are not statesmen.  They are not any term associated with anything good.

 

As you read this post, you might ask, "Is Brandenburg advocating for a state church?"  I'm advocating for functioning in every realm of life according to God's Word, the Bible.  Men in the government should start saying it.  They follow the Bible.  The Bible is the truth.  If that isn't happening, it doesn't mean there's no state religion.  There's still a state religion. It's just one based upon lies and according to another god, not the one and true God.

 

Take a modern issue.  Russia and the Ukraine.  It's too late to put all this back in the bottle, but it's impossible to see this in a right way without looking to God for what He wants in it.   A true leader, worth following, should be quoting the Bible and talking about what God would want us to do.  Do you think it's better to leave God out?

 

If this is going to happen, then everyone should start by talking about God like this in every sphere of their lives.  Be open about your belief in the Bible.  Include God in it all.

The Repercussions of Jesus Simultaneously Being Both Completely 100% God and Completely 100% Man

All of us know that 100 plus 100 equals 200, not 100.  If a single being is at 100 and Jesus is a single being, then He must be 100, so how can He or could He be 200?  What does all this mean?  How could Jesus effectively be completely, 100% man, when He is completely, 100% God?  This is usually a struggle when teaching about Jesus to anyone.  I've been asked about it many times and in various ways.

From my study and experience, the number one thought that brings together His complete humanity with His complete Deity is the teaching that by becoming man Jesus gave up the free exercise of His attributes, a doctrine that centers on Philippians 2:7, which reads:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

The words "made himself of no reputation" translate two Greek words, eautou kenoo, the second of which translates into the four words, "made of no reputation."  That second Greek word is the basis for a doctrine called, "kenosis."  The two words, eautou kenoo, mean literally, "he emptied himself."  If it means, "he emptied himself," of what did Jesus empty Himself?

The doctrine of kenosis says that when Jesus became man, He was still completely, 100% God, but He emptied Himself of the free exercise of His attributes.  This is saying that He had all these attributes.  He kept all of them.  He did not exercise these divine attributes freely.  This was an aspect of His condescension and humiliation, which is taught in Philippians 2:3-10.

The doctrine of kenosis has its one proof text in Philippians 2, but it also emerges from the Gospels.  It makes sense of certain statements that don't complement the Deity of Christ very well.  You read it and you ask, why?  The doctrine of kenosis answers these, bringing harmony to all of these passages.

Consider God's attribute of omniscience.  God knows everything.  Many times Jesus shows omniscience.  He can read people's minds.  He knows what they're thinking in supernatural way (Matthew 9:4, 12:25, Mark 2:8, Luke 11:17, and John 13:5).  Jesus told the woman at the well things that He could not have known about her unless He was God (John 4).  At the same time, in the Olivet Discourse Jesus said in Mark 13:32,

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. 

Jesus didn't know this.  Only the Father knew it.  This is an example of Jesus limiting the free exercise of His attributes.  There were other ways that He did, but you get the point.

Theologians call the union in Jesus of the Divine and the human the hypostatic union.  To make sense of the hypostatic union means exploring how He did divine works like forgiving sin (Luke 7:48), while doing things as a human being not characteristic of God, such as sleeping (Mark 4:38), weeping (John 11:35), and hungering (Mark 11:12).  Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom.  If Jesus was omniscient, how could that be true?

The purpose of God necessitated the incarnation.  Jesus must become man, while remaining fully God.  He would not fulfill the Davidic covenant without a human lineage.  Jesus rose from dead with Divine power, but He was dead because He was human.  As a human He could pay sin's price for humans and yet rise again as God.  Still a tension exists.

Jesus said in Luke 22:42, "Not my will, but thine, be done."  Wait a second.  Wasn't the will of the Father and the will of the Son exactly the same?  They had the same will, right?  This is where we understand something further in the doctrine of kenosis.  As a human being, Jesus must submit His will, His human will, to the will of the Father.  As a human being, Jesus must learn obedience.  That might sound impossible, but a verse teaches this.  Hebrews 5:8 says,

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.

Did Jesus need to learn anything?  Yes.  He didn't need to learn obedience as God.  He and the Father forever had the same will.  His subservience to the Father's will, His submission to the Father's will, was an aspect of His humanity.  Like other human beings, He learned that.  This was again part of His emptying Himself of the free exercise of His attributes.

For awhile and today still an argument exists concerning the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father.  I understand why people have believed it.  The main argument against, and I agree with it, is the following. As both God in essence, the Father and the Son cannot have two wills.  They do not have two wills.  The obedience of the Son, His earthly submission to the Father, represents kenosis, Jesus' emptying Himself of the free exercise of His divine attributes.

God is one, so He has one will, not two.  As human, Jesus learned obedience.  He always obeyed, but that subordination was not eternal.  The subordination of the Son to the Father does not extend previous to His incarnation.   This is a repercussion of Jesus simultaneously being both completely 100% God and completely 100% Man.

The Cardinal Hosius quote on Baptist succession: is it accurate?

 Find out if the famous quote on Baptist succession by the Roman Catholic cardinal Stanislaus Hosius is accurate in my latest blog post here.