Traditionally, the church has defined the Trinity in a particular way: one nature, three persons. A nature refers to what something is, while a person refers to who someone is. But how do we define three uncreated persons who share the same nature? Historically, we have done so through what is known as “Personal Relations,” as discussed in our previous article.

However, modern voices have proposed a new way to define the persons—by authority and submission. This view is commonly referred to as EFS (Eternal Functional Subordination) or ERAS (Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission – Note: I will use these two terms interchangeably throughout the article). Advocates of this position sought to defend traditional gender roles in the church and home—specifically, roles of authority and submission—by rooting them in the relationships within the Trinity. In doing so, they argued that these roles reflect how mankind is made in the image of God. Many thoughtful articles have been written on this issue (here and here).

Some have largely ignored this debate, assuming it pertains to doctrines unrelated to the gospel. However, I contend that Trinitarian errors necessarily lead to Christological errors, which, in turn, have direct implications for the gospel.

Most evangelicals claim to uphold the gospel—but how deep does that commitment go? Among those who affirm the Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission (ERAS), a disturbing inconsistency arises: they cannot, with any coherence, confess ERAS while affirming the doctrine of Christ’s active obedience—a central component of the gospel. This isn’t a minor quibble; it’s a crack at the foundation of what it means to know and worship the God of Scripture. This may sound harsh, but as we’ll see below it is a necessary concern.

Historically, evangelicalism has stood on the shoulders of giants, uniting under creeds like the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed (325, 381), and Athanasian Creeds, as well as the Chalcedonian Definition (451). These documents articulate the essentials of Christianity. Unfortunately, today, a “lowest common denominator” mentality has crept in—how little can one believe and still squeak by as “orthodox?” Is there any reason to affirm these historic creeds? The kind of mindset that would ask these questions is one that robs the church of its rich theological heritage and compromises its gospel clarity.

In one such example, the controversy surrounding ERAS (Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission)—already a decade old—has exposed how far we’ve strayed. The fact that time-tested trinitarian grammar has been set aside in favor of novel approaches to explaining the Trinity indicates a massive theological drift. Others may wonder, “Why does it even matter? Do we really need all this complicated language about eternal modes of origin, subsistent relations, simplicity, or partitive exegesis? Isn’t it enough to just believe in Jesus?” Such questions reveal a tragic ignorance. There was a time when believers bled and died to preserve a proper understanding of God. Today, many shrug off these “abstract” debates as distractions from the “real” issues.

But make no mistake: the Trinity is not an optional add-on to the gospel—it is the very heart of the gospel. As Jesus declared, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3).

ERAS, as defined by its modern proponents, jeopardizes this knowledge. Its adherents walk a theological tightrope, their gospel being held together only by a gracious inconsistency. If we care about the salvation we proclaim, we cannot afford to compromise on this essential doctrine.

Against ERAS, there are three major points of contention that arise from a classical [or Reformed] perspective on the Trinity, Christology, and the gospel: 1) It undermines the authentic humanity of the Son. 2) It cannot properly define Christ’s law obedience. And 3) It misinterprets key texts regarding the Son.

In order to understand the relationship between God, Christ, and the Gospel, there are a few introductory doctrines we need to briefly visit.

The Virgin Birth and Authentic Humanity

The virgin birth, as recorded in Luke 1:35, establishes Christ’s humanity as truly human, yet miraculously conceived through the direct agency of the Triune God.

Authentic Humanity for Authentic Obedience

Christ’s obedience required an authentic human nature. Only as true man could He fulfill the positive demands of God’s law and endure its penal consequences. The Son’s incarnation, therefore, was not a passive submission but an active assumption of human nature, perfectly uniting the divine and human natures in His person. This ensures that His obedience, both active and passive, is fully efficacious for the salvation of sinners.

The incarnation’s theological precision is not an academic exercise but a vital safeguard for the gospel. By affirming the Son’s true humanity and the indivisible operations of the Trinity, we uphold the reality that salvation hinges on Christ’s obedience as the God-man—obedience made possible only by His authentic humanity.

The Son’s incarnation, was not a passive submission but an active assumption of human nature, perfectly uniting the divine and human natures in His person.

The Necessity of Christ’s Humanity

Hebrews 2:14 and 17 emphasize the importance of Christ’s authentic humanity: “He Himself likewise also partook of the same” and “He had to be made like His brethren in all things.” As man’s kinsman-redeemer, it was necessary that Christ share in the same nature as those He came to save. His humanity, derived from Mary, established both the natural and legal union required for Him to act as the federal head of His people. Without this authentic humanity, Christ could not merit justification or propitiation for sinners.

In summary, the hypostatic union safeguards the gospel by affirming both Christ’s true humanity and His divine identity. Only as the God-man could He mediate between God and man, fulfilling the law’s demands, defeating death, and accomplishing salvation. This profound union of natures underscores the necessity of a real, human obedience by the incarnate Son for the redemption of His people.

ERAS and the Will of the Son: A Theological Critique

Obedience as Divinity Undermines Humanity

If the Son’s obedience is understood as an act of His divinity, then the necessity of His humanity in fulfilling the law is undermined. According to the doctrine of the hypostatic union, Christ acts according to both natures—divine and human—based upon what is proper of each nature (Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 8.7). If Christ obeyed the Father solely as God, then His human nature did not participate in the obedience required under the law, violating the biblical teaching that Christ was “born of a woman, born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4).

Furthermore, affirming that Christ’s obedience occurs in His divinity alone risks the error of conflating the natures or making them interchangeable. Such a position collapses the distinct properties of each nature and contradicts orthodox Christology, which carefully distinguishes between Christ’s divine and human actions. As the Confession emphasizes, “Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself” (2LBCF 8.7)

An Aspect of Human Nature is Not Assumed

What Kind of Human Doesn’t Have a Will?

To suggest that the Son lacked a human will is to deny a fundamental aspect of human nature. Have you ever met a human that does not have a will? Could you even call such a thing an authentic human? Scripture portrays Christ’s human will in His submission to the Father, as seen in His prayer at Gethsemane: “Not my will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42). This passage demonstrates the distinct and obedient operation of Christ’s human will, fully submitted to the divine will of the Father. Without a human will, Christ would not have been truly human, which directly contradicts the Chalcedonian definition of Christ’s two complete natures united in one person.

That Which is Not Assumed is Not Redeemed

Gregory of Nazianzus famously stated,

“For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.”[1]

This statement underscores the necessity of Christ assuming all aspects of human nature—including a human will—for the sake of redemption. If Christ did not assume a human will, then His obedience would not address the human condition in its entirety. At its most basic level, humanity’s rebellion against God involves the misuse of the human will. Thus, Christ’s obedience must include the proper exercise of a human will to redeem fallen humanity comprehensively. He must possess a human will so that His substitution, on behalf of those with sinful human wills, is complete.

The Necessity of the Incarnation for Obedience and Redemption

If Christ’s obedience is according to His divinity alone, the incarnation becomes superfluous for fulfilling the law’s demands. The purpose of the incarnation was to provide a true human mediator who could bear the law’s requirements and its curse on behalf of humanity (Gal. 3:13). A solely divine obedience cannot fulfill the law’s demands for human obedience, which require a true human representative under the law.

By locating will in the person rather than the nature, proponents of ERAS not only undermine orthodox Christology but also risk a deficient understanding of the incarnation’s relevance to salvation.

Christ’s role as the federal head of redeemed humanity (Rom. 5:18–19) necessitates that His obedience to the moral law be truly and fully human. For obedience to fulfill the requirements of God’s law, it must come from a human agent under that law. As Paul writes in Galatians 4:4, Christ was “born of a woman, born under the law.” This establishes His relationship to the moral law as one of obligation, certainly not as God, but as a man standing in the place of humanity. Peter Abelard (1079–1142) once observed, “When God made His Son man, He merely set Him under the law which He had given in common to all man.”[2] As God, Christ is the legislator, and as man, Christ was legally responsible.

The Son’s Relationship to the Moral Law as a Human Mediator

Christ’s Relationship to the Law as the Second Adam

Paul’s contrast between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12–21 hinges on Christ’s role as the Second Adam, who succeeded where the first Adam failed. Adam’s failure was a human failure under the moral law, and thus redemption required a human success under the same law. The Son’s obedience as a man is necessary to establish the righteousness required for humanity’s justification.

Christ’s obedience must include the proper exercise of a human will to redeem fallen humanity comprehensively.

Under ERAS, the focus on the Son’s eternal submission risks introducing a hierarchical view of the Trinity that diminishes the distinct and necessary role of Christ’s human obedience under the law. By overemphasizing eternal submission, ERAS shifts the theological focus away from Christ’s incarnate role as the Second Adam, which is central to the gospel.

Misdefining Human Obedience and the Incarnation’s Purpose

The incarnation was not merely about the Son demonstrating submission to the Father; it was about the Son assuming humanity to fulfill the law’s demands as a human being. Human obedience to God’s law involves the exercise of a human will, informed by human experience, and executed within the constraints of human nature. This is precisely what Christ demonstrated during His earthly life, particularly in His active obedience (e.g., His perfect love for God and neighbor) and passive obedience (e.g., His submission to death on the cross).

Biblical Critique: Misinterpreting Texts Pertaining to the Son’s Humanity

Misapplication of Key Texts to Christ’s Divinity

Many biblical texts that affirm Christ’s obedience to God’s law are often mistakenly understood as referring to His divinity rather than His humanity by those who ascribe to ERAS. This misinterpretation undermines the soteriological significance of these texts by detaching them from the human obedience necessary for salvation. For example, Philippians 2:8 states that Christ “humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” This obedience, as the context makes clear, pertains to Christ’s incarnate humility, His taking on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7), and His fulfilling the law as a man under its demands (Gal. 4:4).

To interpret such texts as referring to the Son’s divine nature or eternal submission within the Trinity distorts their meaning. Divine obedience is not subject to human requirements under the law. Instead, the Son’s obedience in these texts is an act of His incarnate humanity, wherein He fulfills the covenantal obligations necessary for redeeming His people.

When passages like John 4:34 (“My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me”) or Hebrews 10:7 (“I have come to do Your will, O God”) are framed primarily as divine submission within the Godhead, their soteriological significance is diminished. These verses, rightly understood, highlight the Son’s human obedience to the Father’s will in the economy of salvation, a necessary condition for His role as the federal head and mediator.

Obedience as Soteriologically Necessary for Humanity

If Christ’s obedience is interpreted primarily as a function of His divinity, it ceases to carry the soteriological weight necessary for humanity’s redemption. The moral law is not binding on God in His divine essence but is binding on humanity. Thus, for Christ to fulfill the law on behalf of His people, He had to do so as a man.

This is the heart of the gospel: that Christ’s obedience and righteousness as a man are imputed to believers for their justification. Romans 5:19 makes this explicit: “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” This obedience is clearly a reference to Christ’s human obedience as the Second Adam. Misinterpreting such texts as divine obedience undermines their direct application to salvation and justification.

Furthermore, Hebrews 5:8–9 states, “Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation.” This learning and suffering are exclusive to Christ’s human experience; divinity cannot “learn” obedience or suffer. To attribute this obedience to the Son’s divine nature strips these verses of their salvific relevance by disconnecting them from Christ’s incarnate, lived obedience.

The Danger of Negating the Soteriological Relevance of Christ’s Humanity

Interpreting texts about Christ’s obedience as divine submission within the Trinity also risks undermining the distinct role of Christ’s human nature in the work of salvation. It is the obedience of Christ as the God-man—fully God and fully human—that satisfies God’s covenantal requirements. Without His perfect human obedience, there is no basis for the imputation of righteousness to believers.

Such misinterpretations often lead to theological distortions, such as a diminished view of imputed righteousness or a misunderstanding of the necessity of the incarnation. If Christ’s obedience is seen as an eternal divine act rather than a temporal, incarnate act, His redemptive work is abstracted from its biblical and covenantal context, leading to a theology that fails to account for the depth and breadth of His mediatorial work.

If Christ’s obedience is interpreted primarily as a function of His divinity, it ceases to carry the soteriological weight necessary for humanity’s redemption.

Misinterpreting texts about Christ’s obedience as referring to His divinity rather than His humanity severs their soteriological relevance. Redemption required a human fulfillment of God’s requirements, which Christ achieved in His incarnation. To relegate these acts of obedience to divine submission within the Trinity not only misreads the texts but also undermines the gospel itself. A proper understanding of these passages affirms that Christ, as the God-man, fulfilled the law’s demands as a human being on behalf of His people, securing their justification and salvation.

The doctrine of ERAS does not merely flirt with error—it strikes at the very heart of Christian theology. The stakes could not be higher: To adopt ERAS is to compromise the doctrine of God, fracture the unity of Christ’s person, and distort the gospel itself.

Compromising the Doctrine of God

ERAS undermines the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, introducing a hierarchy of authority and submission that collapses the eternal unity and equality of the divine persons. Scripture and historic confessions affirm that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal in power, glory, and essence, inseparably united in will and action (2LBC, 2.3). Yet ERAS unravels this harmony, subordinating the Son eternally to the Father. This is an attack on the very nature of God. A God divided by hierarchy within Himself—either ontologically or “functionally”—is not the God of the Bible but an idol fashioned by human speculation. To accept such a distortion is to forsake the triune God confessed by the church through the centuries.

Fracturing the Unity of Christ

The implications of ERAS for the person of Christ are catastrophic. If the Son obeys according to His divinity, then His humanity is rendered unnecessary or incomplete. This mutilates the hypostatic union, creating a Christ who is neither truly God nor truly man in the way that Scripture testifies. In short, it denies the central tenet of the incarnation: that the Son assumed a complete human nature, including a human will, to fulfill the law and redeem fallen humanity.

Distorting the Gospel

ERAS distorts the soteriological relevance of Christ’s life and obedience, misinterpreting key biblical texts as acts of divine submission rather than human fulfillment of the law. This diminishes the significance of Christ’s active obedience as a man, which is the very basis for the imputation of righteousness to believers. If Christ’s obedience is primarily a function of His divine nature, then His human obedience becomes irrelevant, and the entire gospel collapses. Salvation is rooted in the obedient life, death, and resurrection of Christ as the God-man. To undermine His human obedience is to undermine the entire structure of justification, reconciliation, and redemption.

No Room for Compromise

ERAS is not a harmless theological curiosity; it is a Trojan horse carrying heretical implications that threaten the foundations of our faith. The integrity of the Trinity, the person of Christ, and the gospel itself are at stake.

The church must reject ERAS with the same vigor and conviction with which it has opposed Arianism, Nestorianism, and other errors throughout history. To tolerate ERAS is to place ourselves on the precipice of doctrinal ruin, inviting confusion and division into the body of Christ. As stewards of the truth, we can give no quarter to a doctrine that compromises the glory of the Triune God, fractures the person of Christ, and leaves sinners without a sufficient Savior.

ERAS must be named for what it is: a distortion of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The church must stand firm, reject it unequivocally, and proclaim the truth of God’s Word with clarity and boldness. Let us not waver in this task, for the honor of God and the hope of the gospel are at stake.

[1] Gregory of Nazianzus, Letters of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, “To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius,” NPNF2, trans., Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, ed., Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 7:440.

[2] Found in: à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:355.

Thanks to our newly minted Vice President, JD Vance, the phrase ordo amoris is in the news and all-over social media. For this, I am grateful. The VP has been making the point that America has a responsibility to its citizens before it has a responsibility to the citizens of any other nation. Therefore, it is not outside the bounds of love or justice to deport illegal immigrants.

Vice President Vance clarified on X that this comes from the ancient Christian idea of the ordo amoris, order of loves. The idea is that we should love some things more than we love other things and that we should love some people more than we love other people. This isn’t bigotry, it isn’t racism, it isn’t white ethno-nationalism, it is classical Christianity.

What Should We Love?

Christians ought to love everything that exists. 1 Timothy 4:4 says, “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.” God has created everything that exists (sin and wickedness do not have their own existence but are rather privations of what is good). If this were not so, then there would be more than one God, but scripture and nature prohibit us from believing such an absurdity. Since all things are made by God, and since all things made by God are good, then Christians have an obligation to love all things, in their proper order. I ought to love my computer, I ought to love the oak tree in my backyard, and I ought to love my daughter, but not in that order.

Some Things Should Be Loved More Than Other Things

Though we should love all things that exist, we ought not love all things equally. Rather, we ought to love things in accordance with their nature. How great is a thing? That is precisely how much you ought to love it. The greater a thing is, the more beautiful a thing is, the more worthy a thing is, the more it ought to be loved. This goes for mundane things like water bottles and seat belts, and it goes for exceptional things like people and virtues. Our loves must be commensurate with the nature of the thing loved.

There’s a really important point here that we can’t miss. We don’t get to choose the nature of things. Only the Creator does. So, we don’t get to choose how much a thing ought to be loved. God does that. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is determined by God, who is the Creator of all and who is Beauty itself. Some things are inherently more lovely than other things and it is our duty, as God’s creatures, to bring our loves and desires into alignment with that objective reality.

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is determined by God, who is the Creator of all and who is Beauty itself.

I may really love boxed mac n’ cheese (I don’t). Perhaps it conjures pleasant memories of childhood. Perhaps my tastes have been trained by the regular consumption of said mac. But my love for it ought not exceed the love it should receive according to its nature. I ought not prefer boxed mac n’ cheese to a medium rare rib eye steak. Why? Because the nature of the rib eye steak demands greater love. Indeed, the man who has trained his loves to desire the steak more than the mac gets greater enjoyment from the steak than the man who loves the mac more gets enjoyment from his overly processed meal. The more you give your love to greater things, the more you are satisfied.

Or perhaps, to bring it a little closer to home. I may really love my pets (as I ought). But my love for my pets should not exceed that which the nature of those pets deserves. One ought not love their ‘fur babies’ as much or more than one loves his children or his grandchildren, or anybody else’s children for that matter. Because the nature of a child is far greater than the nature of a dog. If I love my pets and my children in accordance with their respective natures, I will get far more enjoyment from my children than my Chameleon.

This rhymes with what Aristotle says about the aim of education. The purpose of education is to get the student to associate pain with bad things and pleasure with good things. In education, our duty is to help the student love what he ought to love in the degree that he ought to love it. This does not come natural to us in our fallen state, but it can be learned and trained and given by the grace of God.

What Ought to Be Loved Most?

The obvious answer to the obvious question is God, as it often is. God must be loved most. Matt. 22:37-39 says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” God is the only being we cannot love too much. We are to love things insofar as their nature demands, God’s nature is infinite, and thus demands infinite love, which we do not have to give. But so much as we do have, we give. When, by the Spirit, we make God the highest of our loves, our hierarchy of love begins to fall in place. After God I must love those made in His image, my fellow man. But so long as God is not my greatest desire, my desire for everything else will be misplaced and misshapen. I will not get enjoyment and satisfaction out of life as I ought because God is not my greatest love.

This is a transformative thought. The more I love God, the more enjoyment I will receive. Not just from Him, but also from all the things He has made. Because everything He has made reflects His goodness, beauty, and majesty in some way or another. When our love for God is not greater than everything He has made, our disordered loves make us miserable. We are not satisfied to the degree we ought to be in the things we love because we love them too much or too little. The Bible calls these disordered loves idolatry. And the end of idolatry is always misery.

The Nature of Sin is Disordered Love

All sin finds its genesis in disordered love. Our desire for some things are greater than they ought to be, or less than they should be. An excessive love for rest leads to sloth and indolence. A deficient love for truth leads to deception. An excessive love for food leads to gluttony. A deficient love for man leads to murder. As Augustine says, “When the miser loves gold more than justice, he does not reveal a fault in the gold, but in the himself.” And this all flows from our lack of love for God. Furthermore, virtue is found in the proper ordering of our loves. Again Augustine, “It is a brief but true definition of virtue to say it is the order of love.” Either we will love God first, or we will be idolatrous. Either we will be virtuous, or we will be miserable.

We Should Love Some People More Than Others

We ought to love man in accordance with his nature. But ought we love some men more than others? In one sense yes, in another sense no.

No, we ought not love some men more than others because all men share a common nature, human nature. No man’s nature is superior to another’s because the essence of who we are is the imago dei. No one has more of it than anyone else. If our love is to be commensurate to the nature of a thing, then our love for man must be equal since we have the same nature. A denial of this truth has led to all manner of bigotry, racism, and abuse.

When our love for God is not greater than everything He has made, our disordered loves make us miserable.

However, in another sense our love for all people ought not be equal. Not because men’s natures are different, but because the nature of our relationships is different. My wife is not greater by nature than anyone else, yet I am still obligated to love her more than I love any other human being because the nature of my relationship to her is greater than the nature of my relationship to anyone else. She is my wife. Ephesians 5:25 says, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” The scriptures demand of me a greater love for my wife than for any other human being.’

Furthermore, I should love those in my immediate family more than I love anyone outside of it. 1 Timothy 5:8 says, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” I have a greater responsibility to my family than to anyone else. More than that, I have a greater responsibility to my own household than to my extended family. This is the proper ordering of loves.

I am commanded to honor my own father and mother. This does not negate the necessity of honoring other fathers and mothers, but I have a priority to my own first. Then to my grandparents, then to my great grandparents and my ancestors before them. In fact, I ought to love and honor my own ancestors more than I love and honor the ancestors of other people. I ought to love and honor my own cultural heritage (insofar as it is good) which my ancestors have given me than I love the cultural heritage of others.

In like manner, I am to have a greater love for my own children than I do for the children of my neighbors. I am commanded to love the children of my neighbors, but I am commanded to love them less than my own children. In the same way I have a greater responsibility to my grandchildren than my neighbor’s grandchildren, and to my great-grandchildren, and to all my future descendants. The proper order of loves in the family sphere helps us to understand the nature of love on the communal and national level. Bavinck says it like this, “The one relationship of family is terminal and is the type of all the others. From the household family and its relationships stem all the other relationships in variegated complexity.”

Who is My Neighbor?

In Matthew 22 Jesus makes it clear that love must be given to God first, then to our neighbors. But the question the rich lawyer asks is the same many of us might ask, ‘who is my neighbor?’ Jesus proceeds to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan. For the Good Samaritan, his neighbor was a man at his feet who was from a different nation, different family, and different religion than he, yet he loved him anyway and manifested that love in acts of mercy and service.

The proper order of loves in the family sphere helps us to understand the nature of love on the communal and national level.

Jesus is making it clear that all men are our neighbors, and we ought to love them all. However, the Good Samaritan had the means to help the wounded man because they were in the same locale. We have a greater responsibility to love our closest neighbors first, not because they are better than other people, but because we have a greater capacity to do them good than we do people who are far away.

Augustine says,

All men are to be loved equally. But since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special regard to those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstance, are brought into closer connection with you.

I can love my next-door neighbor far better than a man in Mumbai who is equally deserving of my love. Therefore, I have an obligation to my next-door neighbor first. John Calvin echoes Augustine when commenting on Matthew 22 he says,

Now since Christ hath demonstrated in the parable of the Samaritan, that the word “neighbour” comprehends every man, even the greatest stranger, we have no reason to limit the commandment of love to our own relations or friends. I do not deny, that the more closely any person is united to us, the greater claim he has to the assistance of our kind offices. For the condition of humanity requires, that men should perform more acts of kindness to each other, in proportion to the closeness of the bonds by which they are connected, whether of relationship, or acquaintance, or vicinity; and this without any offence to God, by whose providence we are constrained to it.

In the proper ordo amoris, I must first consider my family, then my neighbors in my community, then those in my city, county, state, nation, then those around the globe. More love for one person than another person is not hatred nor bigotry. It is proper according to nature.

The Ordo Amoris and Immigration

What does all this have to do with immigration? The Vice President’s point is this. Yes, it will be hard for illegal immigrants to be deported. Yes, it will be hard on the countries to which they are returning. But the rulers of this nation, and the citizens of this nation, have a moral duty to their fellow citizens before they have an obligation to the citizens of other nations who have taken up residency here. We ought to love illegal immigrants and care for them as we can, but not to the demise of our families, communities, cities or fellow citizens. Love for the homeless man who is down on his luck does not require that you give him a key to your home. This especially when your home is in disarray, disrepair, debt, and disaster.

Our nation is currently in disarray, disrepair, debt, and disaster. We ought to love those outside our nation, but not at the expense of our nation. We need first to get our own house in order, from there we will be in a position to help those outside who need it.

The Household of Faith

Our love for the household of faith ought to supersede our love to those outside the faith. Our love for our brothers and sisters in Christ ought to outstrip our love for our brothers and sisters by blood. Galatians 6:10 says, “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” Everyone should receive our love, but especially those of the household of faith.

We ought to love illegal immigrants and care for them as we can, but not to the demise of our families, communities, cities or fellow citizens.

This does not undo our responsibility to family or nation. We do not seek to do harm to our family or our nation for the sake of those in the church. The church ought not advocate that all Christians of other nations be given automatic citizenship. Just as we ought not give a key to our house to every person who calls himself a Christian. Even so, our love and loyalty ought to be for the Church first and foremost, to the people that Christ loved the most, then to others after them.

God has made everything good, and everything good must be loved by His people. But not equally. Our love for things must be commensurate with the nature of those things. Our fallen intellects blind us to the true nature of things, our deficient loves lead us to hate those whom we should love. But in His grace, God has granted us His Spirit, and He will give us wisdom when we ask for it. Wisdom to see the true nature of things, and grace to love them the way we ought. And as the Spirit makes us wise and virtuous, He will also reorder our loves to what they were intended to be.

The elders of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida have produced the following documents to serve the members of our church as an increasing number are facing vaccine mandates at their places of employment. We have drawn on the wisdom of many others in this process and have particularly benefitted from the labors of other churches and elder bodies. Due to the unique responsibility to shepherd this particular flock in which the Lord has made us overseers we have written the following document with specific consideration to our context, confessional documents, and commitments as a church. We are happy to share the fruit of our work with others who might benefit from it and encourage them to use and/or adapt it for their own purposes with or without attribution—whatever serves them best. We view this document as the result of the collaborative efforts of many. Special thanks is due to Pastor Chad Vegas of Sovereign Grace Church in Bakersfield, California for sharing helpful insights from their elders. Pastor Graham Gunden of GBC, Cape Coral, did the bulk of the research and original drafting of this statement in behalf of all of the Grace elders.

The members of Grace Baptist Church stand within the two-thousand-year Christian tradition. We are committed to the doctrinal standards of our church constitution and the supremacy of the Holy Scriptures. Because of this, we affirm our religion’s principles of liberty of conscience as expressed in our confession of faith, which is the Second London Confession of 1689 (see chapter 21, paragraph 2). We are committed to honoring and preserving human life from conception to natural death and teach that individuals and families bear full responsibility for making medical and healthcare decisions in the fear or the Lord. We also affirm that an individual’s conscience is a gift from God and is answerable to Him alone who is Lord of the conscience.
Therefore, Scripture teaches that any act a person believes to be sin is in fact sin for that person, whether it is intrinsically sinful or not. “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). Furthermore, our church confession states that, “subjection, in all things lawful commanded by them ought to be yielded by us to them, in the Lord.” (2nd London Confession of 1689, Chapter 24, paragraph 3). Mandatory medical procedures do not conform to that which is lawful, i.e. that which conforms to the eternal law of God.
These mandates fall outside the jurisdiction of the divinely instituted authority of the state or employer. Therefore, individuals are under no moral obligation to comply with such mandates. Furthermore, these mandates fall outside the jurisdiction of the government according to the first amendment of our own constitution.
Therefore, we state our unequivocal support for the right to refuse, on the basis of religious conviction, mandatory medical procedures (including vaccinations), whether ordered by a branch of civil government, an employer, or any other institution to which an individual is subject or dependent. In addition, the Holy Scriptures teach Christians that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own” (1 Corinthians 6:19). Stewardship of our bodies before God necessitates being free to make decisions about health and medical treatments according to Scriptural principles, the light of nature, and the dictates of individual conscience. Therefore, the refusal to obey mandatory medical procedures may also be based on an individual’s sincere belief that his or her (or his or her child’s) life, health, welfare, or ethical integrity is potentially endangered by such procedures.
We affirm that our Christian religion protects the liberty of individuals and families to refuse any medical procedure or product on the basis of sincerely held concerns for known or unknown side effects, experimental or emergency uses, potential involvement in fetal cell lines whether in development or testing, or medical and/or political corruption or coercion. The sixth commandment—“You shall not murder”— makes every person responsible “to preserve our own life, and the life of others” and prohibits “the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor, unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto.” (The Baptist Catechism, Q72-73.) Many Christians believe, in good faith, that involvement in such medical procedures violates this commandment.
Therefore, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we uphold the rights and responsibilities of the members of Grace Baptist Church to make responsible medical decisions for themselves and their families, including their right to refuse vaccinations or gene therapies on religious grounds. And we hereby call upon all authorities: political, governmental, organizational, or otherwise, to respect these deeply held religious convictions by upholding this religious liberty and/or providing religious exemptions as requested.
On Behalf of the Elders of Grace Baptist Church of Cape Coral,
Thomas Ascol, Senior Pastor

To Whom It May Concern:
The elders of Grace Baptist Church are writing on the behalf of _______________, a member in good standing of our church since _____, to confirm that his/her sincerely held religious beliefs prevent him/her from receiving a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. He/she is sincerely convinced that to take the vaccine would violate the law of God as found in the Holy Scriptures as well as in our church’s Confession of Faith (Romans 14:23; Hebrews 11:6; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 21.2; 24.3; The Baptist Catechism, Q 72-73). Our church teaches that to take any action one believes in conscience to be contrary to the law of God is to defy God’s authority and is therefore not permissible. Our eldership affirms the right (and where applicable, the obligation) for each member of Grace Baptist Church to take religious exception to mandatory vaccination by governmental authorities and/or employers on this basis. Our church has also issued a statement confirming this right and obligation according to our doctrinal standards and Scripture.
____________’s application for religious exemption is, therefore, not merely a matter of personal opinion or philosophy, but of bona fide religious conviction with the support of his/her church. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.
Sincerely,
Thomas Ascol

Grace Baptist Church – Statement on Religious Exemption to Mandatory Medical Procedures

Tweet Share