POLL: The Deity of Christ

[Elin]

Addressed above. . .

In the ontological function,
God the Son is subject to God the Father (Jn 4:34, 5:23, 36, 43, 10:25, 12:49-50, 14:24, 17:14).
God the Holy Spirit is subject to God the Father and God the Son (Jn 15:26, 16:7).
God the Father is subject to neither God the Son nor God the Holy Spirit.

The Son does the will of the Father,
and the Holy Spirit does the will of the Father and the Son.

All are equals--in their nature, in their origin, in their work, in their power.

This is a view I have never heard before.

It's stated in the Scriptures above.

It will be interesting to see if anyone else agrees with you that in the ontological sense of trinity Christ is subject to the father-that is in his nature.

I stated the order of both: in the ontological function and in the ontological sense (nature).

The question to which you refer was addressed.

 

[senzi]

The Mosaic regulations were not fulfilled by Mt 22:37-39, nor does the NT present them as fulfilled
therein (Ro 13: 8, 9, 10).

Once again yo seem unable to address the question put

 

[senzi]

It's stated in the Scriptures above.


I stated the order of both: in the ontological function and in the ontological sense (nature).

The question to which you refer was addressed.

I am afraid your responses are contradictory to your stated beliefs. In trinitarian theology it is not possible for Christ to be subject to the father in the ontological sense of trinity-period.

 

[Elin]

I am afraid your responses are contradictory to your stated beliefs. In trinitarian theology it is not possible for Christ to be subject to the father in the ontological sense of trinity-period.

Scripture shows otherwise.

You're not paying attention. . .review the record.

 

[senzi]

Scripture shows otherwise.

You're not paying attention. . .review the record.

I have. You stated in the ontological sense of trinity Christ is subject to the father. I will wait and see if anyone supports your view. I doubt they will

 

[SolidGround]

The phrase "only begotten" actually DOES mess with my previous hypothesis.
The reason is, I had assumed that the birth of the first Adam was spiritually identical to the Last Adam (though obviously physically different).
If my assumption was true, then the phrase would be "second begotten".

Or perhaps I was still partly valid in my thought, but needing deeper clarity into whether or not "begotten" is merely a physical term.

 

[Elin]

I have. You stated in the ontological sense of trinity Christ is subject to the father.

I said that in ontological function
the Son is subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name, obeying the Father's commands (Jn 4:34, 5:23, 36, 43, 10:25, 12:49-50, 14:24, 17:14).

I said that the Spirit is subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name
(Jn 14:26).

I said the Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (Jn 16:7)

This is the testimony of Scripture.

I have said that in ontological nature
all are equals--in their nature, in their origin, in their work, in their power.

I will wait and see if anyone supports your view. I doubt they will

I'm sorry the testimony of Scripture is not enough for you.

So wait and see if any orthodox Christian objects to my view.

They won't, for it is the testimony of Scripture.

 

[Elin]

Correction to post above in first list of Scriptures: Jn 17:4, not 17:14.

 

[Elin]

I will wait and see if anyone supports your view. I doubt they will

In the third part of Post #659, here, Yahshua does a better job of saying what I am saying.

But he always does a better job of saying things.

You could direct those questions to him.

 

[oldhermit]

The phrase "only begotten" actually DOES mess with my previous hypothesis.
The reason is, I had assumed that the birth of the first Adam was spiritually identical to the Last Adam (though obviously physically different).
If my assumption was true, then the phrase would be "second begotten".

Or perhaps I was still partly valid in my thought, but needing deeper clarity into whether or not "begotten" is merely a physical term.

People have made all sorts of wild conjectures about just what it means for Jesus to be called the "Begotten" and what this refers to. Since Peter gives is the revealed application of the Psalm and assigns it to the exclusive act of the resurrection of Jesus that should render all other speculations null and void. Scripture MUST be allowed to define its own terms and its own use of language.

 

[SolidGround]

People have made all sorts of wild conjectures about just what it means for Jesus to be called the "Begotten" and what this refers to. Since Peter gives is the revealed application of the Psalm and assigns it to the exclusive act of the resurrection of Jesus that should render all other speculations null and void. Scripture MUST be allowed to define its own terms and its own use of language.

So "begotten" is more dealing with the Resurrection than the Virgin Birth? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding, or haven't made this connection yet.
I fully agree with your first and last sentence, so I must now catch up with the rest.
Which quote from Peter are you referencing?

 

[oldhermit]

So "begotten" is more dealing with the Resurrection than the Virgin Birth? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding, or haven't made this connection yet.
I fully agree with your first and last sentence, so I must now catch up with the rest.
Which quote from Peter are you referencing?

Acts 13:31-38. I think I said Peter when I meant Paul.

 

[senzi]

I said that in ontological function
the Son is subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name, obeying the Father's commands (Jn 4:34, 5:23, 36, 43, 10:25, 12:49-50, 14:24, 17:14).

I said that the Spirit is subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name
(Jn 14:26).

I said the Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (Jn 16:7)

This is the testimony of Scripture.

I have said that in ontological nature
all are equals--in their nature, in their origin, in their work, in their power.


I'm sorry the testimony of Scripture is not enough for you.

So wait and see if any orthodox Christian objects to my view.

They won't, for it is the testimony of Scripture.

I am no scholar or theologian but you are speaking of the economic trinity, not the ontological trinity. In this belief it is not possible for Christ to be subject to the father I the ontological sense of trinity, for that concerns his nature. But he is in the economic sense of trinity. This concerns him doing the fathers will. I would check this with old hermit if I was you. It seems to me you are speaking of the economic sense. Have you never heard of ontological/economic sense of trinity before?



However, your post does not answer my question. You state the son IS subject to the father by obeying his commands in relation to subjection. However, Paul states at a time in the future(not at this present time) Christ WILL be made subject to the father. So you have not told ne in which way Christ is not at this present time subject to the father, but he will become subject to him when all is defeated

 

[senzi]

In the third part of Post #659, here, Yahshua does a better job of saying what I am saying.

But he always does a better job of saying things.

You could direct those questions to him.

Yes, Jesus explains things clearly, if you question his words, take your questions to him
John 10:29, john 14:28, john 17:3

 

[nnrukshan15]

jesus is TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE.

 

[Elin]

I am no scholar or theologian but
you are speaking of the economic trinity, not the ontological trinity. In this belief it is not possible for Christ to be subject to the father In
the ontological sense of trinity, for that concerns his nature. But he is in
the economic sense of trinity. This concerns him doing the fathers will.

The ontological trinity includes nature, essential properties, and relations of being.

The order of functions I presented would be the relations of being.

I would check this with old hermit if I was you.

That seems like a good thing for you to do.

OK. . .grammar police--if I "were" you. . .subjunctive mood.

However, your post does not answer my question. You state the son IS subject to the father by obeying his commands in relation to subjection. However, Paul states at a time in the future(not at this present time) Christ WILL be made subject to the father. So you have not told ne
in which way Christ is not at this present time subject to the father,
but he will become subject to him when all is defeated

First of all, the text does not say Christ is not subject to the Father now.
That is your human assumption.

Secondly, we are talking about Christ's mediatorship of the kingdom.
The best I can say is what Scripture attests to, that
it is referring to the future handing over of the kingdom (v. 24) as the God-man Mediator,
his administration of which continues until all opposing power, rule and authority are put down,
including death (which locates delivering it up after the resurrection at the end of time),
when his mediation of bringing his people to glory will end, and
the kingdom committed to him as Mediator and God-man is turned over to the Father
from whom it was received, and showing the God-man to be a subject of the Father
(as previously addressed), having accomplished the purpose for which it was given to him,
and which does not exclude his continuing to reign over his glorified church (and body) in heaven
(Rev 16:15; Lk 1:33; Da 7:14; Mic 4:7).

Philosophical ontology of the Trinity does not take into account the manhood of Jesus, God the Son.
Human nature does not enter into its ontology.

However, the relation of the God-man Jesus to the Trinity is presented in Scripture
in terms relating to the human body and spirit, which are not the same relation as to the divine Spirit.

That is where our differences lie.

 

[Elin]

Yes, Jesus explains things clearly, if you question his words, take your questions to him
John 10:29, john 14:28, john 17:3

Yahshua is the screen name of the poster of Post #659.

 

[senzi]

The ontological trinity includes nature, essential properties, and relations of being.

The order of functions I presented would be the relations of being.


That seems like a good thing for you to do.

OK. . .grammar police--if I "were" you. . .subjunctive mood.


First of all, the text does not say Christ is not subject to the Father now.
That is your human assumption.

Secondly, we are talking about Christ's mediatorship of the kingdom.
The best I can say is what Scripture attests to, that
it is referring to the future handing over of the kingdom (v. 24) as the God-man Mediator,
his administration of which continues until all opposing power, rule and authority are put down,
including death (which locates delivering it up after the resurrection at the end of time),
when his mediation of bringing his people to glory will end, and
the kingdom committed to him as Mediator and God-man is turned over to the Father
from whom it was received, and showing the God-man to be a subject of the Father
(as previously addressed), having accomplished the purpose for which it was given to him,
and which does not exclude his continuing to reign over his glorified church (and body) in heaven
(Rev 16:15; Lk 1:33; Da 7:14; Mic 4:7).

Philosophical ontology of the Trinity does not take into account the manhood of Jesus, God the Son.
Human nature does not enter into its ontology.

However, the relation of the God-man Jesus to the Trinity is presented in Scripture
in terms relating to the human body and spirit, which are not the same relation as to the divine Spirit.

That is where our differences lie.

I agree with you in the sense Christ now had administration of the kingdom, for all power and authority I heaven and on earth has been given to him by the father(matt28:18) in this sense he is not subject to the father at this time, as he now has all power and authority, but Paul states though everything has been put under him clearly this does not include God himself who put everything under Christ. I admired old hermit for not attempting an answer to 1cor15:28 but rather an honest acknowledgement of how five verses including that one have often troubled him I think is the word he used(hope he will forgive me if I used the incorrect word) I am afraid you have not explained that verse according to stated beliefs

 

[Elin]

The ontological trinity includes nature, essential properties, and relations of being.

The order of functions I presented would be the relations of being.


Asking oldhermit seems like a good thing for you to do.

OK. . .grammar police--if I "were" you. . .subjunctive mood.


First of all, the text does not say Christ is not subject to the Father now.
That is your human assumption.

Secondly, we are talking about Christ's mediatorship of the kingdom.
The best I can say is what Scripture attests to, that
it is referring to the future handing over of the kingdom (v. 24) as the God-man Mediator,
his administration of which continues until all opposing power, rule and authority are put down,
including death (which locates delivering it up after the resurrection at the end of time),
when his mediation of bringing his people to glory will end, and
the kingdom committed to him as Mediator and God-man is turned over to the Father
from whom it was received, and showing the God-man to be a subject of the Father
(as previously addressed), having accomplished the purpose for which it was given to him,
and which does not exclude his continuing to reign over his glorified church (and body) in heaven
(Rev 16:15; Lk 1:33; Da 7:14; Mic 4:7).

Philosophical ontology of the Trinity does not take into account the manhood of Jesus, God the Son.
Human nature does not enter into its ontology.

However, the relation of the God-man Jesus to the Trinity is presented in Scripture
in terms relating to the human body and spirit, which are not the same relation as to the divine Spirit.

That is where our differences lie.

I agree with you in the sense Christ now had administration of the kingdom, for all power and authority I heaven and on earth has been given to him by the father(matt28:18) in this sense he is not subject to the father at this time, as he now has all power and authority, but Paul states though everything has been put under him clearly this does not include God himself who put everything under Christ. I admired old hermit for not attempting an answer to 1cor15:28 but rather an honest acknowledgement of how five verses including that one have often troubled him I think is the word he used(hope he will forgive me if I used the incorrect word) I am afraid you have not explained that verse according to stated beliefs

What discrepancies do you see. . .keeping in mind that
Philosophical ontology of the Trinity does not take into account the manhood of Jesus, God the Son.
Human nature does not enter into its ontology.

However, the relation of the God-man Jesus to the Trinity is presented in Scripture
in terms relating to the human body and spirit, which are not the same relation as to the divine Spirit.

 

[Elin]

.
Correction of above post:

I agree with you in the sense Christ now had administration of the kingdom, for all power and authority I heaven and on earth has been given to him by the father(matt28:18) in this sense he is not subject to the father at this time, as
he now has all power and authority,

He has all power and authority regarding the kingdom, never over God the Father.

But Paul states though everything has been put under him clearly this does not include God himself who put everything under Christ. I admired old hermit for not attempting an answer to 1cor15:28 but rather an honest acknowledgement of how five verses including
that one have often troubled him

Must it also trouble me?

I think is the word he used(hope he will forgive me if I used the incorrect word) I am afraid
you have not explained that verse according to stated beliefs

What discrepancies do you see. . .keeping in mind that
Philosophical ontology of the Trinity does not take into account the manhood of Jesus, God the Son.
Human nature does not enter into its ontology.

However, the relation of the God-man Jesus to the Trinity is presented in Scripture
in terms relating to the human body and spirit, which are not the same relation as to the divine Spirit.