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.
Last edited:
POLL: The Deity of Christ
- Thread starter p_rehbein
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The question to which you refer was addressed.
S
senzi
Guest
S
senzi
Guest
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.
S
senzi
Guest
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
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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?
S
senzi
Guest
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
S
senzi
Guest
Yes, Jesus explains things clearly, if you question his words, take your questions to him
John 10:29, john 14:28, john 17:3
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.
S
senzi
Guest
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
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Last edited:
.
Correction of above post:
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.
Correction of above post:
He has all power and authority regarding the kingdom, never over God the Father.senzi said:
Must it also trouble me?
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.
Last edited: