-
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.
C
OK
You say in the economic role Christ is now submissive to His Father. The Apostle Paul says in 1Cor15:28, that at a time in the future, aftyer all dominion, authority and power has been defeated Christ will then be subject to His Father. So if you are correct and he is subject now in one of his roles to his Father, according to scripture a time is coming in the future when he will become subject in the other role too. But you say this is impossible.
Then the Son Himself will become subject to him who put eveything under him so that God may be all in all. 1Cor15:28
You say in the economic role Christ is now submissive to His Father. The Apostle Paul says in 1Cor15:28, that at a time in the future, aftyer all dominion, authority and power has been defeated Christ will then be subject to His Father. So if you are correct and he is subject now in one of his roles to his Father, according to scripture a time is coming in the future when he will become subject in the other role too. But you say this is impossible.
Then the Son Himself will become subject to him who put eveything under him so that God may be all in all. 1Cor15:28
A non-completely equal Trinity is not believing in the Trinity. That's like me saying "Oh, I'm a democrate. The kind that is for laissez-faire capitalism and the Austrian school of economics." Well, that's not a democrat. That's a confusion of terms.
I already explained how the Father can be greater than the Son, economically. I don't recall you interacting much with that.
(And at this point just repeating unfounded assertions, like we reject the plain teaching of Scripture or Hebrews 1:9, isn't going to get any where. But I'm always happy to repeat my rejoinders to people who repeat their assertions.)
I already explained how the Father can be greater than the Son, economically. I don't recall you interacting much with that.
(And at this point just repeating unfounded assertions, like we reject the plain teaching of Scripture or Hebrews 1:9, isn't going to get any where. But I'm always happy to repeat my rejoinders to people who repeat their assertions.)
C
This is post #35, which you never really responded to:
Well it doesn't make sense to say "in both roles" and have one of those roles be ontological, because ontology isn't a role.
But, as I understand you, you're having a hard time grasping how Christ could be subjected to the Father indefinitely into the future. Is this correct?
Personally, I don't see why this is a problem. Let's say Christ became subject to the Father through the incarnation (cf. Phil 2:5-11 where his being a servant is explained by his "being born in the likeness of men” (vs7)).
Christ now, eternally into the future (but not into the past), exists in this incarnational state. And, if Christ's subordination to the Father is explained in terms of the incarnation (again, cf. Phil 2:5-11), then it makes sense to say that his subordination to the Father will extend into the future indefinitely.
In light of this, 1 Corinthians 15:28 doesn't present any problem for Christ's being ontologically equal to the Father.
Let's look a little closer at your line of reasoning though:
Let me see if I can cast your argument in a different form:
1. Christ is now subject to the Father in the economic sense.
2. In the future, we are told that Christ will be subject to the Father.
3. Since Christ is already economically subject to the Father, this second subjection must be ontological.
Is this a correct representation of your argument?
I think it's obviously false.
(I) For one thing, ontological relations are necessary relations. If I have equality with you in virtue of the fact that we are both human, then for that relationship to change, an ontological change must occur: I or you must cease to be human (or we could both cease to be human and become two other ontologically unequal entities).
So if you are going to argue for a future ontological subordination of the Son, you would have to argue that his essential nature will change. But you cannot change his nature while maintaining his identity (a person's identity is bound up with their ontology: part of my identity is that I'm human). Thus, in effect, you would have us believe that Jesus ceases to be Jesus (or maybe the Father ceases to be the Father).
(II) A further problem with your line of reasoning is that it seems to assume, at (1), that Christ is now not ontologically subject to the Father (hence, he is now equal to the Father). Otherwise, why would there be a future ontological subjection? But if Jesus now shares the same ontological status as the Father, then it follows that he has all the necessary properties to Godness. But what are those properties? At least one of them would seem to be eternality, or an unchanging nature (we agree that God's nature is essential and unchanging, right?). But if Jesus has this necessary property to deity, then he cannot at some future time lose that property because it creates a contradiction in terms.
So if Jesus is not now ontologically subordinate to the Father, then he cannot become ontologically subordinate at some future time (lest we entangle ourselves in an incoherent mess of contradictions). But if Jesus is now ontologically subordinate to the Father, then your entire argument (assuming I've understood it correctly) is superfluous and doesn't prove anything.
(III) There seems to be at least one more problem with your reasoning here. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 speaks specifically of Christ's messianic kingship being handed over. This is obviously an economic function, not an ontological one. He isn't handing over who he is, he is handing over a function: messianic kingship. So 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 obviously won't work in an argument to prove that Christ becomes (or is) ontologically subordinate.
Originally Posted by livingbygrace
Thanks for this reply. I have heard this on another Christian website.
The problem I have with this is that I am told that concerning Christ being subject to the Father, now that is the economic Trinity. Along with the Father being greater than Christ.
But Paul speaks of a time in the future when Christ will be subject to the Father 1Cor15:28 This is when all power, authority and dominion has been defeated.
When he has done this then the Son Himself will be subject to him who put everything under Him so that God may be all in all.
So if Christ is subject now in the economic Trinity, and at some time in the future he will be subect to the Father surely that must be concerning his other role in the Trinity(ontological) Therefore if this view is correct surely a time will come when Christ is subject to the Father in both roles.
Thanks for this reply. I have heard this on another Christian website.
The problem I have with this is that I am told that concerning Christ being subject to the Father, now that is the economic Trinity. Along with the Father being greater than Christ.
But Paul speaks of a time in the future when Christ will be subject to the Father 1Cor15:28 This is when all power, authority and dominion has been defeated.
When he has done this then the Son Himself will be subject to him who put everything under Him so that God may be all in all.
So if Christ is subject now in the economic Trinity, and at some time in the future he will be subect to the Father surely that must be concerning his other role in the Trinity(ontological) Therefore if this view is correct surely a time will come when Christ is subject to the Father in both roles.
But, as I understand you, you're having a hard time grasping how Christ could be subjected to the Father indefinitely into the future. Is this correct?
Personally, I don't see why this is a problem. Let's say Christ became subject to the Father through the incarnation (cf. Phil 2:5-11 where his being a servant is explained by his "being born in the likeness of men” (vs7)).
Christ now, eternally into the future (but not into the past), exists in this incarnational state. And, if Christ's subordination to the Father is explained in terms of the incarnation (again, cf. Phil 2:5-11), then it makes sense to say that his subordination to the Father will extend into the future indefinitely.
In light of this, 1 Corinthians 15:28 doesn't present any problem for Christ's being ontologically equal to the Father.
Let's look a little closer at your line of reasoning though:
Quote:
Originally Posted by livingbygrace
if Christ is subject now in the economic Trinity, and at some time in the future he will be subect to the Father surely that must be concerning his other role in the Trinity(ontological)
Originally Posted by livingbygrace
if Christ is subject now in the economic Trinity, and at some time in the future he will be subect to the Father surely that must be concerning his other role in the Trinity(ontological)
1. Christ is now subject to the Father in the economic sense.
2. In the future, we are told that Christ will be subject to the Father.
3. Since Christ is already economically subject to the Father, this second subjection must be ontological.
Is this a correct representation of your argument?
I think it's obviously false.
(I) For one thing, ontological relations are necessary relations. If I have equality with you in virtue of the fact that we are both human, then for that relationship to change, an ontological change must occur: I or you must cease to be human (or we could both cease to be human and become two other ontologically unequal entities).
So if you are going to argue for a future ontological subordination of the Son, you would have to argue that his essential nature will change. But you cannot change his nature while maintaining his identity (a person's identity is bound up with their ontology: part of my identity is that I'm human). Thus, in effect, you would have us believe that Jesus ceases to be Jesus (or maybe the Father ceases to be the Father).
(II) A further problem with your line of reasoning is that it seems to assume, at (1), that Christ is now not ontologically subject to the Father (hence, he is now equal to the Father). Otherwise, why would there be a future ontological subjection? But if Jesus now shares the same ontological status as the Father, then it follows that he has all the necessary properties to Godness. But what are those properties? At least one of them would seem to be eternality, or an unchanging nature (we agree that God's nature is essential and unchanging, right?). But if Jesus has this necessary property to deity, then he cannot at some future time lose that property because it creates a contradiction in terms.
So if Jesus is not now ontologically subordinate to the Father, then he cannot become ontologically subordinate at some future time (lest we entangle ourselves in an incoherent mess of contradictions). But if Jesus is now ontologically subordinate to the Father, then your entire argument (assuming I've understood it correctly) is superfluous and doesn't prove anything.
(III) There seems to be at least one more problem with your reasoning here. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 speaks specifically of Christ's messianic kingship being handed over. This is obviously an economic function, not an ontological one. He isn't handing over who he is, he is handing over a function: messianic kingship. So 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 obviously won't work in an argument to prove that Christ becomes (or is) ontologically subordinate.
It can be said that you are using human reasoning and logic to which what you consider a fact is merely a result of human reasoning and logic and can be considered flawed by your logic
You say that now Christ is in submission to his Father in the economic Trinity. Thje Bible says there is coming a time in the future when Christ will become subject to the Father. How? According to you he already is in the economica Trinity. That would only leave one other role he could become subject to the Father wouldn't it? But you say this is impossibloe. How am I using flawed earthly logic? I am simply going by your own words
A
Well maybe you can help me out here.
You say that now Christ is in submission to his Father in the economic Trinity. Thje Bible says there is coming a time in the future when Christ will become subject to the Father. How? According to you he already is in the economica Trinity. That would only leave one other role he could become subject to the Father wouldn't it? But you say this is impossibloe. How am I using flawed earthly logic? I am simply going by your own words
You say that now Christ is in submission to his Father in the economic Trinity. Thje Bible says there is coming a time in the future when Christ will become subject to the Father. How? According to you he already is in the economica Trinity. That would only leave one other role he could become subject to the Father wouldn't it? But you say this is impossibloe. How am I using flawed earthly logic? I am simply going by your own words
I understand you believe in one God, but you say you believe in the trinity (which is one God) and I am trying to understand if you believe Yeshua is God or not, I suppose you would if you believe in the trinity but it's actually because of your posts I question this. Hope you can understand.
Hi Shwagga
I certainly believe in one true God, this is what the Bible says.
However, Biblically there are others that are called Gods and Lords, but there is only one true God.
For even if there are so-called gods whether in Heaven or on earth(as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live and one Lord Jesus Christ. 1Cor8:5&6
That they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John17:3
Then the end will come when he(Jesus) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him it is clear that this does not include God Himself who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will become subject to Him who put everything under him so that God may be all in all. 1Cor15:24-28
Those examples do clearly I would suggest say that only God the Father is the true God, and our true God.
Can you help me here? I am told by some that Christ now is subject to the Father and under his authority in the economic Trinity. But Paul clearly says, there is a time in the future when Christ will become subject to the Father. How can this be? Unless it is in His other role(ontological) But I am told this is impossible.
Do you understand my confusion?
If Christ is subject to the Father now, how can he become subject to the Father in the future? In what way?
S
Hi Shwagga
I certainly believe in one true God, this is what the Bible says.
However, Biblically there are others that are called Gods and Lords, but there is only one true God.
For even if there are so-called gods whether in Heaven or on earth(as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live and one Lord Jesus Christ. 1Cor8:5&6
That they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John17:3
Then the end will come when he(Jesus) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him it is clear that this does not include God Himself who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will become subject to Him who put everything under him so that God may be all in all. 1Cor15:24-28
Those examples do clearly I would suggest say that only God the Father is the true God, and our true God.
Can you help me here? I am told by some that Christ now is subject to the Father and under his authority in the economic Trinity. But Paul clearly says, there is a time in the future when Christ will become subject to the Father. How can this be? Unless it is in His other role(ontological) But I am told this is impossible.
Do you understand my confusion?
If Christ is subject to the Father now, how can he become subject to the Father in the future? In what way?
I certainly believe in one true God, this is what the Bible says.
However, Biblically there are others that are called Gods and Lords, but there is only one true God.
For even if there are so-called gods whether in Heaven or on earth(as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live and one Lord Jesus Christ. 1Cor8:5&6
That they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John17:3
Then the end will come when he(Jesus) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him it is clear that this does not include God Himself who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will become subject to Him who put everything under him so that God may be all in all. 1Cor15:24-28
Those examples do clearly I would suggest say that only God the Father is the true God, and our true God.
Can you help me here? I am told by some that Christ now is subject to the Father and under his authority in the economic Trinity. But Paul clearly says, there is a time in the future when Christ will become subject to the Father. How can this be? Unless it is in His other role(ontological) But I am told this is impossible.
Do you understand my confusion?
If Christ is subject to the Father now, how can he become subject to the Father in the future? In what way?
So you believe the Son is a different God then the Father? So that would be two Gods?
We always have to remember, there is only one, true God
But about the Son He(God) says
Your throne O God will last forever and ever
And righteousness will be a sceptre of your kingdom
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness
Therefore God, your God has set you above your companions
By annointing you with the oil of joy.
Heb1:8&9
Could you tell me? Do you believe in the ecvonomic and ontological Trinity? And if you do could you answer the question concerning thatr I put to you?
Thanks
S
We always have to remember, there is only one, true God
But about the Son He(God) says
Your throne O God will last forever and ever
And righteousness will be a sceptre of your kingdom
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness
Therefore God, your God has set you above your companions
By annointing you with the oil of joy
Heb1:8&9
Could you tell me? Do you believe in the ecvonomic and ontological Trinity? And if you do could you answer the question concerning thatr I put to you?
Thanks
But about the Son He(God) says
Your throne O God will last forever and ever
And righteousness will be a sceptre of your kingdom
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness
Therefore God, your God has set you above your companions
By annointing you with the oil of joy
Heb1:8&9
Could you tell me? Do you believe in the ecvonomic and ontological Trinity? And if you do could you answer the question concerning thatr I put to you?
Thanks
So you believe in one God, but Yeshua is not equally God? I don't understand I hope you can clarify for me bro, thanks!
You say it impossible I say it was answered fairly well
After all, you asked me if I believed there was only one true God, suggesting there wasn't. This directly goes against Christ's own words
I believe in the complex unity of God. Which would include the Father, Yeshua and the Ruach haKodesh (the Holy Spirit).
So you believe in one God, but Yeshua is not equally God? I don't understand I hope you can clarify for me bro, thanks!
So you believe in one God, but Yeshua is not equally God? I don't understand I hope you can clarify for me bro, thanks!
A
Well you are baised and coming from an impossible viewpoint. On the one hand you say you accept the Bible as a book of truth, but then will not accept some of its plainest statements.
After all, you asked me if I believed there was only one true God, suggesting there wasn't. This directly goes against Christ's own words
After all, you asked me if I believed there was only one true God, suggesting there wasn't. This directly goes against Christ's own words