This is post #35, which you never really responded to:
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.
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:
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)
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.