HiddenNChrist2,
At this point, I was really hoping to hear more from you about what you believe about the Trinity, or rather the nature of God, of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, and especially to have some scriptural justification to ground your beliefs because not much has been provided. I really don’t think there is much to say in regard to refuting your position, especially since you have not even attempted to exegete any passage from Scripture. But I will respond to what I can from your last paper’s comments inserted into mine.
1.
That my version of the Trinity is different from the
Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.
As the formal definition, I agree that it is not different in any
respect and I probably would not have any problems holding to the Creeds (I
have never studied the creeds, but from a Trinitarian perspective, I understand
that they are well stated and supported by Scripture). The only differing point would be the
material cause of the doctrine of the Trinity.
As you know,
2. That Jesus was subordinate to the Father. By this I take it that you are referring to passages in which Jesus was “submitting” to the will of the Father,etc…This controversy is not new and there are plenty of resources-historical and modern – that deal with this. The Arian heresy, in particular, asserted that the Son was ontologically subordinate to the Father as you are asserting as well. The Scriptures that I have offered to you clearly teach the Divinity of the Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit (Divinity in the sense that only the one true God has). I do not, and cannot, accept a mere “wave of the hand” answer that simply wishes to refute these Scriptures and their exegesis with no attempt to analyze them in the original languages and, especially, at the historical, grammatical and syntactical levels. Merely asserting what you want me to take as truth, or non-truth, will not suffice in a debate. The burden is on you to prove your assertions even as I have taken the time to prove my assertions from the Scriptures.
The “subordination” that you refer to has been distinguished among Trinitarian theologians as the “economic Trinity” as distinct from the “ontological Trinity.” My arguments, so far, have dealt with the ontological nature of God especially as I am asserting and attempting to prove that God is, in His essential nature, three persons co-existing in the one substance/being/essence that is God. The economic Trinity, however, seeks to make distinctions on the roles of each person in the ontological Trinity. For example, Creation is usually ascribed to the Father; Redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Spirit (though each person is active in some way in these spheres). Thus, the “subordination” that you are asserting is not one of ontology. Subordination in roles does not necessarily mean subordination in substance! Being subordinate does not demean the authority or ontological nature of a person. When Jesus washed his disciples’ feet, essentially playing the role of a servant, were His disciples ontologically greater than He was? Obviously, not for Jesus taught that humble submission to others was the way of godliness. Jesus willingly submits to the will of the Father. He is not “forced” to do so in any way. Phillippians 2:5-11 brings this out especially:
“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even on a cross!
Therefore, God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD, to the glory of God the Father.” (NIV)
Notice Paul says that the nature of Christ is in His “very nature God”(NIV) (Greek, e;n morfh qeou ; NKJV, “being in the form of God”) With no vague language, Jesus Christ, in nature, is God. And being in the very form of God, he willingly took the form (Greek, morphe) of a servant by becoming a man.
Christ is God in His very nature. And He willingly submitted to the Father’s plan of redemption, thus, becoming a man and the perfect sacrifice for sinners. There is no hint in the text that Christ is a creature in His essential nature. He is, in nature, God. He became a man. “The word became flesh…” (John 1:14). Christ is God who became a man.
3. concerning your John 1:1 refutation. Again, I wish you would deal with the Greek grammar and syntax of the text as I have painstakingly done so that you may refute my understanding of the text and point out the grammatical or syntactical error so that I may come to the knowledge of the truth and refute the eternal nature of Christ that this text CLEARLY teaches (as understood in the imperfect tense of the verb “to be”). You seem to focus your response on the word “beginning” as you have it in all caps. How you can say, “this phrase alone departs from any semblance of the realm of the ‘eternal’ is really without warrant. Granted that the language of eternity is difficult for us finite creatures, but if you have problems with the language of eternity for Christ, then you must, equally, have problems with the language of eternity for the Father to be logically consistent. Using temporal language to describe the atemporal is near impossible, I admit and I was not trying to avoid the difficulty of language. But this text (John 1:1) is clear that Christ “always was” before the beginning (imperfect tense of the verb “to be”).
4. That Jesus had a beginning. Jesus, as a man, did have a beginning. But as God, he has no beginning. Again, I refer you to Phillippians 2:6-11 in which Christ, who by nature is the eternal God, took the form of a servant. Jesus Christ is fully God and became fully man. The text bears no other conclusion or interpretation.
5. As far as citing verses. Yes. This is always well appreciated as well as the accompanying exegesis at the historico-grammatical level.
6. Finally, your last response, I think is crucial to our discussions. The reason why I ask you to respond to my arguments is because if you are unable or unwilling to refute them, then they stand as truth. In a debate, when an affirmation is made, it the job/responsibility of the one refuting to negate what was affirmed. Otherwise, it is as if the affirmation is truth by way of silence. But I must also add that offering a negative is not enough. One must positively present true doctrine to stand in the place of what is false. I believe the Trinity to be true. If you believe it to be false, then you should refute the exegesis that I offered with better, or more correct, exegesis so as to give the true meaning of Scripture. Simply saying what a text does not mean (negative exegesis) still does not offer something to believe in. It merely tells someone what they cannot believe.
I truly hope to hear more about what you believe and why you believe it versus a very surface explanations and mere negative assertions about my doctrine with no substantial evidence or proof to support. I hope that you will give more time to the arguments from Scripture that I present as I have taken the time (and you know I have) to fully understand what you are saying and to respond accordingly. I would also appreciate it if you would write your responses so that they can stand on their own and not merely insert comments into my letters. I have devoted much time and thought into these debates and I would hope to receive the same effort back.
Elect in Christ,
Moses