Gina,
I’m sorry to hear that you no longer wish to continue these discussions. I hope that we have been able to both benefit from these discussions. Nevertheless, there are some final comments that I wish to make as summation points to end this debate.
In your
last email you seem to be hung up over the submission of Christ to the
Father. Because Christ submits to the
Father, you believe that the Father is greater.
First, you assert that since I acknowledge that Christ, of His own will
and in humility, submitted to the will of the Father in the plan of redemption
that Christ cannot share ontological equality with the Father. You accuse me of using “theological jargon”
to “cover up” and “adjust” my dogma as it were.
This is hardly the case. Remember
that this debate began with the thesis:
“Does the Bible teach the doctrine of the Trinity?” You will see this thesis at the top of my
opening affirmation paper and that is the subject we agreed on. However, many of your critiques of the
Trinity have been on different, though indirectly related topics such as the
submission of Christ to the Father, and understanding the economic
Trinity. Now, many of the statements
that you make about the submission of Christ to the Father find no disagreement
with myself.
For instance, you said, “Jesus had a will and He yielded his will to
God’s [the Father] will.” No
disagreement here. However, you cite Matthew
26:39 (Jesus’ prayer in the
In Matthew 19:16-17, you say that Jesus’ declaration to the rich young ruler (about only God being good) is Jesus’ negation about any claims to Deity. First, was Jesus really denying being good? Obviously not; for Jesus was sinless and perfectly righteous. We know that Jesus is truly good. Was He denying being God? Hardly! He does not negate Himself as being God. They key to understanding what is going on here is CONTEXT!
Here is a young man who only sees Jesus as a great teacher and human being. When the young man asks the question, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus responds to him on the basis of the presuppositions in the question, namely that man can be good enough to inherit eternal life and the flattery that He is exhibiting toward Jesus to gain an audience with Him. Jesus first refutes the flattery for the young man only sees the humanity of Jesus, and with that presupposes that one may be good enough, like Christ, to inherit eternal life for themselves. In refuting the presupposition that man can be good enough for eternal life, Jesus calls into focus the true standard of goodness and righteousness: God, and not man. Thus proceeds the rest of Jesus’ address to the rich young ruler. In no way does Jesus deny that He is God, but only affirms that God is the true standard of goodness and righteousness that we must be conformed to and not other mere men.
You assert that “Trinitarians try to force an interpretation of this verse by twisting it to say that Jesus was actually confessing that he was God!” Personally, I don’t believe this text was intended to show the Deity of Christ but only the cost of discipleship and its relation to eternal life. But though the text (esp. context) focuses on following Christ above all, it does not negate the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. I’m curious to know what Trinitarian theologian(s) have gone so far to assert the doctrine of the Deity of Christ from this passage. Is there a name that you can provide me with or some exegesis from such an interpretation? I assure you that such an interpretation has gone too far in zeal to promote a doctrine. I firmly stand against such methodology and practice.
None of this “flies in the face” of Phillippians 2:6-11. If it is true that the context of Matthew 19:16-17 is of discipleship and Phillippians 2 is about Christian submission and humility toward one another, then these texts are dealing with different topics and are unrelated as far as context goes. Secondly, in understanding Christian humility, we are asked to follow the example of Christ – who though He was God in nature (equal to God), He did not cling to those rights of Deity, but willfully submitted to the Father and took on the form of a servant (i.e. He became a man). The reward of His humility was being exalted. In the same manner, Christians, who have equal dignity with one another are to not regard their own wills and rights as equals, but should willingly humble themselves in service to one another.
For a moment, let us try to understand Christian humility and submission to one another in the light of your view of Christ. As I recall, you believe that Christ is only a man, a creature of God. If this is so, then God, as the Creator can demand service. But if God has the right to demand service, what need is there for humility? The only thing needed is submission or else, for disobedience to God is sin and merits God’s judgment and wrath. But this passage says that we are to humble ourselves(v4) in the like manner as Christ did to the Father, thus taking His attitude (v5). How can Christ “humble” Himself if He must obey God as His Creator anyway? He is already obligated to obey. Isn’t it within the nature of humility to lay aside some dignity that is equal to or greater than what we are serving? How does Christ display this? How is that our basis for being humble to one another? In the parallel of Christ humbling himself to God the Father, which Christians are supposed to submit to one another? Which Christians have rights over the others to demand submission as God does over a created Christ?
I submit to you that the only possible understanding of Phillippians 2:6-11 with regards to the nature of Christ is that He was always God before He became a man (took the form of a servant). Such a display of humility – not holding to equality as an excuse for not serving – is the basis for Christian humility toward each other.
Next, you use I Corinthians 11:3 in order to prove that Christ is not equal to the Father, again, because of the submission of Christ to the Father. I assert that these are roles in submission that Paul is attempting to bring out, particularly roles amongst men and women and He is using the example of Christ to do this. Again, CONTEXT is the key here. I Cor. 11:1-16 deals with the woman’s role in the Church, particularly when prophesying. Paul’s main point is that a woman should be in submission to her husband even as Christ was in submission to the Father. Now, Paul does not mention – at all – anything about the ontological nature of Christ in relation to the Father. You are reading that into the text (eisegesis)! The MOST that this text will yield in regards to Christ is that Christ was submitted to the Father. Anything more is eisegesis. I do not even assert from this text the Deity of Christ because it does not. Other texts do though, as I have demonstrated. I would also like to point out that if you are consistent with your doctrine of Christ, you must be willing to assert that men are ontologically superior to women even as you believe that the Father is ontologically superior to Christ. I would not even agree to such an assertion as Biblical!
You assert
that “One does not submit to a power lesser or equal to himself. We submit to one that is greater. Putting the focus back on God and not how WE
submit, Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) has shown us true humility which leads
to submission to the will of others who are equal and even lower! Jesus, the Lamb of God, Himself said that He
came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many
(Mark
As for your paragraph that begins with, “It seems as though the desire to gain ‘power and control’ is deeply ingrained in the fallen human nature…” I agree with most of it, though I fail to see the relevancy of it to the topic of the Trinity. I do strongly disagree with the statement: “…God is the same [as the described situation]…he wanted humanity to ‘willingly desire’ reconciliation.” However, that topic on the sovereignty of God in salvation and the effects of the fall of man is a topic beyond the scope of this discussion so I leave it at that. I also totally agree with your last statement, but only to the understanding that Jesus inherited eternal life for others and not for himself since He was sinless and was never under the curse of death.
In regards to II Cor. 15:27-28, again, the most that can be extracted from this text is Christ’s total submission to the Father’s eternal plan. One cannot support the doctrine of the Trinity (as I have obviously not done) from this particular text. One cannot support an assertion that “there is not a co-equal person in view here” either since the text makes no claims whatsoever about ontological status. Finally, there is not even mention of the Spirit here, so why you bring up the Holy Spirit is puzzling.
Your last assertion, “the ontological and economic trinity has been put under our feet,” is very puzzling. Why you would assert victory I do not know. In the whole of my argumentation and debate, I must point out, that none of the exegesis for the Scriptures that I have offered has been thoroughly refuted with any proof from the Scriptures! The only thing that you have offered is that YOU don’t believe the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, the Bible cannot either! I have offered argument after argument based on the exegesis of Scripture even down to the grammar and syntax of the original languages!
Gina, I care for your soul. With much labor and thought have I sought to bring out the truth of God to you. This debate, as I intended, was never about your knowledge or mine; my “lack of ‘simple concepts’” as you referred to. It is ultimately about the Scriptures and what they say, regardless of our ability to understand them fully. I admit that I do not fully understand how three persons share in one substance. But the Scriptures clearly reveal this to be so and as a disciple of Christ, I am required to believe, teach and preach what the Scriptures say, not what I would like them to say. The authority of God inherent in the Word of God is alone sufficient grounds for accepting a teaching. My ability to understand the intricacies of a doctrine does not, or ever should, be the grounds for accepting a teaching from the Bible. For doctrine, it is sufficient that God said it.
These are things that were believed by early Christians who had the Bible, even in the original languages and understood them in their original languages. When the Bible was taken away from the people by the Roman Catholic Church, we had the dark ages. It was a period when the Scriptures were not studied as rigorously as before. But the Protestant Reformation re-discovered the truth of the sufficiency of Scripture alone and justification by faith alone. In doing so, this movement helped to the Scriptures back to all the people of God. How you assert that I make salvation complicated for other is really beyond me since I share the same heritage as the Reformers! You will recall that I identified myself as a Reformed Protestant – essentially, a Calvinist – and, thus, I adhere to Faith Alone as the true Gospel.
Gina, I want to recommend one book to you and I hope you will be willing to invest in it. It is called “the Forgotten Trinity” by Dr. James R. White. If you are willing to read it, but unwilling to invest in it, I might be able to get it for you. I pray that the Holy Spirit works in both our hearts to see the truth that He has clearly revealed in His word. God bless you.
Elect in Christ,
Moses