NoTrinityInBible,
The following is my final reply to your last reply and my summations for this debate being that you have expressed your desire to discontinue these conversations. I pray that they were fruitful for you as they were for me.
First of all, you say, “how can our attitude be the same as Jesus Christ’s here if this text mean that Jesus is God?” That is a actually a very great question that I will enjoy answering. I do agree with you that the text/context is about humility. Forgive me if I did not make that clear. The text is about humility, but primarily about the humility of one Christian to another. Notice verse 4:
“Let each of you look out nor only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.”
The attitude that Paul wants us to have is one that recognizes that though we are equally Christians as any other Christian is, we must not be interested for our gain only, but must humble ourselves in order to serve the interests of our equals. To emphasize this, Paul use the example of Jesus Christ. Thus, he says,
“Let this mind be in your which was in Christ Jesus…”
The attitude laid out is one of humility. But the question I think we face is, “what is an act of humility?” or rather, “what is the nature of humility?” How do we know what an act of humility looks like? Paul lays down the ultimate example of humility in the life of Jesus Christ. He says, that though Christ was
“…in very nature God [in the form of God, NKJV] He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped [or something to be held onto to be equal], but made himself nothing [of no reputation], taking the very nature of a servant [taking the form of a bondservant] being made in human likeness [and coming into the likeness of men, NKJV]. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death – even on a cross!”
The nature of humility, I believe, from this text is when someone amongst equals, in dignity or stature, lays aside their will and rights to that dignity in order to serve the will and rights of their equal (I would even add one of lower dignity). Thus, I wouldn’t believe it to be an act of humility in which a creature chooses to serve the Creator. As the creature, He is already obligated and responsible to the Creator. Neither does the creature have equal dignity, or nature, as God to say that He will become “nothing” in the eyes of God to serve God. God is far above us and we are as nothing to him already compared to His infinite being! There is no humility required for a creature to serve the Creator; only submission. My final response to Hidden’s paper deals with this more in depth. I will simply say that the context of Christian humility toward one another certainly upholds the Greek word “morphe” as Christ being “in nature” God! Trying to understand “humility” as something that Christ, as a creature (so you say He is), being “humble” and then using that example for us seems rather absurd. Which Christians, being logical with your view of Christ to God, are to submit to each other? After all, if you make the Creator-Creature distinction between Christ and God, then you have to make a distinction for “creator-worth” Christians and “created-worth” Christians. Who is the higher lever Christian that we “humble ourselves” to? Who are the lower lever Christians that are to be submitted to us? How is any of that consistent with what Jesus said about serving one another, and the one who would be the greater in the kingdom must become the servant of all? Your view of Christ, unfortuneately, will not stand in the context and raise more questions for Christian living that the text was intended to.
That I have not understood the Greek word “morphe” yet. This is actually very interesting since you are reluctant to provide me with any understanding of the word either. You simply say that it means, “nature [which makes my argument valid] or image or reflection of.” I would assert to you that my understanding of “morphe” is the correct one, and that “morphe” is NEVER translated as any of those words in the Bible.
According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, morphe denotes “the special or characteristic form or feature.” It is notable that the word morphe is only used twice in the New Testament, both with references to Christ and both instances are found in Phillippians 2 (“form of God” and “form of a servant”) Vine concludes that “morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists…Thus, in the passage before us [Phil. 2:6-11], morphe theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the person of Christ” (see FORM in Vine’s Expository Dictionary).
Also the two phrases “form of God” and “form of a servant” are antithetical to each other. Thus, “form” must be used in the same sense in both cases, otherwise, the proposes antithesis of “God” and “servant”(man) makes no sense.
In regards to morphe meaning image, that is not the case at all. If “image” was intended to be used, the Greek word eikon would have been used as in I Cor. 4:4. According to Greek sources, an “image” or “icon” (eikon), carries ideas of representation not nature, as morphe does. Another word that could have been used for “image” is character (eg. Hebrews 1:3 “very image”). Neither does “reflection of” come near to being within the meaning of morphe.
Your point that Jesus “didn’t think that he should grasp at equality with God,” suffers from a deficient understanding of the Greek. It is not that He didn’t have deity and, thus, didn’t reach at it. It is that He had Deity as His nature but did not “cling” to it or “grasp” at it in the sense that He retained the full rights of Deity. Instead, He considered it as something He was willing to lay aside (not that He cease to be God), but that He subjected Himself to become a servant – a man. I think your reading of the text should delve deeper into the Greek.
Concerning “logos”. There are two ways to understand this. There is the way a Hebrew would have intended the “Word of God” (logos tou theou) to be understood as God’s active agent in creation and redemption (“God said…” Gen. 1, Psalm 33:6; “he sent forth His word and healed them, Psalm 107:20). OR, there is the Greek philosophical sense of Logos. The logos was the self-awareness of the “Prime Mover”. Depending on which philosophical strain one followed in ancient philosophy, the logos and “God” (Prime Mover, for philosophical reasons), were indistinguishable. Both were essentially the same in Being. Really! I was a philosophy minor and am familiar with the term logos both in its classical philosophical usage and in the Biblical usage. I would suggest reading on the Logos yourself.
I would like to make some final comments in summation to the debate. First, in regards to all my exegetical arguments, each of them remain unrefuted from an exegetical point of view. I am not saying that to sound arrogant or that you have ignored my arguments. I make the assertion on the basis of our debate thesis: “Does the Bible teach the doctrine of the Trinity?” I thoroughly provided exegesis of the Scriptures , even according to the original languages of the Bible. While you did attempt to refute my arguments with some textual criticism or saying that I did not understand certain words or concepts, you made no attempt to exegete the Scriptures so as to provide the proper meaning or understanding that you believed that I was lacking. Your accusations of eisegesis certainly were not lacking, yet I was still able to respond back to your accusations with more exegesis which provided further support and reinforced all my arguments (e.g. see 6a-d in my last letter). The facts I provided are irrefutable. The Scriptures do teach the Deity of Christ, the Deity and Personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the doctrine of the Trinity as I have defined it.
I care for your soul. I think I have demonstrated that by going to such great lengths of writing and laboring for your and Hidden in these debates. And I truly believe that it is essential for salvation that Jesus Christ be confessed as Lord, as God. I have already quoted for you from Romans 10:9. To this I wish to add the story of the Phillippian jailer in Acts 16:27-34.
The jailer
asks Paul, “sirs, what must I do to be saved?” to which Paul replies, “believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ (ho kurio Iesou Christos)…”I
know you are probably thinking, “but Kurios doesn’t necessarily mean God (YHWH) as I pointed out
in a previous letter.” You were correct
that the noun Kurios doesn’t always mean that. I don’t think I would dispute that. But I think you must acknowledge that its
Divine sense is part and parcel of the how that word is used. What determines its sense, then? Context, of course, as you
have pointed out. Now, the jailer
heard all that Paul said, and the Scriptures say that he “believed in God”
(v34). Notice the object of faith that
the jailer was told that me must believe in for salvation: The Lord Jesus Christ. Now, notice the object of faith in verse
34: God.
Did the jailer not believe in the same object of faith? I do not believe
so. I think that the prescribed object
of faith and the confessed object of faith are one and the same. To “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” is to
believe in God! Otherwise, there is a
contradiction here or a disobedience on the part of
the jailer, to which there could be no salvation for Him. That is, simply professing to be a Theist
(believer in God) is not enough for salvation.
It is essential that faith be through Jesus Christ as He is the way to
the Father. All would know the One True
God would have to know Jesus Christ, the Only begotten God who alone reveals the Father (John
I would also like to point out an example in which Kurios is used in reference to God the Father. In Acts 17, in Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill (v22-34), Paul begins to declare the one true God to the pagans and philosophers. In verse 24, he says,
“God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is LORD of heaven and earth…”
Notice the subject of Paul’s address is God. All pronoun references are to Him. Paul says that God is ho kurios . Thus, kurios does have a Divine sense in how it is used.
I think it
should be pointed out that there are some words in languages that are spelled
the same but used with different senses.
In logic, we call those “equivocal” words. IN the Greek, “kurios”
is one of those. As you adequately
pointed out, kurios (in various declensions) is used
as a title for persons other than God.
Interestingly, 2 of the example that you provided with are analogical
references to God and carry the definite article (Matt.
History
also shows that “kurios” was used in the sense of
Divinity. Recall that in the
Jesus
Christ is LORD. He is God. My prayer is that you will truly consider
what has been said in these debate exchanges, even at least the possibility
that what I have said could be true, and that the Holy Spirit of God will work truth
in your heart whatever that truth is.
But I hope that I will see in you Glory as we sing the Song of the Lamb, Jesus Christ
:
“Great and marvelous are Your works,
Lord God Almighty
Just and true are your ways,
O King of the saints!
Who shall not fear you, O Lord, and glorify Your name?
For you alone are holy.
For all nations shall come and worship before You.
For Your judgments have been manifested”
(Revelation 15:3-4)
Elect in Christ,
Moses