"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:1-4) wow…Those verses are a perfect carry-over from my last email, I had to use them. Grace and peace be multiplied.
I'm going to discuss the subordination of Jesus as promised.
In your email you state:
"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." I will address this topic; however I cannot approach this
discussion without also bringing up one of your earlier statements. The following is your description of the
Trinity: 1) that
there exists only One True God 2) within the being that is God, there subsists
three distinct persons –not distinct beings – which are the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit 3) these three persons each possess the essential nature of
God (co-equality and co-eternity) 4) that the Church has confessed the doctrine
of the Trinity to be a great mystery beyond the comprehension of man. The
topic of the submission of Christ asserts the definition you just provided of
the Trinity is completely and undeniably false.
Co-equality and submission are direct contradictions. You define the 3 persons as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that they are co-equal
and co-eternal--immediately thereafter you find yourself struggling to find
theological jargon to cover up the fact that Jesus' submission to his Father is
not expressive of co-equality at all. When one provides a standard
definition of their belief in a dogma, and thereafter begins to add or remove
certain "qualities" or rename "qualities" so that they can rectify
they are departing from their definition to prove it -- is suspect. Submission to another's
will implies two different wills.
There is a problem when you have "one true god" with two
conflicting wills. "And
he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father,
if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:
nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matt.
26:39). "I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my
judgment is just because I seek not mine own will, but the will of
the Father which sent me" (John
"And behold one
came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may
have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest
thou me good? There is none good but
one, that is God." (Matt. 19:16-17). Jesus asked the lad why he was calling him
good, for there is only one that is good, God!
Jesus did not boast himself to be even "good" let alone
deity! (He was subordinate to God) Trinitarians try to force an interpretation of
this verse by twisting it to say that Jesus was actually confessing that
he was God!!!! Not only is that absurd, but it flies in the
face of other frequently cited verses
Philippians 2:6-8, which declares that Jesus "made himself no reputation and took upon him the form of a
servant" This poses a problem
to those who claim co-equality of a 3 person Godhead. They have Jesus claiming to be God…when in
fact he did not make himself of reputation at all, and stated that he thought
that equality with God should not
be grasped at.
Jesus said to apostles "…I
go away, and come again unto you. If you
loved me ye would rejoice because I said, I go unto my Father for my Father
is greater than I" (John
Paul states, "But
I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the
woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Cor. 11:3). Paul understood that the "head" of
Jesus was God. Paul was asserting this
AFTER Jesus' resurrection and ascension therefore indicating that Paul
understood that Jesus was subordinate to God outside of an ontological
example.
One does not submit to a power lesser or equal to himself. We submit to one that is GREATER then us. The ultimate expression of love is in the act of submission. Not due to force, contention or manipulation, but as an act of genuine desire. When submission occurs out of desire then the greater and the lesser are both enriched and blessed for channels of love, respect and harmony flow between them. Ironically what occurs through loving submission is unity.
It seems as though the desire to gain "power and control" is deeply ingrained in the fallen human nature. So often times I am confronted by individuals who try to control me outside the dominion of love. I guess they are under a false assumption that if I submit to them…that it makes them GREATER than me. However, they fail to realize that they will never be satisfied…for what they seek…is submission from pure desire. Submission in ANY way other than by the desirous will of another…leaves the one attempting to gain control discontent with the knowledge that they gained it by manipulation or coercion. God is the same…he wanted humanity to "willingly desire" reconciliation. Jesus accomplished this PERFECTLY. The first Adam willingly disobeyed; the second Adam willingly obeyed and was first among man to inherit eternal life.
Using the example of Joseph and Pharaoh again we see that Joseph PROVED (as Jesus did) to the Pharaoh that he had no ill intent toward him or his Kingdom (for he helped to save all of Egypt from the famine and was put in charge of the store houses during the years of plenty) This was a painstaking process that required years of labor. Pharaoh was pleased …and could not deny the truth…"Hey, Joseph (a slave boy) is really on my side and I can entrust him with all that I have" This is a perfect example of what Hebrews chapter 1 is talking about. God GAVE Jesus all things except for the authority of his throne. I wonder if the Egyptians of the day started confusing Joseph with Pharaoh? I wonder if they tried to apply a personage to the (power and authority) that Pharaoh granted Joseph? (Of course they didn't).
Lastly, And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (I Cor. 15:27,28). This verse rallies my point. Not only does it reveal that co-equality of a 3 person deity is non-existent, (It is important to note that the Holy Spirit isn't mentioned as being seperate), but it also solidifies that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in the realm of the eternal. The Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity has been put under our feet J
Peace,
Hidden
P.S. I just received your response to my earlier email, and I must confess that I am disheartened by the way that you distorted my statement about truth being "hidden." I never suggested that the Bible hides the truth; as a matter of fact I clearly stated that man-made religion is to be blamed for the difficulty in finding truth, for it has deceived the hearts and minds of men.
My points about
In conclusion, seeing how that I am incapable of corresponding with you in a way that communicates a valid point, I have become disenchanted with the idea of continuing this seemingly futile exchange. I am honestly amazed that simple concepts are bypassed and ignored because you would rather focus on what you THINK is intellectual theological discussion. Have you forgotten the many generations that were not even given the privilege of owning a copy of the scriptures? Have you forgotten about the generations of believing Christians who were illiterate? According to you and your approach to truth and salvation those generations would have been hard pressed to obtain truth seeing how they could not apply historico-grammatical applications of the text. WOW
I bid you peace…and I pray that we both grow in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, who joins me in giving the Father all praise, honor and glory.
Gina