Is Jesus inferior because it says that He will "be subject" in 1 Cor 15:28? (page 2)

Ginosko

Hi Hooberus,

This specific text are not talking about persons nature.

This text are talking about two persons, the Son, and God.

The text is also talking about who is the boss. And it told us that the Great Boss is God.

And at least for me, is very clear that the true God is the Great Boss. Any one who is in subject condition, is not the real boss.

On the other hand, look closely that the text are not talking about the Son and the Father, but of the Son and God.

The teaching is very obvious, but of course if you like to see another teaching, I dont have any problems at all.

Cordially,

Ginosko

herk

hooberus,

The use of the terms "when" and "then" would seem to indicate that prior to the time of "all things" being subdued to the Son that He is not under the type of subjection described in 1 Corinthian 15:28.

Prior to the time of "all things" being subjected to the Son, they were not in subjection to the Son, and therefore he could not have been Almighty God at that time. The Son will not be Almighty God after all things are returned to the Father for all time to come. The Son never has been and never will be Almighty God. The Father alone is Almighty God from past eternity into the eternal future.

herk

ellderwho

Prior to the time of "all things" being subjected to the Son, they were not in subjection to the Son, and therefore he could not have been Almighty God at that time.

Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made. Jn 1:3 International Standard

3All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. Jn 1:3 American Standard

16for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; 17and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. Col 1:16

they were not in subjection to the Son,

Did not the Son create these "things" ?

Again you cannot define who made what, lest your theology be exposed.

herk

hooberus,

This reasoning assumes that being "subject" implies an inferior nature. However, in many other places persons are "subject" or in "subjection" to another with whom they share an equal nature.

Whenever the Bible speaks of Christlike subjection to God, it has just as much to do with "nature" as it does with "position." Christ is not equal to God "by nature" just as Christians subject to God are not equal to God "by nature."

Rom. 10:3 - they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
Heb. 12:9 - Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?
Jas. 4:7 - Submit therefore to God.
Jas. 4:10 - Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and he will exalt you.
1 Pe. 5:6 - Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you at the proper time.

herk

hooberus,

Jesus can be subject to his father, yet equal to his father by nature.

The Bible shows clearly that Jesus and the Father are not of the same nature:

God is spirit (John 4:24), yet even after his resurrection Jesus said of himself that he was not a spirit, but flesh and bone. (Luke 24:39)
Jesus is very plainly called a man many times. (John 8:40; Acts 2:22; 17:31; 1 Timothy 2:5, etc.) But ?God is not a man.? (Numbers 23:19) He says ?I am God, and not man.? (Hosea 11:9)
"Son of man" is often a reference to ordinary humans. (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1; 3:3; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25) Jesus is often called ?a son of man? or ?the son of man.? That designation carefully distinguishes him from God. Numbers 23:19 specifically says that God is not ?a son of man.?
God is eternal and was not born. Christ, on the other hand, was ?begotten,? meaning that he had a beginning. If he did not have a beginning, terms like "begotten" and "son" with reference to Christ would be misleading.
Jesus is called ?Son of God? more than 50 times in the Bible. Not once is he called ?God the Son.? Others who are not God are also said to be sons of God. (Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Matthew 5:9; Luke 3:38; 20:36; Romans 8:14, 19; Galatians 3:26)
Adam, a man, caused mankind?s problems, and Romans 5:19 says that a man will undo those problems: ?For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.? Some Trinitarians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible clearly teaches that a man has done it.
Jesus, the man, is the mediator between God and men. 1 Timothy 2:5 says: ?For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.? He is not called the "one mediator between God and men, the God Christ Jesus." Christ is clearly called a ?man,? even after his resurrection. Also, if Christ were himself God, he could not be the mediator ?between God and man.? As mediator between God and Israel, Moses also was a man and not God.

herk

Euphemism

I'm not a Christian, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But just out of curiosity, I have a question for hooberus: what do you believe that the Trinity means?

The Athanasian creed does not merely hold that the Father and the Son have the same nature. It holds that they have the same substance, that they hold "glory equal" and "majesty coeternal".

1 Cor 15:28, as far as I'm aware, is not used to argue that Christ does not have divine nature. Rather, it is used to argue that Christ is dvided in substance from the Father, in direct contradition to the Athanasian creed. It is also a direct statement that they do not hold "glory equal" and "majesty coeternal", since if one person is subject to another, than the former has less glory and majesty than the latter.

So if your definition of the Trinity follows that of the Athanasian Creed, then I'm afraid that your argument is a strawman. If, on the other hand, you're merely arguing that the Father and the Son are of the same nature, and not of the same substance, then that hardly seems to me to constitute trinitarianism at all.

So perhaps it would be good for you to clarify your terminology?

LittleToe

Actually, to his credit, Herk makes his strongest arguments here.
It's perhaps the most difficult passage for Trinitarians to refute, and the battleground upon which the greatest confusion remains.
Euph's comments need bearing out, regarding terminology, too.

Ozzie said it well, when he stated that the Trinity Doctrine isn't going to win converts.

I'd be interest to know Nark / Leo / ar Pete's take on the text in question.
It's always seemed a bit disjointed, to me, as if a possible interpolation.

hooberus

Herk posted:

Herk, I am not saying that because the Son is "subject" to the Father, that therefore he must also share an equal ontological nature with the Father (just as no one argues that because the demons were "subject" to the disciples that they therefore must have the same nature as the disciples).

My point is that the Son being "subject" to the father does not exclude him from having the same nature (just as a wife being "subject" to her husband does not exclude her from having the same nature).

Trinitarians are not arguing for an equal nature because of subjection (as your illustration implies), but merely that subjection does not in itself exclude an equal ontological nature.

hooberus

Herk posted:

Once again, Trinitarians are not arguing for an equal nature because of subjection (as your illustration implies), but merely that subjection does not in itself exclude an equal ontological nature.

Is Jesus inferior because it says that He will "be subject" in 1 Cor 15:28?

Share this