The Word is not subordinate to God before he assumed human flesh. He only became subordinate to God through the incarnation in the fulness of time. His equality with God is not changed by his becoming man. The subordination of the Son is parallel to his equality with the Father

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The Word is not subordinate to God before he assumed human flesh. He only became subordinate to God through the incarnation in the fulness of time. His equality with God is not changed by his becoming man. The subordination of the Son is parallel to his equality with the Father

  1. θ says:

    If the Word (the 2nd person) were once equal to God, what was the “Father” before? God? If so, there was a time when the nature (a what) is the person (a who).

  2. Anonymous says:

    In the beginning the Word was just a property, not person, hence it can’t realise what actually was going on surrounding it. The Word of John 1:1 is not someone but something. The Word is absolutely silent on the circumstances it may experience before the world began.

  3. madmanna says:

    “If the Word (the 2nd person) were once equal to God, what was the “Father” before? God? If so, there was a time when the nature (a what) is the person (a who).”

    The persons of the trinity are defined by their relations, internal and external, which can change. The essence is immutable.

    The relation between the Word and God is an internal relation within the one being of God, which is an immutable relation. I don’t think it would be right to say it is a personal relation because it is necessary to the being of God.

    A word cannot be a property. You cannot say of anything that it is word. You can say for example that the ball is round. You cannot say that it is word.

  4. θ says:

    “madmanna says: The persons of the trinity are defined by their relations, internal and external, which can change. The essence is immutable.”

    Now your words turn more convoluted. If God is essence, not person, where is the Father (or the 1st person when he was not yet the Father technically) in John 1:1?
    Moreover, where’s the Spirit?

    The problem with the Trinitarians is they aren’t consistent with their own belief. If God is nature, not person, where were the 1st person (who then becomes the Father) and the 3rd person (who then becomes the Spirit) in John 1:1?

  5. θ says:

    The relation between the Word and God described in John 1:1 is just usual internal relation between the 2nd person and his own nature, so where’s the 1st person? where’s the Spirit there?

    Each human too has an “immutable relation” with the human nature. That’s just ordinary relation.

    Even each man also has a personal relation (communication, perception) with his own word. Why ought this be a belief?

  6. madmanna says:

    Why should the Spirit or the Father be mentioned by name in John 1 v 1?

    God can make a statement about himself without using the name Father or Spirit.

  7. madmanna says:

    I don’t have to be consistent with a belief but with the text of my bible, the kjv.
    Please show me where I am inconsistent with the pure words of God.

  8. madmanna says:

    Obviously in John 1 v 1 the Father and the Spirit are the God who is not the Word. We can deduce that from other scriptures.
    The Word is the same God of John 1 v 1 but not the Father or the Spirit.
    In the context of what God is using John to say in this passage God in his wisdom rightly chooses not to identify the Spirit and the Father as such by name.

  9. madmanna says:

    The Word is equated to God by nature in John 1 v 1. He cannot be equated to God by person because they are different persons. That is one reason why the Father and the Spirit are not mentioned by name in John 1 v 1. The Word has to be distinguished from them in some way in his being. Otherwise he could not be “with” the same God who is not the Word. The only way that we can distinguish the Word from the same God that he is with is to describe him as a person.

    The paradox of the trinity is that the Word is numerically identical with God and also not numerically identical with God. If being “consistent” means destroying this paradox then I cannot be consistent or I would not be assenting to the truth as revealed by the bible.

  10. Anonymous says:

    In the Unitarian perspective, the Word (attribute, property) communicates with God (nature).
    Unitarians doesn’t distinguish between nature and person. God is the whole nature of the person which the Bible calls “the Father”.

    What you termed as “numerically identical” is in fact an attribute, predication, adjective. The Word is divine because it is an inanimate property (adjective, attribute) of God.

    But in the Trinitarian perspective, If the are to be consistent with the text of John 1:1 – rather than the belief – the passage illustrates how the Word (2nd person) just communicates with his own nature. That’s it. There’s no mention of the 1st person or the 3rd person whatsoever. Hence, from the textual facts, John 1:1 is not about the Trinity but the Oneness heresy.

    Moreover, the Trinitarian reading of John 1:1 is not consistent – that is paradoxical – with their own Trinity belief either because it is supposed to distinguish the person from the nature.

    The Trinity insists on a partial belief that the Word (person) can’t be the whole nature of God himself, even it is condemned as a heresy of the Oneness.

    The Trinity just attaches an adjective, attribution, or predication to the Word, that the 2nd person is divine, but not the whole nature of God himself.

  11. Anonymous says:

    The Trinitarians try to cloud and cover their wording by redefining the “adjective” to be what they called “numerical identity”, by stating the Word is God (noun, nature) – rather than the Word is divine (adjective, predication) – on purpose to mislead the ignorant masses, but in the same time the Trinitarians also reject an implicating notion that the Word is entirely the “nature” (noun) of God himself (which they condemned as the Oneness heresy).

  12. madmanna says:

    “What you termed as “numerically identical” is in fact an attribute, predication, adjective. The Word is divine because it is an inanimate property (adjective, attribute) of God.”

    The context predicates an equivalency and identity between God and the Word:

    “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

    That means that the Word is all that God is but he is personally distinct from God because he is with God.

  13. Anonymous says:

    “madmanna says: That means that the Word is all that God is ”

    If the Word is all that God (nature) is, he doesn’t leave any room for other persons, hence it is what the Oneness Pentecostals believe.
    The Unitarians believe the Word is divine (adjective) because it is one of God’s property.

    “madmanna says: but he is personally distinct from God because he is with God.”

    Of course the person ( a who) is distinct from the nature ( a what) and from the attribute or property (an adjective). This’s even true for human beings. The Unitarians believe the Word is a property of God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s