The Trinity Eternity Past to Eternity Future

[bellflowery]

She makes a few good points, with a few scriptures, but needs to go into the subject much more deeply with many more scriptures.

[inhistime2007]

@bellflowery

This clip is only a partial clip of an entire DVD that is available for purchase.

[iint3grity]

I strongly agree with joyfulhelpmeet. You should read the book called "the Forgotten Trinity" by James White. It is the difinetive work on the Trinity in my opinion. It leaves no stone unturned and is clear and Scripturaly saturated!. a great quote from that book is: "DIFFERENCE IN FUNCTION DOES NOT INDICATE INFERIORITY OF NATURE"

[inhistime2007]

This DVD is very helpful to understand that The Word of God as the preincarnate Christ does not have a subordinated will in the Trinity. There is one will, one authority and one nature and all three have the same will, authority and nature.

[joyfulhelpmeet]

i recommend a book by James White called the forgotten trinity for you

[inhistime2007]

Perhaps James White would be interested our our DVD as it soundly refutes the teaching that Jesus is not equal in authority to the Father.

[Gusdaberean]

Completely agree with you Cheryl and Lorri there is a subtle undermining of the divine unity of the trinity as annunciated in the Nicene Creed in the church at large. They share one essence and so are Equal in power, authority, and omniscience!

Any anthropomorphisms deferring authority from one to the other are simply for human understanding of the different personages of the Godhead. When Jesus is on the trhone so is the father and Spirit, there is no difference for they are one essence!

[inhistime2007]

Thank you Gusdaberean!

[yastunt]

Great video inhistime, although it would be good to point out that the bible doesnt actually say "LORD of hosts" - it says "Yahweh of hosts".

[Arrsht]

Actually the subordination of the Son to the Father as to functional position is not a challenge to the Trinity but rather the biblical doctrine. The Father is head of the Son (1 Cor. 11:3) the God of the Son (Rev. 2:7, 3:2,3:12) and Son will be eternally subjected to the Father (1 Cor. (15:28). The Egalitarian position undermines the biblical doctrine and gives the Christian NO defense against the false equivocation of the Watchtower with the ontological and positional equality of the Son.

[inhistime2007]

You are misreading scripture. It doesn't say that the Father is the head of the Son but that God is the head of Christ. Christ is the term for the humanity of Jesus as the God-man. It is not an eternal term. 1 Cor. 15:28 also does not say that the Son will be eternally subjected. It says that he will subject himself and this is a voluntary subjection for a reason. I encourage you to view DVD set to check out the scriptural references and see for yourself.

[Arrsht]

Your view is the Minority view for very good reason. It has no support. God in the text refers to the Father and since Christ the Son is NOW YET referred to as Christ, you have a moot point.

Whether or not it (15:28) is voluntary is besides the point, so is Phil. 2:5-7 and yet you understand that as the Son being subject to the Father. The Son will indeed be eternally subjected to the Father.

Since the Son still refers to the Father as his God, it also shows he is STILL subject to him.

[inhistime2007]

Now view is the historical view. However what the bible says is the most important. The view that says that Jesus is eternally subordinated from eternity past to eternity future bases its view on the scriptures showing the humanity of "Christ" and have no foundation in the Old Testament. He LORD of hosts is not subordinated nor is the pre-human manifestations of Jesus as the Angel of the Lord. The voluntary subordination deals with only the time of his humanity.

[Arrsht]

You just argued THIS: "The voluntary subordination deals with only the time of his humanity."

YET 17 hours ago you argued THIS: "It says that he WILL subject himself and this is a voluntary subjection..."<- Since that is the future spoken of in 1 Cor. 15:28 going into eternity and Christ will forever be HUMAN, again, you have NO valid defense for your position.

Psst, I didn't argue that the Son has been subject to the Father for all of eternity past. Nice strawman.

[inhistime2007]

First of all Jesus is still human. He is the resurrected man and who is the God man. His subordination in the future is to subject his humanity one last time so that God may be all in all. It isn't an eternal subjection. It is a subjection so that the entire Trinity is seen as one instead of the resurrected Jesus as the one who wields all power and all authority with only Jesus doing the judging. The divisions will be gone.

[Arrsht]

"It isn't an eternal subjection." Can you prove this biblically?

And since the Son still has the Father as His God, how can you possibly argue that they are equal positionally presently? And since Paul says that presently the Father is the head of Christ, how is it you argue they positionally equal now?

"with only Jesus doing the judging"

This was granted by the Father to the Son.

John 5:22, 27, Acts 17:31

[inhistime2007]

The Bible says that God will be all in all. It doesn't say that the Father will be all in all or that the Father will have all the authority. It is unity without the divisions that were necessary during the time of Jesus' voluntary subjection.

When Jesus was resurrected he said that he had "all authority". What part of "all authority" is less authority than the Father?

The passage in 1 Cor. 11 is not talking about a higher position or authority over. Origin is spoken of.

[Arrsht]

Thayer Definition:

1) the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.

2) metaphorically anything supreme, chief, prominent

2a) of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife

2b) of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church

2c) of things: the corner stone

Part of Speech: noun feminine

from the primary kapto (in the sense of seizing)

[inhistime2007]

My blog has discussion on "head" at strivetoenter (dot) com/wim/ 1 Corinthians 11:3 and head post May 27, 2007.

This format is too limited to go into this here. The issue is the eternal subordination of the LORD of hosts.

Am I to repent of giving too much honor to Jesus?

[Arrsht]

Sure R.D. ;-)

[inhistime2007]

Well, then you appear to be a follower of a man-made organization rather than a follower of Christ. You have publicly agreed that I need to repent of giving too much honor to Jesus. What a shame.

[inhistime2007]

The point is that Jesus is doing "all the judging". The Father judges no one. Yet when Christ subordinates himself at the end, the authority that he alone was exercising goes back to the full Trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit in complete oneness.

[inhistime2007]

Also the view of the eternal subordination of the Son is an eternal subordination and the DVD refutes that.If you don't believe the Son has been subject for all of eternity, then great. The men in the DVD that I am refuting do believe that.

[Arrsht]

The texts I presented cannot be denied or refuted. They are clearly not ONLY present but also future with no scriptural indication of change positionally for the Son and since he will always remain as human he will forever have the Father as his God. Lack of time as we know it doesn't change that.

I am certain you will keep on your crusade for egalitarians since you are beyond correction though one can hope the Lord God grants you repentance. (2 Tim. 2:25) I now Titus 3:10, 11 you.

[inhistime2007]

You presented no facts that presented a Jesus with a less authority than the Father. The Deity of Christ is what we are discussing not the humanity. He is not just human. He is the eternal LORD from heaven.

So I need to repent of giving Jesus more honor than he deserves?

[inhistime2007]

You have also not responded regarding those who present the prehuman Son as eternally subordinated in authority to the Father. Will you pray that God grants them repentance?

[inhistime2007]

I encourage you to watch the full evidence for yourself and then dispute it from the scriptures outside of the humanity of the God-man, the Christ. It is a complete failure to prove the eternity Trinity inside of the humanity of Jesus. Prove the eternal subordination from the OT. The DVD set goes through each point brought up by subordinationists and refutes each point with the scriptures alone.

[Arrsht]

"It is a complete failure to prove the eternity Trinity inside of the humanity of Jesus." <-- Who tried to do that?

"Prove the eternal subordination from the OT." Why? I never argued for Son as ALWAYS being subject to the Father but rather his eternal subjection for all of eternity future as the Scriptures show. I have yet to see any valid refutation of the texts I provided. No more red herrings please.

[inhistime2007]

The subordination view says that Jesus is eternally subordinated from eternity past to eternity future. Why are you not refuting those who teach Jesus' subordination from eternity past?

Secondly 1 Cor. 15:28 says nothing about the Deity of the LORD of hosts but the humanity of Christ and it is for one reason. The reason is not to return to a subordinated position. Jesus has been ruling and reigning by himself up until that time. What happens next and why?

[inhistime2007]

Also it is the complementarian position that has no defense for the JW's but rather an agreement. The JW's teach that Jesus has an lesser authority than the Father. Also the JW's teach that Jesus cannot be prayed to just as Bruce Ware teaches.

[Arrsht]

JW's don't quibble about authority of the Son They equivocate position with ontological nature and thus when they see the clear texts that show the Son subject to the Father and the Father as his God, they naturally (due to the fallacy of equivocation) say the Son cannot be equal to the Father. All a thinking Trinitarian need do is ask them if the woman remains equal as a human when subject to her husband. Your comment about what someone else says or thinks has nothing to do with what I stated

[inhistime2007]

Well that is interesting since I have been working with JW's since 1988 and spent 16 years disciplining ex-JW's come to faith in Christ and into a relationship with the Church. The view of JW's is that the created son is eternally from that point less in authority than the Father and he had to be given authority to create the world. This is also what Bruce Ware teaches and I told Dr. Ware that his view that Jesus cannot be prayed to is the same as the JWs and his view is ineffective with them.

[Arrsht]

"The view of JW's is that the created son is

eternally from that point less in authority than the Father and he had to be given authority to create the world."

Of course they do, they equivocate the ontological nature of the Son with his position and they view him as a created being, there is no wonder there.

Question: Does the Father have the Son as his God?

Question: Is the Son still human and remaining as human for all eternity to come?

1 Cor.15:28, 1 Cor. 11:3, Rev. 2:7, 3:2,3:12

[inhistime2007]

It is only the human Jesus that has God as his God. The Father calls Jesus "God" but not "his" God. This is a humanity issue.

While the Son of God will be a resurrected human the bible says that he submits himself to the Father so that God may be all in all. The Deity is placed first not the humanity of Christ. What will that look like? The Bible doesn't tell us but no longer is there a mention of one "sitting at the right side" but rather God appears united without any divisions.

[Arrsht]

"The Bible doesn't tell us but no longer is there a mention of one "sitting at the right side" but rather God appears united without any divisions."

An argument from silence says NOTHING. And since it is YOUR position that they are currently equal in all ways, yet the Son is (even in your position) NOW seated at the right hand of the Father and has him as his God, your position is contradictory.

[inhistime2007]

This isn't an argument from silence. 1 Cor, 15:28 tells us exactly why the human Jesus must subject himself one last time so that God may be all in all. All in all is the complete unity.

It appears that you have more in common with me than you do with the eternal subordination of the Son view. That is good. It would be very good if you would educate yourself on how to refute that false view.

This isn't a good format for extended discussions. Go to strivetoenter (dot) com/wim the oct 15 post.

[inhistime2007]

So where do you get an eternally subordination of Christ, one with lesser authority than the Father for all of eternity? Show me which verse says this?

[Arrsht]

1 Corinthians 15:28 When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.

The Scripture give no indication of this position changing. Also note that the Father was the one who subjected all things to the Son. (until the end 1 Cor 15:26-28) This is because as man, the Son lowered himself (Phil. 2:7) and since he will always be man he will forever be subject to the Father as his God.

[inhistime2007]

"The Scripture give no indication of this position changing."

The scripture is very clear that this is so that "God will be all in all". This is the triumphant human Son turning over the spoils to the Father who gave him "all authority". Yet he does not give up all authority, he does not give up the kingdom and he does not give up the rule. God is "all in all" without one person ruling alone.

Now do you also believe that Jesus does not have the authority to be prayed to as Bruce Ware states?

[inhistime2007]

Thank you Barb. We trust that the DVD series will clearly present the Trinity from the Scriptures alone. The LORD truly does magnify his Word above everything.

[hazel43717]

Hi Cheryl,

This new DVD looks real good and plainly set out and easy to understand! I pray it will be a help and blessing to all who manage to view it.

Prayers and love always

Hazel x.x.x

[inhistime2007]

Thank you Hazel!