The eternal subordination of the Word.

[37818]

based on exactly what Scripture? There is not even ONE in the OT or NT that even suggests this!

Again, are you denying that the Word was really "with the God?" John 1:2.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Again, are you denying that the Word was really "with the God?"

really? and where did you read this?

 

[SavedByGrace]

John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

That seems to suggest subordination. So does this one...

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

you cannot read! I quoted from #33, "eternal subordination", which means "from eternity past". what you have quoted is from Jesus Incarnation! temporary subordination.

 

[37818]

Why do you think the Word would have to be created in order to have a cause?

I do not. I believe I made it clear I understand the Word to be an uncused Person with God as well as being God.

Also the Word as God is the sole cause of all caused things, John 1:3, therefore is uncaused.

 

[37818]

really? and where did you read this?

You deny that the Word being with the God is to be subordinate, have you not?

 

[37818]

Jesus is the Great I AM (John 8:58) which is what He tells Moses in Exodus 3:14-15, where He says, "I am Who I am", and then says that His Name is YHWH. The Hebrew root for the Name YHWH, is literally, "eternal, unchanging, uncreated". This is absolute proof that Jesus Christ is, "THE SAME, yesterday, and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8)!

Two things here. You are correct about the preincarnate Christ being YHWH. John 8:24.
But as for Hebrews 13:8, it is my understanding this refers to the post incarnation, post resurrected Christ.

 

[37818]

your title for this thread is, "The eternal subordination of the Word", and you have not provided a single Scripture that even suggests this???

My origianal post #1 was expliciit. Pick one statement from that post you think is fales and give a simple proof.

 

[JamesL]

I do not. I believe I made it clear I understand the Word to be an uncused Person with God as well as being God.

Also the Word as God is the sole cause of all caused things, John 1:3, therefore is uncaused.

But in your earlier post you seemed to equate uncaused with uncreated, seeming to suggest that if the word of God had a car that would necessarily mean the word of God was created

 

[JamesL]

you cannot read! I quoted from #33, "eternal subordination", which means "from eternity past". what you have quoted is from Jesus Incarnation! temporary subordination.

I can read just fine. Are you suggesting that the word of God ceased to be eternal at the Incarnation? Seems you are introducing static into what scripture calls a hypostatic union

 

[SavedByGrace]

Are you suggesting that the word of God ceased to be eternal at the Incarnation?

where did you read this?

 

[SavedByGrace]

But as for Hebrews 13:8, it is my understanding this refers to the post incarnation, post resurrected Christ

then your understaning is faulty!

 

[SavedByGrace]

You deny that the Word being with the God is to be subordinate

1000%

 

[37818]

But in your earlier post you seemed to equate uncaused with uncreated, seeming to suggest that if the word of God had a car[cause] that would necessarily mean the word of God was created

You are thinking the Word is uncreated but caused. My thinking being what is created is caused. So it is my understanding that the Word is the uncused Cause, John 1:3 on the behalf of God being God, John 1:1. So I understand the Word to have no beginning therefore being uncaused.

 

[JamesL]

where did you read this?

I didn't read it.

I asked are you suggesting it
Maybe you can't read

 

[JamesL]

You are thinking the Word is uncreated but caused. My thinking being what is created is caused. So it is my understanding that the Word is the uncused Cause, John 1:3 on the behalf of God being God, John 1:1. So I understand the Word to have no beginning therefore being uncaused.

I'm just wondering why you think caused = created

I'm thinking of God speaking. He caused His voice to go out, but He didn't create His voice

 

[canadyjd]

based on exactly what Scripture? There is not even ONE in the OT or NT that even suggests this!

I “tend” toward this belief. The self-identification of God as Father, Son, Holy Spirit suggests eternal subordination.

John 1:18, says “No man hath seen God at anytime...”

How can this statement be consistent with Adam walking in garden with God? With all the appearances of God as a “man” in OT?

It seems reasonable to me that John is saying no man has ever seen one specific person within the Godhead, God the Father. No man could see Him and live.

All the appearances of God in the OT is of the second person of the Godhead. That is the role of the Eternal Son.

When I was in seminary, we called it the “economy” of the Godhead. Each person within the Godhead had a specific role to accomplish the will of God.

Again, functional eternal subordination doesn’t mean greater or lesser persons within the Godhead.

peace to you

 

[37818]

then your understaning is faulty!

Why? Saying my understanding is faulty does not make that so. Fact: Hebrews 13:8 was written post incarnation and post resurrection. What proof do you have that "yesterday" must mean past "eternity?" It was the Word who changed to become the man Jesus Christ from eternity. Do you really believe Jesus Christ as the Word was eternally a man prior to His incarnation?

 

[37818]

I'm just wondering why you think caused = created

I'm thinking of God speaking. He caused His voice to go out, but He didn't create His voice

We may disagree. I am of the understanding that the Word is the sole cause of all caused things on behalf of God as God per John 1:3 so the Word Himself is uncaused.

 

[SavedByGrace]

subordination

excludes equality. this should be the starting point.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I didn't read it.

I asked are you suggesting it
Maybe you can't read

well, if you can read and understand what I have written, you would not ask if I am suggesting this!