J
JeanneH
Guest
can some one please explaine these verses to me?. I know that Jesus and God are equal so I don’t understand the subjecting one to the other. Thanks
- Status
B
bonica
Guest
First of all I would say that Jesus is not inferior to God the Father. But the Son, who became flesh, was subject to the will of the Father. Remember in the garden he prayed “not my will but yours be done”. What is being described here is the culmination of Christ’s work when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father.
Hope that helps.
Hope that helps.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I’m no expert in this sort of thing, but I’ll give it a go.
Basically I see the text is describing not an order of relationship, but an order of happenings and being. First the Son, the Messiah, comes and brings the world to God as an agent of God’s Will, and then Christ “returns” to the Father. Now we know that God is God and indivisible, so we must understand the text in that context. What is really being described, it seems, is God putting forth Its essence as the Son in order to bring humankind to God. The Son is the “Person” of God (in modern usage, I suppose “form of God” might make more sense, but no human words seem sufficient to fully describe the Mystery of the Trinity) that brings humans the true Word, and Paul is essentially reiterating that the Son is not seperate from God when he says “so God may be all in all”. In otherwords, the Son is subject to God because the Son is not seperate from God at all; when it says “the Son will also be subjected” I believe the text is striking away the idea that the Son’s will is somehow contrary to God’s (because how could God be contrary to His own will?)
In short it’s an order of events being described, not a relationship between seperate entities. First comes the Son to crush the enemies, and through this all things are subject once again to God’s will. It is also emphasizing that the Son’s will is united with the will of the Father, and therefore that God’s will is indivisible and not self-contridicting. I don’t believe it is describing subjegation in the manner of a slave to their master.
This is just what I get from the text.
Basically I see the text is describing not an order of relationship, but an order of happenings and being. First the Son, the Messiah, comes and brings the world to God as an agent of God’s Will, and then Christ “returns” to the Father. Now we know that God is God and indivisible, so we must understand the text in that context. What is really being described, it seems, is God putting forth Its essence as the Son in order to bring humankind to God. The Son is the “Person” of God (in modern usage, I suppose “form of God” might make more sense, but no human words seem sufficient to fully describe the Mystery of the Trinity) that brings humans the true Word, and Paul is essentially reiterating that the Son is not seperate from God when he says “so God may be all in all”. In otherwords, the Son is subject to God because the Son is not seperate from God at all; when it says “the Son will also be subjected” I believe the text is striking away the idea that the Son’s will is somehow contrary to God’s (because how could God be contrary to His own will?)
In short it’s an order of events being described, not a relationship between seperate entities. First comes the Son to crush the enemies, and through this all things are subject once again to God’s will. It is also emphasizing that the Son’s will is united with the will of the Father, and therefore that God’s will is indivisible and not self-contridicting. I don’t believe it is describing subjegation in the manner of a slave to their master.
This is just what I get from the text.
E
elvisman
Guest
BRAVO!!!
Q
quasimodo
Guest
Perhaps the answer is found in Phillipians 2:5-9
Philippians 2
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death–
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
Philippians 2
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death–
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
Q
Quisp
Guest
The Son, in His divinity, is not less than the Father. However, the Son, in His humanity, is. (Don’t anybody get excited, I’m not trying to seperate His 2 natures!)
Look at 1Tim 2:5 - For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
If you look at 1Cor 15:23-28 in this light, it makes more sense.
God Bless.
Look at 1Tim 2:5 - For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
If you look at 1Cor 15:23-28 in this light, it makes more sense.
God Bless.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Introduction to Christian Heresy
Subordinationism
Any doctrine that subordinates one being of the Trinity to another.
Subordinationism
Any doctrine that subordinates one being of the Trinity to another.
Q
Quisp
Guest
Matt16_18 said:
That’s not what I’m saying.
The exact explanation I have given, I have heard on Catholic Answers as an explanation to John 14:28 -
You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
I’m pretty thick skinned, but I won’t tolerate being called a heretic.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Quisp
I’m pretty thick skinned, but I won’t tolerate being called a heretic.
I didn’t say that you were a heretic, or that you believed in subordinationism.
I only posted the hyperlink so that a person interested in this thread could see that subordinaitonism is an old heresy that has been around for a long time. Once one knows the technical name of a heresy, it isn’t hard to do research on it using the Internet.
The Catholic Church dealt with the heresy of subordinationism a long time ago.
I’m pretty thick skinned, but I won’t tolerate being called a heretic.
I didn’t say that you were a heretic, or that you believed in subordinationism.
I only posted the hyperlink so that a person interested in this thread could see that subordinaitonism is an old heresy that has been around for a long time. Once one knows the technical name of a heresy, it isn’t hard to do research on it using the Internet.
The Catholic Church dealt with the heresy of subordinationism a long time ago.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Quisp
The Son, in His divinity, is not less than the Father. However, the Son, in His humanity, is.
The Catholic Encyclopedia backs you up on this point …
Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: “The Father is greater than I” (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son.
The Blessed Trinity , The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV
Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company
The Son, in His divinity, is not less than the Father. However, the Son, in His humanity, is.
The Catholic Encyclopedia backs you up on this point …
Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: “The Father is greater than I” (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son.
The Blessed Trinity , The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV
Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company
Q
Quisp
Guest
Matt16_18 said:
If you view the topic in thread mode, you will see that your post was in response to mine. That is why I took it the way I did. Certainly, a little more explanation in the post would have avoided the appearance that you meant it for me.
I will say here publicly, that if my views or opinions, now or ever, are shown to be in contradiction to the teachings of The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I will humbly submit to those teachings, as to Christ Himself.
God Bless.
Q
Quisp
Guest
Matt16_18 said:
Thank you. Good Form.
God Bless.
M
marciadietrich
Guest
Matt16_18 said:
Actually for me, subordinationism was a step to accepting and understanding the Trinity. I couldn’t resolve what I thought was scripture that clearly worked against the Trinity, most protestants can’t explain the concept worth a hoot (nor most Catholics), most outside Catholicism don’t treat the Holy Spirit as being a ‘person’ but more a force in their attitudes… so learning of subordination for me was a step in the right direction.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Sorry about that.Certainly, a little more explanation in the post would have avoided the appearance that you meant it for me.
p.s. I just gave you some “rep” points …
- Status