Mark

“But what you have missed is that the humanity of Jesus cannot be used to teach what He is in the Trinity. You must go to the OT to see the full complete Deity of Christ without His humanity.”

Is this an oxymoron. Isn’t Jesus deity his ‘Godness’ and his ‘humanness’. How can you see the ‘full complete deity of Christ’ in the Old Testament- his deity didn’t exist yet! Have i explained what i am trying to say 🙂 !!!!

Are you talking about seeing the character of Jesus in the OT before his incarnation, so seeing the full ‘God’ side of his character before his incarnation. And that his incarnation only represented his human side?

Hi pinklight,

I’m abit lost at what your meaning or implying. Perhaps you could explain for me. thanks

thanks for the clarification of the ‘source’, but im still not convinced if i am going to be honest. The implication is that Jesus is just some emination from God and not equally God. But i’m sure it is just another example of trying to understand each others ‘terminology’, becasue i know you clearly teach that Jesus IS equally God.

I’m not sure why you have come to the conclusion that there is only one will in the Godhead-where is your scriptural basis for this. I don’t believe it is right to seperate Jesus deity at any points, for the point of salvation is that God himself comes to earth to die the perfect substitutionary death in our place. If it was purely Jesus human side at the cross then his death is ineffective. Who was tempted in the desert- Jesus man or Jesus God.

How do you understand the passages where Jesus claims that authority has been ‘given’ to Him

My point wasn’t to claim that God was unable to reveal things because of human authors- and no you didn’t offend me :), but that there is no complete triune revelation of God until Jesus came. I agree that the hebrew authors didn’t know alot of what they wrote specifically in alot of instances, but to imply that a complete revelation of the character of God was revealed in the OT i think is wrong. After all the New Covenant is a re-interpretation of the old in alot of ways. The New Covenant, i.e Jesus death and resurrection is the complete revelation of God in his redemptive plan. Therefore i don’t agree that we can have a complete understanding of the Trinity purely from the OT (if this is what you are imlying?)

Thankyou Cheryl for both the response and the gracious nature you have-praise God.

I would argue that that the scriptures reveal both unity and functions-that is the precise nature of the Trinity, 3 persons but all equally God. I will tackle your questions one by one that way i don’t write a massive blog.

Creation- all three were clearly present. ‘God said’, ‘the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters’. John 1, tells us that Jesus was the instrument used to make the world. Therefore the Father spoke, Jesus did it, and the Spirit hovered over the waters.

Saviour- Jesus functioned as saviour. John 17 shows the relationship between Father and Son and clearly the Father sent the son. Part verses 1-4 shows how it was Jesus who redeemed humanity. We cannot say that the Father was the one who died on the cross.

Resurrection- this is a good one, i have never really considered it to be honest, but we must clearly state that it obviously wasn’t the person of Jesus who did the raising. If we try and seperate Jesus deity at this point i think we may be wrong. For it was necessary for the Son of God to endure the wrath of God not merely his ‘human’ side. Besides once resurrected ‘the christ’ didn’t then re-unite with the human Jesus. I’d be interested in your take on this?

Could you point out to me your scriptural basis for all memebers of the Trinity working together in ‘everything’ It was the Father who sent, the Son who saved and the Spirit who sanctifies. I feel the bible clearly teaches this.

Hi all

I am a comp, but am probably more at the egal end of the spectrum of the comp position. What astonishes me is this. This blog has GREAT intentions of expressing the differences in the two positions. However, it seems from comments i have read throughout this and other posts, it is merely a place to to slander great theologians under the supposed banner of Christ. Sure Grudem and Piper have a different exegetical perspective on many passages, but i do not fell it is helpful to the topic nor Christlike merely to find a place where ‘egals’ can conjugate to slander the ‘enemy’.
In my experience comps have tended to raise these issues in order to Glorify God, and unfortunately most egals i encounter merely point to how stupid comps are. Now im sure not all who read this fit this description, but perhaps it might good to keep in mind that this is how you as ‘egals’ are coming across in dialogues like this one. I hope we can all work together, to actually be united in Christ to glorify His name, not our own (both sides implied here)

I would like to suggest that it is not very ‘Christlike’ to always be slagging a brother in Christ even though Grudem has a different opinion to people. I was glad to hear Cheryl that you had an open debate with mutual respect-how did it go?

The evidence to suggest that Paul is quoting a Corinthian standard is very very limited. The information for it is far to detailed for this blog but if any are interested i would like you to an article written by Don Carson, who deals with the questions graciously and honestly i believe.
http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw/silent_in_churches.pdf
Please don’t be put off by the fact it is on the CBMW site.

I don’t think your useof Psalm 68 is good biblical exegesis. What is you understanding that this is referencing a command that women can preach in the churches or even connected to the theme of 1 Corinthians.

Throughout the rest of the NT, hypotasso IS the Greek word used to express submission to an authority. So i guess the question is, is hypotasso used here in the same context or is it used to suggest a different meaning. In the weight of purely biblical evidence it points to an ‘authority over’ use.

I’m not sure Cheryl, whether comps would claim that men don’t have to be submissive in character. Just simply that women are not authoritative over men, nor co-equal in the egal sense.

Also the use of ‘allelous’ or ‘one another’ is an ambiguous word which has SEVERAL meanings depending on context. It is not always used in a reciprocal sense throughout the NT. So to translate ‘one another’ is one possible meaning.

Perhaps i can have a crack at the ‘Trinity’- it is a very difficult doctrine none the less.

Father, Son and Spirit are all equally God but perform different functions. The Son is of the same ‘substance’ of the Father, but also subordinate to Him. The problem is people think ‘subordinate’ means ‘lesser being’, which is not true because we know that Jesus and the Father are one in substance. Jesus did indeed humble himself to be led like a lamb to be slaughtered because the Father ‘sent’ Him, although he was obedient because he is equally God. On the night before he was crucified, Jesus was pained with anguish because of what was before him, then he prayed (Mt 26:39) not my will but yours. Jesus was subordinate to the Fathers will, but was obedient because he was part of the Triune God. Likewise the Father and the Son ‘sent’ the Spirit at Pentecost. This is the traditional, orthodox view of the Trinity expressed throughout Church history.

The OT is a more difficult question obviously because the revelation of God the Son had not come in salvation history. When understanding the doctrine of the Trinity the bible as a whole must be envisaged. The primary theology for the Trinity is in the NT. It is clear to see the Trinity in the OT, but i think it is probably impossible to show His subordiantion there because the Jewish writers would not have had a full understanding of the Triune God.(feel free to show me wrong) Indeed it even took several hundred years AFTER Chirst for this doctrine to be understood.

Perhaps someone could outline how the Father is the ‘source’ of the son more clearly.

I’m coming in late to this discussion, but it seems to me what Paul was saying to wives and to husbands was “Be submissive to one another out of reverence for Christ,” and that this MUTUAL submission out of reverence for Christ is what we have been called to witness in our marriages. What Paul was saying was not about the husband’s Lordship at all, but about how Christian’s live out what Jesus did on the night he was betrayed–he wrapped a towel around his waist and washed his disciples’ feet. He said, what I have done, you also must do, and we have to do the same if we are to follow his example. We have so much trouble doing it with the feet of aspouse though. Paul goes on to specify the types of submission, that of the wife AND husband, and starting with that wives should be submissive to husbands as to the Lord. But he is saying, be a servant to your husbands as you would to be to the Lord. This is kind of a no-brainer though: I remember that as Christians we are called to see him in everyone; we are always supposed to regard others and serve others as though they were the Lord, and a wife should do for her husband what she does for everyone. But the call Paul gives to husbands is even more astounding, and even more threatening and austere and forceful — love your wives as Christ loved the Church. And then Paul goes on to recall the crucifixion of Christ, how he gave himself: WOW! He totally gave himself for her, and Paul is specifically saying that THIS total giving, THIS dying of self and accepting poverty and embracing the cross for the sake of another is what a TRUE husband does. Where are these true husbands as evangelical Christians discuss real submission? Do they slap around their wives? Are they abusive? Are these servants willing to die for their wives or put their wives over their own needs? What Piper is doing is ignoring scripture when he focuses on a wife’s submission, and he puts it ina totally worldly context, one that focuses on an insititional power-sturcture, as if that was what God or Paul intended. It was not.
What we have is an emphasis on the POWER of a husband over his wife–the opposite of the order, the new order of life in Christ, that Paul is preaching. In Christ, we have all, husbands and wives, become slaves of one another and of a love that now pervades the universe. What Christians have done with Paul’s word is atrocious to me for just this reason. We appear to have taken one line out of Ephesians and divorced it from the rest of the passage, and the rest of what Paul taught in his other letters about putting other people ahead of ourselves out of reverence for Christ. Christian husbands who demand their wives submit to them based on this scripture are absolute morons for all of these reasons: they bring a total ignorance of scripture to bear in making this demand.

I wish someone would expound upon the scriptures here. In particular, I would like to understand people’s perspective on 1 Timothy 2:12-14 and the reasoning Paul gives.