dogmadekate

“And that is why they are so adamant that Christ was always Christ and always secondary to the Father, even though the Bible says that The Word’s subjection has to do with the incarnation. ”

This is why I find it so strange that there is even an argument out there about this. It seems to me, that those who believe that Jesus was subject to the Father for eternity and not just as the result of the incarnation have not read Phillipians 2:5-7.
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

He made HIMSELF nothing in the form of the incarnation, it was the choice of Jesus to take on the incarnation it was the choice of Jesus to take on a human form. Clearly Jesus had as much say in the matter as the Father (considering how they are ONE that seems pretty understandable). And then it goes on to clearly say that being IN HUMAN FORM He is humbled to the point of obedience to the Father. It’s right there. IN HUMAN FORM. Clearly the obedience came upon the taking of the human form.

Now, as I’ve said before, I’m no theologian or anything and I suppose I could be misinterpreting what seems to be a pretty straightforeward passage but I just don’t see how the argument that Jesus was subject to the Father even before and after the incarnation is even supposed to work considering the Oneness of the Trinity and I certainly don’t see it supported Biblically.