Mark

Frank, please do not think i have just ignored what you have said. As i said in my original post, 1 Cor 11 is not a primary text regarding the Trinity, so the basis of the passage should not be primarily based around it. Thus the reason why i haven’t necessarily gone so much into it here. But since there is so much tension around it now, i will briefly comment and hopefully give some ‘proof’ that others want.

Dave, your little comment about Calvin can be between us. I’m sure the PTC would be appaled at such a statement, although it probably does have an element of truth :). Also i will be at PTC on Monday, got an exam in the morn.

Now about the Trinity. I would first like to say that i believe God is unchanging. Therefore when i attempt to understand the Trinity i believe that the Father has been the Father from the beginning. Likewise with the Son and the Spirit in terms of ‘relations’ between the Three. Therefore whatever Jesus revealed to us about his Sonship in the NT, in my opinion is reflective of his person as the second member, since in terms of essence He cannot change. This has been from beginning to all eternity. Jesus did not become something ‘different’ at His incarnation in regards to His divinity. Hope we all agree upon that!

Jesus is revealed as the Son of God (one of many titles) which reveals his unity with the Father in relation to ‘essence’ (Jn 10:30). However there are passages that refer to Jesus as the ‘Son’ before his incarnation (Rom 1:3-4, Gal 4:4) showing that what Jesus was at the incarnation in relation to his deity, he was before his incarnation. See also Jn 1:1-14 where “Word’ is obvious reference to the Son-Jesus. Note in verse 18 of Jn 1, the Son is refered to as in the ‘bosom of the Father’ which is in the present tense, expressing permanent being- from eternity to eternity (this is precisely what my quote of Calvin was dealing with)
So what ever was His Godness in His incarnation is exactly that which was His Godness before his incarnation.

Therefore the ‘kenosis’ debate of Phil 2 must conclude that Jesus did not lose anything that was divine in His incarnation, he was rather restricted by taking human flesh. So any attempt to use Phil 2 to show that Jesus was different in his Godness in His incarnation should be abandoned as it changes Christs deity, thus changing God.

Combine this with the fact that the Father is not begotten, but the Son is (Jn 1:18, 3:16, 1 Jn 3:9) and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (Jn 14:26, 16:7) aswell as the great eschatological passage of 1 Cor 15:20-28, and we begin to see the unity of the one God, expressed in the distinct subsistence of being. Therefore it is unsatisfactory to simply say that the Father is not the Son and vice verse. The bible teaches far more than simply that.

So Jesus is of one substance with the Father, yet distinct in subsistence. Now i want people to prove from scripture and church history, how a subordination of subsistence leads to inferiority or un-equal in essence. The only ‘evidence’ i have seen for such a claim comes from ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’ that Frank quoted way back which is simply based on opinion, not scripture or history. It is simply an attempt to reject orthodox Trinitarian doctrine to favour an egalitarian interpretation, and thus needs to be challenged and condemned.