- This topic is empty.
- Posts
This discussion will start with a post from myself, followed by a post from Isaiah. After Isaiah has made his post, other members are free to give feedback on this scripture or the arguments made by myself or Isaiah.
Isaiah can PM me when he is ready to post his rebuttal.
Thanks.
To prove that the Trinity Doctrine is the invention of man and not from scripture, I give 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 as a proof text.
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
This piece of text is very interesting because it reveals God’s plan and will. This plan shows us the following:
- At the end of this age, Jesus hands over the Kingdom to God the Father.
- Before the end, Christ rules until all enemies are under his feet.
- God puts all under Christ’s feet. All except God (as you would expect).
- In the end, the son will be subject to God the Father, so that God can dwell in all.
The first point I want to talk about is the truth that all is/will be under Christ except God.
So from this text at least, we have a clear explanation as to redemptive plan of God through Christ and in explaining this, it actually says that all will be under his feet except God. So to take the great authority that Christ has to mean that he is God, is obviously incorrect when we read and understand 1 Corinthians 24-28.
The first century was a very different time to now and we should be careful to view their time through todays paradigm. For example, they didn’t have a Trinity doctrine back then and never used the word Trinity in scripture. The absence of such a teaching and usage in the bible is evident because the Trinity doctrine came into existence hundreds of years later.
This is why 1 Corinthians can clearly say that Jesus isn’t God with no hesitation. It doesn’t say that Jesus isn’t God in defense of those who say that he is, it simply says it innocently within a different context because saying that he was actually part of a Trinity God wasn’t an issue in that time.
“Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.”
This particular verse points out that God himself put everything under Christ and God is identified earlier in verse 24 as the Father.
Now in these times and in times past the world is and has been drunk on the wine of Babylon and given this influence, I doubt that any Trinitarian in any century could write 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 from his own theology because he would have to write about God as being the Father and not the son.
A Trinitarian who wanted to convey the meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:27 and keep his theology intact would most likely say something like:
“….it is clear that this doesn’t include God the Father who put everything under God the son”.Even then, a Trinitarian probably wouldn’t write such a text because it would infringe on his version of co-equal.
But sadly for Trinitarians but joyfully for the truth, it says “…it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.”.
God and Christ are 2 different identities in these verses, that is clear. It is also clear that God is identified as the Father and when read as such, the text makes perfect sense as you find with hundreds of other scriptures.
If Paul believed in the Trinitarian doctrine as Trinitarians must claim, then Paul must have had a lapse in memory that day, for he clearly talks of God and Christ as two. In fact Paul must have had a very bad memory problem, because he neglected to mention or teach the Trinity in any of his letters. If the Trinity Doctrine was true and a foundational truth that many claim, then we could also say that Paul was quite neglectful for not including it in his writings.
So perhaps it is possible that the Trinity Doctrine wasn’t something that Paul taught or believed at all. Perhaps that doctrine gained prominence when Athanasus and the Emperor Constantine did their works after the time of Paul.
Perhaps it is also possible that Paul knew what he was talking about when he said:
2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
&
Acts 20:29
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.1 Corinthians 15:24-28
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.This proof text is, I think, excellent evidence against modalism but could not be considered a solid refutation of the trinity doctrine. Here is why:1. Although two persons are mentioned in the text (“God the Father” and “Christ”) there is no mention of, or allusion to, their respective ontologies.2. Although one (Christ) is clearly portrayed in a position of submission to the other (God the Father), this is perfectly compatible with trinitarian dogma.
So again we have a proof text that has been porported to debunk the trinity doctrine but falls well short of the mark. Okay, I guess I should expand on both of these points:-
In expansion of point #1 I’ll write this:
Let’s be clear about this, the requisite evidence to disprove trinitarianism must strike at the foundation of what they believe, which, in a nut shell, is this:
YHWH is plurality within ontological unity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct personages, each sharing the substance/essence/nature that makes God God.
Is there anything in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 text that challenged this statement? If so, I don’t recognise it. Yes, Paul certainly makes a distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, which does appear to invalidate the modalist’s concept that the Father and Son are merely modes/manifestations of the same One divine personage, but it is not legitimate proof against the doctrine of the trinity. And let’s remember this, we are explicitly told in Phil. 2:6 that the Logos existed (perpetually) in the form (nature) of God, in John 1:1c that the Logos “was God”, and in Heb 1:3 that the Son’s essence/substance (Gr. “hypostasis”) is an exact representation of the Father’s, so on what grounds could it possibly be argued that His very being was inferior? It can’t.
So what of Paul’s use of the appellatives “God” (Gr. theos) to designate the Father and “Christ” (or “Son” in some MSS – e.g. textus receptus) to designate Yeshua? Well a cursory examination of Paul’s writings will reveal that usually “theos” is used by him in reference to the Father (but sometimes the Son) and “kurios” is usually used in reference to Yehsua (but also the Father). Other authors, like Luke for instance, also showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of the term “kurios” relative to Jesus and the Father. Both theos and kurios are appropriate designations to identify the Most High God, YHWH, in scripture so it’s seems a perfectly legitimate literary mechanism to assign different terms (which both denote deity) to each person when both are in view. This would serve to distinguish the two individual persons of the Father and Son without invoking modalistic thought (as would occur if either theos or kurios was used for each) but without delineating them ontologically. So Paul’s ascription of theos to the Father in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 passage and “Christos” to Yeshua is not telling us that Yeshua is not “God” (which would be in direct contradiction to his explicit affirmation in Titus 2:13), it’s simply Paul’s way of distinguishing the persons of the Father and Son in the text. Nothing more.
In expansion of point #2 I’ll write this:
As I previously mentioned in the last proof text I responded to Yeshua is a man, born of woman and born under the law (Gal. 4:4). As a man subject to the law he MUST assume the role of subservient to the Father, His God. Had He not been subservient to His Father in accordance with the Law He would not have been the sinless Lamb of God, the sacrifice was meaningless and the sin dilemma remains in effect for mankind. So the submission demonstrated in NT scripture is a function of the incarnation (when deity put on humanity), not a comment of His intrinsic nature relative to His Father’s. Is this a valid refutation of the doctrine? No. Trinitarians, as far I can tell, affirm the humanity of Christ. The line of authority elucidated in 1 Cor 15:27-28 is a natural consequence of His incarnation, when he “became flesh” (John 1:14) it was to be forever….
Just in closing, it’s interesting to compare verse 28 with a passage that Paul penned in his letter to the Colossians (Col. 3:11)
When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)
cf.
a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11, cf. Eph. 1:23)
The grammar that was used of “God” in 1 Corinthians was also used of “Christ” in Colossians. I really like what C. H. Spurgeon wrote about this verse – “for Christ is not almost all, but all in all.” (source). Indeed Christ is all. Amen to that.
At this stage, Isaiah has given his rebuttal post. So any member is free to comment and post from now on and feedback is appreciated in that it can give accountability.
Please try to stick to the subject which is about 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. The subject also includes any defense or teaching that t8 or Isaiah has given from this text.
Thanks
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 18 2007,16:04) Paul certainly makes a distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son
Actually, the distinction is with God and Jesus.That is the part that shows that Paul wasn't a Trinitarian. He obviously uses the word “God”, not in a Trinitarian sense, but to describe the Father exclusively.
See hundreds of other verses that do the same thing.
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htmIs 1:18
Quote Just in closing, it’s interesting to compare verse 28 with a passage that Paul penned in his letter to the Colossians (Col. 3:11) When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)
cf.
a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11, cf. Eph. 1:23)
The grammar that was used of “God” in 1 Corinthians was also used of “Christ” in Colossians. I really like what C. H. Spurgeon wrote about this verse – “for Christ is not almost all, but all in all.” (source). Indeed Christ is all. Amen to that.
A very good point Isaiha!
Re. t8's “proof texts”
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.These verses and others have been utilized historically by heretics such as the Arians (of whom Jehovah's Witnesses are a revival), to try to “prove” that Jesus is lesser than the Father and therefore not God in the flesh.
Upon closer inspection, however, a clearer picture emerges.
See the following.Phi 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phi 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.Christ subjected Himself to the Father in order to undertake His role as the Incarnate Son and Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5).
Similarly, one might say that “the President of the United States is a greater man than I am,” but this would not mean he was necessarily a better man. In any event, he is still a man like us.
Since Jesus is still God, even while “humbling” Himself (Phil 2:8), Scripture also indicates that the Father is, in a sense, “subject” to the Son:
JOHN 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew {it} unto you.
JOHN 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give {it} you.When the Father is called the “head” of the Son (1 Cor 11:3), this also does not entail any lessening of the equality between the Son and the Father. The Bible also talks about wives being subject to their husbands (1 Pet 3:1,5), even while the two are equals (Gal 3:28, Eph 5:21-22), and indeed, “one flesh” (Mt 19:5-6). Likewise, one Person of the Godhead can be in subjection to another Person and remain God in essence and substance (Phil 2:6-8).
Likewise, in 1 Cor 15:28, the subjection spoken of is that of the Son as incarnate, not the Son as Son in essence. While this verse tells us that God will be “all in all,”
Colossians 3:11 tells us that “. . . Christ {is} all, and in all.”
Thus, Jesus' office as Messiah and Mediator will cease in time, but not His Godhood, since Scripture teaches that He will be “all in all” just as His Father is.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Hi Is 1.18
You quote
“When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)AND
“a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11, cf. Eph. 1:23)”
Why does it surprise you that those who are in Christ are in his God?
God is in Christ and in us.[2Cor5. Eph3]That is the whole aim of the gospel to unite us in our Lord who is already in his God.
But that does not make him our God any more than it makes us God.
If it makes them the same then we are God!Quote (Cult Buster @ April 20 2007,10:19) A very good point Isaiha!
Says CultB who completely ignores the fact that Paul made a clear distinction between God and his son.Hello!
I'll say it again, you CultB and also Is 1:18 and WorshippingJesus are conveniently ignoring the fact that 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 speaks of God and his son as two different persons/identities.
Can you see that? If you are willing to see it, you might catch yourself out and see how you are conveniently ignoring the truth. Turn a blind eye if you want, but I am sure that the truth will gnaw away at your conscience no matter how much you ignore the fact that God and his son are 2. I don't recommend ignorance however.
Ignorance is not bliss as some might think.
Quote (t8 @ April 19 2007,16:54) Quote (Cult Buster @ April 20 2007,10:19) A very good point Isaiha!
Says CultB who completely ignores the fact that Paul made a clear distinction between God and his son.Hello!
I'll say it again, you CultB and also Is 1:18 and WorshippingJesus are conveniently ignoring the fact that 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 speaks of God and his son as two different persons/identities.
Can you see that? If you are willing to see it, you might catch yourself out and see how you are conveniently ignoring the truth. Turn a blind eye if you want, but I am sure that the truth will gnaw away at your conscience no matter how much you ignore the fact that God and his son are 2. I don't recommend ignorance however.
Ignorance is not bliss as some might think.
t8No you are ignoring the truth.
They are two different persons not beings.
Over 500 Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic scholars screams out at you who has no credibility in translation…
Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the *Word was God*.Quote (t8 @ April 19 2007,16:54) Quote (Cult Buster @ April 20 2007,10:19) A very good point Isaiha!
Says CultB who completely ignores the fact that Paul made a clear distinction between God and his son.Hello!
I'll say it again, you CultB and also Is 1:18 and WorshippingJesus are conveniently ignoring the fact that 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 speaks of God and his son as two different persons/identities.
Can you see that? If you are willing to see it, you might catch yourself out and see how you are conveniently ignoring the truth. Turn a blind eye if you want, but I am sure that the truth will gnaw away at your conscience no matter how much you ignore the fact that God and his son are 2. I don't recommend ignorance however.
Ignorance is not bliss as some might think.
t8Paul also made a distintion between the Father and the Son here…
1 Cor 8:
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, “the Father”, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one “Lord Jesus Christ”, by whom are all things, and we by him.The distorted view of this scripture is obviously the foundational scripture for all Arians.
Even though there is no implication here that Paul is apposed to the deity of Christ.
So, you think by this scripture that there is “only one God, the Father”, therefore Jesus is not God.
But lets apply that logic to the whole verse, “there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ” therefore God is not Lord.This conclusion is ludicrous, since we know that God is Lord, so your invalid inference applied to this verse is evident.
Now lets look at the context…
Corinth was at this time a pagan city. Paganism and polytheism was the order of the day. But the Apostle Paul does an amazing thing in these verses. First he states in vrs 4…
“That there is none other God but one.” Somehow, those on this sight seem to always leave this one out!
Them in vrs 5 Paul speaks of “gods many and lords many”. Then emphatically declares “to US there is but one God”.
Then in vrs 6 without hesitation Paul glossed over “God” with the Father, and “Lord” (Kurios) with Jesus Christ, and then in the same breath ascribes a God like attribute to each…
“God” is the Father, “from whom are all things and we to him,” and the “Lord” is Jesus, “through whom are all things and we through him.”
If Paul was defending Unitarianism here against the polytheistic views of the Corinthians who believed in many gods and lords, he wouldn’t have mentioned Jesus as “Kurios” in the same breath, and ascribing a God like attribute to him, “through whom are all things and we through him.” .
Unless of course he knew and believed that Jesus the Word/God is Divinely and Uniqually ONE with the Father
Paul as a true Monothiest who called himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews knew that Jesus was God in the flesh.
Hi Tim2,
If they are never two why are BOTH mentioned in the verse?
Of course it makes God not a Father and the Son not a son.Nick,
You don't listen to the words of our Lord? You will call Him and the Father 2, in spite of His explicit declaration that they are one?
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Not one and the same Tim.
Two in UNITY.
As you say like husband and wife are not one in essence but become as one in God's eyes.Hi Tim2,
Scripture agrees with your idea of comparing the UNITY between God and His son apart from the flesh aspect.Matthew 19:6
“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”Two persons became as eternally one.
Not two that always were one and the same except both are human.
But from the beginning of their UNITY they are seen as one forever and so God hates divorce.Right Nick,
Humans need time to become one. So does God need time? Was He divided, and then united? Come on.
Tim
Nick.
It is you who forget that the Son is God.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
By the way, the above verse identifies the existence of two Persons within the Godhead, thus blowing your Arian doctrine out of the water.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
