For my theology pals, I recently asked a question to other members of a theology forum if they cold please explain the following verse for me: 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (NRSV) 27 For “God[a] has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all. I got several replies but I loved this one the most.. Maybe you could explain to me what this theologian, Cameron Porter, form British Columbia offered.. :) I reckon it is legitimate to affirm a correspondence between the internal several peculiar relative properties and personal relations and the external manifestations of God in creation, providence, and redemption. Some have stated the distinction between the two, and upheld the connectivity of the two, by employing the terms ontological and economic (as I am sure you already know) - the former pertaining to the relations of the three subsistences in the divine being, the latter pertaining to the outward works of the Triune God (in this case, the roles taken by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the redemption of the elect). The economic Trinity (I am paraphrasing Bavinck) does mirror the ontological Trinity. If we look at the Acts 2 account, for example, I think we can with propriety note a connection or relation between spiration/procession and the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentacost. There must be, however, an important control to our understanding of this (we probably should *not* say, just to confuse things, the ontological Trinity mirrors the economic Trinity). We are not to arrive at ontological conclusions by the consideration and/or summation of economic premises. For example, and related to the verse quoted in the OP, we should not read of and consider the Sons messianic undertaking - His role as mediator - and then draw the conclusion that the Son is ontologically subject to the Father. Incarnation Christology should not inform our Pre-Incarnation Christology, just as that which is proper to one nature in the person of Christ ought not to inform our understanding of that which is proper to the other. Jesus wept therefore God weeps would be one example of how not to do Christology/Theology Proper. You got it? Dont forget it! :)
Posted on: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 00:40:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015