<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>co-equal — Christian Debate</title>
        <link>https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/</link>
        <pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2026 23:03:44 +0000</pubDate>
        <language>en</language>
            <description>co-equal — Christian Debate</description>
    <atom:link href="https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussions/tagged/co-equal/feed.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
        <title>&quot;The Father&quot; and &quot;The Son&quot;</title>
        <link>https://christiandiscourse.net/index.php?p=/discussion/666/the-father-and-the-son</link>
        <pubDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2019 03:15:51 +0000</pubDate>
        <category>Apologetics</category>
        <dc:creator>C Mc</dc:creator>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">666@/index.php?p=/discussions</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[<p>Let me say at the outset, in the NT there are no such words as Trinity or trinitarian. There is much about God the Father, about Jesus who is called the Son, and about the Holy Spirit.</p><p>These terms, "<strong>The Father"</strong> and <strong>"The Son",</strong> are used in relations to God. To the chagrin of many, the terms are misunderstood. The terms of “<strong>Father</strong>” and “<strong>Son</strong>” in Western thinking carry with them the <strong>ideas of origin, dependence, and subordination</strong>. In the Semitic or Oriental mind, however, they emphasize sameness of nature. Thus, when the Scriptures speak of the <strong>“Son” of God</strong>, they <strong>assert his divinity</strong>.</p><p>At the baptism of Jesus, the Father called him “my beloved Son.” <strong>The sonship of Jesus</strong>, however, <strong>is </strong>not ontological but <strong>functional</strong>. In the plan of salvation, each member of the Trinity has accepted a particular role. It is a role for the purpose of <strong>accomplishing a particular goal</strong>, not a change in essence or status. Millard J. Erickson explains it this way:</p><div><div><p>"The Son did not become less than the Father during his earthly incarnation, but he did subordinate himself functionally to the Father’s will. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is now subordinated to the ministry of the Son (see John 14-16) as well as to the will of the Father, but this does not imply that he is less than they are".</p></div></div><p>When one looks closely, Daniel 7:13, 14, 26, 27 and 8:14, 23-25 are parallel passages describing the <strong>same event</strong>. </p><ul><li><strong>Daniel 7</strong> speaks of a judgment prior to the establishment of God’s kingdom <em>(Daniel 7:27)</em>. </li><li><strong>Daniel 8 </strong>speaks of the cleansing of the sanctuary, leading to the destruction of the little horn <em>(Daniel 8:25). </em></li><li>The scene in Daniel 7 describes <strong>the seating of the Ancient One</strong> in the heavenly court, the <strong>coming of the Son of Man</strong>, and the <strong>restoration of the Son’s “authority, glory and sovereign powe</strong>r” <em>(Daniel 7:14, NIV). </em></li></ul><p>These are the <strong>powers Christ had in heaven</strong> and the powers Lucifer coveted. Satan would never acknowledge that <strong>Christ is coeternal, coequal, and co-powerful with God the Father</strong>—a point he contested powerfully and lost in the wilderness <em>(</em><strong><em>Matt. 4:1-11)</em></strong><em>.</em></p><h2>Truth found truth shared. CM</h2><h3></h3><h3>SOURCE:</h3><ul><li>Millard J. Erickson, <strong>Christian Theology</strong> (Baker, 1983), 1:338</li></ul><p>PS  Above, may be the answers to some questions you asked of me elsewhere in the forums.</p>]]>
        </description>
    </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
