Is Nicene Christology Biblical? (Holding v. Godisoneperson) commentary

[dizzle]

Okay this thread is for commentary on the debate between Holding and Godisoneperson on Nicene Christology located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=50145#post50145

Bottles are prohibited, face paint is encouraged.

Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

[AVmetro]

One would imagine that JPH has worked through quite a few objections to his article from his 'Holy Trinity!' debate. Of course that involved an x-delphian who denied the preex of Christ as well as His divine nature (both 'G' and 'g'), so perhaps we'll see something new. This will certainly be good nonetheless.

:bonk:

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** i note in passing that G1 said--

With all due respect, I think it is arguable whether the Nicene Creed teaches that the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father. Nevertheless, I would be glad to review any evidence that contravenes my current understanding of the Creed. Furthermore, it is not at all clear that “Trinitarianism” agrees Christ is subordinate in function either. This issue still seems to be debated quite fervently in both Catholic and Protestant circles. Most importantly, though, the Catholic and Reformation Creeds do not appear to posit functional or ontological subordination for the Son in relation to the Father.

**7** --this after he declined debating me on precisely this issue, stating that he didn't see my articulation of the Trinity as being definitely at odds with the Church's understanding thereof. since he already made this concession, i think that he simply has to allow J.P.'s use of a Trintarian template wherein the Son is functionally subordinate--he can't raise any substantial objections (such as the above--which, though it concedes that functional subordination is merely "arguable", not stating definitely that it is "out of bounds"--should not be pursued any further in the context of the present debate with Holding).
if G1 wishes to argue this point, i'm all his when i get back after Easter; if G1 further uses this objection against Holding in the present debate, then i will re-issue the challenge when i return.
peace.

[dizzle]

Now that the debate is over, the participants are free to post in this commentary thread.