Cobalt-70 Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 Thanks for the grammar lesson.Yes, in my family I am THE father of my son and THE son of my father. Not sure how it works in your family. That is called the "definite article"- and I didn't even have to look it up. I speak English quite well now, thanks.I don't doubt that you speak English. I just don't think you are reading the text closely enough. In the same sentence that says that God is both "the Father" and "the Son," Mosiah 15:2 says that the "God" who "shall come down" is subjected to "the will of the Father" (who in all other scriptural contexts refers to the Father of Jesus). Thus, the God who "came down" both is "the Father" and was subjected to the will of "the Father." There is no signal in that sentence to indicate that the meaning of "the Father" has shifted from the first instance to the second.
mfbukowski Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 I don't doubt that you speak English. I just don't think you are reading the text closely enough. In the same sentence that says that God is both "the Father" and "the Son," Mosiah 15:2 says that the "God" who "shall come down" is subjected to "the will of the Father" (who in all other scriptural contexts refers to the Father of Jesus). Thus, the God who "came down" both is "the Father" and was subjected to the will of "the Father." There is no signal in that sentence to indicate that the meaning of "the Father" has shifted from the first instance to the second.You seem to be ignoring verse 3 3 The Father, abecause he was bconceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—He is clearly talking about one person who is both Father and Son who is playing two roles at the same time. One person is both the Father and the Son.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 You seem to be ignoring verse 3He is clearly talking about one person who is both Father and Son who is playing two roles at the same time. One person is both the Father and the Son.All verse 3 indicates is that "the Son" and "the Father" are the same person, and it seems that we both agree on that point. But verse 2 indicates that "the Father" is the one to whose will the Son (i.e., the flesh) submitted. Thus, "the Father" in verse 2 is not Jesus.
wenglund Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 All verse 3 indicates is that "the Son" and "the Father" are the same person, and it seems that we both agree on that point. But verse 2 indicates that "the Father" is the one to whose will the Son (i.e., the flesh) submitted. Thus, "the Father" in verse 2 is not Jesus.The phrase "conceived by the power of God" in verse 3 also implies someone other than the person who is referred to as both "the Father" and "the Son." One can only view the passage in question as modalism by ignoring these key implications.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Cobalt-70 Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 The phrase "conceived by the power of God" in verse 3 also implies someone other than the person who is referred to as both "the Father" and "the Son." One can only view the passage in question as modalism by ignoring these key implications.There are three names referred to in this passage: "God," "the Father," and "the Son." God comprises the Father and the Son, both of whom together are "the very Eternal Father." There is no implication that "God" is a separate person from the Father or the Son. In fact, the passage says the exact opposite.
Recommended Posts