The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Phil. 2:9 name above every name

Something many do not consider, but when God says His name is above every name, does that include all the Old Testament names for God? Just something to reflect upon during your time of meditation and worship.

hisalone,

It didn't take long to "reflect" upon your suggestion. And the result was an immediate question to you, "Do you REALLY want to suggest this?" The majority of names for God in the OT are in reference to the TRIUNE God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So, how is it possible for God to exalt the name of Jesus, God incarnate, above His own name? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> Secondly, how can Christ be greater than God Himself if His name is above every name, including God's own name, as you suggest?

Perhaps you should consider and reflect upon this as it directly effects the doctrine of the Trinity. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> I posted that with the expectation your would refute my proposition. In relation to all the names God has named Himself, it is only Jesus/Savior which incorporates ALL His attributes, and yes, even though I did not answer the question in my previous post, I will now definitively answer it. Jesus, name above ALL names, praise His Holy Name!! I say YES and amen.

And it remains refuted. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Methinks you need to do further study not only on the names of God in the OT, especially "Yahweh/Jehovah" but especially on the nature of God. Even Jesus Himself does not exalt Himself above His Father but remains EQUAL with God for nothing nor any One is above Jehovah. It is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus Christ "incorporates ALL His (sic. God's) attributes" in contradistinction to the other two persons of the Godhead. For if that were so, then both the Father and the Holy Spirit would be less than God. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

You are treading on very thin ice here, brother and are in danger of denying one of the fundamental teachings of historic Christianity, the Trinity, as formulated in the three ecumenical creeds; Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedon.

In His grace,

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Pilgrim, you are too much fun. In answer to you asking me to do a study of the names of God in the OT, I likewise will ask you to do a study of all the names of Christ in the New Testament. I did not place Christ over God, I am just stating that His name is a name above all names, what is so difficult in seeing that? The ice remains quite thick here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Please tell me what, in your opinion, the phrase "above every name" means in that passage?

I have already chided you that IF you really hold that the "name of Jesus" equates to Him, Jesus Christ, being the only person of the Trinity that possesses ALL the attributes of God, then this is heretical as it exalts Christ above the other two persons.

Let it be known that I take the doctrine of the Trinity very seriously and it is not to be taken lightly here.

In His grace,

It refers to the name of God, revealing Him in all His majesty.


You continually put words in my mouth, and then you chide me for statements you have made, that is what causes me to <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> and <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> I mean no disrespect nor insult by it, but only as lighthearted discussion. Where did I ever say that it is only Christ who possesses all the attributes? Incorporating all His attribute is meant to say that it is in Christ we see most clearly all God's attributes. God is unchanging, the attributes have always been there, but they have not been revealed to the degree they were in Christ Jesus. ergo, a name above all names.


I also take the doctrine of the Trinity very seriously. Without the Trinity, there is no salvation. However, if you believe in the Trinity and the oneness/equality of God, then for Jesus to have a name above all names does not make the Godhead of the Trinity and less, if it did that, then there is a breakdown in the equality of the Trinity. What name brings the most glory to the Godhead? What name is most descriptive of who He is? Either Christ is God or He isn't, if He is God, then any name attributed to Him is in effect giving the same name to the Trinity, the three in one God.

hisalone,

This is NOT a "light-hearted discussion" due to the sobriety of the topic and your assertions:

Thus, one can only understand your assertion as the "name" is ABOVE all the other "names" of God. "Above" = beyond, higher, more excellent, superior, etc., thus making all other names of God, below, lower, less excellent, inferior, etc.

Secondly, the "names of God" in the OT are representative of God Himself, i.e., His character, being, and attributes. You will find that Jehovah is referred to by the writers of the OT and by God Himself as being all encompassing. That in Christ the Godhead was displayed bodily is a truth. But the name, He Christ, is not "above" the Triune God for He is included in it.

Thirdly, by implication, even explicitly, when you say that the name of Jesus "incorporates ALL His attributes" none of the other names of God does so. Again, I strongly suggest you do a in-depth study of how God has revealed Himself in the OT.

Lastly, at least you are consistent in that when you dream up some novel idea which rarely has been held by others, you seem to want to disregard why that is so. How could it be that perhaps no others among our forefathers who were far more knowledgeable of God and the Scriptures missed these "marvelous" insights which you have discovered? We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us; not apart from them. It is incumbent that we consult the writings of reliable and recognized Christians and compare our views with theirs as there is a consistent history of what the Church has always believed. To dismiss them either in part or in whole is arrogance. I pray you have not done so.

The passage is simply saying that the name of Jesus is above all other names, EXCLUDING God. For God will not share His glory with another. To extol the name of Christ is right indeed, but AS God and not ABOVE God.

If you respond and say that you agree, then perhaps the problem is your failure to articulate your view in such a way that it is not misunderstood. Am I a nitpicker as to words? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> You bet I am as were those who framed the great evangelical Creeds and Confessions of the Church. All manner of errors have crept into the Church due to the allowance of redefined terms, the addition or removal of a word(s), even the substitution of one letter. It is hoped you can appreciate that. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

"Above" = most revealing as mentioned previous post


agreed, as said before, the name Jesus is a more complete revelation of who God is. Not above in the sense of superiority but above in the sense of most revealing of God


We did not know the God who would be willing to be born and die for us, a revelation of God not seen nor even imagined by His other names that I'm aware of.


I have never acted in an arrogant manner. I have responded by continually saying that each must be convinced in their own heart. Arrogance is when the response implies they are right and the opposer is wrong, I never did that as others have to me, so where is my arrogance? Because I look at things differently, does that make me arrogant? Because I see things differently than those from the past, does that mean I'm arrogant? In the same sense, I don't accept something just because of a person's reputation or the number holding to a view, that is foolishness. I bow to the word of God alone. I have only posted to engage thoughts, but it is up to each person to accept or reject what is posted. If this is not wanted, as you are the owner/moderator, I will cease posting new threads, I have no desire to offend nor insult.



Agreed, which you'll see if you undertood my previous post, the name is all encompassing of who God is, so in that sense, it is above all names, not in superiority but in revelation. I thought I articulated that very clearly, but then as I said before, it is like programming, there can not be any anbiguity left in a statement, which is difficult indeed.

Lastly, the lightheartedness was the idea of my speaking to you as a brother in Christ, not as an opponent. I was only sharing thoughts not punches. Can I not be lighthearted? Why must we be so defensive and angry at times? 2 Tim. 2:24-25

What say ye, hisalone?

It does not mean that the Son is subordinate to the Father for they are one.



Besides, the point I was making about Jesus being a better name than all the others was the revelation of God not the position. A good challenge if I were placing the person of Christ over the Godhead but that is not what I have been trying to convey.

Out of curiosity, are there others (either a denomination or theologians that hold to the view of Phil. 2:9 that you do?

Also you said:
To be subordinate to the Father does not take away from the fact that all three members of the Trinity are one.
Matt.26:39 is just one passage that shows this.

I am going to take a shot in the dark about what you said above, mainly because I have heard others say this before.
What I am talking about are people who support the view of the Trinity that the novel 'The Shack' holds to.
Not too long ago I was involved in a debate concerning this issue and one of the things that was said frequently by those who supported the book "The Shack" was the comment you made that I quoted above. They also said that the only people that spoke against the novel were those of Reformed persuasion.

Tom

I certainly have never accused you of having an arrogant "manner", but rather it is arrogance to dismiss all those who are far superior in holiness and/or knowledge and claim that God has revealed to YOU (implied) something which no others have found. What you claim is reminiscent of what Keith Mathison has rightly criticized here: A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of "Solo" Scriptura.

What I wrote before and iterate in part is that we should COMPARE our understanding of Scripture with those who have gone before. There is a "line" of understanding that prevails throughout the history of the Church, as one would expect since there is only one truth; propositional truth due to the fact that Scripture is divinely inspired. (Jude 1:3; Rom 16:17; Eph 4:14; 1Tim 1:3) When we posit something which reputable men have rejected and/or not found before over many centuries, then one should question the verity of themselves, NOT all others . . . that is sheer arrogance.

FYI, Christ is "subordinate" to the Father!; functionally subordinate which even He Himself stated myriad times. He only said and did that which the Father gave Him. This is Christology 101.

In His grace,

It seems everyone is failing to understand what I have been saying. His name is above all names discriptively.


Again, a problem of semantics, His work is subordinate to God the Father not Him. I did not read the Shack.


First, who are you to judge me? Do you know me? are you familiar with my life and my doings? That is arrogance when you are ready to make a judgment without knowledge.

Maybe if the Jews had done some thinking on their own, they might not have missed their Messiah, it was interesting that it was the men from the East who recognized the truth, they weren't pressed into adopting what everyone else is saying, so beware of following the masses, learn to think on your own. Again, I only put forth propositions, It isn't my objective to have anyone agree, that is not my goal.

Secondly, even though I said what I did about holiness, yes, you are right, those who have gone before and those who are present today and those who will come after are far more holy and righteous than I am. I am but a carcass of a rotting filthy being who apart from the Son and His grace would have continued to curse my God, I am filth not worthy of the least of any mercy. Because of that, you may call me anything you want and accuse me of any charge, for I am far worse than anything any man or person can call or accuse me of.

Something to think about, on all those things you stand so firm on, such as the mode of Baptism, the Sons of God being the line of Seth, His name above all names etc, would you be willing to bet your soul on your being right without any possible chance of error?

Ya know, I'm not sure what it is but there is something terribly wrong with language like this. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scared.gif" alt="" />


William


*bold print mine*