The Firstborn is not equal to the Father

The Trinity Doctrine declares that Jesus, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, has always been Co-Eternal and Co-Equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Does Co-Equal refer to equal in authority/position or only equal in nature?

If it only means equal in nature, God's nature is "spirit," and so are the angels. Also, the only thing we really know about "spirit nature" is that it's invisible and different from human nature. 

While I agree that Jesus had the divine spirit nature that God has, this doesn't seem to tell us much about Jesus at all.

With all of that said, I agree with Trinitarians that Jesus is absolutely Divine Deity (Colossians 2:9; John 1:1) and He deserves honor to the same degree as God, because He's God's Son. (John 5:23)

But how do these Scriptures agree with the Trinitarian Co-Eternal and Co-Equal claims?

The LORD created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago. (Proverbs 8:22 NET) (Compare the NIRV Translation)

This verse clearly says Wisdom was created by God as the beginning of God's works. Some translations say "produced" instead of "created," but it's the same idea.

A majority of scholars appear to agree that this Wisdom of Proverbs 8 was the source of John 1:1's Logos teaching, in other words, John's Logos is the same as Proverbs' Wisdom.

Unless you want to deny that Wisdom corresponds to the Pre-Human Jesus/Logos, I see no way around the fact that Jesus was created by God.

Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me. (John 6:57 NET)

Jesus here says Christians will live because of Jesus in the same way that Jesus lives because of God the Father. How can Jesus be Co-Eternal if He received His life, and continues to live, because of the Father?

If Jesus is the Almighty Supreme Being, Source of all life, then He would not need the Father to give Him life or keep Him alive, would He?

For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself, (John 5:26 NET)

How could there ever have been a time when the Father had to grant life to the Son, if the Son is Co-Equal and Co-Eternal?

Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36 NET)

If Jesus has always been Co-Equal to the Father, then Jesus was always Lord. How could there ever be a time when the Father had to make Jesus become Lord?

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. (John 5:19 ESV)

How can you be "Co-Equal" with someone if you cannot make a decision on your own, without the approval of another?

Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs. (Hebrews 1:4 NET)

If Jesus has always been Yahweh, together with the Father and the Spirit, how could there ever be a time when Jesus had to wait to inherit the Divine Name?

And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28 NET)

How can Jesus be Co-Equal to God and at the same time, give up His Kingdom to God and subject Himself to God?

but we see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone. (Hebrews 2:9 NET)

How could the Supreme Being be made lower than angels, and even if the Supreme Being could be made lower than angels for a little while, how could He still be Co-Equal to God and lower than angels at the very same time?

You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. (John 14:28 NET)

I understand that the usual Trinitarian argument here is that the Father was greater than Jesus while Jesus was a human on earth, but this still eliminates the claim that Jesus was always Co-Equal to God at all times, because, at this particular time, obviously He was not equal, according to Christ's own words.

What does Co-Equal even mean after looking at these Scripture passages?

who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, (Philippians 2:6 NET)

In his very nature he was God. But he did not think that being equal with God was something he should hold on to. (Philippians 2:6 NIRV)

This passage, in either interpretation, doesn't agree with the traditional Trinity Doctrine's claim that Jesus has always been Co-Equal to God the Father.

If we go with the NET/ESV rendering, it means Jesus either never had equality with God or He gave up His equality with God when He became human.

If we go with the NIRV/NIV rendering, it means Jesus always had the nature of God, but He gave up His equality with God to become a Man.

Neither of these can harmonize with the claim that Jesus has always been Co-Equal to God.

What "equality" did Jesus give up (or never have) in Philippians 2:6?

We can't just ignore this verse to cling to the doctrine that Jesus was always Co-Equal.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15 ESV)

The Greek phrase for "firstborn of all creation," according to what I have researched, is most likely in the "partitive genitive" form, which is a fancy way of saying that the firstborn mentioned must be included as part of the group called "creation" here.

Also, usually in the Bible, the word firstborn refers to the first son born into a family or the first of a new type of thing or experience. There are a few occasions where it may not refer to the chronological first.

There are three ways of interpreting Colossians 1:15:

1: Jesus is the first creature that was ever made by God, thus He is the first being ever born. (Compare Proverbs 8:22)

2: Jesus is the first of the New Creation humans who have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of them. (Compare Romans 8:29)

3: Jesus is the Preeminent or Supreme One of all the creatures God has made.

For in him the whole fullness of deity [divine nature] dwells bodily, (Colossians 2:9 ESV)

I totally agree, the fullness of the divine nature dwells in Jesus.

Colossians 1:19 explains that this fullness dwells in Jesus as a result of a decision made by God the Father:

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, (Colossians 1:19 ESV)

So if God had to choose to place the fullness of divine nature into the Son, then this is not something the Son has eternally possessed.

In addition, God is going to grant some measure of divine nature to Christians too, according to 2 Peter 1:4:

...you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. (2 Peter 1:4 ESV)

Only Jesus has the fullness of the divine nature, by a decision of God the Father.

The Eternal-Begetting of the Son?

Have you ever researched or read about the Doctrine of the Eternal Begetting of the Son?

To me, this is the most illogical, confusing doctrine I've ever seen.

Here is a quote from Church Father Novatian:

"since [the Son] has been generated from the father, he is always in the father. However, I say “always” in this way; not that he is uncaused, but so that I might demonstrate that His existence is caused. But he who is before all time is said to have always been in the Father. For time cannot be attributed to the one who is before time. Truly he is always in the Father, otherwise the Father would not always be a Father.

And yet the Father also precedes him, since it is necessary that he would be first in order to be the Father, because it is necessary that the one who knows no source should come before the one who has a source, so that the Son would be lower, while at the same time he knows himself to be in the Father, since he has a source, because he is generated. And although he has a source because he is generated, in a particular way he is like the Father in his generation through him, since he is generated from the Father, who alone has no source."

This whole doctrine arose based on the Church Fathers' understanding that the Greek word "monogenes" meant "Only-Begotten." However, a majority of Bible scholars now say that this Greek word actually meant "Only, Unique, One-and-Only, One-of-a-Kind" and doesn't mean "begotten."

So, according to a majority of modern Bible scholars, this whole doctrine arose based on a misunderstanding of a Greek word, yet, this doctrine is the foundation of the Trinity Doctrine and was the foundation of the Nicene Creed.

Something is very wrong either way:

a) Either all the Church Fathers were wrong about "Only-Begotten," 

OR 

b) The majority of Bible experts now are wrong

The Church Fathers Couldn't Agree

The Church Fathers couldn't precisely agree. Some appeared to say that the Son is begotten by an eternal act of the Father's will (Colossians 1:19) while others said it was an eternal act of the Father but NOT an act of His will (so something God could not control??)

The Church Fathers also argued for this doctrine because they believed that God the Father always had to eternally be a "father" even before creation. But where does the Bible say this?

Some Church Fathers seemed to have the idea that the Son did come into existence (Proverbs 8:22), but He came into existence outside of time, therefore, in some sense, He is eternal.

However, others said that the act of the Father begetting the Son has always been happening (Hebrews 1:3), for all eternity, because before time began with the universe, there was no time, so any action that takes place without time is ALWAYS happening.

But that seems incredibly illogical. The entire notion that events or actions can even take place without time is nonsensical. It goes against science and it goes against logic.

Plus, a major factor being ignored by this doctrine, is that the Bible teaches that God does experience time progressing, just much more slowly than we do:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (2 Peter 3:8 NIV)

If we apply the very same reasoning that the Church Fathers applied to the eternal begetting of the Son, to the creation of the universe, that means the universe had no beginning either, there was no beginning, in contradiction to Genesis 1:1, because God would always be eternally creating the universe.

In addition, this doctrine says that the Father begets the Son in some kind of "eternal prior" way, but not in a "temporal prior" way.

What??

One more thing, would this mean angels are eternal as well because they were made before the physical universe, and applauded when the world was made? (Job 38:4-7)

And would the act of creating the universe also be eternal, since that act took place before time began at the Big Bang?

The Church Fathers and the early Church Councils seemed to take this extremely, excessively serious, to the point of declaring people heretics for failing to believe this doctrine. The Greek Orthodox Church even broke away from the Catholic Church over an issue related to this doctrine.

If I'm not mistaken, some of the creeds even place curses on Christians for failing to believe this doctrine.

Yet, where is it found in the Bible?

The Case for Free Will

The Importance of Free Will

From an Atheist's Perspective

Each of us assumes free will exists whenever we make a logical argument or an appeal to reason. If free will is an illusion, then so is the freedom to logically form an argument using reason. If you aren't actually choosing to think about the logic of an argument, but instead, you're only following pre-programmed cause-and-effect, there would be no way of ever knowing if anything is real, and you would never even be able to trust the conclusion that free will is an illusion, since that could be an illusion as well.

Coming to the conclusion that free will is an illusion is self-defeating (since, if it were true, we would never know whether it was actually true) and it goes against all the assumptions we make during logical arguments and using the scientific method. This conclusion destroys the very foundation that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

It therefore seems more logical to come to the conclusion which supports the validity and trustworthiness of logical conclusions, which is the existence of free will.

How Can the Subconscious Brain Choose Things WITHOUT Intention?

People who deny the existence of free will usually say that the subconscious brain selects our thoughts for us, then gives the conscious part of our minds the illusion that we used reason and logic to make a rational choice.

But think about this deeply: How can a part of the brain with NO intentionality, NO goal, and NO plan or purpose, choose to prefer truth over lies, or choose "good" morals over "bad" morals? How can this non-intentional part of your mind select what is rational over what is irrational, without any goal?

This leads directly into our next subheading...

Why Trust Your Subconscious?

If your subconscious has no intentionality, no plan, no purpose, and no goal, why would you trust any of your thoughts to be the truth instead of falsehood? Why would you trust any of your morals to be "good" instead of "bad?"

If your subconscious brain is constantly feeding the conscious brain illusions and lies, why would you believe any of your thoughts given to you by your subconscious?

Do We Have TWO Separate Wills in the Brain?

If you want to claim that your subconscious brain does operate according to its own will, with its own intentionality, plans, and goals, then you aren't actually denying free will. Instead, what you are claiming is that your brain has TWO wills, one (the subconscious) which has more control over the other, and the conscious mind doesn't have access to the subconscious mind.

In order for the subconscious brain to have intentionality, it would have to have its own free will, therefore, you still would have free will and intentionality, but somehow this would take place separately from your conscious mind.

So your subconscious has its own plans, and is deceiving your conscious brain so that you don't get in its way.

I think it's much simpler (thus following Occam's Razor) and more logical, to assume that free will actually exists at the conscious level.

From a Biblical Perspective

Despite what many Calvinists and determinists say, the Bible makes it clear that Yahweh highly values and respects the free will that He granted to humans, and He doesn't like to intervene to alter free will, or the course of history, unless certain thresholds are passed first.

God is love, and love is not possible without freedom to choose to express it. Without free will, “love” would just be a robotic action we were pre-programmed to perform. In fact, every action we take would be determined from eternity past, and God would basically be a puppet-master pulling all the strings, or simply watching things unfold exactly how He already decided they would.

The very first human events recorded in the Scriptures are God having humans go through tests so that they could exercise their free will – Adam and Eve on whether they would eat from the Tree, Cain on whether he would kill Abel or not.

God gave the precious gift of free will to His angels also. A beautiful spirit known as Lucifer, a very high-ranking angel, was granted free will. But he used this free will to turn and attack God in an attempt to be worshiped as God himself. Lucifer harmed many of the other angels and humans in his destructive quest. Lucifer is now known as Satan the Devil. (Isaiah 14:9-20; Ezekiel 28:13-18; Luke 10:18)

Without free will, God had to have programmed Lucifer to rebel, and programmed Adam and Eve to sin, thus God would be the direct cause and architect of all of the evil and suffering we see on earth. This is in direct contradiction to what the Bible says at James 1:13. In addition, it would mean God Himself is very illogical and irrational in getting angry with His creation for doing exactly what He programmed them to do. This would not harmonize with the logical minds He gave us. Plus, many other Scriptures declare that God never does anything immoral or evil.

Also, it goes against how we view ourselves and how we view reality and logic, so even without appealing to the Bible, it doesn't make sense. If we assume that our moral values were given to us by God, then it would be illogical for a God who has similar morals as we do, to be the author of evil.

To quote “Truth Magazine” on this topic, “Morality is real only if mankind is free to choose. In a world of fate or determinism, in which all things are predetermined and fixed, mankind has no responsibility.”