 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2004 3:30 PM (GMT -6) |   | The previous Trinity post kind of fizzled out. And rather than getting bogged down in the mysterious nature of the 3 vs. 1 debate, I want to address what I think is a mistaken exegesis of Colossians 2:9 by certain theologians. The verse says,
Col. 2:9 "For in Him (Christ) dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Some theologians (most?) see this verse as proving that Christ was "fully" God during his incarnation. For example, John Sanders says,
"Finally, it could be said that Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism: the Logos became flesh and blood and tabernacled among us (Jn 1:14); the person who has witnessed Jesus has seen the Father (Jn. 14:9); Jesus is the exact representation of the divine nature (Heb. 1:3) in whom deity dwelled in bodily form (Col 1:15-20; 2:9);..."
Here Sanders seems to be saying, in agreement with others, that the fullness of the godhead (deity) dwelled in Christ DURING the incarnation - proving that Christ has always had the fulness of the Godhead - bodily or otherwise. But when Phillipians 2:5-11 is compared to Colossians 1:18-19 (as well as others verses) another picture seems to emerge:
Phil. 2:5-11 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation (literally, emptied Himself), and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Col. 1:18-19 "And He is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell."
Putting these two verses together, it seems more logical to conclude that Christ obtained the fulness of the Godhead after he was ascended to the Father's right hand - that the incarnation was an emptying of that equality with God he had previously had.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/24/2004 10:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
The kenosis of the Son of God involved a self-limitation of his divine attributes, not an abdication of his essential deity. (John 1:1 & 1:14). Php 2 refers to Christ's voluntary limitation of his divine prerogatives /attributes (omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence). The Word that had been with God from all eternity simply could not exercise all those attributes and at the same time be in a human body.
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/25/2004 1:20 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/25/2004 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear jefscot.
Sorry, I have a few specific and hopefully helpful things to add; but my computer is due for a complete "clean" system install, cable hookup, and wireless lobotomy.
Pray for my dear friend DELL!
I owe you better.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/25/2004 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
I want to address what I think is a mistaken exegesis of Colossians 2:9 by certain theologians. The verse says, "For in Him (Christ) dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. 2:9)
Some theologians...Sanders...see this verse as proving that Christ was "fully" God during his incarnation.
". . .Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism: the Logos became flesh and blood and tabernacled among us (Jn 1:14); the person who has witnessed Jesus has seen the Father (Jn. 14:9); Jesus is the exact representation of the divine nature (Heb. 1:3) in whom deity dwelled in bodily form (Col 1:15-20; 2:9);..."
I wish to throw in this 'tangental' observation: that when someone saw Jesus they may or may not have had "eyes to see" God. This tells us something about humanity before and after the fall, and something about the enlightenment of the Spirit. (God is light, but men "preferred to walk in darkness...") But some cried out "My Lord and my God." To those was revealed by the Spirit, Christ said.
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Here Sanders seems to be saying, in agreement with others, that the fullness of the godhead (deity) dwelled in Christ DURING the incarnation - proving that Christ has always had the fulness of the Godhead - bodily or otherwise.
True. But what you are going to begin examining below, while it seems misunderstood--and is--does point out that *something* must be noticed. What is not always "full" is the Son's status as "Christ." THAT seems to be regarded by EO writers as progressively growing right up to and through the Cross. Plainly true too. "During his whole life" (the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism says) "but especially on the Cross, Christ..." There Reformed and Eastern Orthodox are on the same page. the aspect of being "Christ" was not virtual reality... not just a matter of being appointed... it COST. Messiah/Christ was an un-lordly thing to do. Ruler become expedient sacrifice. It is shameful! As Christ, in that aspect of Christ, Jesus the theanthropos grows in the full reality of that role. Purposed to it before the foundation of the world, and in one will with the Father; yet he suffered...
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
. . .But when Phillipians 2:5-11 is compared to Colossians 1:18-19 (as well as others verses) another picture seems to emerge:
Phil. 2:5-11 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation (literally, emptied Himself), and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Christ "did not consider equality with God something that needed grasping." (It was his by right--in God's form.) YET, "took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men..." And "he humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death." This is a willing act. Humbling...obedient. He HAD the power to do otherwise! John Earp liked the way "voluntary limitation of his divine prerogatives/attributes" expressed it. AS GOD, the Son CONTINUED to make the sun come up in the morning -- even while it was coldest in his bed immediately before hand. The Creator/Word held the hemoglobin molecules together while he bled from his fingers from carpentry and masonry lessons. He was ignorant, and learned, and identified with us fully.
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Col. 1:18-19 "And He is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell."
By Him and through Him and to Him...
Christ, as the Orthodox say, "recapitulated" humanity and creation in his flesh. What Christ assumed, through his Death and resurrection he healed. "Far as the curse is found" sings the Christmas carol "Joy to the World." Christ, in his very flesh, sums up and heals (recapitulates--gives this mess a head) all creation and humanity. The tide has turned...
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Putting these two verses together, it seems more logical to conclude that Christ obtained the fulness of the Godhead after he was ascended to the Father's right hand - that the incarnation was an emptying of that equality with God he had previously had.
Again, the Christ" part grows; right up to the Cross and through the "It is finished" part. Then, victoriously he preaches release to the captives, and then raises, and finally ascends to heaven, AS ONE OF US.
NOTICE that you say "Christ obtained the fulness of the Godhead after he was ascended to the Father's right hand." I won't shy away from that; BUT do you realize what it actually is saying. This is not simply a statement about Jesus the man-God. This is a statement about "CHRIST" who is the HEAD of the Church. This is not a statement about ONE man, but about the WHOLE body of Christ. Christ ascended not for himself, but for the whole body. He is the "first fruits." And ascending he possessed for all of us the place that is ours in Him. Clear?
And as to the second part, where you ponder whether "the incarnation was an emptying of that equality with God he had previously had" I'd have to point out at least one way in which that is one-hundred and eighty degrees off. Rather than being a way that the Son became "less" than the Father, by his incarnation, his passion (which extends his whole life--not just the last hours); instead, LETS CONSIDER how it is in the very suffering (voluntary, which he could have called off at any time) of the Christ that he is proven to be EQUAL with the Father of all, who is Love, and loved the whole world so much that he gave his only Son...
If you have every been to the site www.ccel.org and looked at the Patristic/Early Fathers, I'd suggest John Chrysostom on the 1st Corinthians passage. In it he shows that neither the Son nor the Father are less. But the task of Christ is to DRAW UP everything in himself, to present it to the Father--who's will he too shares. And subduing everything in himself, with everything bowing the knee and proclaiming "Lord" with the mouth, Christ will present all in all to God.
Thanks.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/25/2004 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | POW,
You say,
quote:
What is not always "full" is the Son's status as "Christ."
The verse in question speaks of the fulness of the Godhead or deity, not the fulness of the Christ-ness.
quote:
Christ "did not consider equality with God something that needed grasping." (It was his by right--in God's form.) YET, "took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men..." And "he humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death." This is a willing act. Humbling...obedient. He HAD the power to do otherwise!
Wouldn't you agree that in one sense he DIDN'T have power to do otherwise? Isn't He by nature obedient to the Father's will as His prayer in Gethsemane suggests?
quote:
John Earp liked the way "voluntary limitation of his divine prerogatives/attributes" expressed it. AS GOD, the Son CONTINUED to make the sun come up in the morning -- even while it was coldest in his bed immediately before hand. The Creator/Word held the hemoglobin molecules together while he bled from his fingers from carpentry and masonry lessons. He was ignorant, and learned, and identified with us fully.
Here's what John actually said:
quote:
Php 2 refers to Christ's voluntary limitation of his divine prerogatives /attributes (omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence). The Word that had been with God from all eternity simply could not exercise all those attributes and at the same time be in a human body.
I agree with John's wording. Hence, if the sun rose via the incarnated (pre-ressurected) Christ, it was because all things are through Him in a way that only the Father understands. If he was causing the sun to rise by the direct agency of his own power, why would he have to call angels to save Him? It seems that Christ, as John Earp says, gave up such power. But he was still the Heir of this world, through whom and for whom are all things - thus, the angels would do his bidding. Only in this sense, as I understand it, was he still deity after the "kenosis."
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/26/2004 1:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
POW, You say,What is not always "full" is the Son's status as "Christ."
The verse in question speaks of the fulness of the Godhead or deity, not the fulness of the Christ-ness.
I was interjecting; not commenting on the verse. BOTH are important matters.
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
quote:
quote:
Christ "did not consider equality with God something that needed grasping." (It was his by right--in God's form.) YET, "took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men..." And "he humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death." This is a willing act. Humbling...obedient. He HAD the power to do otherwise!
Wouldn't you agree that in one sense he DIDN'T have power to do otherwise? Isn't He by nature obedient to the Father's will as His prayer in Gethsemane suggests?
No. I wouldn't agree -- that would make the Son (and the Spirit) the slaves of the Father, or "forces." No way.
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
quote:
John Earp liked the way "voluntary limitation of his divine prerogatives/attributes" expressed it. AS GOD, the Son CONTINUED to make the sun come up in the morning -- even while it was coldest in his bed immediately before hand. The Creator/Word held the hemoglobin molecules together while he bled from his fingers from carpentry and masonry lessons. He was ignorant, and learned, and identified with us fully.
Here's what John actually said:
quote:
Php 2 refers to Christ's voluntary limitation of his divine prerogatives /attributes (omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence). The Word that had been with God from all eternity simply could not exercise all those attributes and at the same time be in a human body.
I wasn't using John as a source, and I wouldn't say every detail of what he says.
[quote]Originally posted by jefscott
I agree with John's wording. Hence, if the sun rose via the incarnated (pre-ressurected) Christ, it was because all things are through Him in a way that only the Father understands. If he was causing the sun to rise by the direct agency of his own power, why would he have to call angels to save Him? It seems that Christ, as John Earp says, gave up such power. But he was still the Heir of this world, through whom and for whom are all things - thus, the angels would do his bidding. Only in this sense, as I understand it, was he still deity after the "kenosis."
No. Christ had a human mind. But that did not make him stop being God. Everything about us that needed healing was assumed by the Son of God. Several times in the Gospels we get a "back stage" view of Christ saying something like "that they may know." TWO things are fact here: (1) The Son was born in ignorance -- the doctrine that Christ is Savior points to that; its part of his suffering. Its part of salvation. (2) The Father and the Son are united as one (with the Spirit) in essence. Ignorance in his human mind did not make him cease being God. (Add 3) The kenosis was as scripture says, that:
"Christ "did not consider equality with God something that needed grasping." (It was his by right--in God's form.) YET, "took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men..." And "he humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death." This is a willing act. Humbling...obedient."
You and I disagree. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/26/2004 1:22 AM (GMT -6) | | I lost control of the font size above.
Jefscot, you have *one* view of kenosis. But it does not, as you say, HAVE to be the view. Its a recent invention. Based on logic; not the witness of the church and scripture. Its built on a few verses.
But like I say, scripture DOES NOT HAVE TO be read that way. (Wasn't written that way either.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/26/2004 1:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's something important: Christ is about salvation.
Something else. The Incarnation was an *assymetrical* event. Man became en-godded. But God-the-Son did not change. (See the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed) There was no 'mixing' of man in God.
quote:
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/26/2004 2:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
If I'm hearing you correctly, I agree with you that Col. 2:9 is not directly speaking of Christ's pre-resurrection state, and I personally would not use Col. 2:9 as support for Christ's pre-existent deity.
I would not, however, agree with you that Christ obtained his Deity by virtue of the resurrection. There are many other verses which demonstrate conclusively that the Son of God always was and always will be Deity, notwithstanding the fact that the Incarnation did involve a very real voluntary self-limitation of his divine attributes.
One of my earlier posts in reply to POW dealt with that. I told POW that Christ IS the ONE through Whom and for Whom are ALL THINGS. That pretty much makes Him deity during His incarnation doesn't it? If not please be specific by what you mean by his incarnated deity and provide scriptural support. I am open-minded - to scripture, anyway.
Hi Jeff,
Sorry if I misunderstood you. Thanks for the clarification. It is self-evident that if Christ ever was God, he always was God, if that's what you're trying to say. The only point I was trying to make about Col. 2:9 is that it does in fact seem to refer to the present state of Christ, and not his pre-resurrection state (which is what it seemed to me you were trying to relate in your first couple of posts in this thread). But as I said earlier, thid fact does not at all detract from the many other scriptures that plainly refer to Christ as God from all time.
On further reflection Col. 2:9 does not seem to me to even necessarily refer to Christ as God (but again, this doctrine does not depend on this one verse). Paul also prays for his churches that they may be "filled with all the fulness of God." Could it be that Paul was simply referring to the glory of God which Christ revealed by the Spirit within Him? I honestly don't know. But the phrase, "the fulness of the Godhead bodily" does not seem to me to unambiguously refer to the Deity of Christ. (John 1:1 does quite clearly, to name just one). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/26/2004 3:15 PM (GMT -6) | | POW,
quote:
Wouldn't you agree that in one sense he DIDN'T have power to do otherwise? Isn't He by nature obedient to the Father's will as His prayer in Gethsemane suggests?
No. I wouldn't agree -- that would make the Son (and the Spirit) the slaves of the Father, or "forces." No way.
Christ may have had the "power" to disobey, but wouldn't disobeying be contrary to His nature, just as God has the sheer "power" to lie, but can't because it's against His own nature?
quote:
TWO things are fact here: (1) The Son was born in ignorance -- the doctrine that Christ is Savior points to that; its part of his suffering. Its part of salvation. (2) The Father and the Son are united as one (with the Spirit) in essence. Ignorance in his human mind did not make him cease being God.
If Christ gave up all knowledge, which is normally considered an attribute of deity, how can you be sure that as an ignorant fetus he caused the sun to rise? I mean I don't see why it's easy to accept that Christ gave up all knowledge but not some power. Mind you, I'm not saying that Christ DID give up such power, I just don't know how to prove that he made the sun rise while He was incarnated. Can you help me with some verses?
quote:
You and I disagree.
Jefscot, you have *one* view of kenosis. But it does not, as you say, HAVE to be the view. Its a recent invention. Based on logic; not the witness of the church and scripture. Its built on a few verses.
But like I say, scripture DOES NOT HAVE TO be read that way. (Wasn't written that way either.)
You haven't made it clear exactly WHAT it is you're disagreeing with. See my last post to John; I'm still trying to sort this thing out. I also don't know what "the witness of the church" means. Who is the "church" you're referring to and just what did they witness? What scripture unequivocally says that Christ made the sun to rise while he was a fetus? Do you disagree with the use of logic? Inductive, deductive, or both?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/26/2004 3:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
"The witness of the church," as PoW uses the term, refers generally to the Eastern Orthodox Church, as far as I can tell. (As an evangelical, I disagree with "the witness of the (Institutional) church" after the fourth century).
That said...
Personally, I do think it is sheer nonsense to say that Christ "made the sun rise" while he was in the manger, and at the same to time admit that He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:42), and was in many ways "ignorant" in his humanity (as PoW said earlier).
I also believe Jesus had free will, or else his temptations were a sham. (Some OVers disagree with me on this point, but I don't see how they can without being inconsistent).
I also believe that God has free will, but that He, like his Son, has always CHOSEN righteousness over evil, and always will. In my opinion, the typical teaching of "God can't sin" strips Him of his personahood makes Him out to be some kind of "holy machine" who has no ability to choose.
We have discussed this on the forum in the past. I will try to see if I can dig up some of the old threads for you.
God bless,
John
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/26/2004 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | jefscott: I wouldn't agree...slaves of the Father
Pow: I was characterizing a pretty weird question.
jefscott: Christ may have had the "power" to disobey, but wouldn't disobeying be contrary to His nature...
Pow: True; glad you agree!
jefscott: If Christ gave up all knowledge, which is normally considered an attribute of deity, how can you be sure that as an ignorant fetus he caused the sun to rise? ...
Pow: Go back... Christ (which is a different thing that saying Son) did NOT "give up" what he did not have. As God he continued to be omniscient. But as man, and in his human mind (I've held half a brain in a class once.) he was born as you and I. So when you ask, "how can a fetus," the answer is that the human fetus can't--even Jesus humanity.
jefscott: I also don't know what "the witness of the church" means.
Pow: Take the Athanasian Creed --above-- as example. Its a good one.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/26/2004 4:01 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp: "The witness of the church," as PoW uses the term...
PoW: Take the Athanasian Creed to use for this case. Its very useful.
John Earp: I do think it is sheer nonsense to say that Christ "made the sun rise" while he was in the manger...
PoW: Biblically, everything that God does is done as Trinity. But the Son is included.
John Earp: He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:42), and was in many ways "ignorant" in his humanity (as PoW said earlier).
PoW: This we agree on.
quote:
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html
In the unity of his person, the Son en-hypostasized our humanity. That means, literally, that he 'held close' our humanity to himself, making it belong eternally to his person. But He neither ceased being God by nature, nor merged our humanity with his divine nature.
The MEANING of the verse simply is not in some fancy gymnastics of God pretending not to be God. I would just say "He took upon Him the form of a servant, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death." | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/26/2004 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
John Earp: I do think it is sheer nonsense to say that Christ "made the sun rise" while he was in the manger...
PoW: Biblically, everything that God does is done as Trinity. But the Son is included.
John Earp: He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:42), and was in many ways "ignorant" in his humanity (as PoW said earlier).
PoW: This we agree on.
John replies: It is not clear how Christ could have had a true need to grow in wisdom, have truly been a fully human infant, while at the same time possessing omniscience, omnipotence. (I take it for granted that He was not omnipresent during his earthly ministry).
Even as an adult, He referred to the source of his power as "the Father in me, He doeth the works."
"Made the sun to rise while in the manger," while kind of poetic, seems to be simply an assumption not substantiated by the biblical evidence.
As God-in-the-flesh, He by definition voluntarily limited his own divine prerogative/attributes. I see no contradiction here. It seems to me you are trying to force a later creed onto the Scripture.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/27/2004 3:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
John replies: It is not clear how Christ could have had a true need to grow in wisdom, have truly been a fully human infant, while at the same time possessing omniscience, omnipotence. (I take it for granted that He was not omnipresent during his earthly ministry).
Even as an adult, He referred to the source of his power as "the Father in me, He doeth the works."
"Made the sun to rise while in the manger," while kind of poetic, seems to be simply an assumption not substantiated by the biblical evidence.
As God-in-the-flesh, He by definition voluntarily limited his own divine prerogative/attributes. I see no contradiction here. It seems to me you are trying to force a later creed onto the Scripture.
Two things, John. First I really, REALLY like the way you express this--the words: "voluntarily limited his own divine prerogative." Id go even further and say that certain attributes were not available to him in his humanity--including his human-mind, just as they are not to us. ("Like us in everyway, except sin...") Second, to be REALLY picky, "Jesus" did not "possessing omniscience, omnipotence" and neither did "Jesus" "Ma(k)e the sun to rise." But the Son of God did--the Eternal Wisdom of God. And "Christ" didn't either; nor, it seems, is it completely proper--if being picky has virtues--to describe Jesus as Christ, in the *fullest* sense until the Cross; though it is proper at least some at all the times after the Assumption. So, I'll agree with you there too.
But the Wisdom of God (Son) did not lack any divinity as God. But as man -- in his incarnation -- he lacked knowledge. Wisdom no; knowledge yes. And in that we can see him walk up to the crest of the hill overlooking Jerusalem and crying. From his incarnation he "knew" the wisdom of the "Christ"--the love of God from before the foundation of the world. But for Jesus the human meaning and the physical reality of that Christification grew with every step. In wisdom he was not surprised, but Jesus sudden tears welled up with as much of a surge as the temptations had been felt by him three years earlier. God walked in time, all the while being "eternal" in his wisdom. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/27/2004 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | "Great indeed we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh..". (1 Tim. 3:16) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/28/2004 12:35 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott: So if I say I'm not convinced of your view
PoW: I've had a nice time reading your thoughts, and sharing what I consider central to my faith. And I'm content that the groung is covered. I'm done. :)
jefscott: does that mean I'm not a Christian as far as you're concerned?
PoW: Pleeeaasseeee. Don't introduce conflict.
Thanks for the exchange.
Pow | | Back to Top | | |
| 105 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:51 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|