Unison: Is it possible for a being with UB and UP to volitionally LIMIT their operations in situations to "parallel" SB and LP activity? In other words, is it possible for a being with UP, having all perspectives, to operate according to LP (for certain purposes), while still having access to all other perspectives?

Tom: Let’s just say “yes,” call it a paradox, and leave it at that!

I like the analogy of being able to read on a graduate level but limiting one’s self to reading 2^nd grade material. It’s kinda like being a millionaire and having access to all your money but agreeing to drive cross country using no more than $750.00 which is what everybody else is essentially limited to. I don’t know that this captures problems of “perspective” though. That would be like Jesus really knowing the hour of his return but just saying he didn’t know it so that he could operate on our level. He really DID know the hour. He just didn’t make use of that knowledge in relating to us. Dunno that that works. It seems a bit different with ‘perspective’ or knowledge states. You can have the capacity to read along a continuum of very easy material to very difficult material and it not be a problem to choose to read elementary level material. But when it comes to knowledge, it seems that you either know or you don’t know. And we’re wanting to say that knowing everything is an essential property of the divine Logos.

What if we just say God has the essential property of absolute, unqualified, self-determining freedom, so that the Son, being the mediator and seat of logoi, really can become ignorant? But all three could not so choose. Somebody’s got to stay on top of things.

Unison: Think about some object that you've lost in the past week or so. Now, the Spirit of God knows all things...AND the Spirit of God is within you right now. And the Spirit of God was there when you lost what you lost. Heck, you may have even prayed to God that you would find it, but you haven't yet.

Tom: But what if it was the Spirit who didn’t know where the lost item was? THAT’S what we’ve got with Christ. It’s the pre-existent person is who’s incarnated. Presumably this ‘person’ (the divine Logos) possesses UB and UP essentially. How do you lay aside the exercise of essential properties? I dunno. So maybe Barth was right—God is pure, unqualified FREEDOM. It God wants to be ignorant and fallible, he can do what he wants. None (zip, zero, zilch) of our categories can be applied to God in a way that admits no exceptions, including the laws of logic, our intuitions, everything. We should be willing to have it all falsified, to cash it all in, by the utterly unpredictable and free God.

That pretty much flushes apologetics down the toilet, but maybe that’s what needs to happen. Maybe we shouldn’t be trying to explain God to people. Maybe we should just shut-up and love and suffer for others. Maybe the apologetic that wins people isn’t intellectual or cognitive at all. Maybe it’s purely relational aesthetics, the gut feeling that people get from witnessing our love and service. Maybe we don’t know what the hell we’re talking about when it comes to who/what Christ really was! Maybe we’re just meant to be inspired by the aesthetic appeal of his life, connect with God’s subjective aim as the ground of our being which is where that aesthetic appeal even comes from, and cry out to the God he cried to, follow his example, and leave it at that.

Tom

Post Edited (MANY) : 7/19/2007 9:23:10 AM (GMT-5)

Kierkegaard proposes two alternatives for the form this love may take:  the ascent and the decent.  The ascent, of the maiden to the level of the king, provides a means for the love to be accomplished, but the self of the maiden is compromised, and understanding is not achieved.  The second possibility, that of the descent, is favorable.  The king comes to the maiden as a lowly servant.  Yet, the king is not able to accomplish this, but the god is.  The god comes to the learner as a servant, a profound incognito.  This provides the setting in which the god can love the learner, and provide the occasion for rebirth.  Kierkegaard's construction of the incarnation in this way fits it into the larger relationship between the god and humans, and gives it decisive significance.  The incarnation, this incognito, also illuminates the depth of the love of the god for the human.  The parable of the king and the maiden is a memorable and useful device for illuminating these concepts of incarnation and kenosis, and tells us of God's deep and caring love for humans.

Question: "What is the kenosis?"

Answer: The term kenosis comes from the Greek word for the doctrine of Christ’s self-emptying in His incarnation. The kenosis was a self-renunciation, not an emptying Himself of deity nor an exchange of deity for humanity. Philippians 2:7 tells us that Jesus “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." Jesus did not cease to be God during His earthly ministry. But He did set aside His heavenly glory of a face-to-face relationship with God. He also set aside His independent authority. During His earthly ministry, Christ completely submitted Himself to the will of the Father.

As part of the kenosis, Jesus sometimes operated with the limitations of humanity (John 4:6; 19:28). God does not get tired or thirsty. Matthew 24:36 tells us, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” We might wonder if Jesus was God, how could He not know everything, as God does (Psalm 139:1-6)? It seems that while Jesus was on earth, He surrendered the use of some of His divine attributes. Jesus was still perfectly holy, just, merciful, gracious, righteous, and loving - but to varying degrees Jesus was not omniscient or omnipotent.

However, when it comes to the kenosis, we often focus too much on what Jesus gave up. The kenosis also deals with what Christ took on. Jesus added to Himself a human nature and humbled Himself. Jesus went from being the glory of glories in Heaven to being a human being who was put to death on the cross. Philippians 2:7-8 declares, "taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross!" In the ultimate act of humility, the God of the universe became a human being and died for His creation. The kenosis, therefore, is Christ taking on a human nature with all of its limitations, except with no sin.

I'm not being funny.  These implications are interesting to ponder...

Yep.