Featured Philippians 2:6

The false premise here is God cannot give up some of His divine attributes and still be God.

No one said Jesus stepped outside of being the Messiah.

Scripture does not say "His flesh" emptied itself. It says He (the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity) emptied Himself. But, while in the flesh He performed His miracles through His anointing with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was always the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One.

An all powerful God would not need to return to heaven, but an all-powerful God who had emptied Himself would need to meet conditions laid out for Him.

That the Father and the Son are "one" is not in dispute. This is simply a repeat of the claim if Jesus emptied Himself while incarnate, He is not God. That dog will not hunt.

In summary, He emptied Himself of some of His divine attributes to become God in the Flesh.

 

The false premise here is...that God did give up some of His divine attributes.

The context of Philippians 2 (which we are looking at) is humility. Paul is exhorting that we, like the Lord, do not view our positions as something to keep us from humbling ourselves that we might serve others. That is what the Lord "emptied" Himself of.

Not His nature, not His divinity. In taking on the flesh of man His glory was veiled.The limitations imposed on Him at this time did not make obsolete His unity with God.

The point of this statement is to deny the "separation" many impose on the Son of God in the Incarnation. There was and never has been separation between between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

It is hypothetical. The Lord manifested in flesh for the specific role of Messiah, which He fulfilled according to Prophecy. He did nothing outside of what that role required.

The intent is to ask...do you think that He could not have?

I say He most certainly could have, because He was...still God.

I didn't say "His flesh emptied itself," I said that flesh did not limit His power, but His role.

And that He ministered in the power of the Holy Spirit goes to the primary point I am making: God is One, and remains God at all times.

He did not have power from the third God of the Trinity, but the Third Person of the Trinity. You are imposing a separation that Christ Himself made clear did not exist. For example...


John 14:8-9
King James Version (KJV)

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

And that is what most people think. I do not.

I do not take the view that it was Jesus the Christ that walked in the Garden, or visited Abraham, I take the position that this was the Eternal Son of God.

The reason being is that we know that the specific flesh created in the womb of Mary was created on a particular day in time.

And that is the point: God prescribed what would happen before it happen and the Lord fulfilled that according to His will.

An all powerful God does not need to manifest in human flesh and die on the Cross to save mankind, but that is precisely what He did.

To a certain extent it is in dispute, but I don't think you are understanding why.

And at no time have I even intimated that the emptying we are discussing took place during the Lord's physical life. It is the taking on of flesh that creates the humbling that is central to the context of Philippians 2.

Great. Now all you need is Scripture to support that view.

I'll be waiting.



I'll leave you with a question: did God empty Himself of divine quality when He visits Abraham in Genesis 18?


God bless.

 

Jesus never ceased being God, so He would still be able to do all of those things if he wanted to do them. as he was still God, correct?

 

Jesus never ceased to be God while here on earth , as he gave up right to use those attributes, and was also limited as to now being in Flash as a man, but always was God!

 

Post #82 speaks for itself.

The view expressed is unbiblical.

The pre-incarnate Jesus emptied Himself of some of His divine attributes to be God with us. That is the biblical, orthodox view.

5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

 

the one the JW used!

 

Jesus assumed the inherit limitations that would be placed upon Himself when born as a Human, as in accepting in one place, hungry, tired, and needing to rely upon the Holy Spirit!

 

I'm not corresponding with JWs on this. They are various adherents to Hebrew Roots.

 

Not what the scripture says. It says He emptied Himself, not assumed inherit limitations.

 

Attributes are part of one's essence or being. If the Son "gave up" something in that He no longer possessed certain attributes as the Person participating in the divine being, that is not what the passage teaches. Just as we don't give up any attributes when we esteem each other as better than ourselves when we serve, so the Son didn't give up any attributes of His divinity. We suppress the exercise of our prerogatives and so did the Son. Now, of course, the main difference is that we are not divine and we can't take on a full human nature as a second nature. The kenosis was not in yielding up any attributes as a matter of possession. The kenosis was not by losing anything but by taking on the morphen doulou. The Son, who, although existing in the form of God emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant. That's what the grammar teaches. Labwn ("taking on") and genomenos ("being made") are circumstantial modal participles that define what ekenwsen means and how it was done. This is the Chalcedonian definition of the Hypostatic Union and that is exactly what this passage teaches.

If you believe that the being (attributes are part of that definition) of God or the Person of the Son changed or was reduced in the incarnation, that would not agree with this historic understanding of the Hypostatic Union. If you change the "100% God" by virtue of the incarnation, we have no way of understanding what "100% God" means in the hypostasis. Be careful that your assumption of what ekenwsen must mean doesn't land you into a modified form of Eutychianism.

Where have I denied that the Son did not "give upsomething and empty Himself of something"? You are reading into the word ekenwsen a certain understanding, but I am arguing that the participles define what that word entails.
What He gave up was the divine prerogative in exercising and veiling certain divine attributes by taking on the human nature.

 

Okay, which divine attributes did He empty Himself of?

 

He had to return to heaven to send the Helper. Therefore His power was in some way limited.
He did know the time of His return. Therefore the scope of His knowledge was limited in some way.
Folks, I am presenting the orthodox view of the incarnation. You can look it up.

 

he assumed the limitations of now being in a Human body, but still possessed all of His deity attributes, just voluntary chose to set aside using them while here here on earth!

 

Emptied himself of what though?

 

But you seem to suggest that the Son as the Second Person of the Trinity "gave up" the possession of certain divine attributes through the incarnation. If that correctly represents your view that is not "the orthodox view." If you change anything about the being of God (and attributes are part and parcel of being), you are not defining the incarnation according to the historical Chalcedonian definition of the Hypostatic Union. It was Eutyches who suggested that Jesus of Nazareth became a "tertium quid" ("third thing") by virtue of the human and divine natures being admixed. Now, I know you wouldn't say that, but if taking on the human nature also changed the divine nature in some way, that is not what "100% God" means in the historical definition of the Hypostatic Union.

Yes, Jesus of Nazareth did not know the timing of His second coming just as He had to learn in school and "increase in wisdom." This is attributed to the human nature in the incarnation. The divine nature did not change. However, certain attributes of the divine nature were veiled from the human nature for the purpose of Jesus of Nazareth "learning obedience" and being our substitute as a perfect full human being.

 

He choose to not exercise His divine atrubutes while here, but still had them all intact, correct?

 

Yes.

 

And that is where Van seems to be disagreeing with us on, correct?

 

Yes. Although Van acknowledges "100% God and 100% man" I don't think his definition of kenosis makes full sense of that.

The Chalcedonian Creed says, "...acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis..."

If the Son "changed" in the incarnation such that the Son as the Second Person of the Trinity "gave up" "attributes" that He possessed by the nature of divinity, that disagrees with the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union as formulated in the Chalcedonian Creed.

 

Again you say if the Son gave up anything He was not 100% God. That dog will not hunt. Scripture says He emptied Himself yet all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him.

And again, scripture does not say His divine attributes were veiled. Your doctrine is man-made and unorthodox.