Featured Philippians 2:6

He did "empty Himself" by taking on a full human nature. That's what the verse says.

"Unorthodox"? What exactly does that word mean to you? You have made absolutely no comparative reference to anything in any creed or confession or historical heresy. What I am arguing is the historical definition of the Hypostatic Union as formulated in the Chalcedonian Creed and in refutation to historical heresies such as Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Apollinarianism, monophysitism, and monothelitism.

 

The old, when you lose on the facts, attack the person,response. The verse does not say He added flesh attributes, it says He emptied Himelf. Since He was a divine being, He laid something spiritual down. While in the flesh, He performed miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. While in the flesh, He did not know the time of His return. While in the flesh, He needed to return to heaven before He could send the Helper.

You see I support my orthodox view from scripture, not the inventions of men.

 

That's odd, because we see Christ having power in the flesh, and while one might split hairs as to this being in the power of the Spirit, again, God is One and at no time ceased being God, even when He took on the form of man.

I have made my position clear numerous times so not sure why you keep repeating the same thing.


God bless.

 

Where did I "lose on facts" and where did I "attack the petson/response"?
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? For the nth time, He didn't "add flesh attributes," He took on a full human nature."

You seem to have an issue with the "taking on" aspect. You yourself assented to "100% God and 100% man" (the Hypostatic Union), yet you want to claim that the divine essence "changed" in some way by having the Son give up/shed/or otherwise lose the possession of certain divine attributes. If whatever it means to be "100% God" changes or is reduced in some way, it is no longer "100% God." Otherwise, we cannot have any objective definition of "100% God."

Of course Jesus of Nazareth as the incarnate Son--one Person with two natures--humbled Himself and supressed the expression of His divine attributes by taking on a full human nature and lived under the limitations of that nature, including having to grow and learn in that nature. But the Hypostatic Union is true. He wasn't "50% God and 50% man" or any other distribution that would make Him a "demigod" or such.

Yes, He laid aside the full expression and prerogative of the glory of the divine essence, but the divine essence itself was not changed or reduced. The incarnation was the taking on of a full human nature--not human skin, not just a human "shell" or even just a full body. He took on 100% of everything that has to do with being a human being except for the sin nature from Adam.

And He submitted to the Father and obeyed His will. He was tempted, He hungered and thirsted, He grew tired, and so on. This was not because the divine essence of the Son changed or was reduced. It was because the Son submitted to the humility of the limitations of the human nature in the incarnation so that He could live the perfect life under the law as our substitute and fufill the divine mission.

And yet I have been arguing from the grammar of the Carmen Christi passage, defining words, and explaining how labwn and genomenos function as circumstantial modal participles modifying ekenwsen. Labwn clearly means "taking on" and morphen doulou ("form of a servant") contextually parallels the morphe tou theou ("form of God") to demonstrate that both if these are natures. I have labored to argue that the grammar and terminology of this passage clearly teaches the Hypostatic Union. Yet, allegedly you are the only one "arguing from Scripture" because you simply read the word "emptied" and assume a certain understanding. You aren't looking at grammatical context and you seem to think we can just chuck all the centuries of church history in the trash.

I am not saying that the Chalcedonian Creed is "infallible" or "inspired," but I am saying that it is a correct understanding of what Scripture teaches about the incarnation, such as Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 2:9 and many others. If you want to chuck all that history in the trash, go ahead, but don't expect me to take 21st century "I and my Bible under a tree" as a serious test of orthodoxy.

 

Jesus was always God still, buthe also chose to limit the full use of His deity while on earth, and relied upon the father and the Holy Spirit !

 

What was the spiritual things that he had laid aside then , what specific thing?

 

As I said, we are wasting each others time.

You deny that saying I was on the side of heresies, you were attacking me. Fine.
My issue is not that Jesus took on human form, that is not the issue. The issue is you seek to make emptied Himself
mean the same as taking on. That sir is the issue.
Next you imply I am for the 50% God, 50% man view. You are wasting my time with strawman arguments.

And while we are at it, stop hiding the truth in sophistry. He did not suppress some of His divine attributes, He emptied Himself.
I saw one effort that said He did not empty Himself of divine attributes, but rather divine privileges. Another used the term relational attributes. But everyone agrees His knowledge was limited, His omnipresence was limited and His power was limited.
Calling these facts suppressing rather than laying aside is simply a word game.

Did anyone say His divine essence was changed? Nope - more time wasting strawman arguments.

You argument from grammar is to ignore the grammar. Your argument is that His emptying mean He took on. Repeating that bogus argument does not make it valid.

And one more. The issue is not the fact that Jesus was 100% God and 100% Man, the issue is your claim that by laying aside some of His divine attributes He became less than 100% God. That dog will not hunt. When I visit the bathroom and empty myself of fluid, I am still 100% man.

 

Asked and Answered.

 

Jesus could still know all things and do all things while here though, correct?

 

What does scripture teach? Everything is possible with God? The issue is not baseless speculation, but what scripture teaches, which is that He emptied Himself. To be concerned with alternate choices God could have made is to debate how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

I was trying to help you understand the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union not only by the wording of the Chalcedonian Creed itself, but also in the backdrop of the historical heresies being addressed.

That's great that we now can understand the heart of the matter. The issue is that the grammar of the verse clearly says that "emptied" is defined precisely as "taking on the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men." That's what the emptying is in the verse. Your whole position is that the mere word "emptied" to you must mean certain thing, and your only justification is certain rhetorical questions that do not in any way contradict the Hypostatic Union. The Son limited Himself. He didn't give up the possession of anything, He humbled Himself by talking on a human nature and subjecting Himself to the limitations thereof in the incarnation to fulfill the divine mission.

I did no such thing. You are way too quick to jump to conclusions and assume every ststement I make is an accusation. I was simply explaining what the Hypostatic Union is by contrasting it with historical heresies in contrast.

Ok. Then, grammatically, what does the verse itself say the emptying was? Hint: there are two participles that follow that function as modifiers. "Emptied" is the verb and "taking on" and "being made" are adverbs.
You can assume something all you want, but you must test you assumptions according to the actual words of Scripture and how they function grammatically.

Yes, by virtue of the human nature. The divine nature did not lose anything.

What was laid aside was the divine prerogative, not the possession of divine attributes.

Attributes are a part of one's essence or being. Are love and holiness divine attributes of God in your understanding?

Adverbs modify verbs. Participles can function as adverbs, which they do in this case. We need to look at the adverbs to understand what the verb means. We can't assume what a verb means in isolation from its modal modifiers.

Ah, there's the rub? What "attributes" of God are part and parcel of His being in your understanding? Can God "empty himself" of His love or holiness and still be God in your view? Are love and holiness something that God can proverbially put into a jar and pour out onto the ground? So, God's knowledge and glory are not innate to His being? They are something that He "holds" within Himself similar to how we hold urine in our bladders and can just dump it out and be rid of them?

I guess we would just have to agree to disagree on that one. I believe that God's knowledge and glory--as attributes of His divine nature--are just as definitional of His very being as are His love, justice, and holiness. He can no more bottle up or rid Himself of the actual possession of the former as He can the latter.
If I limit myself by participating in a three-legged race to play a relay game, I no more give up the attribute of the ability to run normally than the Son gave up the possession of certain divine attributes by taking on the human nature. He submitted Himself to the limitations thereof to fulfill the divine mission, but He did not lose the possession of anything. That's the Hypostatic Union.

 

You are just repeating your arguments. Ask yourself why Philippians reads they way it is translated, if the grammar indicates it means something else? And speaking of word games, now with attributes being called prerogatives, then everything is ok. LOL

 

I'm trying to word my arguments in a way so that I can get you to understand them. I guess I am failing at that.

I did. He "emptied Himself." How? "taking on the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men." What else do I need to ask myself?

Where did I call attributes prerogatives? It seems that you are reading something into what I said. Once again, I seem to be failing to communicate

 

Quick yes/no question:
Do you believe that an act of true humility is a good and righteousness deed?

This is not a trick question, but it will lead into a follow-up question.

 

Jesus was God here on Earth, so in His deity still could do niracles/heal/know all things etc?

 

If the grammar supported this bogus view, Philippians 2:7 would read"...He emptied Himself [by] taking on the form of a bond servant."

Not how the verse reads. Rather first Christ emptied Himself, and then took on human form.

Two utterly different views. Why must the verse mean He emptied Himself and then took on human form? Because (1) "by" is not in the text, and the actual grammar does not indicate the addition is needed; (2) Jesus power was limited, He had to return to heaven to send the Helper; (3) Jesus knowledge was limited, He did not know the time of His return, and (4) Jesus was located within His human form and was not everywhere.

Changing the name "divine attributes" to divine prerogatives does not resolve the issue. God is 100% God even if He lays aside some of His attributes to become God with us.

 

The "by" is implicit in the fact that the two participles are modifiers. In your understanding of the grammar you inplicitly add a conjuctive (not copulative) "kai" ("and") that is not there.

 

If it was all as simple as that we would have John 1:43-51 in our bibles - it seems to me in that passage Jesus says he 'saw' Nathanael whilst being nowhere near Nathanael in his body!

 

Did I add "and" to Philippians 2:7? I explained it using an "and" to highlight the disjunction.

However, here is how it reads, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Did put an "and" between Himself, and "taking?" Nope Now it is true that several translations add the "by" such as the NIV and ESV, but that is not how the text reads.