An empty God?

Bob

Please remember provide your evidence re "the historic theological definition" or else retract that claim.

IMO the manner that Christ is both is not by a limitation of the divine mind but by an addition of a distinctlimited human "mind.:

IMO there are TWO " minds " in Christ...not one..and any limitations evidenced in the Gospels refer to the human consciousness, not to the divine .

God does not change.

 

Jesus Christ was fully human as well as fully divine, two natures in one person. Therefore, He exhibited the characteristics of humans, He ate, He slept, He got tired. He did those things that humans normally do, except He did not sin.

As far as being ignorant of the time of His return the only explanation is that He had to be speaking in His human nature. The Apostle Paul tells us in Colossians For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. There is only one God, therefore, there must be unity of thought within the Godhead. [/QB][/QUOTE]


===

You may wish to read Reymond's exegesis on Christ not knowing the time of His return.


As I understand your meaning, IMO your's are excellent remarks! There cannot be between the Trinal Persons differences in attributes or in knowledge!

But then, what of the weaknesses of Christ revealed in the Gospels? I agree with the Damascene, Agatho, Leo, Grudem, Hodge , Constantinople and many, many others that each nature experiences, wills, knows, and acts in distinction from the other nature, but never in separation from the unified Person of Christ.

Therefore, any act or experience or thought in Christ that is less than God's is the work of His humanity NOT His deity IMO.

Consequently it is NOT that God the Son shriveled up in order to be contained within humanity, rather the Son as God KEPT that Form and those attributes , and the full and unimpaired use of each.

HE WAS PERFECT in that nature and qualities , and ANY change could only be, as Frame well says, a change for the worse or for the better! Either way, that perfection would be lost and so would that deity IMO!

Attributes ,I think all evangelical theologians concur, inhere in essence so, a loss of the use of attributes is a loss of essence.

 

===


Sure. Here it is: Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Zondervan, 1994.

page 459, The Father eternally has greater authority than does the Son.

page 250, The role of commanding the Son is appropriate to the Father.

page 251, without the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father the Trinity could not exist.

You may examine the contexts for yourself---I have!


It is quite a popular view in the Conservative, Evangelical literature today that God the Father is eternally relationally superior to God the Son. Read Dahms in NTS and Shemm in JETS and L and D in Integrative Theology.

[ April 16, 2005, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

===


Have you read Grudem so that you can argue with me about what he says?

If in the context of a discussion of the eternal Trinity Grudem says...

"But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no INHERENT (my caps) difference in how the three persons relate to one another , and consequently we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit FOR ALL ETERNITY (my caps). This would mean the Trinity has not ETERNALLY (my caps) existed"

..then, he has himself defined eternal by his context.

If Grudem begins a paragraph on ETERNAL (my caps) subordination in roles and in that paragraph expresses suprise that some writers disagree with an ETERNAL (my caps) in role among the members of the Trinity" , then, that subordination he refers to can have no other meaning than what I give it.

If you think it does, then why do you think that?

As far as providing evidence is concerned, this forum should about study not about empty opining. I have studied Grudem. Have you?

 

===


"OK" --by that I only mean I will comply and be specific...it is no attack.

Here are a few places where it is taught that God the Son is eternally role subordinate to God the Father:

FF Bruce, 1,2 Corinthians in New Century Bible.

Dennis Ray Burk, Jr, The Meaning of Harpagmos in Philippians 2:6:An Overlooked Datum For Functional Inequality in The Godhead.

John V. Dahms, The Subordination of the Son in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sept '94.

Bruce Demerest and Gordon Lewis, Integrative Theology, vol 1.

Scott Horrell, Toward A Biblical Model of the Social Trinity: Avoiding Equivocation of Nature and Order, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sept 04.

Grudem's position agrees with these!

Both they and I see Him as eternal Son and as eternal God. But IMO, there IN GOD are only equals in the fullest sense. Were sovereignty an attribute and were God to have only one faculty of will, then, IMO, role subordination cannot eternally exist.

The Son's obedience IMO occurs both in and by the humanity NOT in and by the deity.

 

===

Of superior authority--yes!

A differentiation is made by Grudem and my other referents between ontological and relational subordination. The former adjective would mean that God the Son and God the Father are perfect equals in essence or nature. The latter adjective would mean that God the Son as a "Person" is eternally role subordinate in the sense of being obedient to the Father.

Some , as Dahms, predicate that relationship on the Father eternally essentiating the 'Person' or deity (as Arminius and Wiley) or nature (as Berkhof) of the Son. Because the Father is the Source of the other Trinal Persons, Dahms thinks, He, therefore, is the Chief in authority.

Grudem, of course, rejects eternal begetting and bases his view of role subordination mostly on his view of the meaning of 'Son."

As to your second paragraph Grudem might counter, "Well, women are the ontological equivalents of men , but are , nevertheless, inferior relationally." And so, the Trinal Persons can be essentially the same but be in a functional hierarchy. This basing of gender roles on Trinal relationships is not much evident in the literature until recently.

But IMO the unity of God requires the unity of authority. There not, IMO, three gods with different qualities and origins and knowledges and powers!

 

Grudem would say (p 250) that the role of the Father is to command and the role of the Son is to obey. IMO that means that the Son is of an inferior authority. The Father is sovereign over the Son.

Yes, you have correctly defined my position. I do not think that one Trinal Person has the use of a divine attribute, as sovereignty, in a manner other Trinal Persons do not.

Why is a hierachy of authority the only possible basis for Trinal relations when such as John 1:18 suggests that the basis of Trinal relationships IN GOD is not rank but love?

I think you miss the point. The etiology of the hierachy is not just voluntary , it is necessary because the second Person is 'Son' and the first is 'Father." So, these roles are based not just on a 'willingness' but on the nature of personal differences! Grudem fails to deal with the evidence by Bess in Grace Journal or the opining of Erickson and Warfield that 'Son' does not refer to a difference but to a sameness!


Curiously Grudem thinks 'eternal sonship ' must indicate eternal obedience, but 'being eternally Spirit' does not refer to eternal spiration of the Holy Spirit!

The 'Persons' are thought to have personal qualities or attributes which distinguish them from the other Persons. (see p. 250)

As Grudem says on that same page, "These roles could not have been reversed OR THE FATHER WOULD CEASE TO BE THE FATHER AND THE SON WOULD CEASE TO BE THE SON"!!! The very Trinity ceases to exist , he thinks, unless the Father orders the Son around!

Therefore, this hierarchy is caused by the nature of the Persons...not by just a willingness!

Creation is not IN GOD. I am not saying that the several Persons may not each do distinct things. I am saying that one Person is not eternally the boss of the others!

[ April 16, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]