• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Can we discuss Kenosis?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skandelon

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Guys, I don't think it necessary to incite with anger, or attack with vengeance this person, when clearly he does affirm that Jesus is God. He just appears to have overstated his case in regard to what form God has made himself manifest in Christ. At least that is my hope and thus my desire to address so as to correct the erring brother rather than cast him aside.

Goinheix, please consider the words of respected scholar Adam Clarke on this subject:

But the word arpagmon, which we translate robbery, has been supposed to imply a thing eagerly to be seized, coveted, or desired; and on this interpretation the passage has been translated: Who, being in the form of God, did not think it a matter to be earnestly desired to appear equal to God; but made himself of no reputation, &c. However the word be translated, it does not affect the eternal Deity of our Lord. Though he was from eternity in the form of God-possessed of the same glory, yet he thought it right to veil this glory, and not to appear with it among the children of men; and therefore he was made in the likeness of men, and took upon him the form or appearance of a servant: and, had he retained the appearance of this ineffable glory, it would, in many respects, have prevented him from accomplishing the work which God gave him to do; and his humiliation, as necessary to the salvation of men, could not have been complete.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what he is saying? He is agreeing that Jesus did not manifest his divine glory, for his purpose of being crucified would not have been accomplished had he done so. He veiled his divine attributes (most of the time), but this veiling shouldn't be understood as "not possessing." Please tell me you agree.:praying:
 
G

Goinheix

New Member
Skandelon said:
CAn you quote any stating, as you have, that he has none?
Click to expand...

Philipians is stating that God the Son did empty himself of the divine atributes. In greek, empty is totaly empty, is not a litle less but totaly less until reach zero.

The Gospels lack on picturing any divine atribute. The Gospels dont say that Jesus had not even one, but make silence in showing any divine atribute in Jesus.

The Gospels clearly picture of many divine atributes that Jesus didnt have. For example Jesus in the Gosples were not omnipresent. Jesus is all the time some where and no where else. Jesus was in a town or building or room, and not in any other place. If the disciples or the enemies are looking for him, he is anyway in a specific place. Jesus was not omnipresent and the list of verses saying that is way too long.

Perhaps you can provide of a list of divine atributes and I will replay with where in the Gosples it is cklear that Jesus didnt have that specific divine atribute. Otherwise I will be writing an endless list of verses.
 
G

Goinheix

New Member
DHK said:
God is God. Jesus Christ is God. If Jesus Christ does not have all the divine attributes of God, then Jesus Christ is not God, and you have denied that Jesus Christ is God. He never emptied himself of anything.
Click to expand...

No where in the entire Bible is say that for being God it have to have this and that atribute. If God do not have any divine atribute, still he is God. God is not the divine atributes; God have divine atributes.
 
M

Mexdeaf

New Member
Goinheix said:
Philipians is stating that God the Son did empty himself of the divine atributes. In greek, empty is totaly empty, is not a litle less but totaly less until reach zero.

The Gospels lack on picturing any divine atribute. The Gospels dont say that Jesus had not even one, but make silence in showing any divine atribute in Jesus.

The Gospels clearly picture of many divine atributes that Jesus didnt have. For example Jesus in the Gosples were not omnipresent. Jesus is all the time some where and no where else. Jesus was in a town or building or room, and not in any other place. If the disciples or the enemies are looking for him, he is anyway in a specific place. Jesus was not omnipresent and the list of verses saying that is way too long.

Perhaps you can provide of a list of divine atributes and I will replay with where in the Gosples it is cklear that Jesus didnt have that specific divine atribute. Otherwise I will be writing an endless list of verses.
Click to expand...


,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,........
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Goinheix

New Member
DHK said:
That is your opinion. I believe you are wrong. Everybody does not agree. I am not everybody. :)
Click to expand...

it is not an opinion. the fact is that the greek say empty and that fact can not be refuted. Paul say to the Philipians that God the Son did empty himself. That is a fact out of question.
 
F

freeatlast

New Member
Goinheix said:
You base your acusation in the fact that your doctrine is different of mine. Can you quote a verse, or a creed, or a statement of faith supporting your position and declaring mine as false doctrine?
Click to expand...

Goinheix no offense but your English is so poor in construction I cannot tell exactly what you are suggesting. Sometimes it sounds like you are on track and other times it sounds like you are a heretic. None the less it is true that Jesus Christ while here on earth laid aside either in part or the whole His God characteristics to become a man yet he remained no less God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Goinheix

New Member
Skandelon said:
Guys, I don't think it necessary to incite with anger, or attack with vengeance this person, when clearly he does affirm that Jesus is God. He just appears to have overstated his case in regard to what form God has made himself manifest in Christ. At least that is my hope and thus my desire to address so as to correct the erring brother rather than cast him aside.

Goinheix, please consider the words of respected scholar Adam Clarke on this subject:



Do you understand what he is saying? He is agreeing that Jesus did not manifest his divine glory, for his purpose of being crucified would not have been accomplished had he done so. He veiled his divine attributes (most of the time), but this veiling shouldn't be understood as "not possessing." Please tell me you agree.:praying:
Click to expand...

First: I dont understand very wel what Clarke is saying and definetly dont understand where he say about the veil. It will be good to understand Clarke the same way you do.

second: i dont belkieve that Jesus were vailing anything. Not even believe that Clarke were saying that,

third: Clarck is not talking about kenosis.
 
M

Mexdeaf

New Member
Goinheix said:
nothing about the divine atributes of Jesus
can you copypaste where it refers to the divine atributes of Jesus?
Click to expand...

Sigh... I guess I will have to ...


You asked for a Baptist Confession supporting the divine attributes, here it is:

The 1689 Confession states: being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her;
  • Baptist Catechism
  • Q25: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
    A25: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her yet without sin.
Mary became pregnant or conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit; this was in her womb; she was a virgin. These are all very important elements to Christ having a human nature. This incarnation was not a mystical, spiritual, or non-material pregnancy; it was physical and Jesus developed as any other human would in his mother’s womb. But there was a difference was that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit’s power which overshadowed her; the fallen nature of Adam was not passed onto Jesus as it would have through the seed of a fallen man. Obviously, I am not exactly saying that sin, in a purely physically way, passes through the seed of a man into the egg of a woman, and that only in this physical way is sin passed to each human. The imputation of sin to all of Mankind by Adam’s first transgression is a spiritual matter. It is the judgment upon all mankind since Adam sinned as our federal head.
I can’t pretend to have this all worked out, but we cannot forget that Jesus was sinless (and is still sinless) because he was very God of very God. Certainly the virgin birth, by the power of the Spirit, assures us that the Second Adam did not inherit Adam’s sin, and that as one who is not born by ordinary generation he did not inherit Adam’s sin, but was born in holiness. This Second Adam would be tempted by the serpent as was the first, but the Second Adam would not succumb; he would triumph over the devil, thus crushing the serpent under his feet.
The 1689 Confession states: and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures;
Jesus was born of a the virgin Mary, but there was a context for the birth of this promised One in history (the fullness of times). He was born, according to the Scripture’s predictions, to the tribe of Judah, from the lineage of Abraham and David as was promised.
This is all so historical, so human, and yet so supernatural all at the same time. God used ordinary providence, but he also worked freely outside of ordinary providence by the virgin birth of Jesus. Truly prophecy is a supernatural in its revelation, and add to this the supernatural fulfillment, but in all this supernatural there seems to be a natural or ordinary providence aspect.
Here we come to a finalizing of section two. The first movement, as it were, declared the deity of Christ, the second movement declared the humanity of Christ, and now the defining, fencing, and distinctions that need to be made in relation to the ”two natures in one person” are stated.
The 1689 Confession states: so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person,
This portion reiterates the fullness each of the two natures. Jesus is very God, eternal God, and fully God. Jesus us fully human, being born of a woman from her womb, and born of a woman under the law. These two natures are whole; they are not partial or lacking in any respect. But while they are whole, they are also distinct. They are separate natures. But while they are whole and distinct, they are also joined inseparably to one person. It would do us well to make sure we grasp these three aspects before moving on from here.

  • 1. Two whole and perfect natures.
  • 2. The two natures are distinct
  • 3. The two natures are inseparably joined to one person
 
M

Mexdeaf

New Member
freeatlast said:
Goinheix no offense but you English is so poor in construction I cannot tell exactly what you are suggesting. Sometimes it sounds like you are on track and other times it sounds like you are a heretic. None the less it is true that Jesus Christ while here on earth laid aside either in part or the whole His God characteristics to become a man yet he remained no less God.
Click to expand...

He appears to be from Uruguay, so he must be ESL.
 
G

Goinheix

New Member
freeatlast said:
Goinheix no offense but your English is so poor in construction I cannot tell exactly what you are suggesting. Sometimes it sounds like you are on track and other times it sounds like you are a heretic. None the less it is true that Jesus Christ while here on earth laid aside either in part or the whole His God characteristics to become a man yet he remained no less God.
Click to expand...

Jesus remained no less God. In fact, there is not degrees on being God. Either was completely God or was not God at all. Nothing in between. And Jesus was God as being fully God.

I dont like the expresion "lais aside" but if what Jesus did in kenosis was to laid aside, then he laid aside the whole of his characteristics of God (I am using your words, on wich i am not confortable) and from birth to resurrection he haven had them at hand or could use them at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top