Erickson on the incarnated Christ

[HankD]

I have spent many years contemplating these mysterious things and I am at a loss.

But I still do it.

I do have one comforting scripture:

Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

And the the awestruck archangel Gabriel when he announced this mystery of the incarnation to Mary...

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

HankD

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, immortal, etc. The Word was God (Jn. 1.1), but the Word was made flesh (Jn. 1.14). Where was his omnipotence when Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together against him? In the days of his flesh, he was obviously not omnipresent.

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. -Mk. 13.32

As for omniscience, are we to believe that the Son of man made this statement with tongue in cheek? If he had been immortal, he would certainly not have had the ability to die for our sins. However, any limitation to his power was due to his willing obedience to the will of his Father.

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. -Jn. 10.17, 18

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. -Mt. 26.39

 

[JonC]

What if Jesus did not act on his own accord, but in perfect submission to the Father? Regardless of the will of the Son (regardless of whether this will is identical to that of the Father, which is debatable in certain instances) all that the Son accomplished was the will of the Father accomplished as man through the Spirit.

I lean towards this view for several reasons. First, it neither diminishes Christ’s divinity nor elevates his humanity. Jesus is not less God, but concurrently he is not a sort of superman. He, through Whom all is created, has humbled himself to become man; the Creator becomes the Created. Second, the Son (who is God) experiences what it is to be human, to “put on flesh”, to know humanity. I believe this is necessary for Christ to be our representative, and to be a sufficient propitiation offered for our sins (the Spotless Lamb). It is also necessary for Christ to be our Mediator. Third, here Jesus becomes a true example for mankind (the perfect man, acting in perfect obedience to God). Jesus did not perform those miracles on his own accord, but as a man in obedience to God through the Spirit. The miracles testify not to Christ’s divinity but that he comes from the Father. His words are true because they are not of his accord, but of the Father’s (just as Peter’s miracle of raising Tabitha, or healing the lame man, does not testify to Peter’s divinity but to Christ).

The "two nature" approach is, I believe, an attempt to reconcile the inconceivable - God becoming man. Unfortunately doctrines have been built upon this line of reasoning without recognizing its limitations. I do not believe that Jesus has "two natures" in such a way as to act "in his humanity" at times and "in his divinity" at other times.

 

[percho]

What if Jesus did not act on his own accord, but in perfect submission to the Father? Regardless of the will of the Son (regardless of whether this will is identical to that of the Father, which is debatable in certain instances) all that the Son accomplished was the will of the Father accomplished as man through the Spirit.

I lean towards this view for several reasons. First, it neither diminishes Christ’s divinity nor elevates his humanity. Jesus is not less God, but concurrently he is not a sort of superman. He, through Whom all is created, has humbled himself to become man; the Creator becomes the Created. Second, the Son (who is God) experiences what it is to be human, to “put on flesh”, to know humanity. I believe this is necessary for Christ to be our representative, and to be a sufficient propitiation offered for our sins (the Spotless Lamb). It is also necessary for Christ to be our Mediator. Third, here Jesus becomes a true example for mankind (the perfect man, acting in perfect obedience to God). Jesus did not perform those miracles on his own accord, but as a man in obedience to God through the Spirit. The miracles testify not to Christ’s divinity but that he comes from the Father. His words are true because they are not of his accord, but of the Father’s (just as Peter’s miracle of raising Tabitha, or healing the lame man, does not testify to Peter’s divinity but to Christ).

The "two nature" approach is, I believe, an attempt to reconcile the inconceivable - God becoming man. Unfortunately doctrines have been built upon this line of reasoning without recognizing its limitations. I do not believe that Jesus has "two natures" in such a way as to act "in his humanity" at times and "in his divinity" at other times.

Questions concerning from above, "He, through Whom all is created, has humbled himself to become man; the Creator becomes the Created,".

Was that known to be going to take place before the Creator said, "Let there be light"?

(Was the woman taken from the man, for that purpose, the Creator becoming the Created?) The Lord my helper.

Where it has been translated the Creator saying, "I Am that I Am," when the Creator literally says, "I will be who I will be, " and then the Created, born of woman, says literally, "I Am." isn't that more accurate than what has been taught?

Thus God, in Christ, self empties. Father, Son for the purpose of redemption?

Would like Tom's view on this also.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, but this must be carefully nuanced. Clearly any human is limited in physical location, whereas God is assumed to be omnipresent; however, the 2nd person of the Trinity was sustaining the cosmos (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3) while incarnate, which to my mind means He had to have been omnipresent extra carnem, i.e. via the so-called extra calvinisticum even during His time on earth. Even if one were to claim that omnipresence is not required to sustain the cosmos (I'd say the three omni- attributes work in tandem), one must concede that omniscience is a requirement, and Jesus clearly didn't know the time of His return.

So, though during His mode of being as word-become-flesh living on the earth his divine attributes were not limited, they were yet limited incarnationally by the veil of His flesh.

Jesus while here on the earth was Deity and also Perfect humanity in one Body, si that he indeed was limited by His own voliation, as he could not be everywhere at same time, did not know all things as to His humanity, as he grew in grace and wisdom as per the scriptures!

 

[Yeshua1]

What if Jesus did not act on his own accord, but in perfect submission to the Father? Regardless of the will of the Son (regardless of whether this will is identical to that of the Father, which is debatable in certain instances) all that the Son accomplished was the will of the Father accomplished as man through the Spirit.

I lean towards this view for several reasons. First, it neither diminishes Christ’s divinity nor elevates his humanity. Jesus is not less God, but concurrently he is not a sort of superman. He, through Whom all is created, has humbled himself to become man; the Creator becomes the Created. Second, the Son (who is God) experiences what it is to be human, to “put on flesh”, to know humanity. I believe this is necessary for Christ to be our representative, and to be a sufficient propitiation offered for our sins (the Spotless Lamb). It is also necessary for Christ to be our Mediator. Third, here Jesus becomes a true example for mankind (the perfect man, acting in perfect obedience to God). Jesus did not perform those miracles on his own accord, but as a man in obedience to God through the Spirit. The miracles testify not to Christ’s divinity but that he comes from the Father. His words are true because they are not of his accord, but of the Father’s (just as Peter’s miracle of raising Tabitha, or healing the lame man, does not testify to Peter’s divinity but to Christ).

The "two nature" approach is, I believe, an attempt to reconcile the inconceivable - God becoming man. Unfortunately doctrines have been built upon this line of reasoning without recognizing its limitations. I do not believe that Jesus has "two natures" in such a way as to act "in his humanity" at times and "in his divinity" at other times.

Jesus had and has in Him botht he will of God and Man, and while both are distinct within Him, they both are in perfect accord and unison!

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course. He is 100% man and 100% God in Perfect Union.

That is exactly what I said!

 

[Yeshua1]

God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, immortal, etc. The Word was God (Jn. 1.1), but the Word was made flesh (Jn. 1.14). Where was his omnipotence when Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together against him? In the days of his flesh, he was obviously not omnipresent.

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. -Mk. 13.32

As for omniscience, are we to believe that the Son of man made this statement with tongue in cheek? If he had been immortal, he would certainly not have had the ability to die for our sins. However, any limitation to his power was due to his willing obedience to the will of his Father.

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. -Jn. 10.17, 18

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. -Mt. 26.39

He did not cease being God, but did cease showing off those attributes while here on earth!

 

[JonC]

Jesus had and has in Him botht he will of God and Man, and while both are distinct within Him, they both are in perfect accord and unison!

So Jesus had two wills rather than two natures? I suppose this is a very human condition (for the believer) as well since we struggle between the flesh and spirit. Yet Jesus did say that he came not to do his own will but the will of the Father. So my view here still stands solidly. We also have two wills - the flesh and the spirit. When we obey the latter it is not us but Christ in us. So I see your point.

 

[Yeshua1]

So Jesus had two wills rather than two natures? I suppose this is a very human condition (for the believer) as well since we struggle between the flesh and spirit. Yet Jesus did say that he came not to do his own will but the will of the Father. So my view here still stands solidly. We also have two wills - the flesh and the spirit. When we obey the latter it is not us but Christ in us. So I see your point.

You are correct, I mispoke, as jesus had.has within Him 2 Natures, Human and Divine, distinct, but always in unison and accord!
And he also has his own will, always in unison with Father and the Holy Spirit...

 

[TCassidy]

And he also has his own will, always in unison with Father and the Holy Spirit...

"Nevertheless, not my will (I don't want to do this) but thine (you have to do it) be done."

 

[Yeshua1]

"Nevertheless, not my will (I don't want to do this) but thine (you have to do it) be done."

IF he ever went gainst His fathers will, he lied, as he stated that he always did what His father commanded Him to do!

 

[TCassidy]

IF he ever went gainst His fathers will, he lied, as he stated that he always did what His father commanded Him to do!

Doing something, and wanting (will) to do something are two entirely different subjects.

 

[Yeshua1]

Doing something, and wanting (will) to do something are two entirely different subjects.

In that passage, jesus shied away, as he knew would experienced being forsaken by the father as the sin offering/bearer, but he still did not sin in that, correct?

 

[JonC]

I do not understand how we can say Jesus had two natures and two wills yet without being two separate persons. I do not see such a duality in Scripture as much as I see Jesus has a nature that is both man and God.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not understand how we can say Jesus had two natures and two wills yet without being two separate persons. I do not see such a duality in Scripture as much as I see Jesus has a nature that is both man and God.

One will, as the Divine and human natures always act in one accord!

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

He did not cease being God, but did cease showing off those attributes while here on earth!

Christ did not cease to be who he was essentially after being made in the likeness of men, but he did surrender his voluntary use of the prerogatives of deity.

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. -Jn. 14.10

 

[Yeshua1]

Christ did not cease to be who he was essentially after being made in the likeness of men, but he did surrender his voluntary use of the prerogatives of deity.

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. -Jn. 14.10

You just stated what I was trying to say!

 

[JonC]

One will, as the Divine and human natures always act in one accord!

If I understand correctly, you are saying that Jesus had or has two separate natures,not two aspects of one nature. So in that sense, I understand you to be implying that God never took upon himself, as God, humanity (God never truly became man, or became flesh, because an eternal and immutable God cannot become anything). Is this what you believe?

Also, how do you define one's "nature"?

 

[Yeshua1]

If I understand correctly, you are saying that Jesus had or has two separate natures,not two aspects of one nature. So in that sense, I understand you to be implying that God never took upon himself, as God, humanity (God never truly became man, or became flesh, because an eternal and immutable God cannot become anything). Is this what you believe?

Also, how do you define one's "nature"?

God became a man and lived among us, God became a human being, still was God, and has 2 natures, Deity and human, not co mingled and mixed but separate and distinct, but always in one accord...Jesus is not 50/50, but 100/100!

Jesus was flesh and blood like us, except sinless humanity nature, same as Adam was before the fall...