His glory was veiled, but his divine "supernatural" abilities were relinquished.he velid them, but still had them!
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!
His glory was veiled, but his divine "supernatural" abilities were relinquished.he velid them, but still had them!
Yes, Van, Jesus had those limitations via the human nature. The Son--as in the divine Second Person of the Trinity--did not lose any divine attributes. Jesus had two full natures: the divine and the human. The incarnation did not require the divine nature to lose the possession of any divine attributes so that the human nature could be added to conceive Jesus of Naxareth.
The possession of the divine attributes of omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence of the divine being are not a barrier for God the Son to perform the good and righteous deed of humility expressed in the Carmen Christi as the mind that we should have.
This is not my doctrine. This is the historical definition of the Hypostatic Union as expressed in the Chalcedonian Creed:
"...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; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ..."
Just to be clear, I am not one who believes that. Van and possibly others believe that.
The questions in this thread are geared toward those who believe that the kenosis of the incarnation means that Jesus gave up the possession of certain divine attributes along with taking on a human nature.
Did Jesus lose any of His divine attributes while here on Earth?Good Grief, we have been over this. The verse does not Jesus emptied Himself, it says the pre-incarnate Son emptied Himself. Please stop repeating refuted arguments again and again.
The Second Person of the Trinity emptied Himself, taking on the form of a bond servant.
I have presented the Biblical view over and over. No changing the name of the divine attributes, changing the Person who emptied Himself, or change of subject to man-made doctrine will alter Philippians 2:7. And BTW, the idea of the Hypostatic Union is Jesus was 100% God and 100% Man.
Still had all of them, chose not to use them!His glory was veiled, but his divine "supernatural" abilities were relinquished.
Yes, God can exercise His attributes according to His Will, but He cannot subtract or add attributes to His nature. All of God's attributes are essential to His theotetos. We should avoid the temptation of exalting the "personal" attributes of love and righteousness over the "majestic" attributes of power and knowledge. To believe that God can actually remove knowledge or power from His essence would mean that He could remove love or righteousness.Those abilities can be self-restricted at any point, to any level.
The verse says that He "emptied himself [by] taking on the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men."Christ "emptied Himself" of those abilities to take up a true human nature. How did that work exactly, I'd love to know.
Did the divine essence of God pertaining to the Person of the Son lose any attributes? Did the divine being change?The attributes of His character and Personhood were not relinquished, but His divine abilities were relinquished. All of His "supernatural" actions were empowered by the Father and the Spirit working in unity with Him.
You haven't refuted anyone. You keep repeating arguments over and over, yet you will not touch the grammar with a ten-foot pole.Good Grief, we have been over this. The verse does not Jesus emptied Himself, it says the pre-incarnate Son emptied Himself. Please stop repeating refuted arguments again and again.
That's what I'm saying. The Son "emptied Himself." How? Here comes a participial phrase: "taking on the form of a bond servant." That's an adverb if ever I saw one.The Second Person of the Trinity emptied Himself, taking on the form of a bond servant.
Because you say so? All the thousands of Greek-speaking Chalcedonians are wrong in agreeing with the language of the Creed carefully refuting Eutychianism and Nestorianism, and you have yet to even mention the fact that there are two participles in the text and how they function grammatically.I have presented the Biblical view over and over.
And no ignoring the basic grammatical function of participles will grant you the freedom to chuck church history in the trash bin.No changing the name of the divine attributes, changing the Person who emptied Himself, or change of subject to man-made doctrine will alter Philippians 2:7.
Is that all it us? What does that mean? It seems that we can't even agree on that. Nestorius could claim that. Eutychus could try to claim that. The "heretic Honorius" could convincingly claim that.And BTW, the idea of the Hypostatic Union is Jesus was 100% God and 100% Man.
Col 2:9I know and understand this will upset some but it is my understanding. I believe the, baby to man, Jesus was without divine nature. Therefore with that understanding would this be a good question, with this being the mind of that man Jesus?
For some reason you are either overlooking or ignoring that I am using two different words in my explanation, and they have different meanings:Yes, God can exercise His attributes according to His Will, but He cannot subtract or add attributes to His nature.
No, He set them aside.Still had all of them, chose not to use them!
I have a question for those hold to kenotic theology?
If, as I think we are all agreed, the thrust of Paul's teaching in Phil 2:1-11 is our need to follow the example of Christ, and if 9as some seem to say) the example of Christ is not merely in humbling himself, but actually in divesting himself of some of those attributes essential to the nature of God then how can we follow that example?
Which of our attributes that are essential to our humanity are we to divest ourselves of and how do we do that?
His divine attributes and glory were available to Him to be used through the will of the Father to whom He, as a man, willingly submitted.Did Jesus lose any of His divine attributes while here on Earth?
God cannot do that, could he, and still be God?Yet again the same arguments are repeated and repeated. The Greek grammar does not support Jesus did not really empty Himself, but rather took on the form of man. That rewrite is utterly bogus in order to fit man-made doctrine. The bogus contention is the unsupported claim emptied Him of some part of His divine attributes makes His less that 100% God. That dog will not hunt.
So in His deity, Jesus was no longer all knowing/powerful etc?No, He set them aside.
In His incarnation - before His resurrection and glorification - He did not have the ability to be omniscient nor omnipotent. He set that aside.So in His deity, Jesus was no longer all knowing/powerful etc?