Y, exposit this passage for me.
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
HankD
-
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!
Kenosis and divine attributes
- Thread starter AresMan
- Start date
- Status
Y, exposit this passage for me.
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
HankD
Those are not attributes though are they?
Can you point me to a text of scripture that says that?
But omniscience and omnipotence are not 'abilities' they are essential attributes of divinity! We are not talking about choosing not to use a abililty like you or my might choose not to use our ability to walk, but instead take the car - we are talking about giving up something that is definitional to who you are.
Besides, just how did Jesus 'see' Nathanael when he was nowhere near him physically - if not for his omnipresence?
I wonder how we test for 'man made' doctrines - one way might be to look how long something has existed, for example if a belief is less the 200 years old (by that i mean never taught in the church for the first 1800 years after Christ) would that suggest it was man made?
Can you cite any theologian prior to the 1800s who understood Phil 2:7 as you do?
Whilst I'm tempted to let Y1 reply I wonder if I may step in, what is there to exposit?
Jesus was fully human - he had to grow in exactly the same way as you and I do - what is interesting is that this verse comes just after we are told how amazed the religious elite of Jerusalem were at his understanding (2:47).
Can you explain how Jesus knew people thoughts and how he 'saw' Nathanael?
The reality is my friend, we are dealing with a subject that is mysterious and to some degree beyond human rational ability to comprehend - Jesus Christ is both God and Man, two distinct and separate natures in one person - I don't expect to be able to make complete sense of that, or all the bible has to say about the incarnation. Any seeming contradiction is because of my limitations as a finite and sinful being, not because the teaching that the church of Jesus Christ has held to for 2000 (ish) is wrong
Can even God do that though, as by definition he has those attributes always?
As long as you keep repeating the same arguments, I need not say anything other than the same refutations.
And yet you completely misunderstand what I am saying. I did not say "He did not really empty Himself, but rather took on the form of man." I am saying that the two participial phrases tell us what the emptying is. Participles function as adverbs. They modify verbs.
You claim that the grammar doesn't function the way I am claiming. Well, great. Prove it. Show me the Greek words and what parts of speech they are. Parse the phrases and show how how the words relate to each other according to rules of grammar.
Do you even know what a participle is abd how it functions? I don't know if you do because you have yet to address that at all.
You assume that "emptied" means what you claim it means. You need to prove that. Merely pontificating about the human limitations of Christ on earth does not prove that "emptied" means that the divine essence of the Person of the Son actually lost the possession of anything.
No rewrite, my friend. Just simple explanation of participles that actually just so happens to agree with the orthodox explanation of the Hypostatic Union as expressed in the Chalcedonian Creed. How 'bout that, folks!
"Rewrite"? "Man-made doctrine"? Too funny. I am saying nothing different from the the historical understanding of the Hypostatic Union that orthodoxy has believed throughout church history and you are basing your entire understanding from one word without explaining the modifiers--agreeing clearly with enlightenment kenotic theory teaching, and I am the one teaching "man-made doctrine"? You're funny.
If you remove attributes from God, He is no longer God. The three Persons of the Trinity and the essence/being of God, including all attributes, which are all co-equal and co-essential, cannot be removed without compromising deity. If you could "subtract" from the essence of the infinite God, the 100% is no longer 100%.
Jesus grew in regards to his own Humanity, as he became older, wiser. more experienced, but as to His Deity, always stayed the same as it always had been!Whilst I'm tempted to let Y1 reply I wonder if I may step in, what is there to exposit?
Jesus was fully human - he had to grow in exactly the same way as you and I do - what is interesting is that this verse comes just after we are told how amazed the religious elite of Jerusalem were at his understanding (2:47).
Can you explain how Jesus knew people thoughts and how he 'saw' Nathanael?
The reality is my friend, we are dealing with a subject that is mysterious and to some degree beyond human rational ability to comprehend - Jesus Christ is both God and Man, two distinct and separate natures in one person - I don't expect to be able to make complete sense of that, or all the bible has to say about the incarnation. Any seeming contradiction is because of my limitations as a finite and sinful being, not because the teaching that the church of Jesus Christ has held to for 2000 (ish) is wrong
There are things even God can not due, as that would violate him being God, such as changing His attributes ever, to make him less than He always is!As long as you keep repeating the same arguments, I need not say anything other than the same refutations.
And yet you completely misunderstand what I am saying. I did not say "He did not really empty Himself, but rather took on the form of man." I am saying that the two participial phrases tell us what the emptying is. Participles function as adverbs. They modify verbs.
You claim that the grammar doesn't function the way I am claiming. Well, great. Prove it. Show me the Greek words and what parts of speech they are. Parse the phrases and show how how the words relate to each other according to rules of grammar.
Do you even know what a participle is abd how it functions? I don't know if you do because you have yet to address that at all.
You assume that "emptied" means what you claim it means. You need to prove that. Merely pontificating about the human limitations of Christ on earth does not prove that "emptied" means that the divine essence of the Person of the Son actually lost the possession of anything.
No rewrite, my friend. Just simple explanation of participles that actually just so happens to agree with the orthodox explanation of the Hypostatic Union as expressed in the Chalcedonian Creed. How 'bout that, folks!
"Rewrite"? "Man-made doctrine"? Too funny. I am saying nothing different from the the historical understanding of the Hypostatic Union that orthodoxy has believed throughout church history and you are basing your entire understanding from one word without explaining the modifiers--agreeing clearly with enlightenment kenotic theory teaching, and I am the one teaching "man-made doctrine"? You're funny.
If you remove attributes from God, He is no longer God. The three Persons of the Trinity and the essence/being of God, including all attributes, which are all co-equal and co-essential, cannot be removed without compromising deity. If you could "subtract" from the essence of the infinite God, the 100% is no longer 100%.
Jesus in his humanity experienced and learned first hand what it meant to be fully Human, and yet as regards to His deity, that always stayed the same!
I'm not sure now that you ask but they are human entities ("traits" maybe) that can be put aside in deference to the betterment of another.
HankD
Thank you for your exposition
The Father allowed Him to use His divine attributes as He (the Father) saw fit.
NKJVJohn 5:19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.
Agree.The reality is my friend, we are dealing with a subject that is mysterious and to some degree beyond human rational ability to comprehend - Jesus Christ is both God and Man, two distinct and separate natures in one person - I don't expect to be able to make complete sense of that, or all the bible has to say about the incarnation. Any seeming contradiction is because of my limitations as a finite and sinful being, not because the teaching that the church of Jesus Christ has held to for 2000 (ish) is wrong
HankD
I am sorry to inform you that all things are possible with God.
No proof or evidence will be forthcoming. It is an unsupported man-made claim.
But the opposite view, Jesus whose knowledge, power and presence was limited, was 100% God because all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him. So I have scripture (2000 thousand year old scripture) and those opposing have zip.
That's true. I doubt that we jackleg theologians on the Baptist Board are going to come up with anything better than the Chalecodian formulation that Ares Man has already cited. (At the risk of endorsing "man-made" doctrine, ahem.)
But to address specific comments, Ares Man is correct that the divine attributes of the Word must have been unimpaired in the Incarnation.
Now, as to the kenosis, perhaps too much emphasis has been laid upon the "emptied himself" phrase in the text from Philippians when the real emphasis is on obedience. It was Christ's obedience to the will of the Father that made his sacrifice possible and efficient. Perhaps the emphasis on kenosis is more a metaphorical flourish than a detailed description of the hypostasis.
Of course, that would not solve all the problems, such Christ saying that only the Father knows the time of the coming of the Son of Man. Did Christ really "lay aside" his attributes? Certainly not in all cases. There were times that he did exercise the powers of the creator of the universe. Perhaps he chose not to exercise those attributes except when the Father chose that He display them.
There is an abundance of speculation of exactly how this played out — how many consciousnesses, for example, did Christ have in the Incarnation? — but I admit that my feeble mind is not up to the challenge. Again, I can go no further than Chalcedon and agree that "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
But to address specific comments, Ares Man is correct that the divine attributes of the Word must have been unimpaired in the Incarnation.
Now, as to the kenosis, perhaps too much emphasis has been laid upon the "emptied himself" phrase in the text from Philippians when the real emphasis is on obedience. It was Christ's obedience to the will of the Father that made his sacrifice possible and efficient. Perhaps the emphasis on kenosis is more a metaphorical flourish than a detailed description of the hypostasis.
Of course, that would not solve all the problems, such Christ saying that only the Father knows the time of the coming of the Son of Man. Did Christ really "lay aside" his attributes? Certainly not in all cases. There were times that he did exercise the powers of the creator of the universe. Perhaps he chose not to exercise those attributes except when the Father chose that He display them.
There is an abundance of speculation of exactly how this played out — how many consciousnesses, for example, did Christ have in the Incarnation? — but I admit that my feeble mind is not up to the challenge. Again, I can go no further than Chalcedon and agree that "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
The limitations are the result of taking on a full human nature, not in removing anything from the divine nature.
Jesus submitted to the limitations of humanity (including learning and growing) so that He could live as a human under the law, obedient to the Father, and be our substitute. This does not mean that the divine nature changed or lost anything in respect to attributes.
I am not claiming that we can understand how it all works, but I am saying that we should be able to articulate what we believe.
Just as we can't understand how God is three coequal, coeternal Persons in one being (three Persons in one nature), we can at least articulate what the Trinity is and what it is not.
The same with the incarnation and the Hypostatic Union. We don't understand how Christ can be one Person with two full distinct natures, limited through the human nature but without change to the divine nature, we should be able to articulate what the incarnation is and what it is not.
And it should be incumbent on us imbelicils of the 21st century to study the battles of those before us to avoid repeating the mistakes of history. It is unfortunate that many Christians today sure know how to sing and get emotional, but we don't care to honor doctrine that nany people have sacrificed and given their lives to protect. The christological doctrine that we have inherited (the correctly interprets the Word of God), including the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, carefully understands how God is unique as creator, yet how He condescends, and how the atonement necessarily is substutiobary while satisfying divine justice. Jesus had to be exactly our "species" to be our substitute, and He had to be God in every respect to satisfy divine justice.
Jesus submitted to the limitations of humanity (including learning and growing) so that He could live as a human under the law, obedient to the Father, and be our substitute. This does not mean that the divine nature changed or lost anything in respect to attributes.
I am not claiming that we can understand how it all works, but I am saying that we should be able to articulate what we believe.
Just as we can't understand how God is three coequal, coeternal Persons in one being (three Persons in one nature), we can at least articulate what the Trinity is and what it is not.
The same with the incarnation and the Hypostatic Union. We don't understand how Christ can be one Person with two full distinct natures, limited through the human nature but without change to the divine nature, we should be able to articulate what the incarnation is and what it is not.
And it should be incumbent on us imbelicils of the 21st century to study the battles of those before us to avoid repeating the mistakes of history. It is unfortunate that many Christians today sure know how to sing and get emotional, but we don't care to honor doctrine that nany people have sacrificed and given their lives to protect. The christological doctrine that we have inherited (the correctly interprets the Word of God), including the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, carefully understands how God is unique as creator, yet how He condescends, and how the atonement necessarily is substutiobary while satisfying divine justice. Jesus had to be exactly our "species" to be our substitute, and He had to be God in every respect to satisfy divine justice.
I don't disagree; unfortunately, many want to ignore 2,000 years of the Holy Spirit's working and insist that we moderns alone are able to construct theology. (This is a problem not only with the liberals but also with the fundamentalists and evangelicals.)
The Holy Spirit has enlightened men to different degrees throughout the ages: Chrysostom, Athanasius, Augustine, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Barth — and we ignore them for our own pet "modern" systems. All of them were, as we are, looking into a distorted mirror, but there are flashes of divine revelation we should pay attention to.
Proper Christology is, in my opinion and in the judgment of history, the single most important dogma of Christianity. A faulty Christology is a passport to perdition and irrelevance.
The Holy Spirit has enlightened men to different degrees throughout the ages: Chrysostom, Athanasius, Augustine, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Barth — and we ignore them for our own pet "modern" systems. All of them were, as we are, looking into a distorted mirror, but there are flashes of divine revelation we should pay attention to.
Proper Christology is, in my opinion and in the judgment of history, the single most important dogma of Christianity. A faulty Christology is a passport to perdition and irrelevance.
- Status