Kenosis and divine attributes

[AresMan]

For those among us who believe that the kenosis resulted in the Son divesting Himself of certain divine attributes, please answer this question:

Is an act of true humility is a good and righteousness deed?

This is not a trick question, but it will lead into a follow-up question.

Thanks.

 

[rsr]

How can it not be a trick question?

But I'll bite.

For Christ, a true act of humility is indeed a good and righteous deed. First, because it is made by the creator of all things, without whom nothing was made that is made; He is exalted has no reason to be humble, yet He was.

For man? Humility is not a good and righteous deed of itself; it is simply an acknowledgement that we have reason to be humble, thus agreeing with God about His righteousness and sovereignty and our lack of both those attributes. True humility, for humans, is not an act of righteousness but a gift of God that brings us into right relationship with Him.

There's a tricky thing about humility: Unless it is truly given from God it is a temptation to pride. You can no more truly congratulate yourself on your humility than you can thank yourself for having brown hair.

Of course, the lack of humility is a troubling sign that you have not realized how humble you really should be and don't understand that it is the proper response to God's mercy and without it you should question whether you have any relationship with God at all.

 

[AresMan]

It was obviously a good thing for God the Son, right?

 

[AresMan]

"Let each esteem other better than themselves. "

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus."

It is clear that humility in this context is a good and righteous deed. The example is Christ.

Now, given "Yes" to the question, my follow-up question is this:

Are the possession of such "divine attributes" such as omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresence as intrinsic to the essence of God barriers to performing a good and righteous deed of humility?

 

[JonC]

"Let each esteem other better than themselves. "

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus."

It is clear that humility in this context is a good and righteous deed. The example is Christ.

Now, given "Yes" to the question, my follow-up question is this:

Are the possession of such "divine attributes" such as omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresence as intrinsic to the essence of God barriers to performing a good and righteous deed of humility?

I am not sure it is correct to view the Kenosis as the Son setting aside his "divine attributes" as Scripture does not state this. What we are told is that Jesus had a glory that was, for a time, set aside (in John 17:5, for example, Jesus prays that the Father will glorify him with the glory he had with Him before Creation). So my understanding is that the Kenosis is less "divine attributes" set aside and more of the Son humbling himself in obedience to the Father to become man (the attributes remain, but in submission to the Father such that the Son does nothing of his own accord but acts as man in faithful obedience to God).

 

[AresMan]

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.

 

[Van]

Pay no attention to those who characterize the views of others without a supporting quote.

Are the possession of such "divine attributes" such as omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresence as intrinsic to the essence of God

Now this view espoused by Aresman is not true. The idea is that if Jesus emptied Himself of any part of these divine attributes, then He was not !00% God. That view is bogus. Jesus did not know the time of His return, thus His omniscience was limited, yet all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him. Ditto for the other two attributes. He had to wait until He returned to Heaven to send the Helper so His power was somewhat limited, and while in the flesh He was not everywhere at once. He was in a place, then traveled to other places. Doctrine must be consistent with all scripture.

 

[just-want-peace]

How can it not be a trick question?

But I'll bite.

For Christ, a true act of humility is indeed a good and righteous deed. First, because it is made by the creator of all things, without whom nothing was made that is made; He is exalted has no reason to be humble, yet He was.

For man? Humility is not a good and righteous deed of itself; it is simply an acknowledgement that we have reason to be humble, thus agreeing with God about His righteousness and sovereignty and our lack of both those attributes. True humility, for humans, is not an act of righteousness but a gift of God that brings us into right relationship with Him.

There's a tricky thing about humility: Unless it is truly given from God it is a temptation to pride. You can no more truly congratulate yourself on your humility than you can thank yourself for having brown hair.

Of course, the lack of humility is a troubling sign that you have not realized how humble you really should be and don't understand that it is the proper response to God's mercy and without it you should question whether you have any relationship with God at all.

Know 'zactly what you mean; I once had a boss who PRIDED himself on his HUMILITY!!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Are the possession of such "divine attributes" such as omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresence as intrinsic to the essence of God...

God is Person (in fact, three Persons in perfect unity), not a collection of attributes. The "attributes" are a description of abilities that God might normally have unless God has restricted Himself in some way.

In Jesus, the Christ, God has set aside certain abilities (aka attributes) in order to gain an ability* that was difficult any other way - specifically, the ability not to completely overwhelm humankind with His glory as He related to them as a human being. After His resurrection, He was glorified and received a resurrection body which has both similarities to our current human bodies with substantial differences.

*For those who are disturbed by my description of God gaining an ability based on their interpretation that God does not change based on on Hebrews 13:8, the Incarnation is a rebuke to that interpretation. What Hebrews is obviously addressing is character and Personhood, not Incarnation or all of the things that go with being human, such as birth, aging, injury and death.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Are the possession of such "divine attributes" such as omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresence as intrinsic to the essence of God barriers to performing a good and righteous deed of humility?

No. Why should they be?

 

[HankD]

Personally I would prefer a certain selection out of the variances in meaning of the term kenosis as a reflexive voluntary of lowering Himself in rank where Jesus voluntarily lowered Himself from a General to a private.

His attributes and prerogatives as God were still available to Him however these attributes and prerogatives were then via the will and permission of the Father until returning to and sitting down at the "right hand" of the Father.

HankD.

 

[AresMan]

The idea is that if Jesus emptied Himself of any part of these divine attributes, then He was not !00% God. That view is bogus. Jesus did not know the time of His return, thus His omniscience was limited, yet all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him. Ditto for the other two attributes. He had to wait until He returned to Heaven to send the Helper so His power was somewhat limited, and while in the flesh He was not everywhere at once. He was in a place, then traveled to other places. Doctrine must be consistent with all scripture.

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..."

 

[AresMan]

No. Why should they be?

The question is primarily for Van and his quasi-kenotic theory.

 

[AresMan]

Know 'zactly what you mean; I once had a boss who PRIDED himself on his HUMILITY!!

Then it wasn't true humility. True humility is Philippians 2:3-11.

 

[reformed_baptist]

Pay no attention to those who characterize the views of others without a supporting quote.

I will bear that in mind in light of our other recent conversation where you often characterized my view without any supporting quotes

Now this view espoused by Aresman is not true. The idea is that if Jesus emptied Himself of any part of these divine attributes, then He was not !00% God. That view is bogus. Jesus did not know the time of His return, thus His omniscience was limited, yet all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him. Ditto for the other two attributes. He had to wait until He returned to Heaven to send the Helper so His power was somewhat limited, and while in the flesh He was not everywhere at once. He was in a place, then traveled to other places. Doctrine must be consistent with all scripture.

Now Van, I know you dismissed this on the previous thread by saying something along the lines of 'Jesus knew all about those people that he met' (I paraphrase) but John tells us that Jesus 'saw' Nathanael whilst be nowhere near him bodily - Nathanael said to Him, "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." (Joh 1:48 NKJ). he didn't just 'know' he 'saw'! As I said to you before - it is not as simple as you make out.

We have to accept that in the incarnation there is great mystery - we might not be able to understand how Jesus Christ as God possessed all those attribute essential to his divinity and yet how as a man he new limitation similar to ours but the bible does not allow us to subvert either - he is the God man (fully God and fully man) rather we have to accept the biblical tension just as we do in regards to the nature of God (both three and one).

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not sure it is correct to view the Kenosis as the Son setting aside his "divine attributes" as Scripture does not state this. What we are told is that Jesus had a glory that was, for a time, set aside (in John 17:5, for example, Jesus prays that the Father will glorify him with the glory he had with Him before Creation). So my understanding is that the Kenosis is less "divine attributes" set aside and more of the Son humbling himself in obedience to the Father to become man (the attributes remain, but in submission to the Father such that the Son does nothing of his own accord but acts as man in faithful obedience to God).

He became a Human, amd assumed in His humanity the limitations that we all experience, so for the first time ever God became tired, hungry, exhausted etc! He was limited in His humnaity, but vhange NOTHING in regards to he is own deity!

 

[AresMan]

God is Person (in fact, three Persons in perfect unity), not a collection of attributes.

I didn't say that God is a "collection of attributes." God is three "who"s (Persons) in one "what" (Being). Intrinsic attributes of the being of God are omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience,

The "attributes" are a description of abilities that God might normally have unless God has restricted Himself in some way.

In what way did God "restrict" Himself in the incarnation of the Son? Did the Son in the divine being give up the possession of these attributes, or did Jesus of Nazareth as the incarnate Son have them veiled from His human nature for the purpose of living the limitations of humanity to be our substitute?

According to the Hypostatic Union, the divine nature possessed by the Son did not change. It did not give up the possession of divine attributes.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Gave up the use of His divine attributes, but still had all of them fully intact!

 

[Yeshua1]

God is Person (in fact, three Persons in perfect unity), not a collection of attributes. The "attributes" are a description of abilities that God might normally have unless God has restricted Himself in some way.

In Jesus, the Christ, God has set aside certain abilities (aka attributes) in order to gain an ability* that was difficult any other way - specifically, the ability not to completely overwhelm humankind with His glory as He related to them as a human being. After His resurrection, He was glorified and received a resurrection body which has both similarities to our current human bodies with substantial differences.

*For those who are disturbed by my description of God gaining an ability based on their interpretation that God does not change based on on Hebrews 13:8, the Incarnation is a rebuke to that interpretation. What Hebrews is obviously addressing is character and Personhood, not Incarnation or all of the things that go with being human, such as birth, aging, injury and death.

he velid them, but still had them!

 

[Baptist Believer]

I didn't say that God is a "collection of attributes." God is three "who"s (Persons) in one "what" (Being). Intrinsic attributes of the being of God are omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience,

Those abilities can be self-restricted at any point, to any level.

In what way did God "restrict" Himself in the incarnation of the Son?

That's one of the classic questions in Christian theology and we must be careful not to move beyond the very limited information we have in scripture.

Did the Son in the divine being give up the possession of these attributes, or did Jesus of Nazareth as the incarnate Son have them veiled from His human nature for the purpose of living the limitations of humanity to be our substitute?

Christ "emptied Himself" of those abilities to take up a true human nature. How did that work exactly, I'd love to know.

According to the Hypostatic Union, the divine nature possessed by the Son did not change. It did not give up the possession of divine attributes.

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.