Omnicience and omnipresence of Christ

Hello Artimaeus,

I wouldn't even know where to begin in response to your post.

This statement is disturbing: "If Christ used His Diety, even once, during His incarnation then He was not a full time man."

You cannot really claim this can you?

BJ

 

UZThD, among other things, you say:

"Mine is that God the Son gave up NOTHING in incarnating by way of equality. At issue is whether or not equality is a descriptor (concessive) of form . Wallace thinks it is not. IMO it is."

What do you think Paul means in verse 8 of Philippians 2:6, that Jesus "became obedient"? The Greek "hupakoe", carries the meaning of being "subordinate". What of Jesus' own words in John 14:28, where He says that the "Father is greater than I"? How could Jesus have been completely "equal" to the Father, if here the Father is said to be "greater" than He was on earth? What of Paul in Hebrews, where he says that Jesus was "for a little while made lower than the angels" (2:9)? How can Jesus be "lower" than the angels while on earth, and yet "equal" to the Father? Does not make any sense.

While I do acknowledge that Jesus was fully God on earth, and was also "coequal" to the Father, yet, because He chose to place Himself as a Servant under the Authority of the Father, He was also "subordinate" at the same time. A mystery.

 

===


Yes it is a mystery and we'll understand it by and by.

But for now here is my opining:

As Christ is both perfect God and perfect Man it must be determined what is applicable to each. I do not think that the humanity of Christ created the universe, and I do not think that the deity of Christ was born of Mary.

But in the text of our discussion it seems to me that "He became obedient" is not a description of the Son as God but of the Son as Man. It occurs in the form of a servant not in the form of God IMO.

You will notice that in becoming man Phil 2:6 does not say that He discontinued to be in the form of God--huparchon is present!

All along I've said in these two recent Christological threads that IMO God the Son did not shrink so as to be confined to His humanity ; I think the Person of the Son transcends the limits of His humanity. So, while the human nature is not omnipresent or omniscient or omnipotent or equal to God, I think the divine nature MUST always be else God has changed and Christ is not true Man. True Man is not God becoming "smaller" and true God is not man becoming "bigger"!

John 14:28, you surely know, is widely interpreted to connect only to His humanity not to His deity by such as: Augustine;Ambrose;Leo;Calvin;Hengstenberg ; Hendrickson;Dods;Lenski;Morris;Strong'Erickson;Buswell; Morey and etc!

IMO the Son cannot as God be less than equal to the Father in any manner. Less than God is not God.

 

UZ,

This is fun! Thanks for explaining.

The two natures within the person of Jesus the Messiah account for the descriptions found in Scripture. Jesus as God the Son is and always will be co-equal with the Father. Jesus as true man is subordinate to the Father's will. I get it! I think!

Now as to the triune nature of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I think I hear you saying that there is no subordination in the Godhead of Son to Father, and Holy Spirit to Father and Son. Is that your position? If so, can you explain this position and contrast it to Erickson and Grudem? Thanks.

 

I especially liked this quote:

"As Christ is both perfect God and perfect Man it must be determined what is applicable to each. I do not think that the humanity of Christ created the universe, and I do not think that the deity of Christ was born of Mary."

 

You must first ask the question. Are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Almighty God? If they are, then they will have to be "coequal, coessential and coeternal". This in itself will remove any suggestion that any of the Members in the Trinity are "subordinate" to the other. Since there cannot be any division within the Godhead, there can be no room for any Person being any less than fully God.

I fully agree, that as God, Jesus cannot be "subordinate" to the Father. But, by taking on the "form of a servant (man)", while retaining the "form of God", while on earth, Jesus as the God-Man became "subject" to the Father. Yet it is clear from verses like John 5:23, that even during the Incarnation, Jesus was claiming "equality" with the Father on the one hand, and also saying that "the Father is greater than I" (JOhn 14:28), on the other. This can only be true as the Person Jesus Christ during His Incarnation, as the God-Man. Even though Jesus has retained His human nature now while in heaven, He nonetheless is not at this time "subject" to the Father. I see this from John 17:5, where He is speaking of His Ascension to the Father's side, and He says that He will once again resume His "equal state of glory" with the Father, which He gave up while on earth.

This is all heavy stuff, and I do not calim to understand even 5% of it!

 

UZThD

You say, "You will notice that in becoming man Phil 2:6 does not say that He discontinued to be in the form of God--huparchon is present!"

I agree that Jesus could never cease to be God, and therefore retained His "form of God" when He took on the "form of man". Though "huparchon" has been declined as "present", I am not sure that this is completely true. The "present" would have been "estin".

Dr J B Lightfoot, whose knowledge of Greek was clearly outstanding, said of "huparchon", "the word denotes 'prior existence', but not neccessarily 'eternal existence'. The latter idea however follows in the present instance fom the conception of the Divinity of Christ, which the context supposes" (on Philippians, p.110. 1891 edition)

Dr Lightfoot is following the reading in the margin of the Revised Version (of which he sadly approved), where it reads: "being originally". A reading that Dr J H Thayer also accepts (see under "morpeh" in his lexicon, p.418). It would appear from this, that these Greek scholars did not see, "huparchon", as in the "present tense". IMO, "huparchon" has the force of the "imperfect tense". However, this should not be understood to agree with Lightfoot or Thayer, that it refers to "past action", as I believe that the "imperfect" is also used to denote, "an incomplete action, on that is in its course, and is not yet brought to its intended accomplishment. But excludes the assertion that the end of the action was attained" (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, p.187). This, I believe to be consistent with the use of "en" in John 1:1, which is again the "imperfect tense". "and the Word en God". To say that "huparchon" is in the "present", does not do justice to the passage in Philippians, which is spaeking of the "eternal existence", and "continued existence" of Jesus Christ. Not following Lightfoot, who asks if "en morpeh theou huparchon", refers to the "pre-incarnate or incarnate Christ?" (p.131). It is both. Again, the "present tense" would not bring this out. That "huparchon" does have the "imperfect" force, can be seen from such examples as, Luke 23:50; Acts 2:30; 2 Corinthians 8:17, 12:16; Romans 4:19, etc.

 

Well...yes...actually I am. I am not a scholar and therefore easily dismissed by those who think they are wiser because of their "ever learning".

1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1Pe 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

Not much of an example to follow if He did it by reason of being God since I don't have that option.

If I wear a blindfold for a year to convince blind people that I know what it is like to be blind and then later tell them that I sometimes "peaked" when I needed to, then they are not going to be impressed that I know what it is like to be blind. If Jesus "peaked" even once, then that puts Him at less than 100% of the time living as a man. I mean peaked of His own power, not because the Father gave it to Him as He has other men.

Jesus did not stop being God during his earthly ministry. Jesus was fully man during His earthly ministry. Jesus has ONE mind, ONE will, ONE spirit. I see nothing in scripture to indicate differently. I am willing to listen and be convinced otherwise but, it will take more than the contradictory logic of scholars.

 

===

ALL IMO

For Art:

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone of anything. What I am merely doing is saying what I think to be the case and giving reasons. And no one here, certainly not I, is paying you no mind because you are not a scholar. In my case, I just disagree with you.

For Paul:

I agree with Erickson re eternal trinal relationships but with Grudem concerning the incarnation .

The two Baptists Millard Erickson and Wayne Grudem much differ on eternal relationships between the Father and God the Son. What is very curious is that both men are inconsistent with those positions when they define the incarnation:

Erickson says that in eternity the Son was not role subordinate (ie, did not obey) , but only temporally is subject. How could He be were He God is Erickson's logic. Trinal Persons must be equal, he says.

But Erickson also says that in the incarnation God the Son stopped using some divine attributes as omniscience and omnipresence. But this is contrary to Erickson's own doctrine of God. For that makes the Son less than God.

I think E. is inconsistent because IF trinal Persons must be equal, then one Person cannot stop using the divine attributes which the others use and which define God!

Grudem , in contrast, says that in the incarnation the Son kept all of His attributes. He ALSO says that the temptations/obedience of Christ was only in the humanity not in the deity.

But to me that is inconsistent with Grudem's view of eternal Trinal relationships as there He says the Son MUST be preincarnationally obedient in His deity.

Yet if the Son MUST BE obedient eternally why would incarnational obedience be of only the humanity of Christ? So I think Grudem here is inconsistent!

In doing theology each doctrine must cohere with the others. So if I say God is immutable, then the incarnation CANNOT change God! If I say that Christ is TRUE MAN, then I cannot think that His humanity is just God shrinking to fit it.

 

Hello Artimaeus,

Your statement here needs to be clarified for me given the rest of your last two posts: "Jesus did not stop being God during his earthly ministry."

You seem to say that Jesus should not (or could not if you like, correct me here) "use His deity" or give us an example of what it is like to be a 100% man by "using His deity," but then maintain (rightly) that Jesus "did not stop being God during his earthly ministry." You need to explain in what way Jesus did not stop being God during His earthly ministry while also claiming that He could not do anything "as deity" (paraphrase of your earlier post).

What do we predicate of Jesus' actions: Did His divine nature die? Did His human nature create all things? You see, you may not like the "two minds, wills, etc." but it has been the orthodox position for good reason.

Christ is one person, the Godman, but we must be careful in saying that He could not show us what it is like to be man if He did so using deity. We should be careful affirming the corollary to your claim too: He could not show us what it is like to be God if He did so using humanity. Both are false.

You'll probably complain for lack of Scripture in my posts, but I urge you to read some standard works on the subject (my suggestion is the excellent oxford book on the Incarnation filled with orthodox and kenotic viewpoints...there's also Morris's "Logic of God Incarnate," and then of course the systematic theologies). You'll see Scripture discussed there, but I don't have the time to go detail by detail over the vast problems and tensions in Christology.

However, that being said, we can all agree to the three non-negotiables in the hypostatic union: Jesus was fully God; Jesus was fully man, Jesus was one Person. No view, kenotic (no matter what version of the kenotic view since it is a sliding scale), two minds, two wills, or the unique body-mind dualist view (Yandell and John Cooper...Cooper's book is excellent on this area "body, soul, and life everlasting") keeps these three non-negotiables without some tension.

Every view has strengths and weaknesses, and every view does not answer some of the biblical data with great ease. However, I prefer the orthodox view and think that it has withstood the test of time for a reason.

BJ

 

I need to make one addendum: What do we predicate of Jesus' actions: Did His divine nature die? Did His human nature create all things? You see, you may not like the "two minds, wills, etc." but it has been the orthodox position for good reason.

I'm not implying that your view (whatever it is) cannot deal with this problem since it can be explained without two minds, wills, etc. Obviously, the problem passages involved "no man knows the hour," etc. However, the church fathers responded to Appollinarianism (the "logos" assumed a human body but there was no separate human mind) with "that which is unassumed is unhealed." Yandell has a view that is pretty much Appolinarianism, but just says that the church fathers got their anthropology all wrong. His view is strong and consistent in some areas (he even holds that Jesus was truly tempted---could have sinned), but weak in others (human nature= human body).

that's all for now, gotta go
BJ

 

okay I promise this will be my last thought for now....sorry for three in a row.

I was thinking...sure there is no passage that mandates two minds, wills. However, it seems to solve some dillemmas:

If Jesus was sinless and tempted, then must one credit this to His human or divine nature?

If it is His human nature, then how could He be sinless without a human mind since sinlessness has to be predicated of man's immaterial part.

If it is His divine nature, then how can one say that He was tempted since the divine nature could not sin (not able to sin)?

If we get rid of the two minds, then what do we make of His sinlessness? The one Person, Christ, did not sin and this is because _____

A. His divine nature was His human mind, but this would invoke the ancient criticism "that which is unassumed is unhealed." Tertullian spoke of such a Christ as a "tertium quid" (third thing)...neither God nor man, but something in between the two and able to save no one.

B. He could not have used His deity in the process of being sinless because the He would not be showing us what it is like to be a 100% man. Then one must ask how He could accomplish such a feat without a human mind?

The two minds, two wills, view says that one mind had access to the other but not vice versa. Thus, He was sinless both in His humanity and divinity and was tempted (although He was not able to sin).

promise that's it for now...let me know what you think
BJ

 

BJ, thank you for your kind disagreement. I hope my response appears as pleasant as yours was to me. I will respond in three posts just because it is easier for me.

I would say "should not" because it would be counterproductive to His purpose. I would not say "could not" as that would imply no power but if I did use it I would mean it in the sense of no option given His purposes.

A man who closes his eyes cannot see while his eyes are closed but at no point is he a blind man. He is still a sighted man who happens to have his eyes closed. Jesus restricted Himself to the experience of being a man. I don't have a clue about how He was able to do this (and neither do all the theologians who have ever lived).

No.

No.

Orthodox means I will take it seriously but it is not the deciding factor. I do not find two minds in scripture and also see no need for concluding that it is even a good idea.

I may have misled you as to my position. I am saying that He could not (by His own self-imposed restrictions, not lack of power) show us what a man SHOULD do by using His deity.

Not at all, your reasons for not using them are quite sound.

Yes, Yes, and Yes. (Right after I looked up hypostatic union and kenotic. )

If the view doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Now all it has to do is withstand the test of Artimaeus and convince me. I think I had better quit for the night. It is after 1:00am and I am getting slap happy. I will try to respond to the other two posts tomorrow.

 

ALL IMO:

How analogous is a sighted man ,with his eyes closed, to the incarnation of the omniscient God?

Well, the man is not blind ; he just sees nothing. He still has sight ; he just is not seeing. Sightedness is not a definition of humanity.

But what defines God? If God does not use His divine attributes is He still God? If God stops using all divine attributes, how is God defined? Frame and Shedd and many theologians say that attributes reside in essence or even are the equivalent.

So, why could this ( a sighted man closing his eyes) not be analogous to God the Son who when becoming human "closed His divine mind "as it were to the omniscience of God? This is, of course, Erickson's position!


I think the analogy breaks apart on Scriptural data:


1) The effect of closing His divine mind to perfect knowledge of everything when incarnating would be to limit His "intelligence."

By that I mean the the Son enfleshed would not know, as Erickson thinks, what the Father and the HS know.


So the "mind" of one trinal Person at a given point knows less than the mind of another trinal Person? Two intelligences in God? Capability is not the point ; exercising omniscience is the point.

That which does not know all at any given time is not at that time omniscient. The potential to know is not knowing.

2) The analogy falters when it is factored in that God has just one mind. Where does it say the "mindS" of God? If the omniscient mind of the preincarnate Son is "closed," then so also are the minds of the Father and the HS for God is ONE being, not three beings!

3) But the mind of God is not closed, and, in fact, omniscience is said to be the test of deity in Isaiah! So, if the incarnate Son with His mind closed is not omniscient, then He fails that test of deity which God , Himself, establishes as the standard!

4) So, let's assume that Christ has just one mind. Is that the mind that learned --as Lk 2:52 says He increased in knowledge? At adulthood was that divine-closed mind still learning? At the ascension was that divine-closed mind still learning? Does the mind of Christ EVER open to omniscience?

BUT IF it does, will the Son still be true Man? Is true Man omniscient?

Either a true man can exercise omniscience (and all other divine attributes) or Christ is not true man or the mind of Christ never opens up. How can He be like His brethren, as Hebrews says, if His "one mind" becomes omniscient?

5) I think the analogy is subject to much criticism both from our understanding of what true God is and from what true man is!

Not only is it said that the mind of Christ learned in general (Lk 2), it also is said in Hebrews that

a) the mind of Christ was tempted, and,
b) the mind of Christ learned obedience, and,
c) His obedience was perfected, and,
d) His obedience is our example. But how can we emulate His obedience if He is obedient as God?

These to me seem most appropriate to a genuinely human mind not to an altered divine one.

 

While admittedly interesting (more so to some than to others) but, not compelling.

Proof that knowledge and wisdom are not necessarily a one to one correspondence.

 

Hello Artimaeus,

Regarding this: "I would say "should not" because it would be counterproductive to His purpose. I would not say "could not" as that would imply no power but if I did use it I would mean it in the sense of no option given His purposes.

Remember His purpose went beyond showing us what man is like (a subjective view of the atonement--not linking you to this old view, though), but He also came to show us who God is. I think of John 1 makes this point clear; I also like Hebrews 1:1-4 regarding this point. He did many things to show us who God is and what He is like. He did many things through the Spirit, but also did many things on His own. He said He could lay down His life and take it up again. He forgave sin without mentioning on who's authority. He called God His own Father. I would contend that in these instances He "used His deity." None of His actions where He "used His deity" discounted from His human nature. His purpose was not mitigated in anyway when He "used His deity."

Now concerning this point: "I may have misled you as to my position. I am saying that He could not (by His own self-imposed restrictions, not lack of power) show us what a man SHOULD do by using His deity."

I think this places you within the kenotic camp. He did not restrict Himself from "using His deity" in a broad sense, which is what you seem to argue. Of course, when dealing with what He "emptied Himself" of there were some "restrictions," but I would contend that He still "used His deity" while on earth--even without explicitly attributing His actions to the Father or the Spirit.

Besides, you have the precarious problem of taking a kenotic position and denying "two minds" and now trying to explain how the divine nature can be so restricted that it "learned obediennce, grew in wisdom, etc." This has been the problem of the kenotic view for a while. It seems to stretch Christ's full divinity because there is no firm reason given why His divinity had to be restricted in such a way in order to become a man. Furthermore, many kenoticists hold that these "restrictions" were removed after the ascension, but that Christ is still a man...this begs the question why He needed the restrictions in the first place.

I admit to some restrictions, but they must not include any essential divine attributes like omniscience...if the Trinity holds, then all three Persons must have the same essential divine attributes (UZ made this point above).

Perhaps the two mind view will pass the Artimaeus test after all?

let me know what you think
BJ

 

Hey UZ,

I liked your post regarding Omniscience. I will play devil's advocate and give you what I would guess Yandell's response to you would be.

Omniscience is both dispositional and episodic. All three Persons of the Trinity have the same dispositional omniscience, and the Incarnation did not affect Christ's dispositional omniscience. However, there is nothing that requires that all three Persons of the Trinity have the same episodic omniscience at the same time (Yandell holds to a sempiternal or everlasting doctrine of God and time...not an atemporal one). Thus, Christ could restrict His episodic omniscience during the Incarnation, but retain His dispositional omniscience. Thus, your points above are avoided.

let me know what you think,
BJ

 

===

Hi Brandon

I have some difficulties with that:

1) Were God only occasionally omniscient , then at one time He would not have the knowledge He had at another time. But God is perfect.So, is He perfect having more or less knowledge? How can a change in what He knows not affect His perfection? How can an attribute be increased or decreased and God remain perfect?

2) As I said, it seems to me that in Isaiah chaps 41-44 God makes omniscience a test of deity. But were God at times not omniscient, then, at those times He could not pass His own test.

3) God is thought to be unchangeable in nature and attributes by every conservative theologian I have read. As Malachi says, "I, the Lord. change not." It would seem that God's "intelligence " must be part of His nature. But if that intelligence is inconsistent in what it knows, then I wonder if that would not constitute a change in nature.

4) As a Calvinist I think that everything that happens [outside of God's Being] is decreed. For God to occasionally lose the knowledge of what He Himself planned just doesn't sound right to me.

5) But not only do I think that God plans all, I also think He brings about circumstances which bring His plan to fruition. For God to "forget" His plan would make it difficult for Him to see His plan accomplished.

6) The earthly Christ also seems to have been omniscient . Peter said, "you know all things." (Jo 21). Peter didn't say, "At times you know all things."

7) Were God not omniscient sometimes then He could not hear our prayers at those times ..

8) Creation requires constant attention. Christ is said in Col 1 to be holding the universe together. Does not that require both omnipotence and omniscience? If so, as God's knowledge "goes" , so goes the running of the universe.

9) If one attribute can so fluctuate, then can others? Is God sometimes not truthful or loving as these qualities ebb and flow in the divine Being?

10) God seems not confined to time. If He is not, then how could He at one time know less than He does at another time?

[ June 15, 2005, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]