Omnicience and omnipresence of Christ

some interesting points above. Perhaps distinguishing dispositional vs. episodic omniscience could help. One is extensive, while the other is intensive. One is a set, while the other is a subset of the set.

Dispositional omniscience is the attribute of God where God knows every proposition's truthood or falsity. This does not change ever--that is it does not increase or decrease.

Episodic omniscience is the attribute of God where God is "thinking" of a thing (or more likely a group of things) at a time.

Thus, the Persons of the Trinity have identical essential dispositional omniscience. But each Person's subset of episodic omnniscience can be different without affecting any major Christian doctrines like your concerns above.

God is still unchangeable regarding essential properties (dispositional omniscience in this case), but accidental properties like the content of each Person's episodic omniscience at a given time can change (along with a great deal of other accidental properties...this is obviously not perfect being theology with a strong doctrine of divine simplicity or divine immutability).

This means that Christ did not have to be thinking of everything all at once at all times. The content of His dispositional omniscience (essential attribute) is maximal, but the content of His episodic omniscience is not (accidental attribute) and can be different from the other two Persons of the Trinity--they all three do not have to "think" of the same things at the same time forever.

I could use omnipotence (like dispositional omniscience) vs. God's actions (like episodic omniscience) as an illustration since one is extensive and the other is intensive and one would serve as a subset of the other. God has dispositional omnipotence that is unchangeable and essential and identical for each Person of the Trinity. This does not mean that God has to do everything that He can, or that if one Person of the Trinity does something (accidental property), then all have to do the same thing. I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but perhaps it's a good illustration here.

Hopefully this could clear up some misunderstandings in the position and see which points above "stick" and which ones do not. Regarding God and time, well that is another thread.

I'm not sure that I agree with part of your 10) (God seems not confined to time...how is it confining and can we even make sense of "timelessness"), but no need to go into that now. I will say that, dispositionally, God does not know more or less ever; whether or not the content of His episodic knowledge changes is not a matter of "knowing more or less" but what God is thinking about at a certain time, so I don't think 10) is a problem.

BJ

 

I would argue that God's omnipotence is always functioning or the universe wouldn't exist.

Likewise, dispositional/episodic seems to blur the divine omniscience of Christ instead of clarifying it.

Jesus Christ as God is omniscient and therefore Scripture records episodic references to it in the person of the Christ.

As the God/Man, Scripture addresses both his divine omniscience as "episodic events" and as "dispositional." But these descriptive terms do not seem to have the distinction you are making for them in the trinity.

As the God/Man, how would episodes of omniscience be described in the Messiah?

How did Jesus (human nature) know what he knew in the episodes of omniscience? Was it revealed to him by the Spirit? Or did his human mind having access to his divine mind?

 

Hi Paul,

I don't advocate Yandell's view, but I have interacted with him on these matters.

Questions that others should address when investigating dispositional vs. episodic omniscience are first, what is God's relationship to time, and second, does God have to think (episodically) of everything all at once at all times (or in eternity if He is atemporal)?

I don't purport to know how God thinks, but it is an interesting position. When you answer these questions, then perhaps these distinctions don't seem to blur anything when you think of it in a set vs. subset category, but that just may be my own opinion on the matter.

It is wrongheaded to say that omnipotence "functions" at all...it is a static attribute that affirms God's capacity to act, but does not include the actions themselves. God is always functioning (or acting if you like), and His actions flow from His omnipotence (among other things).

Regarding your last question, Yandell does not hold that Christ's human nature involved anything more than His divine nature being joined to a human body, so there are no worries about what Jesus' human nature knew since bodies don't know anything. He is a firm mind/body dualist where there is a one to one correspondence between a person and a mind; human minds operate best when attached to human bodies. Thus, in his view, Christ had only one mind...he would say that the two minds view gives Christ one mind too many.

well i've gotta go,
BJ

 

I don't know, sometimes I have to chew on something for quite a while before that little light bulb comes on.


I will try tomorrow to contribute more to this thread.

 

"...for my Father is greater than I".

I Look at it in terms of military rank. A general is greater than a private in terms of rank, but the private (limited in authority) is just as much a man as the general.

Jesus the Son voluntarily and temporarily stepped down in rank (servant) yet was just as much God as the Father (Lord).

What is the extent and scope of the kenosis?

Since it is not clearly revealed in all the details we can ony speculate but here are a couple of verses already mentioned which cause some folks to fret.

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

From this it seems that somehow Jesus had more wisdom at 12 years old than say 5 years old and that He learned wisdom experientially as we do.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Then we have the prayer life of Jesus.

If He knew in advance every detail of His ministry in obedience to the Father (for example the prayer in Gethsemane, "Matthew 26:39 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") why pray?

Especially "if it be possible"?

Personally I resolved this issue in my own mind and to my own satisfaction with "Where He is man let Him be man, where He is God let Him be God" (author unknown).

I can't give you a chapter and verse for that but it works for me.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.


HankD

 

I'm sorry but, if this is true (in the sense that it seems to me that you mean) then I am not impressed with anything that Jesus did while on this earth. I am not impressed with a healthy man riding in a wheelchair and I am not impressed with a God who is "acting" like a man. </font>[/QUOTE]Just a thought here, but perhaps the point was not to impress you. Perhaps, it is not all about you and what impresses you. Possible?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Hank: IMO Christ as God is not a private and the Father a general because the relational subordination of Christ only occurs in His humanity--just my opinion.

Brandon: Thanks for the clarification.

Bill

 

If I'm understanding you correctly, Yandell believes that Jesus is God in the flesh - a divine mind and a divine will in a human body.

But then all of the difficulties of growing in wisdom and not knowing the day or season of Messiah's return are still with us, etc.

 

Part of the difficulty in dealing with these things are the radical differences between Christ as part of the triune God and Christ as being in the flesh. Because God and Christ and the Spirit are beyond time, outside of time, and therefore they are everything they are all at once, they are not parceled out in pieces having a beginning, middle, and an end as we mortals do.

But then (speaking from our point as mortals, we phrase it "then") Christ was also incarnated into a human body.

Now it is said of this Body that He is the image of the invisible God and in Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

But whatever one might say about the days of His flesh, one must say they were, in the end, finite. There were only so many cells within his brain, only so many possible quantum states for the electrons that represented the ideas within his earthly manifestation, and the representation was of course very finely grained, like any image it could not possibly hold every possible part of God. There was, so to speak, in Christ's image a mapping of God's attributes where many were mapped into fewer in the fleshly life of Christ.

Thus, when Jesus said to his disciples that the very hairs of your head are numbered, in his earthly mind perhaps an inquiry as to the number of hairs on the head of Peter might have casually been posed and answered, but I'm fairly certain He didn't pause and contemplate, also, the number of hairs on the head of any of us participating in this discussion today. Yet the eternal infinite God has this knowledge instantly available regarding all of us at all times.

Thus, when the woman who touched the hem of his garment was healed, He asked "who touched me?"

But in a larger sense, the fleshly life of Christ is also part and parcel of the eternal Christ. From the eternal point of view, He has always been being born, living, and dying for our sins, been being raised, and returning to Glory with the Father. This four dimensional aspect of Christ - taking the time factor as well as the spatial into account is all a part of that image He so perfectly is of God.

Indeed, I am persuaded that the temporal manifestation of Christ continues in heaven, where we will meet Him and deal with Him, from our point of view, forever and ever, world without end, amen.

I am not a pantheist - I believe there is a separation between God and His creation. But it is a separation that becomes blurred at the point where Christ is manifested in the flesh.

 

I think Jesus should make an impression on all people...I'm people. I regret that I do not write well enough for you to understand my intentions.

 

Our God does whatsoever He pleases.
It was an analogy.

My point is that the kenosis can be viewed as a voluntary and temporary lowering of "rank" by Jesus Christ the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity:

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels...

His equality with the Father but subsequent and voluntary lowering in the incarnation are shown in:

Philippians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Subsequently He was returned to His former glory:

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was

as shown by verse 9 of Philippians 2.

Though He was God incarnate, as a man born of woman, under the law, He was "for a little while" in voluntary subjection to God the Father and "humbled Himself" and became obedient to the Father even to the death of the cross.

The temporary subservience was part of the plan of redemption.

It was a voluntary, temporary lowering (lower than the angels).

Hebrews 2:6-7 focuses upon man as "lower than the angels".

Hebrews 9 focuses upon Jesus as a man who was also made "lower than the angels" in the incarnation.

I used the RSV Hebrews 2:9 text because it IMO correctly adds "for a little while (Grk. Braxu ti)" which is found in both the Traditional and Critical texts.

Why is this so important and why the big explanation?:

This is important to know to help those, who having the word sown in their hearts, are being snatched away by the evil one through the cults who deny His deity by pointing to the subservient kenosis passages such as:

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Their number one strategy is to fail to show that it was a voluntary as well as a temporary lowering (lower than the angels) for the purpose of the Atonement.

Jude
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

HankD

 

Hello Paul,

"But then all of the difficulties of growing in wisdom and not knowing the day or season of Messiah's return are still with us, etc."

Well, as much as Yandell hates being labelled a kenoticist, he would most likely respond with what, IMO, would be a kenotic answer.

The distinction between dispositional and episodic omniscience would come into play. Christ, during His time on earth, limited His episodic omniscience to the point that those passages that you refer to are true of His divine mind. I never got a clear answer from him as to whether or not Christ still does not know the day of His return after the ascension...this leads to one of my problems with kenotic theories: the post-ascension state of Christ's divinity.

well that's enough for now,
BJ

 

Hank

I need to attend to some things so will be gone from BB a while. thanks for your opinion. Mine is that all subordination of JC occurs in His humanity, not in His deity. I think God must in all ways be equal to God.

Bill

 

Agreed. To suggest that Jesus was at any time in His Deity, suboridnate to the Father, is blatant heresy. This is as much as agreeing with the heretic Origen, who actually taught that Jesus Christ was a "second god", since "ho theos" was only used for the Father, while the Son is "theos". And error that even the usually orthodox Dr James Denney also fell into.

 

UZ,

Jesus was subordinate to the Father only in his humanity. Question: After the resurrection, when Jesus ascended into heaven to sit at the Father's right hand, is Jesus still the God/man?

Did God the Son in his incarnation forever become both God and Man in one body?

Since Jesus is going to come again in bodily form, and since he now sits at the Father's right hand, this would seem to be the case.

What do you believe and how does it contrast with other evangelical scholars?

Thanks in advance to your response. I look forward to hearing what you have to say on this issue.

 

UZ,

Jesus was subordinate to the Father only in his humanity. Question: After the resurrection, when Jesus ascended into heaven to sit at the Father's right hand, is Jesus still the God/man?

Did God the Son in his incarnation forever become both God and Man in one body?

Since Jesus is going to come again in bodily form, and since he now sits at the Father's right hand, this would seem to be the case.

What do you believe and how does it contrast with other evangelical scholars?

Thanks in advance to your response. I look forward to hearing what you have to say on this issue. </font>[/QUOTE]===

Paul:


As you may know even among those who agree that any relational subordination of the Son occurs only in His humanity ,and not in His deity, some disagree as to whether that role subordination continues into eternity. Millard Erickson says it does not [he is IMO a kenoticist; I am not] . Gary Derickson says it does (both are Baptists). I agree with Derickson!

Role subordination is said by many others to be a characteristic of eternal trinal relationships. Some, as Dahms, base this on an eternal begetting of the Son. Others , as Grudem, while not teaching that begetting, base it on His being eternally "Son." The logic is that a son is always obedient to a father. IMO "Son" indicates equality not subordination.

IMO while there may be pretemporal trinal "roles" and relationships [creation was, eg, "through" the Son] these are not hierarchical. I think any hierarchy among the Persons began with the incarnation, in the form of a servant not in the form of God, , as , I think, Phil 2 exegetically will show. Jo 14:28 IMO only refers to His humanity as Augustine,Athanasius and many, many others say.

While IMO JC is only one Person, [as singular verbs, nouns, and pronounns are used of Him], He consists of two natures each replete with mind, emotions, and will. By thinking this, I find it fairly easy to predicate certain actions , experiences, and qualities to either one or the other nature (as do Hodge and Grudem and many ancients ). I think this is necessary if He is both truly God and Man ; IMO only that view of two acting natures coheres with a correct doctrine of God and the Biblical data. The ancients (Agatho, Constantinople, The Damascene etc ) inhered mind and will in nature NOT in Person. The followers of Cyril, as the nonChalcedonian Orhodox, inhered these in Person.

So, as IMO , it is neccessary for Christ to have two "minds" and two "wills" in order to be both true Man and true God, and since "this same Jesus will come," I think as Man JC ever is role subordinate to the Father . But as God I think He never can be because God has , IMO, one mind and will. So "in God" one faculty of will cannot bend to another faculty of will.

IMO what some may be missing who follow Erickson's system is that God does not change into Man {He adds Man} . If He does not change , then God the Son is not ever existing just in His humanity. This is consisyent with Warfield and Shedd and Hodge and Grudem who see in Christ TWO centers of consciousness--not one!

Therefore, unlike Lutherans who suppose qualities of deity are given His humanity , I think, the human body of Jesus never becomes omnipresent, and the human mind never becomes omniscient, and the human will never becomes omnipotent ; I think Man remains Man and God remains God forever!

IMO the humbling of the Son both occurs in His humanity, and it is His humanity that is glorified --when all will bow before Him. But I don't think that glorification means a change of His humanity into deity.

I know these are hard issues . Two natures in one Person, however, is no more of a mystery than is three Persons in one God.

I try to remember to say my opinions are just that- my opinions. I'm glad I can share them.

Bill Grover

[ June 27, 2005, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

PS

Tomorrow I'm 65. I succeeded in my goal of finishing a research ThD ( May 13th.) in Christology ,on this very subject, before my 65th. I don't know *of a certainty* very much even after these three years of research about the Person of Christ . But what it did do was give me some insight into some of the issues.

We'll understand it all by and by , won't we! Until then, let's live to glorify Him-- even if we do not understand Him!

 

Thanks Bill,

Since I have Grudem and Erickson, and could see that they disagreed, it is wondeful to have your thoughts and research on this topic. You have done a great job of clarifying for me this important topic.

Since seminary days, I haven't spent all that much time on this topic, so your concise summary is excellent. Reading your comments, I have a much better understanding of the issues involved.

I agree with your position as I think it best reflects the Scripture.

I really think that your dissertation needs to be published in book form for a wider reading.