The Deity of Christ

[Van]

If we change God from doing as He pleases to not being able to do as He pleases, are we not changing God into one of our own creation?

 

[kyredneck]

The Deity of Christ

What does that mean?

Jesus is Jehovah.

 

[SATS PROF]

Nice to know...
OTOH, some do not put God in a box unable to do as He pleases, such as lay aside some of His attributes per:

Philippians 2:5-7
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.
​

s

 

[SATS PROF]

Many exegetes insist that the verb "emptied" has no object and is explained in verses 7, 8. Then, "emptied " means adding a human nature to His Person not modifying His USE OF divine nature. Yes, I disagree with Burk on the articular infinitive. Just my opinion. Blessings, Bill

 

[Van]

Emptied does not mean "added" but does indicate removal or setting aside something possessed. Who emptied Himself? Jesus emptied Himself.

[edited to eliminate misstatement]

 

[SATS PROF]

Emptied does not mean "added" but does not indicate removal or setting aside something possessed. Who emptied Himself? Jesus emptied Himself.

+++++++++++++++++++

agreed. Bill

 

[The Archangel]

+++++++++++++++++++
IMO,. Mk 13:32 (like John 4:5, and His napping only in a boat) refers to Jesus human nature only. I am a sort of Nestorian! Blessings, Bill (Emphasis mine)

Well... that's bad.

The Archangel

 

[Piper]

Emptied does not mean "added" but does indicate removal or setting aside something possessed. Who emptied Himself? Jesus emptied Himself.

[edited to eliminate misstatement]

Greek phrase
ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν
But emptied himself.

I think we probably agree that he set something aside. He set aside the exercise of his divine omniscience and omnipotence at times. At other times he exercised them. He saw Philipp under the fig tree. There are other instances of his omniscience, but other times he said he did not know.

This has been a debate among Theologians for hundreds of years. I spent 6 weeks in seminary studying this. I could do like STAS Prof and post my paper, but I won't. The answer I found that best explained all of the associated verses and context was JB Lightfoot, in his Philippians Commentary. He said Christ laid aside the prerogatives of deity. he did not change. He did not become any less God. The emptying was in laying aside that exercise of aspects f his deity.

 

[37818]

Greek phrase
ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν
But emptied himself.

I think we probably agree that he set something aside. He set aside the exercise of his divine omniscience and omnipotence at times. At other times he exercised them. He saw Philipp under the fig tree. There are other instances of his omniscience, but other times he said he did not know.

This has been a debate among Theologians for hundreds of years. I spent 6 weeks in seminary studying this. I could do like STAS Prof and post my paper, but I won't. The answer I found that best explained all of the associated verses and context was JB Lightfoot, in his Philippians Commentary. He said Christ laid aside the prerogatives of deity. he did not change. He did not become any less God. The emptying was in laying aside that exercise of aspects f his deity.

An interesting insight as to how He changed His being with God while remaining God too.

 

[Van]

Greek phrase
ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν
But emptied himself.

I think we probably agree that he set something aside. He set aside the exercise of his divine omniscience and omnipotence at times. At other times he exercised them. He saw Philipp under the fig tree. There are other instances of his omniscience, but other times he said he did not know.

This has been a debate among Theologians for hundreds of years. I spent 6 weeks in seminary studying this. I could do like STAS Prof and post my paper, but I won't. The answer I found that best explained all of the associated verses and context was JB Lightfoot, in his Philippians Commentary. He said Christ laid aside the prerogatives of deity. he did not change. He did not become any less God. The emptying was in laying aside that exercise of aspects f his deity.

Yes, we agree, Christ emptied Himself, laying aside some of His divine attributes, such as omnipresence and omniscience. But as He was able to pick them up again, He remained unchanged in His characteristics. However, during His incarnation, His laying aside temporarily some of His divine characteristics constituted change in behavior but consistent with His unchanged divine purpose.

 

[37818]

An interesting insight as to how He changed His being with God while remaining God too.

God the uncaused Cause.

 

[Piper]

Yes, we agree, Christ emptied Himself, laying aside some of His divine attributes, such as omnipresence and omniscience. But as He was able to pick them up again, He remained unchanged in His characteristics. However, during His incarnation, His laying aside temporarily some of His divine characteristics constituted change in behavior but consistent with His unchanged divine purpose.

Nope, we disagree. He simply did not exercise those attributes. He did not lay them aside. If he laid them aside, he was no longer Omniscient and therefore no longer God.

I could not disagree with your statement more.

 

[Van]

Nope, we disagree. He simply did not exercise those attributes. He did not lay them aside. If he laid them aside, he was no longer Omniscient and therefore no longer God.

I could not disagree with your statement more.

Folks, now Mr. Piper claims a distinction between laying aside and not exercising his Divine attributes. Twaddle
Even though Christ did not know the time of His return, He was and is 100% God Almighty.

 

[Alan Gross]

"In all Christian creeds, therefore, it is declared that the two natures in Christ RETAIN, each its own properties and attributes" C. Hodge p. 389, ST, vol II.

A little light reading. All of it is great.

See the rest at: Of the Incarnation of Christ. by John Gill

"1a. That though Christ, by assuming the human nature, united it to his divine Person; yet there is a difference between assumption and union assumption is only of one nature; union is of both:

"Christ only assumed the human nature to his divine Person; but both natures, human and divine, are united in his Person: that he has two distinct natures is evident; in that, according to the flesh, or human nature, he is the Son of David; and according to the Spirit of holiness, or the divine nature, he is the Son of God:

"he was of the father’s, according to the flesh, or human nature; but, according to the divine nature, God over all, blessed for ever: he was put to death in the flesh, in the human nature; but quickened in or by the Spirit, the divine nature (Rom. 1:3,4; 9:5; 1 Pet. 1:18), yet but one Person.

"1b. This union is hypostatical, or personal; but not an union of persons: the union of Father, Son, and Spirit in the Deity, is an union of three Persons in one God; but this is not an union of two persons; but of two natures in one person.

"1c. This an union of natures; but not a communication of one nature to another; not of the divine nature, and the essential properties of it, to the human nature; for though "the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily" in Christ (Col. 2:9), that is, substantially and really, not in shadow and type;

"yet the perfections of the Godhead are not communicated to the manhood, as to make that uncreated, infinite, immense, and to be everywhere, &c. the properties of each nature remain distinct, notwithstanding this union.

"1d. This union lies in a communication of, or rather in making the personality of the Word, common to the human nature; or giving it a subsistence in the Person of the Word or Son of God;

"hence because of this union and community of person, it has the same name with the Word; and is called, "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

"And hence it appears, that the human nature of Christ is no loser, but a gainer, and is not inferior, but superior to other individuals of human nature, by its not being a person, subsisting of itself; because it has a better subsistence in the Person of the Son of God, than it could have had of itself; or than any creature has, angel or man.

"1e. This union is indissoluble: though death dissolved the union between the body and soul of Christ, it did not, and could not, dissolve the union between the human nature and person of Christ;

"wherefore, in consequence of this union, he raised up the temple of his body, when destroyed, the third day, and thereby declared himself to be the Son of God with power (John 2:19; Rom. 1:4)."