Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | dwilliamson | 217677 | ||
Dear BradK I am sorry to have to disagree with you on both counts. I am in work presently and dont have the time either to discuss this very important question at the moment but possibly another thread should be started on this. Briefly. I don't believe that we can say that the Lord had limited attributes of Deity upon earth - to have limited attributes of Deity is necessarily to be less than God. The attributes of Deity are what mark God out to be Who He is! So if a Person is not Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Eternal etc we can safely say that such is not God. Philippians 2 must be kept in its context. There are a number of examples in that chapter of "the mind of Christ" - Paul is seeking to inculcate an ATTITUDE within the church at Philippi and he gives examples of that attitude. What is that attitude? "look not every man on his own things but every man also on the things of other". It is an attitude whereby we seek the benefit of others. Now how does this apply to the Lord? He is eternally "in the form of God", personally He cannot change but He does change His position. Knowing all that He is, recognising that He is equal with God in position, He "empties Himself" - this cannot be of Deity or He is not God - the point is simply that He does not act for Himself but rather for others! This stoop for the benefit of others is then described in the further statements "took upon Him the form of a servant etc..." Personally I would appeal - Do not read into Philippians 2 more than what is intended in the context. How could our Lord be an example by the setting aside of attributes? He is an example because, although He IS what He is, He is willing to stoop to think upon "the things of others". Another statement you have made is "He was limited to a fleshly body, so that He wasnt omnipresent while on earth". Can I ask - when God lived among men in the Tabernacle in the wilderness "within the veil, between the 2 cherubim" did that mean that He was not Omnipresent? Did that mean He was nowhere else? "The Word was God...the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1). Not meaning to cause any arguments on this most sacred of subjects - the Person of Christ - but I do feel we need to be careful limiting Him in any way. One final thing - I know that there are Scriptures which are often quoted at this point which appear to limit Him - these again must be read in their context and against the background of the clear teaching of Scripture that Christ is God. In Him David |
||||||
2 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | BradK | 217686 | ||
Hello David, I welcome your questions and appreciate your sincerity. I'm glad we can discuss such an important topic. First, let me say, if you haven't, please view my User Profile to get to know me better. I'm a long-time Forum member. Second, I also think it important to say that I firmly uphold the essentials of the faith- Orthodoxy. Never would I say something intentionally without: 1. having studied it, ; 2. ignoring context. Regarding Phil. 2, I think the late Dr. Kenneth Weust says it well: "Our Lord was in the form of God. The word “God” is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. Thus, our Lord’s outward expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of Deity. Since that outward expression which this word “form” speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God, God." [Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament] What we are dealing with specifically, is the doctrine of kenosis. Phillipians 2:6-7 reads- "...who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (ESV) Paul makes a clear statement as to the Diety of Christ here. 2 comments I'll offer of those more wise than myself. 1. Dr. A.T. Robertson notes, "To be on an equality with God [to einai isa theoi]. Accusative articular infinitive object of [hegesato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case [theoi] after [isa]). [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself [heauton ekenose]. First aorist active indicative of [kenoo], old verb from [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a [Kenosis] doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. “He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty” (Lightfoot). [A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament] 2. The Bible Knowledge Commentary gives this insight: "Though possessing full deity (John 1:14; Col. 2:9), Christ did not consider His equality with God (Phil. 2:6) as something to be grasped or held onto. In other words Christ did not hesitate to set aside His self-willed use of deity when He became a man. As God He had all the rights of deity, and yet during His incarnate state He surrendered His right to manifest Himself visibly as the God of all splendor and glory. Christ’s humiliation included His making Himself nothing, taking the very nature (morphe) of a servant, and being made in human likeness (v. 7). These statements indicate that Christ became a man, a true human being. The words “made Himself nothing” are, literally, “He emptied Himself.” “Emptied,” from the Greek kenoo, points to the divesting of His self-interests, but not of His deity. “The very nature of a servant” certainly points to His lowly and humble position, His willingness to obey the Father, and serve others. He became a man, a true human being. “Likeness” suggests similarity but difference. Though His humanity was genuine, He was different from all other humans in that He was sinless (Heb. 4:15). Thus it is seen that Christ, while retaining the essence of God, was also human. In His incarnation He was fully God and fully man at the same time. He was God manifest in human flesh (John 1:14)." I trust this will help in better understanding the point I made. BradK |
||||||
3 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | dwilliamson | 217728 | ||
BradK Thanks for your reply to my query. Sorry for my delay as I have been so busy this last few days. I will say that I never thought that you were anything else than sincere and desirous to uphold sound doctrine. I agree with much of your post but not with the following: "He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct." [A.T Robertson, Word Pictures] I do agree with further statements such as "The words “made Himself nothing” are, literally, “He emptied Himself.” “Emptied,” from the Greek kenoo, points to the divesting of His self-interests, but not of His deity." and "In His incarnation He was fully God and fully man at the same time. He was God manifest in human flesh (John 1:14)." [Bible Knowledge Commentary]. My issue with what is taught at times concerning the Lord Jesus is that human reasoning is put beyond Divine revelation. Consider the following: 1. We acknowledge that the Lord asked questions of men BUT read EVERY chapter in Johns Gospel and note the references in every chapter which reveal the infinite knowledge of the Lord. There were no limitations as to His knowledge. 2. We acknowledge that the Scripture says He was "crucified through weakness" BUT he still managed to "uphold all things by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1). There was no limitation as to His Power. 3. The Lord presently has a "fleshly body" in the sense that it is a body of "flesh and bone" and he sits "on the right hand of the majesty on high" BUT He still promises (as He did upon earth) that "where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt 18v20). There was no limitations as to his "place". Thus, He is both God and Man - he passed through the experiences true to humanity, but He never relinquished His Deity to do so. This is one of the facts that should draw out worshio from our hearts! J B Watson noted ""How do both deity and humanity dwell in one Person at the same time? How can Christ on the one hand be God and yet be verily man? How did the divine attributes dwell with those that are proper to manhood? How, if He is God and is thus omniscient, does He learn? I do not know. This is a revelation for faith; it is not a subject for prying and investigation. It is one before which we are intended to stand with worshipping hearts and not one into which we are intended to look with our poor cheap microscopes. Nay, here is the revelation - perfect God - perfect Man - one Christ" [J B Watson, Our Matchless Lord p. 22] The same writer noted "The Bible is full of truths which we do not have the intellectual power to reconcile". This is what I believe. Thanks In Him David |
||||||