Dr. James White on Functional Kenoticism

[Diserner]

"Jesus was real pure. He never ever does a bad thing."

 

[civic]

"Jesus was real pure. He never ever does a bad thing."

Like Father like Son

 

[TheLayman]

Dr. White dismantled Riccardi pretty handily in his latest Dividing Line.

In my opinion.

Hello,

If you are referring to the youtube video you just posted I disagree. Let me say at the outset that this is one of those James White videos that highlight the things about him that at a personal level I dislike the most: the arrogance, the condescending nature of many of the things he says, the "no true Scottsman fallacy" that he wraps insults in (no honest person would do such and such) and now I will say no more about that.

Finally, there are points where I don't believe he understands Riccardi and if I get the chance I will point some of these out. Now, I do not know if that's because he doesn't really understand the historic doctrines of the incarnation (he does seem to demonstrate this several times), whether it's because the historic incarnation just doesn't agree with him, or both (he has, to say the least, difficulty being wrong and he would have been really wrong for a long time). It would seem to be "he doesn't really understand." For example, several times he would say something to the effect of "couldn't the divine nature have informed the human nature." Natures don't do anything, a person does. Certainly James White has heard of the communicatio idiomatum. Just in case:

For Reformed theology, the communicatio idiomatum means the attributes of each of Christ's natures are communicated to the person of Christ. We can predicate what is true of each nature to Christ's person. So, the person of Christ is omnipresent, but not according to His human nature. He is omnipresent according to His divine nature because only deity is omnipresent. Likewise, the person of Christ died on the cross, but Jesus experienced death according to His human nature, for the divine nature is not subject to death and decay. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/communication-attributes​

I made sure I got that from a Reformed source because you know how White is about that. The point being is that natures don't do anything with each other, the attributes of the natures are communicated to the person, they are not somehow communicated to the other nature.

But before I say more l'd like to offer this quote from Louis Berkhop on this subject:

B. THE NATURES OF CHRIST. From the earliest times, and more particularly since the Council of Chalcedon, the Church confessed the doctrine of the two natures of Christ. The Council did not solve the problem presented by a person who was at once human and divine, but only sought to ward off some of the solutions which were offered and were clearly recognized as erroneous. And the Church accepted the doctrine of the two natures in one person, not because it had a complete understanding of the mystery, but because it clearly saw in it a mystery revealed by the Word of God. It was and remained ever since for the Church an article of faith, far beyond human comprehension. Rationalistic attacks on the doctrine were not entirely wanting, but the Church remained firm in the confession of this truth, in spite of the fact that it was once and again declared to be contrary to reason. In this confession Roman Catholics and Protestants stand shoulder to shoulder. But from the last part of the eighteenth century on this doctrine was made the butt of persistent attacks. (Berkhof Systematic Theology 346-347)​

With that rather lengthy preface I can get around to answering the argument the James White based 1.5 hours on: If Jesus wasn't limited in His divinity after the incarnation, what about His divine glory? Why wasn't He glowing as He walked the streets of Jerusalem?

The Chalcedonian Creed/Definition:​

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us. https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-chalcedonian-creed/​

I guess I would want to ask White why a human nature would glow? Is that something that human natures do? Nope. I'm getting ahead of myself. The Son did not limit His glory after the incarnation, He possessed glory in exactly the same way both before and after the incarnation...but a human nature does not have divine glory (that's sort of why it's called divine glory). Had he appeared to us "in the form of God" it would have been like this:

[Eze 1:25-28 NKJV] 25 A voice came from above the firmament that [was] over their heads; whenever they stood, they let down their wings. 26 And above the firmament over their heads [was] the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne [was] a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. 27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so [was] the appearance of the brightness all around it. This [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. So when I saw [it], I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.​

​

[Isa 6:1 NKJV] 1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His [robe] filled the temple.​

[Eze 1:25-28 NKJV] 25 A voice came from above the firmament that [was] over their heads; whenever they stood, they let down their wings. 26 And above the firmament over their heads [was] the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne [was] a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. 27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so [was] the appearance of the brightness all around it. This [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. So when I saw [it], I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.​

[Isa 6:2-5 NKJV] 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy [is] the LORD of hosts; The whole earth [is] full of His glory!" 4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke. 5 So I said: "Woe [is] me, for I am undone! Because I [am] a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts."​

It's funny, but I know JW has read this:

[Phl 2:5-8 NKJV] 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, [and] coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to [the point of] death, even the death of the cross.​

Jesus likewise did not heal anyone through the attributes of human nature. The power of healing is no more the power of human nature than is "glowing." Pretty easy to answer White's main argument. And just as the human nature of Jesus did not "glow," neither did He experience human touch, smell, taste, human sight, human hearing, hunger, pain, etc. through or in His divine nature. His divine nature did not bleed just as His human nature did not "glow." Unbelievable. Next I'll get to Matthew 25 (I couldn't believe he referred to a comment I left him back when he allowed comments). He told you what I said and then just continued on without further comment. BTW, James White has always been a functional kenoticist and I think he's been exposed enough now that he feels vulnerable and is trying to justify it (though he won't outright just own it like Olsen). He taught that Jesus didn't know who He really was until He was 12 (but hey...that guy Johnson over at Bethel...now he teaches kenoticism but not James....no, no, no).

TheLayman

 

[civic]

Hello,

If you are referring to the youtube video you just posted I disagree. Let me say at the outset that this is one of those James White videos that highlight the things about him that at a personal level I dislike the most: the arrogance, the condescending nature of many of the things he says, the "no true Scottsman fallacy" that he wraps insults in (no honest person would do such and such) and now I will say no more about that.

Finally, there are points where I don't believe he understands Riccardi and if I get the chance I will point some of these out. Now, I do not know if that's because he doesn't really understand the historic doctrines of the incarnation (he does seem to demonstrate this several times), whether it's because the historic incarnation just doesn't agree with him, or both (he has, to say the least, difficulty being wrong and he would have been really wrong for a long time). It would seem to be "he doesn't really understand." For example, several times he would say something to the effect of "couldn't the divine nature have informed the human nature." Natures don't do anything, a person does. Certainly James White has heard of the communicatio idiomatum. Just in case:

For Reformed theology, the communicatio idiomatum means the attributes of each of Christ's natures are communicated to the person of Christ. We can predicate what is true of each nature to Christ's person. So, the person of Christ is omnipresent, but not according to His human nature. He is omnipresent according to His divine nature because only deity is omnipresent. Likewise, the person of Christ died on the cross, but Jesus experienced death according to His human nature, for the divine nature is not subject to death and decay. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/communication-attributes​

I made sure I got that from a Reformed source because you know how White is about that. The point being is that natures don't do anything with each other, the attributes of the natures are communicated to the person, they are not somehow communicated to the other nature.

But before I say more l'd like to offer this quote from Louis Berkhop on this subject:

B. THE NATURES OF CHRIST. From the earliest times, and more particularly since the Council of Chalcedon, the Church confessed the doctrine of the two natures of Christ. The Council did not solve the problem presented by a person who was at once human and divine, but only sought to ward off some of the solutions which were offered and were clearly recognized as erroneous. And the Church accepted the doctrine of the two natures in one person, not because it had a complete understanding of the mystery, but because it clearly saw in it a mystery revealed by the Word of God. It was and remained ever since for the Church an article of faith, far beyond human comprehension. Rationalistic attacks on the doctrine were not entirely wanting, but the Church remained firm in the confession of this truth, in spite of the fact that it was once and again declared to be contrary to reason. In this confession Roman Catholics and Protestants stand shoulder to shoulder. But from the last part of the eighteenth century on this doctrine was made the butt of persistent attacks. (Berkhof Systematic Theology 346-347)​

With that rather lengthy preface I can get around to answering the argument the James White based 1.5 hours on: If Jesus wasn't limited in His divinity after the incarnation, what about His divine glory? Why wasn't He glowing as He walked the streets of Jerusalem?

The Chalcedonian Creed/Definition:​

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us. https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-chalcedonian-creed/​

I guess I would want to ask White why a human nature would glow? Is that something that human natures do? Nope. I'm getting ahead of myself. The Son did not limit His glory after the incarnation, He possessed glory in exactly the same way both before and after the incarnation...but a human nature does not have divine glory (that's sort of why it's called divine glory). Had he appeared to us "in the form of God" it would have been like this:

[Eze 1:25-28 NKJV] 25 A voice came from above the firmament that [was] over their heads; whenever they stood, they let down their wings. 26 And above the firmament over their heads [was] the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne [was] a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. 27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so [was] the appearance of the brightness all around it. This [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. So when I saw [it], I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.​

​

[Isa 6:1 NKJV] 1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His [robe] filled the temple.​

[Eze 1:25-28 NKJV] 25 A voice came from above the firmament that [was] over their heads; whenever they stood, they let down their wings. 26 And above the firmament over their heads [was] the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne [was] a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. 27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so [was] the appearance of the brightness all around it. This [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. So when I saw [it], I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.​

[Isa 6:2-5 NKJV] 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy [is] the LORD of hosts; The whole earth [is] full of His glory!" 4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke. 5 So I said: "Woe [is] me, for I am undone! Because I [am] a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts."​

It's funny, but I know JW has read this:

[Phl 2:5-8 NKJV] 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, [and] coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to [the point of] death, even the death of the cross.​

Jesus likewise did not heal anyone through the attributes of human nature. The power of healing is no more the power of human nature than is "glowing." Pretty easy to answer White's main argument. And just as the human nature of Jesus did not "glow," neither did He experience human touch, smell, taste, human sight, human hearing, hunger, pain, etc. through or in His divine nature. His divine nature did not bleed just as His human nature did not "glow." Unbelievable. Next I'll get to Matthew 25 (I couldn't believe he referred to a comment I left him back when he allowed comments). He told you what I said and then just continued on without further comment. BTW, James White has always been a functional kenoticist and I think he's been exposed enough now that he feels vulnerable and is trying to justify it (though he won't outright just own it like Olsen). He taught that Jesus didn't know who He really was until He was 12 (but hey...that guy Johnson over at Bethel...now he teaches kenoticism but not James....no, no, no).

TheLayman

Amen brother !!!!!

It’s good to see you here my friend

 

[101G]

Jesus Christ did not empty Himself of any of His attributes as God. Nor did Jesus Christ empty Himself of His divinity. But what some do not understand is the fact that "omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience" ARE His attributes. What Jesus Christ did do because He is God (now pay attention) was render or make void the prerogatives of His attributes which He has always had.

Look at Philippians 2:6 closely. "who, (meaning Jesus Christ) ALTHOUGH (or in spite of the fact) that He existed in the form of God, ended up taking the form of a servant, by being made in the likeness of men." He was God all along but suspended the use of His attributes by taking the form of a servant/man.

This is also why the Apostle Paul at Philippians 2:1-4 explains to the Philippians not to be selfish, conceited and put others first before yourself just like Jesus Christ did when Paul says at vs 5 to have the same attitude as Jesus Christ. Now do you get it, I hope? And PS: Can you please give me a list of Gods attributes?



• Deity cannot be gained, lost, laid down, or set aside. It either is or it isn’t.
• Deity is defined as: non-contingent eternal existence.


Christ emptied himself (i.e., poured himself) into the form of a servant. Whether Greek grammar requires, or even permits, this interpretation, it is clear that the context emphasizes the change of form, not the change of content, of the Divine Being. He did not give up deity, but he gained humanity. There was no attribution of the divine nature in the incarnation; his life incarnate, containing the fullness of the Godhead bodily, was offered for man's redemption.ward

Heresy Error Adoptionism Denied true deity
Docetism Denied true humanity
Arianism Denied full deity
Apollinarianism Denied full humanity
Nestorianism Divided Christ’s natures (two persons)
Monophysitism Confused Christ’s natures (tertium quid)
The Chalcedonian Definition In October of 451, 520 bishops gathered in the town of Chalcedon to settle these various Christological disputes. And it was there that the church, following the teaching of Scripture, formulated the doctrine of the hypostatic union—that the incarnate Christ is one divine person who subsists in two distinct yet united natures, divine and human. riccardi

The Chalcedonian Creed is the definition of orthodox Christology, and states:
“We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [or rational] soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of nature’s being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.”8

Scripture records Jesus exercising the divine prerogatives that kenoticism claims were incompatible with His humanity. He is the Lord of salvation in the same manner as the Father: “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes” (John 5:21; cf. 11:25). He heals the paralytic by announcing, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you,” and the Pharisees once again accuse Him of blasphemy, thinking to themselves, “Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” Jesus does not correct them, but only affirms that the Son of Man rightly exercises the divine prerogative to forgive sins (Luke 5:18–26). Only God can forgive sins, and the incarnate Christ forgives sins. Jesus is not only the Lord of salvation but also the Lord of revelation. He delivers revelation to God’s people, not as the prophets who spoke from the derived authority of God and declared, “Thus saith the Lord.” No, Jesus proclaims revelation from His own authority, declaring, “I say to you” (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44).

Gregory of Nazianzus wrote of this text, “We are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to the manhood, and not to the Godhead.”33 We ought to say that the person of Christ did know the hour of His return according to His divine nature; otherwise He could not be God. But the one and the same Son did not know the hour of His return according to His human nature. He always had access to His divine consciousness, but He never exploited that privilege for Himself. He only accessed that knowledge when it was in accordance with the mission His Father had given Him.riccardi

Now, “form” does not mean that Jesus only seemed to be like God. The Greek term μορφή does not connote merely the outward appearance of something, as we think of in English. The word is notoriously difficult to translate. One scholar writes, “‘Form’ is an inadequate rendering of μορφή, but our language affords no better word.”37 Rather than a single, one-to-one word equivalent, we have to explain what the term means. In the next verse, it describes the genuine humanity that Christ assumed to Himself in the incarnation. Christ took the μορφή δούλου, the form of a slave. He did not merely appear human or merely have the external features of humanity; that is the very docetic heresy the rejection of which the apostle John makes the test of orthodoxy (1 John 4:2–3). Instead, the μορφή δούλου refers to the fact that Christ was fully and truly human—that He possesses a genuine human nature. In the same way, then, the μορφή θεοῦ refers to the fact that Christ was fully and truly God—that He possesses the genuine divine nature. Yet μορφή is not just a synonym for οὐσία or φύσις, the other words that refer to one’s substance, essence, or nature. μορφή is used nowhere else in the New Testament (except in the long ending of Mark, the authenticity of which is disputed), but in the Septuagint it speaks clearly of one’s appearance.38 Besides this, a cognate form of μορφή is used to describe Jesus’ transfiguration: He was μετεμορφώθη—changed in μορφή (Matt. 17:2).

But Christ’s immutable divine essence was not changed at the transfiguration. Rather, the outward expression of the glory of Christ’s divine nature had been veiled, and for a moment He was removing the veil and once again letting His glory shine forth. Taking that all together, we ought to conclude that μορφή refers to the outward manifestation that corresponds to the inward essence—to the external form that represents what is intrinsic and essential.39 It is “a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it.”40 In other words, μορφή is not the essence, but no one can appear or exist in view of others in the form of God, manifesting all the perfections of God, unless that person is in fact God.41 Christ was existing in the μορφή of God precisely because in His very essence and His being He is God from all eternity. The context of Philippians 2 makes that clear. In verse 6, Paul says that Christ did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped. “Equality” is rendered from the Greek word ἴσος, from which we get the word isomers, which describe chemical compounds that have the same number of the same elements but have different structural formulas. They are distinct compounds, but on a chemical level, they are equal to each other. To switch from chemistry to geometry, an isoscelestriangle is a triangle that has two equal sides. Jesus is ἴσα θεῷ, equal to God. When one considers such statements as Isaiah 46:9, in which God says, “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,”

the conclusion is inescapable. If Veiled in Flesh the Godhead See can be equal to God but God Himself, and (b) Christ is equal to God, then (c) Christ Himself must be fully God. “The form of God” refers to the dignity of the Son’s essence, while “equality with God” refers to the dignity of the Son’s station, or position. If μορφή refers to the outward manifestation of the inner essence and nature, what is the outward manifestation of the inner essence and nature of God? Answer: glory. Throughout the Old Testament, when God’s presence is represented as dwelling with His people, there is always a manifestation of that shekinah glory—the pillar of cloud, the pillar of fire, the bright light that filled the Tabernacle and the Temple. But the Son is the very radiance of the glory of God (Heb. 1:3), the image of God in whose face the glory of God shines in fullness (2 Cor. 4:4, 6). He is the exalted Lord seated on the throne of heaven, the train of whose robe fills the heavenly temple, of whom the angels declare, “The whole earth is full of His glory” (Isa. 6:1–8; cf. John 12:37–41). Before the world was, the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us was eternally existing in the very nature, essence, and glory of God.

But of what did Christ empty Himself? The kenoticists have answered, “He emptied Himself of His deity,” or “of His ‘relative’ divine attributes,” or “of His divine consciousness,” or “of His divine prerogatives.” Yet we have observed why those answers fall short of biblical fidelity and theological soundness. Of what, then, did the divine Son empty Himself? Even asking the question demonstrates a misunderstanding of the language. Though κενόω literally means “to empty,” everywhere it is used in Scripture it is used in a figurative sense.43 According to New Testament usage, κενόω doesn’t mean “to pour out,” as if Jesus was pouring His deity, attributes, or prerogatives out of Himself. If that were Paul’s intent he would have used ἐκχέω, which he employs elsewhere to speak of pouring something out of something else.

But everywhere κενόω appears in Scripture, it means “to make void,” “to nullify,” “to make of no effect.” Paul uses it that way in Romans 4:14, where he says, “For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void (κεκένωται) and the promise is nullified.” Yet no one thinks to ask, “Of what has faith been made empty?” The idea is that faith would be nullified—it would come to naught—if righteousness could come by the Law.45 The text teaches, then, not that Christ emptied Himself of something, but that He emptied Himself. He nullified Himself; He made Himself of no effect. The Son Himself is the object of this emptying. He did not empty the form of God, nor the divine attributes, nor His divine prerogatives, but Himself.

The King James Version captures this well by translating verse 7 thus: “[He] made himself of no reputation.” The NIV’s rendering is also helpful: “[He] made himself nothing.” Then, the very next phrase explains the manner in which the Son made Himself nothing: “[He] emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, and being made in the likeness of men.” Christ made Himself of no effect by taking on human nature in His incarnation. He nullified Himself not by subtracting from His deity, but by adding His humanity. This is an emptying by addition!

John Murray writes,
“It is sometimes thought that, when the Son of God became man and humbled himself, he thereby ceased to be what he was and, in some way, divested himself of the attributes and prerogatives of deity, that he changed the form of God for the form of man. He became poor, it is said, by emptying himself of divine properties, became poor by subtraction, by divestiture, by depotentiation. The Scripture does not support any such notion. . . . Even in his incarnate state, in him dwelt all the fullness of Godhood (Col 2:9). When the Son of man became poor, it was not by giving up his Godhood nor any of the attributes and prerogatives inseparable from Godhood. When he became man, he did not cease to be rich in his divine being, relations, and possession. He did not become poor by ceasing to be what he was, but he became poor by becoming what he was not. He became poor by addition, not by subtraction.”

Christ remained what He was, even when He became what He was not. He did not exchange His deity for His humanity. Nor did He become a human person. Veiled in Flesh the Godhead See divine person, He assumed a human nature. The divine, second Person of the Trinity, who was eternally existing in the form of God, nullified Himself by taking the form of a slave and being born in the likeness of man. In the majesty of Heaven, to look on Him would have been to look on the epitome of all beauty. But being found in appearance as a man (Phil. 2:8), He had “no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men . . . and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him” (Isa. 53:2–3). The rich became poor (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9). The worshiped became the despised. The blessed One became the man of sorrows. The Master became the slave. As John Calvin wrote: “Christ, indeed, could not divest himself of godhead, but he kept it concealed for a time, that it might not be seen, under the weakness of the flesh. Hence he laid aside his glory in the view of men, not by lessening it, but by concealing it.”

Bavinck adds, “He laid aside the divine majesty and glory . . . in which he existed before the incarnation, or rather concealed it behind the form of a servant in which he went about on earth.”49 We ought then to understand that a significant aspect of the kenosis was a krypsis—that is, a concealment or a veiling of the glory that is the external manifestation of His nature.50 Christ fully possessed His divine nature, attributes, and prerogatives, but for the sake of becoming truly human, He did not always fully express the glories of His majesty. When He is tempted by Satan in the wilderness to exercise His divine omnipotence to turn the stones into bread or to throw Himself from the top of the temple and manifest His divine glory by being rescued by angels, He refuses (Matt. 4:1–11). When Jesus is betrayed in Gethsemane, He is the divine Son who has twelve legions of angels at His disposal (Matt. 26:53), but He refuses to dispatch them to His service. Whenever any exercise of His divine power or any manifestation of His divine glory would have functioned to benefit only Himself, or to ease the limitations of a truly human existence, and would not be for the benefit of those He came to serve in accordance with His messianic mission, He refused to exercise those prerogatives.

101G Disagree. in Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" and God is a Spirit. so, according to you God died. please tell us how a Spirit, (GOD), die? remember God do not "CHANGE" and you said, "What Jesus Christ did do because He is God (now pay attention) was render or make void the prerogatives of His attributes which He has always had." to render or make void is a CHANGE, and God changes not. so, brother civic please tell us how God died.

101G.

 

[civic]

101G Disagree. in Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" and God is a Spirit. so, according to you God died. please tell us how a Spirit, (GOD), die? remember God do not "CHANGE" and you said, "What Jesus Christ did do because He is God (now pay attention) was render or make void the prerogatives of His attributes which He has always had." to render or make void is a CHANGE, and God changes not. so, brother civic please tell us how God died.

101G.

Was Jesus God ? yes or no

now you can see I'm correct and your human philosophy is wrong. thank you

 

[101G]

Was Jesus God ? yes or no

YES, as the Ordinal Last in the ECHAD of himself.

now you can see I'm correct and your human philosophy is wrong. thank you

ERROR, for he God as the Ordinal Last came and SAVE us according to the Scriptures. Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you." and did not God save us by dying on the cross? so, again, 101G ask you how did God Almighty God die on the Cross. now, you answer yes, or no. ... (smile)

101G.

 

[civic]

YES, as the Ordinal Last in the ECHAD of himself.

ERROR, for he God as the Ordinal Last came and SAVE us according to the Scriptures. Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you." and did not God save us by dying on the cross? so, again, 101G ask you how did God Almighty God die on the Cross. now, you answer yes, or no. ... (smile)

101G.

Jesus is God you admitted= God died.

your false view of death is your stumbling block

next

 

[101G]

Jesus is God you admitted= God died.

yes, just as the scriptures states, do you not agree, Revelation 1:17 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:" Revelation 1:18 "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

now civic, did you not say JESUS is God? and did the verse above out of the Lord Jesus mouth who is God said that he was DEAD?" yes or no.

if you say no, then you are anti-christ, because you would not believe the Word of God. if you say yes, then as 101G been saying, "How did God die". ..... you have the floor...... your answer please.

101G.

 

[civic]

Jesus is God therefor God died.

next

 

[101G]

Jesus is God therefor God died.

next

close, but no cigar. but 101G will help you out. there are two deaths, the First, and the Last or final death. now which one did God accomplish? ..... (smile). your answer please.

101G

 

[101G]

What Jesus Christ did do because He is God (now pay attention) was render or make void the prerogatives of His attributes which He has always had.

now while you're working on the first death, 101G will address this statement you made above. 101G needs only one scripture. Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

now if you can understand that then you will have your answer.. if not.....? ...... (smile).

101G

 

[civic]

close, but no cigar. but 101G will help you out. there are two deaths, the First, and the Last or final death. now which one did God accomplish? ..... (smile). your answer please.

101G

nope He died like all men die.

 

[101G]

nope He died like all men die.

and how was that? by flesh, or by Spirit? and remember God is a Spirit ...... (smile).

101G.

 

[civic]

and how was that? by flesh, or by Spirit? and remember God is a Spirit ...... (smile).

101G.

death is the separation of the soul/spirit from the body.

was His body alive or dead for 3 days ?

next

 

[101G]

death is the separation of the soul/spirit from the body.

was His body alive or dead for 3 days ?

next

LOL, get it right. James 2:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

was he without body for three days? ..... (smile). but to help you out. is he now ... "WITHOUT BODY"..... (smile). your answer please.

101G.

 

[101G]

@civic
let 101G help you out again. when a spirit takes on a body/flesh, do not that body/house/temple identify the spirit in it? when 101G say my hands, or my feet, who is 101G referring to? civic hands and feet? no. God, (the spirit), took on flesh and blood. scripture, Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

are you getting this?

101G has a few things to do, but we can pick this up later.

101G.

 

[civic]

@civic
let 101G help you out again. when a spirit takes on a body/flesh, do not that body/house/temple identify the spirit in it? when 101G say my hands, or my feet, who is 101G referring to? civic hands and feet? no. God, (the spirit), took on flesh and blood. scripture, Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

are you getting this?

101G has a few things to do, but we can pick this up later.

101G.

wrong as the Son is forever God manifest in the flesh, a man.

 

[101G]

wrong as the Son is forever God manifest in the flesh, a man.

was it not the son who died? and is not the Son God? and another thing, as you believe in three persons, but one Spirit who is God. 101G next question, "how much of the ONE Spirit died, for that person whom you call the son". if it was the son who died, and you say God, the One Spirit are three persons. so how much of the ONE Spirit died then? was it 1/3 for one of your three persons? or was all of God died, or none. and if you say God manifested in flesh, (which he did), so again how much of God died then. your answer please. as said, 101G will take this up later, have something to do today.

101G will be looking for your answers.

101G.

 

[civic]

There is this concept that exists among most Christians that there is this "born again person" inside them that is distinct from human existence.

I'll give an overview of what I believe.

I start with our human life and work forward.

Adam's body was taken and formed from the ashes of destruction that surrounded God (Christ in Transcendent Bodily Form/Eternal Son). Adam felt (both emotionally and physically) the very breath of God fill this body with blood/DNA. A limited set of traits and characteristics were imparted to Adam in creation. Man became a "living soul". Incomplete. We can witness this incompletely both in body and experience. Adam had to "breath". Which results in the exchange of qualities of existence between Adam and his environment. His life was dependent upon his environment from the very beginning. Incomplete. Limited. Only having a portion of gifted attributes distinct to God.

This fits right into what @civic is explaining.

Can we all accept this? If not, how not?

Amen