Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)

[CabinetMaker]

If you had any real inclination to get to the bottom of your question, you'd have read the links provided and AMR's excellent treatise on this topic.

In reading you would have run across a repeated phrase "This is a difficult passage."

After that assessment (repeatedly) you'd recognize perhaps, that the scholars tell us it is a 'difficult' passage.

No qualms there. What I tried to do was give you balance in this discussion. It is no more easier for the OV. It is a difficult passage to try and explain. Simply saying "That was then, this is now" shows that we do not have to be constrained to that moment in time. Does Jesus now know? I think He does from the verses given. There is one other that I'm trying to remember that is pretty clear He does know. I will find it eventually. Until then, the verses given hint enough that we don't have to be truly perplexed: Jesus is God. He created the universe and all is subject to Him. He exercises divine knowledge in passage after passage to suggest that He did not divest His divine attributes while man but acted in human capacity for our sakes.

Yes, it is a difficult passage from the Calvinistic view point. I have no problems with it at all. God the Father and God the Son are different. In His roll as Son, Jesus does not have the same knowledge that His Father does. This makes Him no less God, it just makes His roll in the Trinity different. Just as the Father could not have died for our sins and just as the Holy Spirit could not rise from the dead for our eternal life, the Son does not need the same knowledge as the Father to be our redeemer.

I don't have a problem with the verse. Those of you who hold the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms do have problems with this "difficult passage."

What does it say about the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms when the people who hold to them have a problem interpreting a scripture that conflicts with them?

 

[CabinetMaker]

In looking at Evangelical Covenant Theology, there is an emphasis on the creeds and avoiding splitting hairs in theological discussion.

The doctrinal statement is sound. I'd like to know what your pastor says about our discussion. Ask for me please.

I'd like to know too. Our pastor is not seminary trained. Just a man with a passion for serving God. He makes mistakes but then, so do we all.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I have no idea what you just said or mean. AMR has discussed how dangerously close OV is to the edge of heresey. Millard Erickson, a leading authority on orthodox and heterodox theology and their differences supports AMR's statements (or vise-versa). Some of your extrapolations are dangerously close. The Arians also believe Jesus to be much different than the Father. The Mormons do not believe God knew (knows) everything and cast Him in human-likeness. Regardless of what our discussions are, I caution against exrapolating OV difficulties to that extreme.

I was commenting that the Apostles do not know everything that Jesus knows. So when an apostle says Jesus knows everything, they don't really know if everything means everything.

 

[Evoken]

By the way, I noted in your post that you made no attempt to address the verse directly. You brought up a lot of different points about Jesus being God and knowing everything God does. But you never said anything like, "When Jesus said only the Father knows the hour Jesus really means..." Would you like to try again?

That is the point Cabinet. The verses I posted in both of my responses to you leave no doubt that the Son knows everything God (and by extension the Father) knows. As I also said in my previous post, your take on this "ignores that not only as God but also as Man Lord Jesus is called the Son of God, so this verse refers to his humanity instead of his divinity. Similar to what we see in apparently conflicting claims such as the Father being greater than the Son and the Father and the Son being one." In one he is speaking as a Man and in the the other as God.

This is also why we see him being baptized (Matthew 3:15), for example, not because he needed it, but because, as man, he was to live truly as man and fulfill the law. Likewise, as man he includes himself when it comes to knowing the day and the hour. And as I pointed out in my previous post, Christ knows that this generation will not pass before his coming and he even knows all the things that will take place before it actually happens (Luke 21). There is simply no reason to suppose that after all Christ is and all he knows, that he doesn't knows the hour and the day. Especially when one considers that explaining that verse as he speaking as a man is actually the logical and rational inference in light of the rest of Scripture and does not leads to the incoherency your position leads to in the Trinity, a position that takes you straight into heresy.

You are abusing that verse and are taking an extreme and narrow position on this. As I told you in my first response you cannot understand the nature of Christ by sticking only to a single verse, that is what you are doing here and it is naive to think or act that way. Your responses have been consistent in answer to everything that has been written to you, everything you just dismiss and claim something along the lines of: "Look at the verse again Nang, that is not what it says."; "It is what Jesus said. Its that simple, Jesus said He did not know."; "There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity."

In other words you are hung up in a single verse and are completely ignoring everything else. There is little point in continuing an exchange with someone who has the sort of attitude you have displayed throughout this thread.


Evo

 

[CabinetMaker]

That is the point Cabinet. The verses I posted in both of my responses to you leave no doubt that the Son knows everything God (and by extension the Father) knows. As I also said in my previous post, your take on this "ignores that not only as God but also as Man Lord Jesus is called the Son of God, so this verse refers to his humanity instead of his divinity. Similar to what we see in apparently conflicting claims such as the Father being greater than the Son and the Father and the Son being one." In one he is speaking as a Man and in the the other as God.

This is also why we see him being baptized (Matthew 3:15), for example, not because he needed it, but because, as man, he was to live truly as man and fulfill the law. Likewise, as man he includes himself when it comes to knowing the day and the hour. And as I pointed out in my previous post, Christ knows that this generation will not pass before his coming and he even knows all the things that will take place before it actually happens (Luke 21). There is simply no reason to suppose that after all Christ is and all he knows, that he doesn't knows the hour and the day. Especially when one considers that explaining that verse as he speaking as a man is actually the logical and rational inference in light of the rest of Scripture and does not leads to the incoherency your position leads to in the Trinity, a position that takes you straight into heresy.

You are abusing that verse and are taking an extreme and narrow position on this. As I told you in my first response you cannot understand the nature of Christ by sticking only to a single verse, that is what you are doing here and it is naive to think or act that way. Your responses have been consistent in answer to everything that has been written to you, everything you just dismiss and claim something along the lines of: "Look at the verse again Nang, that is not what it says."; "It is what Jesus said. Its that simple, Jesus said He did not know."; "There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity."

In other words you are hung up in a single verse and are completely ignoring everything else. There is little point in continuing an exchange with someone who has the sort of attitude you have displayed throughout this thread.


Evo

I think you are rather missing the point. All of the verses and other material you have pointed to are not words spoken by Jesus. They are words spoken about Jesus by other people including the Apostles and later theologians. I am pointing out a verse that contradicts the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms in there assertion that the Father and Son do not share all knowledge.

It is my position that this verse is of central importance to the issue of shared knowledge in that it was spoke by Jesus as part of His teachings about the end times. Jesus felt it was important enough to point out that only His Father knows when those times will begin.

 

[Nang]

What does it say about the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms when the people who hold to them have a problem interpreting a scripture that conflicts with them?

The only "Calvinist" creed quoted was the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Athanasian Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed were the findings of early church fathers; written hundreds of years before Calvin was even born. The "Reformed view" was only presented in answer to questions regarding Reformers. None of the material presented in discussion has conflicted with Holy Scripture.

That is simply your persistent and ignorant assertion.

AMR did an excellent job answering Bob Enyart's questions from the historical, classical, orthodox frame of reference rather than making his arguments "Calvinistic" and limiting himself to only a Calvinistic point of view, and your statement reveals a bias on your part that has precluded you benefiting from his efforts.

Your question has been answered in the most comprehensive manner, not only repeatedly by AMR but from other wise men, not necessarily of the same religious persuasion.

You are blinded to the careful and kind answers that have been provided to you, because you do not want to learn. The importance of working through difficult passages via the wisdom of others who have gone before you, who know church history and sound doctrine, is lost on you, because it is not a part of the vapid social agenda with which you apparently affiliate and frolic.

Warning:

It is blasphemous to declare that the Father and the Son are "different." If this is your private interpretation of Matthew 24:36, then the problem is yours, and it is a serious spiritual problem.

Nang

 

[CabinetMaker]

The only "Calvinist" creed quoted was the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Athanasian Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed were the findings of early church fathers; written hundreds of years before Calvin was even born. The "Reformed view" was only presented in answer to questions regarding Reformers. None of the material presented in discussion has conflicted with Holy Scripture.

That is simply your persistent and ignorant assertion.

AMR did an excellent job answering Bob Enyart's questions from the historical, classical, orthodox frame of reference rather than making his arguments "Calvinistic" and limiting himself to only a Calvinistic point of view, and your statement reveals a bias on your part that has precluded you benefiting from his efforts.

Your question has been answered in the most comprehensive manner, not only repeatedly by AMR but from other wise men, not necessarily of the same religious persuasion.

You are blinded to the careful and kind answers that have been provided to you, because you do not want to learn. The importance of working through difficult passages via the wisdom of others who have gone before you, who know church history and sound doctrine, is lost on you, because it is not a part of the vapid social agenda with which you apparently affiliate and frolic.



Nang

Nang, Nobody has provided an answer. AMR and others have posted a whole bunch of stuff in an attempt to prove that the verse is not true. That leaves you with a problem, since Jesus knows everything the Father knows, why did He knowingly misslead His apostles in Matthew 24:36?

Warning:

It is blasphemous to declare that the Father and the Son are "different." If this is your private interpretation of Matthew 24:36, then the problem is yours, and it is a serious spiritual problem.

God God the Father have died for your sins?
Could God the Holy Spirit rise from the dead to redeem you to the Father?
To whom did Jesus pray?

 

[Lon]

Yes, it is a difficult passage from the Calvinistic view point. I have no problems with it at all. God the Father and God the Son are different. In His roll as Son, Jesus does not have the same knowledge that His Father does. This makes Him no less God, it just makes His roll in the Trinity different. Just as the Father could not have died for our sins and just as the Holy Spirit could not rise from the dead for our eternal life, the Son does not need the same knowledge as the Father to be our redeemer.

I don't have a problem with the verse. Those of you who hold the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms do have problems with this "difficult passage."

What does it say about the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms when the people who hold to them have a problem interpreting a scripture that conflicts with them?

This is interesting because some of your denominational creeds support this stance. I'd guess first of all, that the ecumenical nature of the denomination wouldn't choose to argue the point, but they do support those creeds. I'd also suspect, though it is not a contention point for them, that you are not aligned with their doctrinal statement persay.

 

[Lon]

By the way, scripture tells us the Spirit knows. Would it be conceivable (before I actually find the verse in question) that the Spirit would know yet Christ does not?

 

[Evoken]

All of the verses and other material you have pointed to are not words spoken by Jesus. They are words spoken about Jesus by other people including the Apostles and later theologians. I am pointing out a verse that contradicts the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms in there assertion that the Father and Son do not share all knowledge.

From this it is very clear that you are simply not paying attention to what I have been writing to you. I have posted nothing from creeds, catechisms or anything else and have relied solely on Scripture when writing my responses. I do not adhere to the protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but I have done so for pragmatic reasons in this thread and it is precisely to avoid the charge you are advancing here of citing creeds, catechisms and the like and also to show, indirectly, that what these things affirm about Christ are indeed what Scripture truly teaches.

All the verses I have posted are from Scripture, which is wholly and entire inspired by God and free from all error. Whatever is found in the Scripture is what God intended the writers to put in them. There is also the fact that Christ himself did not leave any writings of his own, what we have is what the apostles wrote about him. So your distinction between what the apostles say and what Christ says in Scripture is meaningless.

But even granting that, all the verses I posted in my three posts, with the sole exemption of Colossians 1:15-17 and Hebrews 1:2-3, have Lord Jesus speaking himself and not an apostle saying something about him. As I said in my previous post, you simply dismiss anything that is written to you, and given your claims above, by the looks of it you don't even read it.


Evo

 

[CabinetMaker]

By the way, scripture tells us the Spirit knows. Would it be conceivable (before I actually find the verse in question) that the Spirit would know yet Christ does not?

To what verse are you referring about the Spirit knowing?

 

[Lon]

Start with I Corinthians 2:9,11 (vs 9-16)


"Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?" (Isaiah 40:13-14).

Joh 15:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father — the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father — He will testify about me
Joh 16:15 Everything that the Father has is mine; that is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you.

 

[godrulz]

Earth to GR. Earth calling GR. Come in, GR. :dizzy:

God rules inanimate, animate, and moral creation with different principles, thankfully, at least in a non-deterministic theology.

Earth to Ivory Tower, come in, AMR.

 

[godrulz]

In Pinnock's first major Open Theism book, he talks about a few similarities between openness and process, but also the significant differences. The academic open theists consider Process heretical. There would also be some similarities between Process and your views, but that does not mean I can legitimately equate your view as Process.

Pinnock must also be quoted in the full context of his comments. He has been imprecise at times and responded to criticism from ETS, etc. and changed the wording in books such as 'Most Moved Mover' on areas of Bible. His views on universalism, hell, or infallibility of Scripture are not necessarily endorsed or held by most Open Theists. They are not issues of Open Theism, but his personal ideas.

Open Theism does not have one systematic textbook equivalent to the Bible. Even within Calvinism and Arminianism, there is a spectrum of beliefs held by those under the main umbrella of the view. There is Process, Open Theism, Arminianism, Augustinianism, semi-Augustinian, Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Calvinist, hyper-Calvinist, etc. Every author has a variety of views. The same issue comes up with my Pentecostalism. People take the heretical Word of Faith extremes or crazy things Benny Hinn says and equate it with Pentecostalism. Classical Pentecostals have the same problems with the lunatic fringe that non-charismatics do.

I like Dr. Gregory Boyd also, but do not agree with his gap theory (Genesis 1), Molinistic (neo) bent, and possible speculations on the destiny of the lost or those in other religions (I think John Sanders also has ideas I disagree with, though the bulk of their writings are good reflections of Open Theism on OT distinctives...hell or annihilation is not an OT issue even if an OT speculates about it).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yes, it is a difficult passage from the Calvinistic view point. I have no problems with it at all. God the Father and God the Son are different. In His roll as Son, Jesus does not have the same knowledge that His Father does. This makes Him no less God, it just makes His roll in the Trinity different. Just as the Father could not have died for our sins and just as the Holy Spirit could not rise from the dead for our eternal life, the Son does not need the same knowledge as the Father to be our redeemer.

I don't have a problem with the verse. Those of you who hold the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms do have problems with this "difficult passage."

What does it say about the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms when the people who hold to them have a problem interpreting a scripture that conflicts with them?

Mar 13:32 "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

But concerning that day or that hour: The day or hour of the Second Coming. Perhaps the year is discernable since it was not explicitly mentioned. Many groups spend much time trying to determine the year using Daniel and Revelation.

no one knows: “no one” here are God’s creatures

not even the angels in heaven: more specifically lest we misunderstand, even angels are not given all knowledge, for they are not omniscient beings, and are subject to their positional relationship in God’s created order.

nor the Son: Christ is speaking here as one who is human and aware of His human identity, i.e., as “God the Son”, not His divine self-consciousness. Christ is acknowledging the limitations prescribed by the task given to Him to fulfill in human nature

but only the Father: The economy of the Godhead is in view here. From Matthew 28:19 we read: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and some explanation is in order before we proceed further.

From this verse we can discern distinctions between the members of the Godhead.

“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

The conjunction, ‘and’, illustrates that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Next observe: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

Here we see the word “name” used in the singular form. Christ did not say, “in the names of the…” This, with the previous construction, denotes the distinction of Persons, yet a unity of the divine essence in the Godhead—three divine Persons, one in mind, attributes, glory—all fully God. Not three roles of one God (Unitarianism), nor three Gods (tritheism). Three Persons, one God.

When discussing the unity of the activities of the three Persons theologians use the phrase, “the economy of the Godhead”. That is, whatever activity God engages in, all the divine Persons of the Godhead move in a unified, harmonious, and cooperative manner. For example, the Scriptures tell us that creation of the universe was the work of the Father (Genesis 1:1) by the Son (Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), through the Spirit (Genesis 1:2). Christ’s resurrection is another example. Scripture tells us His resurrection was attributed to the Father (Acts 2:24; Acts 13:30), the Son ( John 2:19; John 10:18), and the Spirit (Romans 1:4; Romans 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18). Note that while all the Persons of the Godhead have distinctive offices and identities, they exist in a single, glorious oneness and unanimity.

Now you have spent a great deal of time trying to construct a belief system around a single verse, a verse that is admittedly unclear on its surface. The proper biblical approach for interpreting unclear verses is to interpret the in light of clear, unquestionable truths. These didactic verses help illuminate the unclear ones. For example, in John 14:28, Christ says, “My Father is greater than I.” Do we really believe that the Son of God is subordinate and inferior to the Father? Of course not, for we have numerous verses that teach the equality and oneness of the Son with the Father (John 10:30; John 5:18; Philippians 2:6; I John 5:7, etc.) Hence, whatever John 14:28 means, this one verse does not obviate the clear evidence of the Scriptures regarding the deity of Christ. You must always interpret the unclear in terms of the clearer overarching truths.

So we come back to the problematic phrase,

but only the Father: The economy of the Godhead is in view here (see discussion above). In other words, (1)speaking from the perspective of His humanity, (2)acknowledging the limitations prescribed by the task given to Him to fulfill in human nature, (3)that is to be the obedient servant in His humiliation, Jesus, the son of man, says “only the Father knows”. The Father sent the Son (e.g., see Isaiah 48:16; John 8:42). Recall the economy of the Godhead discussion. Hence it is appropriate that Jesus refers to the Father in this capacity, “only the Father”. But, as I have shown earlier above, whatever activity God engages in, all the divine Persons of the Godhead move in a unified, harmonious, and cooperative manner. There is nothing in this verse, when properly interpreted with the umbrella of truths elsewhere in the Scriptures, that would support your contention that the Father knows something that the Son or the Holy Spirit do not know.

You tend to use the word “roles” to describe the offices of the Godhead. This is the error of Unitarianism.

Your also write: “I am not denying that Jesus is God incarnate and that as God, He knows a great deal more about everything than we do.”

I agree with this statement. But you contradict yourself when you then state in the next breath:

“All I am saying is that Jesus draws a distinction between the Father and the Son and makes it clear that the Son does not have all the knowledge of the Father.”

You cannot have it both ways. “God” cannot possess less than full and complete knowledge. Either Christ Incarnate is God (and man) or He is something less than an omniscient being. Your position is untenable. Either you state that Jesus is not God, and somehow emptied Himself of the divine attributes while on earth, then fall into a myriad of heresies surrounding the Incarnation, or you realize that what I have stated above explains the verse in question properly. There are no other options.

 

[Lon]

Thanks AMR, better than well-said.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Mar 13:32 "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

But concerning that day or that hour: The day or hour of the Second Coming. Perhaps the year is discernable since it was not explicitly mentioned. Many groups spend much time trying to determine the year using Daniel and Revelation.

Its a waste of time but many groups do spend time looking for the date.

no one knows: “no one” here are God’s creatures

Yes, but not only God's creatures. Qualifications are added.

not even the angels in heaven: more specifically lest we misunderstand, even angels are not given all knowledge, for they are not omniscient beings, and are subject to their positional relationship in God’s created order.

Here is one of the qualifications.

nor the Son: Christ is speaking here as one who is human and aware of His human identity, i.e., as “God the Son”, not His divine self-consciousness. Christ is acknowledging the limitations prescribed by the task given to Him to fulfill in human nature

This interpretation is not supported by the context of the passage from which Matthew 24:36 is taken. In chapter 24, Jesus is teaching about end times. He is teaching from divine knowledge. To suddenly switch from authoritative teaching to basic human for one verse is not supported by the text.

but only the Father: The economy of the Godhead is in view here. From Matthew 28:19 we read: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and some explanation is in order before we proceed further.

From this verse we can discern distinctions between the members of the Godhead.

“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

The conjunction, ‘and’, illustrates that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Next observe: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

Here we see the word “name” used in the singular form. Christ did not say, “in the names of the…” This, with the previous construction, denotes the distinction of Persons, yet a unity of the divine essence in the Godhead—three divine Persons, one in mind, attributes, glory—all fully God. Not three roles of one God (Unitarianism), nor three Gods (tritheism). Three Persons, one God.

When discussing the unity of the activities of the three Persons theologians use the phrase, “the economy of the Godhead”. That is, whatever activity God engages in, all the divine Persons of the Godhead move in a unified, harmonious, and cooperative manner. For example, the Scriptures tell us that creation of the universe was the work of the Father (Genesis 1:1) by the Son (Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), through the Spirit (Genesis 1:2). Christ’s resurrection is another example. Scripture tells us His resurrection was attributed to the Father (Acts 2:24; Acts 13:30), the Son ( John 2:19; John 10:18), and the Spirit (Romans 1:4; Romans 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18). Note that while all the Persons of the Godhead have distinctive offices and identities, they exist in a single, glorious oneness and unanimity.

Now you have spent a great deal of time trying to construct a belief system around a single verse, a verse that is admittedly unclear on its surface. The proper biblical approach for interpreting unclear verses is to interpret the in light of clear, unquestionable truths. These didactic verses help illuminate the unclear ones. For example, in John 14:28, Christ says, “My Father is greater than I.” Do we really believe that the Son of God is subordinate and inferior to the Father? Of course not, for we have numerous verses that teach the equality and oneness of the Son with the Father (John 10:30; John 5:18; Philippians 2:6; I John 5:7, etc.) Hence, whatever John 14:28 means, this one verse does not obviate the clear evidence of the Scriptures regarding the deity of Christ. You must always interpret the unclear in terms of the clearer overarching truths.

So we come back to the problematic phrase,

but only the Father: The economy of the Godhead is in view here (see discussion above). In other words, (1)speaking from the perspective of His humanity, (2)acknowledging the limitations prescribed by the task given to Him to fulfill in human nature, (3)that is to be the obedient servant in His humiliation, Jesus, the son of man, says “only the Father knows”. The Father sent the Son. Recall the economy of the Godhead discussion. Hence it is appropriate that Jesus refers to the Father in this capacity, “only the Father”. But, as I have shown earlier above, whatever activity God engages in, all the divine Persons of the Godhead move in a unified, harmonious, and cooperative manner. There is nothing in this verse, when properly interpreted with the umbrella of truths elsewhere in the Scriptures, that would support your contention that the Father knows something that the Son or the Holy Spirit do not know.

Does it really take 10 paragraphs to explain one four letter phrase? I think not. I think you are so bound by your concept of what God must be according to your doctrines that it requires this much explanation to try and get around a simple phrase. I thank you for addressing the verse point by point.

I reject your conclusions. The path required by you to arrive at the conclusion you do is far to complicated to be reasonable. God preserved the Bible for all believers and to make new believers. He did it in such a way so that you do not have to be the greatest scholar that ever lived to understand the truth in the Bible. There are no hidden meanings. There is only truth in its most simple, basic and beautiful form. When you go to such lengths to prove that Jesus didn't mean what He said, then you twist and torture that truth into something ugly. And that is exactly what you are doing here. You are pulling from all over the Bible to prove that Jesus didn't mean what He said.

You tend to use the word “roles” to describe the offices of the Godhead. This is the error of Unitarianism.

That is why it is quotes

Your also write: “I am not denying that Jesus is God incarnate and that as God, He knows a great deal more about everything than we do.”

I agree with this statement. But you contradict yourself when you then state in the next breath:

“All I am saying is that Jesus draws a distinction between the Father and the Son and makes it clear that the Son does not have all the knowledge of the Father.”

No, I do not contradict myself, I contradict you. IT is your doctrine that requires that the Father and Son be identical in every way. I do not share that doctrine. Why? Because Jesus does not share your doctrine either.

You cannot have it both ways. “God” cannot possess less than full and complete knowledge. Either Christ Incarnate is God (and man) or He is something less than an omniscient being. Your position is untenable. Either you state that Jesus is not God, and somehow emptied Himself of the divine attributes while on earth, then fall into a myriad of heresies surrounding the Incarnation, or you realize that what I have stated above explains the verse in question properly. There are no other options.

Again, Jesus disagrees with you. I state that your understanding of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is flawed.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No, I do not contradict myself, I contradict you. IT is your doctrine that requires that the Father and Son be identical in every way. I do not share that doctrine. Why? Because Jesus does not share your doctrine either.

Well, sir, you could have stated that up front and saved us all some time. All the while I was thinking you were earnestly seeking clarifications, but in fact you are merely seeking to engage in debate.

Now please stop whining that no one has answered your question. You have the answer in all the detail that is required. There is sufficient instruction therein for you to do your own homework now and answer your own questions.

As a matter of personal preference, I never debate the diety of Christ with anyone who explicitly denies the doctrine. Those that reject these doctrines are sufficiently beyond what the Scriptures expect of Christians to do to correct their heresies. Christians are admonished to avoid such persons (2 John 1:9-11).

I leave you to your own devices.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Well, sir, you could have stated that up front and saved us all some time. All the while I was thinking you were earnestly seeking clarifications, but in fact you are merely seeking to engage in debate.

Now please stop whining that no one has answered your question. You have the answer in all the detail that is required. There is sufficient instruction therein for you to do your own homework now and answer your own questions.

As a matter of personal preference, I never debate the diety of Christ with anyone who explicitly denies the doctrine. Those that reject these doctrines are sufficiently beyond what the Scriptures expect of Christians to do to correct their heresies. Christians are admonished to avoid such persons (2 John 1:9-11).

I leave you to your own devices.

See, there you go again twisting words. I never said I deny the deity of Christ. In fact, several times I have stated that Jesus is God incarnate. But because I disagree with you, you feel you must proclaim that I deny the deity of Christ when, in fact, I do not.

As to the question, yes, you have finally addressed it point by point. I think I finally understand exactly where you are coming from. It is one more reason why I am glad I am not a Calvinist. Your doctrines and confessions and creeds and Chaticisims have become more important to you than scripture. Look at the amount of time and effort you put into changing the meanings of the words in Matthew 24:35 into something that conforms to your doctrine.

I have looked at what you have posted and I have followed your links. I am sorry, but I don't find you to be a teacher worth learning from.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

See, there you go again twisting words. I never said I deny the deity of Christ. In fact, several times I have stated that Jesus is God incarnate. But because I disagree with you, you feel you must proclaim that I deny the deity of Christ when, in fact, I do not.

As to the question, yes, you have finally addressed it point by point. I think I finally understand exactly where you are coming from. It is one more reason why I am glad I am not a Calvinist. Your doctrines and confessions and creeds and Chaticisims have become more important to you than scripture. Look at the amount of time and effort you put into changing the meanings of the words in Matthew 24:35 into something that conforms to your doctrine.

I have looked at what you have posted and I have followed your links. I am sorry, but I don't find you to be a teacher worth learning from.

OK, far be it for me to jump to conclusions.

Your write: “I am not denying that Jesus is God incarnate and that as God, He knows a great deal more about everything than we do.”

“All I am saying is that Jesus draws a distinction between the Father and the Son and makes it clear that the Son does not have all the knowledge of the Father.”

Please explain this in light of your renewed assertion that Jesus is God.

God = omniscient
Jesus = God
therefore,
Jesus = omniscient

What exactly do you believe? Please explain.