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

[Lon]

This will glaze your eyes over (I guarantee it) but just read the first paragraph of the following...

Augustine on Divine Immutability

Note that the word "accidental" as used in the above refers to something that arising from extrinsic causes, like, for example the movement of a clocks hands (or the movement of anything for that matter).

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thanks. I'll look it up.

 

[Nang]

You said in post #91:



So I guess not. I left out "of their service to the Lord". Does that change anything? If so how?

Please explain.

Shouldn't have to . . .

 

[Lon]

This will glaze your eyes over (I guarantee it) but just read the first paragraph of the following...

Augustine on Divine Immutability

Note that the word "accidental" as used in the above refers to something that arising from extrinsic causes, like, for example the movement of a clocks hands (or the movement of anything for that matter).

Resting in Him,
Clete

I thought it was going to take awhile to read. You are right and one would hope regarding the 'glazing' that it is poor translation work.

For our discussion, you said extrinsic would be the hands, but I believe his discussion would place those intrinsically within the nature of the clock and therefore not subject to extrinsic change. Extrinsic would be my setting it, setting the alarm, or busting it. Augustine gave Sonship and Fathership and hair color as example to this intrinsic value against extrinsic change (his term 'accident'). So he equates 'sameness' as intrinsic movement which is a good distinction for our discussion and perhaps gives meaning to our Changes/doesn't change exchange.

 

[Clete]

I thought it was going to take awhile to read. You are right and one would hope regarding the 'glazing' that it is poor translation work.

For our discussion, you said extrinsic would be the hands, but I believe his discussion would place those intrinsically within the nature of the clock and therefore not subject to extrinsic change. Extrinsic would be my setting it, setting the alarm, or busting it. Augustine gave Sonship and Fathership and hair color as example to this intrinsic value against extrinsic change (his term 'accident'). So he equates 'sameness' as intrinsic movement which is a good distinction for our discussion and perhaps gives meaning to our Changes/doesn't change exchange.

No you do not understand what is being said. Anything that can be lost from a thing is not intrinsic to the thing. The movement of a clock can be stopped and is therefore not intrinsic to the clock but is rather accidental too it. If you read far enough Augustine makes this point using the color black in a raven's feather as an example.

This is a common error people make when they want to think that no one could really deny that God can change in some way, but the fact is that Augustine and then Luther who was an Augustinian monk, and then Calvin after him believed that God is, to use an intentionally redundant phrase, utterly immutable, or as Augustine himself put it "He [God] remains altogether unchangeable.

The question then is how did they reconcile such a belief with the incarnation and other undeniable Christian doctrines. The answer is that they did not. They made no attempt to do so because they saw need to do so. They merely accepted the incongruity as a limitation of the human mind and not as a real contradiction, despite having no evidence to that effect. If you asked Luther, as you might ask a typical Calvinist today, "Do you believe that God become flesh and dwelt among us?" they would answer "Yes, of course!" and if you then asked them if God is immutable they would likewise answer in the affirmative and if you then asked them how both can be true, if they are consistent (which most Calvinist now a days are not) they will answer with a simple, "I do not know.". They have no trouble and even expect to live with antinomy and find it odd that someone would object to it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

BEQ12: Are foreordination and foreknowledge the same thing?

AMRA-BEQ12 - "No they are not...From these misunderstandings, we see incorrect statements such as the following:

Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning. (Incorrect)

The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:

The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical..Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. (Correct)
...the actions of moral free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place."

I think AMR has done a brilliant treatment here. It may not be agreed upon, but for me it opens the further discussions concerning it wide open. (Did I just say 'open?' )

BEQ13: Is my conclusion from FDR true that, “prophecies of future events do not inherently provide evidence of foreknowledge?”

AMRA-BEQ13 - "Your conclusion is correct as you have stated it above. Prophecies of future events are not in and of themselves evidence of foreknowledge."

This is a nice premise for further discussion. It accurately identifies the tip of the iceberg. If I am counting correctly this is 'affirmative' #1

BEQ14: Is it theoretically possible for God to know something future because He plans to use His abilities to bring it about, rather than strictly because He foresees it?

AMRA-BEQ14 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
No, this is not possible. As discussed in AMRA-BEQ12 God foreordains all that is to come to pass. As a necessary consequence, God foreknows because He as foreordained.

This one would have been tricky merely for the vague idea of 'theoretically.' I woudn't quite know how to answer a theoretical. AMR discarded the hypothetical and I think it more accurately addressed the issue of contention than I would have thought to answer, so again kudos to him. By the way, I think in some ways this discussion is better than the Lamerson/Enyart debate because both have had more time w/o the Battle time restraints.

BEQ15: Is NOAH a clear and specific method of interpretation: The New Openness-Attributes Hermeneutic resolves conflicting explanations by selecting interpretations that give precedent to the biblical attributes of God as being living, personal, relational, good, and loving, and by rejecting explanations derived from commitment to the philosophical attributes of God such as omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, impassible, and immutable.

AMRA-BEQ15 - "NOAH is not a clear and specific method of interpretation. Please review my answer and rationale for so stating in my previous AMRA-BEQ4 response."

There is redundancy here ( # AMRA-BEQ4). Again, saving BE time from editing and allowing some questions to be grouped in agreement might have helped move things along. Perhaps in the rebuttals

BEQ16: Does the Incarnation show that God the Son divested Himself in some significant degree of knowledge and power, but explicitly not of His goodness?

AMRA-BEQ16 - "No. Christ is God and cannot divest himself of any of His attributes."

Both a good question and answer here. I'd hope this will get some good meaningful interaction because it is one of the heavy-weight questions in theology needing really clear and thorough discussion. Philippians 2:6-12 comes to the forefront along with the other scriptures AMR cited. This discussion question is in introductory stages in my assessment. Lamerson and Enyart took the discussion here. I didn't see it addressed in depth. Perhaps it isn't necessary. Lamerson answers with a line similarly found in AMR's repsonse. BE skipped it altogether in redress. Perhaps Enyart/Lamerson/AMR are in agreement upon that particular?

 

[Lon]

No you do not understand what is being said. Anything that can be lost from a thing is not intrinsic to the thing. The movement of a clock can be stopped and is therefore not intrinsic to the clock but is rather accidental too it. If you read far enough Augustine makes this point using the color black in a raven's feather as an example.

This is a common error people make when they want to think that no one could really deny that God can change in some way, but the fact is that Augustine and then Luther who was an Augustinian monk, and then Calvin after him believed that God is, to use an intentionally redundant phrase, utterly immutable, or as Augustine himself put it "He [God] remains altogether unchangeable.

The question then is how did they reconcile such a belief with the incarnation and other undeniable Christian doctrines. The answer is that they did not. They made no attempt to do so because they saw need to do so. They merely accepted the incongruity as a limitation of the human mind and not as a real contradiction, despite having no evidence to that effect. If you asked Luther, as you might ask a typical Calvinist today, "Do you believe that God become flesh and dwelt among us?" they would answer "Yes, of course!" and if you then asked them if God is immutable they would likewise answer in the affirmative and if you then asked them how both can be true, if they are consistent (which most Calvinist now a days are not) they will answer with a simple, "I do not know.". They have no trouble and even expect to live with antinomy and find it odd that someone would object to it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The problem I'm seeing is the assessment that the hands are not an intrinsic part of that conveyance. God as relational to us isn't extrinsic of Himself that I see. He remains consistently God in perfection as He relates to my needs. He has already, the right tool for the right job. God already has all, there is no need to go out and buy a specialized tool because God already has it all Heb 7:26 .

It goes back to our discussion of 'ready' vs. 'already' as it relates to foreknowledge/foreordination.

Again I see our respective assumptions in this discussion. A garage can have every tool imaginable but as every new car comes out, new tools need to be made. I think OV omnicompetency has the garage with a foundry and ready for contingency.
The traditional view has the tools already anticipated and made. The future hasn't happened yet/future is known discussion is at the crux of our immutability discussion. In both scenarios the tools are there when needed, it is just how they got there that is the focal point of discussion.

(Ignore my analogy as it breaks down. I'm just trying to put some handles on our discussion).

I like your intrisic/extrinsic analogy on the change discussion. It helps me get a bit more of grasp on why we are unable to get to meaningful discussions between us. I believe you are correct with many in living with antinomy or paradox. We all do this to some degree (at least I do) and not just in theology considerations.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMRA-BEQ16 - "No. Christ is God and cannot divest himself of any of His attributes."

Both a good question and answer here. I'd hope this will get some good meaningful interaction because it is one of the heavy-weight questions in theology needing really clear and thorough discussion. Philippians 2:6-12 comes to the forefront along with the other scriptures AMR cited. This discussion question is in introductory stages in my assessment. Lamerson and Enyart took the discussion here. I didn't see it addressed in depth. Perhaps it isn't necessary. Lamerson answers with a line similarly found in AMR's repsonse. BE skipped it altogether in redress. Perhaps Enyart/Lamerson/AMR are in agreement upon that particular?

I have updated my response to include more explanation based upon some comments in this thread. See here.

My hands trembled as I prepared these upates, as they always do when discussing the greatest mystery of God. I pray I have done the topic some justice for the reader.

 

[Clete]

The problem I'm seeing is the assessment that the hands are not an intrinsic part of that conveyance.

It isn't actually the hands that we are talking about but rather the movement of those hands. But either way the argument holds. Just as I can stop the hands of a clock from moving I can likewise remove the hands from the clock! I could also remove the face or just the numbers or perhaps a gear, whatever it doesn't matter. That which can be lost from a thing IS NOT intrinsic to that thing.

Did you read that part where Augustine was talking about the raven's feather being black and how if the feather eventually turned to dust that certainly along the way it will have at some point lost the quality of being black? In effect the raven's feather is only a conglomeration of accidental parts whereas God, having no parts has nothing about Him that is accidental to Him and is therefore utterly immutable.

God as relational to us isn't extrinsic of Himself that I see.

That's why you aren't a Calvinist.

He remains consistently God in perfection as He relates to my needs. He has already, the right tool for the right job. God already has all, there is no need to go out and buy a specialized tool because God already has it all Heb 7:26 .

But the Calvinist would insist that even this sort of "movement" in God is figurative, anthropomorphic or whatever. God does not do jobs with or without tools of any sort. Talking about God in such parlance is perhaps useful to us as humans but does not convey any real truth about God that is not analogical in nature - according to the Calvinist.

It goes back to our discussion of 'ready' vs. 'already' as it relates to foreknowledge/foreordination.

Again I see our respective assumptions in this discussion. A garage can have every tool imaginable but as every new car comes out, new tools need to be made. I think OV omnicompetency has the garage with a foundry and ready for contingency.
The traditional view has the tools already anticipated and made. The future hasn't happened yet/future is known discussion is at the crux of our immutability discussion. In both scenarios the tools are there when needed, it is just how they got there that is the focal point of discussion.

I'm afraid that you very simply do not understand the focal point of the discussion at all. Keeping in mind that you've only made an analogy here and in keeping with that same analogy, no Calvinist would agree that God is in need an tools of any sort and that while such analogies might help us to relate to God because of our limited ability to comprehend God's perfection, it must be kept firmly in mind, according to the Calvinist, that such discussions do not pertain to anything real within God, for in Him there is no potentiality but rather He is pure actuality. Everything God does, God is. Every such "tool" He would use must be understood to be part of His very being and nature for God has no parts and is altogether immutable.

(Ignore my analogy as it breaks down. I'm just trying to put some handles on our discussion).

I just love that you said this in this way because the Calvinist believes that nearly everything we say about God is only analogous to His reality and that such analogies break down at whatever point you run into problems concerning His immutability (as well as the other Omni and IM attributes).

I like your intrisic/extrinsic analogy on the change discussion. It helps me get a bit more of grasp on why we are unable to get to meaningful discussions between us. I believe you are correct with many in living with antinomy or paradox. We all do this to some degree (at least I do) and not just in theology considerations.

God is logic (John 1) and as such no contradiction can exist with either Him or a correct theological worldview. Paradoxes I can live with, antinomies I cannot. Such should be the attitude of all Christians.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[CabinetMaker]

I have updated my response to include more explanation based upon some comments in this thread. See here.

My hands trembled as I prepared these upates, as they always do when discussing the greatest mystery of God. I pray I have done the topic some justice for the reader.

I don't see anything that substantially changes the fact that Jesus said no man, including Himself, knows when the Father start the end times. The following verse is not addressed in your post and would seem central to it.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=36&version=31&context=verse

[ The Day and Hour Unknown ] "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

If Jesus cannot divest Himself of that knowledge and Jesus is God, then Jesus must know when those times will begin. The fact that Jesus said He doesn't know forces you into one of two possibilities;

• Possibility one, Jesus does not know and has therefore divested Himself of some of Gods knowledge.
• Possibility two, Jesus lied about not knowing.

Which do you think is the more likely possibility?

 

[Nang]

I don't see anything that substantially changes the fact that Jesus said no man, including Himself, knows when the Father start the end times. The following verse is not addressed in your post and would seem central to it.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=36&version=31&context=verse

You answer your own question. Jesus said "no man" is to possess this knowledge. And Jesus spoke vicariously as a man.

If Jesus cannot divest Himself of that knowledge and Jesus is God, then Jesus must know when those times will begin. The fact that Jesus said He doesn't know forces you into one of two possibilities;

• Possibility one, Jesus does not know and has therefore divested Himself of some of Gods knowledge.
• Possibility two, Jesus lied about not knowing.

Which do you think is the more likely possibility?

Neither of these are correct.

AMR gave careful answer to this question, including the following statement:

"Consequently, from the verses above we see Christ was not laying aside divine attributes but was laying aside divine glory and dignity. This was a change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature."

The fact that Christ came as a man and submitted His will to the will of the Father, does not mean that Jesus Christ divested Himself of volition. So too, Christ came as the Son to fulfill the office and role as federal head and representive of men given to Him by the Father. He purposefully did not exceed that office and role, in submission to the Father.

He honored the Father by restricting His knowledge to what has been given to mankind. Such knowledge fits only the role of God, and is not for any man to know.

This does not mean Jesus Christ divested Himself of omniscience, but simply that He kept that knowledge within the realm of the Godhead, as the Father willed.

"The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever; that we may do all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29

It is sinful for man to strain against these sovereign restrictions. It is not for man to know all the things of God. It is God's exclusive right to reveal to mankind only what He wills men to know.

And God the Father does not privilege mankind to know the date or hour of the end of this world; thus Jesus Christ, while manifesting and representing a humanity, maintained the superiority and sovereignty of God over all men.

I would recommend you reread AMR's answer to [URL="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1535845&postcount=19"]BEQ16.

Nang

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I don't see anything that substantially changes the fact that Jesus said no man, including Himself, knows when the Father start the end times. The following verse is not addressed in your post and would seem central to it.

If Jesus cannot divest Himself of that knowledge and Jesus is God, then Jesus must know when those times will begin. The fact that Jesus said He doesn't know forces you into one of two possibilities;

• Possibility one, Jesus does not know and has therefore divested Himself of some of Gods knowledge.
• Possibility two, Jesus lied about not knowing.

Which do you think is the more likely possibility?

I updated the 1:1 response. The updated portion is as follows:

There were two components of the humiliation of Christ.

First, He put aside His divine majesty (Isaiah 53:1-3; John 17:5) and assumed humanity in the form of a servant, the son of man (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 3:15; John 4:34; John 15:15; John 5:19; Romans 5:19).

Second, Christ became subject to the law’s demands and curses (legally responsible for our sins and liable to the curse of law); His life became obedient in actions and suffering to the limits of a shameful death. This state of Christ is seen described in Galatians 4:4.

Thus when we encounter verses such as Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 they must be understood that Christ was speaking as the as the son of man, and not as the Son of God. As Son of God, Christ knew all the purposes and designs of the Father, for they were purposed in Him. Just as He knew from the beginning that He would be betrayed and who would betray Him, Christ, the Son of God, must also fully know the appointed day of Judgment ordained by God the Father.

We see in the Scriptures that Christ grew in wisdom as a child (Luke 2:52), yet during the ‘last week’ apparently expected a fig tree to have some fruit when it had none (Matthew 21:19-20). Christ appears sometimes to have asked questions to gain information (Luke 8:45-46) and said He did not know the time of His second advent (Mark 13:32), information known only to the Father. And we have all the reports of His growth in physical stature, physical wants, and so on (e.g., Luke 2:7; John 4:6; Matthew 4:4, John 19:28). We also find that it was plain that Christ was never more in one place at the same time, for He traveled on foot most of the time.

What these observations really only emphasize is the point that the creeds make: that Christ was very man. Not that in important ways He was not uniquely different Man (He was, for example, without sin). Nor do they show that He was a mere Man. What they show is that even though the Person was the Logos, the Second Person of the Godhead, as that Person, He did not employ all the powers of deity in the state of humiliation, and as regards the human nature, Christ renounced the independent use of His perfect attributes except as specially occasioned by the Father’s will.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I posted my response not aware that Nang had already replied. Was pleased to see that we are consistent. Whew!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

"The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever; that we may do all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29

It is sinful for man to strain against these sovereign restrictions. It is not for man to know all the things of God. It is God's exclusive right to reveal to mankind only what He wills men to know.

Indeed. Whenever I find myself speaking about the Incarnation or the Godhead, I fear that in my ignorance I will bring dishonor to the glory of God. I ask for His forgiveness of my lack of discernment wherever I have erred. No person can fully apprehend these matters and I doubt we will ever fully know them even in our glorified state in eternity.

These topics are holy topics and should be approached with humility and reverence. When I see such matters being treated flippantly it saddens me, and shames us all as creatures of God.

 

[Clete]

Lon,

See the post immediately before this one (including the post of Nang's which AMR quotes) for an excellent real world example of how Calvinists treat rational incongruities. There is simply no need, in their minds, to have a rational worldview. Whatever they teach is truth and both bother them with the details.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Bob needs to post a partial response soon or else I fear I might die of boredom with these so called "answers" of AMR's. Sheesh! How can anyone older than 10 believe this nonsense?!

 

[Lon]

It isn't actually the hands that we are talking about but rather the movement of those hands. But either way the argument holds. Just as I can stop the hands of a clock from moving I can likewise remove the hands from the clock! I could also remove the face or just the numbers or perhaps a gear, whatever it doesn't matter. That which can be lost from a thing IS NOT intrinsic to that thing.

Did you read that part where Augustine was talking about the raven's feather being black and how if the feather eventually turned to dust that certainly along the way it will have at some point lost the quality of being black? In effect the raven's feather is only a conglomeration of accidental parts whereas God, having no parts has nothing about Him that is accidental to Him and is therefore utterly immutable.

I'll have to go reread again (maybe I can find a better translator ) but yes I read the raven feather portion. I gathered he was saying if the part can be removed it is 'accidental' (extrinsic in that it is no longer part of the raven) whereas all of God's relational responses would be considered intrinsic thus unchanging. I thought your extrinsic/intrinsic expression (sorry, I said 'analogy' in the previous post)was meaningful. Initially I thought you were expressing a shared understanding rather than a disagreement because it is a nice separation line for change/immutable in discussion.

That's why you aren't a Calvinist.

I'm not sure a Calvinist would disagree with my statement but you could be correct. Remember I've not been a 5 pointer in the past and I'm a slow mover as I only embrace what I can express and align with Scripture.

But the Calvinist would insist that even this sort of "movement" in God is figurative, anthropomorphic or whatever. God does not do jobs with or without tools of any sort. Talking about God in such parlance is perhaps useful to us as humans but does not convey any real truth about God that is not analogical in nature - according to the Calvinist.

I agree with your assessment and I don't disagree with analogical expression as necessary for our limited capacity. As a glass cannot hold the entire ocean, I cannot contain knowledge of God. Analogy is necessary in this relationship.

I'm afraid that you very simply do not understand the focal point of the discussion at all. Keeping in mind that you've only made an analogy here and in keeping with that same analogy, no Calvinist would agree that God is in need an tools of any sort and that while such analogies might help us to relate to God because of our limited ability to comprehend God's perfection, it must be kept firmly in mind, according to the Calvinist, that such discussions do not pertain to anything real within God, for in Him there is no potentiality but rather He is pure actuality. Everything God does, God is. Every such "tool" He would use must be understood to be part of His very being and nature for God has no parts and is altogether immutable.

I understand the distinction and limitation you express over my analogy.

I just love that you said this in this way because the Calvinist believes that nearly everything we say about God is only analogous to His reality and that such analogies break down at whatever point you run into problems concerning His immutability (as well as the other Omni and IM attributes).


God is logic (John 1) and as such no contradiction can exist with either Him or a correct theological worldview. Paradoxes I can live with, antinomies I cannot. Such should be the attitude of all Christians.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jesus expressed ideas in Parable (analogy) albeit His were better than mine will ever be.
My glass of sea water works well in my mind as to finite comprehending infinite. The glass can accurately contain the essence of the ocean but it is easy to understand it isn't everything in the ocean. Whales would be wholly outside of the perception and ability to grasp. We could anologically discuss a whale as a massive krill-type being, but it isn't accurate to the conception, merely analogous.

Antinomy is hard. I see Judas hanged himself/spilled his guts as antimony. My reasoning extrapolates logically to paradox, that his guts spilled after degradation, but it is expressed in antinomy. I think what we are focusing on tends to be our differences. You may be correct that Calvinism/OV are continuing against one another in paradigms that cannot meet in the middle. Extremes, after-all are like this (republican/democrat liberal/conservative). Perhaps the Arminian, moderate, and libertarian are feeling comfortable right about now. At times extremes are dead on the money, but the middle is where either has to convey and discuss or eventually get to the other side. Christ was both extreme and mutual depending on the topic and audience. He was very blatant at times with truth, but He often spoke to the mutual (middle ground) for conveyance. We may be at extremes, but our discussion is meaningful in mutuality, not watered down, but for conveyance and understandability.

In Him

Lon

 

[CabinetMaker]

You answer your own question. Jesus said "no man" is to possess this knowledge. And Jesus spoke vicariously as a man.

Look at the verse again Nang, that is not what it says.

Originally Posted by Matthew 24:36
[ The Day and Hour Unknown ] "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Note that the verse says no one knows not even the Son. He was not speaking as a man, He was speaking as the Son of God.

 

[Clete]

Look at the verse again Nang, that is not what it says.

Originally Posted by Matthew 24:36
[ The Day and Hour Unknown ] "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Note that the verse says no one knows not even the Son. He was not speaking as a man, He was speaking as the Son of God.

Boy! I sure am glad that AMR's answer was consistent with Nang's! Whew! :chuckle:

 

[CabinetMaker]

I updated the 1:1 response. The updated portion is as follows:

There were two components of the humiliation of Christ.

First, He put aside His divine majesty (Isaiah 53:1-3; John 17:5) and assumed humanity in the form of a servant, the son of man (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 3:15; John 4:34; John 15:15; John 5:19; Romans 5:19).

Second, Christ became subject to the law’s demands and curses (legally responsible for our sins and liable to the curse of law); His life became obedient in actions and suffering to the limits of a shameful death. This state of Christ is seen described in Galatians 4:4.

Thus when we encounter verses such as Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 they must be understood that Christ was speaking as the as the son of man, and not as the Son of God. As Son of God, Christ knew all the purposes and designs of the Father, for they were purposed in Him. Just as He knew from the beginning that He would be betrayed and who would betray Him, Christ, the Son of God, must also fully know the appointed day of Judgment ordained by God the Father.

We see in the Scriptures that Christ grew in wisdom as a child (Luke 2:52), yet during the ‘last week’ apparently expected a fig tree to have some fruit when it had none (Matthew 21:19-20). Christ appears sometimes to have asked questions to gain information (Luke 8:45-46) and said He did not know the time of His second advent (Mark 13:32), information known only to the Father. And we have all the reports of His growth in physical stature, physical wants, and so on (e.g., Luke 2:7; John 4:6; Matthew 4:4, John 19:28). We also find that it was plain that Christ was never more in one place at the same time, for He traveled on foot most of the time.

What these observations really only emphasize is the point that the creeds make: that Christ was very man. Not that in important ways He was not uniquely different Man (He was, for example, without sin). Nor do they show that He was a mere Man. What they show is that even though the Person was the Logos, the Second Person of the Godhead, as that Person, He did not employ all the powers of deity in the state of humiliation, and as regards the human nature, Christ renounced the independent use of His perfect attributes except as specially occasioned by the Father’s will.

Basically you believe that Jesus lied to His followers. He knows when Armageddon will be but told His followers He did not know. Again, look at the verse again. Jesus was not speaking as a man, He was speaking as the Son of God

 

[Nang]

He was speaking as the Son of God.[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]

What is your basis for making this distinction?

What is your motive for making this distinction?



Nang

 

[CabinetMaker]

What is your basis for making this distinction?

It is what Jesus said. Its that simple, Jesus said He did not know.

It is a response to AMR's assertion that Jesus knows everything God knows. Jesus says He does not. Jesus's own words contradict what AMR asserts as truth. I want to know how He deals with it. In his response, AMR waves His hands a bit and tries to make the claim that Jesus could separate His Godhood from His Manhood as best fits a situation. Again, that contradicts AMR's assertion that God is not divided.

In short, AMR is making claims about Jesus that Jesus does not agree with. Whats going on?