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

[Nang]

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

Actually, Jesus did not say He did not know. He said it was not for created beings (men and angels) to have this specific knowledge; it has been restricted by the Father, and Jesus, as the perfect Man, did not act contrary to the Father, in any instance.

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.

Since your motivation is to challenge AMR, he must give answer to this, and I will step aside.


Nang

 

[CabinetMaker]

Actually, Jesus did not say He did not know. He said it was not for created beings (men and angels) to have this specific knowledge; it has been restricted by the Father, and Jesus, as the perfect Man, did not act contrary to the Father, in any instance.

Have you even read the verse? Here are some various translations for you. Note that every translation here is the same in that ONLY the Father knows. Some versions include "nor the Son" but when Jesus said only the Father that means that only the Father knows, not the Son. What say you, did Jesus know and miss-lead His followers or did Jesus not know.

KJV - Mat 24:36 - But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.King James Version 1611, 1769

NKJV - Mat 24:36 -"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.
Footnote:
NU-Text adds nor the Son.New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NLT - Mat 24:36 -"However, no one knows the day or the hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.
Footnote:
Some manuscripts omit the phrase or the Son himself.New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV - Mat 24:36 -“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Footnote:
Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV - Mat 24:36 -“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

Footnote:
Some manuscripts omit nor the SonThe Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

NASB - Mat 24:36 -"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

RSV - Mat 24:36 -"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.

ASV - Mat 24:36 -But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.American Standard Version 1901 Info

Young - Mat 24:36 -`And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known -- not even the messengers of the heavens -- except my Father only;Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info

Darby - Mat 24:36 -But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of the heavens, but [my] Father alone.J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info

Webster - Mat 24:36 -But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.Noah Webster Version 1833 Info

HNV - Mat 24:36 -But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only.Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info

Vulgate - Mat 24:36 -de die autem illa et hora nemo scit neque angeli caelorum nisi Pater solusJerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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?

You seem to be ignoring what has been replied to in your question. Christ incarnate had two natures in the one person. No one is hand waving. You are ignoring the two components of the humiliation of Christ I described and just making statements without accurately linking them to the responses you have received. You want me to do your heavy lifting in trying to ascertain what you are assuming. For example, you over generalize a great deal of my response to the statement that "Jesus knows everything God knows" and then claim my response is hand-waving. I don't think that is an honest assessment, but merely provocation.

The verses you cite show Christ speaking with a divine awareness, yet, due to the union of the two natures, He labels Himself in those verses and is sometimes so labeled elsewhere by others in the Scriptures, "in terms of what he is by virtue of one nature when what is then predicated of him, so designated, is true of him by virtue of his other nature." (see Redmond, Systematic Theology, Revised Edition, pg. 224).

Within the Reformed faith, this distinction is described by the WCF VIII/vii:

"Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature."

In the verse in question, Christ designates Himself in the terms of what He is as "the Son" of "the Father" (His divinity), but Christ then affirms (predicates) of Himself that His ignorance of the Second Advent is true of Him in terms of His humanity, not in terms of His divinity.

I noted in my 1:1 post that the Chalcedonian description was one of the best formations of the topic. This is the description, created over a period of about two weeks by 500-600 clerics in response to heretical ideas about the nature of Christ, and has been accepted by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant groups for the last 1,500 years or so. I am hopeful that there was nothing in what I have posted that is in conflict with the creed.

So perhaps it would move things along if you would review the Creed's description below and point out what you specifically disagree with and why you do, for it seems to be underlying your questions:

"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 [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] 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, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures 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."

Other than the Scriptural view above, there are six variations of the heresies surrounding the incarnate Christ.

The first four centuries of Christianity saw these six basic heresies arise:

1. deny the genuineness (Ebionism) or the completeness (Arianism) of Christ's deity
2. deny the genuineness (Docetism) or the completeness (Apollinarianism) of His humanity
3. divide His person (Nestorianism) or confuse His natures (Eutychianism)

 

[chatmaggot]

No one is hand waving.

Nang's avatar is...and it is starting to offend me.

 

[CabinetMaker]

In the verse in question, Christ designates Himself in the terms of what He is as "the Son" of "the Father" (His divinity), but Christ then affirms (predicates) of Himself that His ignorance of the Second Advent is true of Him in terms of His humanity, not in terms of His divinity.

Bit of a stretch there on your part. There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity. Jesus clearly indicates that the Son and the Father are distinct and that only the Father knows. You are asserting that Jesus actually knows when He clearly states He does not.

As to the WCF, that seems to weaken rather than strengthen your argument.

"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 [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] 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, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures 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."

The WCF says the two natures are insuperable thus what one nature knows the other nature must know as will. The WCF states this twice. So if Jesus is two natures that are insuperable, not divided but one in the same, what does it mean when He says that only the Father knows the hour?

 

[Nang]

Nang's avatar is...and it is starting to offend me.

:chuckle:

 

[Clete]

Bit of a stretch there on your part. There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity. Jesus clearly indicates that the Son and the Father are distinct and that only the Father knows. You are asserting that Jesus actually knows when He clearly states He does not.

As to the WCF, that seems to weaken rather than strengthen your argument.

[/FONT]
The WCF says the two natures are insuperable thus what one nature knows the other nature must know as will. The WCF states this twice. So if Jesus is two natures that are insuperable, not divided but one in the same, what does it mean when He says that only the Father knows the hour?

Go ahead AMR, respond to CM's post here by calling it an 'antinomy'! What are you afraid of? You know as well as anyone that God's simplicity and immutability cannot be rationally reconciled with the incarnation and Christ's humiliation.

Go on now! Use that favorite word of all Calvinists and get it over with! You know you want too! Just do it! The only alternative is to go round and round here with CM until one of you gets flustered which will undoubtedly result in you blowing off his arguments after having called him belligerent and sarcastic.

 

[Nang]

Go ahead AMR, respond to CM's post here by calling it an 'antinomy'! What are you afraid of? You know as well as anyone that God's simplicity and immutability cannot be rationally reconciled with the incarnation and Christ's humiliation.

Go on now! Use that favorite word of all Calvinists and get it over with! You know you want too! Just do it! The only alternative is to go round and round here with CM until one of you gets flustered which will undoubtedly result in you blowing off his arguments after having called him belligerent and sarcastic.

Disclaimer: I am a Calvinist, and it is not my favorite word.


Hint: (bolded in red so no one will miss it)

"Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature." WCF VIII/vii

Many things Christ did were necessary to fulfill all righteousness (e.g. being baptized) in order to establish His office as Mediator for an elect humanity.

Events such as these reveal the necessities accomplished by Christ to reconcile man with God.

He remained Divine in His Person, possessing two natures that functioned harmoniously, while vicariously subjecting Himself to necessary human limitations, in order to not only manifest the Perfect Man, but as demonstration of His qualifications to be the sole Mediator between God and Man.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

Disclaimer: I am a Calvinist, and it is not my favorite word.



Nang

Then I am not an Open Theist or human? If it quacks like a duck...

 

[Clete]

Disclaimer: I am a Calvinist, and it is not my favorite word.

Perhaps not from an aesthetic perspective but theologically you cherish it like it was your own eye ball. You have no choice to do otherwise and maintain anything that even remotely resembles a coherent worldview.

Hint: (bolded in red so no one will miss it)

"Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature." WCF VIII/vii

Many things Christ did were necessary to fulfill all righteousness (e.g. being baptized) in order to establish His office as Mediator for an elect humanity.

Events such as these reveal the necessities accomplished by Christ to reconcile man with God.

He remained Divine in His Person, possessing two natures that functioned harmoniously, while vicariously subjecting Himself to necessary human limitations, in order to not only manifest the Perfect Man, but as demonstration of His qualifications to be the sole Mediator between God and Man.

Nang

Irrelevant.

Hey Nang, if you can't follow the argument don't bother responding to it okay? It will save us both some time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Perhaps not from an aesthetic perspective but theologically you cherish it like it was your own eye ball. You have no choice to do otherwise and maintain anything that even remotely resembles a coherent worldview.

Cherish the word "antinomy?" Do a search . . .I don't believe I have ever used it or even reverted to admitting contradiction, or paradoxical mysteries in my posts. Secret, and restricted knowledge, yes, according to Deut. 29:29, but that is all.

I am not a Van Tillian, if that is what you are thinking. I prefer the more rational hermeneutic approach of Gordon Clark, et. al.

Irrelevant.

The Son of God come in the flesh to establish all righteousness through perfect obedience and submission to the will of the Father in order to qualify as Mediator between man and God, is irrelevant?

Hey Nang, if you can't follow the argument don't bother responding to it okay? It will save us both some time.

Dittos back atch'ya . . .fella . . .

Nang

 

[Lon]

Bit of a stretch there on your part. There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity. Jesus clearly indicates that the Son and the Father are distinct and that only the Father knows. You are asserting that Jesus actually knows when He clearly states He does not.

As to the WCF, that seems to weaken rather than strengthen your argument.

[/FONT]
The WCF says the two natures are insuperable thus what one nature knows the other nature must know as will. The WCF states this twice. So if Jesus is two natures that are insuperable, not divided but one in the same, what does it mean when He says that only the Father knows the hour?

Just a tiny bit of correction may not answer your question entirely but it WILL put it into context and perspective for you:

Jesus clearly indicate[d] that the Son and the Father are distinct and that only the Father kn[e]w. You are asserting that Jesus actually knows when He clearly state[d] He d[id] not.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Incarnate nature

Incarnate nature

Bit of a stretch there on your part. There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity. Jesus clearly indicates that the Son and the Father are distinct and that only the Father knows. You are asserting that Jesus actually knows when He clearly states He does not.

As to the WCF, that seems to weaken rather than strengthen your argument.

The WCF says the two natures are insuperable thus what one nature knows the other nature must know as will. The WCF states this twice. So if Jesus is two natures that are insuperable, not divided but one in the same, what does it mean when He says that only the Father knows the hour?

First, you quote the Chalcedonian definition I carefully described in my original post as being associated with the WCF. It is not. The Chalcedonian item is a 1,500 year old statement describing the incarnate nature of Christ that is accepted by virtually all of Christendom (Catholic, Orthodox Greek, and Protestant). Indeed, no other such statement has survived virtually unchanged and accepted by Christendom, even through the split of the Eastern and Western churches in the eleventh century, and the Reformation. I would greatly appreciate any answer you have to my previous question about what your specific disagreements are with respect to the incarnate nature of Christ described therein.

Second, you appear to have overlooked the actual WCF section, VIII/vii, I quoted:

"Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature."

This is an important observation of the treatment given in the Scriptures of the incarnate Christ. As further explanation of this statement, the following is excerpted from the Incarnation entry on the from the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2001, pg. 602:

“Because Jesus Christ is the God-man (one person who took human nature into union with his divine nature in the one divine person), the Scriptures can predicate of his person whatever can be predicated of either nature. In fact, the person of Christ may be designated in terms of one nature while what is predicated of him so designated is true by virtue of his union with the other nature (cf. Westminister Confession, VIII, vii). In other words:

1. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement when what is predicated of Christ is true by virtue of all that belongs to his person as essentially divine and assumptively human; e.g., redeemer; prophet, priest, and king.

2. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement when what is predicated of him, designated in terms of what he is as human, is true by virtue of his divine nature; e.g., in Romans 9:5 Christ is designated according to his human nature ("Christ according to the flesh"), while what is predicated of him is true because of his divine nature ("God over all, blessed forever"). The Scriptures do not confuse or intermingle the natures. It is the person of Christ who is always the subject of the scriptural assertions about him.

3. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement, when what is predicated of him, designated in terms of what he is as divine, is true by virtue of his human nature; e.g., in I Corinthians 2:8 Christ is designated according to his divine nature ("the Lord of glory"), while what is predicated of him is true because of his human nature (man "crucified" him). Again, there is no confusion here of the divine and human natures of Christ.It is not the divine nature as such which is crucified; it is the divine person, because he is also human, who is crucified.” (emphasis mine)
​

Hence, in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 we find Christ is designating Himself in the terms of his divine nature (“the Son”, “the Father”), but then He predicates (i.e., ‘affirms one thing of another’) His ignorance of the Second Coming is true in terms of His human nature, but not in terms of His divine nature. In other words, the God-man is shown in these verses self-consciously omniscient as God and consciously ignorant as man simultaneously.


Third, your conclusion drawn from your reading of the Chalcedonian description is incorrect. This is understandable, for when speaking of the Incarnation, some careful distinctions are made by theologians in words like person, nature, conscious, self-conscious. You conclude “what one nature knows the other nature must know”. That is incorrect and clear from a careful reading of the Chalcedonian description:

“to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved”

The word ‘nature’ as used when speaking of the Incarnation means a complex of attributes. It does not mean ‘person’. The divine attributes are not somehow passed to man and the human attributes are not transmitted to the divine. If you assume the two natures are compounded in some manner you fall into one of the six possible heresies of the Incarnation I described that motivated the creation of the Chalcedonian description.

For it was against the Eutychians that the Chalcedonian description confessed that in Christ were two natures without any confusion or change, each nature preserved and concurring in one person. And it was against the Nestorians that the description spoke throughout of one and the same Son and one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons and whose natures are in union without division and without separation. The description made it clear that a ‘person/hypostatis’ was a self-conscious substantive entity, while a ‘nature’ was a complex of attributes. That person/hypostatis was the divine Son of God. The human nature of Jesus possessed no hypostatis of its own, that is, unless the Son of God entered Mary’s womb, Jesus would not have existed. There was no “man” without this divine action. The description denies that the Son of God took into union with Himself a human person, instead the Chalcedonian description insists that He took into union with himself a full complex of human attributes (doctrine of anhypostasia). It also means that there was not two self-consciousnesses within Jesus. At the Incarnation the one Son remained self-consciously divine and consciously human as well.

The human and divine natures of Christ were essentially distinct as they were brought together, and though joined in the hypostatic union, a personal union, the two natures are not blended nor commingled. Moreover, the union thusly constituted is inseparable. As the Chalcedonian description implies, these natures are not converted into one another, that is, the divine into the human to make a divine man, or the human into the divine to make a human God. The two natures are also not compounded and blended together to no longer be distinguishable, to make a third that is different from the two. Lastly, the two natures are not confused in any manner, or so mixed together that the essential properties of both natures are indiscriminately existing in the theanthropic person.

Instead the Chalcedonian description teaches that true deity and real humanity are joined together in an inseparable personal union in the person of Christ incarnate. Christ is truly God and really man. But there is only one Christ and one Mediator between God and man. While there are two centers of consciousness, there is but one divine self-consciousness in the Incarnate God, Christ. The theanthropic person is one, but constitutes the two natures, complete, but not commingled.

 

[Servo]

Further, AMR is basically begging the question in these "answers" of his. The debate is effectively about whether Calvinism is true or not. AMR presumes the truth of that which is in question and "answers" these questions as though Calvinism is the undisputed truth. The effect is that his posts are turned from answers to Bob's questions into merely a Calvinist taking an opportunity to shoot his mouth off endlessly about what his various doctrinal positions are.



Clete

Bingo.

I get the gist of what he is saying but reading AMR's books makes my eyes glaze over. Seems more like a complaint session about OT and stating the obvious without acknowledging any problems with a settled future and the inability to have an actual relationship with the Lord.

 

[Nang]

] reading AMR's books makes my eyes glaze over.

"AMR's books?"

Seems more like a complaint session about OT

Seems like an attention deficit on your part, or maybe just automatic OVT paranoia . . .but, this holy exercise on the part of AMR, is to give answer to 50 questions Bob Enyart wants answered.

 

[Evoken]

Wow, AMR advanced a lot in the last couple of hours. He is up to question 29 already. Good job man


Evo

 

[Chileice]

Wow, AMR advanced a lot in the last couple of hours. He is up to question 29 already. Good job man


Evo

He advanced so much that my comments will seem like old news... but I want to comment about an earlier answer.

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.

As stated above, your question exposes a misunderstanding of unsettled theism about the distinctions between foreordination and foreknowledge. Your question, as structured above, implies an assumption that God could “know something future” “strictly because He foresees it”. Hence you ask is there a possibility that God could “know something future” and not foresee that future. The error in this reasoning is not comprehending that God foreknows because He has foreordained. God does not foresee and then ordain. God ordains and necessarily foresees what He has ordained.

While much of what AMR has to say makes perfect sense, I have a bit of a problem with this answer. Why could God NOT foreknow without foreordaining? Just because you says he does is no better proof than Enyart saying he doesn't. Could an almighty God not be able to foreknow without foreordination?

 

[Evoken]

Could an almighty God not be able to foreknow without foreordination?[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Yes he can, and he knows it by knowing all the merely possible, this is what is called knowledge of simple intelligence. This is how God, before the creation of the world, could create the world best suited for his purposes.

Sorry for the brief response, I am heading out to work now. But I'll expand later if you want.


Evo

 

[Chileice]

BEQ17: In the tradition of BEQ1, BEQ7, and BEQ9, I ask: Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
A: within the Trinity?
B: with His creatures?

AMRA-BEQ17 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
God does not change. God does not need to change to have a “true” relationship with His creatures. God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man.

I suppose it is like any inter-species relationship. The superior power sets the standard for the relationship. I relate to my dog... but on my terms. But her relationship to me depends largely on me making myself available to her.

 

[Chileice]

BEQ21: Has it ever been possible for God to change anything that will happen in eternity future?

AMRA-BEQ21 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
No it has not. God decreed from eternity all that was, is, and will be. Nothing in God’s eternal plan for His ultimate glory to be realized requires change. If God must change the future then He is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, and we are all still lost in our sins. God, on the cross, said, “it is finished”, not “it is finished…I hope.”

Why would Jesus even ask the Father if "this cup could pass from Him" if he knew God could not and would not change his mind? Also, if he had not in some degree dispossed himself of the godhood why would he pray at all?