Am I to conclude from your attitude that you are unable to address this verse directly?
Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Nang
TOL Subscriber
:shut:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Sure thing . . .we can always rerun the last few days posts and hundreds of words already submitted on the subject . . .but first CabinetMaker owes all, his explanation of how the Godhead is divided by Jesus' words of Matt. 24:36 . . .since that is where the conversation last ended.
Nang
Lon
Well-known member
BEQ 17-21 have been addressed in brief. I see those as substantially treated
AMRA-BEQ22 - "...if God foreknew the rooster would crow, then the rooster does not refrain from crowing. (Correct)
In other words, the actions of moral free agents or instinctively driven, non-sentient creatures do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place."
For this one, AMR holds off answering so he can address the question meaningfully in context of the answer, therefore the treatise cannot be divorced from this quoted answer, but it is given here in case somebody gets lost. There is a propensity to read AMR out of context and major on a minor point where it isn't warranted. The answers to the questions are not ofuscated and are redressed here to prove the point.
AMRA-BEQ23 -"Yes, God could be (and is) far more competent, powerful, able, and effective than any human being who does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge. But, if the underlying assumption of your question is to then argue that God could accomplish His purposes by respecting the liberty of indifference (libertarian free will) of His creatures, and thus not being able to know the future...the assumptions by unsettled theists about God's knowledge must therefore be incorrect. The problem then, lies with unsettled theism’s assumptions of what God knows and God's sovereignty.
Moreover, if God intervenes, such intervention overrules the unsettled theist's free will, for God’s intervention seen to be 'coercive'. Given unsettled theism’s position on moral responsibility and sin, the unsettled theist would be forced to conclude that there is no moral responsibility for those that would be held accountable by God who have had their free will overridden by God's intervention."
This is the logical problem with omnicompetence w/o foreknowledge (simple or otherwise). God has foreknowledge as a given. Regardless of exhaustively or not, simple foreknowledge as defined already logically renders the OV as illogical and short-sighted. Once any aspect of foreknowledge (simple or otherwise) is understood, the OV premise of omnicompetence implodes upon itself as it rejects the definition of 'knowing' beforehand. God cannot be omnicompetent if He can be twarted and this is essentially the omnicompetent view logically derived. In essence, their own objections to EDF fall back upon themselves logically and derivatively. If God doesn't know, He has nothing with which to be competent in (the future isn't known-therefore is not addressable by competence, etc.).
AMRA-BEQ24 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
See AMRA-BEQ23
AMRA-BEQ25 - "The only general hermeneutic to use is the grammatical-historical method for interpreting any Scripture.
Most of the biblical cases for openness come from narrative type passages and the Old Testament prophets, which are not the ideal types of literature for deriving doctrinal conclusions. For learning who God is, passages that have as their objective to teach that doctrine are much more satisfactory."
A general hermeneutic here meaning 'how to understand correctly the passage." Context is foremost. A general hermeneutic of understanding the passage is one that reads in context for meaning starting with the passage itself, but not stopping there. It also must consider the message of the book and the Biblical truth of other books and doctrines as well (ESPECIALLY in the narrative literatures). AMR calls it right here that a narrative passage MUST be set within doctrinally given contexts. If we take the OV paradigm that God's relational qualities are paramount, there are too many 'doctrinal' passages that suggest that God's attributes are holistically perfect, unchanging, not like man, etc. Therefore when we traverse a narrative passage suggesting that God repented, we must understand this narrative from a docrinal standpoint where we are told implicitly what God is like. To read a narrative passage that God 'repented' and forget, ignore, and/or be unaware of doctrinal statements God has given us concerning Himself simply will not suffice. It is neither inductively contextual to the passage nor justified with Biblical doctrines.
AMRA-BEQ27 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17
AMRA-BEQ31 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
God does not change. The fact that He does not change has no bearing on what you call a “true relationship”. God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man.
AMRA-BEQ28 - "... non-sentient creatures do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place."
Up to question #34.
AMRA-BEQ22 - "...if God foreknew the rooster would crow, then the rooster does not refrain from crowing. (Correct)
In other words, the actions of moral free agents or instinctively driven, non-sentient creatures do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place."
For this one, AMR holds off answering so he can address the question meaningfully in context of the answer, therefore the treatise cannot be divorced from this quoted answer, but it is given here in case somebody gets lost. There is a propensity to read AMR out of context and major on a minor point where it isn't warranted. The answers to the questions are not ofuscated and are redressed here to prove the point.
AMRA-BEQ23 -"Yes, God could be (and is) far more competent, powerful, able, and effective than any human being who does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge. But, if the underlying assumption of your question is to then argue that God could accomplish His purposes by respecting the liberty of indifference (libertarian free will) of His creatures, and thus not being able to know the future...the assumptions by unsettled theists about God's knowledge must therefore be incorrect. The problem then, lies with unsettled theism’s assumptions of what God knows and God's sovereignty.
Moreover, if God intervenes, such intervention overrules the unsettled theist's free will, for God’s intervention seen to be 'coercive'. Given unsettled theism’s position on moral responsibility and sin, the unsettled theist would be forced to conclude that there is no moral responsibility for those that would be held accountable by God who have had their free will overridden by God's intervention."
This is the logical problem with omnicompetence w/o foreknowledge (simple or otherwise). God has foreknowledge as a given. Regardless of exhaustively or not, simple foreknowledge as defined already logically renders the OV as illogical and short-sighted. Once any aspect of foreknowledge (simple or otherwise) is understood, the OV premise of omnicompetence implodes upon itself as it rejects the definition of 'knowing' beforehand. God cannot be omnicompetent if He can be twarted and this is essentially the omnicompetent view logically derived. In essence, their own objections to EDF fall back upon themselves logically and derivatively. If God doesn't know, He has nothing with which to be competent in (the future isn't known-therefore is not addressable by competence, etc.).
AMRA-BEQ24 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
See AMRA-BEQ23
AMRA-BEQ25 - "The only general hermeneutic to use is the grammatical-historical method for interpreting any Scripture.
Most of the biblical cases for openness come from narrative type passages and the Old Testament prophets, which are not the ideal types of literature for deriving doctrinal conclusions. For learning who God is, passages that have as their objective to teach that doctrine are much more satisfactory."
A general hermeneutic here meaning 'how to understand correctly the passage." Context is foremost. A general hermeneutic of understanding the passage is one that reads in context for meaning starting with the passage itself, but not stopping there. It also must consider the message of the book and the Biblical truth of other books and doctrines as well (ESPECIALLY in the narrative literatures). AMR calls it right here that a narrative passage MUST be set within doctrinally given contexts. If we take the OV paradigm that God's relational qualities are paramount, there are too many 'doctrinal' passages that suggest that God's attributes are holistically perfect, unchanging, not like man, etc. Therefore when we traverse a narrative passage suggesting that God repented, we must understand this narrative from a docrinal standpoint where we are told implicitly what God is like. To read a narrative passage that God 'repented' and forget, ignore, and/or be unaware of doctrinal statements God has given us concerning Himself simply will not suffice. It is neither inductively contextual to the passage nor justified with Biblical doctrines.
AMRA-BEQ27 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17
AMRA-BEQ27 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17
AMRA-BEQ27 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17
AMRA-BEQ27 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17
AMRA-BEQ31 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
God does not change. The fact that He does not change has no bearing on what you call a “true relationship”. God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man.
AMRA-BEQ28 - "... non-sentient creatures do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place."
Up to question #34.
RobE
New member
Are you able to address doctrine of the Trinity with full understanding?
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.
Perhaps within the Trinity, 'the Father', is the only personality who's ever known the day or hour. Just as 'the Son' is both divine and human simultaneously, is this true of 'the Father'?
The fact is, if one person in the Trinity knows the day and hour then God does indeed know the day and hour despite what the other persons know. Three persons, one God. Your question would require us to fully understand the Trinity and its workings to answer.
He's saying that the Godhead knows the day and hour, but it has not been revealed to man.
It means that God hasn't revealed all his knowledge to man.
Evoken
New member
&ot
Greetings CabinetMaker,
First, there is something that should be pointed out, note the small "a" character in the verse you quoted, this means that the phrase nor the Son, is not included in all translations. Some may take issue with that and reject any translation that includes the phrase, I use a translation that does not includes it, but I will not take issue with that since I don't think it really makes a difference if the verse has that phrase or not.
It is always good practice, when one is trying to understand something in Scripture, to take into consideration other verses that relate in someway to the one you are trying to understand, so that you can get a more comprehensive view of the issue. You cannot draw the full meaning of a movie by watching only a small part of it, likewise, we cannot fully understand Lord Jesus by reading a single verse. That said, let's see some verses that are directly related to the nature of Christ, who he is, what he knows, etc. I use the Douay-Rheims Bible in all the verses I quote when posting, even though this board links them to the NKJV automatically, so if you have issue with how some verse is worded, let me know and we'll try and work it out.
First this is the verse we are dealing with: "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (Matthew 24:36). It does not includes the phrase, but no matter, we can use your version instead if you want.
Let's see two other verses now that speak directly about this issue: "They therefore who were come together, asked him, saying: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? But he said to them: It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power." (Acts 1:6-7).
Here we are given a brief explanation of why Lord Jesus did not reveal the day and hour to the apostles. It is not for them to know that, it is not the will of the Father that they know it. In the verses that follow after Matthew 24:36, Lord Jesus uses some parables to explain the need for the faithful to be at watch for the time of his coming. That they are to be always faithful, always laboring and persevering in the faith is what the Father wants of them. The uncertainty that is born out of the ignorance of the day of the second coming prevents them from becoming lukewarm (or should at least!).
Imagine if you knew the day and hour when you will die, how would you live your life? If you knew you were going to live till you are 80, then there is the danger of becoming lazy and the temptation of leaving things for later and thinking that you still have a lot of time is quite strong, you would not make the most out of your life. Likewise, if you knew you were going to die in two hours, then why bother doing anything? You would just despair. So, that we don't know the day and hour of his coming is a good thing and seems to be how the Father wants it to be. The Son then, who does the will of the Father, did not reveal it to us.
So, we have a reason why humans are not told the day and the hour. That is all fine but it doesn't really tells us what the Son actually knows, does it?. Does he knows less than the Father? Does he knows the Father at all? If he does, does he knows him only in part? Or fully? Better yet, is he as much God as the Father or is he something less? Let's see some verses that speak on the knowledge the Son has about the Father:
"All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him." (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22).
"For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that you may wonder." (John 5:20).
"I know him, because I am from him, and he hath sent me."(John 7:29).
"As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father..." (John 10:15).
The first verse above (Matthew, Luke) clearly states that only the Son knows the Father and it places the power to reveal the Father to others exclusively on the Son. The implication of this is that the Father of himself does not reveals himself to anyone, only the Son reveals him. Indeed, as we see in the opening verses of the book of Hebrews 1:1-2, it does not says that God spoke directly through the Father to us before the time of Christ, only through prophets. This verses also correspond with what John 1:3 states, that nothing was made without the Son.
In the other verses Lord Jesus states that he is shown all things by the Father, that the Son knows the Father because he is from him, and that he knows the Father as the Father knows him. So it is clear that the Son has a very intimate knowledge of the Father, one that seems to be as complete as the one the Father has of him. This makes sense, for if the power of revealing the Father to others resides is on the Son, then how can the Son reveal something he does not know? The knowledge the Son has of the Father must be comprehensive.
Now we know the Son has special knowledge of the Father. That is fine, but what is the Son though? Is he God like the Father is? Or is he something leaser? Lets see some verses that tell us what the Son is and what is his relationship with the Father:
"Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42).
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made." (John 1:1-3).
These verses both equate the Son and the Father with God, from God the Son proceeds and has always been God since the beginning. That being the case, we cannot assign distinct natures to the Son and the Father, that is, we cannot say that the Son knows some things and the Father others or that one knows more than the other, we cannot say that the Father does some things, and the Son others. If we do that, we would no longer have a Trinity of persons sharing the one divine essence, rather we would have more than one essence and would land straight into Tritheism or some variation of it. We would be talking about three Gods and not just one Triune God.
"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
"Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" (John 14:10-11).
The same theme is expressed in these verses, Christ not only equates himself with the Father, but says that he is in the Father as the Father is in him. This is clearly understood when one knows that the three persons of the Trinity share the one divine essence. Each of the three person is fully and equally God, all the Son has the Father has, likewise, all the Holy Spirit has the Son and the Father have. The three persons have the same power, the same attributes and the same nature. Each person is fully in the other. Some verses such as John 14:28, have Lord Jesus stating that the Father is greater than him, yet, as we see in John 10:30, he equates himself with the Father and in other places he is called Lord and God (John 20:28), and as we see in the opening chapters of John, he is also called God and the Jews, in several instances sough to kill him because he made himself equal to God, this equality is clearly expressed in John 5:21-23, where Christ equates his power with that of the Father. So, unless we want to say that Lord Jesus contradicted himself (an obvious absurdity, since God being truth itself cannot utter error), then we must understand his claim about being less than the Father as speaking as a man, in relation to his humanity and not his divinity.
That the Son is as much God as the Father is expressed in other parts of Scripture, and we learn that he is the image of God and that by him not only were all things created, but are kept in existence as well:
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17).
"In these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power..." (Hebrews 1:2-3).
Now, with regards the first verses (Colossians), an image is a perfect representation of whatever it is that is being represented so if the Son is an image of the invisible God, all the above said considered, he is a perfect and complete representation of God, that is, he is truly and completely God. The second set of verses go even farther in that they say that the Son is not only an image but the figure of his substance. In other words, a person that possess fully the one divine essence.
So, the Son, who is an image and figure of the substance of God, knows the Father fully by being fully God as he is and nothing God does is done apart from the Son because when God acts, the three divine persons, being each equally God work in unity.
Evo
Greetings CabinetMaker,
First, there is something that should be pointed out, note the small "a" character in the verse you quoted, this means that the phrase nor the Son, is not included in all translations. Some may take issue with that and reject any translation that includes the phrase, I use a translation that does not includes it, but I will not take issue with that since I don't think it really makes a difference if the verse has that phrase or not.
It is always good practice, when one is trying to understand something in Scripture, to take into consideration other verses that relate in someway to the one you are trying to understand, so that you can get a more comprehensive view of the issue. You cannot draw the full meaning of a movie by watching only a small part of it, likewise, we cannot fully understand Lord Jesus by reading a single verse. That said, let's see some verses that are directly related to the nature of Christ, who he is, what he knows, etc. I use the Douay-Rheims Bible in all the verses I quote when posting, even though this board links them to the NKJV automatically, so if you have issue with how some verse is worded, let me know and we'll try and work it out.
First this is the verse we are dealing with: "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (Matthew 24:36). It does not includes the phrase, but no matter, we can use your version instead if you want.
Let's see two other verses now that speak directly about this issue: "They therefore who were come together, asked him, saying: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? But he said to them: It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power." (Acts 1:6-7).
Here we are given a brief explanation of why Lord Jesus did not reveal the day and hour to the apostles. It is not for them to know that, it is not the will of the Father that they know it. In the verses that follow after Matthew 24:36, Lord Jesus uses some parables to explain the need for the faithful to be at watch for the time of his coming. That they are to be always faithful, always laboring and persevering in the faith is what the Father wants of them. The uncertainty that is born out of the ignorance of the day of the second coming prevents them from becoming lukewarm (or should at least!).
Imagine if you knew the day and hour when you will die, how would you live your life? If you knew you were going to live till you are 80, then there is the danger of becoming lazy and the temptation of leaving things for later and thinking that you still have a lot of time is quite strong, you would not make the most out of your life. Likewise, if you knew you were going to die in two hours, then why bother doing anything? You would just despair. So, that we don't know the day and hour of his coming is a good thing and seems to be how the Father wants it to be. The Son then, who does the will of the Father, did not reveal it to us.
So, we have a reason why humans are not told the day and the hour. That is all fine but it doesn't really tells us what the Son actually knows, does it?. Does he knows less than the Father? Does he knows the Father at all? If he does, does he knows him only in part? Or fully? Better yet, is he as much God as the Father or is he something less? Let's see some verses that speak on the knowledge the Son has about the Father:
"All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him." (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22).
"For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that you may wonder." (John 5:20).
"I know him, because I am from him, and he hath sent me."(John 7:29).
"As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father..." (John 10:15).
The first verse above (Matthew, Luke) clearly states that only the Son knows the Father and it places the power to reveal the Father to others exclusively on the Son. The implication of this is that the Father of himself does not reveals himself to anyone, only the Son reveals him. Indeed, as we see in the opening verses of the book of Hebrews 1:1-2, it does not says that God spoke directly through the Father to us before the time of Christ, only through prophets. This verses also correspond with what John 1:3 states, that nothing was made without the Son.
In the other verses Lord Jesus states that he is shown all things by the Father, that the Son knows the Father because he is from him, and that he knows the Father as the Father knows him. So it is clear that the Son has a very intimate knowledge of the Father, one that seems to be as complete as the one the Father has of him. This makes sense, for if the power of revealing the Father to others resides is on the Son, then how can the Son reveal something he does not know? The knowledge the Son has of the Father must be comprehensive.
Now we know the Son has special knowledge of the Father. That is fine, but what is the Son though? Is he God like the Father is? Or is he something leaser? Lets see some verses that tell us what the Son is and what is his relationship with the Father:
"Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42).
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made." (John 1:1-3).
These verses both equate the Son and the Father with God, from God the Son proceeds and has always been God since the beginning. That being the case, we cannot assign distinct natures to the Son and the Father, that is, we cannot say that the Son knows some things and the Father others or that one knows more than the other, we cannot say that the Father does some things, and the Son others. If we do that, we would no longer have a Trinity of persons sharing the one divine essence, rather we would have more than one essence and would land straight into Tritheism or some variation of it. We would be talking about three Gods and not just one Triune God.
"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
"Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" (John 14:10-11).
The same theme is expressed in these verses, Christ not only equates himself with the Father, but says that he is in the Father as the Father is in him. This is clearly understood when one knows that the three persons of the Trinity share the one divine essence. Each of the three person is fully and equally God, all the Son has the Father has, likewise, all the Holy Spirit has the Son and the Father have. The three persons have the same power, the same attributes and the same nature. Each person is fully in the other. Some verses such as John 14:28, have Lord Jesus stating that the Father is greater than him, yet, as we see in John 10:30, he equates himself with the Father and in other places he is called Lord and God (John 20:28), and as we see in the opening chapters of John, he is also called God and the Jews, in several instances sough to kill him because he made himself equal to God, this equality is clearly expressed in John 5:21-23, where Christ equates his power with that of the Father. So, unless we want to say that Lord Jesus contradicted himself (an obvious absurdity, since God being truth itself cannot utter error), then we must understand his claim about being less than the Father as speaking as a man, in relation to his humanity and not his divinity.
That the Son is as much God as the Father is expressed in other parts of Scripture, and we learn that he is the image of God and that by him not only were all things created, but are kept in existence as well:
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17).
"In these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power..." (Hebrews 1:2-3).
Now, with regards the first verses (Colossians), an image is a perfect representation of whatever it is that is being represented so if the Son is an image of the invisible God, all the above said considered, he is a perfect and complete representation of God, that is, he is truly and completely God. The second set of verses go even farther in that they say that the Son is not only an image but the figure of his substance. In other words, a person that possess fully the one divine essence.
So, the Son, who is an image and figure of the substance of God, knows the Father fully by being fully God as he is and nothing God does is done apart from the Son because when God acts, the three divine persons, being each equally God work in unity.
Evo
Evo, you have put up a lot of good verses but they do not discount my point. The trinity exists as one God head of three persons. Those three persons are distinct. And Jesus, in Matthew 24:36 states quite clearly that He does not sahre all of His fathers knowledge. Scroll back a few pages. I posted to Nang Matthew 24:36 a bunch of translations of the verse. KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, Youngs, Darby and more. Some verse included the phrase "or the Son" and some did not. The ALL included the phrase "only the Father knows." It is not for Jesus to know when the hour will come. When that hour does come, Jesus will be the one who opens the seals and separates the sheep and goats. Jesus knows what He must do, just not when He must do it.
All your versus show that Jesus is God. They do not prove that Jesus (or even the Holy Spirit) knows everything the Father does.
Why is that such a problem? Why, in your view and the view of other Calvinists, must Jesus know everything the Father does? It does not seem to bother Jesus.
Nang, all the verse says is that Jesus does not know everything His Father knows. God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit form the Godhead. Each exists as a separate nature. There is nothing in the trinity that says the three natures are the same. God is the Father. He created the universe and He alone knows His ultimate plans for it. Jesus is God the Son. He is the one who died for our sins and rose for our eternal life. He will judge us when the hour comes. The Holy Spirit is our helper. He comes to us when we accept Jesus as our savior. The Holy Spirit is our teacher and our guide.
Each of the natures that makes up the Trinity are distinct with different "jobs". God the Father has not shared all of His plans with the other members of the Trinity. I don't know why. None the less, in Matthew 24:36, Jesus says that there is knowledge that only the Father has.
Why is that such a problem for you? Jesus is still our savior. He knows all that He must know to be God's son (and that is considerably than we know!). He knows His place in the Trinity which has a hierarchy. God the Father is the only member of the Trinity who is in charge. Why, in your view, must Jesus know everything the Father knows?
There is your answer Nang. The Trinity exists as three persons in one Godhead. God the Father has shared everything with Jesus and the Holy Spirit they need to fulfill their rolls in the Godhead. God the Father has retained some knowledge for Himself alone.
Your turn.
Lon, all you said was:
J
You didn't provide any meaningful context or clarity. I'm taking the verse for what it says, the Father and Son are separate persons and The Father has Knowledge the Son does not. Simple. I am not asserting that Jesus knew something and then stated He didn't. That is AMR's stated position. AMR stated clearly that God cannot divide Himself or His knowledge, therefore, in AMR's view, Jesus must know everything the Father knows. Scripture does not support that statement.Lon said:
AMR and EVO have posted long diseertations about who Jesus is. 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.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
CM, there are several very serious errors in what you present. Your view does not accord with orthodox Christianity, and I fear you have received inferior teaching. I do not know what view you represent, but if it is "unsettled theism," all who are following this one-on-one between AMR and Bob Enyart should give close scrutiny to what you claim.
It is crucial we all refer to the Trinity correctly in these discussions.
I am simply going to highlight the errors in your post, and then quote the Athanasian Creed, which is accepted as the finest definition and teaching of the Trinity in Christendom, and trust you will go through and contemplate where your views do not accord with the catholic faith:
Actually, all three Persons are attributed with creating the universe. Just a few Scriptures: The Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2), The Son of God (Colossians 1:16, 17), the word of God the Father (Hebrews 11:3, Psalm 104:24) The entire Godhead (Gen. 1:26&27, Romans 1:20). The preponderance of Holy Scripture attributes creation to the Son of God, and not specifically to the Father alone.
This creed is attributed to Athanasius, the fourth century bishop of Alexandria who was the strongest defender of the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. It defines the doctrines of the Trinity and the nature of Christ in very concise language.
Please note that the term "catholic" in its usage is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church, but is a reference to the universal (catholic) faith since that is how the term was originally used.
______________________
THE ATHANASIAN CREED
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.
For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
Ok Nang, Great stuff. Now how how do reconcile all of that with Jesus saying that only the Father knows the hour? Note that those are the words of Jesus, not me.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The issue here is that we are speaking about the Incarnation, which has a unique lexicon developed around the subject matter. This lexicon gets confusing, especially when using words like ‘person’ that normally crop up in theological discussions outside of the topic of the Incarnation. So we have here an overloading of terminology (a polymorphism, if you are a computer programmer), where the same word, e.g., ‘person’ is used very differently depending upon the topic.
‘Nature’ used when discussing the Incarnation is “a complex of attributes”. Nature never means ‘person’ when discussing the Incarnation.
The joining of the two natures is a hypostatic joining of the divine to the human, not the human to the divine. The human nature was not itself hypostatic, that is, personal. There was only one person, and this person was divine (see below).
‘Person’ used when discussing the Incarnation is the divine self-conscious substantive entity
The Chalcedonian definition denies that the Son of God, already a person within the Trinity, took into union with Himself a human person. The Son of God took into union with Himself a full complex of human attributes (a human ‘nature’). The man Jesus could never exist apart from the union with the one divine Son of God. There were not two “self-consciousnesses” within Christ Incarnate. The ‘person’ of the Incarnation was self-consciously divine and consciously human.
John Murray, writes in “The Person of Christ”, in Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 2:137-38:
“In the Scriptures, we do not find Christ speaking or acting in terms of merely human personality. Instead He identifies Himself as one who sustains to the Father His unique relationship as the only-begotten Son, as one whose self-identity, whose self, is conceived in such terms. It is true that Christ speaks and acts as one who is human and intensely aware of his human identity. He shows limitations inseparable from His human identity, and also the limitations prescribed by the task given to Him to fulfill in human nature. But it is highly significant that in situations where His human identity, and the limitations incident to this identity and to His commission, are most in evidence, there appears the profound consciousness of His filial relationship and of His divine self-identity (see Matthew 24:36; Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 26:53; John 5:26-27; John 17:1; Romans 1:3; Hebrews 5:7-9; 1 John 1:7)…Personality can never be thought of Him except as it draws within its scope His specifically divine identity. There were two centres of consciousness, but not of self-consciousness.
In the same connection it is worthy of special attention to observe how, in connection with the sacrifice of Christ which he offered in human nature, it is always He who is represented offering Himself, and in the contexts He is identified and defined in terms of what He is as divine (John 10:17; John 18:17; Romans 8:32-34; Philippians 2:6-8; Hebrews 1:3).
The Son of God did not become personal by incarnation. He became incarnate but there was no suspension of His divine self-identity. In these terms his self must be defined. Jesus was God-man, not strictly speaking, God and man.”
Christ: IncarnateIn the same connection it is worthy of special attention to observe how, in connection with the sacrifice of Christ which he offered in human nature, it is always He who is represented offering Himself, and in the contexts He is identified and defined in terms of what He is as divine (John 10:17; John 18:17; Romans 8:32-34; Philippians 2:6-8; Hebrews 1:3).
The Son of God did not become personal by incarnation. He became incarnate but there was no suspension of His divine self-identity. In these terms his self must be defined. Jesus was God-man, not strictly speaking, God and man.”
1. A single person in two natures (divine and human)
As for His essential being, the Logos was exactly the same before and after the incarnation. 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, i.e., the God-man exists today in heaven.
2. Each nature possessing capacities for expression and action
3. Each nature united in His personal being, but without mixture, confusion or division
4. Each nature retaining its own attributes
5. The Divine nature took on the human nature. The human nature did not take on the Divine nature. Without the Divine there is no “man”. Without the “man” there is still the Divine.
In other words, our humanity and God’s divinity were, are, and always will be actually and distinguishably present in the one person of Christ. The theanthropic person is one, but constitutes the two natures, complete, but not commingled.
As we see in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 Christ speaks after a human manner, as He also says elsewhere: "All things have been given to me by the Father." Christ often speaks of Himself as if simply of God, sometimes simply as of man. For example, speaking as God, He says, "The Son of Man will be crucified." To be crucified is a property of the human nature, but because there are two natures united in one person, it is attributed to both natures. And again, speaking as God, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life." Or again, speaking from the property of His humanity, "They crucified the Lord of glory."
The interpretive principle is known as the rule of predication, where a divine title (e.g., “the Lord of glory”) is often in the Scriptures connected with a human attribute or activity (e.g., the crucifixion). That is, “Anything either nature does, the person of Christ does.” We read in the Scriptures, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). This implies that the divine existed before Abraham, not the whole Incarnate person or the human nature. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, we read, “Christ died for our sins”. This means that the human body ceased living and functioning, not the divine. Titles that remind us of one nature can be used to designate the person even though the action is done by the other nature. For example, when Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43) we know that Mary is the mother of the human nature of Christ and not the divine which has existed from all eternity (see also 1 Corinthians 15:3; John 3:13, Acts 20:28).
Hence, in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 we find Christ 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. While the term “the Son” specifically reminds us of Christ’s eternal sonship with God the Father, it is really used here not speaking specifically of his divine nature, but to speak generally of Him as a person, and to affirm something that is in fact true of his human nature only. And it is true that in one important sense (that is, with respect to his human nature) Jesus did not know the time when he would return.
I have updated and incorporated the points made in this thread in my response in the 1:1 thread here. This is a long and complex post, for the topic is the great mystery of the Incarnation. Persons are encouraged to read the post again.
No, it is not “quite clear” that the two natures must be aware of each other. If that were the case, the Chalceonians failed, for that heresy was one of the reasons for creating the description in the first place. The divine self-consciousness is always aware of the human nature, the human nature is never aware of the divine self-consciousness. The human knowledge of Christ depended upon the divine. Christ gives up nothing of His divinity, but acts in His humiliation as an obedient servant.
Either you reject the Chalcedonian description and stand with the heretics against which it was created to refute or you agree with it and stand with all of Christendom. The Chalcedonian description is not a “Calvinist doctrine”. It is a description assented to by all Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. If folks here reject this descriptive statement, then they have added a new chapter to the unsettled theist book of disagreements with orthodox theism. None of the published authors supporting unsettled theism are on record as disagreeing with the Chalcedonian description.
This is great information AMR, truly, but it still does not deal with the fact that Jesus said there is knowledge that ONLY the Father has. How do you deal with that and that alone?
This has nothing to do with the Chalcedonian description of Jesus. I am only looking at what Jesus said. Can you do the same?
AMR,
Your post does a fine job of describing the divine and human natures of Christ. You have done that several times but that is not the issue here. The issue is of differences between the natures of Father and Son. Could God have died for our sins? Why or why not. Could the Holy Spirit have risen from the dead to redeem us to eternal life? Why or why not.
There are differences within the Godhead. Matthew 25:36 is one place where Jesus specifically states that there is a difference between Father and Son in terms of what each knows.
Your post does a fine job of describing the divine and human natures of Christ. You have done that several times but that is not the issue here. The issue is of differences between the natures of Father and Son. Could God have died for our sins? Why or why not. Could the Holy Spirit have risen from the dead to redeem us to eternal life? Why or why not.
There are differences within the Godhead. Matthew 25:36 is one place where Jesus specifically states that there is a difference between Father and Son in terms of what each knows.
Evoken
New member
Yeah yeah and Christ says: "But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me." (Luke 19:27). So why don't we go out and kill all those who refuse to believe? I mean Christ want us to do that, so why no do it?
Evo
Well, one rather obvious reason but none the less good reason is that you have taken the verse completely out of context. It is the last verse in the parable of the Ten Minas. Please, if you are going to uses verses in that manor, please keep them in context.
If such influence can be established then yes, of course. I submit however that no such connection can be made. Unlike Calvinism where clear historical linkage between the doctrine and pagan Greek philosophy can be clearly established to the point that no one even bothers to deny it, Open Theism has no such lineage with anything pagan. On the contrary, the beginnings of the modern Open Theism movement can be directly credited to a small hand full of men who are still alive today. We can read their publications and evaluate the Biblical and rational veracity of their arguments first hand.Ask Mr. Religion said:
If AMR doubts the accuracy of that claim I'd love to see him attempt to substantiate his implicit claim that the modern movement is rooted in anything dating much older than about 1980.
Now, all you Calvinists out there, don't misunderstand my point here and go off half cocked quoting some Wikipedia article which cited things as old as the 5th century BC. I do not deny that the concept is older than 1980 but the modern movement known as Open Theism does not derive from the humanists that AMR cited. It is rather a rediscovery of an old truth much like salvation by grace alone was in the 14th century. In other words, for a reevaluation of the doctrine to be called for on the basis of some perseived similarity with something obviously wrong (like humanism) there needs to be more than just a mere similarity. Broken clocks are right twice a day and unless Open Theism can be linked in some significant influential way with these humanists, AMR's point is refuted and it actually back fires on him because there is indeed undisputed evidence that the doctrines of Calvinism are directly derived from the pagan Greeks.
Resting in Him,
Clete
- Status