ECT Our triune God

[Lon]

What should one make of this statement in AMR's post?



I mean if one considers it in light of this scripture?

John 5:20
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

Good question. Does 'shew (show)' always equal 'reveal?' AMR may give his own answer.

Then speaking of marveling, didn't Father reveal the faith of this guy that Jesus marvelled over?

Matthew 8:10
When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.[/QUOTE]
It is from a word that means to 'look closely.' The definition of "marvel" is: wonder OR astonishment and so the KJV word is fine but it helps if you realize it means admiration, which is what is reveal by the context of the gentile centurion's faith.

Neither of these probably removes your impressions from scripture, but I'd hope it helps show Jesus didn't necessarily have a lack in these two passages but by interpretative implication. -Lon

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Neither of these probably removes your impressions from scripture, but I'd hope it helps show Jesus didn't necessarily have a lack in these two passages but by interpretative implication. -Lon

Just wondering that if it does imply lack, and I do believe it does, would that alter the view of the trinity from the Orthodox and Protestant perspective?

And if so, wouldn't that bring it more into line with the idea of oneness, which in my opinion lines up more with what Paul said about great is the mystery of godliness?

I'm trying to agree with triune not necessarily trinitarian.

 

[Lon]

Just wondering that if it does imply lack, and I do believe it does, would that alter the view of the trinity from the Orthodox and Protestant declaration?

I had heard the Kenosis interpretation (heresy or at least heterodox to most) in seminary. It 'made sense' but I've come away from that postion 1) because I didn't know it was considered heterodox or heresy 2) because I hadn't seen the damage it does to other references to Christ in scripture. On the latter, we have scriptures that point to the Lord Jesus Christ's deity Hebrews 13:8, Isaiah 9:6 John 3:13 1 John 3:20 and etc. I think along with PPS and AMR, that such views can have us more tri- than -une.

And if so, wouldn't that bring it more into line with the idea of oneness, which in my opinion lines up more with what Paul said about great is the mystery of godliness?

I'm trying to agree with triune not necessarily trinitarian.

I believe you are correct here.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I mean if one considers it in light of this scripture?

John 5:20
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

Then speaking of marveling, didn't Father reveal the faith he had dealt to this guy that Jesus marvelled over?

Matthew 8:10
When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

On John 5:20...

Ontology is the study of being. When we talk about the ontological Trinity, we are referring to the fact that God is three in one. There are three persons in the Godhead the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit who together are one being. The ontological structure of the Trinity is a unity. When we speak of the economic Trinity, we are dealing with roles. We distinguish among the three persons of the Godhead in terns of what we call the economy of God. It is the Father who sends the Son into the world for our redemption. It is the Son who acquires our redemption for us. It is the Spirit who applies that redemption to us. We do not have three gods. We have one God in three persons, and the three persons are distinguished in terms of what They do.

So even though the Father and the Son are equal in power, glory, and being, nevertheless there is an economic subordination of the Son to the Father. That is what Jesus said here. He declared: "I don't do anything on My own. I do what the Father tells Me to do. I do what the Father sent Me to do. I watch the Father, and I do what the Father does. The Father is preeminent. The Father is the One to whom I am obedient and subordinate." He even affirmed that He could not do anything of Himself, only what He saw the Father do. Out of His love for the Son, the Father showed Him all the things that He Himself did. Then Jesus stated that the Father would show Him even greater things, so they (those accusing Him) should expect His works to become greater. In this context, Jesus specifically mentioned the raising of the dead.

On Matthew 8:10...

This is one of only two times in all of the New Testament that the Greek verb thaumazoō is used with respect to Jesus. It means “to wonder at” or “to marvel.” This word is used frequently in accounts of Jesus’ miracles, but there it describes the reaction of those who witnessed His signs. Their normal response was astonishment or amazement. Here, however, Jesus is astonished. That which astonished Him was the faith of this Gentile.

Matthew Henry is instructive here:

"Christ admired him, not for his greatness, but for his graces. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled; not as if it were to him new and surprising, he knew the centurion's faith, for he wrought it; but it was great and excellent, rare and uncommon, and Christ spoke of it as wonderful, to teach us what to admire; not worldly pomp and decorations, but the beauty of holiness, and the ornaments which are in the sight of God of great price. Note, The wonders of grace should affect us more than the wonders of nature or providence, and spiritual attainments more than any achievements in this world. Of those that are rich in faith, not of those that are rich in gold and silver, we should say that they have gotten all this glory, Gen. xxxi. 1. But whatever there is admirable in the faith of any, it must redound to the glory of Christ, who will shortly be himself admired in all them that believe, as having done in and for them marvellous things.
- Source: Henry, Matthew (2012-07-31). Matthew Henry's Unabridged Commentary On The Whole Bible: Vol. I - VI.

AMR

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

On John 5:20...

Ontology is the study of being. When we talk about the ontological Trinity, we are referring to the fact that God is three in one. There are three persons in the Godhead the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit who together are one being. The ontological structure of the Trinity is a unity. When we speak of the economic Trinity, we are dealing with roles. We distinguish among the three persons of the Godhead in terns of what we call the economy of God. It is the Father who sends the Son into the world for our redemption. It is the Son who acquires our redemption for us. It is the Spirit who applies that redemption to us. We do not have three gods. We have one God in three persons, and the three persons are distinguished in terns of what They do.

So even though the Father and the Son are equal in power, glory, and being, nevertheless there is an economic subordination of the Son to the Father. That is what Jesus said here. He declared: "I don't do anything on My own. I do what the Father tells Me to do. I do what the Father sent Me to do. I watch the Father, and I do what the Father does. The Father is preeminent. The Father is the One to whom I am obedient and subordinate." He even affirmed that He could not do anything of Himself, only what He saw the Father do. Out of His love for the Son, the Father showed Him all the things that He Himself did. Then Jesus stated that the Father would show Him even greater things, so they (those accusing Him) should expect His works to become greater. In this context, Jesus specifically mentioned the raising of the dead.AMR

This does not address Jesus contradicting the assertion in your post that the Father reveals nothing to Jesus.

We all already know there is a Father, a son, and Holy Spirit.

On Matthew 8:10...

This is one of only two times in all of the New Testament that the Greek verb thaumazoō is used with respect to Jesus. It means “to wonder at” or “to marvel.” This word is used frequently in accounts of Jesus’ miracles, but there it describes the reaction of those who witnessed His signs. Their normal response was astonishment or amazement. Here, however, Jesus is astonished. That which astonished Him was the faith of this Gentile.

I believe I already said this.

Matthew Henry is instructive here:

"Christ admired him, not for his greatness, but for his graces. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled; not as if it were to him new and surprising, he knew the centurion's faith, for he wrought it; but it was great and excellent, rare and uncommon, and Christ spoke of it as wonderful, to teach us what to admire; not worldly pomp and decorations, but the beauty of holiness, and the ornaments which are in the sight of God of great price. Note, The wonders of grace should affect us more than the wonders of nature or providence, and spiritual attainments more than any achievements in this world. Of those that are rich in faith, not of those that are rich in gold and silver, we should say that they have gotten all this glory, Gen. xxxi. 1. But whatever there is admirable in the faith of any, it must redound to the glory of Christ, who will shortly be himself admired in all them that believe, as having done in and for them marvellous things.
- Source: Henry, Matthew (2012-07-31). Matthew Henry's Unabridged Commentary On The Whole Bible: Vol. I - VI.

So Matthew Henry said that Jesus wrought the centurions faith.

So I have to ask, if Jesus wrought it, why would he be astonished at how great and excellent it was?

 

[Cross Reference]

I never said Christ today is only a man but you deny he was born only a man.





I answered you in kind. You lied about me, so I could only gather from that you are lying.





I know the meanings, but remember that we also were in Christ before the foundation of the world, but you misunderstand how.





The Father created all things according to the Bible with Christ and us in mind.





Silly.
They were looking for the Messiah.





Well, I do not deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Christ is the divine portion of Jesus Christ.

and you judge others views by your beliefs rather than by Gods word.

Jesus is still a man born from the human race, but you claim he was somehow a conscious being before He was born. You learnt that from deceived people.





The divinity of Jesus is the Father Himself, so of course His divinity was uncreated.

You do not see the union of man with God. You deny the gospel record and prefer the writings of blind men.





So everyone is in peril except you, who claims to know Christ through your study of other humans books.



Then why do you not obey them?

I have answered you in the same way as you began to speak, so you have none to blame but yourself.

LA

LA, You speak as one who is "Jesus Only"; "Apostolic Holiness". Are you?

 

[Cross Reference]

Personally I think only the Father knows still.

We can only conjecture on that one.

 

[Cross Reference]

What should one make of this statement in AMR's post?



I mean if one considers it in light of this scripture?

John 5:20
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

Then speaking of marveling, didn't Father reveal the faith he had dealt to this guy that Jesus marvelled over?

Matthew 8:10
When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

John 5:20 does not speak of the "when" of it all. What is does speak of is the abandonment of Jesus, the man, to his Father.

 

[Cross Reference]

When was it [time frame] that John actually knew this about Jesus to declare it?:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:1-5ff (KJV)

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth".
John 1:14 (KJV)

If I were to paraphrase vs 14, I would add the words: [But then after four thousand years] the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..

 

[Cross Reference]

On John 5:20...

Ontology is the study of being. When we talk about the ontological Trinity, we are referring to the fact that God is three in one. There are three persons in the Godhead the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit who together are one being. The ontological structure of the Trinity is a unity. When we speak of the economic Trinity, we are dealing with roles. We distinguish among the three persons of the Godhead in terns of what we call the economy of God. It is the Father who sends the Son into the world for our redemption. It is the Son who acquires our redemption for us. It is the Spirit who applies that redemption to us. We do not have three gods. We have one God in three persons, and the three persons are distinguished in terns of what They do.

So even though the Father and the Son are equal in power, glory, and being, nevertheless there is an economic subordination of the Son to the Father. That is what Jesus said here. He declared: "I don't do anything on My own. I do what the Father tells Me to do. I do what the Father sent Me to do. I watch the Father, and I do what the Father does. The Father is preeminent. The Father is the One to whom I am obedient and subordinate." He even affirmed that He could not do anything of Himself, only what He saw the Father do. Out of His love for the Son, the Father showed Him all the things that He Himself did. Then Jesus stated that the Father would show Him even greater things, so they (those accusing Him) should expect His works to become greater. In this context, Jesus specifically mentioned the raising of the dead.

AMR

However, there could be no son until Jesus was born of Mary. . That is a fact of "life". . . even Glorified human Life.

 

[fzappa13]

It does depend on revelation for faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God, thus it does depend on what we know of God. I think you are saying "salvation doesn't depend on what we yet don't know about God or possibly even what we may not have correctly."

I think if a thread was started with the topic: "Soteriology: what is salvation all about?" Would go many pages on TOL. General systematic theology topics have a good longevity.

I dunno. I think the subject like most others in that most folks think it is either a done deal or it's not and they have their 1/2 dozen pet verses ever at the ready but most can't conceive of a reality in which both things are true. Sort of like the subject of this thread. Jesus is either "God" or He's not ... and yet there are verses that argue for both points in the same Bible. Either way, your views on these subjects is not what saves you. Remember the parable of the 10 virgins ... that is, unless you think that the oil was proper doctrine.

 

[Cross Reference]

1)

The balance of theology is between the idea of Christ's kenosis and the hypostatic union of God and man.

Was this the same as with Adam? If not then why interject hypostatic union? Jesus was the second Adam direct from the hand of God as the first Adam. Jesus had to follow suit and by birth was the only way left open for God to perform it; the only way God could place a sinless man into Adam's race and only one man could be allowed into it and in a prescribed way..

Here is a brief overview of the difficulties, but I'll elate a few of them here as well. The main point is that Christ didn't divest himself of divinity, but rather veiled it in taking on humanity. Thus, when Jesus said "no man knows the day or the hour but the Father in heaven" It was because He chose not to know and accepted that limitation in the flesh. "He knows now" would suggest the Lord Jesus is in His glorified state.

How ‘bout His Father witheld from Him, for reasons that had everything to do with His “made vulnerable’”humanity, certain things beyond which we are given to understand? It was not a thing off His choosing not to know but the Word who withheld such knowledge Who did know the full ramifications of success and failure of His mission. That is what I believe the emptying of the flesh of Jesus of the divinity that would have allowed Him to see and understand would otherwise been permitted Him. What the Word did leave Him that was sufficient was a VISION of the eternal ‘everything’ He was trusted with and to attain unto. . . and that JOY kept Him.

The main point of this discussion is focused on how much Jesus Christ tasted of humanity, voluntarily, as God.

He tasted nothing as God because that would have been against the rules of engagement for proving to the heavenly host that a man could defeat Satan which was the only way the “penalty” for Adam’s transgression could have been canceled. Had Jesus been in the power of his Godhead to withdraw from suffering in His flesh, all flesh on Earth would have been be lost. . . and more. Consider that to be the reason for His fervent prayer life. . .Gethsemane in particular.

Paul says our attitude should be that of our Lord Jesus Christ, who took on the form of a servant, for our sakes.

It doesn’t read that it was for our sakes. [Php2:7 KJV] How ‘bout Jesus took on a form of a servant for God’s sake? That would make His obedience and our salvation to be more about God than us, wouldn’t it? . . . which I believe it is anyway. Why would God create for His pleasure that it had to include mankind as 'brothers'? And by His resurrection is that possible for us that we are able to accomplish His LIFE in the same way He did which was not of God’s strength but His allegiance to His Father which enabled the power of the Holy Spirit power to His flesh by Him “walking after the Spirit” until such time He fulfilled His mission.

Such was all voluntary and self-restricting, not a 'losing' of those attributes.

I would rather say it was by willful submission between equals because it was a “2 way accomplishment”, i.e., man for God that God could be for man.

A father may put one hand behind his back when playing baseball to hit the ball, and would divest himself of most of his power in order to participate appropriately with his children. Similarly, Paul is calling the Philippians to have this same loving and sacrificial loving attitude, as displayed in Christ's loving sacrifice, not only in His death, but His subservient life as God living as a human servant.

If an atheist can perform a subservient life and many do, even unto death then, why Jesus? Obviously there must be more that sets Him apart; more than what meets the eye?

There is a danger to Kenosis theology and is labelled a heresy, and that is the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ 'ceased' being God when He emptied Himself.

But His relationship did not cease. The Word emptied Himself to leave Jesus, the body prepared for Him, to live by the VISION and the JOY given Him at birth. Jesus was God’s representation of what He created man to be and that he be OF Him. In 2 words: “perfect union” between Himself and mankind. Jesus walked that out.

Bible.org addresses this more fully here. The problem with such is that it believes Jesus was only human upon the earth and it also alludes to him being created/born as a separate being than the pre-existent God the Son (Son of God).

That isn’t me.

 

[fzappa13]

No worries. Lets be friends.

Well, I'm all for that but honesty demands I tell you that is a very short list with me and admittance thereto is not quick or easy.

 

[Cross Reference]

Well, I'm all for that but honesty demands I tell you that is a very short list with me and admittance thereto is not quick or easy.

we're on the same page with that. .

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I never said Christ today is only a man but you deny he was born only a man.





I answered you in kind. You lied about me, so I could only gather from that you are lying.





I know the meanings, but remember that we also were in Christ before the foundation of the world, but you misunderstand how.





The Father created all things according to the Bible with Christ and us in mind.





Silly.
They were looking for the Messiah.





Well, I do not deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Christ is the divine portion of Jesus Christ.

and you judge others views by your beliefs rather than by Gods word.

Jesus is still a man born from the human race, but you claim he was somehow a conscious being before He was born. You learnt that from deceived people.





The divinity of Jesus is the Father Himself, so of course His divinity was uncreated.

You do not see the union of man with God. You deny the gospel record and prefer the writings of blind men.





So everyone is in peril except you, who claims to know Christ through your study of other humans books.



Then why do you not obey them?

I have answered you in the same way as you began to speak, so you have none to blame but yourself.

LA

Heterodox Unitarian/Adoptionist error.

 

[Cross Reference]

Heterodox Unitarian/Adoptionist error.

What part??

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What part??

Virtually all of it. You actually seem to overlap a LOT with that view, if not being an outright proponent.

It's heterodox and denies the authentic eternal and uncreated (continuous) divinity of Christ.

Extreme and misrepresentational kenosis is a 19th-century heresy that has injected this heterodox attempt at reconciling apparent paradoxes.

 

[Cross Reference]

Virtually all of it.

Vitually? As in not "really" any of it?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

1)



Was this the same as with Adam? If not then why interject hypostatic union? Jesus was the second Adam direct from the hand of God as the first Adam. Jesus had to follow suit and by birth was the only way left open for God to perform it; the only way God could place a sinless man into Adam's race and only one man could be allowed into it and in a prescribed way..


How ‘bout His Father witheld from Him, for reasons that had everything to do with His “made vulnerable’”humanity, certain things beyond which we are given to understand? It was not a thing off His choosing not to know but the Word who withheld such knowledge Who did know the full ramifications of success and failure of His mission. That is what I believe the emptying of the flesh of Jesus of the divinity that would have allowed Him to see and understand would otherwise been permitted Him. What the Word did leave Him that was sufficient was a VISION of the eternal ‘everything’ He was trusted with and to attain unto. . . and that JOY kept Him.


He tasted nothing as God because that would have been against the rules of engagement for proving to the heavenly host that a man could defeat Satan which was the only way the “penalty” for Adam’s transgression could have been canceled. Had Jesus been in the power of his Godhead to withdraw from suffering in His flesh, all flesh on Earth would have been be lost. . . and more. Consider that to be the reason for His fervent prayer life. . .Gethsemane in particular.



It doesn’t read that it was for our sakes. [Php2:7 KJV] How ‘bout Jesus took on a form of a servant for God’s sake? That would make His obedience and our salvation to be more about God than us, wouldn’t it? . . . which I believe it is anyway. Why would God create for His pleasure that it had to include mankind as 'brothers'? And by His resurrection is that possible for us that we are able to accomplish His LIFE in the same way He did which was not of God’s strength but His allegiance to His Father which enabled the power of the Holy Spirit power to His flesh by Him “walking after the Spirit” until such time He fulfilled His mission.


I would rather say it was by willful submission between equals because it was a “2 way accomplishment”, i.e., man for God that God could be for man.


If an atheist can perform a subservient life and many do, even unto death then, why Jesus? Obviously there must be more that sets Him apart; more than what meets the eye?



But His relationship did not cease. The Word emptied Himself to leave Jesus, the body prepared for Him, to live by the VISION and the JOY given Him at birth. Jesus was God’s representation of what He created man to be and that he be OF Him. In 2 words: “perfect union” between Himself and mankind. Jesus walked that out.




That isn’t me.

This is mostly a form of Third Wave Charismaticism's (unfinished) "Finished Works" Soteriology; and it's strongly based on Barthian subtle fallacies and dilutions and/or tangents of/from it.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Vitually? As in not "really" any of it?

No. Virtually, as in, most of it (if not all).