I simply mean that God does not create sin, it is wholy belonging to us, not God.
As I have already illustrated, Christ professed ignorance concerning the end times (Mark 13:32). Appealing to prophetic instances where knowledge was intimated beyond typical awareness is unhelpful in your case since other prophets throughout the scriptures have similarly shares such deeper awareness, such as Ezekiel with the temple.
The point you and answer are bypassing is that there is certain qualities that the Word took on that are not equated with God. You can certainly point to the divine beyond the incarnation, and that is fine, but that is not within the scope of our conversation, as we are discussing the limitations and potentials of the incarnated God.
Orthodox vs. Neo Orthodox is always up to interpretation, and those of us studied in church history are vastly aware of the struggles and range of beliefs in such matters, and shrug off such claims of "orthodoxy" realizing that often times such claims are imbedded in cultural and historical contexts, often evolving even within the same particular faith tradition. The eastern church has evolved in several ways and historicaly has views to this respect, as does the west and the countless splinters therein. Before even such geographic distinctions were relevant, the fathers too wrestled with the meaning of the incarnation, and finaly the western church largely accepts the vague and philisophicly inclined deffinitions of the 4th century. To stray in any direction from the exact quoted deffinition is certain to draw criticisms of heresy. Funny how the church fathers wrote extenssively and debated and had the beautiful freedom to contemplate, question and use imagination in trying to comprehend the splendid doctrine of the incarnation, yet here we are now, so afraid of error that we question the validity of any attempt to introspect on the meanings of doctrines related to Christ. We uphold a sentence, proclaim mystery, and mandate we leave it at that. I don't know if this is your story or not, but this is the stuff I think of when I hear people discuss "orthodoxy" and "neo orthodoxy" in respect to such deeply historical conversations as this one, where the "neo"ness of it is really just as ancient as any other distinctly Christian theology.
Now, as to your last sentence, to what degree Christ's divinity was imposed upon is a subject of great intrest and lenghy study. I, myself, am suspect of anyone seeking to squash it at the outset. I am sure you have run across the type. This to me wreaks of fear and ignorance, and a propogation of both. That is a weak church, IMO. My point I have pressed continualy through this thread, is that it is certain that the divinity of the Word was forsaken for the sake of humanity. This is dope to me. To what degree, I suppose we can talk about it. I think I have already outlined a universaly accepted list, and am currently inquiring on whether the ability to sin should be includded. As it stands I think I am inclined to go that way.
Well, this is Paul's most extensive metaphor, and deeply rooted Christology. To that extent I think it important to continue to draw the connection and derive conclussions from that relationship as much we can. I am unsure where you have ever shown they were not the same case outside of saying that the Word is actually God, which I agree, but we are talking about the nature of the incarnation, which is a new advent of the nature of God. Becoming human would seem to be incompatible with who God is, yet it occured, so to appeal to features of humanity and claim they are incompatible with God simply for the fact that God is God, is faulty, because God's actions are His own, and it is clear He has already engaged in at least some of the process we would naturaly be inclined to draw a line across.
My answer is no. But to suggest that it is because God is God, then explain to me the purpose of the incarnation beyond it being a hoop to jump through? What is the sweating of blood about? What is the garden prayer about? What was the temptation accounts about? Tell me how Jesus not being a human changes humanity? And if it is just an act of God, then why did God go the Jesus route, and not just enact the same outcome from heaven? If God could not be broken, how did He break anything?
The truth is (as I am understanding it) is that Jesus continued to chose God, continued to operate according to the truth of God, embrace God, and God uniquely encamped upon Him. In Christ humanity and Divinity uniquely rested within each other.
We tend to think of Christ as the second adam soley in respects to their impact on humanity. But perhaps we can consider it too along the lines of the lives they lived, the potential they had, etc. I think it may be that by looking at it this way, we may see WHY Jesus' incarnation was so powerful.
May I ask, how in your construct is Jesus' life and death so powerful if He wasn't really a human at all?
Paul Tillich speaks of this relationship in terms of mediator of the estranged. He writes, "He is the Mediator inso far as he is supposed to reconcile. He represents God toward man and man toward God. Both elements of the idea of the mediator have been applied to Jesus as the Christ. In his face we see the face of God, and in him we experience the reconciling will of God; in both respects he is the Mediator" (Tillich, Systematic Theology. Vol 2, p. 169). However he goes on to clarify this point as to not to suggest He is a third entity separate from God and man, instead He is the personification of this relationship which exists. He writes, "A third kind of being between God and man would be a half-god. Exactly this was rejected in the Arian heresy. In Christ the eternal God-Man unity has appeared under the conditions of existence. The mediator is not a half-god. This was the first great anti-heretical decision of Christianity, namely, that he is not a third reality between God and man" (Tillich, Systematic Theology. Vol 2, p. 169).
Now, I can see his point here, am cautious of arianism and also love the beauty that it is in Christ that humanity and God meet each other and are truly connected and in favor with each other as we were destined to in creation outside of the "fall."
To add one more element to this conversation, is that in Luke we see that Jesus actually GREW in wisdom, and favor with God (Luke 2:52). I wonder how this is compatible with some of the theologies the church holds to today.
Which appealed to him in that he could "be like God, knowing both good and evil."
Would it be arrogant to quote what you wrote on both Nov. 26 @ 9:59 am and Nov. 22 @ 8:23 am
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
As long as you affirm that it is not merely for "examples" sake, right?
I see you later quote Sproul in his opinion on the key text. I was for a moment puzzled at your forgetfulness of this key passae, especially since I have cited it over and over again in this thread, whether with a quote acknowleding such citation after its refference or not.
although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.I agree He laid aside His perogative. Adam reached for more, Jesus let go of His. This is amazing, and truly insightful when looking at the nature of man in respects to both these figures. My point was that divinity was sacrificed. It was sacrificed in terms of omniscience. Omnipresence. The ability to die, etc. This is why I have continued to harp on this, yet apparently it has yet to ressonate with you or answer. While you are unable to figure out my positions and arguments, I continue to reiterate my own questions and problems with how you approach them.
My statement you quoted denotes that divinity was willingly infringed upon. This in fact is what your Sproul quote itself suggests. The "perrogatives" of divinity were forsaken, etc. My framing of the issue then lies in what extent of this infringing. Divinity itself was "forsaken" or "sacrificed" if only to become limited to time and space, not to mention the other affirmations of such relinquishing the scriptures and my posts have suggested.
No, the furthest one may go with the question is that if God laid aside His divinity completely in the incarnation, or to what extent. One who affirms that Christ became fully human, can still equaly and integrously affirm that the Word who became flesh was entirely, thoroughly, and eternaly God...and then became flesh. This then can affirm that Christ is both God and man, and still afirm the 100%-100% deffinition.
No agnosticism at all. Christ the divine, became human to save them, and reigns forever in His divinity and excellence.
Is this what I believe, I don't know. The mystery of the incarnation continues, even as you yourself suggested twice.
peace.
