Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Kenosis- Split from Pop preachers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post

    You are reading your conclusion into this.

    No saint, while living, would ever accept proskuneo, just like the apostles never did and angels never did (you neglected to reference them in your response). Jesus alone never rejected it - because, as you say, he wasn't worried about being mistaken for God. If he'd consciously given up his divinity, you'd think he'd be meticulous about rejecting it as well.
    Report has it that in common with the Church of Rome, Eastern church Patriarchs and bishops accept proskuneo (which includes bowing, kneeling, kissing finger-rings) from their subordinates and the laity. Are you claiming that the reports are false, or are the said Patriarchs and bishops are acting in violation of the scriptural injunction?
    Last edited by tabibito; 09-26-2023, 06:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by myth View Post

    Seems to me that God ceasing to be God isn't possible, and I've never seen anything in Scripture that would support that idea. Similarly, if one loses ones omnipotence and has it again afterwards, completely absent of one's will, that would imply that he lost omnipotence against his will. Which means he wasn't ever really omnipotent to begin with, I'd say.
    More interesting issues are how God can become lesser than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), how Logos could give up equality with God but remain God (Philippians 2:6-7), and how Jesus could be made in every way the same as his brothers (Hebrews 2:17) if he remained God. Then too, there is the matter of his being termed "a man attested by God ... by the signs and wonders that God performed through him" (Acts 2:22), and the list continues.

    Could Yahweh give up being God? According to the Jews, "God" is the office that Yahweh holds. Could the emperor abdicate, the company (or nation's) president resign?

    Last edited by tabibito; 09-18-2023, 08:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • myth
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    It would mean that he stopped being God. God being what Logos had been and is, not who, there is no difficulty with ceasing to exist as God. YHVH being who he was, not what, he did not cease to exist as YHVH. The Trinity was preserved.


    Yes


    At will? - nothing indicates that, having become for a time lesser than the angels, he had the ability to take up being God during that time.

    Similarly, for a time, Princess Abe gave up what she was, but she remained who she was. When she abdicated as regnant empress of Japan, she no longer was empress regnant. She lay aside the trappings and prerogatives of an emperor, becoming lesser and taking on a lower status.That she later resumed the throne meant that she had become empress again, and had taken up the trappings and prerogatives of an emperor.
    Seems to me that God ceasing to be God isn't possible, and I've never seen anything in Scripture that would support that idea. Similarly, if one loses ones omnipotence and has it again afterwards, completely absent of one's will, that would imply that he lost omnipotence against his will. Which means he wasn't ever really omnipotent to begin with, I'd say.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    Interesting. Does John 20:17 make it even more interesting?
    The implications of that verse should be readily apparent.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    NorrinRadd Am I reading John 14:1 correctly?
    Interesting. Does John 20:17 make it even more interesting?

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by myth View Post

    Kenosis has some problems. For instance, if Christ "set aside" his omnipotence....what does that mean? Is Christ omnipotent now, after his death and resurrection? If yes, then it would seem he never really set aside his omnipotence, because he had the ability to take it up again. If one can take up the ability again at will, then one never really lacked the ability to do whatever was needful. Which means, one was really still omnipotent the whole time.
    There are versions of kenosis that hold that Jesus laid aside His divinity in the sense of voluntarily allowing those aspects of Himself to become dormant, *loosely* analogous to the way a person's abilities to walk, talk, etc. are suspended while the person is asleep. The abilities are still there, but the person does not have voluntary access.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by myth View Post
    Kenosis has some problems. For instance, if Christ "set aside" his omnipotence....what does that mean?
    It would mean that he stopped being God. God being what Logos had been and is, not who, there is no difficulty with ceasing to exist as God. YHVH being who he was, not what, he did not cease to exist as YHVH. The Trinity was preserved.

    Is Christ omnipotent now, after his death and resurrection?
    Yes

    If yes, then it would seem he never really set aside his omnipotence, because he had the ability to take it up again. If one can take up the ability again at will, then one never really lacked the ability to do whatever was needful. Which means, one was really still omnipotent the whole time.
    At will? - nothing indicates that, having become for a time lesser than the angels, he had the ability to take up being God during that time.

    Similarly, for a time, Princess Abe gave up what she was, but she remained who she was. When she abdicated as regnant empress of Japan, she no longer was empress regnant. She lay aside the trappings and prerogatives of an emperor, becoming lesser and taking on a lower status.That she later resumed the throne meant that she had become empress again, and had taken up the trappings and prerogatives of an emperor.
    Last edited by tabibito; 09-12-2023, 02:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • myth
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    Yeah, Jesse's a wackadoodle, but I'm afraid I can't take seriously every belch of "heresy!" from a guy who is himself heterodox and who AFAICT thinks every version of kenosis theology is automatically heretical.
    Kenosis has some problems. For instance, if Christ "set aside" his omnipotence....what does that mean? Is Christ omnipotent now, after his death and resurrection? If yes, then it would seem he never really set aside his omnipotence, because he had the ability to take it up again. If one can take up the ability again at will, then one never really lacked the ability to do whatever was needful. Which means, one was really still omnipotent the whole time.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    NorrinRadd Am I reading John 14:1 correctly?

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    There are some reservations, but if I was looking for a church pastor, she'd definitely make the second interview.
    Personally, I'd give her a point or two just for the "peeing behind the bushes" line.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    His daughter, posted to YouTube a little over 2 years ago. Particularly notable around the 17:30 mark.

    There are some reservations, but if I was looking for a church pastor, she'd definitely make the second interview.
    Last edited by tabibito; 07-05-2023, 04:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    Stumbled across this by Providential happenstance. It's a relevant clip of the late Gordon Fee, probably from around 40 years ago, teaching his college students.

    His daughter, posted to YouTube a little over 2 years ago. Particularly notable around the 17:30 mark.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    Stumbled across this by Providential happenstance. It's a relevant clip of the late Gordon Fee, probably from around 40 years ago, teaching his college students.

    The clip is very interesting indeed. It comes as something of a surprise to see that kind of exposition from a notable academic.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Stumbled across this by Providential happenstance. It's a relevant clip of the late Gordon Fee, probably from around 40 years ago, teaching his college students.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    To some extent it's understandable. If you know by observation that a preacher has made dozen of screwball claims, and that the preacher's style is to speak off-the-cuff, your first pass is likely to be to assume the preacher goofed again.

    I don't like it when the "heresy hunters" cherry-pick the worst quotes and give them the worst possible interpretation. And I don't like it when they take a dozen different problematic quotes from a dozen different goofballs, and then claim ALL of them believe ALL the things quoted.
    That kind of thing says more about the critics than it does about the criticised IMO.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Larry Serflaten, 01-25-2024, 10:30 AM
Working...
X