“Jesus who was eternal God who also stepped foot in a human body by voluntarily setting aside His incommunicable attributes while operating in His humanity”.

No problem, I agree, so let’s leave it at that, as I see no point in saying anything further except.

May the Lord bless you abundantly, and keep you safe.

Edwin.

Perhaps the following will put into perspective what I have said so far, on this subject, and help you to understand just where I am coming from

You can rest assured that I have no intention whatsoever of introducing error, I know full well that I am answerable to the Lord for what I have told my fellow believers.

If our Lord Jesus retained His Deity during His humanity, and then said “I can do nothing on my own authority”. Then He was not telling the truth, and the Jesus I know is not a liar.

——————————————————————————–

A universal problem with Christians is. How can I live the normal Christian life, as God wants me to ?

The answer is to find out how Jesus as a “man” some 2000 years ago, lived a life that was well pleasing to His Father.

It was not Jesus who performed the miracles, and preached the truth, but God the Father who dwelt inside Him (John Ch 14 v 10).

Jesus did it this way, because it is the only way in which you and I can do it. Remember “Christ in you the hope of glory”.

When Jesus came to earth some 2000 years ago, He not only came to offer Himself as a sinless sacrifice to pay for our sins, and thus enable God to forgive as many as will accept this fact. But also to demonstrate by His life just how we humans were, and are intended by our Father God to behave towards the one who made us in His own image, and after His likeness, the Lord our God.

By His life, I mean the attitude of, “Not My will, but thine be done”, that Jesus continually adopted towards His Father, thus enabling the Father who indwelt the Son, to be both seen, and heard.

The Father communicated Himself through the body of the man Jesus to all people with whom He came into contact at that time, and through Scripture now to us.

This is the reason why you, if you are a Christian are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, in order that you might allow the other resident within yourself to have right of way in your life, and to do just what He wants to do in and through you.

Apply that same method of, “Not My will, but thine be done”, to yourself, and you will find out how to overcome the problem you have.. Now read Phil Ch 2 verses 5-13. Also in John’s Gospel, Ch 1 v 18. Ch 5 verses 19, & 30. Ch 11 verses 41b & 42. Acts Ch 2 v 22, and best of all, John Ch 14 verses 9 & 10, Then ask yourself why is it that Jesus who is both God and man is doing things this way, and you will be told “Because it is the only way that you can do it”.

Jesus also said,

Jhn 15:3 “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
Jhn 15:4 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
Jhn 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

Note “without Me you can do nothing”

Why do you suppose that Paul said

Gal 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

Phl 1:21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain

Col 1:27 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which* is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Gal 4:19 My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you,

There is only one person in this whole universe who can live the Christian life to perfection,,, that person lives inside you, and that’s why Jesus said what He said at,

Jhn 14:10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

Note: “the Father who dwells in Me does the works”.

Ask Him in prayer, why He did things this way, and He will tell you as He told me many years ago, “Because it’s the only way you can do it”.

Every blessing.

Edwin.

Another obvious inference from this doctrine is that the man Christ Jesus is the object of religious worship. To worship, in the religious sense of the word, is to ascribe divine perfections to its object. The possession of those perfections, is, therefore, the only proper ground for such worship. The humanity of Christ, consequently, is not the ground of worship, but it enters into the constitution of that person who, being God over all and blessed forever, is the object of adoration to saints and angels. We accordingly find that it was He whom they saw, felt, and handled, that the Apostles worshipped as their Lord and God; whom they loved supremely, and to whom they consecrated themselves as a living sacrifice.

Hodge, C. (1997). Vol. 2: Systematic theology (396). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

But this does not at all mean that Protestantism would not be responsible for that which the council of Ephesus protected and maintained in 431 against Nestorius. Reformed churches have never felt the need to repudiate the decision of this council for the simple reason that they agree with the rejection of Nestorius’ views. His difficulties with “theotokos” and his preference for “Christotokos” arose from his inclination to separate the two natures in Christ and to speak of the human nature by itself—the nature of which Mary would be the mother. The church rejected this dualism and used the word “theotokos” to mean that Mary was the mother of him who was the eternal Son of God and that the Son did not assume a human being but the human nature. Another question is whether the term “Mother of God” is the most acceptable term for the expression of this truth. There is room for a difference of opinion on this point and some may judge that in a given historical situation the term may create misunderstanding.38 This was the case when in later periods Mary’s halo grew and became brighter, and the term “Mother of God” became an integral part of Mariological adoration. It is our conviction that in one’s use of terms also one is responsible for the life of the whole church and that one does not do anyone any good by using this term (however well intended by the councils in their polemic with Nestorianism) apart from its subsequent development; it is no longer obvious that the term implies a rejection of a dualism in Christology. We know that attempts have been made to break the aversion to “theotokos” and to settle the issue for good39 but, since the term may create the impression of elevating Mary and does not add anything to the confession of the church of all ages, it is subject to serious objections. But with indignation we reject the notion that Protestantism is secretly dissociating itself from the confession of the church, which always repudiated, against Nestorianism and Adoptionism, the idea that he who was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, should not be the eternal Word, and Light of Light.
When Bavinck begins his treatment of the communion of the two natures in Christ, he refers to a familiar distinction which used to play a role in theology: communion in properties, in actions, and in gifts.40 One might call in question whether this distinction does justice to the revelation concerning the communion of the natures. In the communion of properties and of actions we are in fact confronting the same reality. The properties of the one person Jesus Christ become manifest precisely in his actions, so that we can condense both distinctions in the statement that there is a communion of properties in the reality of the life of Christ. We may never isolate a given deed or property of Christ from his divine or from his human nature. At stake here is the unity of the person.
One cannot say that Christ performs certain deeds in such a way that his human nature is the subject of these deeds while he performs other deeds in such a way that the divine nature is the subject. It was sometimes described in this manner, lest one should have to say that God suffered on the cross. But one may not say in any case, at least if one maintains the unity of the person, that the human nature of Jesus Christ suffered in the abstract, for the simple reason that this human nature has never existed in abstraction from the divine. One must admit, indeed, that the church rightly stood on guard against any form of theopaschitism but the point is that we must strive rightly to understand the unity of the person. We must be concerned to maintain that all the deeds of Christ were performed by his one person and that in the suffering of Christ the human nature was indissolubly united with the divine. This communion of natures therefore comes to expression in a communion of actions. This communion of actions is not something additional to the communion of natures, but part of it: this communion, far from being static, is a permanently dynamic reality in the life and works of Christ. The Reformed creeds already give clear expression to this fact. In the Canons of Dordt we read for instance: “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. This death is of such infinite value and dignity because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Saviour for us; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin” (II, 3, 4). This creed obviously dissociates itself completely from the notion that the death of Christ was an act of his human nature in isolation from his divine nature. The infinite value of Christ’s death is here associated with the fact that he, who was true God and true man, was the single person, Jesus Christ, undergoing this death. Schilder rightly declared it to be a Reformed conviction that not a single work of the Mediator, either in the past or in the present, was performed “in” or “according to” a single “bare nature”41 and that one virtually eliminates the Mediator if one says that he performed his mediatorial work merely according to his human nature. At this point the church need not worry lest it slide into theopaschitism and lest it associate suffering too intimately with the living God. For at stake here is the unique mystery of the one Christ in the singleness of the person. He is the subject of all his deeds. And he is the object of our praise and worship as the One who performed his work in the absolute unity of and faithfulness to his office.
A moment ago we referred, in the above-mentioned distinction, to the communication of gifts. It is somewhat surprising to see this third “communication” next to the others. One may rightly wonder whether it belongs here. For in the communion of properties and actions we confronted the miracle of the union; but in the communication of gifts we confront the fact that God gives things to his son, Jesus Christ, in this union. This is the beautiful doctrine, as Bavinck says, of the communication of gifts, a doctrine which certainly cannot be put on a par with the communion of properties as an item in the same series. With it Reformed theology resisted every form of the deification of the human nature of Christ. In this doctrine they made room for the human development of Jesus Christ whom they saw, in the Gospel, on his way from infancy to maturity. Scripture also speaks of the anointing of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit “without measure.” This is something principially different from what the Lutherans intended with their communication of the divine properties to the human nature. With the gifts are meant those which equipped the man Jesus Christ for the fulfillment of his official calling. This is not a granting of the supernatural to the human nature but the equipment, by the gifts of the Spirit, of Jesus Christ for the completion of the work assigned to him.
The confession of the communication of gifts is a direct result of the confession of the church in Chalcedon. Christ was genuinely man, and assumed the likeness of sinful flesh—human nature in its weakness. We witness here that the human nature of Jesus Christ is not consumed in the union by the divine nature but that it was really united with that divine nature for the fulfillment of Christ’s office.
Now, however, the question arises whether we can say no more about the nature of this union than that it is a union which does not suspend the several properties of the two natures. Must we be content to speak of an incomprehensible mystery or is there perhaps an analogy somewhat illuminating the nature of this union? As is known to the reader, people have repeatedly tried to describe that which they confessed as mystery by means of an intracosmic analogy. Thus they did with the confession of the trinity, for instance, and so, too, with the unity of the person. It is especially the analogy of the relationship between soul and body which we encounter in this area. And it is important to consider this analogy with care. Obviously it is not an analogy derived from Scripture for the Bible nowhere compares the relationship between the two natures of Christ with that existing between soul and body in man. But this fact did not deter people, even in early times, from using the analogy. This can be explained to a certain extent from the idea, then current, that the relation between soul and body also involved mystery. The purpose of this analogy, with these people, often was not to make the unity of the person conceivable and transparent, but rather to make plain that as the one relationship is incomprehensible, so is the other.
The Athanasian symbol already contains the analogy.42 In its section on Christology we read: Jesus Christ is … “one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ.” On account of the brevity of this statement it is impossible completely to fathom the intent of the author but we do realize that the symbol intends to stress the unity of the person and to illustrate it by means of the soul-body analogy in man. The question is, however, whether the intention of the author was merely to refer to a tertium comparationis—the unity of that which can be called a duality in another connection—or whether he intended really to help us understand the nature of this union.
One repeatedly gets the impression that the soul-body analogy is but incidentally used to stress the true unity of the person without a concomitant concern with the anthropological problem of the actual relationship between body and soul. The analogy therefore repeatedly returns in the same loose connection. It occurs, for instance, in Luther when he wants to point out the intimate connection between the two natures; he then elaborates by saying that the soul exists throughout the body, so that by striking at the smallest member of the body we strike at the soul. The intention of Luther is, obviously, to illustrate the personal union; and he adds the comment that the relationship between the divine nature and the human is still more intimate than that between soul and body.43 From the soul-body analogy Luther even made deductions with which to elucidate his doctrine of ubiquity: the human soul manifests itself throughout the body. Here we observe something of the danger of this analogy. This is not to say, however, that the analogy occurs only in Lutheran theology. Calvin also used it to illustrate the unity of the person. He too is concerned to stress the incomprehensibility of the union. He regards man as a unity composed, nonetheless, of two substances. He uses this picture in answering the question how the two natures of the Mediator constitute one person.44 He regards man himself as “the most opposite similitude; being evidently composed of two substances, of which, however, neither is so confounded with the other, as not to retain its distinct nature.” Of the soul is predicated that which cannot be applied to the body and, conversely, what is said of the body is not applicable to the soul. Calvin even proceeds further in elaborating the analogy because he discovers in it something corresponding to the communication of properties in Christ: “Lastly, the properties of the soul are transferred to the body, and the properties of the body to the soul; yet he that is composed of these two parts is no more than one man. Such forms of expression signify that there is in man one person composed of two distinct parts; and that there are two different natures united in him to constitute that one person. The Scriptures speak in a similar manner respecting Christ.”45
Calvin, it is plain, does not intend, by means of this analogy, to add something new to the teaching of the Scripture. He has only been struck by the peculiar relationship of the two substances and the one human being. And it deserves note that Calvin, before pointing out the analogy, says: “If anything among men can be found to resemble so great a mystery, man himself appears to furnish the most apposite similitude.” The words “if anything” seem to mean that Calvin himself felt that by means of the analogy he failed to say anything essential of the unity of the person in Christ.
Certain it is that in Reformed theology this analogy has no dogmatic significance, any more than in the Athanasian symbol.46 That would be the case only if concealed in this analogy there was a certain anthropological theory, intended to illuminate the personal union. But this is not true of Calvin. He does not mean to offer an ecclesiastical anthropology but speaks in non-scientific terms about soul and body which together form a unity. This diversity and unity constitute the occasion for him to point out, be it with some hesitation, the unity and the diversity of the two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ. But it is plain that we are not given a genuine analogy which could help us form some satisfactory conclusion about the nature of the union. For in man unity and diversity are components of creaturely coherences, while in the unity of the person of Christ we are confronted by the absolutely unique Incarnation of the Word. For this reason one can correctly assert that the unity of the person of Christ, in virtue of its unique character, does not have a single intracosmic analogy. There are no analogies to the Incarnation of the Word which can make it at all comprehensible. In the absolute sense of the word it is the mystery of God. Not a mystery in the sense that the unity of a human soul and body is a mystery—merely some thing incomprehensible to us—but the “mysterion” of God revealed in the flesh.
In the past the church defended this mystery against all sorts of heresy. It defended its confession against all who detracted either from the divine or the human nature of Christ, against the heresy of the separation and the mixture of the two natures, and against all later attempts to get beyond the doctrine of the two natures. The church was not concerned to canonize the terms which it employed to designate the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word. It was conscious that the conflict was not one of terms, as if they contained the ultimate in wisdom, but one involving the reality of Jesus Christ. But opposition to the terms of the church—as, for instance, to the expression “two natures”—repeatedly proved to be opposition to the content of the church’s confession that Jesus Christ was truly God and truly man. For this reason the church will have to watch closely the opposition to the terminology it employs.
When Bavinck considers the doctrine of the church and reviews various conceptions of it, he finally says: “For the time being theology can do no better, if it would be truly Scriptual and Christian theology, than to maintain the doctrine of the two natures.”47 The phrase “for the time being” is not meant to relativize the confession of Christ’s true deity and humanity, but rather to give account of the human factor in formulation. He then posits the confession of the two natures squarely in the midst of modern thought: “Theology may well be deeply conscious of the imperfection, certainly also in the doctrine of Christ, attending its language. But all other attempts, made thus far, to formulate the Christological dogma and to impress it on our consciousness, fail to do justice to the riches of Scripture and to the honor of Christ. And theology must guard itself against this first of all.”
All this applies, with special force, to the confession of the unity of the person. It is not an additional point of faith besides that of the Incarnation but an expression of it. Two natures in the unity of the person: All objections levelled against this formulation deny, again and again, that all depends on how the words of the church are understood in the light of Scripture. Throughout the history of the church there is perceptible a sort of nostalgia for a mental picture of the unity of the divine and the human nature. When this was not forthcoming, people frequently escaped into a contemplation, from a distance, of the mysterium tremendum and the mysterium fascinosum in which the true humanity threatened to be eclipsed. But in the light of Scripture we may say that when the church speaks of the unity of the person, it goes directly back to the message of Holy Scripture itself. No, we are not called upon to try to picture the unity of “the divine” and “the human,” but Scripture does come to us with a picture of the one Christ. At no point in Scripture does his true humanity threaten or eliminate the true deity. The tensions in his sacred life are not the tensions of an abstract connection between the divine and the human, but rather those of his humiliation in the unity of the person. It was the intent of the church to say only this and it was aware, that its words, often spoken antithetically in the heat of conflict, could never replace the preaching of the entire fullness of the Scriptures. It is the Scriptures which still witness of him—more richly and profoundly than the language of the church ever could. To open the eyes of man to this fact was the intent of the confessions, which meant, not to impoverish the treasure of the church, but against all obscuration of the image of Christ to maintain an open perspective toward the Word of God which speaks of him who, as the living Lord, stands in the midst of our lives with his cheering words “Be of good courage: I have overcome the world.” ”

“No evangelical scholar has a problem with attributing human attributes to the humanity of Jesus. He function truly as a man”.

Amen, praise the Lord we are in total agreement.

However, you also say,

“Your use of the Greek word for “empty” is not accurate. You make to say more than it says. This is a form of interpolation of Scripture”.

Before using the expression “emptied himself empty” I consulted someone who spoke Greek fluently, and was assured that the literal translation was correct.

And now, the continuation of my previous post.

“Hence, the eternal Logos, the Word of God, declared the nature of God by becoming man (John 1:18)”.

Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Amen, yes indeed, Jesus did declare His Father, but dose this make Him God ?

No one has seen God at any Time, but more than five hundred saw Jesus,

1Cr 15:6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.

Exd 33:20 But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”

Paragraphs 2 & 3 refer to John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

Jesus is not saying “I am God now”, but rather “I was God then”, in other words He existed before His Human conception, and at that time He was also Divine.

“5. The incarnate person of Christ is worshipped as the sovereign God. In the period of His life on earth, He was worshipped even when His eternal glory was hidden,”

The only evidence I can find to support this is,

Mat 2:2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”

As far as the rest of the four Gospel accounts are concerned, there is no further reference to the worship of Jesus prior to His death, in fact all his disciples deserted Him, and left Him to die alone, as evidenced by the two on the Emmaus Road, who said, ”we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel”,

Luk 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,
Luk 24:20 “and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him.
Luk 24:21 “But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened.

If Jesus as a man had retained His Deity, then He could have commanded angels, but He could not, see,

Mat 26:53 “Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 “How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

Note Jesus did not say, “Or do you think that I Myself cannot call for more than twelve legions of angels?”, no, He could only ask the Father. Or why do you think that at John 11:41b, after the stone had been rolled away, and before Lazarus came forth, that Jesus said “Father I thank you that you have heard me”, if it was the Son, and not the Father who was going to perform the miracle?

The Jews said, “you, being a man, make yourself God”. Did He reply “I AM GOD”, or as below ?

Jhn 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, [fn] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
Jhn 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Jhn 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Jhn 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came–and Scripture cannot be broken–
Jhn 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Jhn 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
Jhn 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

ESV Footnotes:
(10:29) Some manuscripts What my Father has given to me

The Lord our God is said to be.

Omnipotent, Having unlimited power; able to do anything.
Omniscient, Knowing everything.
Omnipresent, Present everywhere at the same time.

I have no doubt that our Lord Jesus Christ is God in eternity, but is this also the case in humanity ?

Having unlimited power; able to do anything. No, for as He Himself said,

John 5:30. “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. ESV.,

Knowing everything. No, for as He Himself said,

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

Present everywhere at the same time. No, During His lifetime, He was only ever in one place at one time.

Your comments Grant on the above will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Edwin.

No evangelical scholar has a problem with attributing human attributes to the humanity of Jesus. He functioned truly as a man.

Your use of the Greek word for “empty” is not accurate. You make to say more than it says. This is a form of interpolation of Scripture.

I have had a look at your post of June 13, 2011 at 5:56 am, on the subject of a summary of the hypostatic union:

Most of the Scripture verses quoted have nothing to do with the Deity of Jesus, those that do for example,

Revelation 1:12–18, John 5:25–27, refer to a time after His death, and only confirm what I have already said,

“Let me first of all make it clear that I have no problem with the “Deity of Christ”. My understanding is that in eternity, Jesus, the second person of the Trinity is God, always has been God, and always will be God. Never at any time in eternity did Jesus, the Son of God, divest Himself of His Deity”.

Luke 1:31–33 The future tense word “will” appears 5 times in verses 32 & 33 alone, in other words, after His resurrection.

“Another example is found in Matthew 27:46 where Christ said: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Christ was speaking from the viewpoint of His human nature in his prophetic cry, addressing His Father as His God, but the pronoun me seems to refer to both natures or His whole person. Christ was being judicially forsaken because He was bearing the sin of the world. It was not simply the divine nature forsaking the human nature as some have held”.

“Christ was being judicially forsaken because He was bearing the sin of the world”

How could His Father possibly forsake Jesus, as The Father in dwelt Him, see,

Jhn 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Col 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

That is to say, that it was not only Jesus, but all three persons of the Trinity who paid for our sins.

When our Lord Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”, He was not if fact complaining, but was drawing the onlookers attention to Psalm 22, in which the following verses appear,

Psa 22:16 For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet;

Psa 22:18 They divide My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots.

In other words He was saying, “Read what David wrote some 1,000 years ago, and long before crucifixion was even thought of, it’s happening right now. You are seeing the fulfilment of Scripture prophesy”.

Note: “For dogs have surrounded Me”. The Jews always referred to Gentiles as, “dogs”.

Mat 15:26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

The Cross was surrounded by Roman soldiers, Gentile dogs.
At that time, whenever a Rabbi wanted to draw attention to a particular passage of Scripture, he always quoted the first few words, as there were then, no Chapter and verse divisions.

Bless you.

Edwin.

PS: More later, must close now, due to time.

To say that the Son of God stopped being God is heresy in evanglical doctrine. Your viewpoint has been dealt with thoroughly in theology, doctrine, and exegesis.