Question for Arminians and Calvinists on foreknowledge

[praise_yeshua]

It's why I use the word Suppressed instead of Veiled. Jesus had to live like a Man; and his Deity was like an Engine that has a governor to limit it. This is more than Veiling an Engine under a Hood...

That Glory was always there at full strength. If you consider the Engine is always at maximum throttle, we probably agree. His Glory was often seen through the veil.

 

[praise_yeshua]

As Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, his first request is for his father to “take this cup of suffering away from me” (22:42)

As I said, this is a presentation of choice. Not of inclination. Jesus didn't "submit" to some "contrary will" of the Father. His will and the Father's will are ONE.

 

[civic]

That Glory was always there at full strength. If you consider the Engine is always at maximum throttle, we probably agree. His Glory was often seen through the veil.

Yes they caught a glimpse of that at the Transfiguration. Even then they blew it as they wanted to erect something for each as if Moses and Elijah was His equal . They just didn’t get it until after Pentecost when the Holy Spirt gave them internal understanding

 

[Eleanor]

As I said, this is a presentation of choice. Not of inclination. Jesus didn't "submit" to some "contrary will" of the Father. His will and the Father's will are ONE.

He said not my will, but thine be done.

And he sweat blood over just a "presentation of choice?"

 

[praise_yeshua]

What do you think he was expressing in his prayer in the Garden when asked, if it be possible, to let the cup pass from him?

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Christ despised the shame that the cross brought Him. His will was never to please Himself in this....

This is NOT an indication of an alternate will or inclination. It shows His inclination to NOT please Himself.

 

[praise_yeshua]

And so he sweat blood over just a "presentation of choice?"

Shame..... That is what brought it. It was not pleasant for Him.

 

[Eleanor]

Shame..... That is what brought it. It was not pleasant for Him.

"Not my will, but thine be done" is not an indicator of an alternate will, which he nevertheless submitted to the Father's will?

 

[praise_yeshua]

He said not my will, but thine be done.

If you study the Greek construct of that verse, you will see there are two different words translated will here.

 

[ReverendRV]

That Glory was always there at full strength. If you consider the Engine is always at maximum throttle, we probably agree. His Glory was often seen through the veil.

This is where we will differ, I would say that the Logos of God did not go full strength in his Incarnation. I say that he lived on the level of an Unfallen Adam...

 

[praise_yeshua]

Not my will, but thine be done.

So you do believe the Incarnation presented a Christ that had an alternate will to the Father?

There are only two choices here.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This is where we will differ, I would say that the Logos of God did not go full strength in his Incarnation. I say that he lived on the level of an Unfallen Adam...

Okay. We can disagree. We are not far apart.

I see Full Divinity as being essential to a proper view of the suffering Christ. It wasn't just suffering in flesh. The Hypostatic Union brought judgement of sin upon Divinity. Which really is an indication of the loving nature of Divinity. We have this idea that Divinity is always thinking and pleasing "Itself"....

I believe that is our carnal imaginations. Us trying to understand Divinity within the scope of our experience.

 

[ReverendRV]

Okay. We can disagree. We are not far apart.

I see Full Divinity as being essential to a proper view of the suffering Christ. It wasn't just suffering in flesh. The Hypostatic Union brought judgement of sin upon Divinity. Which really is an indication of the loving nature of Divinity. We have this idea that Divinity is always thinking and pleasing "Itself"....

I believe that is our carnal imaginations. Us trying to understand Divinity within the scope of our experience.

We're not far apart. I agree with this...

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/question-for-arminians-and-calvinists-on-foreknowledge.494/post-15629

 

[praise_yeshua]

We're not far apart. I agree with this...

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/question-for-arminians-and-calvinists-on-foreknowledge.494/post-15629

I did too. Just a few nuisances different. Thanks

 

[ReverendRV]

Okay. We can disagree. We are not far apart.

I see Full Divinity as being essential to a proper view of the suffering Christ. It wasn't just suffering in flesh. The Hypostatic Union brought judgement of sin upon Divinity. Which really is an indication of the loving nature of Divinity. We have this idea that Divinity is always thinking and pleasing "Itself"....

I believe that is our carnal imaginations. Us trying to understand Divinity within the scope of our experience.

Jesus is and was the Fulness of Deity...

He just suppressed the expression of his Deity, in order to live as an Unfallen Adam; not live his Incarnation as Omnipotent God...

 

[Ritajanice]

As I said, this is a presentation of choice. Not of inclination. Jesus didn't "submit" to some "contrary will" of the Father. His will and the Father's will are ONE.

He said not my will but thy will be done...he did the will of the Father...he submitted to his Father’s will.

 

[ReverendRV]

I did too. Just a few nuisances different. Thanks

Did Jesus Veil/Suppress his Impeccability? Does this explain why he was able to die?

 

[Ritajanice]

Yes. You said that Christ desired NOT to suffer. That is what you said.

Luke 22:42

As Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, his first request is for his father to “take this cup of suffering away from me” (22:42)
[/QUOTE]


He asked the Father to take this cup of suffering away.....he submitted to the will of the Father.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

And don't think any believer would argue against that premise. No one has their theology 100 % correct.

Jesus does.

John 6:35-65

 

[praise_yeshua]

He said not my will but thy will be done...he did the will of the Father...he submitted to his Father’s will.

Show me submitting? Where is submitting in that verse?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jesus is and was the Fulness of Deity...

He just suppressed the expression of his Deity, in order to live as an Unfallen Adam; not live his Incarnation as Omnipotent God...

I'm not separating the two. I see no need to seperate them. It can be both. In fact, I think a proper view requires both. 100 percent God and 100 percent man.