It pleased the LORD to bruise him...
Amen!
And why were our (the elect) sins imputed (Lev 16) unto Christ? Something, just for the purpose of saying; see, here are sins, zap, sins are gone.
Jesus is a Divine Person...Absolutely thats my point.Natures do not suffer people/persons do. We are saying the same thing just differently. See Berkoff in my previous post on the 2 natures with Chalcedon. I'll try and check in later have to get ready for work.
Amen! Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Interesting question. Not sure of the validity of the notion that his Divine Will was asleep —but it sounds poetic enough
to be humorous —but I think I get the point.
During his life before his Resurrection, Jesus performed his Miracles through Faith in God and by the Power of the Holy Spirit; except for his Transfiguration...Interesting question. Not sure of the validity of the notion that his Divine Will was asleep —but it sounds poetic enough
I tend to say his divine prerogatives, as we would consider them —his attributes of omnipotence, omniscience etc, but, again, 'as we would consider them', and no doubt as we would use them if we could— were not used in those ways we consider them. Your word, "suppressed", is a good word for it.
Yet the whole of his time here, his omnipotence is displayed, in at least these ways— that he lived as a human without sin, without shrinking from his commitment, without any hint of personal selfishness, and, (probably my personal favorite to go on about), by "skating so close to the edge of disaster (total failure) without going over the edge" which (to me) demonstrates the infinite power of God so well, accomplishing the 'impossible' what he did by the mundane, the apparently senseless, (even using the 'wrong' men for his purposes), and depending on the Father for everything.
In Sunday School, I have illustrated something about the infinity of the power of God by principles in hydraulics and electricity, (drawing on a chalkboard), and by comparison with my little daughter to myself. If my daughter, (at the time about 4 years old, I'm guessing), was to be able to break a stick in her bare hands, when it finally broke the pieces would probably fly out of her hands across the room. But if I was to break the same stick, being much stronger, it would not take the same straining to accomplish it, and there would be little excess motion. Likewise, from a tank of water, the depth of the water and the quantity of it are all the pressure and capacity the system has available, that runs down a pipe through a valve. The pressure, resistance and current are all limited, and can only do so much. Same goes for electrical circuits.
But with God, there are no limits, and so no excess motion. He can "valve" it all he pleases; he can dance at the edge, without overbalancing! I could go on and on with this picture.*
But in fact, it is much more convincing than even that, because all things began with him, and he knew them all before creating, and caused them all for his purposes and for his own sake. We can know that the Christ could only have been God, at least by that fact, if not by the several other ways we can know it is so.
Maybe this seems to wander off the topic of the OP, but I don't think so. It is, at least, a side issue to be put to rest, that though it might seem otherwise to us, there was no possibility of failure on his part, and that the very depth of depravity —rebellion against God, the creature calling the Creator a liar and irrelevant— had to be slain by his death.
*This picture is too small. His ways are not by immense power —at least, not as we define it— but if he can dance at the very edge, it is not by infinitely precise calculation, but rather, because the edge is what HE made it, and is where HE put it. So it is OUR view of what he does that supposes he keeps choosing the wrong people for his purposes, and wastes so much effort and money, and does things so backwards and small. Note how the atheist demands an explanation, why God takes humanity through all this trouble to accomplish Heaven! And note how the self-determinist has to attribute what he can't understand God doing, to libertarian free will !
Far be it from me to support @civic's point of view, but I'm well certain that we three still miss the import of what the others say. I respect Civic, to a degree, but some things he says are to me ignorant of Calvinism/Reformed theology, though I can see someone claiming our theology to result in what he now believes. I am at a loss to explain how he went from God-determination of all things, to a mindset of self-determinism. And, I have been somewhat taken aback by some things he says, because they are not the usual orthodoxy of [at least fundamental] Protestantism. He has lost quite a bit of my trust. When he writes, I have to be more careful than I used to be of my take on what he is saying, and sometimes it just doesn't seem worth the time and effort to me, when I barely have them to give. I notice, for example, that unless I missed it, I got no answer from him a while back about whether "Christ is come in the flesh". That bothers me more than a little. I do believe him to be sincere, however, not trolling like some smoother operators do, pretending curiosity when they mean antagonism.
The Son of man Jesus our brother in the Lord is not divine anymore than the Pope .
(LOL) That's the pop eyed look I had. hoping it was eternal God. helping me to understand the unseen things .
Just in case you don't know: he used to have several "sock-puppet" accounts on another forum, which he used to pretend to believe in monergism, only for those accounts gradually to be won over by his main account, to an opposing view. I say this re. your comment about sincerity.
I believe he has at least one sock here. I will not name names.
Thanks, but, is there more than one witness to that fact? Not saying I doubt you nor that I believe you, but this is the first I've heard of that. I wouldn't want someone else to turn against me on the word of just one person.
I only know of one other handle he goes by, but I haven't seen that here nor on his site.
I wouldn't venture to guess at this point, though I kind of wondered about one poster. But I will "keep an eye out".
There are clues, that begin to make one suspicious----even when an entirely different persona is portrayed. Usually they eventually get angry and disappear, laubing stones as they go, especially when they have been trying to "best" Calvinist/Reformed in Calvinist/Reformed conversations. You just can't prove untruths with the Bible.
The Curse couldn't be hand waved away...
I take exception to the wording above. Jesus did not fulfill the Law in His death, He bore the consequences that breaking the Law would bring, in our place. Or in our room as the old timers worded it. And fulfilling the Law was more than keeping the legal code, but was also the perfect righteousness of God that is expressed in the Law. The law of God we are all under, and all obligated to keep, perfectly summarized in the ten commandments.Jesus couldn't Fulfill the Law of God, without going to the Cross and Suffering the Wrath of God. Could he have KEPT the Law without Fulfilling it? Yes; Christus Victor!
But Jesus had to Fulfill the Law after he Kept it, by facing the Consequences of the Law and becoming a Curse for us.
Without experiencing the Consequences, the Law was Unfulfilled; though it was Kept...
Athanasius...
PSA!
