I was reading some John Owen and he started talking about how the second person of the trinity also shares the attribute of immutability. I realize that ultimately I must submit my frail human intellect to revelation, but I still prefer to change my understanding to be in line with reality if possible. That being said, it doesn't seem possible that the second person of the trinity was at one point not found in the likeness of men and then at some future point and forever since is found in the likeness of man. This seems to be a change but I know this to be an impossibility. I don't remember if Owen addresses these, but also the second person of the trinity must have had to continue to have perfect communion with the other persons of the trinity else he would have changed. He also must have continually had infinite knowledge and wisdom etc. which Jesus did not have since he had to learn things that he did not know (such as language and hand eye coordination). So can anyone help me iron out some apparent contradictions between my logic and divine revelation?
I was going to redirect you to the same thread Ask Mr. Religion has already given you. We find that this is a rather frequent topic here and in other forums. After reading through the other thread, please feel free to ask any questions you may still have.
oh, yes....and--
Welcome to RTI! _________________ Sterling A. Harmon, Jr.
Deacon
Presbyterian Church of Coventry (PCA)
Reformed Theology Institute
Owner/Admin
"No learning is commendable which is not dipped in the love of God." --John Calvin
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." --John Calvin
After reading through the other thread, please feel free to ask any questions you may still have.
oh, yes....and--
Welcome to RTI!
Thanks for the welcome. I do have a few questions and although I believe I know the answers for some, I am still a little (sarcasm) confounded on this topic. Then again, will eternal contemplation ever get us closer than infinitely far away from understanding much of God? So was the second person of the trinity in heaven, in perfect union with the father while Christ was on earth and being crucified? Please forgive the shortcomings of speaking of divine things with less than divine language. I don't really mean to imply there was 2 Christs, one on earth and one in heaven but I don't know how else to express the question. Another question, when Jesus asks the father why he forsook him, does this imply that the second person of the trinity was forsaken or just the part (if that is a proper way of speaking) that is Jesus? Is Jesus a part of the triune Godhead?
Boy, sometimes I think that I should just not think of the metaphysics of the trinity because I feel like I move away from orthodoxy just by contemplating it. Is my human intellect capable of doing anything but leading toward heretical understanding of the trinity?
Thanks for the welcome. I do have a few questions and although I believe I know the answers for some, I am still a little (sarcasm) confounded on this topic. Then again, will eternal contemplation ever get us closer than infinitely far away from understanding much of God? So was the second person of the trinity in heaven, in perfect union with the father while Christ was on earth and being crucified? Please forgive the shortcomings of speaking of divine things with less than divine language. I don't really mean to imply there was 2 Christs, one on earth and one in heaven but I don't know how else to express the question. Another question, when Jesus asks the father why he forsook him, does this imply that the second person of the trinity was forsaken or just the part (if that is a proper way of speaking) that is Jesus? Is Jesus a part of the triune Godhead?
Boy, sometimes I think that I should just not think of the metaphysics of the trinity because I feel like I move away from orthodoxy just by contemplating it. Is my human intellect capable of doing anything but leading toward heretical understanding of the trinity?
Anyway, glad to join the board.
Matt
Matt, I appreciate the humility you demonstrate about this topic. It seems today that so many are unwilling to tread very carefully when speaking of these sort of topics. It is also with trepidation that I wade into these areas for fear of misleading or falling into error.
When God the Son, the second person (subsistence) of the Trinity, was incarnated, He took on a human nature. This does not mean that divinity, the divine essence, became something different. God is and remained always God, the one essence of God. The union between God and man was not a union that confused the two natures. They were not co-mingled.
Since God is omnipresent, here then we find the explanation to your "two Gods" dilemma. God the Son was indeed still present in Heaven, but God the Son was also simultaneously present in the incarnate Jesus Christ. The incarnation did not result in a change in God's divine essence, from which the three persons of the Trinity are co-partakers, and co-equal.
When Christ cried out on the cross, He is quoting from Psalm 22:1, a Psalm, as we read later (see Psalm 22:21-31), that is about victory, not despair.
In his commentary on Matthew 27:46, Calvin writes:
But it appear absurd to say that an expression of despair escaped Christ. The reply is easy. Though the perception of the flesh would have led him to dread destruction, still in his heart faith remained firm, by which he beheld the presence of God, of whose absence he complains. We have explained elsewhere how the Divine nature gave way to the weakness of the flesh, so far as was necessary for our salvation, that Christ might accomplish all that was required of the Redeemer. We have likewise pointed out the distinction between the sentiment of nature and the knowledge of faith; and, there ore, the perception of God’s estrangement from him, which Christ had, as suggested by natural feeling, did not hinder him from continuing to be assured by faith that God was reconciled to him. This is sufficiently evident from the two clauses of the complaint; for, before stating the temptation, he begins by saying that he betakes himself to God as his God, and thus by the shield of faith he courageously expels that appearance of forsaking which presented itself on the other side. In short, during this fearful torture his faith remained uninjured, so that, while he complained of being forsaken, he still relied on the aid of God as at hand.
Despite the genuine anguish He was experiencing, I think Jesus' cry from the Cross is an expression of faith, for we know Jesus knew His purpose as our sin-bearer. He was proclaiming to all within earshot, not confusion, or a bewildering of His situation, instead a message that what He was undergoing as the man of sorrows (Is. 53:3) was for the sake of His people, the elect of God.
In short, no, God the Son was not and has never been forsaken by any member of the Godhead.
Despite the genuine anguish He was experiencing, I think Jesus' cry from the Cross is an expression of faith, for we know Jesus knew His purpose as our sin-bearer.
(Underlined emphasis, mine.)
AMEN! And an innumerable more, "amens!"
God the Son covenanted with the Father and Spirit to, through fleshly form, "assume" (provide access through reconciliation) humanity within the Godhead through physical execution and fulfillment of all demands of Divine Law.
Jesus Christ exhibited perfect and total faithfulness in the purposes and goals of God, which overruled His sufferings in the flesh.
God the Son has always been Mediator between God and man; whether in Spirit or in flesh.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Interesting RTI Poll
Who is "the seed" of the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15
(sarcasm) confounded on this topic. Then again, will eternal contemplation ever get us closer than infinitely far away from understanding much of God? So was the second person of the trinity in heaven, in perfect union with the father while Christ was on earth and being crucified? Please forgive the shortcomings of speaking of divine things with less than divine language. I don't really mean to imply there was 2 Christs, one on earth and one in heaven but I don't know how else to express the question. Another question, when Jesus asks the father why he forsook him, does this imply that the second person of the trinity was forsaken or just the part (if that is a proper way of speaking) that is Jesus? Is Jesus a part of the triune Godhead?
