Jimmy Clifton Gives Away Doctorates!

Clarification on 'less than'

Once again, I tried to edit my previous post but missed the 10 minute window. So I'll add something here.

When I speak of "less than," I am not speaking of one's nature. Rather, I'm thinking of his position and level of authority.

My son and I are equal in terms of our physical makeup. We're both made of the same stuff. However, in terms of authority, I have more and he has less.

It's like the relationship between a teacher and a student. They are equal in that they're both human. But from an academic standpoint, one is greater than the other.

Consider this:

If you told me that you are a son of Abraham, that would be a title of distinction. But which of you would have the most clout? You or Abraham?

 

Re: Clarification on 'less than'

-------------

Roscoe look at what you are implying: The Father has a higher rank, more authority, is as teacher to the Son, and has more clout than the Son...yet you say they are exactly the same in essence. How so?

Roscoe, attributes inhere in essence(as per Hodge, Shedd, Strong etc) which you say is common to the both. But God's attributes include omniscience, aseity and sovereignty. But you say the Father is source of (by generation) the Son. So the Son has not life from Himself (Grudem's def of aseity). Neither is the Son sovereign as He must obey, you say, the Father's authority. Neither is the Son omniscient but is taught by the Father. But if attributes inhere indivisibly in essence how could the Son not have the exact attributes possessed by the Father and remain God? How can God be ordered around, not know things, and have less "clout" than another???

 

Don't forget the article 'the'

As a Christian, I am A son of God. But Christ is THE Son of God. In fact, He is the only begotten of the Father. This is not to suggest the Father gave birth to him in the sense that Abraham begat Isaac.

As men, we are indeed "sons of man." But Christ was THE Son of man.

In Genesis, the Bible speaks of the sons of God having intercourse with the daughters of man. Using your definition, this would mean that a group of messianic men had sex with a group of mesianic women.

Also, when the three Hebrew boys were thrown into the fiery furnance, a fourth man was seen who looked like a son of God. Was this fourth man an angel, a messiah or Christ in His preincarnate state.

As for the scholars who believe that "the Son of Man" is a reference to the messiah, I agree. But that view is not in conflict with my belief that it refers to His humanity. After all, it was prophesied that the messiah would be born of a virgin (KJV). Indeed, he would become a part of humanity, taking on flesh like a servant.

Roscoe

 

Re: Don't forget the article 'the'

-----------------

I do not disagree that He is human. If I introduce you to president Bush, the only connection of his humanity to his office is that we all are human,,,right? But to say "president Bush" is not a referent to his humanity,,,right??

 

Re: Re: Clarification on 'less than'

I metioned in an earlier post that Christ had/has two natures. As God, he had all of the divine attributes. But as man, he had all of the limitations (but without sin).

I previously commented on the "kenosis," which speaks of Christ emptying Himself. How is it that He could have all power and yet cry for milk as a helpless baby?

That's the mystery of the incarnation. I can't explain it, I just accept it by faith.

BTW, as I write these post, I'm shooting from the hip as I have no reference materials, not even a Bible, nearby.

Roscoe

 

Re: Re: Re: Clarification on 'less than'

 

Re: Re: Don't forget the article 'the'

Right. And neither is "Lord Jesus" is a referent to His humanity ...right?

Yet, Bush's humanity, as in the son of the other president, is now being discussed in the media because of Iraq. Could it be that his humanity -- his connection to his earthly father -- is shining through?

Obviously, everything Christ said and did was with a divine imperative. He was unique. Some called him a prophet. But over and over, he sought to establish the fact that he was both God and man at the same time.

That said, I believe his references to "man" were used to establish his presence as the word made flesh.

Roscoe

 

Re: Re: Re: Don't forget the article 'the'

 

Greetings to all

This was an amazing post.

There are so many things to address, I'm not sure it would be possible to do it on degreeinfo.

My stomach turns at the Jimmy Clifton degreemill crisis that bleeds all over this thread.

BillDayson (if you are still reading this post), I wanted to say something brief about you. First of all, I admire the way you handle your posts. You read things carefully, deal with them logically, and attempt to be fair and keep people from getting too sidetracked here. And I think your issue with not reading 4th century concepts back into the Old Testament is a real danger. I'm not sure it has been entirely addressed. I'm not sure Bill G., or the rest, have taken this very seriously. Christian theologians sort of go on with their use of the OT in dogmatics, often without ever questioning if this is appropriate. And I know you "aren't a theologian" but this is a very theological issue you have raised.

I'm entirely in favor or Karl Barth's reading of Genesis 1's "image of God." In brief, the "image" is characterized by "difference" between "male and female" in the stated parallelism. This would mean that humankind is created for a relationship that is encoded into a biological frame (the sexed body). This difference, this relationality is "good" because it reflects God himself. The two are "one" ("ehad"~hebrew) in Genesis 2:24 in the same way that God is "one" in the shema (Dtr. 6, "YHWH is one"~"ehad"). I'm just pointing out the main issues in his discussion. Multiple persons are posited in the nature of one God, which are deliberately reflected in the multirelational "image."

Further, this "multiple personality" in the nature of one God is difficult to deny when God decides a singular man is "not good" (Gen. 2). In the 16th century, Rashi (the John Calvin of the Middle Ages' Rabbinical commentaries) has a very difficult time trying to reconcile this verse with the singular and absolutely "alone" nature of his monotheistic god. I think the long rabbinic discussion is warranted here because the text raises the issue, not the rabbinical tradition. Gen. 2:18 states that the "being aloneness" in participial form (I have not returned to double check this) is, in itself, "not good." I would contend, then, that the Hebrew Bible teaches that there are multiple persons in the nature of "one" God, at least, in the primeval documents.

Seen in this strain, the early struggles of the church were not only to reconcile themselves with whe wild claims the NT was making about Christ. The Christian church had, indeed, inherited the problems that the rabbinical schools were dealing with also. I personally see Christ as a clarification of, not a philosophical imposition upon, these documents.

Bill Grover: This idea of the trinity catches my fancy. I'm not convinced, but I like it. I'm concerned, though, that the self-giving of the "humiliated Christ" is, here, different from the self-giving of the "exalted Christ" who sits at the right throne of God. Or, at least, in the "essence" of Christ that is eternal, and in his being the eternal Son, if he does not exercise self-giving love towards the Father IN THE SENSE that He does on earth and in his incarnate humilation, how does our reconciliation with God ever become complete?

If subordination is not written into the Son's eternal role, how does his "subordination" that exists outside of that eternally non-subordinate role, accomplish anything in reconciling us to His true, non-subordinate role? If we are conformed to the "image of His Son" (Rom. 8), which "Son" is it? The one who is humilated and gives sacrificially or the one who is raised in power?

I like the fact that you have just "poo-pooed" the idea of "eternal generation." I personally don't know what I would do with it. Origen may be rolling over in his grave!

thanks again to the mighty degreeinfo forum.

Chris

 

Re: Greetings to all

Reading the posts of this thread (and many others) has taught me two things:

1) I have a LOOOONNNGG way to go before I foster any competency in Theology or Biblical Studies.

2) I wish the moderators of degreeinfo.com would install a "text-to-voice" translator so I could listen to posts while trying to do the things, well, that I should be doing.

Happy New Year!

Steven King

 

I enjoyed it Bill & it was fun. I tried to answer your questions in my last post but unfortunately my replies were more implicit than explicit and were evidentally missed. Now, Greek language stuff I must leave to you (ie go beyond Strong's and I have some trouble.......... er a lot of trouble).

While this has been fun, I somewhat must agree with Russell that we are engaging in esoteric debate here (how many angels on the head of a pin). Hair splitting Rabbinic academic debate is fun though. On a more serious side I think all Christians should be somewhat versed in Systematic Theology. It really goes into defining Biblical doctrine on various topics (ie nature of the Trinity). This lack of understanding about what orthodox Christianity really believes based on scriptural evidence leads many pew Christians to be easily misled by various teachers. Hank Hanegraaff correctly notes that folks can laugh at Mormons doctrines with regard to God/Jesus etc (because they are told it is Mormon) and then sit and listen to someone on the Trinity Broadcasting Network espousing the same doctrine (I think Hank used the example of Creflo Dollar) and completely miss it. I have not read Tommy Tenney but he is a best selling author and Hank says that he has a number of doctrinal errors. For many Christians it is enough that the bible teacher is interesting or exciting to listen to and to heck with doctrine (TD Jakes). Jimmy's doctrine on Christ was enough for me to say that he was not worshipping the same Christ.

Good luck with your studies Bill. Where are you in your UNIZUL dissertation?

North

 

Re: Greetings to all

 

North

Thanks again for the talk. I disagree about the importance of it though.

I am done with chap two (out of perhaps 8) but UZ is on vacation so do not know if it will be accepted.

OK, you can bow out on this discussion here , but if both Chris and Roscoe start in on me, you need --as a good ACCS bro--to come to my rescue and we'll do some two on two...OK?

 

thats okay, Bill. It's new years day. it's time to watch some football.

!

I like it, Bill. Keep me posted on how things go.

Blessings in Chirst,

Chris

 

This is for North and Bill, who are Biblical scholars (the C.P. is not!): is it possible that Christ's use of the term "Son of Man" is intended to identify Himself with Daniel and Ezekiel as (among His other activities) the apocalyptic prophet par excellence?

This is not a rhetorical question. Just wondered...

 

........................

Blessings on you too Chris.
Thanks for not working me over. my old brain is tired right now.

I've got two papers to finish for an ACCS class and instead i get up in the morning this xmas vac wanting to blather away on degreeinfo instead of getting my work done as I should. Course discussing the topic of my thesis area is helpful..iron sharpens iron.

 

...............
No, that's not possible, return to church history.... , naw just kidding, good thought Unk, thanks!

 

Just my quick two cents . . .

I agree with Bill; there is no Scripture supporting the subordination of the Word to the "Father" prior to the incarnation. There is, however, that mysterious passage in I Cor 15 to consider in regard to the ontology of the Trinity:

I Cor 15:24-28
Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be eliminated is death. For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him. And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all. (New English Translation - www.bible.org)

The state of the Son here is post-incarnate; it cannot refer to the pre-incarnate Word. The Son is perpetually in a different state, it would seem, from the incarnation on. But there is the matter of the two clauses in the above passage:
1. "it is clear that this does not include the one who put 'everthing' in subjection to Him"
2. And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him]/b"
The idea then is that God will then be all in all.

This is a post-incarnate context, but the implication would seem to be that there is something of the order in which the Godhead operates. It cannot be inferiority of the Son to the Father by the usage of the phrases in bold. I argue not for subordination in the inferior sense of the word, rather I argue the ORDER in which the Tri-unity operates: though all three persons are the one God, ontological functionality ascribes motion by the Father, movement by the Son, and the guarantee (proof) by the Spirit. This (for me, at least) explains the passage:

A) The Father (for lack of a better pre-incarnate name for the "first" person of the Trinity) motions: "Let Us," not a reference to angels or anyone else standing by, but a direct communication to the Godhead. It is not His will over and above the others; it is His functionality in regard to what God is. Can both the Son and the Spirit motion? Yes, but the norm is the Father motions.

B) The Son moves and is the agency of this Godhead that acts. Does the Father and Spirit move--the forwarding of the motion? Yes. But again, the norm is for the Son to move. Hence, He is the one "sent". He is the one who moves into the incarnation account.

C) The Spirit is the guarantee--the manner of executing omnipresence overseeing the action, communicating the presence of the Father's motion and the Son's movement; the omnipresence being proof that God is God, that God is everywhere, that what He says is Truth. Does the Father speak truth and have it stand on it's own? Yes. The Son also? Yes. But functionality seems to imply the Spirit's place in this matter.

Without compromising the essence of attributes attributed to all three persons of the Trinity, the best I have come to understand the working of the Trinity is within the framework of the above three items. Prior to the incarnation, all three are omnipresent. However, when the incarnate Son said that God is spirit (John 4), was he talking only about the Holy Spirit, the Father, Himself (prior to the incarnation, and maybe after His resurrection), or all three Spirit as the one God? Further, does the Son today HAVE to be in His body to be somewhere else other than where His body is, if He is, in fact, still omnipresent?

This isn't subordinating any member of the Trinity to another, and it is not attributing something to one member that another member doesn't possess. It is merely looking at the idea of how they may function. Ontologically, I believe I'm still preserving the essence and attributes of all Members. I hope!

Starkman