Do not argue against eternal relations of authority and submission by saying that Christ’s divinity does some things and his humanity does other things
Thank you for the discussion. If anyone wonder how an impassible God incarnated himself, James Dolezal's paper is excellent: Neither Subtraction, Nor Addition: The Word's Terminative Assumption of a Human Nature Nova et Vetera (English Edition), 2022
Thanks. Some helpful clarification there. Am I right in saying that the eternal Father/Son relation is distinct then from the economic relationship (which include an element of authority and submission)? If this is the case, then is it correct to say that there's no inherent element of authority/submission within Fatherhood/Sonship. I realise the need to steer clear of Arianism but are we dissolving something important about Fatherhood/Sonship in the process? Just trying to piece this all together....
The body that Christ took on from the lineage of Adam, via Mary, never had a chance against the power of God. Death is swallowed up in victory. He "became sin for us" but "knew no sin" but instead baptized His body in death, took up His life again, and secured resurrection for all who believe--we will have "a body like His."
The Holy Spirit is the shared substance of the two wills among the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit is the perfect unity of the wills, or the agreement that is in the perfection of "no variableness or shadow of turning." The will of the Father is to receive the obedience of the Son, i.e. for the Son to do the will of the Father. The will of the Son is to render obedience to the Father, i.e. to do the will of the Father.
To suggest that there would be anything other than perfect agreement among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be to project onto them our own inclinations to sin and death, saying, "not ALL your will be done--some of my will, in opposition to yours, must be done."
This is quite helpful Wyatt. Thanks for writing it. How would this apply to something like the Olivet discourse where Jesus speaks of not knowing the hour (Mark 13:32)? Most evangelical teaching on that text seems to fall into the camp of dividing his actions according to his divine and human nature- i.e. in his human nature he does not know the hour.
Thank you for the discussion. If anyone wonder how an impassible God incarnated himself, James Dolezal's paper is excellent: Neither Subtraction, Nor Addition: The Word's Terminative Assumption of a Human Nature Nova et Vetera (English Edition), 2022
Thanks. Some helpful clarification there. Am I right in saying that the eternal Father/Son relation is distinct then from the economic relationship (which include an element of authority and submission)? If this is the case, then is it correct to say that there's no inherent element of authority/submission within Fatherhood/Sonship. I realise the need to steer clear of Arianism but are we dissolving something important about Fatherhood/Sonship in the process? Just trying to piece this all together....
The body that Christ took on from the lineage of Adam, via Mary, never had a chance against the power of God. Death is swallowed up in victory. He "became sin for us" but "knew no sin" but instead baptized His body in death, took up His life again, and secured resurrection for all who believe--we will have "a body like His."
The Holy Spirit is the shared substance of the two wills among the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit is the perfect unity of the wills, or the agreement that is in the perfection of "no variableness or shadow of turning." The will of the Father is to receive the obedience of the Son, i.e. for the Son to do the will of the Father. The will of the Son is to render obedience to the Father, i.e. to do the will of the Father.
To suggest that there would be anything other than perfect agreement among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be to project onto them our own inclinations to sin and death, saying, "not ALL your will be done--some of my will, in opposition to yours, must be done."
This is quite helpful Wyatt. Thanks for writing it. How would this apply to something like the Olivet discourse where Jesus speaks of not knowing the hour (Mark 13:32)? Most evangelical teaching on that text seems to fall into the camp of dividing his actions according to his divine and human nature- i.e. in his human nature he does not know the hour.