Not all Lutherans hold that Christ's human nature exersised its Omnipresence during his humiliation, so we can affirm a kind of extra calvinisticum. I do think Ephesians 4:10 seems to entail it at leas after his assencion though. I added a link to a good discussion on the topic if your interested.
I know! It was so helpful, and also when he pointed out that God the Son didn’t just shrink all of the sudden when he was conceived. I’m not sure how this teaching lines up with the traditional credal language of the Church on the Incarnation. Hypostasis and assuming a nature and all that… I will remember this illustration though, it’s the clearest thing I’ve ever heard on the Incarnation.
Thanks for this Gavin, really clarifying. "The incarnation happened thru addition not subtraction". "Lo within a manger lies he who built the starry skies!"
Gavin, I met you once online in a video chat. I’m early in my ministry career and have struggled with Protestant views vs Catholic and Orthodox views for a long time. Thank you for helping me remain in my Baptist faith and building me up with the meat I need to know and providing resources I wouldn’t have found otherwise.
@@smaller_than_small9433 Well, on the day that I learned Gavin was moving to TN, the next thing I noticed was a video labeled, "Gavin Ortlund Becomes Lutheran." I put 2 + 2 together and assumed he was moving because of his denominational change. Was that video a fake? It's still up. ruclips.net/video/CA6jihv7gtM/видео.html
I appreciate this being recommended so close to Christmas. Our God is an amazing God! That analogy with Tolkien being in Oxford and in his book at the same time is an impressive one.
In Orthodox liturgy the priest says, “In the tomb with the body, in hell with the soul as God, in paradise with the thief and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit, You fill all things, O boundless Christ.”
@@williamnathanael412 Simple. The EC is the claim that the person of the mediator, Christ, is not strictly identical with the person of God the Word. That is the "extra" part. The Word is "extra" and not strictly identified with God the Word. One can affirm that God the Word remains omnipresence qua divinity and deny the EC.
Blessings to you Gavin all the way from Melbourne. Love your comment that as Mary was feeding her baby Jesus, He was sustaining her. As a mother, this is such powerful imagery that truly brings you to your knees.
Love the background. It's so Christmassy :) I start thinking about decorating for Christmas in November. So thankful for the greatest gift who was given to all of us 🎁 ✝️
I like the explanation of Tolkien writing himself into the LOTR and still remaining himself and the character. This is a beautiful perspective especially given Tolkien's and Lewis' description of myth: the connection to the inexplicable divine. I appreciate all of your videos brother. Thank you for your toil and effort. Your sacrifice is noted throughout the Kingdom. God bless you and the family.
How is this a good explanation? If Tolkien wrote himself into LOTR, the character Tolkien only shares the same name as the actual Tolkien and nothing else. If you beat, insult, or crucify the character Tolkien, it does not do anything to the actual Tolkien. Meaning if Tolkien wrote a triumphant sacrifice of the character Tolkien into LOTR, it bares no significance, other than making the real Tolkien chuckle. Is that what you think of Christianity?
@@KeanuReevesIsMyJesus so in a way the answer to your question is yes and no. In the same way you explain the dynamic between the author and the character is what I believe to be true, in some sense, between God in His divinity and God in His humanity. How can Jesus be human yet omnipresent. That's why my reference to tolkein about myth being the gateway to truth is relevant. We are trying to understand the unfathomable. We are limited by time, space, and matter which God was in the flesh but is not now. Contradicting? Seemingly. But again if I tried to explain the laws of physics to an ant, my explanation would be filled with and ridiculed for incongruity and contradiction. I believe that Jesus fully suffered in His flesh but that doesn't stop His divinity.
This is a much better sermon than the one I endured on how Gretta is a prophet like unto Moses and was practically present at the Transfiguration. Thank you for preaching something other than idolatry. You may have just made my Christmas. God bless.
It's at this point that I part with the post-Apostolic Fathers and their speculations. They attempt to explain things in words which should best be left to mystery. We barely understand what it means to be a human being, let alone the mystery of the revealed Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Particularly as the scriptures themselves leave room for many gray areas.
Most theology and Christology are best guesses trying to understand mysteries. I enjoy hearing the speculations but at the end of the day there is a lot of mystery that we need to accept and be fine with not knowing everything. Once God is fully locked into a theological system or understanding you no longer have God but an idol.
Great video, with much food for thought at this special time of the year! I liked how your theology ranged throughout Church history somewhat, managing to reference not only scripture, but also Athanasius, Chalcedon, the Lutherans, Calvin, and even Tolkien.
This video is amazing! I was discussing Christology with some Oriental Orthodox Christian’s on Twitter today so this was a really pertinent watch. I have found that in some respects their Christology sounds orthodox, just stated differently, but in other respects I do worry that it leads to confusion of Christ’s natures. Have you thought about doing more videos on the hypostatic union? God bless you on your move!
Merry Christmas, Gavin, to you and yours. Prayers for your move to Tenn. Much of these kind of issues matter little to me but make for great things to meditate on. Thank you for your Holy Spirit filled self and your gentle nature. Shalom
Thank you, Gavin. Yours is a thoughtful position and I see a lot of merit. My comments below were given with respect and thanks that we can try and find congruity. Christmas is a great time to celebrate the glory of Christ and the limits of our capacity to understand every dimension of the incarnation.
Thanks Gavin. Love your work. You addressed the question of Nestorianism and there's obviously space in your brain ( and that of many other theologians) where Chalcedonian Christology and the extra- Calvinisticum can coexist. So far I can't find a space like that in my brain. God bless.
9:49 That has been my favorite line of "Hark the Harold Angels" for some time. I love to really ponder it every once in a while. Also, I find it really funny how you used the image of Tolkein writing himself into Middle-Earth, because many people are convinced that he did just that through Tom Bombadil. Merry Christmas, Gavin.
This is such powerful theology! Thank you so much for covering it. I never thought about this before and feel overjoyed at this knowledge. God bless you and Merry Christmas!
God bless you Dr. Ortlund and all those who watch your videos. Great questions to chew on and think about. I really love the Tolkien self-insert analogy, it works in a lot of ways!
This is great. I couldn’t help but think of John’s prologue as I watched. Also, while I know the incarnation is unique in the Scriptures and there’s no 1-to-1 comparison, one passage that helped me at least wrap my head around the concept was the burning bush. Admittedly, God is not fire, nor is a human the same thing as fire. However, God appearing in a burning bush at the very least set a precedent that He, though infinite, can manifest himself in a finite space and time while still retaining his divine attributes. So much so that His very presence in the burning bush, though not nearly to the same extent as the incarnation, made even the ground beneath Moses’ feet holy. What a privilege it is that the Word came not only to dwell with us but, should we believe, He will make his home in us. Moses, I think, would be jealous.
Interesting and thought provoking. I was challenged in that I had never thought about this before. I left with some loose end questions. If this is true 1. How could Jesus "grow" in wisdom (Lk 2:52); 2. Be amazed at someone's faith (Mt 8:10); or 3. Not know the "day or hour" of his return (Mk 13:32). I hope he does a video on kenosis.
Very interesting video. However I have philosophical concerns. Re the metaphor you used with Lord of the Rings. Tolkein being a character in his story involves simply Tolkein creating a separate "entity" which shares many qualities with him but he, Tolkein proper, still experiences reality from his oxford chair, he still exists essentially outside the story. Applying that metaphor to Christ would suggest that Jesus was a separate being somehow connected with the divine Logos but one who exists separately "down there", while the Logos as such remains reigning above experiencing reality from that Gods eye point of view. I really dont think we want to go down this route. It is also essential to the incarnation that Christ took on limitation and frailty as such. Verses such as "no one knows the day or hour, only the Father", and Philippians 2 "made himself nothing" and Lukes "grew in wisdom and stature" etc imply that Jesus shares our limitations as a human being. As you sort of sketched out, we run into logical absurdity if we try and affirm both that Jesus grew in knowledge and did not know somethings but also remained essentially all knowing as God. I dont have a perfect solution. But I think the most promising route would be to make a distinction between Christ's consciousness and subjective experience and his existence as a whole. We ourselves comprise both our explicit conscious-self, that is the centre of subjective experience and awareness, and the deep sea of subconscious feelings, memories and information from which the conscious self draws. Something analagous must be happening with Christ. Christs power and divinity as such remain at work in the world operating "subconsciously" or on auto pilot if you will, but, Christ in his conscious self as a baby is not aware of nor is he directing this work. Rather his centre of consciousness and subjective experience is localised to the baby Jesus, and is thereby necessarily limited.
Hebrews 2:9a "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus..." might be another interesting text to add to the discussion. The Son of God taking on human flesh temporarily lowers his status - not because he is now human, but because he was subject to mortality. After he is raised (perfected) he is elevated above all. One thing I am meditating on this Christmas is that the incarnation of the Son of God had a beginning, but will have no ending. He will remain human forever so that he can remain our great high priest and save us to the uttermost. He has taken on our flesh, and has taken it with him back to heaven. For this I am so thankful.
Well said. It's amazing God Himself would take on some of the limitations of humanity to save us. I don't think we will understand what a sacrifice this was until we get to heaven.
God bless you and your fam with your move! I wanted to mention something both for your benefit and anyone else who sees this. A friend of mine who has the youtube channel The Other Paul recently coined a term that I think is very useful in Protestant and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox dialogue. Pop apologists like Trent Horn frequently attack Protestantism with claims like "Protestants can't agree" and the like, but their claims are based on a total missunderstanding of what Protestantism is. To argue against Protestantism is to argue against an umbrella of thought, not an institution. So pitting Rome against all of Protestantism is like pitting Islam against Monotheism. If an atheist claimed that Christianity was invalid because all of monotheism can't agree on who God is, we would find his argument absurd. Similarly the proper analogy to be drawn is either between denominations directly, such as Lutheranism vs. Roman Catholicism, or between broad categories - between Protestantism and "Ecclesialism". Ecclesialism is the new term that The Other Paul coined which aptly refers to the Roman, Eastern, and other Orthodox churches which all practice Sola Ecclesia as opposed to Sola Scriptura, which Protestantism adheres to. So these are the two main branches of Christendom - Protestantism which holds to the 5 solas, but which has its foundation in Sola Scriptura, and Ecclesialism which holds to Sola Ecclesia (the church alone).
Hey Gavin! Thanks for this beautiful reminder and discussion on the incarnation and its christological issues, and how great Reformed thinkers have brought to light the Apostolic witness. I was wondering if you would ever do a video on Covenent Theology and maybe why youre not a Dispensationalist? I have been really working through those issues myself recently
Great insight. It might also help to briefly explore what this all means in light of the "kenosis" passage in Philippians. That is to say, in Philippians 2:7 where it speaks of Christ's "self-emptying" (or unfettered use of the Divine prerogative, relying rather on the will of the Father at those times.)
I think folks would actually greatly benefit from reading Nestorius's *Book of Heracleides* as well as reading the works from Timothy I of Baghdad. A good deal of what is passed as the "Nestorian" argument actually is more of an ontological understanding for an alternative way in safeguarding the true humanness of Christ while not sacrificing the full deity and glory of God the Word (typically, that tradition retains the designation "God the Word" from the time leading up to the 4th century).
Very interesting, I was not aware of the Extra Calvinisticum. Thank you. Do you think this commits one to the idea that Christ's childhood and adolescent development was essentially playing a role or character? I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of the Second Person actively maintaining omniscience, omnipresence, etc and still needing to learn how to eat or walk. It also raises questions to me concerning Jesus' ignorance of the time of his return - that said when it comes to the incarnation I'm happy to leave a lot up to mystery. I pray the move goes well and that you all will be blessed in the next chapter of your ministry!
Thank you! I think it would be problematic if we construed the extra so as to downplay Christ's humanity. Christ's learning and suffering was 100% real with respect to his genuine human nature. Hope that helps! Thanks for the kind wishes!
@@TruthUnitesIf Christ’s learning and therefore ignorance were real (e.g., when he learns about the fig tree not bearing fruit), how does that square with him being omniscient and omnipresent during his incarnation? What seemed apparent from the video to me was that this ignorance is just “played” or “acted out”, in the same way Tolkien would act out ignorance in his Middle Earth character. Yet you don’t want to say that, you want to maintain these were real human experiences for Christ, no? Well-presented btw, I like your style.
@@dri-fit9712 it does not follow from the fact that the Son of God remained divine that his human experiences were not real. He was 100% God, but he was also 100% man. Hope that helps.
@@TruthUnites If ‘divine’ here entails that he retained attributes such as omniscience, then I don’t see how he could have a genuine, human learning experience, grow in wisdom, etc. Just as in your analogy, where the Oxford-Tolkien plays the role of Middle Earth Tolkien, it would seem to me that the omniscient, omnipresent Christ is simply playing the role of the incarnate Christ.
@@dri-fit9712 its just an analogy, but even in the analogy, I don't know that the storied Tolkien would only be "play acting" per se. At any rate, the Son has both a divine and human nature. Divine and human are different. Human beings learn; God doesn't. Thus, we can say there was learning with respect to the human nature, but not the divine. I really don't see an acceptable alternative, unless we say that Heb. 1:3 and Col. 1:5 ceased happening from 1-30 AD.
I was quite recently thinking about God's "omni"-attributes and I would think that God's omnipresence is "derived" from his omniscience and omnipotence. And I think this will help us grasp the incarnation as well. While discussing God's omnipresence and His relationship to space William Lane Craig writes: "I am more inclined to the view to say that God simply transcends space. In that case, what omnipresence amounts to is that God is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space. That is what omnipresence means. It doesn’t mean that God is literally in space. God transcends space. But he knows what is happening at every point in space, and he is causally active at every point in space, causing things to happen there and causally sustaining them in existence. So God, on this conception, is a non-spatial, transcendent, infinite mind who is conscious of and active at every point in space." Understanding God's omnipresence in this way helped me to understand how Christ could be spatially located in one place during his incarnation while still remaining omnipresent by his divine nature. Do you think my reasoning is valid and sound?
But is there actual support in Scripture for this doctrine? I don´t see any. The idea that Jesus gives up some of His power for a time is I think the biblical idea. That is why the Father is "greater than I" when He walks the earth. I think this doctrine tries to deny part of Jesus´ humility because we want to preserve an idea that the Son always has all the divine attributes even in the incarnation. But why would we believe that? Thank you for your ministry!
I struggle to read Fillipians 2 : 6-8 if what Christ did was an addition. As much as I don't need Him to empty himself of His Divinity I also need Him to leave "something" behind as He inserts Himself into creation as a slave. (edit - my soul cried Amen to everything from 9:30 on so I suppose there is the mystery)
I think the next verse explains what the "emptying" was: "He humbled himself." That is, what he "gave up" was his glory. Anticipating his crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus prayed to the Father: "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
Reading the comments, I am shocked to learn that Gavin's view is not a piece of cake to all christians. I have not so long time ago converted to christianity and the first passages of the Bible I truly loved were the passages of cosmic Christ in Colossians and in Hebrews. They were the details that made the atonement understandable.
I don't think so since Jesus says it's better that He go back to Heaven so that the Helper(Holy Spirit) can be sent, who is omnipresent. Jesus time on earth in His first coming was pretty unique since He seemed to set aside some of His divine privileges, such as omnipresence. He didn't become less divine, just set aside some of His divine privileges
Could you perhaps do a video on "Is Christmas biblical", "Is Christmas pagan", "Is it really Nimrod's birthday and trees are phallic idols"? This is a pretty big issue these days, we would very much appreciate some clarification!
While it may be difficult to wrap our finite minds around it, consider the idea of omnipresence is not just location, but time. So His divine nature is not bound by time There is no time in which he is not present divinely His human nature, like ours, does exist in time This may not be straightforward but it does help explain things to some degree
Thank you for this video! This has been on my mind for a long time. However, I still wonder how I am supposed to understand Phillipians 2 in light of all of this. Philippians 2:6-7 ESV [6] Christ, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but *emptied himself,* by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. What does it mean for christ to "empty himself"? One could think that this term refers to a subtraction of his nature. Maybe someone can help out🙏🏻
Thanks for the great question. It seems to me that we can still speak of the incarnation as an *emptying* insofar as God the Son assumes a real human nature. In so doing, he emptied himself. At the same time, this emptying did not entail a cessation of deity, or any divine attributes. Hope that might be of some degree of help.
Good video. What about the idea that God is not bound by time? God did not become Christ like in human form. Christ always had his human characteristics since Christ is God and God is not bound by time. C.S. Lewis expands on this concept in his book, Mere Christianity.
Yes, not being bound by time makes a lot of sense. I think that CS Lewis has the easiest conceptual framework to understand. Here's an extreme case. The following is an example of one of the most difficult questions for a non-dualist to answer. ruclips.net/video/5Dk4EIe-qyk/видео.htmlsi=17N42X0dNbkssQ39
Definitely a helpful video, I would say I am still puzzled how this relates consistently to Philippians 2. How can there be an "emptying" by addition? Does this mean Christmas songs such as "Thou didst leave thy throne and thy kingly crown" are theologically incorrect? If you could help offer some clarity on this point it would be most appreciated :)
Thank you! It seems to me affirming that there was no cessation of deity of divine attributes in the incarnation is consistent with language like "leaving" or "emptying." Those words apply to the assumption of a human nature. To take on a human nature is to empty oneself. But the emptying is not that the Son of God is no longer fully God, it is now that he has assumed a finite, malleable, mutable (human) nature. I hope that could help.
This was exactly my question as I listened. Emptying is emptying. This argument also distorts the idea of Jesus' humanity; requiring some sort of "other' consciousness that is not evident in Jesus' earthly life that sustains all Creation. Was Jesus an actual human baby with all the limitations entailed? I appreciate the substance and intent of these arguments, but it feels that there must be more angels dancing on the head of this particular pin.
@@TruthUnites Yes, that makes sense. Thank you. The emptying is the adding of a frail and trying humanity in which the Son "learned obedience by the things he suffered" (Heb. 5:8) So, how would this then relate to passages such as Matthew 24:36, in which Jesus states there is knowledge the Father has that the Son does not? I have always been taught that this is best explained by the limitation of Jesus willingly restricting some of His divine attributes He possesses in the incarnation. Whenever I was taught this before, the proof text was always Philippians 2. Would this understanding of "emptying" from the extra Calvinisticum contradict the teaching I received?
I thought of that song too. I’ve heard it since I was a little girl and I never thought it meant that Jesus stopped being God, just that He temporarily gave up some of His privileges.
My favorite quotation outside the Bible: “It is by far the most amazing miracle of the entire Bible-far more amazing than the resurrection and more amazing even than the creation of the universe. The fact that the infinite, omnipotent, eternal Son of God could become man and join himself to a human nature forever, so that infinite God became one person with finite man-will remain for eternity the most profound miracle and the most profound mystery in all the universe” (Wayne Grudem, _Systematic Theology,_ 2nd ed., 700).
Could you do a video on this concept in light of some passages that almost seem to contradict Jesus' full grasp of deity during his life on earth like Philippians 2:6-8 (what did He empty himself of?) or Matthew 24:36 (how could Jesus not know the end of He retained all abilities as God during His life?)? Super appreciate your ministry btw!!
The pre-requisite condition of the incarnation is that Jesus is fully submitted to God the Father. It means He knows only what God the Father wants Him to know, without triggering His own omniscience. That's why His human form is more like any other prophets. Jesus is only better than other prophets in terms of His own relationship with God the Father. That says, God the Trinity is omnipotent and He can put the so-called omniscience under His control.
Hello, and Merry Christmas to you and yours! Very interesting question! I did find, though, that as I watched the video and listened to your position, a few Scriptures kept coming to mind, with at least the *feeling* of a possible objection. For example, when you said, “Don’t think of it like this: the Son of God shrinks down, leaving behind deity, down to become a tiny embryo in Mary’s womb, leaving His divine majesty behind Him…” While I would certainly agree that He doesn’t “leave behind deity,” doesn’t Philippians 2:5-8 present an image-at least in some ways-very much like His fullness “shrinking down” into a baby? Philippians 2:5-8 (LSB) 5 Have this way of thinking in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Also, don’t some Scriptures suggest that, while in human form, Christ was, in fact, willingly subject to limits on His access to His full omniscience, like Luke 2:52 and Matthew 24:36? Luke 2:52 (LSB) 52 And Jesus was advancing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. Matthew 24:36 (LSB) 36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. These seem to suggest that, while in the flesh, Jesus did have to learn and “grow in wisdom” like other humans, and that He didn’t have access while in the flesh to knowledge about when His return would be. I’m not so much disagreeing with you as working through this myself, so your insights would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
I really liked this video. However, in light of extra calvinisticum, why do so many reformed Christians revert to pure symbolism when it comes to the sacraments? That seems quite inconsistent to me. If Christ’s two natures work this way, then the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper should be a matter of course.
In a previous video (I can't remember where or when), you were asked if Christ had one will or two wills. I recall that you said one will. Would this one will be the divine will or a human will? Furthermore, would you say the same thing about the intellect / mind of Christ? In other words, did Chist have one mind? Would that mind be human or divine? Thanks.
Understanding Trinity opens one’s mind to how Christ can be simultaneously omniscient and limited in knowledge. Time is a facet of the universe. God used His creative power to fashion time in such a way that He has three simultaneous Presences (“Persons”). To put it imaginatively, when God created time, He folded it and wrapped Himself in it so as to exist as three simultaneous yet consubstantial Persons. If God has that kind of creative power, then He can also simultaneously exist with refrained and unlimited attributes such as knowledge, presence, and power. I frequently ask Muslims, which is greater, Allah, who is limited by time and space, or God, who is able to use His creative power to exist both as One God and in space-time as three Persons? They emphasize that the true god is “greatest,” so I list several such questions. No Muslim has ever answered. Hopefully, it puts a stone in their shoes.
Hey Gavin! Just a quick question (I sadly can't watch the whole video or I would say it looks great because I'm about to go into church, but I already know it's great!). Do you think you could do a video about how we can still believe in God and trust His Word even with "variants" (or errors if you could call them that) in the manuscripts? Maybe just a short or small quick video giving your thoughts?
I have to admit that the hypoststic union has always confused me somewhat, so that’s a very interesting way of dealing with the two natures of Christ. That being said, I still am a little skeptical. A related question I have is did Christ do his miracles on Earth through the Father and/or Spirit or through His own power? It seems that if we say it was through His own power then we limit His humanity and run into issues with the texts that imply He is limited in knowledge or ability while human.
An idea to inspire wonder and worship, and (as you said) ancient one at that! Thank you so much for sharing. "Come listen, my brothers, concerning the Son of the Secret One that was revealed in His Body, while His Power was concealed! For the Power of the Son is free. The womb did not bind it up as it did his Body! For while His Power was dwelling in the womb, He was fashioning infants in the womb! His Power encompassed her that encompassed Him. For if He withdrew His Power, all things would fall. His Power upholds all things. While He was within the womb, He left not his hold of everything. While shaping an Image for Himself in the womb, He was shaping all faces in all wombs." - Ephrem the Syrian (300s A.D.) from Nativity Hymn III (Trans. by Rev. J.B. Morris) Merry Christmas to you and yours, Gavin!
Interesting! I feel like the early church asked such different questions than we do. I’m curious: how does the idea of Christ going from pre-incarnate Logos, to human/divine, and then likely being in the human state forever, as you said “adding to his nature” (sorry if that quote isn’t exact) vie with the immutability of God?
That Creator/Creation relationship is vital, I think, to profitable contemplation of Trinity. Many conceptions which try to relate infinite and finite miss this point and so end up erring in one direction or the other. The Greek philosophers made this mistake, and it tends to haunt those who followed after them. The nature of God pre-exists and supercedes the categories we typically try to use to understand reality. For example, "does God fill all space at once while also being localized to Jesus's body?" This question is a category error. The categories of space, time, and matter (and thus, really, number) simply do not apply to Him in any restrictive sense. He *is* one. Yet, He is perfectly capable of existing as three (or any number, theoretically) existant consciousnesses, each fully aware and in communication with each other, in any or all places, times, physical manifestations, etc. *and still be the One God* . The Son is such a One of the One. The distinctions which would seem to create any kind of contradiction in this are simply Creation-based distinctions. Cannot the One who eternally exists outside, previous to, and beyond the time/space/matter universe interact with it in such a way that He can be both fully and personally present in Place A, in Form A, Doing A, *and* in Place B, in Form B, Doing B? And isn't this true concerning an infinity of locations, activities, forms?Can He not both be 100% present in a cattle trough as a literal physical human infant, *and* in the Eternal State maintaining the cosmos on every micro and macro scale, *and* be a Spirit about in the creared world personally empowering and equipping those who trust in Him, *all the while* each "person" (not my favorite term) is utterly aware, loves, and is in communion with each other, because each *is* the One? What is there to keep this from being the case? The divine nature simply transcends the very categories of created reality to an extent we find difficult to grasp. A simple human mind is capable of self-awareness, self-communication, and self-communion. Is that not so? Now, imagine that human mind utterly freed from any constraint based on physicality/matter/space/time, etc. What I've said would, essentially, already be true of such a being. Now realize that we are talking about the Divine, Necessary, Eternal, Self-Existant, I AM, and apply that same freedom (which is His alone by the very nature of His being). If your mind doesn't suddenly find such questions of number, person, relationship, etc. embarrassingly childish as your mind shudders at the nature of the Infinite One, then try again because you missed something.
On the point of the incarnation being by addition rather than subtraction: how does this compare with Philippians 2 saying that Christ emptied himself and did not cling to his equality with God? Is it necessary for the incarnation to be DOING the creative act? Or is it that the incarnation is the fruit OF the creative act? As the Word spoken from God, the Son begotten from the Father. I don't see a tension between Christ forgoing omnipresence while being human. His fullness of divinity is manifest in his unobstructed connection with, love for, and obedience to the Father. He is not in Heaven and conducting creation, but he is having the inner experience of heaven within creation. Thoughts?
Jesus Christ has two natures, one human and one divine (revealing “what” he is), subsisting within one subject, substance, or person (revealing “who” he is) who is God. The possession of two natures in one person occurs only in Christ, just as the possession of a human nature without a human person occurs only in Christ.
I wanna say first and foremost that I really appreciate and respect you Gavin. I don’t want in any way to come off combative, and I humbly admit I am not nearly as credentialed as you. I may be operating out of misunderstandings but, I have concerns about this. One concern I can voice is this: How does a doctrine such as this not lend credence to modalism? If when Jesus says that he has come down from, and that he will go back up to the Father he only means that he adds flesh what is the need of a second person with the Father in the beginning? And how do we have confidence in linguistic arguments for the Trinity if when Paul says “Adopt the same attitude as that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. Instead he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity. And when he had come as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death - even to death on a cross. For this reason God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,“ what Paul intends is to say “Christ added humanity to himself, and humbled himself to the point of part of him dying, and he has had his humanity assumed into heaven and exalted even though he never really left.” Maybe I’m just really mislead here but I’m having difficulty having confidence in my ability to understand scripture if this is true? Is there some way in which Christ is truly present divinely in the God man Christ, and yet present in some other way in heaven? How do we deal with him emptying himself? Edit: I could very well be misunderstanding the implications here. That’s why I’m framing this as a concern. I may very well be overreacting, or misrepresenting something. That’s my question.
Thanks Dr. Ortlund for the succinct and insightful explanation! I still wonder though, how does this relate to Lutheran-Reformed discussions on the Lord's Supper? Does the Lutheran view of 'communicatio idiomatum' contradict the extra Athanasiusisticum?
What about Philippians 2? Even if the Son constrained himself to our dimensions, the Trinity as a whole would still be omnipresent, right? And, wasn’t the Ascension a sort of “re-Ascending” the Throne? Also, why was it necessary for Jesus to go before the Holy Spirit could come?
@@EnergeticProcession still hopeful. Are you unpacking this on your platform? I’d be interested in your thoughts. Or maybe Dr Gavin can have you on his podcast.
@@JoshuaCookLibertyIsRising 1. It is possible at some future date. 2. I expect to be invited on Ortlund's channel about the same time Hell reaches 0 degrees.
Thank you. Another question I have… If a 1000 people living 1000 miles from where Jesus rose from the dead, died 1000 minutes after Jesus rose from the dead, could they be in heaven?
@@TruthUnites Thank you for the reply and thank you for your videos which I enjoy, first of all because I feel they are spoken in a humble spirit, and second, they are well researched and thought out, so as to at least make me consider and possibly reconsider my own position, which I appreciate. (btw, you don’t answer this, I am just thinking out loud here). Though I find the thought experiment helpful. I find a problem with the analogy of Tolkien’s characters problematic as they are fictitious and not real. I do still find problems reconciling the EC with the following verses: Luk 2:52, (NASB 2020) And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and people. How can you increase in wisdom if at the same time omniscient? Phil 2:7-8, (NASB 2020) but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross. What is then the emptying? Heb 2:9-12, (NASB 2020) But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of His suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the originator of their salvation through sufferings. Made lower than the angels? How can the temptation and suffering then be real? Mark 15:34, (NASB 2020) At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “eloi, eloi, lema sabaktanei?” which is translated, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” How could he be forsaken by God while being seated at his right hand?
The ongoing incarnation of Christ for all eternity, with His ascension at the right hand of God as Jesus incarnate bodily, seems to be a neglected conversation in the topic of impassibility vs passibility. Most treat the conversation, separating God's divine nature from his human nature, but this video seems to challenge the traditional view of God's impassibility (which I'm not necesarily agreeing with - still wrestling with actually).
The Tolkien analogy has some real problems. First, I know it is just an analogy and not perfect, but it really does not describe the incarnation. The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. the full deity was present in Jesus. The Tolkien analogy describes a more separated account of the incarnation. the Chalcedonian definition states that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures. "He is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, and Only Begotten, who is made known in two natures (physeis) united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. " Since the deity is united to the human nature one cannot just posit that the divine is like Tolkien and not in the book also. Again, I know it is just an analogy, but it is important to know how the analogy does not work fully. In the end the incarnation is a mystery. No one knows how two natures interact and are united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably in one person. Jesus was both above death and died. He suffered and destroys all suffering. He was born at a certain time and place and also eternally begotten. Man cannot fathom this except to use large generalities and negative theology (apophatic). I have always heard that "The extra Calvinisticum teaches that in the Son’s incarnation the divine Logos is fully united to, but never fully contained within, the human nature." I do not know how much I go along with this. I hold to a Chalcedonian teaching more than an extra Calcinisticum. This is so tied to the arguments on the communication of attributes and the Lord's Supper. I do hold that Jesus was starting at the incarnation and is still divine and human. The one person has attributes of both natures. So, Jesus was and not limited by His human nature. I have no idea how that exactly works but do not see it as illogical due to the differences in natures although they are united in one person. The big question here is if the humanity of Jesus can become deified in a way that the human flesh takes on some properties one might ascribe to the divine nature only. Omnipresence is the big one. I do not hold to that, but I do hold that the human flesh is glorified, and the glorified flesh is deified in such a way that Jesus did some things after his resurrection that normal people cannot do. He walked through walls and appeared and disappeared. But I do not think the human flesh becomes omnipresent or that it never runs out if carnally eaten by men. But we are all awaiting a time when our corruptible flesh puts on incorruptibility and the like. That kind of deification I believe is scriptural and keeps within the best of patristic, medieval, reformational, and modern theologies.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Lutherans have been real quiet since this banger dropped. No but for real Gavin Ortlund is the BEST Reformed apologist there is
Spiritual presence for the win!
“THE BEST REFORMED BAPTIST “
Not sure how this is a problem for Lutherans.
“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
Not all Lutherans hold that Christ's human nature exersised its Omnipresence during his humiliation, so we can affirm a kind of extra calvinisticum. I do think Ephesians 4:10 seems to entail it at leas after his assencion though. I added a link to a good discussion on the topic if your interested.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
That doesn't talk about AD10.
That Tolkien metaphor was great! Really helpful
I know! It was so helpful, and also when he pointed out that God the Son didn’t just shrink all of the sudden when he was conceived.
I’m not sure how this teaching lines up with the traditional credal language of the Church on the Incarnation. Hypostasis and assuming a nature and all that… I will remember this illustration though, it’s the clearest thing I’ve ever heard on the Incarnation.
@andyramirez6016 I think it would, personally. Since the Word is still taking upon Himself human nature, that is consistent with the Nicene Creed.
Thanks for this Gavin, really clarifying. "The incarnation happened thru addition not subtraction". "Lo within a manger lies he who built the starry skies!"
Gavin, I met you once online in a video chat. I’m early in my ministry career and have struggled with Protestant views vs Catholic and Orthodox views for a long time. Thank you for helping me remain in my Baptist faith and building me up with the meat I need to know and providing resources I wouldn’t have found otherwise.
Helping you remain Baptist? Funny you should say that, now that Gavin has jumped ship to Lutheranism. 😆
@@rexlion4510when did he say this?
@CriminalScum000 he didn't, it's a joke online recently
This isn’t true. He’s not Lutheran
@@smaller_than_small9433 Well, on the day that I learned Gavin was moving to TN, the next thing I noticed was a video labeled, "Gavin Ortlund Becomes Lutheran." I put 2 + 2 together and assumed he was moving because of his denominational change. Was that video a fake? It's still up.
ruclips.net/video/CA6jihv7gtM/видео.html
You are easy to listen to and a nice guy.
Merry Christmas Dr. Ortlund and everyone who sees this! All Hail our incarnate Deity!
I appreciate this being recommended so close to Christmas. Our God is an amazing God! That analogy with Tolkien being in Oxford and in his book at the same time is an impressive one.
In Orthodox liturgy the priest says, “In the tomb with the body, in hell with the soul as God, in paradise with the thief and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit, You fill all things, O boundless Christ.”
And yet, that is not the Extra Calvinisticum.
@@EnergeticProcession true.
@@EnergeticProcession how is it not?
@@williamnathanael412 Simple. The EC is the claim that the person of the mediator, Christ, is not strictly identical with the person of God the Word. That is the "extra" part. The Word is "extra" and not strictly identified with God the Word.
One can affirm that God the Word remains omnipresence qua divinity and deny the EC.
Blessings to you Gavin all the way from Melbourne. Love your comment that as Mary was feeding her baby Jesus, He was sustaining her. As a mother, this is such powerful imagery that truly brings you to your knees.
Love the background. It's so Christmassy :) I start thinking about decorating for Christmas in November. So thankful for the greatest gift who was given to all of us 🎁 ✝️
Really beautiful imagery and knowledge that enriches my soul this season and beyond.
A blessed Christmas to all.
I like the explanation of Tolkien writing himself into the LOTR and still remaining himself and the character. This is a beautiful perspective especially given Tolkien's and Lewis' description of myth: the connection to the inexplicable divine. I appreciate all of your videos brother. Thank you for your toil and effort. Your sacrifice is noted throughout the Kingdom. God bless you and the family.
How is this a good explanation? If Tolkien wrote himself into LOTR, the character Tolkien only shares the same name as the actual Tolkien and nothing else. If you beat, insult, or crucify the character Tolkien, it does not do anything to the actual Tolkien. Meaning if Tolkien wrote a triumphant sacrifice of the character Tolkien into LOTR, it bares no significance, other than making the real Tolkien chuckle. Is that what you think of Christianity?
@@KeanuReevesIsMyJesus so in a way the answer to your question is yes and no. In the same way you explain the dynamic between the author and the character is what I believe to be true, in some sense, between God in His divinity and God in His humanity. How can Jesus be human yet omnipresent. That's why my reference to tolkein about myth being the gateway to truth is relevant. We are trying to understand the unfathomable. We are limited by time, space, and matter which God was in the flesh but is not now.
Contradicting? Seemingly. But again if I tried to explain the laws of physics to an ant, my explanation would be filled with and ridiculed for incongruity and contradiction.
I believe that Jesus fully suffered in His flesh but that doesn't stop His divinity.
This is a much better sermon than the one I endured on how Gretta is a prophet like unto Moses and was practically present at the Transfiguration. Thank you for preaching something other than idolatry. You may have just made my Christmas. God bless.
Welcome to Tennessee! Know you are called and will enrich the spiritual landscape.
It's at this point that I part with the post-Apostolic Fathers and their speculations. They attempt to explain things in words which should best be left to mystery. We barely understand what it means to be a human being, let alone the mystery of the revealed Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Particularly as the scriptures themselves leave room for many gray areas.
Most theology and Christology are best guesses trying to understand mysteries. I enjoy hearing the speculations but at the end of the day there is a lot of mystery that we need to accept and be fine with not knowing everything. Once God is fully locked into a theological system or understanding you no longer have God but an idol.
Yes! I asked for some extra Calvinisticum back in the day! Thanks for this and Merry Christmas :)
Great video, with much food for thought at this special time of the year! I liked how your theology ranged throughout Church history somewhat, managing to reference not only scripture, but also Athanasius, Chalcedon, the Lutherans, Calvin, and even Tolkien.
This video is amazing! I was discussing Christology with some Oriental Orthodox Christian’s on Twitter today so this was a really pertinent watch. I have found that in some respects their Christology sounds orthodox, just stated differently, but in other respects I do worry that it leads to confusion of Christ’s natures. Have you thought about doing more videos on the hypostatic union?
God bless you on your move!
Thanks Ryan! The move went well. It would be great to explore Christology more sometime.
Merry Christmas, Gavin, to you and yours. Prayers for your move to Tenn. Much of these kind of issues matter little to me but make for great things to meditate on. Thank you for your Holy Spirit filled self and your gentle nature. Shalom
Dr Ortlund, brilliant and concise. Liked and shared the link. Thank you for your ministry.
Thank you, Gavin. Yours is a thoughtful position and I see a lot of merit. My comments below were given with respect and thanks that we can try and find congruity. Christmas is a great time to celebrate the glory of Christ and the limits of our capacity to understand every dimension of the incarnation.
Great video. This is a hard concept to wrap my head around. The Tolkein analogy is very helpful
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund
Thanks Gavin. Love your work. You addressed the question of Nestorianism and there's obviously space in your brain ( and that of many other theologians) where Chalcedonian Christology and the extra- Calvinisticum can coexist. So far I can't find a space like that in my brain.
God bless.
You’re right, it feels like this is not something we think about too much. Great video like always Gavin!
9:49
That has been my favorite line of "Hark the Harold Angels" for some time. I love to really ponder it every once in a while. Also, I find it really funny how you used the image of Tolkein writing himself into Middle-Earth, because many people are convinced that he did just that through Tom Bombadil. Merry Christmas, Gavin.
This is such powerful theology! Thank you so much for covering it. I never thought about this before and feel overjoyed at this knowledge. God bless you and Merry Christmas!
God bless you Dr. Ortlund and all those who watch your videos. Great questions to chew on and think about. I really love the Tolkien self-insert analogy, it works in a lot of ways!
This is great. I couldn’t help but think of John’s prologue as I watched.
Also, while I know the incarnation is unique in the Scriptures and there’s no 1-to-1 comparison, one passage that helped me at least wrap my head around the concept was the burning bush.
Admittedly, God is not fire, nor is a human the same thing as fire. However, God appearing in a burning bush at the very least set a precedent that He, though infinite, can manifest himself in a finite space and time while still retaining his divine attributes. So much so that His very presence in the burning bush, though not nearly to the same extent as the incarnation, made even the ground beneath Moses’ feet holy.
What a privilege it is that the Word came not only to dwell with us but, should we believe, He will make his home in us.
Moses, I think, would be jealous.
Wonderful. Your metaphor provides such clarity. Merry Christmas.
Nice. 🥰🎄☘️🙏🏽
Brother in Christ, new subscriber here
Great video Gavin. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Interesting and thought provoking. I was challenged in that I had never thought about this before. I left with some loose end questions. If this is true 1. How could Jesus "grow" in wisdom (Lk 2:52); 2. Be amazed at someone's faith (Mt 8:10); or 3. Not know the "day or hour" of his return (Mk 13:32). I hope he does a video on kenosis.
The Word didn't cease to be the Word when he became flesh and dwelt among us.
Thank you for sharing this inspired lesson, Dr. Ortlund. I pray your move goes well and accident-free. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Great video!!!
This is a wonderful video. Praying for safe travels. God bless and Merry Christmas.
Very interesting video.
However I have philosophical concerns.
Re the metaphor you used with Lord of the Rings. Tolkein being a character in his story involves simply Tolkein creating a separate "entity" which shares many qualities with him but he, Tolkein proper, still experiences reality from his oxford chair, he still exists essentially outside the story. Applying that metaphor to Christ would suggest that Jesus was a separate being somehow connected with the divine Logos but one who exists separately "down there", while the Logos as such remains reigning above experiencing reality from that Gods eye point of view. I really dont think we want to go down this route.
It is also essential to the incarnation that Christ took on limitation and frailty as such. Verses such as "no one knows the day or hour, only the Father", and Philippians 2 "made himself nothing" and Lukes "grew in wisdom and stature" etc imply that Jesus shares our limitations as a human being. As you sort of sketched out, we run into logical absurdity if we try and affirm both that Jesus grew in knowledge and did not know somethings but also remained essentially all knowing as God.
I dont have a perfect solution. But I think the most promising route would be to make a distinction between Christ's consciousness and subjective experience and his existence as a whole. We ourselves comprise both our explicit conscious-self, that is the centre of subjective experience and awareness,
and the deep sea of subconscious feelings, memories and information from which the conscious self draws. Something analagous must be happening with Christ. Christs power and divinity as such remain at work in the world operating "subconsciously" or on auto pilot if you will, but, Christ in his conscious self as a baby is not aware of nor is he directing this work. Rather his centre of consciousness and subjective experience is localised to the baby Jesus, and is thereby necessarily limited.
I love the process, even the struggle, of seeking God, to think rightly about him. I appreciate your thoughts here. Very absorbing.
Great video!
Hebrews 2:9a "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus..." might be another interesting text to add to the discussion. The Son of God taking on human flesh temporarily lowers his status - not because he is now human, but because he was subject to mortality. After he is raised (perfected) he is elevated above all.
One thing I am meditating on this Christmas is that the incarnation of the Son of God had a beginning, but will have no ending. He will remain human forever so that he can remain our great high priest and save us to the uttermost. He has taken on our flesh, and has taken it with him back to heaven. For this I am so thankful.
Well said. It's amazing God Himself would take on some of the limitations of humanity to save us. I don't think we will understand what a sacrifice this was until we get to heaven.
Great video :)
Another banger
Thanks Dr. Ortlund. Viva Cristo Rey del universo
God bless you and your fam with your move!
I wanted to mention something both for your benefit and anyone else who sees this. A friend of mine who has the youtube channel The Other Paul recently coined a term that I think is very useful in Protestant and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox dialogue. Pop apologists like Trent Horn frequently attack Protestantism with claims like "Protestants can't agree" and the like, but their claims are based on a total missunderstanding of what Protestantism is. To argue against Protestantism is to argue against an umbrella of thought, not an institution. So pitting Rome against all of Protestantism is like pitting Islam against Monotheism. If an atheist claimed that Christianity was invalid because all of monotheism can't agree on who God is, we would find his argument absurd. Similarly the proper analogy to be drawn is either between denominations directly, such as Lutheranism vs. Roman Catholicism, or between broad categories - between Protestantism and "Ecclesialism". Ecclesialism is the new term that The Other Paul coined which aptly refers to the Roman, Eastern, and other Orthodox churches which all practice Sola Ecclesia as opposed to Sola Scriptura, which Protestantism adheres to.
So these are the two main branches of Christendom - Protestantism which holds to the 5 solas, but which has its foundation in Sola Scriptura, and Ecclesialism which holds to Sola Ecclesia (the church alone).
Hey Gavin! Thanks for this beautiful reminder and discussion on the incarnation and its christological issues, and how great Reformed thinkers have brought to light the Apostolic witness. I was wondering if you would ever do a video on Covenent Theology and maybe why youre not a Dispensationalist? I have been really working through those issues myself recently
Great insight. It might also help to briefly explore what this all means in light of the "kenosis" passage in Philippians. That is to say, in Philippians 2:7 where it speaks of Christ's "self-emptying" (or unfettered use of the Divine prerogative, relying rather on the will of the Father at those times.)
I think folks would actually greatly benefit from reading Nestorius's *Book of Heracleides* as well as reading the works from Timothy I of Baghdad. A good deal of what is passed as the "Nestorian" argument actually is more of an ontological understanding for an alternative way in safeguarding the true humanness of Christ while not sacrificing the full deity and glory of God the Word (typically, that tradition retains the designation "God the Word" from the time leading up to the 4th century).
Very interesting, I was not aware of the Extra Calvinisticum. Thank you. Do you think this commits one to the idea that Christ's childhood and adolescent development was essentially playing a role or character? I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of the Second Person actively maintaining omniscience, omnipresence, etc and still needing to learn how to eat or walk. It also raises questions to me concerning Jesus' ignorance of the time of his return - that said when it comes to the incarnation I'm happy to leave a lot up to mystery.
I pray the move goes well and that you all will be blessed in the next chapter of your ministry!
Thank you! I think it would be problematic if we construed the extra so as to downplay Christ's humanity. Christ's learning and suffering was 100% real with respect to his genuine human nature. Hope that helps! Thanks for the kind wishes!
@@TruthUnitesIf Christ’s learning and therefore ignorance were real (e.g., when he learns about the fig tree not bearing fruit), how does that square with him being omniscient and omnipresent during his incarnation? What seemed apparent from the video to me was that this ignorance is just “played” or “acted out”, in the same way Tolkien would act out ignorance in his Middle Earth character. Yet you don’t want to say that, you want to maintain these were real human experiences for Christ, no?
Well-presented btw, I like your style.
@@dri-fit9712 it does not follow from the fact that the Son of God remained divine that his human experiences were not real. He was 100% God, but he was also 100% man. Hope that helps.
@@TruthUnites If ‘divine’ here entails that he retained attributes such as omniscience, then I don’t see how he could have a genuine, human learning experience, grow in wisdom, etc. Just as in your analogy, where the Oxford-Tolkien plays the role of Middle Earth Tolkien, it would seem to me that the omniscient, omnipresent Christ is simply playing the role of the incarnate Christ.
@@dri-fit9712 its just an analogy, but even in the analogy, I don't know that the storied Tolkien would only be "play acting" per se. At any rate, the Son has both a divine and human nature. Divine and human are different. Human beings learn; God doesn't. Thus, we can say there was learning with respect to the human nature, but not the divine. I really don't see an acceptable alternative, unless we say that Heb. 1:3 and Col. 1:5 ceased happening from 1-30 AD.
I was quite recently thinking about God's "omni"-attributes and I would think that God's omnipresence is "derived" from his omniscience and omnipotence. And I think this will help us grasp the incarnation as well.
While discussing God's omnipresence and His relationship to space William Lane Craig writes: "I am more inclined to the view to say that God simply transcends space. In that case, what omnipresence amounts to is that God is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space. That is what omnipresence means. It doesn’t mean that God is literally in space. God transcends space. But he knows what is happening at every point in space, and he is causally active at every point in space, causing things to happen there and causally sustaining them in existence. So God, on this conception, is a non-spatial, transcendent, infinite mind who is conscious of and active at every point in space."
Understanding God's omnipresence in this way helped me to understand how Christ could be spatially located in one place during his incarnation while still remaining omnipresent by his divine nature. Do you think my reasoning is valid and sound?
But is there actual support in Scripture for this doctrine?
I don´t see any.
The idea that Jesus gives up some of His power for a time is I think the biblical idea. That is why the Father is "greater than I" when He walks the earth. I think this doctrine tries to deny part of Jesus´ humility because we want to preserve an idea that the Son always has all the divine attributes even in the incarnation. But why would we believe that?
Thank you for your ministry!
I struggle to read Fillipians 2 : 6-8 if what Christ did was an addition. As much as I don't need Him to empty himself of His Divinity I also need Him to leave "something" behind as He inserts Himself into creation as a slave. (edit - my soul cried Amen to everything from 9:30 on so I suppose there is the mystery)
I think the next verse explains what the "emptying" was: "He humbled himself." That is, what he "gave up" was his glory. Anticipating his crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus prayed to the Father: "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
Reading the comments, I am shocked to learn that Gavin's view is not a piece of cake to all christians. I have not so long time ago converted to christianity and the first passages of the Bible I truly loved were the passages of cosmic Christ in Colossians and in Hebrews. They were the details that made the atonement understandable.
I don't think so since Jesus says it's better that He go back to Heaven so that the Helper(Holy Spirit) can be sent, who is omnipresent.
Jesus time on earth in His first coming was pretty unique since He seemed to set aside some of His divine privileges, such as omnipresence. He didn't become less divine, just set aside some of His divine privileges
Could you perhaps do a video on "Is Christmas biblical", "Is Christmas pagan", "Is it really Nimrod's birthday and trees are phallic idols"? This is a pretty big issue these days, we would very much appreciate some clarification!
While it may be difficult to wrap our finite minds around it, consider the idea of omnipresence is not just location, but time.
So His divine nature is not bound by time
There is no time in which he is not present divinely
His human nature, like ours, does exist in time
This may not be straightforward but it does help explain things to some degree
Stephen King did write himself into his Dark Tower novels in the way you described Tolkien hypothetically writing himself into middle-earth.
Amen ✝️✝️✝️🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Thank you for this video! This has been on my mind for a long time. However, I still wonder how I am supposed to understand Phillipians 2 in light of all of this.
Philippians 2:6-7 ESV
[6] Christ, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but *emptied himself,* by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
What does it mean for christ to "empty himself"? One could think that this term refers to a subtraction of his nature. Maybe someone can help out🙏🏻
Thanks for the great question. It seems to me that we can still speak of the incarnation as an *emptying* insofar as God the Son assumes a real human nature. In so doing, he emptied himself. At the same time, this emptying did not entail a cessation of deity, or any divine attributes. Hope that might be of some degree of help.
So calvin believed that christ is finite and infinite at the same time? Ur right that does sound like a contradiction
Good video.
What about the idea that God is not bound by time? God did not become Christ like in human form. Christ always had his human characteristics since Christ is God and God is not bound by time. C.S. Lewis expands on this concept in his book, Mere Christianity.
Yes, not being bound by time makes a lot of sense. I think that CS Lewis has the easiest conceptual framework to understand.
Here's an extreme case. The following is an example of one of the most difficult questions for a non-dualist to answer.
ruclips.net/video/5Dk4EIe-qyk/видео.htmlsi=17N42X0dNbkssQ39
I liked it better when it said 'What' instead of 'Was'.
was do you mean?
Gavin have you made any videos over regulative and normative principles of worship?
Definitely a helpful video, I would say I am still puzzled how this relates consistently to Philippians 2. How can there be an "emptying" by addition? Does this mean Christmas songs such as "Thou didst leave thy throne and thy kingly crown" are theologically incorrect? If you could help offer some clarity on this point it would be most appreciated :)
Thank you! It seems to me affirming that there was no cessation of deity of divine attributes in the incarnation is consistent with language like "leaving" or "emptying." Those words apply to the assumption of a human nature. To take on a human nature is to empty oneself. But the emptying is not that the Son of God is no longer fully God, it is now that he has assumed a finite, malleable, mutable (human) nature. I hope that could help.
This was exactly my question as I listened. Emptying is emptying. This argument also distorts the idea of Jesus' humanity; requiring some sort of "other' consciousness that is not evident in Jesus' earthly life that sustains all Creation. Was Jesus an actual human baby with all the limitations entailed? I appreciate the substance and intent of these arguments, but it feels that there must be more angels dancing on the head of this particular pin.
@@TruthUnites Yes, that makes sense. Thank you. The emptying is the adding of a frail and trying humanity in which the Son "learned obedience by the things he suffered" (Heb. 5:8) So, how would this then relate to passages such as Matthew 24:36, in which Jesus states there is knowledge the Father has that the Son does not? I have always been taught that this is best explained by the limitation of Jesus willingly restricting some of His divine attributes He possesses in the incarnation. Whenever I was taught this before, the proof text was always Philippians 2. Would this understanding of "emptying" from the extra Calvinisticum contradict the teaching I received?
I thought of that song too. I’ve heard it since I was a little girl and I never thought it meant that Jesus stopped being God, just that He temporarily gave up some of His privileges.
My favorite quotation outside the Bible: “It is by far the most amazing miracle of the entire Bible-far more amazing than the resurrection and more amazing even than the creation of the universe. The fact that the infinite, omnipotent, eternal Son of God could become man and join himself to a human nature forever, so that infinite God became one person with finite man-will remain for eternity the most profound miracle and the most profound mystery in all the universe” (Wayne Grudem, _Systematic Theology,_ 2nd ed., 700).
Could you do a video on this concept in light of some passages that almost seem to contradict Jesus' full grasp of deity during his life on earth like Philippians 2:6-8 (what did He empty himself of?) or Matthew 24:36 (how could Jesus not know the end of He retained all abilities as God during His life?)?
Super appreciate your ministry btw!!
The pre-requisite condition of the incarnation is that Jesus is fully submitted to God the Father. It means He knows only what God the Father wants Him to know, without triggering His own omniscience. That's why His human form is more like any other prophets. Jesus is only better than other prophets in terms of His own relationship with God the Father. That says, God the Trinity is omnipotent and He can put the so-called omniscience under His control.
Hello, and Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Very interesting question! I did find, though, that as I watched the video and listened to your position, a few Scriptures kept coming to mind, with at least the *feeling* of a possible objection. For example, when you said, “Don’t think of it like this: the Son of God shrinks down, leaving behind deity, down to become a tiny embryo in Mary’s womb, leaving His divine majesty behind Him…” While I would certainly agree that He doesn’t “leave behind deity,” doesn’t Philippians 2:5-8 present an image-at least in some ways-very much like His fullness “shrinking down” into a baby?
Philippians 2:5-8 (LSB)
5 Have this way of thinking in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a slave, by being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Also, don’t some Scriptures suggest that, while in human form, Christ was, in fact, willingly subject to limits on His access to His full omniscience, like Luke 2:52 and Matthew 24:36?
Luke 2:52 (LSB)
52 And Jesus was advancing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
Matthew 24:36 (LSB)
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
These seem to suggest that, while in the flesh, Jesus did have to learn and “grow in wisdom” like other humans, and that He didn’t have access while in the flesh to knowledge about when His return would be.
I’m not so much disagreeing with you as working through this myself, so your insights would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you!
I really liked this video. However, in light of extra calvinisticum, why do so many reformed Christians revert to pure symbolism when it comes to the sacraments? That seems quite inconsistent to me. If Christ’s two natures work this way, then the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper should be a matter of course.
In a previous video (I can't remember where or when), you were asked if Christ had one will or two wills. I recall that you said one will. Would this one will be the divine will or a human will? Furthermore, would you say the same thing about the intellect / mind of Christ? In other words, did Chist have one mind? Would that mind be human or divine? Thanks.
Understanding Trinity opens one’s mind to how Christ can be simultaneously omniscient and limited in knowledge.
Time is a facet of the universe. God used His creative power to fashion time in such a way that He has three simultaneous Presences (“Persons”).
To put it imaginatively, when God created time, He folded it and wrapped Himself in it so as to exist as three simultaneous yet consubstantial Persons.
If God has that kind of creative power, then He can also simultaneously exist with refrained and unlimited attributes such as knowledge, presence, and power.
I frequently ask Muslims, which is greater, Allah, who is limited by time and space, or God, who is able to use His creative power to exist both as One God and in space-time as three Persons? They emphasize that the true god is “greatest,” so I list several such questions. No Muslim has ever answered. Hopefully, it puts a stone in their shoes.
0:53 quick correction: the screen says Colossians 1:3, you say “Colossians 1:15”, but you really mean Colossians 1:17
Extra CALVINISTICUM = In the Son’s incarnation the divine Logos is fully united to, but never fully contained within, the human nature.
Hey Gavin! Just a quick question (I sadly can't watch the whole video or I would say it looks great because I'm about to go into church, but I already know it's great!). Do you think you could do a video about how we can still believe in God and trust His Word even with "variants" (or errors if you could call them that) in the manuscripts? Maybe just a short or small quick video giving your thoughts?
I have to admit that the hypoststic union has always confused me somewhat, so that’s a very interesting way of dealing with the two natures of Christ. That being said, I still am a little skeptical. A related question I have is did Christ do his miracles on Earth through the Father and/or Spirit or through His own power? It seems that if we say it was through His own power then we limit His humanity and run into issues with the texts that imply He is limited in knowledge or ability while human.
That same God becomes Flesh and Blood when the bread and wine are Blessed at each Mass!l
An idea to inspire wonder and worship, and (as you said) ancient one at that! Thank you so much for sharing.
"Come listen, my brothers, concerning the Son of the Secret One that was revealed in His Body, while His Power was concealed!
For the Power of the Son is free. The womb did not bind it up as it did his Body! For while His Power was dwelling in the womb, He was fashioning infants in the womb!
His Power encompassed her that encompassed Him. For if He withdrew His Power, all things would fall. His Power upholds all things.
While He was within the womb, He left not his hold of everything. While shaping an Image for Himself in the womb, He was shaping all faces in all wombs."
- Ephrem the Syrian (300s A.D.) from Nativity Hymn III (Trans. by Rev. J.B. Morris)
Merry Christmas to you and yours, Gavin!
Interesting! I feel like the early church asked such different questions than we do.
I’m curious: how does the idea of Christ going from pre-incarnate Logos, to human/divine, and then likely being in the human state forever, as you said “adding to his nature” (sorry if that quote isn’t exact) vie with the immutability of God?
Where was the mind of the Logos during Jesus gestation in Mary
That Creator/Creation relationship is vital, I think, to profitable contemplation of Trinity. Many conceptions which try to relate infinite and finite miss this point and so end up erring in one direction or the other. The Greek philosophers made this mistake, and it tends to haunt those who followed after them.
The nature of God pre-exists and supercedes the categories we typically try to use to understand reality. For example, "does God fill all space at once while also being localized to Jesus's body?" This question is a category error. The categories of space, time, and matter (and thus, really, number) simply do not apply to Him in any restrictive sense.
He *is* one. Yet, He is perfectly capable of existing as three (or any number, theoretically) existant consciousnesses, each fully aware and in communication with each other, in any or all places, times, physical manifestations, etc. *and still be the One God* .
The Son is such a One of the One. The distinctions which would seem to create any kind of contradiction in this are simply Creation-based distinctions.
Cannot the One who eternally exists outside, previous to, and beyond the time/space/matter universe interact with it in such a way that He can be both fully and personally present in Place A, in Form A, Doing A, *and* in Place B, in Form B, Doing B? And isn't this true concerning an infinity of locations, activities, forms?Can He not both be 100% present in a cattle trough as a literal physical human infant, *and* in the Eternal State maintaining the cosmos on every micro and macro scale, *and* be a Spirit about in the creared world personally empowering and equipping those who trust in Him, *all the while* each "person" (not my favorite term) is utterly aware, loves, and is in communion with each other, because each *is* the One? What is there to keep this from being the case?
The divine nature simply transcends the very categories of created reality to an extent we find difficult to grasp.
A simple human mind is capable of self-awareness, self-communication, and self-communion. Is that not so? Now, imagine that human mind utterly freed from any constraint based on physicality/matter/space/time, etc. What I've said would, essentially, already be true of such a being.
Now realize that we are talking about the Divine, Necessary, Eternal, Self-Existant, I AM, and apply that same freedom (which is His alone by the very nature of His being).
If your mind doesn't suddenly find such questions of number, person, relationship, etc. embarrassingly childish as your mind shudders at the nature of the Infinite One, then try again because you missed something.
On the point of the incarnation being by addition rather than subtraction: how does this compare with Philippians 2 saying that Christ emptied himself and did not cling to his equality with God? Is it necessary for the incarnation to be DOING the creative act? Or is it that the incarnation is the fruit OF the creative act? As the Word spoken from God, the Son begotten from the Father.
I don't see a tension between Christ forgoing omnipresence while being human. His fullness of divinity is manifest in his unobstructed connection with, love for, and obedience to the Father. He is not in Heaven and conducting creation, but he is having the inner experience of heaven within creation.
Thoughts?
Great video! Just out of curiosity, what would Aquinas' position on this be?
Go read Aquinas and find out. Best to get your information from a primary source before using secondary sources
@@catholicguy1073 definitely. I'm working on it.
Jesus Christ has two natures, one human and one divine (revealing “what” he is), subsisting within one subject, substance, or person (revealing “who” he is) who is God. The possession of two natures in one person occurs only in Christ, just as the possession of a human nature without a human person occurs only in Christ.
God doesn't have to be in one place to know or affect that place, I wouldn't assume he couldn't anyway
I wanna say first and foremost that I really appreciate and respect you Gavin. I don’t want in any way to come off combative, and I humbly admit I am not nearly as credentialed as you. I may be operating out of misunderstandings but, I have concerns about this. One concern I can voice is this: How does a doctrine such as this not lend credence to modalism? If when Jesus says that he has come down from, and that he will go back up to the Father he only means that he adds flesh what is the need of a second person with the Father in the beginning? And how do we have confidence in linguistic arguments for the Trinity if when Paul says “Adopt the same attitude as that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. Instead he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity. And when he had come as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death - even to death on a cross. For this reason God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,“ what Paul intends is to say “Christ added humanity to himself, and humbled himself to the point of part of him dying, and he has had his humanity assumed into heaven and exalted even though he never really left.” Maybe I’m just really mislead here but I’m having difficulty having confidence in my ability to understand scripture if this is true? Is there some way in which Christ is truly present divinely in the God man Christ, and yet present in some other way in heaven? How do we deal with him emptying himself? Edit: I could very well be misunderstanding the implications here. That’s why I’m framing this as a concern. I may very well be overreacting, or misrepresenting something. That’s my question.
Stand on the word.
I'm curious how does this relates with "kenosis" in Philippians 2
Thanks Dr. Ortlund for the succinct and insightful explanation! I still wonder though, how does this relate to Lutheran-Reformed discussions on the Lord's Supper? Does the Lutheran view of 'communicatio idiomatum' contradict the extra Athanasiusisticum?
How does this harmonize with Philippians 3?
praise God who died for our sins
What about Philippians 2? Even if the Son constrained himself to our dimensions, the Trinity as a whole would still be omnipresent, right? And, wasn’t the Ascension a sort of “re-Ascending” the Throne? Also, why was it necessary for Jesus to go before the Holy Spirit could come?
On the EC, is God the Word identical to the person of Christ or is God the Word a mere part of the person of Christ?
I’d like to hear Dr Ortlund’s response to your question.
@@JoshuaCookLibertyIsRising Best of luck.
@@JoshuaCookLibertyIsRising God an answer yet?
@@EnergeticProcession still hopeful. Are you unpacking this on your platform? I’d be interested in your thoughts. Or maybe Dr Gavin can have you on his podcast.
@@JoshuaCookLibertyIsRising 1. It is possible at some future date. 2. I expect to be invited on Ortlund's channel about the same time Hell reaches 0 degrees.
Thank you.
Another question I have… If a 1000 people living 1000 miles from where Jesus rose from the dead, died 1000 minutes after Jesus rose from the dead, could they be in heaven?
Athanasius nailed it.
Doesn't the extra Calvinisticum pose a danger of a kind of docetic thinking?
I don't think so, because affirming that deity does not change does not entail that the human nature is not really human.
@@TruthUnites Thank you for the reply and thank you for your videos which I enjoy, first of all because I feel they are spoken in a humble spirit, and second, they are well researched and thought out, so as to at least make me consider and possibly reconsider my own position, which I appreciate. (btw, you don’t answer this, I am just thinking out loud here).
Though I find the thought experiment helpful. I find a problem with the analogy of Tolkien’s characters problematic as they are fictitious and not real.
I do still find problems reconciling the EC with the following verses:
Luk 2:52, (NASB 2020) And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and people.
How can you increase in wisdom if at the same time omniscient?
Phil 2:7-8, (NASB 2020) but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.
What is then the emptying?
Heb 2:9-12, (NASB 2020) But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of His suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the originator of their salvation through sufferings.
Made lower than the angels?
How can the temptation and suffering then be real?
Mark 15:34, (NASB 2020) At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “eloi, eloi, lema sabaktanei?” which is translated, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
How could he be forsaken by God while being seated at his right hand?
Where in Tennessee are you?
does Tolkien in the Shire (not in Oxford) have human free will? of course not. did Jesus have one?
Good Christians, fear, for sinners here
The silent Word is pleading
The ongoing incarnation of Christ for all eternity, with His ascension at the right hand of God as Jesus incarnate bodily, seems to be a neglected conversation in the topic of impassibility vs passibility. Most treat the conversation, separating God's divine nature from his human nature, but this video seems to challenge the traditional view of God's impassibility (which I'm not necesarily agreeing with - still wrestling with actually).
The Tolkien analogy has some real problems. First, I know it is just an analogy and not perfect, but it really does not describe the incarnation. The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. the full deity was present in Jesus. The Tolkien analogy describes a more separated account of the incarnation. the Chalcedonian definition states that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures. "He is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, and Only Begotten, who is made known in two natures (physeis) united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. " Since the deity is united to the human nature one cannot just posit that the divine is like Tolkien and not in the book also. Again, I know it is just an analogy, but it is important to know how the analogy does not work fully. In the end the incarnation is a mystery. No one knows how two natures interact and are united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably in one person. Jesus was both above death and died. He suffered and destroys all suffering. He was born at a certain time and place and also eternally begotten. Man cannot fathom this except to use large generalities and negative theology (apophatic).
I have always heard that "The extra Calvinisticum teaches that in the Son’s incarnation the divine Logos is fully united to, but never fully contained within, the human nature." I do not know how much I go along with this. I hold to a Chalcedonian teaching more than an extra Calcinisticum. This is so tied to the arguments on the communication of attributes and the Lord's Supper. I do hold that Jesus was starting at the incarnation and is still divine and human. The one person has attributes of both natures. So, Jesus was and not limited by His human nature. I have no idea how that exactly works but do not see it as illogical due to the differences in natures although they are united in one person. The big question here is if the humanity of Jesus can become deified in a way that the human flesh takes on some properties one might ascribe to the divine nature only. Omnipresence is the big one. I do not hold to that, but I do hold that the human flesh is glorified, and the glorified flesh is deified in such a way that Jesus did some things after his resurrection that normal people cannot do. He walked through walls and appeared and disappeared. But I do not think the human flesh becomes omnipresent or that it never runs out if carnally eaten by men. But we are all awaiting a time when our corruptible flesh puts on incorruptibility and the like. That kind of deification I believe is scriptural and keeps within the best of patristic, medieval, reformational, and modern theologies.