Just for record, both Dr. Brown and Dr. White are both teaching "functional kenoticism" which is in fact a heresy and is incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity and its corollary doctrines of Divine immutability, Divine simplicity, and perichoresis, as well as doctrines of Christology such as Chalcedon, the communicatio idiomatum, and the extra Calvinisticum (which certainly did not begin with Calvin, it was always the teaching of the church). These "heretical theories" began in the eighteenth century and are not the Christology of the Historic Christian Faith. Functional kenoticism is quite popular in evangelical circles...but it is still heresy. I suppose if I were to recommend one book to the average person it would be "God the Son Incarnate" by Stephen J. Wellum. Just for the record, I have no idea who either one of them are talking about, or who said something about something else, nor am I attacking anyone, I'm simply stating a fact. What the two of them described themselves as believing is called "functional kenoticism" and it is heresy, not the historic Christian faith (although I suppose that depends on where your history starts).
Two questions 1) When you say heresy do you mean that when one believes it he is not saved? 2) Can you prove you position about kenos is using quotes from the Ante-Nicene fathers?
@@joshualloydparker4189 Hello Josh (that's my oldest son's name), I actually didn't expect anyone to get back to me, I was just sort of leaving a warning label. I'm actually writing an open letter to a former pastor of mine on this topic as I write (three private letters did not help and he is teaching ontological kenoticism and telling people it is the historic Christian faith). ANSWER TO QUESTION #1: So here's the thing about heresy and salvation questions (and this is not a dodge), you are the only one that can truly answer that question for yourself (and in the end, that's the way it always is). One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy. What's the definition of heresy? The Church across the street. My point is how do you define heresy? That said, the most fundamental and foundational heresies/departures from orthodoxy/the historic Christian faith have to do with the Doctrine of the Trinity and its corollary doctrines and Chalcedonian Christology and its corollary doctrines. However, can one be ignorant of everything contained in these doctrines and be saved? I would have to say of course. Can one be willfully ignorant and be saved? Probably not. Can one knowingly teach contrary to the foundation of the historic Christian faith, I don't think. Let me offer a quote from someone else here: "The implications of this doctrine of the kenosis in Christology are contrary to the deepest truths of Christian theology. If the Son of God could part with his divine attributes or humanize himself, then divinity itself must be mutable. This consequence can be denied only on a denial of the divinity of the Son. But his divinity is conceded in the very idea of his self-divestment of his divine attributes. The theory is subversive of the divine Trinity. The humanized Son, self-emptied of his divine attributes, could no longer be a divine subsistence in the Trinity [perichoresis]. Hence this kenosis of the Son must mean the destruction of the Trinity. The theory is not less subversive of other fundamental truths of Christian theology. No ground of an atonement in the blood of Christ could remain. That the Son once existed in the divine Trinity, and in the plenitude of the divine life, could avail nothing for such an atonement. If self-reduced to the measure of a man, his death could be no more saving than the death of a man. No ground of the sympathy of Christ could remain, as that sympathy is revealed in the Scriptures, and as it must be in order to meet the exigencies of Christian experience. Such a sympathy we have found to be possible only through the divine consciousness of human experiences of suffering and trial. But there can be no such consciousness in the mere human consciousness to which this kenoticism limits the incarnate Logos. A theory with such implications can have no ground of truth in the Scriptures." Miley, J. (1893). Systematic theology, volume 2 (p. 62). New York: Hunt & Eaton.
I just lost a third of what I tried to post, here's the last part (I lost the middle part) And Indeed that Christ Was Not Only Man, But God Also; That Even as He Was the Son of Man, So Also He Was the Son of God. “But lest, from the fact of asserting that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Creator, was manifested in the substance of the true body, we should seem either to have given assent to other heretics, who in this place maintain that He is man only and alone, and therefore desire to prove that He was a man bare and solitary; and lest we should seem to have afforded them any ground for objecting, we do not so express doctrine concerning the substance of His body, as to say that He is only and alone man, but so as to maintain, by the association of the divinity of the Word in that very materiality, that He was also God according to the Scriptures. For there is a great risk of saying that the Saviour of the human race was only man; that the Lord of all, and the Chief of the world, to whom all things were delivered, and all things were granted by His Father, by whom all things were ordained, all things were created, all things were arranged, the King of all ages and times, the Prince of all the angels, before whom there is none but the Father, was only man, and denying to Him divine authority in these things. For this contempt of the heretics will recoil also upon God the Father, if God the Father could not beget God the Son. But, moreover, no blindness of the heretics shall prescribe to the truth. Nor, because they maintain one thing in Christ and, do not maintain another, they see one side of Christ and do not see another, shall there be taken away from us that which they do not see for the sake of that which they do. For they regard the weaknesses in Him as if they were a man's weaknesses, but they do not count the powers as if they were a God's powers. They keep in mind the infirmities of the flesh, they exclude the powers of the divinity; when if this argument from the infirmities of Christ is of avail to the result of proving Him to be man from His infirmities, the argument of divinity in Him gathered from His powers avails to the result also of asserting Him to be God from His works. For if His sufferings show in Him human frailty, why may not His works assert in Him divine power? For if this should not avail to assert Him to be God from His powers, neither can His sufferings avail to show Him to be man also from them. For whatever principle be adopted on one or the other side, will be found to be maintained. For there will be a risk that He should not be shown to be man from His sufferings, if He could not also be approved as God by His powers. We must not then lean to one side and evade the other side, because anyone who should exclude one portion of the truth will never hold the perfect truth.” Novatian (c. 235, W) 5.621 14:10b Mutual Words and Works The Father Would Not Have Used Different Words. Cyril of Alexandria: If, he would say, my Father had spoken anything to you, he would not have used any other words than these that I am now speaking. For so great is the equality in essence between myself and him that my words are his words, and whatever I do may be believed to be his actions. For, because he “abides in me,” by reason of the exact equivalence in essence, he himself does the works. For since the Godhead is one in the Father, in the Son and in the Spirit, every word that comes from the Father comes always through the Son by the Spirit. Every work or miracle is through the Son by the Spirit, and yet it is considered as coming from the Father. For the Son is not apart from the essence of the Father, nor indeed is the Holy Spirit. But the Son, being in the Father and having the Father again in himself, claims that the Father is the doer of the works. For the nature of the Father is mighty in operation and shines out clearly in the Son. And one might add to this another meaning that is involved, suggested clearly by the principles that underlie the incarnation. He says, “I speak not of myself,” meaning, not in separation from or in lack of agreement with God the Father. For since he appeared to those who saw him in human form, he refers his words to the divine nature, as speaking in the person of the Father. It is the same with his actions. He almost seems to say, Do not let this human form deprive me of that reverent estimation that is due and befitting to me, and do not suppose that my words are those of a mere human or of one like yourselves. Rather, believe them to be in very truth divine words that would be just as fitting for the Father as they are for me. And he is the one who works, “abiding in me.” For I am in him, and he is in me. Do not think therefore that a mighty and extraordinary privilege was granted to the people of former days because they saw God in a vision of fire and heard his voice speaking to them. For you have in reality seen the Father through me and in me, since I have appeared among you, being in my nature God, and “have come visibly,” according to the words of the psalmist. And be well assured that in hearing my words, you heard the words of the Father. And you have been spectators of his works and of the might that is in him. For by me he speaks as by his own Word. And in me he carries out and achieves his wondrous works, as though by his own power. Commentary on the Gospel of John 9. I never cease to be amazed at how refined doctrine is in Tertullian and how many things he says "were handed down," not that he invented. I don't know if that's what you are looking for or not, as I said, perhaps you could help me out. But let me be clear on this, anything which depotentiates Jesus in any way, whether ontologically or functionally (and functional kenoticism will always reduce to ontological kenoticism) is by the orthodox standards of the historic Christian faith "heresy," a departure from the very foundational truths of the church. I hope to finish that open letter in the next couple of days so I will link you to that if you like. If you have more questions before then I will certainly try to answer them (I appreciate your questions and interest). I'm not sure when I run out of room here but let me leave you with a quote and a link to an article on kenoticism: We must first realize that no recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that ‘emptied himself’ in Philippians 2:7 meant that the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes. - Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology In teaching, therefore, that Christ was truly man and truly God, the Scriptures teach that He had a finite intelligence and will, and also an infinite intelligence. In Him, therefore, as the Church has ever maintained, there were and are two wills, two energeiaior operations. His human intellect increased, his divine intelligence was, and is, infinite.” Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, 2:389-90). tmsdecay.wpengine.com/m/TMS-Spring2019-Article-05.pdf
Here's a few more quotes but I need to run: “Though he [the Son of God] was incorporeal, he formed for himself a body like ours. He appeared as one of the sheep, yet he remained the Shepherd. He was esteemed a servant, yet he did not renounce being a Son. He was carried about in the womb of Mary, yet he was clothed in the nature of his Father. He walked on the earth, yet he filled heaven. He appeared as an infant, yet he did not discard his eternal nature. He was invested with a body, but it did not limit his divinity. He was esteemed poor, yet he was not divested of his riches. He needed nourishment because he was man, yet he did not cease to nourish the entire world because he is God. He put on the likeness of a servant, yet it did not impair the likeness of his Father. He was everything by his unchangeable nature. He was standing before Pilate, and at the same time he was sitting with his Father. He was nailed on a tree, yet he was the Lord of all things.” Melito of Sardis (c. 170, E) 8.756 “You [gnostics] should not worry that, if He had been born and truly clothed Himself with man’s nature, He would have ceased to be God. You should not worry that He would lose what He was-while becoming what He was not. For God is in no danger of losing His own state and condition.” Tertullian (c. 210 W) 3.523 “Christ could not be described as being man without flesh, nor the Son of man without any human parent; just as He is not God without the Spirit of God, nor the Son of God without having God for His father. Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God - in one respect born, in the other unborn; in one respect fleshly, in the other spiritual; in one sense weak, in the other exceeding strong; in one sense dying, in the other living. This property of the two states - the divine and the human- is distinctly asserted with equal truth of both natures alike.” Tertullian (c. 210, W) 3.525 “For if the Word became flesh by a transfiguration and change of substance, it follows at once that Jesus must be a substance compounded of two substances-of flesh and spirit,-a kind of mixture, like electrum, composed of gold and silver; and it begins to be neither gold (that is to say, spirit) nor silver (that is to say, flesh),-the one being changed by the other, and a third substance produced. Jesus, therefore, cannot at this rate be God for He has ceased to be the Word, which was made flesh; nor can He be Man incarnate for He is not properly flesh, and it was flesh which the Word became. Being compounded, therefore, of both, He actually is neither; He is rather some third substance, very different from either. But the truth is, we find that He is expressly set forth as both God and Man; the very psalm which we have quoted intimating (of the flesh), that “God became Man in the midst of it, He therefore established it by the will of the Father,”-certainly in all respects as the Son of God and the Son of Man, being God and Man, differing no doubt according to each substance in its own especial property, inasmuch as the Word is nothing else but God, and the flesh nothing else but Man. Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two substances, saying, “who was made of the seed of David;” in which words He will be Man and Son of Man. “Who was declared to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit;” in which words He will be God, and the Word-the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person-Jesus, God and Man. Concerning Christ, indeed, I defer what I have to say. (I remark here), that the property of each nature is so wholly preserved, that the Spirit on the one hand did all things in Jesus suitable to Itself, such as miracles, and mighty deeds, and wonders; and the Flesh, on the other hand, exhibited the affections which belong to it. It was hungry under the devil’s temptation, thirsty with the Samaritan woman, wept over Lazarus, was troubled even unto death, and at last actually died.” Tertullian (c. 210, W) 3.525
Richard, You are totally wrong. Jesus clearly did not "know everything" as he did not know his 2nd coming - theres a clue for you. Even JohnnyMac admits that Jesus did not use his divine prerogatives on earth. Learn the difference between Ontology and Operative Protocol which Jesus followed.
There are 2 kinds of kenotic theory: 1)- actually the real kenotic theory that in no way undermines the divinity of christ. 2)- the ridiculously exaggerated version espoused by parties already anti-trinitarian, or drama-chasing "discernment ministries".
The kenotic Christ by Bill Johnson teaches that Jesus emptied himself of divinity but relied on the Holy Spirit so we too can do see the same works (and greater works) than Jesus. It's anti-Christ, anti-trinitarian and satanic to belittle Christ like this. This is an ascended master / New Age demonic teaching that cannot be support by scripture. And yes - Brown is smart enough not to confess this - but the same demonic spirit that peddles this false Jesus is the same one that really kick-started Brownsville. You can see people like Yonggi Cho, Wagner, Mike Bickle, Hedia Baker and even John Wimber pushing this kenosis heresy (that Brown endorses as well). Look up "power evangelism" or "KingdomNow" theology. "As he is, so are we." "As above, so below." "As within, so without."
I don't see how the kenosis theory is so bad. James White and Michael Brown said here that Jesus did his miracles by the spirit, and Jesus also said the words which I speak are the fathers. God also said to Moses (about Jesus), I will put my words in his mouth. So, where was Jesus divinity seen, if it was not in deed or word. Jesus also said, greater works than these shall ye do. So, the idea that we can do what Jesus did, What is so wrong with that. The only thing I can see that Jesus did that we can't do was to become a sacrifice for us, because he was sinless. But sinlessness is not divinity, since angels are also sinless. Maybe someone can help with this question. Jesus divinity was so well hidden (in the above way mentioned) that some think he was not divine. If he did and said everything as a man, why is his divinity so ferociously defended, thanks
Veiling these divine glories and perfections is RADICALLY, RADICALLY different from no longer possessing them at all because you jettisoned them entirely! If you hold to this theory you are denying Jesus' deity in His incarnate state. That's the problem with this heretical theory.
@@dpastor6631 No, he makes a good point. He was still deity in his spiritual identity of the Logos. Yet his miraculous attributes were left behind when he became a man. Nowhere does it say he did his miracles by his own power. He gave all credit to the Father, and it must be observed he was given the Holy Spirit without measure. Why? If he had done miracles by his own power he would have glorified himself, which he could not do. It was the Father in him doing the works and who glorified him. This is what it says.
@@Mike65809 It's not a good point. It's a bait and switch. Bill Johnson keeps making the claim that if Jesus was fully God doing these miracles - he would not want to follow that Jesus. He wants to follow a Jesus that is fully man under the power of the Spirit so he can do the same works and even greater works. It's not traditional kenosis beliefs. This is a 'dominion kenosis Christ' or 'greater works kenosis Christ' heresy. Brown believes the latter - and is lying through his teeth in this interview. He deleted that episode where he admitted the above quotes. He was arguing against Ps Anthony Wade. And as usual, Brown is capitalising on White's ignorance. Brown is an evil man to treat a friend like this.
Chalcedon was wrong on so many issues. Jesus was God in his spiritual identity of the Logos. He did miracles by the Father in him. He didn't pretend to be a baby. He was a baby. He was a man, with the spiritual identity of the Logos, having the Holy Spirit without measure, being fully God in this way. Plus he had the DNA of the Father. There is no issue of separation or intermingling of natures!
Calcedonian was when? The church already had errors in their theology. Fighting for truth is a devilish sceem to led the church astray in doing what the lord has ordered! The devil has one goal to stop the church in walking in obedience so he points out some intellectual groopies using them to hinder the Gospel of the kingdom.
Bill Johnson and his teaching, ministry, music, etc. is so cringe worthy. False teachings have always been so we need to be warned and aware of them. Our human mind cannot comprehend the mysteries of Yahweh. The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit to be praised and is Sovereign. The NAR nonsense is nonsense!!
Thank you for the upload ✝️
If only White was this conciliatory toward other parties.
This looks like a clip from a longer show. What was the original interview?
Rachel Enns the Dividing Line
ruclips.net/video/g0P6IjKUsXo/видео.html
Just for record, both Dr. Brown and Dr. White are both teaching "functional kenoticism" which is in fact a heresy and is incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity and its corollary doctrines of Divine immutability, Divine simplicity, and perichoresis, as well as doctrines of Christology such as Chalcedon, the communicatio idiomatum, and the extra Calvinisticum (which certainly did not begin with Calvin, it was always the teaching of the church). These "heretical theories" began in the eighteenth century and are not the Christology of the Historic Christian Faith. Functional kenoticism is quite popular in evangelical circles...but it is still heresy. I suppose if I were to recommend one book to the average person it would be "God the Son Incarnate" by Stephen J. Wellum. Just for the record, I have no idea who either one of them are talking about, or who said something about something else, nor am I attacking anyone, I'm simply stating a fact. What the two of them described themselves as believing is called "functional kenoticism" and it is heresy, not the historic Christian faith (although I suppose that depends on where your history starts).
Two questions 1) When you say heresy do you mean that when one believes it he is not saved? 2) Can you prove you position about kenos is using quotes from the Ante-Nicene fathers?
@@joshualloydparker4189 Hello Josh (that's my oldest son's name), I actually didn't expect anyone to get back to me, I was just sort of leaving a warning label. I'm actually writing an open letter to a former pastor of mine on this topic as I write (three private letters did not help and he is teaching ontological kenoticism and telling people it is the historic Christian faith).
ANSWER TO QUESTION #1: So here's the thing about heresy and salvation questions (and this is not a dodge), you are the only one that can truly answer that question for yourself (and in the end, that's the way it always is). One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy. What's the definition of heresy? The Church across the street. My point is how do you define heresy?
That said, the most fundamental and foundational heresies/departures from orthodoxy/the historic Christian faith have to do with the Doctrine of the Trinity and its corollary doctrines and Chalcedonian Christology and its corollary doctrines. However, can one be ignorant of everything contained in these doctrines and be saved? I would have to say of course. Can one be willfully ignorant and be saved? Probably not. Can one knowingly teach contrary to the foundation of the historic Christian faith, I don't think. Let me offer a quote from someone else here:
"The implications of this doctrine of the kenosis in Christology are contrary to the deepest truths of Christian theology. If the Son of God could part with his divine attributes or humanize himself, then divinity itself must be mutable. This consequence can be denied only on a denial of the divinity of the Son. But his divinity is conceded in the very idea of his self-divestment of his divine attributes. The theory is subversive of the divine Trinity. The humanized Son, self-emptied of his divine attributes, could no longer be a divine subsistence in the Trinity [perichoresis]. Hence this kenosis of the Son must mean the destruction of the Trinity. The theory is not less subversive of other fundamental truths of Christian theology. No ground of an atonement in the blood of Christ could remain. That the Son once existed in the divine Trinity, and in the plenitude of the divine life, could avail nothing for such an atonement. If self-reduced to the measure of a man, his death could be no more saving than the death of a man. No ground of the sympathy of Christ could remain, as that sympathy is revealed in the Scriptures, and as it must be in order to meet the exigencies of Christian experience. Such a sympathy we have found to be possible only through the divine consciousness of human experiences of suffering and trial. But there can be no such consciousness in the mere human consciousness to which this kenoticism limits the incarnate Logos. A theory with such implications can have no ground of truth in the Scriptures." Miley, J. (1893). Systematic theology, volume 2 (p. 62). New York: Hunt & Eaton.
I just lost a third of what I tried to post, here's the last part (I lost the middle part)
And Indeed that Christ Was Not Only Man, But God Also; That Even as He Was the Son of Man, So Also He Was the Son of God.
“But lest, from the fact of asserting that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Creator, was manifested in the substance of the true body, we should seem either to have given assent to other heretics, who in this place maintain that He is man only and alone, and therefore desire to prove that He was a man bare and solitary; and lest we should seem to have afforded them any ground for objecting, we do not so express doctrine concerning the substance of His body, as to say that He is only and alone man, but so as to maintain, by the association of the divinity of the Word in that very materiality, that He was also God according to the Scriptures. For there is a great risk of saying that the Saviour of the human race was only man; that the Lord of all, and the Chief of the world, to whom all things were delivered, and all things were granted by His Father, by whom all things were ordained, all things were created, all things were arranged, the King of all ages and times, the Prince of all the angels, before whom there is none but the Father, was only man, and denying to Him divine authority in these things. For this contempt of the heretics will recoil also upon God the Father, if God the Father could not beget God the Son. But, moreover, no blindness of the heretics shall prescribe to the truth. Nor, because they maintain one thing in Christ and, do not maintain another, they see one side of Christ and do not see another, shall there be taken away from us that which they do not see for the sake of that which they do. For they regard the weaknesses in Him as if they were a man's weaknesses, but they do not count the powers as if they were a God's powers. They keep in mind the infirmities of the flesh, they exclude the powers of the divinity; when if this argument from the infirmities of Christ is of avail to the result of proving Him to be man from His infirmities, the argument of divinity in Him gathered from His powers avails to the result also of asserting Him to be God from His works. For if His sufferings show in Him human frailty, why may not His works assert in Him divine power? For if this should not avail to assert Him to be God from His powers, neither can His sufferings avail to show Him to be man also from them. For whatever principle be adopted on one or the other side, will be found to be maintained. For there will be a risk that He should not be shown to be man from His sufferings, if He could not also be approved as God by His powers. We must not then lean to one side and evade the other side, because anyone who should exclude one portion of the truth will never hold the perfect truth.” Novatian (c. 235, W) 5.621
14:10b Mutual Words and Works
The Father Would Not Have Used Different Words. Cyril of Alexandria: If, he would say, my Father had spoken anything to you, he would not have used any other words than these that I am now speaking. For so great is the equality in essence between myself and him that my words are his words, and whatever I do may be believed to be his actions. For, because he “abides in me,” by reason of the exact equivalence in essence, he himself does the works. For since the Godhead is one in the Father, in the Son and in the Spirit, every word that comes from the Father comes always through the Son by the Spirit. Every work or miracle is through the Son by the Spirit, and yet it is considered as coming from the Father. For the Son is not apart from the essence of the Father, nor indeed is the Holy Spirit. But the Son, being in the Father and having the Father again in himself, claims that the Father is the doer of the works. For the nature of the Father is mighty in operation and shines out clearly in the Son.
And one might add to this another meaning that is involved, suggested clearly by the principles that underlie the incarnation. He says, “I speak not of myself,” meaning, not in separation from or in lack of agreement with God the Father. For since he appeared to those who saw him in human form, he refers his words to the divine nature, as speaking in the person of the Father. It is the same with his actions. He almost seems to say, Do not let this human form deprive me of that reverent estimation that is due and befitting to me, and do not suppose that my words are those of a mere human or of one like yourselves. Rather, believe them to be in very truth divine words that would be just as fitting for the Father as they are for me. And he is the one who works, “abiding in me.” For I am in him, and he is in me. Do not think therefore that a mighty and extraordinary privilege was granted to the people of former days because they saw God in a vision of fire and heard his voice speaking to them. For you have in reality seen the Father through me and in me, since I have appeared among you, being in my nature God, and “have come visibly,” according to the words of the psalmist. And be well assured that in hearing my words, you heard the words of the Father. And you have been spectators of his works and of the might that is in him. For by me he speaks as by his own Word. And in me he carries out and achieves his wondrous works, as though by his own power. Commentary on the Gospel of John 9.
I never cease to be amazed at how refined doctrine is in Tertullian and how many things he says "were handed down," not that he invented. I don't know if that's what you are looking for or not, as I said, perhaps you could help me out. But let me be clear on this, anything which depotentiates Jesus in any way, whether ontologically or functionally (and functional kenoticism will always reduce to ontological kenoticism) is by the orthodox standards of the historic Christian faith "heresy," a departure from the very foundational truths of the church. I hope to finish that open letter in the next couple of days so I will link you to that if you like. If you have more questions before then I will certainly try to answer them (I appreciate your questions and interest). I'm not sure when I run out of room here but let me leave you with a quote and a link to an article on kenoticism:
We must first realize that no recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that ‘emptied himself’ in Philippians 2:7 meant that the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes. - Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology
In teaching, therefore, that Christ was truly man and truly God, the Scriptures teach that He had a finite intelligence and will, and also an infinite intelligence. In Him, therefore, as the Church has ever maintained, there were and are two wills, two energeiaior operations. His human intellect increased, his divine intelligence was, and is, infinite.” Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, 2:389-90).
tmsdecay.wpengine.com/m/TMS-Spring2019-Article-05.pdf
Here's a few more quotes but I need to run:
“Though he [the Son of God] was incorporeal, he formed for himself a body like ours. He appeared as one of the sheep, yet he remained the Shepherd. He was esteemed a servant, yet he did not renounce being a Son. He was carried about in the womb of Mary, yet he was clothed in the nature of his Father. He walked on the earth, yet he filled heaven. He appeared as an infant, yet he did not discard his eternal nature. He was invested with a body, but it did not limit his divinity. He was esteemed poor, yet he was not divested of his riches. He needed nourishment because he was man, yet he did not cease to nourish the entire world because he is God. He put on the likeness of a servant, yet it did not impair the likeness of his Father. He was everything by his unchangeable nature. He was standing before Pilate, and at the same time he was sitting with his Father. He was nailed on a tree, yet he was the Lord of all things.” Melito of Sardis (c. 170, E) 8.756
“You [gnostics] should not worry that, if He had been born and truly clothed Himself with man’s nature, He would have ceased to be God. You should not worry that He would lose what He was-while becoming what He was not. For God is in no danger of losing His own state and condition.” Tertullian (c. 210 W) 3.523
“Christ could not be described as being man without flesh, nor the Son of man without any human parent; just as He is not God without the Spirit of God, nor the Son of God without having God for His father. Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God - in one respect born, in the other unborn; in one respect fleshly, in the other spiritual; in one sense weak, in the other exceeding strong; in one sense dying, in the other living. This property of the two states - the divine and the human- is distinctly asserted with equal truth of both natures alike.” Tertullian (c. 210, W) 3.525
“For if the Word became flesh by a transfiguration and change of substance, it follows at once that Jesus must be a substance compounded of two substances-of flesh and spirit,-a kind of mixture, like electrum, composed of gold and silver; and it begins to be neither gold (that is to say, spirit) nor silver (that is to say, flesh),-the one being changed by the other, and a third substance produced. Jesus, therefore, cannot at this rate be God for He has ceased to be the Word, which was made flesh; nor can He be Man incarnate for He is not properly flesh, and it was flesh which the Word became. Being compounded, therefore, of both, He actually is neither; He is rather some third substance, very different from either. But the truth is, we find that He is expressly set forth as both God and Man; the very psalm which we have quoted intimating (of the flesh), that “God became Man in the midst of it, He therefore established it by the will of the Father,”-certainly in all respects as the Son of God and the Son of Man, being God and Man, differing no doubt according to each substance in its own especial property, inasmuch as the Word is nothing else but God, and the flesh nothing else but Man. Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two substances, saying, “who was made of the seed of David;” in which words He will be Man and Son of Man. “Who was declared to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit;” in which words He will be God, and the Word-the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person-Jesus, God and Man. Concerning Christ, indeed, I defer what I have to say. (I remark here), that the property of each nature is so wholly preserved, that the Spirit on the one hand did all things in Jesus suitable to Itself, such as miracles, and mighty deeds, and wonders; and the Flesh, on the other hand, exhibited the affections which belong to it. It was hungry under the devil’s temptation, thirsty with the Samaritan woman, wept over Lazarus, was troubled even unto death, and at last actually died.” Tertullian (c. 210, W) 3.525
Richard, You are totally wrong. Jesus clearly did not "know everything" as he did not know his 2nd coming - theres a clue for you.
Even JohnnyMac admits that Jesus did not use his divine prerogatives on earth.
Learn the difference between Ontology and Operative Protocol which Jesus followed.
There are 2 kinds of kenotic theory:
1)- actually the real kenotic theory that in no way undermines the divinity of christ.
2)- the ridiculously exaggerated version espoused by parties already anti-trinitarian, or drama-chasing "discernment ministries".
The kenotic Christ by Bill Johnson teaches that Jesus emptied himself of divinity but relied on the Holy Spirit so we too can do see the same works (and greater works) than Jesus. It's anti-Christ, anti-trinitarian and satanic to belittle Christ like this. This is an ascended master / New Age demonic teaching that cannot be support by scripture. And yes - Brown is smart enough not to confess this - but the same demonic spirit that peddles this false Jesus is the same one that really kick-started Brownsville. You can see people like Yonggi Cho, Wagner, Mike Bickle, Hedia Baker and even John Wimber pushing this kenosis heresy (that Brown endorses as well). Look up "power evangelism" or "KingdomNow" theology. "As he is, so are we." "As above, so below." "As within, so without."
I don't see how the kenosis theory is so bad. James White and Michael Brown said here that Jesus did his miracles by the spirit, and Jesus also said the words which I speak are the fathers. God also said to Moses (about Jesus), I will put my words in his mouth. So, where was Jesus divinity seen, if it was not in deed or word. Jesus also said, greater works than these shall ye do. So, the idea that we can do what Jesus did, What is so wrong with that. The only thing I can see that Jesus did that we can't do was to become a sacrifice for us, because he was sinless. But sinlessness is not divinity, since angels are also sinless.
Maybe someone can help with this question. Jesus divinity was so well hidden (in the above way mentioned) that some think he was not divine. If he did and said everything as a man, why is his divinity so ferociously defended, thanks
Veiling these divine glories and perfections is RADICALLY, RADICALLY different from no longer possessing them at all because you jettisoned them entirely! If you hold to this theory you are denying Jesus' deity in His incarnate state. That's the problem with this heretical theory.
@@dpastor6631 No, he makes a good point. He was still deity in his spiritual identity of the Logos. Yet his miraculous attributes were left behind when he became a man. Nowhere does it say he did his miracles by his own power. He gave all credit to the Father, and it must be observed he was given the Holy Spirit without measure. Why? If he had done miracles by his own power he would have glorified himself, which he could not do. It was the Father in him doing the works and who glorified him. This is what it says.
@@Mike65809 It's not a good point. It's a bait and switch. Bill Johnson keeps making the claim that if Jesus was fully God doing these miracles - he would not want to follow that Jesus. He wants to follow a Jesus that is fully man under the power of the Spirit so he can do the same works and even greater works. It's not traditional kenosis beliefs. This is a 'dominion kenosis Christ' or 'greater works kenosis Christ' heresy. Brown believes the latter - and is lying through his teeth in this interview.
He deleted that episode where he admitted the above quotes. He was arguing against Ps Anthony Wade. And as usual, Brown is capitalising on White's ignorance. Brown is an evil man to treat a friend like this.
Where does Scripture ever teach that Jesus had two natures? Chalcedon teaches heresy.
Chalcedon was wrong on so many issues. Jesus was God in his spiritual identity of the Logos. He did miracles by the Father in him. He didn't pretend to be a baby. He was a baby. He was a man, with the spiritual identity of the Logos, having the Holy Spirit without measure, being fully God in this way. Plus he had the DNA of the Father. There is no issue of separation or intermingling of natures!
Calcedonian was when? The church already had errors in their theology. Fighting for truth is a devilish sceem to led the church astray in doing what the lord has ordered!
The devil has one goal to stop the church in walking in obedience so he points out some intellectual groopies using them to hinder the Gospel of the kingdom.
@@grace4peace What will you teach the people once converted? Fighting for the truth is what we are supposed to do. See Jude 1:3.
Bill Johnson and his teaching, ministry, music, etc. is so cringe worthy. False teachings have always been so we need to be warned and aware of them. Our human mind cannot comprehend the mysteries of Yahweh. The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit to be praised and is Sovereign. The NAR nonsense is nonsense!!