Functional Kenosis

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Functional Kenosis

Post by darinhouston » Sun Jan 08, 2023 3:34 pm

Dizerner suggested a new thread to discuss his "functional kenosis" view - happy to do so - that means different things to different people but to my understanding is largely thought to be heretical by most Trinitarians.

dizerner

Re: Functional Kenosis

Post by dizerner » Sun Jan 08, 2023 6:08 pm

Yes, not all Trinitarians do, some consider it within the pale of orthodoxy. But the great irony is you will find in almost all orthodox Trinitarian preaching and writing is constantly using the language of Functional Equivalence over the Hypostatic Union, while denying it—employing the idea of real change.

The FE model fits the Biblical data better than the HU model, because the HU model posits the human nature of Christ is an addition instead of a transformation, making the human Jesus a non-personal associated add-on to the Divine Person, which invalidates all the Biblical language of change.

This ties back into some brands of Classical Theism that have an incorrect understanding of Aseity and Immutability—they make these ideas to mean God has NO WAY he experiences change, like God is a big static concrete block, instead of the correct understanding that SOME aspects cannot change.

Full Kenosis is how many mistakenly view Functional Kenosis, and makes them leery and wary of it—the idea that God literally divested his Godness altogether so that nothing in any way of the divine was retained or remained—Jesus is "de-Godded" as it were, divested of Godness.

Rather, what we see in the real humanity of Jesus, having limitations, having a God himself that he perfectly worships, is a transformational function God is capable of—rather than REMOVING the Word's attributes, the Word voluntarily does not use them, he "sets them aside" or some such idea.

Thus, when the Word becomes flesh, the Word retains his personal identity, when the human Jesus says "I shared glory (previously)" he does not mean "the divine person I am associated with used to and currently does share glory," but rather "the person that I actually am right now, used to share glory."

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Functional Kenosis

Post by darinhouston » Sun Jan 08, 2023 7:43 pm

Let's start by you explaining your theory as simply and completely as you can.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Functional Kenosis

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:00 pm

I don't know what category I would fit into, but here's my understanding of the scripture as I see it. Jesus, or should we say Jesus, at the direction of His Father, voluntarily laid aside almost all of His privileges as God (to the point that the scriptures can accurately say, "He emptied Himself"), during His life and ministry. But we do see "behind the curtain" at times, where He performs miracles that no man can do, or ever will - the feeding of the 5,000, turning water into wine, walking on water, calming the sea and the wind, the transfiguration, and raising Himself from the dead.

dizerner

Re: Functional Kenosis

Post by dizerner » Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:39 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:00 pm
I don't know what category I would fit into, but here's my understanding of the scripture as I see it. Jesus, or should we say Jesus, at the direction of His Father, voluntarily laid aside almost all of His privileges as God (to the point that the scriptures can accurately say, "He emptied Himself"), during His life and ministry. But we do see "behind the curtain" at times, where He performs miracles that no man can do, or ever will - the feeding of the 5,000, turning water into wine, walking on water, calming the sea and the wind, the transfiguration, and raising Himself from the dead.
But many believe Jesus functioned 100% dependent on the Holy Spirit during his life; he lived only out of his human nature to be a true substitute and example for us and live fully under the Law. All these miracles were done by other apostles and prophets at different times.

The things that show signs of divine attributes are that Jesus possesses life within himself (even if granted, it is still a divine attribute), that Jesus promised to destroy the power of death (life and death are classically only in God's power ultimately), and that Jesus could bestow absolute vertical forgiveness (as Lord of the Sabbath he was himself the Judge to whom all owed their sin). The disciples were granted power to forgive only because of and through Jesus. Jesus also co-created all things and upholds all things, clear divine attributes, as well as fully sharing God's throne and glory (which is never shared in an ultimate sense).

dizerner

Re: Functional Kenosis

Post by dizerner » Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:42 pm

darinhouston wrote:
Sun Jan 08, 2023 7:43 pm
Let's start by you explaining your theory as simply and completely as you can.
As completely as I can? Gosh, lol, we would be here all day, I'd have to post a book in here.

Let's start but a post explaining how I got started on this journey:

An honest inquiry into the nature of Christology by a Trinitarian

As a Trinitarian I can honestly recognize some logical problems with Christology as classically stated. Why wasn’t Christ more clear about the formulation we’ve come to hold, and why would he leave us logical dilemmas concerning it? Honestly these logical problems can seem strange and daunting and I’ve found fault with a lot of classic Trinitarian definition and jargon matching up with exactly how Scripture has presented itself to me. Someone may find interest in some modifications I’ve felt I’ve had to make to these standard explanations and enjoy my journey of thought.

I want to be up front about my methodology. It may be considered that in the end, one cannot understand the Bible by logic or the mind alone, and taken without a lens or key of revelation, we will constantly find what seems to us contradictions or obscurity in the Bible. I will up front confess that I completely and firmly hold to the idea of revelation alone, and that conversely the mind or logic, however you may understand that, must be insufficient for understanding spiritual truths. In that case, I would consider it urgent that all our study not only be bathed in intellectual arguments, but deep prayer and sincerity about the matter. I would never hide the fact that my personal beliefs are based on actual experience and I think it is definitely Biblical to do so.

I believe God is one being containing or pertaining to three individual personalities such that whatever makes up the three does indeed separate the oneness without completely losing it. Although I feel I can hold this idea in my thoughts, it does seem like a real paradox; yet I would say we find other such paradoxes in Scripture in the oneness of Christ and his bride, the unity of humanity in Adam, the unity of believers in the body of Christ, and the unity of those joined in marriage. Although the Scripture clearly portrays each individual as a real and separate individual, it also just as clearly portrays the whole as one true and viable entity, thought of in the singular; and forcefully so that it seems more than just mere metaphor. I was raised in an individualistic Western culture and it’s personally difficult for me logically and emotionally to consider myself in a corporate unity, so I don't feel I easily grasp it.

So where I have problems with the classic formulation or definitions I’ve seen, is the lack of ontological change in the incarnation. I just honestly can’t see that in the Scripture, which seems to very vividly and markedly describe a real change in the nature of Christ. I wouldn’t say I knew exactly what that change was, but it was certainly a change if I am going to be honest with the text and not come with a precommitment to make it fit what I have already decided. Jesus is said to have “become” something, to have “left” something, to have “emptied” himself of something, to have “taken on” something, to have “impoverished” himself in some way. This is dishonest speech when applied to no real ontological change. Jesus uses descriptions of locality and identity such as “I came from X” or “I know X” and uses time tenses such as “I shared (past tense) glory” in a definite time in the past that he did not share in the same way currently. This is misleading and disingenuous speech if we are to assume that an omni-being is speaking.

Sure, we can attempt to explain this away as heavy metaphor for a human nature manifesting itself, and thus the “real” Christ is the divine side of him, separate from all this human nature talk. Intuitively Trinitarians gravitate to descriptions that include some kind of temporary “setting aside” of divine attributes, whether we call it “veiling” them or making them “dormant,” basically any speech that turns them off without completely eliminating them. And this idea can preserve the whole structure of a classic understanding of the Trinity, giving the third person two natures and localizing him in the divine side. But the question I stared frankly in the face is, is that really what Scripture is doing here, making the man Jesus Christ just an “add-on” nature to a divine person? I could not walk away honestly feeling the Bible does that, and so somewhere I had to rework my understanding.

I believe the case for Jesus being divine is unavoidable, and not just “god-like” but actually pertaining to the uncreated Creator. Jesus is said to be exalted to a point that would be completely inappropriate, idolatrous and blasphemous for any entity, even the most powerful angel or holy man ever created. Jesus is said to accomplish things that no creature has the resources or ability to do, to expiate an infinite crime against the holiness of God, to contain the concept of life itself inside of him, to conquer death by his own power, and even be an integral part in creating all things. These are things a mere creature cannot do, and no one should ever be convinced that they could. But the question that still haunts all these ideas unassailably is: How can God becoming a man to die for the sins of the world mean he experiences no real ontological change?

Where you see the Unitarian always gravitating towards in their “gotcha” questions and problems, is always this singular problem of a logical contradiction in one thing consisting of two contradictory properties: something that is genuinely a creation contradicts in its most essential ontological nature with the properties of something that is genuinely uncreated, such we find as much incompatibility as a square being a circle or a bachelor being married. We lose all sense of comprehensibility or unity of thought by positing definitions that no longer seem to fit. And every Trinitarian I’ve ever seen anyway, would willingly admit to a very high degree of mystery and a limitedness to really fully comprehend it; and sometimes even, when cornered particularly badly, just completely punt to mystery.

So when Jesus Christ says “I came from the Father into the world,” whom (or what?) might we ask is speaking under classic Trinitarian formula: a human nature that is not a localized person? A divine omni-being with no limits or physicality? A combined entity with contradicting properties? An add-on nature using “baby talk” that doesn’t literally mean anything we normally understand it to mean? All these options proved unacceptable to me if I were going to not simply find comfort in my previous understanding, but give the real, honest and utmost reverence to the words I read in the Holy Scripture.

I have come to believe the Bible describes a real ontological change in the divine nature, such that what Jesus is after the incarnation is not exactly what Jesus is before the incarnation. I do not believe he lost his divine nature, but I believe becoming a created thing in some way radically altered it. This seems to violate standard definitions of God’s nature being unchangeable, but I must submit those standard definitions to the veracity of what the Bible is actually saying to me. If I am going to throw around the words “God became a man” as a Trinitarian, I will not then hypocritically backpedal every time a logical objection comes up, and say that God really can’t become a man, that’s impossible, all God did was add on a human nature to his unchanged divine personhood. That is not in any honestly conceivable way a description of the idea of one thing being transformed into another thing. The Bible is clear: Jesus left heaven, Jesus left the Divine attributes, Jesus left the glory of the Father, Jesus became a human being, Jesus lived a completely human life, and that is impossible for a being that is left unchanged ontologically, and I think in the end that idea devalues and denigrates the sacrifice, the cost, and the humiliation that the Second Person of the Trinity experienced in a real ontological change of some kind when he became an actual human being and died for our sins.

Do I then think Jesus is no longer God? No. I believe Jesus retains the divine nature completely, and is so-called “fully” God, but in some kind of changed state where he really experienced in his local identity what it means to be a human. And that formulation I find to be far more Biblical than the other, despite anyone that declares me off the reservation of orthodoxy. (I want to recognize I'm not the first to think of this idea, nor am I claiming to be, but I did come to it on my own!) We should be true to the Bible and not handed-down tradition, and I respect any man who would willingly be criticized or even ostracized for trying to be honest with the Bible.

God bless you for reading and considering, I pray he has mercy on us all and gives us all a more accurate understanding of himself. All thoughts are welcome.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Functional Kenosis

Post by Homer » Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:38 pm

Dizerner,

As far as I can see we are in agreement, I think. Jesus came from being the Word to being the Son which He will forever be.

Thanks, Homer

dizerner

Re: Functional Kenosis

Post by dizerner » Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:43 pm

Awesome.

It's really the most plain reading of Scripture.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Functional Kenosis

Post by dwight92070 » Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:06 am

Just a quick note before I finish reading all these posts. The idea that other prophets and/or apostles did everything that Jesus did, in my opinion, is not accurate.

First of all, the prophets or apostles either prayed to or depended on God to work a miracle. I don't think it's recorded that Jesus ever prayed for a miracle to happen. After He saw what the Father was doing, He depended on Himself and performed those miracles. He just commanded them and they happened. After all, in Him dwells all the fullness of Deity (including the Father) in bodily form. Yes, He did say in John 5:19 and 30 that the Son can do nothing of Himself UNLESS it is something that He sees the Father doing or hears the Father saying. But the Father was that fullness of Deity, just like He was. We know He was One with the Father, so when He saw or heard the Father, He acted and hundreds or even thousands were healed and delivered. No prophet and no apostle could possibly do that, in the way He did. No prophet and no apostle saw and heard what the Father was doing or saying, on a continual basis, like Jesus did.

Look at the last verse of John: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." This verse is probably hyperbole, but we know that Jesus must've have healed hundreds, maybe thousands, given the words of the New Testament. In Mark 1:33 it says, "The whole city (maybe hyperbole, but many hundreds for sure) had gathered at the door." at Peter and Andrew's home in Capernaum, to be healed and have demons cast out of them. Scholars believe around 1,500 people lived in Capernaum at that time. When did any other prophet or apostle perform mass healings or deliverance as Jesus did? Never. Just the sheer number of persons who were miraculously healed, delivered, saved, or served by Jesus far surpasses anyone else.

One prophet miraculously provided oil for a widow to live on. Jesus provided food for 5,000 people on one occasion and 4,000 people on another occasion, and we know those counts do not even include women and children. No prophet ever miraculously provided that much food. No prophet ever commanded the wind or the stormy sea to stop. No prophet ever turned water into wine. No prophet ever walked on the sea. What prophet transfigured Himself? What prophet or apostle raised Himself from the dead? What prophet predicted how and when He would die? What prophet exorcized one demon from anyone? (The apostles did that, but only after Jesus gave them the authority to do so) What prophet or apostle granted other people the power and authority to heal, cast demons out, and raise the dead? Only Jesus!

Nobody ever did everything that Jesus did.

dizerner

Re: Functional Kenosis

Post by dizerner » Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:43 am

I agree Jesus did more miracles than anyone else, but that could theoretically indicate only he is the greatest prophet (without the other arguments I listed).

Jesus did sometimes command miracles, but he also clearly prayed for them as well:

So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me. — John 11

He is clearly acknowledging that he requested this miracle from the Father rather than just doing it out of his own divinity.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”