# If God is infinite, how could He limit Himself in the person of Christ?



## JWesley (Jul 22, 2015)

Hello, my name is John and I'm writing for a homeschool speech and debate apologetics sourcebook. I have the question, "If God is infinite, how could He limit Himself in the person of Christ?" and was hoping y'all would have some thoughts on the subject.

I have quite a few ideas already but was hoping for help on two points:

1. How would you approach this subject a basic (middle/high school) level?

2. What are the best resources to recommend on this subject?

Thank you so much.

Grace and peace in Christ,
John


----------



## Shimei (Jul 22, 2015)

Through the Hypostatic union, God (2nd Person of the Trinity) did not lose but gained. I would think that from a Triune perspective, God did not limit Himself, but rather gained human qualities. Also, He became man in the person of Jesus Christ, accomplishing the redemption of the world. How can fulfillment be limiting?


----------



## JWesley (Jul 22, 2015)

Right, so basically a refutation of the Kenotic heresy - Christ adds to Himself a nature but does not lose anything. Hence He is still the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God whose essence is ineffable while also taking to Himself a true human nature (soul/body).

Am I on the right track?


----------



## jambo (Jul 22, 2015)

The two natures of Christ, his deity and humanity, were fully expressed in his person. His humanity was real (he was hungry, thirsty, tired, tempted etc) and this human nature was not enhanced by his deity. Likewise his deity was not weakened by his humanity. In Christ the fullness of the godhead dwelt in bodily form so although the human Christ may have limited by human restrictions,his deity remained infinite


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 22, 2015)

The initial question is part of the problem. You state the answer but the question "...how could God limit Himself...?" needs to be corrected.

The Son of God did not "limit Himself" in taking on flesh. The One Person remained fully God and took on human flesh (reasonable soul and body).


----------



## JWesley (Jul 22, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The Son of God did not "limit Himself" in taking on flesh. The One Person remained fully God and took on human flesh (reasonable soul and body).


Ohhhh I like that. Thank you. That's very helpful.

Do any of y'all have ideas for what resources to recommend to middle and high school students on the subject?


----------



## Shimei (Jul 22, 2015)

jambo said:


> The two natures of Christ, his deity and humanity, were fully expressed in his person. His humanity was real (he was hungry, thirsty, tired, tempted etc) and this human nature was not enhanced by his deity. Likewise his deity was not weakened by his humanity. In Christ the fullness of the godhead dwelt in bodily form so although the human Christ may have limited by human restrictions,his deity remained infinite



Awesome Jambo, 

Seems like John chapter 1 would be the main focus of discussion, topics and subjects pertaining to not only the allusions back to Genesis chapter 1, but also the Logos (creation and sustaining that creation simultaneously John 1:3), and the Hypostatic Union -minus "sin nature". I only have a single article to recommend on the Logos: In the beginning was the Logos.

Not much in the way of great commentary for the Hypostatic union though. Any suggestions? 

God bless,
Shim


----------



## timfost (Jul 22, 2015)

Also, keep in mind if you can fully explain this to any person, you've probably got it wrong, since the Trinity is "incomprehensible." Trinity = (1+1+1= ... 1)


----------



## Shimei (Jul 22, 2015)

timfost said:


> Also, keep in mind if you can fully explain this to any person, you've probably got it wrong, since the Trinity is "incomprehensible." Trinity = (1+1+1= ... 1)



Reminds me of a video by J.P. Moreland... regarding the incarnation and logic: 

[video=youtube;-UjC2G87kqo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UjC2G87kqo[/video]

The Chalcedon Creed may be worthwhile reading:



> We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the unity, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.



God bless,
Shim


----------



## Ken (Jul 22, 2015)

Here are a couple of Bible verses that cause one to ponder this issue:

In this verse notice where the LORD is, He is on earth as Christophany while also in heaven:
Genesis 19:24: _"24 Then *the LORD* rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire *from the LORD out of heaven*;"_

Here is a NT example where Jesus is on earth and God in heaven:
John 3:13 (KJV): "_13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven._"

This goes way beyond limitations!!!

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 22, 2015)

Any limitation is in the _mode_ of the Son's incarnate existence (cf the Reformed doctrine of theologia unionis and ectypal theology). But the Son's limited mode of existing doesn't exhaust the whole trinity, so God isn't technically limited. 

It depends on how we are using the term "God."


----------



## Shimei (Jul 22, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Any limitation is in the _mode_ of the Son's incarnate existence (cf the Reformed doctrine of theologia unionis and ectypal theology). But the Son's limited mode of existing doesn't exhaust the whole trinity, so God isn't technically limited.
> 
> It depends on how we are using the term "God."



What comes to mind also, is that during Jesus' death on the cross the universe didn't cease to exist, because God creates and sustains, His death was only "human". Likewise, I think, the logos though incarnate simultaneously sustains creation despite being "birthed" into flesh (He is, and at the same time He is the Heavenly Logos). For that matter, it would appear the same argument would apply to God having rested on the Seventh Day. Though He rested, "His higher workings" continue - John 5:17.

Your thoughts, anybody?

God bless,
Shim


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 22, 2015)

Shimei said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Any limitation is in the _mode_ of the Son's incarnate existence (cf the Reformed doctrine of theologia unionis and ectypal theology). But the Son's limited mode of existing doesn't exhaust the whole trinity, so God isn't technically limited.
> ...



Part of that is summed up in what we call the "extra calvinisticum," though it is found in the fathers. Also, "dying" doesn't mean cessation of being, either for humans or God. When we die we do not cease existence, nor do we return to the Void. We cease bodily existence, but not soul-ish existence. 

Of course, this isn't entirely analogous with God, but if it isn't a problem on the human plane, it's not on the divine.


----------



## JWesley (Jul 22, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Shimei said:
> 
> 
> > ReformedReidian said:
> ...



Where in the fathers specifically?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 23, 2015)

JWesley said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Shimei said:
> ...



Athanasius:

The Word was not hedged in by being present elsewhere as well. When He moved His body He did not cease also to direct the universe by His Mind and might. No. The marvellous truth is, that being the Word, so far from being Himself contained by anything, He actually contained all things Himself.

On the Incarnation 17

https://calvinistinternational.com/...and-repeating-the-past-a-liberal-methodology/

Richard Muller documents a good bit of this in _Christ and the Decree_. I hope your Latin is up to speed. But the slam dunk quote is the one by Athanasius. Most traditions agree (rightly, I think) that he is the greatest of the fathers (Gregory of Nazianzus called him the world's _Pope_).


----------



## Toasty (Jul 23, 2015)

JWesley said:


> Hello, my name is John and I'm writing for a homeschool speech and debate apologetics sourcebook. I have the question, "If God is infinite, how could He limit Himself in the person of Christ?" and was hoping y'all would have some thoughts on the subject.
> 
> I have quite a few ideas already but was hoping for help on two points:
> 
> ...



When Jesus took on human flesh, His divine nature did not change. When Jesus became a man, His divine nature did not change from infinite to finite. 

I think the questioner might have meant, "How can Jesus be both infinite and finite?" Jesus has two natures: divine and human. The characteristic of being infinite is an attribute of His divine nature. Being finite is an attribute of His human nature.


----------



## Toasty (Jul 23, 2015)

Shimei said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Also, keep in mind if you can fully explain this to any person, you've probably got it wrong, since the Trinity is "incomprehensible." Trinity = (1+1+1= ... 1)
> ...



In this video, Moreland assumes that "100% man" means "only having a human nature" and "100% God" means "only having a divine nature." Hence, he would think that saying Jesus is 100% man and 100% God is a contradiction. There is some ambiguity about what "100% man" and "100% God" means. Some people might think that "100% man" means "possessing all of the essential attributes of a human nature" and "100% God" means "possessing all of the essential attributes of a divine nature."


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 23, 2015)

Shimei said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Also, keep in mind if you can fully explain this to any person, you've probably got it wrong, since the Trinity is "incomprehensible." Trinity = (1+1+1= ... 1)
> ...



The Chalcedonian Creed is certainly worthwhile reading and study!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 23, 2015)

JWesley said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > The Son of God did not "limit Himself" in taking on flesh. The One Person remained fully God and took on human flesh (reasonable soul and body).
> ...



The Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------

