Oneness Pentecostalism is really Twoness Pentecostalism

 

Some time ago I was having some discussions with a Oneness Pentecostal named James who was active in trying to plan and organize debates.  Certainly an area of great interest is debates between Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians on the subjects of theology proper and Christology.  With that in mind, what I communicated to James was that I didn’t believe debates between Trinitarians and Oneness were really profitable to anyone.  That prompted James to send me a link to an article on the blog “Near Emmaus” of Brian LePort titled “Is Trinitarian-Oneness Dialog Profitable?”  I copy it in pertinent part below:

Is Trinitarian-Oneness Dialog Profitable?

“The Society of Pentecostal Studies sponsored a Trinitarian-Oneness dialog from 2002-2007. When it was all said and done notable religious historian Daniel Ramirez of the University of Michigan (then of Arizona State University) told me he did not think it was very profitable. He gave his reasons publically in “A Historian’s Response: Final Report of the Trinitarian-Oneness Pentecostal Dialogue,”Pneuma, vol. 30, no. 2 (2008): 245-254. As a former Oneness Pentecostal who came to adopt the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodox his arguments were convincing to me. After hearing his thoughts I have rarely engaged Oneness Pentecostals in a conversation about the Trinity because I don’t expect it to go anywhere.”

“It has been my position that if anyone is going to change views from one side to the other it would be like it was for me. It would come through personal study and discussions with respectable people. It is unlikely that a Trinitarian scholar or a Oneness scholar will go into a “discussion” open to being converted by the other. It is a debate at best but hardly a real dialog.”—(Brian LePort) 

I didn’t respond to LePort’s blog but I did respond to James.  My main reason for believing that “debate” between Trinitarians and Oneness was not profitable was and is because they don’t even understand one another.  You can’t debate issues without understanding the issues you are debating.  So below is a highly revised version of an older post where I explain that Oneness actually teach two persons when the Father and the Son are in view.  What I have tried to focus on and bring out even more in this revised version is that this is an issue of communication and terminology.  You can’t communicate if you aren’t understanding one another. 

 

Today’s Oneness Pentecostals Teach Two Persons and Two beings

When I say, “Today’s Oneness teach two persons and two beings” let me be clear in my meaning. When speaking of the Father and the Son, when they have both in view, they have two numerically different beings and two numerically different persons in view.  And with regard to terms such as “person” and “being” I’m applying the same criteria to the various “Oneness” teachings as are used in Trinitarian theology wherein we say God is One Being and three Persons. So, why is this important?  Well, if Oneness Pentecostals claim that the Doctrine of the Trinity is heresy because it teaches that God is One in Being and Three in Person, then one would think they would be concerned when the same criteria is applied to their teachings only to discover they teach Two Persons and Two Beings when the Father and Son are in view (at least those Oneness Pentecostals who claim the Son is the one person of God). 

Keep in mind, I’m not saying that Oneness Pentecostals say they teach “two persons.”  They don’t as they wouldn’t exactly be Oneness if they did.  In fact, if you have many discussions with Oneness Pentecostals you will soon discover that they can ignore real personal distinctions, even in their own theology proper and Christology, so long as the word “person” is not used.  So, the question is not whether or not Oneness say “we teach two persons” but rather whether or not the Father and Son in Oneness Pentecostal teaching creates two numerically distinct, indeed, separate persons while at the same time denying that it is the case.

A fundamental question that must be answered is whether or not Oneness are truly modalists, i.e. modalist monarchians. If a claim is to be made that Oneness Pentecostals teach that the Father and the Son are only one person, then the claim must be made that they are modalists. I have seen the discussions among Oneness Pentecostals regarding “sequential modalism” verses “concurrent modalism.” This issue is irrelevant with regard to the number of persons posited by modalism as it must always be “one” person in order to meet the definition of modalism. Allow me to explain:

Modalism is both a theology proper and a Christology. This is why in the Christological sense it was also referred to as “Patripassian” (i.e. the Father suffered). So, in true modalism God is one being, one person (unitarian).  And while this divine person may interact with the world of man in different manifestations, there are no personal distinctions to be made between the manifestations as they cannot “really and personally” interact with each other.

In spite of this, all the Oneness I have communicated with in the past several years all teach real personal distinctions between the Father and the Son and real personal distinctions arise only from a distinction of real persons. Even Oneness Apologists teach these personal distinctions. Ross Drysdale would appear to teach that Jesus was a man who was indwelt by God. He states in a small but popular book he wrote If Ye Knew These Things) the following:

 

So we can see from this that the Son "Came into being" hence He cannot, as the Son, be eternal.

Neither could He have existed from all eternity in heaven, for He was a "male child, born of a woman." And such contradictions do not obtain in Heaven! The Son of God is a man, howbeit a perfect and sinless man.

If the Son was the Second Divine Person of the Godhead why did he say he could do "nothing?" The answer is obvious: "Son" does not refer to a "divine" person, but to a human "person," who in his own power can do nothing. Christ implies however that there is another "self" or "power" in him when he says, "Can do nothing of himself." Then who or what is doing these works? The answer we already know is the Father, who is resident in Him.

The Son, being a man, did not have eternal immortal life dwelling in him inherently. It is not the property of men to have divine and original God-life in them.

 

While these quotes would be great to show that apparently this particular apologist doesn’t believe the Son is God that is not the point. The point here is that to the Trinitarian, Drysdale is teaching two persons, one who is God, one who is man. Indeed, I would lump this in with Unitarian/Socinian or perhaps Dynamic Monarchian type Theologies/Christologies.

Here is Oneness Apologist Steven Ritchie from his booklet, “The Distinction between the Father and the Son”

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEEN THE FATHER AND SON

CHAPTER 3 JESUS IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV) informs us that Jesus as a Son is the Father’s Person “reproduced” as the express image of the Father’s “Person” as a human person. (p.6)

1 Peter 1:20 proves that the Son was “foreknown before the creation of the world.” A foreknown Son could not have always existed before being “foreknown.” Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 proves why the Son of God was called a Son in the first place. He was called a Son because of his virgin conception and birth from the virgin. Therefore the Son became a living Son by being granted life from the Father through his birth.

John 5:26 – “For as the Father has life in Himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.”  If the words of inspired scripture mean anything, then the Son of God could not have always existed as a Son before being “granted” a “life in himself.” (p.7)

 

CHAPTER 5 OMNIPRESENCE AND THE INCARNATION

For Hebrews 1:3 proves that Jesus is a reproduced copy of the Father’s substance of Being as a genuine human being. Although the Father’s substance of Being was copied, the Father’s Holy Spirit continued to exist as the unchangeable God who continued to fill heaven and earth.

The newly formed man Christ Jesus was able to be tempted as a fully complete human being just as he could pray as a fully complete human being. Therefore, Jesus could not be God with us as God, but rather, Immanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23) as a true man. (p.9)

God was not a man before the incarnation (Numbers 23:19) and He is not literally a man after the incarnation either. For the flesh of Jesus is not literally God; nor is the human spirit of Jesus literally God. For when God became a man, He became something distinct from God, a true man (a son).  1 Tim. 2:5 proves that there is only One true God the Father and one mediator between God and men, “the MAN Christ Jesus.” Thus we have One divine Person (the Father) and one human person (the Son). (p.10)

 

Ritchie makes it crystal clear when he states, “Thus we have one divine person (the Father) and one human person (the Son).  However, it is rare for a Oneness Pentecostal to be forthright.  Most Oneness Pentecostals, while acknowledging that Jesus the Son is a person and a man, and also acknowledging that the Father is a person and “spirit only,” would adamantly deny this results in two numerically distinct and separate persons.

David Bernard is decidedly Nestorian in his Christological mechanics (which, I suppose, is why he defends Nestorius to some extent). However, Nestorian mechanics also posits two persons internal to Christ, one divine and one human. The following quotes are from David Bernard’s book, The Oneness of God.  (DAVID K. BERNARD has served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors since inception and also serves as the General Superintendent of UPCI).

 

                         The Prayers of Christ (ch. 8)

What, then, is the explanation of the prayers of Christ? It can only be that the human nature of Jesus prayed to the eternal Spirit of God…. Through prayer His human nature learned to submit and be obedient to the Spirit of God (Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 5:7-8). This was not a struggle between two divine wills, but a struggle between the human and divine wills in Jesus. As a man Jesus submitted Himself to and received strength from the Spirit of God.

We do not say Jesus prayed to Himself, for that incorrectly implies Jesus had only one nature like ordinary men… Rather, we say the human nature of Jesus prayed to the divine Spirit of Jesus that dwelt in the man. (David Bernard)

                         Love Between Persons (Ch. 8)

John 3:35, 5:20, and 15:9 state that the Father loves the Son, and John 17:24 says the Father loved Jesus before the foundation of the world. In John 14:31 Jesus expressed love for the Father. All of these statements do not mean separate persons. (Is it not strange that these passages omit the Holy Ghost from the love relationship?) What these verses express is the relationship between the two natures of Christ. The Spirit of Jesus loved the humanity and vice versa. The Spirit loved the man Jesus as He loves all humanity and the man Jesus loved God as all men should love God. Remember, the Son came to the world to show us how much God loves us and also to be our example. For these two objectives to be achieved, the Father and the Son showed love for each other. God knew before the world began that He would manifest Himself as the Son. He loved that plan from the beginning. He loved that future Son just as He loved all of us from the beginning of time. (David Bernard)

With regard to prayers Bernard actually attributes “personhood” to “natures.” In other words Bernard is simply using the word “nature” in place of “person” and pouring the same meaning into it.  You see a nature does not pray or hear prayers, a person does. Prayers are attributable only to an intelligent, rational, self aware person. He also says that “as a man Jesus submitted Himself to and received strength from the Spirit of God.” A person submits, and if there is only one person in Christ He does not need to pray to Himself to submit to anything. But the main point I want to make is that Bernard attributes the actions of “person” to “nature.” An intelligent, rational, self aware person composes and offers prayer, not a nature. The equivocation is obvious, and Trinitarians clearly see Bernard teaching two persons, one God and one a man (Nestorian style).  In fact, this is actually teaching not only two persons but two beings.  One is the divine person/being (the Father) and the other a human person/being which came into existence at a point in time and interacts with the Father on a real personal level.  So the human person/being is created and therefore not God.

With regard to “love,” natures do not love, a person does. Love is as about as “personal” as you can get. Love is something a person does to another, this is not what one nature does to another.  A “nature” does not love, only a “person” loves.  However, Bernard teaches a relationship of love between two natures. Again, he has attributed the actions of a person to nature.  So while he does not say “two persons” he does in fact teach two personal subjects who love each other.  He tries to have real personal distinctions between two real personal subjects while claiming there isn’t two persons.   

Oneness Apologist Jason Dulle would agree with me in regard to “natures praying” (the title of each article is underlined):

Jesus Prayers

If Jesus was not praying because He truly needed divine assistance, then His prayers were deceptive because He made them seem like genuine prayers. Jesus was nothing more than a good actor, a hypocrite. If He faked His prayers for the sake of being an example, then did He fake His love and compassion toward those who came to Him seeking help for their souls? Jesus was not deceptive, and neither were His prayers….

To explain the prayers of Jesus as the human nature of Jesus praying to the divine nature of Jesus poses problems. For one, natures do not pray, people do. Secondly, the Scripture declares that He prayed to the Father, not Himself. It would make no sense for Jesus to pray to Himself. Surely if this was the case, there would have been no need for verbal expressions of prayer because Jesus could have communicated to the deity within Him in some transferable, telepathic manner. This is not the view of Scripture. (Dulle)

Love in the Godhead?

Some have tried to explain this exchange of love as Jesus’ human nature loving Jesus’ divine nature, and vice-versa. Trinitarians have particularly criticized this explanation, pointing out that it reads something into Jesus’ words that He did not say, and makes Jesus’ statements meaningless when interpreted according to the normal use of language. We must agree that Jesus did not say His divine nature loves His human nature. Also, such an approach assumes an unbiblical definition of "Son," attributing it strictly to Jesus’ humanity, to the exclusion of His whole person which includes His deity. (Dulle)

                           Avoiding the Achilles Heels…

 

Furthermore, Jesus said, "…even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15:10b). One cannot keep their own commandments and abide in their own love.  Such a statement implies the existence of one who gives the commandment, and one who keeps the commandment; one who loves, and one who abides in that love. (Dulle)

 

Reifying Natures

 

“The standard way of [Oneness] explaining the distinction of activity/consciousness between the Father and Son is to appeal to a duality of natures.  The human nature of Jesus is said to do X, while the divine nature of Jesus (the Father) is said to do Y.  On this account, Jesus’ prayers can be explained as the human nature praying to the divine nature.  What I find interesting about this explanation is that it simply swaps the word “person” for “nature.”  What Trinitarians refer to as “two persons,” we refer to as “two natures.”  Functionally speaking, the two phrases are equivalent, for both admit the presence and distinction of two metaphysically distinct entities.  On the Trinitarian view, there are two metaphysically distinct persons in communion with one another, whereas on the OP view, there are two metaphysically distinct natures in communion with one another.  The only substantive difference is that on the Trinitarian view both entities are divine, whereas in the OP view one is divine and one is human.”—Jason Dulle

With that in mind, does Dulle find a way to avoid teaching two persons or does he simply deny he does so just as the other Oneness teachings he criticizes?  Dulle is also unable to avoid teaching two persons/two beings.  His Christology also makes these personal distinctions.  For example, he readily admits that it would make “no sense for Jesus to pray to Himself.” He correctly points out that natures do not pray or love, persons do. Unlike Bernard, Jason has made these distinctions of persons external to the Son rather than internal to the Son believing that this somehow avoids a Nestorian Christology. I have referred to this as both “ultra-Nestorian” and “neo-arian.” Bottom line, distinctions of persons. I wish to be clear, Jason also does not say “two persons” any more than any other Oneness apologist including David Bernard who, as I pointed out exchanges the word “nature” for “person” (and as Dulle just pointed out well) but Dulle also assigns personal attributes to two numerically distinct personal subjects (the Father and the Son) who actually exist, one who is not the other, i.e. they are numerically distinct persons.

This statement of Jason’s sums up personal distinctions: “One cannot keep their own commandments and abide in their own love.” This is why Jason equivocates when using terms such as I, me, myself, you, he, we, us, etc.  It is not my intention at this point to give an exhaustive critique of Dulles theology/Christology. My point is that once again, the Trinitarian recognizes two persons in what he is teaching, equivocation notwithstanding.

Keep in mind, it is also not my intention to proffer an argument that asserts such divergent explanations of Oneness prove the neo-Oneness of today wrong (it would be an illogical argument for one thing) although some of the differing views are mutually exclusive. I have given these examples of divergent theologies/Christologies from among Oneness apologists to emphasize my point that none of them teaches modalism, though Bernard claims modern Oneness are modalists. And when both the Father and the Son are in view, none of them teach one person though it is an almost universal claim of Oneness Pentecostals. 

In true modalism, just as there is no “person” of the Son to suffer, only the person of the Father, so with all else (thus the term patripassian). Within the context of the current examples, in that only a person can pray (not nature) and love (not nature), then in true modalism there can only be one person who prays and one who loves, only one person to predicate all personal actions and experiences of. So the true modalist must explain the prayers of Jesus away in some fashion that does not teach he was truly praying to another. Years ago a true modalist I had a discussion with attempted to argue that all of the prayers of Jesus were only an example. The same can be said of love. There cannot be a “real personal relationship” of love between the Father and the Son in modalism as there is only one personal subject. That same modalist I spoke to years ago attempted to argue that passages regarding love between the Father and the Son were merely parabolic language. Of course, this is just the beginning of problems for the true modalist, but I point this out to give you a point of reference. 

This would probably be a good time to offer a definition of “person.”  The question has often been asked by Oneness Pentecostals, "What is the definition of person in theology?" Well, that can get pretty technical and unless you live in the land of scholastic philosophy, starting at the technical end might not be real helpful. I always like to try to give non-technical terms that the layperson can understand so I have cherry picked some definitions. Hopefully, these will serve the layperson well in distinguishing the meaning of person from substance/essence/nature.  I offer this to provide understanding for what is meant by the term “person.”  If the following criteria are present, then the criteria for “a person” is met:

Person (noun):

 

The self, the I, is recognized in every act of intelligence as the subject to which that act belongs. It is I that perceive, I that imagine, I that remember, I that attend, I that compare, I that feel, I that will, I that am conscious. Sir W. Hamilton. (Webster?s 1913)

 

The following is a short excerpt of a much larger scholastic definition of person from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

the person exists in himself and for himself; he is sui juris, the ultimate possessor of his nature and all its acts, the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes; (excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Person)

 

And one more short excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia and an article on the communicatio idiomatum, insofar as it defines person for the layperson:

 

Person: in ordinary language, all the properties of a subject are predicated of its person;

 

Lastly I would add that only a person experiences subject/object awareness of himself and experiences all other persons/selfs objectively.

 

That is pretty basic but more helpful than “a person is a who and a nature is a what” and in my opinion very useful. I believe in only being as technical as necessary to explain something. Nothing here is going to conflict with the more technical scholastic definition though.  Also, as we move forward I will use the phrase “numerically distinct” with regularity.  It would be helpful to point out that if x is numerically identical with y then everything true of x is true of y.  In other words, if the Father and the Son are the same person then everything true of the Father is true of the Son, this is an escapable fact.

With this definition in mind, all the Oneness apologists I quoted above have, according to Trinitarian definitions (and the universal definitions of theology in general), taught two persons, one who is the Father and one who is the Son. In fact, not only have each of them taught two persons, but each of them has also taught two separate personal beings.  What is the criteria upon which I base this?  With the Trinitarian definition/criteria for person in mind let’s take a look.

One personal being is the eternal God who is Father; the other is a created personal being, the Son.  Why do I say this?  Let me explain.  In each of these explanations the Father who is eternal can give love (as the subject) and the Son, who is created, can receive it (as the object).  What is predicated of the Father is not predicated of the Son and vice versa. This is called a subject/object distinction meaning simply that the subject of the verb is not the object of the verb, they are two numerically different things. Each of the explanations posits a real personal relationship of love between two numerically distinct personal subjects. 

Likewise the Son can initiate communication (as the subject) and the Father can be the object of the communication.  What is predicated of the Son is not predicated of the Father and vice versa. Again we have real communication between two numerically distinct personal subjects, one person who initiates communication and one person who receives the communication. All of the Oneness apologists above state the Son was truly praying to someone other than Himself. Once again, a subject/object distinction when the Son prays and the distinction is personal since only a person can formulate prayers and only a person understanding and receives prayer.

In other words, what is posited of the person of the Father is not posited of the person of the Son and vice versa.  In fact, what is predicated of the Father cannot be predicated of the Son and vice versa.  So when personal actions are “predicated” of “the person of the Son” that cannot be predicated of “the person of the Father,” and personal actions are predicated of “the person of the Father” that cannot be predicated of “the person of the Son,” you have two different/numerically distinct persons upon which are predicated mutually exclusive personal acts.

All of the Oneness apologists above assert that there are two numerically distinct personal subjects (i.e. persons) who interact with each other, one the eternal Father who is God and the other being the Son who did not come into existence until his conception in the womb of Mary.  Oneness can say what they want to each other but to Trinitarians it is painfully obvious that all of the above apologists had one personal subject before the birth of Jesus, and two numerically distinct personal subjects (who interact with each other on a personal basis) after the birth of Jesus, the Father and the Son. Further, since the “person” of the Son had no actual existence before his conception and birth, especially in relation to the Father, the Son is a personal being which is not eternal, meaning he is finite and created. And finite created personal beings are by definition not God. The end result is that all of the explanations the Oneness apologists above offer of the relationship of the Father and the Son posit two separate and numerically distinct personal beings, one eternal and infinite, the other created and finite.

I have actually not offered this for debate but for explanation, or understanding. All things being equal, applying the same criteria to words such as “person” and “being” to both Trinitarian and Oneness explanations, Trinitarians teach One God who is One in being, three in person.  One of those persons (the Son) was incarnated (having eternally existed before being conceived in Mary’s womb) and was born as a man without division of His person. All of the Oneness apologists have in the end taught a unipersonal God who caused a woman to conceive a human child. This child, this person called Jesus Christ the Son of God interacted with God the Father on a personal level. When the Father and Son are in view, there are two numerically distinct persons and two numerically distinct beings in view, one uncreated, eternal and infinite (the Father), one created, temporal and finite (the Son).

 

It is interesting to me that Oneness, in spite of all of the real personal distinctions they make between the Father and Son, indeed, in spite of positing a personal relationship between the Father and the Son, deny they posit two persons by simply equivocating and not using the word “person.”  So they have “two natures,” “two different modes of existence,” “two different manifestations” and so on.  Origen said:

"Let everyone, then, who cares for truth not be concerned about words and language. For in every nation there prevails a different usage of speech. Rather, let him direct his attention to the meaning conveyed by the words (rather than to the nature of the words that convey the meaning), especially in matters of such importance and difficulty..." Origen (c. 225, E), 4.380

Certainly you have to remember Juliet saying to Romeo:  "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." 

Juliet’s point was that were Romeo’s name not “Montague” he would still be the same person that she loved.  And it is true, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet because it would still be a rose.  In a nutshell, this is what I’m explaining about the Oneness Pentecostal explanations of the Father and the Son.  If a Oneness Pentecostal use words or phrases such as “nature,” “mode of existence,” “manifestation,” and if one can say of these words or phrases the following: 

Nature; mode of existence; manifestation:

is recognized in every act of intelligence as the subject to which that act belongs. It is I that perceive, I that imagine, I that remember, I that attend, I that compare, I that feel, I that will, I that am conscious.

exists in himself and for himself; he is sui juris, the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes actions.

Then they have merely replaced a different word or phrase for the word “person” as you pour the same meaning into it.  I have already pointed out above how all of the Oneness apologists I quoted are merely using a different word or phrase for the word “person” and using it in its place. Additionally, in that one of these “persons” begins to exist this person is a new existence (being) and in that this person begins to exist it must be created.  All created things are by definition finite, and finite things by definition are not God.  Thus two separate persons and two separate beings.

With regard to the terminology/equivocation issue some have said that it is “unfair” to point this out.  Well, there is nothing “unfair” about being factual and certainly nothing unfair about understanding.  Trinitarian doctrine teaches that God is one in being and three in person.  Oneness Pentecostals assert that Trinitarian teaching is incorrect and counter that God is one in being and one in person.  So when Oneness Pentecostals claim that Trinitarian teaching is wrong they must be using the Trinitarian definitions of “being and person.”  Likewise, when Oneness, contrary to Trinitarian teaching, make the claim that God is one in being and one in person they must also be using Trinitarian definitions of “being and person.”  And based on these definitions an examination of Oneness teachings demonstrate that Oneness theologies contain two beings and two persons, one God and one man.

The idea of discussion is pointless without understanding (how much more pointless is debate when because of terminology the wrong issues are being debated).  Let me be clear, Oneness simply denying that they do not teach two separate beings and two separate persons does not change the fact that they are doing just that according to the same criteria by which Trinitarians say God is one in being and three in person.  Keeping in mind that Oneness claim that Trinitarian doctrine is incorrect, how is it they don’t mind teaching that the Father and the Son are two separate beings and two separate persons?  But more importantly, much more importantly in fact, since that is what they teach (all things being equal, i.e. criteria for “being” and “person”) why continue to equivocate?  Why not have open and honest discussions regarding what you actually believe with understanding?  Look above and look at the criteria for a moment instead of the word “person.”  At any rate, until the terminology and equivocation issues are addressed, real profitable discussion and debate are pointless, I don’t see how it is even possible.

 

 

The heresy of Functional Kenotic Christology is prevelant in Evangelical circles including universities.

Dear Dr. X, 

Thank you for your response, I deeply appreciate your time. I hope you will not mind if I follow up with you. I also want you to know that I am not some fire breathing heretic hunter on the internet. What you are teaching is referred to as “functional kenoticism” (if I am understanding you) and seems almost ubiquitous in evangelical circles. I have several well known commentaries that say exactly what you have said…at least in regard to Jesus being ignorant from Bethlehem to Calvary. I listened to the lectures of  Mr. XXXXX on Christology and sure enough, in the last 15 minutes of his last lecture he does a hard right turn into “functional kenoticism.” Recently I corresponded with my former Pastor in California who is teaching that Jesus only had one mind as a result of the incarnation, a human mind (this is of course ontological kenoticism). He claimed that it was not any type of kenotic Christology, that his teaching was thoroughly Chalcedonian, and he would not discuss if further. Incidentally, although I disagree with you, I certainly appreciate the way you say it as so many others say Jesus was ignorant as a result of the incarnation rather than from Bethlehem to Calvary. It is unclear whether they believe the incarnation has now ended or whether they believe Jesus to still be ignorant. 

I will address the Scriptures you mentioned but at the outset allow me to ask you to define your terms (if you have time) which will help me to better understand what you are saying. You said, 

“My way is to say that He gives up use of the incommunicable attributes for the season from Bethlehem to Calvary. Others have different suggestions for how that can be. He continues to be the Word and fully God. To give up use of those attributes does not in any way suggest that He gives up the attributes themselves.” 

My question is, how does what you just said differ from “Functional Kenoticism” as you understand it? Here is my understanding of “Functional Kenoticism” (though what you just said would work as well):

“The other camp is a much weaker claim and is a functional kenoticism. This is where in the incarnation the Word doesn’t exercise certain divine attributes but still retains them in his person. He just chooses not to use them. So, the issue’s not that he doesn’t retain them but that he doesn’t exercise them whilst incarnate on earth… And while Functional Kenoticism is probably more attractive it is still equally unorthodox.” – Dr. Craig Hamilton 

In the incarnation [of functional kenoticism], the Son does not set aside certain divine attributes [as in ontological kenoticism]; instead, the self-limitation of the Son is functional, as he chooses not to exercise his divine attributes. In his humanity, the Son relies on the power of the Spirit to live, act, and obey the Father’s will for our salvation. -- Wellum, Stephen J. God the Son Incarnate (Foundations of Evangelical Theology) (pp. 405-406). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

 I hope you can understand my confusion because what you were teaching in your lecture sounded exactly like functional kenoticism. This holds true for what you said to me in your response above. This is why I was pointing out the problems even with functional kenotic Christology, to wit

“…The functionalist account…still requires too much of the traditional understanding of God and the Incarnation to be given up. Withholding the exercise of certain divine attributes for the duration of the Incarnation implies a real change in the Word from his preincarnate to his incarnate state that is monumental…” – Oliver Crisp, Divinity and Humanity 

This is the reason I previously pointed out some of that “real change” to the Divine Nature even in functional kenotic Christology. For example, “omniscience” isn’t something God “uses,” it is something God IS, just as God IS Love, God is identical with His attributes (at least according to historic Christian Faith). What’s more is that omniscience and omnipresence are not things that are used in the since that God uses His omnipotence (i.e. just because God could heal everyone does not mean He must heal everyone). Omniscience and omnipresence are states of being, they are not things that are used, they are what God is. God is pure knowledge and thus, God IS all knowing at all times. It is what He IS not what He does. Likewise with omnipresence, it is something God IS (existing everywhere present at all times), not something He does. Omniscience and omnipresence are not something God “uses” or could choose to cease “using,” it’s what God necessarily IS. 

Interestingly enough, those who originally proposed “kenotic Christology” tried to remain within the confessional standards of the Historic Christian Faith (on the other hand, evangelicals seem to be unaware that their functional kenoticism falls well outside the lines of orthodoxy). Gottfried Thomasius, a Lutheran theologian in the 1800’s and one of the original kenoticists, put God’s attributes into different groups. He theorized that not all of God’s attributes were “essential” attributes, some were “relative attributes,” among them omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Jesus could give these “relative attributes” up while on earth and still be “essentially” God in every respect. 

The functional kenotic Christology that is so prevalent in evangelicalism today is just a poorly thought out more ad hoc version of this early kenotic theory. Think about it, rather than make the claim that the “incommunicable attributes” of God are “relative attributes” such that God does not need them to be God, evangelicals simply make the claim that the “Son of God” chose not to operate in them. If Thomasius had believed he could simply make the claim that Jesus could possess the incommunicable attributes but not operate in them from Bethlehem to Calvary, he surely would have done so. It would seem he believed claiming the incommunicable attributes were not essential attributes of God, allowing the Son to divest Himself of them and still claim to be fully and essentially God, kept him much closer to confessional standards than making the untenable claim that Jesus merely chose not to “use” His attributes (and I say again, omniscience and omnipresence are not attributes of “use,” they are states of being).    

“However, if Jesus Christ gave up being omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, then in effect he was no longer God. Can God cease to exist? Can divinity simply be turned on and off like a light switch? God is immutable (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17), meaning his nature cannot change. However, Kenosis offers us a changing god. The Kenosis theory destroys the Trinity, as if Jesus emptied himself of his divine attributes he could no longer be a divine subsistence in the Trinitarian life. Jesus Christ holds this world together (Col 1:17). If he turned off his divinity, the universe and everything in it would cease to exist.” -- Dr. Joseph R. Nally 

 Clearly if Jesus was not omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent for any reason including some type of self-imposed restriction, He could not hold the very universe together (col. 1.17, heb. 1,3), the perichoresis of the Son would end (jn. 1.15), and so on. I say “if Jesus was not” for the sake of argument as I have made clear this simply isn’t possible according to the historic doctrines I have previously mentioned. I also see a contradiction in what you said to me at the beginning of your response wherein you said: “The eternal Son, the second member of the Trinity is omniscient, omnipresent, etc., fully consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit. So we are not talking about that at all. What we are talking about is the Jesus specifically says He is not omniscient in Matt. 24:36.  My way is to say that He gives up use of the incommunicable attributes for the season from Bethlehem to Calvary.” 

A contradiction is claiming that: Something is A and not A in exactly the same way at exactly the same time. Now something either is or is not omniscient, it is a truth statement to which the law of excluded middle certainly applies. So what you have communicated to me is: The “eternal Son is omniscient” but “not omniscient” (from Bethlehem to Calvary) in the same way at the same time. I know you said you “reject kenotic Christology, that He laid aside His divinity or even His divine attributes. What I am suggesting is that He gave up use of them.” As I pointed out, these are attributes of “being,” not something you merely “use” when you desire to. But even if I allow this for the sake of argument, if a person is omniscient, they are all knowing at every time t. If that someone does not know something and any time t, that person is not omniscient at that moment, the reason for the lack of omniscience is irrelevant. Your claim that if it was some type of self-imposed amnesia or limitation of knowledge notwithstanding, your Jesus is not omniscient from Bethlehem to Calvary. Your claim creates the same contradiction with all of the incommunicable attributes. Additionally, as Dr. Nally points out above, the Divine attributes are not simply something that can be turned on and off like a light switch. 

Let me turn my attention to the text you mentioned, Matt. 24:36 (and the sister passage, Mk 13:32). Let me begin by saying something I am sure you know…what a text says and what it means are two different things. With that in mind, the texts in question no more say Jesus “was not omniscient” (as you claim) than Gen. 8:1 says that God forgot about Noah floating in the Ark in a world He had just flooded. If the passages were read in such a fashion we would also have to conclude that the Holy Spirit was not omniscient (something anti-Trinitarians also do with these passages). I understand why someone may conclude that, but it is not what they say, and it is certainly not what they necessarily mean. To save myself a great deal of writing I offer this excellent article from Maranatha Baptist Seminary titled, “Mark 13:32 Problem or Paradigm?” 

https://www.mbu.edu/seminary/mark-1332-problem-or-paradigm-2/

The possible solutions discussed in this article have been debated for years but the important point is what qualifies as an orthodox solution and what does not. Any assertion that Jesus does not, at every moment, know the day and hour of His return, for whatever the reason, is unorthodox. Functional kenoticism, which makes this assertion, is unorthodox. You will note that every orthodox solution in this article is dedicated to the truth that Jesus must always know the day and hour of His return, He must remain consciously omniscient. It turns out that Hilary and Augustine were basically correct, that it was a figure of speech meaning no one could make it known. 

The answer is fairly simple in that during a Jewish betrothal the groom would leave his fiancée to build additional rooms at his father’s house and when this was completed, he could return for his bride. However, it was Jewish custom that only the Father could "make known" when it was time to return (which prevented anxious grooms from building tents and quickly returning for their bride). So the bride to be would ask the groom, “When will you return?,” and the response was always supposed to be, “No one knows but my father.” Keep in mind that usually the son did know the time but in spite of this the response was always, “No one knows but my father.” 

Please note that at Matt 24:42 Jesus tells them to keep watch. More importantly, at 25:1, still speaking of the time of His return (with knowledge of it) says, “At that time” and picks up with the wedding motif. Matt 25:6 reads, “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’” So with regard to His return it will be like a Jewish wedding, and you will know when the bridegroom is returning because you will see him returning. Matt 25:13, “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.” The Jews that Jesus was speaking to would have immediately known what He meant in saying, “No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” 

Now with regard to the death of Lazarus in John 11 you say, “The story in John 11 completely relies on the point that Jesus, the Word become flesh, is NOT with Mary and Martha and Lazarus which means the God-man is not omnipresent.” I believe you refer to the fact that Jesus purposely waited until Lazarus had died, information which Jesus had within Himself, not that He was told. It is also information that Jesus shared with the Disciples and in fact had to make clear to them because they had misunderstood what He had meant by saying Lazarus had “fallen asleep.” 

There is nothing in this entire narrative to suggest that Jesus was not omnipresent. Was Jesus with Lazarus bodily/physically when he died? No, and that is part of the story. But as you point out, Jesus is the God-man, not just a man. What is important to the story is that Jesus was not with Lazarus as a man when he died because that is how all the people knew Him…as a human being standing before them, they had not yet come to realize all that Jesus was…and this is also part of this very story which, in the end, would be evidence of His divinity, not His humanity. The important point here is that orthodox Christology, while insisting on the omnipresence of the Son, including from Bethlehem to Calvary, does not teach that He is bodily/physically omnipresent. Such a suggestion prompts me to ask whether or not you believe Jesus is still the God-man and if so do you believe He is bodily/physically incarnate everywhere or do you believe He has eternally given up being omnipresent? 

The point is that Jesus was omnipresent from Bethlehem to Calvary (and now for that matter) in exactly the same way He has always been omnipresent, through the attributes of divine nature. Human nature is not omnipresent and thus Jesus was not bodily everywhere. While this fact is evident in John Chapter 11, it does not, as I said, indicate in anyway that Jesus did not continue to exist through His omnipresent divine nature. 

“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 [i.e. the Divine Nature] 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 

“For He was not, as might be imagined, circumscribed in the body, nor, while present in the body, was He absent elsewhere; nor, while He moved the body, was the universe left void of His working and Providence; but, thing most marvelous, Word as He was, so far from being contained by anything, He rather contained all things Himself; and just as while present in the whole of Creation, He is at once distinct in being from the universe, and present in all things by His own power — giving order to all things, and overall and in all revealing His own providence, and giving life to each thing and all things, including the whole without being included, but being in His own Father alone wholly and in every respect —2. thus, even while present in a human body and Himself quickening it, He was, without inconsistency, quickening the universe as well, and was in every process of nature, and was outside the whole, and while known from the body by His works, He was none the less manifest from the working of the universe as well. 3. Now, it is the function of soul to behold even what is outside its own body, by acts of thought, without, however, working outside its own body, or moving by its presence things remote from the body. Never, that is, does a man, by thinking of things at a distance, by that fact either move or displace them; nor if a man were to sit in his own house and reason about the heavenly bodies, would he by that fact either move the sun or make the heavens revolve. But he sees that they move and have their being, without being actually able to influence them. 4. Now, the Word of God in His man's nature was not like that; for He was not bound to His body, but rather was Himself wielding it, so that He was not only in it, but was actually in everything, and while external to the universe, abode in His Father only. 5. And this was the wonderful thing that He was at once walking as man, and as the Word was quickening all things, and as the Son was dwelling with His Father. So that not even when the Virgin bore Him did He suffer any change, nor by being in the body was [His glory] dulled: but, on the contrary, He sanctified the body also. 6. For not even by being in the universe does He share in its nature, but all things, on the contrary, are quickened and sustained by Him.” Athanasius (On the Incarnation, 17.1-6) 

Following in all points the confessions of the Holy Fathers which they made (the Holy Ghost speaking in them), and following the scope of their opinions, and going, as it were, in the royal way, we confess that the Only begotten Word of God, begotten of the same substance of the Father, True God from True God, Light from Light, through Whom all things were made, the things in heaven and the things in the earth, coming down for our salvation, making himself of no reputation (καθεὶς ἑαυτὸν εἰς κένωσιν), was incarnate and made man; that is, taking flesh of the Holy Virgin, and having made it his own from the womb, he subjected himself to birth for us, and came forth man from a woman, without casting off that which he was; but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in essence and in truth. Neither do we say that his flesh was changed into the nature of divinity, nor that the ineffable nature of the Word of God was laid aside for the nature of flesh; for he is unchanged and absolutely unchangeable, being the same always, according to the Scriptures. For although visible and a child in swaddling clothes, and even in the bosom of his Virgin Mother, he filled all creation as God, and was a fellow-ruler with him who begot him, for the Godhead is without quantity and dimension, and cannot have limits.” – Cyril of Alexandria (Epistle to Nestorius, Council of Ephesus c. 431) 

“For as ‘God’ is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so ‘Man’ is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each "form" does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind. For, as we must often be saying, he is one and the same, truly Son of God, and truly Son of Man.” – Leo, the Archbishop, written to Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople, Council of Chalcedon 

Any theory of the incarnation that asserts the Son of God was not always consciously omniscient as well as omnipresent and omnipotent is incompatible with the historic Christian Faith, i.e. the teachings of the early church as found in the Doctrine of the Trinity and its corollary doctrines as well as Chalcedonian Christology and its corollary doctrines. Functional kenotic Christology is so called because it is intended to “function” as “ontological Christology” without claiming Jesus actually divested Himself of any divine attributes. As I pointed out earlier, functional kenoticism is as heretical as ontological kenoticism. Functional kenotic Christology would seem to be nothing more than a poorly thought work around for ontological Christology seeking the same result. 

“Kenoticism is the doctrine that in the incarnation the Logos emptied himself of his divine attributes, or compressed them into the measure and cast of the human; that he parted with his omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, and subjected himself to the limitations of a merely human life. These are the central ideas of the doctrine, though not all kenoticists hold so extreme a view.” Miley, J. (1893). Systematic theology, volume 2 (p. 59). New York: Hunt & Eaton. 

For those who subscribe to it I wonder if they believe the ECF’s would have accepted the claims of Apollinaris if he had said that while the Son possessed a rational human soul, He chose not to use it, rather than making the claim that Jesus did not possess a rational human soul. That would be “functional Apollinarianism.” I am quite certain that they would not have accepted it. How about all the theologians who originally proposed different forms of ontological kenoticism to reach the same end as functional kenoticism (see above), I wonder why they didn’t propose that Jesus simply “chose” not to use His incommunicable attributes. My guess is they thought it through and realized the number of contradictions that would arise from such an assertion. Further, I’m sure they knew that attributes such as omniscience and omnipresence are not attributes one uses like a superheroes use their superpowers, but a state of existence which cannot simply “be turned on and off like a light switch.” Therefore, they each tried to formulate a way, mainly by redefining exactly what it means to be God, so that Jesus could divest Himself of certain attributes while still being able to make the claim of being fully divine. Keep in mind that they were attempting to somehow stay withing the “confessional standards” of the historic Christian faith, not oppose it. 

“Both ontological and functional kenoticism attempt to remain within the church’s confessional standards and account for the biblical data, yet both views also attempt to reformulate the established orthodoxy regarding the identity of Christ, with the ontological variety doing so much more radically than the functional version.” Wellum, Stephen J.. God the Son Incarnate (Foundations of Evangelical Theology) (p. 423). Crossway. Kindle Edition. 

 I hope I have been able to explain why you certainly seem to be teaching functional kenotic Christology even in your response to me. I have some questions and I do not know if you will have time to answer them, but they are real questions seeking information I do not have, things which I am truly curious about. They are not finger wagging, condescending, rhetorical attacks on you in any way. Whether or not you have time to answer them, I believe they would provide even more insight into what I am trying to communicate. 

1. Outside what I have written to you are you familiar with what is defined as functional kenotic Christology? (The reason I ask is the few people I know that I have asked were unfamiliar with the term and what it meant and yet the teaching itself, as I said at the beginning of my letter, seems to be standard dogma these days in evangelical circles). 

2. As I asked at the beginning of this letter, how does what you just said in your response to me (and in your lecture) differ from “Functional Kenoticism” as you understand it and/or how I have explained it? 

3. May I ask how you came to your understanding? Was it through certain textbooks? 

The reason I ask is as far as I can tell, functional kenoticism is a recent development, much more recent than ontological kenoticism. In fact, at this point, I believe “functional kenotic Christology” is basically an inadvertent evangelical dogmatic tradition that may have begun from a misunderstanding and that others “passed on” believing it to be orthodox without ever carefully examining it. 

 Professor X, I want to thank you again for sharing your time and expertise with me. I really appreciate even the limited correspondence because let’s face it, very few people enjoy talking about theology proper and Christology even though it is the foundation of our faith. 

Blessings in Christ Jesus