Answering Objections to the Incarnation

[siliconwafer]

I have heard non-Christians object to the doctrine of Christ's incarnation by saying the following:

God is infinite. Man is finite. A person cannot both be infinite and finite at the same time. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, but man does not have these attributes. A person cannot be both omnipotent and not omnipotent, omnipresent and not omnipresent, and omniscient and not omniscient at the same time.

How would you respond to this?

[apostoli]

I have heard non-Christians object to the doctrine of Christ's incarnation by saying the following:

God is infinite. Man is finite. A person cannot both be infinite and finite at the same time. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, but man does not have these attributes. A person cannot be both omnipotent and not omnipotent, omnipresent and not omnipresent, and omniscient and not omniscient at the same time.

How would you respond to this?

I'd simply argue that omnipotence, omniprecence & omniscience are Greek philosophical premises that can't be observed or proved. Then I'd appeal to A.Paul "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:20; NIV)

[RBerman]

I have heard non-Christians object to the doctrine of Christ's incarnation by saying the following:

God is infinite. Man is finite. A person cannot both be infinite and finite at the same time. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, but man does not have these attributes. A person cannot be both omnipotent and not omnipotent, omnipresent and not omnipresent, and omniscient and not omniscient at the same time.

How would you respond to this?

Is finitude itself a positive attribute of man? Or is finitude simply the absence of infinitude? If the latter, then there's no contradiction. Jesus' human nature contributes the lack of infinity, and Jesus' divine nature supplies that lack, so that the whole person of Jesus possesses infinity, by virtue of the divine nature's possession of that trait.

[siliconwafer]

I'd simply argue that omnipotence, omniprecence & omniscience are Greek philosophical premises that can't be observed or proved. Then I'd appeal to A.Paul "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:20; NIV)

Those are not Greek philosophical premises. The Bible teaches that God has those attributes.

[37818]

I have heard non-Christians object to the doctrine of Christ's incarnation by saying the following:

God is infinite. Man is finite. A person cannot both be infinite and finite at the same time. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, but man does not have these attributes. A person cannot be both omnipotent and not omnipotent, omnipresent and not omnipresent, and omniscient and not omniscient at the same time.

How would you respond to this?

The Son of God has always had two natures. One being with God (John 1:1, 2) and the other having the very nature of God (John 1:1, 3, Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16, 17.) It was the Son, the only begotten who is incarnated as a man (John 1:14.) The Son has always been the Son of God (see Mark 13:32.) But has always been God too (Isaiah 43:10, 11.)

[RBerman]

The Son of God has always had two natures. One being with God (John 1:1, 2) and the other having the very nature of God (John 1:1, 3, Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16, 17.)

Huh? Those are both the same nature, the divine nature, which was with God and yet was God. The human nature doesn't enter the picture until "the word became flesh" down in John 1:14.

[37818]

Huh? Those are both the same nature, the divine nature, which was with God and yet was God. The human nature doesn't enter the picture until "the word became flesh" down in John 1:14.

Yes, the human nature was a change from just having a divine nature. (John 1:14.) But prior to the incarnation being "with" God is not the same as "was God." (John 1:1). Those are two different things. v.2 again states the first, being "with God" emphasizing this. With someone is not the same as being that one. But the Word was both, but not the same Person (not the Father). see Mark 13:32.

[siliconwafer]

Is finitude itself a positive attribute of man? Or is finitude simply the absence of infinitude? If the latter, then there's no contradiction. Jesus' human nature contributes the lack of infinity, and Jesus' divine nature supplies that lack, so that the whole person of Jesus possesses infinity, by virtue of the divine nature's possession of that trait.

I have never thought of that before. Finitude is simply the absence of infinitude.

[The Remonstrant]

I have heard non-Christians object to the doctrine of Christ's incarnation by saying the following:

God is infinite. Man is finite. A person cannot both be infinite and finite at the same time.

If one has no room for accepting any kind of paradox or mystery, then Christianity, for one, is certainly out of the question.

God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, but man does not have these attributes. A person cannot be both omnipotent and not omnipotent, omnipresent and not omnipresent, and omniscient and not omniscient at the same time.

A passage like Philippians 2:5-11 is especially relevant to Christ's humility in assuming human flesh entering a fallen world and -- at least during his earthly tenure (i.e., first coming) -- not taking full advantage of the divine attributes. Jesus' forfeiture of omnipresence or being present in all places at all times is an obvious example. Also, Jesus didn't use his power to save himself from capture, violence, beatings and, finally, crucifixion. You could say Christ had the divine right to temporarily relinquish these attributes for the purpose of his mission of redemption.

[RBerman]

Yes, the human nature was a change from just having a divine nature. (John 1:14.) But prior to the incarnation being "with" God is not the same as "was God." (John 1:1). Those are two different things. v.2 again states the first, being "with God" emphasizing this. With someone is not the same as being that one. But the Word was both, but not the same Person (not the Father). see Mark 13:32.

Sure, of course being "with God" (i.e. the Son is a distinct person from the Father) is different than "was God" (i.e. the Son has the same nature as the Father). But you seemed to be saying that those two statements show the Son's dual nature of God and man, which is not the case. Perhaps I misread you?

[37818]

Sure, of course being "with God" (i.e. the Son is a distinct person from the Father) is different than "was God" (i.e. the Son has the same nature as the Father). But you seemed to be saying that those two statements show the Son's dual nature of God and man, which is not the case. Perhaps I misread you?

I believe in the immutability of God. (Malachi 3:6.) That God has always been, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That as God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal. That the Son of God has always had two natures, immutable and mutable. So when the Son who is equal to God, became man, only His mutable nature changed from divine to human. Adding a human nature to His divine nature is a change, but not of His divine nature. I also reject open theism. The Son of God who is God of the OT does away with open theism. (Note Mark 13:32. The Son never changed in this, and was always also equal to God the Father.) God being omniscient.

[RBerman]

I believe in the immutability of God. (Malachi 3:6.) That God has always been, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That as God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal. That the Son of God has always had two natures, immutable and mutable. So when the Son who is equal to God, became man, only His mutable nature changed from divine to human. Adding a human nature to His divine nature is a change, but not of His divine nature. I also reject open theism. The Son of God who is God of the OT does away with open theism. (Note Mark 13:32. The Son never changed in this, and was always also equal to God the Father.) God being omniscient.

You're engaging in a category confusion here. Why do you believe the Son of God has always had two natures? You are correct that the incarnation of Christ did not change his divine nature. But it did change his person, because a human nature was added anhypostatically to the preexisting divine nature. This was not some sort of change from Christ's second nature from a divine nature to a human nature; the divine nature is immutable, by definition. You're making this stuff up.

[apostoli]

Those are not Greek philosophical premises. The Bible teaches that God has those attributes.

Omnipotence, omnipresence & omniscience are most definitely philosophical ideas that can't be proved or observed directly. The Bible may indicate that God, within mankinds limited comprehension, has those attributes, but such are not directly observable or provable! Thats the problem! The Bible also indicates that when it is God's will he does not have omnipotence, omnipresence & omniscience - I must presume you reject the doctrine of the Trinity and that the Son was incarnated as man...or that God covers our sins...and several hundred other biblical propositions...

[37818]

You're engaging in a category confusion here. Why do you believe the Son of God has always had two natures? You are correct that the incarnation of Christ did not change his divine nature. But it did change his person, because a human nature was added anhypostatically to the preexisting divine nature. This was not some sort of change from Christ's second nature from a divine nature to a human nature; the divine nature is immutable, by definition. You're making this stuff up.

Now I'm confused here. Did or did not the Person being the Son change? If He changed, how is that Person immutable?

[RBerman]

Now I'm confused here. Did or did not the Person being the Son change? If He changed, how is that Person immutable?

The person of the Son is not immutable, inasmuch as he took upon himself a mutable human nature which changed in many ways. But his divine nature was not changed by any of that. Where did you get the idea that the Son eternally had two natures?