Incarnational Theology

[Christum Crucifixum]

How does a Calvinist explain Colossians 2:9...

"For in Him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily."

...in light of their understanding that Christ's resurrected and glorified body is located at God's "right hand"?

Can the "fullness of deity" exist outside of, as well as within, the body of Christ?


Thank you,
Christum Crucifixum

 

[Christum Crucifixum]

 

[Christum Crucifixum]

 

[Defcon]

How does a Calvinist explain Colossians 2:9...
...in light of their understanding that Christ's resurrected and glorified body is located at God's "right hand"?

Can the "fullness of deity" exist outside of, as well as within, the body of Christ?


Thank you,
Christum Crucifixum

Not as you would have it defined. When Paul here says that the "fullness of deity dwells bodily", he is stating that God in times past had only been manifested in part, now is manifested wholly. As Calvin notes in His commentary, if anyone then seeks something beyond Christ, he seeks something that is not God.

John Gill explains further what is meant:

"for not the fulness of grace, or a communicative fulness, is here meant; nor the relative fulness, the church; but the fulness of the divine nature, of all the perfections of deity, such as eternity, immensity, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, necessary and self existence, and every other; for if anyone perfection was wanting, the fulness, much less all the fulness of the Godhead, would not be in him. "

I'll withhold going any further and wait for your response, as I'm not sure what you think the error in Reformed thought is concerning the Incarnation.

 

[Christum Crucifixum]

Not as you would have it defined. When Paul here says that the "fullness of deity dwells bodily", he is stating that God in times past had only been manifested in part, now is manifested wholly. As Calvin notes in His commentary, if anyone then seeks something beyond Christ, he seeks something that is not God.

John Gill explains further what is meant:

"for not the fulness of grace, or a communicative fulness, is here meant; nor the relative fulness, the church; but the fulness of the divine nature, of all the perfections of deity, such as eternity, immensity, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, necessary and self existence, and every other; for if anyone perfection was wanting, the fulness, much less all the fulness of the Godhead, would not be in him. "

I'll withhold going any further and wait for your response, as I'm not sure what you think the error in Reformed thought is concerning the Incarnation.

First of all, THANK YOU for responding. It has been long awaited. Though, I will concede, that this question may be a bit nebulous at first glance. I will try to explain precisely what I find objectionable in the Calvinist treatment of this text.

The text of Colossians 2:9 states that the fullness of the deity dwells bodily in Christ. This obviously refers to the incarnation, God assuming human flesh in Jesus. I agree with you that we here find God revealed fully in Christ, whereas in times past He was only revealed to us in part. Jesus Christ is the fullness of God's revelation; we are to find God nowhere else and in no one other than Him.

That being said, we must pay careful attention to the word "bodily." The text plainly states that the incarnation does not "unify" the two natures (the divine and human) under a singular name. Rather, the incarnation unites the two natures of divinity and humanity in deed and truth, in a singular Person. "In Him the fullness of the deity dwells bodily." Therefore, the incarnation is not telling us that Christ exists partially in the body and mostly outside of it, but wholly in the body.

According to Calvinist theology, the fullness of the deity does not dwell in Christ, but only a part of the deity. This has been termed the Extra Calvinisticum. This term refers to the Reformed doctrine that Christ's glorified body is like any other body, and therefore this body is located in heaven at the Father's right hand. However, the spirit of Christ is operative and present in this world even now, apart from the body of Christ. Hence, many have accused Calvinism of Nestorianism, separating the two natures of Christ from each other, and making their union as if they were two boards glued to one another, without any true communion between them. In distinction, the Lutherans have been accused of Eutychianism, blending and absorbing the two natures into each other. (It would require us to dig into the respective confessions of each school of theology in order to determine whether or not these accusations are valid.)

I will not go into any further detail as of now. In sum, the basic question I am asking is this: can the fullness of God be said to dwell in the body of Christ if one asserts that the fullness of God dwells both within and without Christ's body? In other words, doesn't Calvinism reject the plain reading of Col. 2:9 when they assert that Christ is present here on earth apart from His body?


Thank you,
Christum Crucifixum

 

[Defcon]

First of all, THANK YOU for responding. It has been long awaited. Though, I will concede, that this question may be a bit nebulous at first glance. I will try to explain precisely what I find objectionable in the Calvinist treatment of this text.

The text of Colossians 2:9 states that the fullness of the deity dwells bodily in Christ. This obviously refers to the incarnation, God assuming human flesh in Jesus. I agree with you that we here find God revealed fully in Christ, whereas in times past He was only revealed to us in part. Jesus Christ is the fullness of God's revelation; we are to find God nowhere else and in no one other than Him.

That being said, we must pay careful attention to the word "bodily." The text plainly states that the incarnation does not "unify" the two natures (the divine and human) under a singular name. Rather, the incarnation unites the two natures of divinity and humanity in deed and truth, in a singular Person. "In Him the fullness of the deity dwells bodily." Therefore, the incarnation is not telling us that Christ exists partially in the body and mostly outside of it, but wholly in the body.

According to Calvinist theology, the fullness of the deity does not dwell in Christ, but only a part of the deity. This has been termed the Extra Calvinisticum. This term refers to the Reformed doctrine that Christ's glorified body is like any other body, and therefore this body is located in heaven at the Father's right hand. However, the spirit of Christ is operative and present in this world even now, apart from the body of Christ. Hence, many have accused Calvinism of Nestorianism, separating the two natures of Christ from each other, and making their union as if they were two boards glued to one another, without any true communion between them. In distinction, the Lutherans have been accused of Eutychianism, blending and absorbing the two natures into each other. (It would require us to dig into the respective confessions of each school of theology in order to determine whether or not these accusations are valid.)

I will not go into any further detail as of now. In sum, the basic question I am asking is this: can the fullness of God be said to dwell in the body of Christ if one asserts that the fullness of God dwells both within and without Christ's body? In other words, doesn't Calvinism reject the plain reading of Col. 2:9 when they assert that Christ is present here on earth apart from His body?


Thank you,
Christum Crucifixum

I'm going to have to defer to someone else here if you want a rapid response. I haven't studied the intricacies of this topic and its opposing views enough to argue it intelligently.

 

[heymikey80]

The mind of Christ?

The Spirit of God?

The Body of Christ?

Last I checked Christ's resurrected body was taken to heaven.

But it's also here.

But it's not sitting around to be masticated every ritual observance of communion, either.

Colossians is talking creationally, right? Christ pervades the whole of Creation, but in Christ the Deity dwells bodily as well. To think the body has to thus be everything in creation is not concluded. Why think that the body has to be in every communion bread?

Transubstantiation makes more exegetical sense than consubstantiation. "This is my body", not "This is somewhere near my body". Still, I definitely prefer the Calvinistic view of, "Treat this covenantally as accepting my body, for spiritual life." There's a reason for that.

Wine's an even worse problem for substantiationist views. There's no explicit exegetical reason for it. In fact the wine argument clearly favors the covenantal sense: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you." The connection is only implicitly made between the wine and the blood of Christ.

Nestorianism and monophysitism have been traded with everyone trying to make distinctions. The issue has never really been clearly resolved, anyone can trace the condemnation of "homoousios", then the condemnation of its rejection, both as heresy, very early in church history.

Debate at this point is clearly going to dissolve into accusations that don't hold.

 

[Christum Crucifixum]

The mind of Christ?

The Spirit of God?

The Body of Christ?

Last I checked Christ's resurrected body was taken to heaven.

But it's also here.

But it's not sitting around to be masticated every ritual observance of communion, either.

Colossians is talking creationally, right? Christ pervades the whole of Creation, but in Christ the Deity dwells bodily as well. To think the body has to thus be everything in creation is not concluded. Why think that the body has to be in every communion bread?

Transubstantiation makes more exegetical sense than consubstantiation. "This is my body", not "This is somewhere near my body". Still, I definitely prefer the Calvinistic view of, "Treat this covenantally as accepting my body, for spiritual life." There's a reason for that.

Wine's an even worse problem for substantiationist views. There's no explicit exegetical reason for it. In fact the wine argument clearly favors the covenantal sense: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you." The connection is only implicitly made between the wine and the blood of Christ.

Nestorianism and monophysitism have been traded with everyone trying to make distinctions. The issue has never really been clearly resolved, anyone can trace the condemnation of "homoousios", then the condemnation of its rejection, both as heresy, very early in church history.

Debate at this point is clearly going to dissolve into accusations that don't hold.

Take a breath, Mikey.

Let's establish a few things:

1) Col. 2:9 states plainly that the fullness of the deity dwells bodily in Jesus Christ.

2) Jesus Christ has ascended into heaven and has filled all things (Eph. 4:10).

3) The incarnation is not God becoming man partially, but fully. The two natures of Christ are united in one Person, and therefore have communion with one another, yet without confusing or mixing either of each nature's essence.

4) Therefore, the incarnation requires that when we speak of Jesus Christ, we are speaking of both God and man. The divine and human natures of Jesus are never to be abstracted from each other, as if these were separate. When Christ says, "Behold, I am with you always," He says this as both God and man, and therefore, is with us as both God and man.

5) To assert that Christ can only be bodily present in heaven, and yet, at the same time, be present "spiritually" on earth separates the two natures, and turns the incarnation into a functional union rather than a Personal one. That is to say, the human and divine natures are both striving toward a common end and goal, but do not share Personal communion with each other.

6) The Calvinist view thus undermines the truth of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, seeing that, if Christ has not truly become a man (the humanity partaking of the divinity, and thereby being united in one Person), we are still dead in our sins and our faith is futile.

Now, back to my original question:
DOES THE FULLNESS OF THE DEITY DWELL BODILY IN CHRIST, OR DOES IT NOT???

Thanks.

 

[heymikey80]

Take a breath, Mikey.

Yeah, whatever. Talking down to people -- again -- doesn't help.

Let's establish a few things:

1) Col. 2:9 states plainly that the fullness of the deity dwells bodily in Jesus Christ.

Yes, in one Person of God.

2) Jesus Christ has ascended into heaven and has filled all things (Eph. 4:10).

In what way would Jesus ascend if His body were omnipresent?

3) The incarnation is not God becoming man partially, but fully. The two natures of Christ are united in one Person, and therefore have communion with one another, yet without confusing or mixing either of each nature's essence.

As the Father is God and not man, "fully" does not mean "completely". And as men are not all God, the same issue holds.

4) Therefore, the incarnation requires that when we speak of Jesus Christ, we are speaking of both God and man. The divine and human natures of Jesus are never to be abstracted from each other, as if these were separate. When Christ says, "Behold, I am with you always," He says this as both God and man, and therefore, is with us as both God and man.

As there's no definition of "abstracting from one another" the assertion is equivocal. The nature of God is different from man. They're abstracted from one another.

5) To assert that Christ can only be bodily present in heaven, and yet, at the same time, be present "spiritually" on earth separates the two natures, and turns the incarnation into a functional union rather than a Personal one. That is to say, the human and divine natures are both striving toward a common end and goal, but do not share Personal communion with each other.

That forces humanity to be in nature, a body in this creation. As it's not, the argument falls. "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

The Spirit of God is where?

So now the human body is capable of omnipresence? OK, I always wanted to see Pluto.

Oh, it's not? What a shame, why not?

Because Jesus is God? That sounds an awful lot like abstracting one from the other.

6) The Calvinist view thus undermines the truth of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, seeing that, if Christ has not truly become a man (the humanity partaking of the divinity, and thereby being united in one Person), we are still dead in our sins and our faith is futile.

CC's view thus undermines itself by being unable to distinguish human nature from the nature of deity, and attempting to accuse others of doing what it inherently also does.

Now, back to my original question:
DOES THE FULLNESS OF THE DEITY DWELL BODILY IN CHRIST, OR DOES IT NOT???

The fullness of Deity dwells in Christ's Body. Just as He dwelt in a Tabernacle before, the Tabernacle did not suddenly become omnipresent.

And for the record -- consubstantiation doesn't assert omnipresence of Christ's body, either. It asserts multipresence.

 

[AMR]

Two suggested readings:

The Incarnation - Part 1 - Christian Forums
The Incarnation - Part 2 - Christian Forums

One can best understand the hypostatic union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

It is not (heresies adopting these views shown in parenthesis at the end of each point):

1. a denial that Christ was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

AMR

 

[Christum Crucifixum]

Seriously, Mikey, take a breath.

You write:

In what way would Jesus ascend if His body were omnipresent?

Easy: Visibly.

You write:

As the Father is God and not man, "fully" does not mean "completely". And as men are not all God, the same issue holds.

What??? Christ is not completely God??? Have you read the Athanasian Creed lately (or ever)???:

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord; and yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord."

Christ is, indeed, fully and completely God. Likewise, the Father is fully and completely God. Likewise, the Spirit is fully and completely God. Yet, they are not three Gods, but one God. How can this be? It is a mystery....I know...I know...Calvinist's hate paradox and cannot abide by truths which exceed the narrow and confined limits of their brains. How about this for a logical deduction, Mikey: If life is larger than logic, then certainly God is as well (Who is Life).

You write:

As there's no definition of "abstracting from one another" the assertion is equivocal. The nature of God is different from man. They're abstracted from one another.

I never said that the natures were not different. In fact, I have asserted this very thing already (try reading my posts, Mikey). Rather, I said that the natures cannot be abstracted from each other in terms of dividing Christ's work and Person. To say "God did not die on the cross" is heresy. To say "God died on the cross according to His divine nature" is heresy. To say "God died on the cross according to His human nature" is pure, orthodox teaching.

However, if God died according to an abstracted human nature, i.e. one that has no real communion with the divine nature, then one cannot make the confession that God died on the cross for them. Only by understanding the natures to have communion with each other, and yet not confusing their essences, is the incarnation and atonement properly confessed.

You write:

That forces humanity to be in nature, a body in this creation. As it's not, the argument falls. "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
The Spirit of God is where?
So now the human body is capable of omnipresence? OK, I always wanted to see Pluto.
Oh, it's not? What a shame, why not?
Because Jesus is God? That sounds an awful lot like abstracting one from the other.

What forces humanity to be in nature, a body in this creation???
The Spirit of God is omnipresent; He is everywhere.
Not any human body is capable of omnipresence, Mikey (sorry, but Pluto is not a real planet anyway), but rather the human nature and body of Jesus Christ, as it partakes in communion with the divine nature through the union of both natures in His Person. This does not mean that the human nature becomes divine, or that the divine becomes human, but that each nature maintains its essential essence, and yet have true communion with each other in Christ's singular Person.

You know, Mikey, there have been others on this thread who have refrained from speaking on account of their not having done sufficient study in the area of Christology. It would do you well to consider to uniting with this confession. The following illustrates this well:

CC's view thus undermines itself by being unable to distinguish human nature from the nature of deity, and attempting to accuse others of doing what it inherently also does.

The human nature is fully (that is, completely) human. The divine nature is fully (that is, completely) divine. However, there is a real communication (not confusion) between the two natures. How does this happen? It is, once again, a mystery (just like the Trinity, Mikey).

Here is my advice: Take some time. Read the Lutheran confessions. Find out what they actually teach. [it is ironic, to say the least, that the person who spends the majority of his posts complaining about being misrepresented spends the remaining minority of his posts misrepresenting the views of others].

You write:

The fullness of Deity dwells in Christ's Body. Just as He dwelt in a Tabernacle before, the Tabernacle did not suddenly become omnipresent.

So, you are saying that the FULLNESS of God dwells in Christ's body, and yet Christ's body is not omnipresent? If the eternal Son of God fully and completely dwells in Christ's body (which the text states regardless of your semantics), then there is no eternal Son of God outside of Christ's body. Thus, according to your view, the Son of God is no longer omnipresent after the incarnation, because the eternal Son of God is bound to a body that is located absolutely in one place, at one time. Therefore, if Christ's body is in heaven, then all of Christ is in heaven, and Christ is made a liar (Remember, Mikey, "Behold, I am with you always"???).

You conclude (finally):

And for the record -- consubstantiation doesn't assert omnipresence of Christ's body, either. It asserts multipresence.

And for the record--Lutherans do not teach "consubstantiation." [I suggest going to your local library today!]