There la one further problem which arlaec in ooimooticn

v/lth t h e p e r f e c t i o n o f hum anity v;hioh F o rr o a t aocritoeo t o 3

O h rle t* I f O h r ia t wa© i n a l l ways human, how was i t p o o o ib le 1# I f F o r r e o t ’ e "d o u b le p o r o o n a lity ” i%idloati%v^ two e o p a ra to

f u n c tio n s moans an y th ix ig , i t mu a t mean each a. d i o t l n c t l o n .

2m F o r r o a t , The Q h r ie t Of H ie to r v And Of E x n e r le n c a . p# 188*

f o r Him to be c o n sc io u s o f D eity? I n an e a r l i e r p a ssag e

F o r r e s t s t a t e d ; "The I n c a r n a te r e ta in e d in d eed H is c o n s c io u s n e s s o f D e ity , knew H im se lf to be th e E t e r n a l Bon, b u t n e v e r b ro k e th ro u g h th e r e s t r i c t i o n s o f th e human n a tu r e which He

had v o l u n t a r i l y assum ed*” But i s su ch S e lf- c o n s o io u s n e s s

even p o s s ib le ? How was i t p o s s i b l e , under th e c irc u m s ta n c e s , f o r Him to be c o n s c io u s o f D e ity i n any way? Buch c o n s c io u s n e s s , by i t s v e ry n a t u r e , would s t i l l im ply d iv in e c a p a c ity

i n some s e n s e , and t h i s i n no way could be c o m p a tib le w ith t r u e humanity* A g a in , i f F o r r e s t were a b le t o m a in ta in t h i s p o s i t i o n , he w ould, u l t i m a t e l y , c o n fro n t th e same problem o f th e u n io n o f N a tu r e s , which tr o u b le d Thom asius and

F a i r b a i r n and which F o r r e s t h as s p e c i f i c a l l y t r i e d to av o id 3

h im self*

The above c r i t i c i s m s p e r t a i n to i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s w ith in F o r r e s t ’ s sy ste m , b u t e q u a lly se v e re problem s a r i s e i f th e

th e o ry i s used a s th e b a s i s f o r a fo rm a l and i n t e g r a t e d

Gh rio to lo g y * B ecause o f th e n a tu r e o f th e / s and

th e r e s u l t i n g I n c a r n a t i o n , F o r r e s t i s fo rc e d to ad o p t a 1* F o r r e s t , The A u th o r ity Of C h r i s t * p , 90,

. H* Goodwill a t tWis p 6 ln t wouid d is a g r e e and m o ld m a in ta in t h a t i n becoming man God renounced H is d e i f i c c o n s c io u s ness* C h r i s t And H um anity, p. 355*

2* B ru ce , H u m ilia tio n * p* 1 8 7 , sa y s ab o u t th e C o n tin e n ta l K e n o tic is t Gees a t a s i m i l a r p o in t: "C o n ta c t w ith f l e s h i s f a t a l to th e f r e e , c o n sc io u s l i f e o f God ; i t i s a plunge i n t o a L eth e stream ^ which in v o lv e s l o s s o f s e l f - c o n s c io u s n e s s , and th e r e w ith o f th e d iv in e a t t r i b u t e s o f o m n is c ie n c e , o m n ip o ten ce, o m n ip resen ce, and even o f e t e r n a l h o l i n e s s . "

s u b o r d in a tio n view o f th e T r in ity * The d iv in e L ogos, th e

Bon, em p ties H im self and i s changed ( o r re d u ced ) i n t o a man* H is l i f e as man i s c o m p le te ly co n fin e d by th e norm al

l i m i t a t i o n s in h e r e n t i n a l l f l e s h , and th e e x e r c is e o f a l l h i s d iv in e powers i s r e li n q u i s h e d . That means t h a t i f God i s

y e t to r u l e , c o n t r o l , and govern th e whole o f c r e a t i o n and a t th e same tim e s u s t a i n th e f a c t o f the I n c a r n a t i o n , He must s t i l l rem ain God i n a l l h i s f u l n e s s and m a je s ty , F o r r e s t m a in ta in s t h a t t h i s i s p o s s i b l e , f o r i t i s o n ly th e Bon who

i s I n c a r n a te and n o t God th e F a th e r . God th e F a t h e r , th e o r i g i n a t i v e lo v e , i s a b le to r e l i n q u i s h , f o r a tim e , God the Bon, th e dependent lo v e . What has o ccu rred i s th e

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f th e dependence o f th e Bon upon God th e F ath er* T h is s u b o r d in a tio n view o f th e T r i n i t y , a s p ro pounded by F o r r e s t , g iv e s r i s e to a t l e a s t f o u r p o s s ib le problem s: ( a ) I f God th e Son so im poverished H im self a s to become a human b e in g lim ite d i n a l l ways a s we a r e lim ite d and dependent upon God as we a r e dependent upon God, th en would t h e r e , in d eed be an I n c a r n a t i o n a t a l l ? Would th e r e

n o t b e , as P r o f e s s o r B a i l l i e s u g g e s ts , a pagan m etam orphosis - th e c r e a t i o n o f a n o th e r man - r a t h e r th a n God dwellin^y

1* Bee d is c u s s io n on p a g e s 5 6 ;^above w ith t h i s a d d i t i o n a l f a c t i n mind ; t h a t th e th r e e P erso n s were d i s t i n c t enough f o r only one t o become man. U n less t h i s i s co n ceiv ed a s

S u b o rd in a tio n is m , i t would have to be T rith e is m . However, from th e tim e o f I s r a e l , M onotheism has been a t th e v e ry c e n tr e o f r e l i g i o u s c o n v ic tio n . ’H e a r, 0 I s r a e l : The Lord our God i s one L o r d .’ (D eut. 6 :4)*

75 1

with

« s. T r a d i t i o n , a l e c , cloea n o t su p p o rt such

a theory

o f m etam orphosis; i n f a c t ,

it

i s s p e c i f i c a l l y a g a in s t such

a

view

that

th e

’Athanasian

C re e d ’ speaks ; "Who, a lth o u g h he

God

and man,

yet

he i s n o t tw o, bu t one

Christ;

one, n o t

by c o n v e rsio n o f th e

Godhead into Flesh,

b u t

by

ta k in g o f

3 ...

th e manhood i n t o God." (b ) Were i t

possible

to d is r e g a r d

P r o f e s s o r B a i l l i e ’ a arg u m e n ts, F o r r e s t

would s t ill

have

to

f a c e a f u r t h e r problem b e fo re e s t a b l i s h i n g

the

r e a l i t y o f th e

I n c a rn a tio n # The Bon,

who

became In o a ra ia te , i s s u b o rd in a te

1* H* Goodwin, C h r i s t And H um anity, p# 35? a r r i v e s

at

su b -

t

a n t i a l l y th e '

same

' c o n c lu s io n ; " I t i s c o n c e iv a b le t h a t

th e s e lf-d ir è ïip tiv e a c t by which th e Son em ptied H im self

o f H is e q u e \lity w ith

God

was

only

a p a r t i a l w ith h o ld in g

of t h a t d iv in e en erg y o r se lf-c o m m u n ic a tio n on th e p a r t

o f th e F a th e r which

is

term ed e t e r n a l g e n e r a tio n . I n

o th e r w o rd s, i t i s c o n c e iv a b le t h a t t h e r e i s i n the Godhead th e same power and c a p a c ity f o r th e Logos to

empty H im s e lf, o r red u ce

His divinity to

th e form and

l i m i t a t i o n s o f hu m an ity , a s th e re

is

f o r i t s e t e r n a l

d e r i v a t i o n and c o n tin u a n c e in

the

form o f

**God*”**

2# D*M. B a i l l i e , God Was I n C h r i s t , pp# 96-97;

"If,

how ever, th e K e n o tic is t .#* re g a rd s J e s u s a s

in

ev e ry s e n s e

a

man, a human p e rso n .## th e n th e s i t u a t i o n

becomes s t i l l stra n g e r# The l e n o t i c i s t would th en be

in v o lv ed

in saying

t h a t He who b e fo re th e I n c a r n a tio n

had been a d iv in e

Being

now tu rn e d

into

a man, w ith

human in s te a d o f d iv in e a t t r i b u t e s , f o r

the time.

had

been

God, but

now He was a man# I f ta k e n i n a l l i t s

i m p l i c a t i o n s ,

that

seems more l i k e a pagan s t o r y

of

m etam orphosis th a n l i k e

the

C h r i s t ia n d o c tr in e o f

I n c a r n a t i o n , which

has

alw ays found i n th e l i f e o f J e s u s

on e a r t h God and man

in

sim u ltan e o u s u n io n -

the

Godhead

’v e ile d i n f l e s h ’

but

n o t changed

into

h u m a n ity .”

Bee a l s o A*J. Mason, The Fall;h o f G o s p e l. p* 138.

to and dependent upon th e F a th e r ; th u s I t i s n o t r e a l l y God b u t dependent lo v e which h as become In c a rn a te * I t i s

n o t a tr u e I n c a r n a t i o n i n th e C h r i s t i a n s e n s e , b u t a lo v e Token from God to man* The Word which was w ith God became f l e s h , b u t n o t the Word which was God, God, H im s e lf, rem ains

o v er and above i t a l l * (o ) The g r e a t c re e d s and t r a d i t i o n s

o f th e Ohàroh have n e v e r su p p o rte d a view o f I,he T r i n i t y ,

1# " J e s u s C h r i s t on t h i s th e o ry may be ’Very God’ •#*•• He

In document The kenotic theory of the incarnation in modern British theology (Page 82-89)