![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/10\/Cover-331x499-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n[subtitle: Biblical, Chalcedonian Trinitarianism and Christology<\/em>; see book and purchase information<\/a>]<\/div>\n
\nMatthew 24:36<\/strong> (RSV) But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (cf. Mk 13:32)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nReformed Baptist Bishop<\/a> \u201cDr.\u201d [???<\/a>] James White<\/a>: the most active and influential anti-Catholic<\/a> apologist these past 25 years, has denied the distinction between Jesus\u2019 Divine and human Natures with regard to knowing the \u201cday and hour\u201d of His Second Coming (Matthew 24:36).
\n*<\/div>\n\nCatholicism, Orthodoxy, and most historic Protestants (all \u201cChalcedonians\u201d) have held that Jesus \u201cdidn\u2019t know\u201d some things only in His human nature<\/em> (because in the incarnation He \u201cemptied\u201d Himself: what is known in Christology as the \u201ckenosis\u201d<\/a>); but always did know everything<\/em> (i.e., was omniscient<\/em>) \u2014 including the time of His return \u2014 in His Divine Nature.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nWhite denied this in at least two of his ubiquitous videos and essentially asserted that Jesus (in both<\/em> natures), did not possess this knowledge \u2014 nor did the Holy Spirit \u2013, but only God the Father. He basically mocked those who hold to the traditional view as fundamentally inconsistent and guilty of profound eisegesis and caring little about the biblical text. Before I go further, let\u2019s examine exactly what he stated.<\/div>\n<\/div>\nMitchell Wygant, who describes himself on Twitter as \u201cSeminary Student at IRBS Theological Seminary, Confessional Reformed Baptist, Classical Christian Theist\u201d has documented two video excerpts<\/a> from Bishop White. They\u2019re short: just 1:02 and 2:14.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe first video excerpt is derived from the 57:08 time mark in White\u2019s video, \u201cPhilippians 2, the Carmen Christi, and Accusations of Kenotic Heresy\u201d<\/a> (4-21-22). He states (57:50-58:53) \u2014 his words will be in blue<\/span> henceforth:<\/div>\n\nAt that point in time, in the incarnate state \u2014 it\u2019s not that the Son did not know before the incarnation and would not know at His exaltation or anything like that<\/em> \u2014 but that there was some<\/em> reason why, at that point in time<\/em>, it was profitable<\/em> for the Messiah<\/em>, the Son<\/em>, to not\u00a0know<\/em>.\u00a0 Those are His words. You\u2019ve got to deal<\/em> with them. If you have to look at the words written by Matthew<\/span> [24:36] and come up with an interpretation that could not have possibly<\/em> <\/strong>been what Matthew intended or anyone Matthew wrote<\/em> to, intended, and could not have been known for centuries<\/em>, millennia<\/em>, after the point of writing, we\u2019re no longer dealing with the Scripture being any kind of meaningful foundation for our beliefs, right? Can we agree<\/em> with that? I hope we can, because that\u2019s pretty obvious.<\/span> [my italics and bolding reflect his own vocal accentuations]<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nA little later in the video White grumbles about his Protestant critics objectionably engaging in \u201cthe New Baptist Thomist-speak\u201d<\/span> (1:01:45) and a newfound \u201can Aristotelian Thomist metaphysic\u201d<\/span> (1:02:39) that Bishop White rejects. But this is misguided ire since he claims that no one was talking about these things in the first thousand years of the Church (St. Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIn fact, there was robust discussion of these aspects of Christology in the patristic period and notably at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD<\/a>, where the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union or Two Natures of Christ was meticulously formulated and enshrined as dogma. White knows that most people will be unaware of that so he (there\u2019s no other possible way to put<\/em> it!) misrepresents the history of Christology for his own sophistical ends. This won\u2019t do. It\u2019s a falsehood (to put it mildly).<\/div>\n\nJames 3:1<\/strong> Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe second video excerpt that Wygant documented is from the 1:22:18 time marker in White\u2019s video, \u201cNinety Minutes of Biblical Exegesis and Theological Ruminations\u201d<\/a> (8-25-22). Here is what he pontificates about there (up through 1:25:56):<\/div>\n\nWhat we\u2019re being told<\/em> is [that] when it<\/span> [Mt 24:36] says \u201cnor the son<\/em>\u201d you have to take the fully developed later definitions of Christology, read them back in here, and do<\/span> partitive exegesis<\/a>. And that\u2019s the easy<\/em> way to do it. The easy out<\/em> to Matthew 24:36 is to say, \u201cwell, that<\/em>\u2018s the humanity<\/em>\u00a0and not the deity<\/em>.\u201d . . . And that\u2019s normally how people try to respond to critics, and the critics go, \u201ccan you show me that from the text<\/em>?\u201d: especially since it says<\/span> [cites the Greek wording] . . . \u201cbut the Father only<\/strong><\/em>.\u201d But you\u2019re saying it\u2019s not<\/em> the Father only. It\u2019s the Father<\/em> and the Son<\/em> and the Spirit<\/em>! . . . It\u2019s this consistency<\/em> thing, you know?<\/span> [makes a mocking, grimacing expression] I know it\u2019s a bit of a pain, . . . So if you wanna say, \u201cwell, to protect my formulations, I\u2019m gonna go beyond<\/em> what the text says, and I\u2019m gonna say this is speaking of the Son only in His human incarnation, . . .\u201d . . . You\u2019re not gonna be able to prove it from the text. . . . You\u2019re going beyond the text. You\u2019re readin\u2019 stuff into it that ain\u2019t anywhere near<\/em> it. You couldn\u2019t exegete that if your life<\/em> depended on it. But you\u2019ve got your external systematic theology, and it tells you what the text says. <\/span>[my italics and bolding reflect his own vocal accentuations]<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nIt turns out that White (after years of explaining that sola Scriptura<\/em> does not rule out all human or church tradition(s) whatever (as long as they aren\u2019t infallible), is radically<\/em>\u00a0Scripture Only: the extreme distortion of sola Scriptura<\/em>, which is already a viciously self-defeating falsehood. He appears to believe in what Presbyterian defender of sola Scriptura<\/em> Keith Mathison famously called \u201cSOLO Scriptura<\/em>.\u201d<\/a> When it comes down to it, it appears that he couldn\u2019t care less about what the Church fathers, his own theological ancestors, the Protestant founders, or anyone else has taught about this, these past nearly 2,000 years.<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI wouldn\u2019t have predicted this, and it\u2019s a very sad thing. White gets a lot wrong (believe me, I know, after 27 years of following his antics and refuting his myriad errors), but I wouldn\u2019t have thought that the Hypostatic Union<\/em><\/a> would be one of them. Even his fellow Reformed Baptists are now giving him a hard time. He\u2019s on the hot seat, and in his utterly defiant \/ \u201cknow-it-all\u201d mode, as usual. It may be that he is obstinate<\/em>, rather than ignorant of the history of orthodox Christology.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI sure hope not, for his sake, but mere ignorance and lack of knowledge of historic orthodox Christology hardly seems possible<\/em>, since he is highly theologically educated (Masters degree, though not a legitimate, accredited doctorate, with the requisite work done to achieve that). Whatever is the case with him, when push comes to shove, he\u2019s ready to \u201cconfidently\u201d assert this serious Christological error, rather than bow to virtually universal received Christian belief. This doesn\u2019t even involve Protestant-Catholic disputes, which is why his fellow Baptists and other Protestants are as shocked at these developments as any Catholic would be.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIn the second excerpt, White waxes melodramatically about his critics supposedly eisegeting (improperly reading into the biblical text what isn\u2019t actually there) all over the place. And he takes a gratuitous swipe at systematic theology. Well, I\u2019ll let you in on a little secret: all<\/em><\/strong> Bible commentators and students have<\/em> a systematic theology (to various degrees, but still . . .) and utilize<\/em> it in interpreting the biblical text. Everyone<\/em><\/strong> does: without exception, which includes James White.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAnd that is true because it\u2019s impossible not<\/em> to have some notions of theology and various Christian beliefs, once having started to learn theology at all. If White doesn\u2019t understand this elementary epistemological consideration, he\u2019s living in a fantasy-world: a fairy tale and pipe dream. I won\u2019t even argue this point further: it\u2019s so utterly obvious.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThat said, I would immediately point out (since he wants to be \u201cBible Only\u201d at this juncture) that this same Bible that White claims to champion in almost a uniquely capable manner, definitely asserts over and over that Jesus is omniscient<\/a>. That\u2019s simply a fact. I copiously demonstrated it (follow the link). White has expressly denied that Jesus Himself is omniscient during His first sojourn on earth. Orthodoxy says that this applies to His human nature only. White denies that and also applies it to the Divine Nature of Jesus, which is a grave and blasphemous error.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSecondly, I\u2019d note that the Bible often doesn\u2019t spell things out explicitly, and will assume that the reader (at least the educated and relatively more theologically informed ones) can figure out in context what is being referred to. It doesn\u2019t take the time to always spell out distinctions of the two natures<\/em> in Jesus, just as it doesn\u2019t always do the same for distinctions of persons within the Holy<\/em> Trinity<\/em>. One has to take all of the relevant passages together and form an interpretive grid, as it were, to know how it all fits together in a consistent trinitarianism.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAnd that<\/strong> is systematic theology<\/strong><\/em>: collecting passages on a particular theme and reaching overarching conclusions. Here, for example, are several passages that look prima facie<\/em> as if God the Father<\/em> is not specifically being referred to, and\/or that Jesus is implying that He Himself is not God (or that the text does so). The Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses and many other non-Christian cults have a field day with them:<\/div>\n\nMark 10:18<\/strong> And Jesus said to him, \u201cWhy do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.\u201d<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nJohn 7:17<\/strong> if any man\u2019s will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nJohn 14:28<\/strong> . . . the Father is greater than I,<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nActs 7:55\u00a0<\/b>But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nActs 10:38\u00a0<\/b>how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nActs 20:28\u00a0<\/b>. . . the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n1 Corinthians 11:3<\/strong>\u00a0. . . the head of Christ is God,<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n2 Corinthians 1:21 <\/b>But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, . . .<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nGalatians 4:6\u00a0<\/b>. . . God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. . . .<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nThere are no less than nine passages<\/a> that refer to \u201cGod\u201d having \u201craised\u201d Jesus from the dead, which at first glance sound like Jesus is lower than God (Arianism). It\u2019s understood that the passages are using \u201cGod\u201d as a synonym for \u201cGod the Father.\u201d The student of the Bible and one who does systematic theology, however, also knows that the Bible teaches that Jesus (being God) raised Himself, too:<\/div>\n\nJohn 2:19-21<\/strong> Jesus answered them, \u201cDestroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.\u201d [20] The Jews then said, \u201cIt has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?\u201d [21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nJohn 10:17-18<\/strong> For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. [18] No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nIn the mentality that White has expressed above, these would be clear-cut \u201cobvious\u201d examples teaching that Jesus is not<\/em><\/strong> God: going literally by the one text alone and ignoring other relevant ones in which to understand the interpretation of these. If we go by \u201clogic only\u201d and ignore systematic theology and cross-referencing and the necessary understanding of biblical culture, language, figures of speech, etc., we can easily fall into all sorts of heresies: including many concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nNow James White has tragically fallen into one of those traps himself, by applying (irony of ironies) an extreme, irrational and radically incoherent version of sola Scriptura<\/em> and thumbing his nose at ironclad historical theology: Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic alike. It\u2019s amazing and astonishing.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI can think of one passage along these lines that interprets itself, by showing that \u201cFather\u201d and God\u201d were both used for God the Father: thus exhibiting trinitarianism:<\/div>\n\nJohn 20:17<\/strong> Jesus said to her, \u201cDo not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nFor readers just starting to learn Christian theology, see my articles that lay out the hundreds of biblical proofs of the divinity \/ Godhood of Jesus<\/a> and of trinitarianism<\/a> (God is three equal Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nFor Catholics, the doctrine has long been settled. The kenosis<\/em> of Jesus as Messiah is described in Philippians:<\/div>\n\nPhilippians 2:5-11<\/strong> Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, [6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. [8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. [9] Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, [10] that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nThis entails Jesus\u2019 renunciation in His human nature of the divine dominion and majesty. But it doesn\u2019t involve in any way the giving up of the Divine Essence or Attributes<\/em> (including, in this instance, omniscience<\/em>). Catholics believe (following the proclamations at the Council of Chalcedon in 451), at the highest level of infallibility or authority (called \u201cde fide<\/em>\u201c) that the two natures of Christ subsist after their union without change or mixture, with their properties remaining intact.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nTherefore, Jesus was always<\/em> omniscient in His Divine Nature, even during His time on earth up to His crucifixion. This is what James White denies, by claiming that the Son qua<\/em> Son did not know the day and the hour of His Second Coming.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI dealt with this particular issue of Christ\u2019s knowledge over eleven years ago, in my article, Limitations of Christ\u2019s Knowledge? Exegetical \u201cDifficulties\u201d Examined <\/a>(4-8-11). The Church fathers had various ways of interpreting Matthew 24:36 and the broader question of expressed limitations in Christ Himself. What became the classic and \u201creceived\u201d tradition was that Jesus qua<\/em> man did not know the time of the day of judgment, but He knew it as the God-man. That is: He knew it in His Divine Nature, but not in His human nature.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThis view was held, according to the great Jesuit exegete Cornelius \u00e0 Lapide<\/a> (1567-1637), by \u201cSt. Athanasius (Serm. 4, contra Arian.), Nazianzen (Orat. 4, de .Theolog.), Cyril (lib. 9, Thesaur. c. 4), [and] Ambrose (lib. 5, de Fide, c. 8).\u201d I guess those are part of the massive collection of poor ignorant \u201ceisegetes\u201d that Bishop White in his infinite wisdom so roundly condemns.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nHere is St. Gregory Nazianzen (c. 330-c. 390) writing about the issue at hand:<\/div>\n\n[O]ur second argument is as follows:-Just as we do in all other instances, so let us refer His knowledge of the greatest events, in honour of the Father, to The Cause. And I think that anyone, even if he did not read it in the way that one of our own Students did, would soon perceive that not even the Son knows the day or hour otherwise than as the Father does. For what do we conclude from this? That since the Father knows, therefore also does the Son, as it is evident that this cannot be known or comprehended by any but the First Nature. There remains for us to interpret the passage about His receiving commandment, and having kept His Commandments, and done always those things that please Him; and further concerning His being made perfect, and His exaltation, and His learning obedience by the things which He suffered; and also His High Priesthood, and His Oblation, and His Betrayal, and His prayer to Him That was able to save Him from death, and His Agony and Bloody Sweat and Prayer, and such like things; if it were not evident to every one that such words are concerned, not with That Nature Which is unchangeable and above all capacity of suffering, but with the passible Humanity. (Fourth Theological Oration<\/em> [Oration 30]: The Second Concerning the Son<\/em><\/a>, XVI)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n