# Did God die on the cross?



## Delahunt (Nov 7, 2019)

Hi all!

Working through my Christology, and am trying to grasp at how to articulate Christ's death on the cross. Did God die on the cross? In some ways the question seems easy - absolutely not! and yet in some other was, it seems that a divine payment was needed to secure divine forgiveness/satisfy divine wrath....so yes??? Scripture, Reformed/Confessional quotations, thoughts all would be helpful. Thanks!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 7, 2019)

"We believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. We also believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross. If we say that God died on the cross, and if by that we mean that the divine nature perished, we have stepped over the edge into serious heresy. In fact, two such heresies related to this problem arose in the early centuries of the church: _theopassianism_ and _patripassianism_. The first of these, _theopassianism_, teaches that God Himself suffered death on the cross. _Patripassianism_ indicates that the Father suffered vicariously through the suffering of His Son. Both of these heresies were roundly rejected by the church for the very reason that they categorically deny the very character and nature of God, including His immutability. There is no change in the substantive nature or character of God at any time.

God not only created the universe, He sustains it by the very power of His being. As Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). If the being of God ceased for one second, the universe would disappear. It would pass out of existence, because nothing can exist apart from the sustaining power of God. If God dies, everything dies with Him. Obviously, then, God could not have perished on the cross.

Some say, “It was the second person of the Trinity Who died.” That would be a mutation within the very being of God, because when we look at the Trinity we say that the three are one in essence, and that though there are personal distinctions among the persons of the Godhead, those distinctions are not essential in the sense that they are differences in being. Death is something that would involve a change in one’s being.

We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ. Somehow people tend to think that this lessens the dignity or the value of the substitutionary act, as if we were somehow implicitly denying the deity of Christ. God forbid. It’s the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death."

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/it-accurate-say-god-died-cross/


LATE EDIT: I like Daniel and Tim's clarifications below, however.

Reactions: Like 3 | Sad 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 7, 2019)

1 Corinthians 15:21-22

“For since by *man* came death, by *man* also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 7, 2019)

To deny the proposition that God died on the cross is Nestorianism. While the divine nature could neither suffer nor die, it was a divine person who suffered and died in his human nature. Hence, when correctly understood, it is proper to say that God died - otherwise you will have to deny the unity of Christ's person.

Reactions: Like 10 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## timfost (Nov 7, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> To deny the proposition that God died on the cross is Nestorianism. While the divine nature could neither suffer nor die, it was a divine person who suffered and died in his human nature. Hence, when correctly understood, it is proper to say that God died - otherwise you will have to deny the unity of Christ's person.



Yes, and scripture itself says that God bled:

"Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of *God which He purchased with His own blood*." (Acts 20:28)

It is the God that bled also the God that died, though since the human nature was not essential to the divine, there was also no change in the essence of God. It's true that _if_ the human nature was essential to the divine that death would necessitate change in the Godhead, but we do not believe that the human nature is co-eternal, but rather "the human nature... a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body" was added to the divine. When we consider these facts, we can _carefully_ and _rightfully_ concur both that God died on the cross and that God cannot die.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## kodos (Nov 7, 2019)

WCF 8.7 is helpful. Actually, study all of chapter 8 carefully. It is very carefully laid out.

Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; (Heb. 9:14, 1 Pet. 3:18) *yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature*. (Acts 20:28, John 3:13, 1 John 3:16)​

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## Von (Nov 8, 2019)

I've always thought of Romans 5:7-8 pointing to the divinity of Christ in his death:
_
"For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die--but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." _

The argument is that you would not substitute your life for another (especially an unrighteous one), but God substitutes His life (in Christ) for us.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 8, 2019)

We need to be clear on several terms (which are almost never clarified).

*When you say "God," do you mean the essence, a divine person, more than one divine person, etc?

*When you say "die," do you mean the soul is separated from the body, a cessation of consciousness (which isn't even true of humans)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 8, 2019)

Delahunt said:


> Hi all!
> 
> Working through my Christology, and am trying to grasp at how to articulate Christ's death on the cross. Did God die on the cross? In some ways the question seems easy - absolutely not! and yet in some other was, it seems that a divine payment was needed to secure divine forgiveness/satisfy divine wrath....so yes??? Scripture, Reformed/Confessional quotations, thoughts all would be helpful. Thanks!


God the Son physically died, but He still was alive, as did not suffer spiritual death, as still alive when He went and was raised up glorified.


----------



## Delahunt (Nov 8, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> We need to be clear on several terms (which are almost never clarified).
> 
> *When you say "God," do you mean the essence, a divine person, more than one divine person, etc?
> 
> *When you say "die," do you mean the soul is separated from the body, a cessation of consciousness (which isn't even true of humans)?



Thanks, these are crucial questions to set up a thoughtful answer. I believe I know where you are going here, but for sake of clarity and my own edification to answer someone who may ask me, let me ask those questions here
1. What if I use the word God with respect to Essence? Did God die?
2. What if I use the word God with respect to Person? Did God die?
3. What if I use the word God to encompass the Spirit or Father? Did God die?
4. What if I use the word Die to mean physical death in which the body only perished? Did God die?

Your clarifying questions are extremely useful for me to think through it, would be interested in the answers as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 8, 2019)

Delahunt said:


> Thanks, these are crucial questions to set up a thoughtful answer. I believe I know where you are going here, but for sake of clarity and my own edification to answer someone who may ask me, let me ask those questions here
> 1. What if I use the word God with respect to Essence? Did God die?
> 2. What if I use the word God with respect to Person? Did God die?
> 3. What if I use the word God to encompass the Spirit or Father? Did God die?
> ...


Jesus physically died in His humanity, but not in His Deity.


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 8, 2019)

Here, the points Rom and Daniel have raised get to the heart of the issue. To understand how we can say that the God-man died, we have to understand something of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, and how the two natures relate to the person. 

So, the person of Christ has two natures that are not divided, nor changed, nor separated (see the Chalcedonian formula). The human nature only exists in hypostatic union with the divine. So the Son did not take upon himself an already existing "out there" human nature. Rather, He added a full human nature, body and soul, to His divine nature, and which only exists in hypostatic union with the divine nature, a full human nature though it be. 

This union means that there is a communication of attributes. The communication of attributes can go from either nature to the person, but _not_ from one nature to the other. In other words, what is true of either nature can be said of the whole person. We can say that Jesus, the God-man, got tired, even though God does not get tired. The tiredness is predicated of the human nature, and therefore also to the whole person. We also say that Jesus did miracles. His human nature did not do the miracles (and it is not really appropriate to say that a nature acted, since He is a person, and the natures do not operate abstractly of the person), but He as a person did the miracles. In the case of the Acts quotation, we see what is happening: Jesus Christ died, and His blood was shed. Obviously, only human blood can be spilled, as God doesn't have blood. However, what is true of the human nature is true of the whole person. And what the confession notes is that the whole person can be designated by either nature. This is how we can say that God purchased the church with His own blood. It is also how we can affirm, in this sense, that Mary is the _theotokos_, the God-bearer: she bore the God-man. 

So, we don't simply say "God died on the cross," without qualification, which could be misleading. What we should say is that Jesus Christ, the God-man died on the cross. He died according to His human nature, a death that can then be posited of the whole person. All four of your questions should be answered in the negative, because you are not explicitly talking of the God-man there, but only God abstracted from the human nature that the Son assumed.

Reactions: Like 9 | Sad 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 8, 2019)

I have just published a blog post that is broadly relevant to the OP: Pierre Du Bosc: The Son of God and the Son of Mary.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 8, 2019)

timfost said:


> Yes, and scripture itself says that God bled:
> 
> "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of *God which He purchased with His own blood*." (Acts 20:28)
> 
> It is the God that bled also the God that died, though since the human nature was not essential to the divine, there was also no change in the essence of God. It's true that _if_ the human nature was essential to the divine that death would necessitate change in the Godhead, but we do not believe that the human nature is co-eternal, but rather "the human nature... a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body" was added to the divine. When we consider these facts, we can _carefully_ and _rightfully_ concur both that God died on the cross and that God cannot die.



Your response is a very good corrective. 

Do you think the quote I provided from Ligonier's is one-sided or unbalanced on this issue?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 8, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Your response is a very good corrective.
> 
> Do you think the quote I provided from Ligonier's is one-sided or unbalanced on this issue?



Ligonier meant well but they didn't think through their answer. The term "God" and the term "died" were left ambiguous. What we have to maintain is that the divine nature suffered no "perturbations" (my word). The divine person, however, most certainly did die. That's the whole point.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## timfost (Nov 8, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Your response is a very good corrective.
> 
> Do you think the quote I provided from Ligonier's is one-sided or unbalanced on this issue?



I like much of it, but I think this is problematic:

"We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ."

This seems unbalanced for the following reasons:

1. It separates the work of the Person to the work of a nature.

2. Dort states "This death is of such *infinite value* and dignity because the *Person who submitted to it* was not only really man and perfectly holy, *but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us*..." (Dort 2.4). If the atonement was only accomplished by the human nature, it would be of finite worth. It is the hypostatic union that makes the atonement of infinite worth.

Heidelberg 14 says: "Can any mere creature make satisfaction for us? None; for first, God will not punish any other creature for the sin which man committed; and further, *no mere creature can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin and redeem others from it*." It was not the human nature alone that atoned for sin since a) a human nature is only worth one human nature which is both finite and insufficient to substitute for many, and b) the human nature could not sustain the burden of God's wrath-- it would have been swallowed up in eternal punishment.

Does this help?

Reactions: Like 4 | Sad 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 8, 2019)

timfost said:


> I like much of it, but I think this is problematic:
> 
> "We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ."
> 
> ...



Yes, thanks. While reading the article I also glanced over at the Formula of Chalcedon and remembered that we also have no problem calling Mary the Mother of God. So it follows then that we can allow for loose verbiage which also speaks of God dying on the Cross.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 8, 2019)

Not only did God die on a cross, God was born of a virgin. We must let Scripture expand and inform our preconceived notions about birth and death.

Another thing, we needn’t be so careful to say the Son died in his human nature. He did. But if to die is to be separated from a body, then the whole Son died. An impersonal human nature wasn’t separated from a body. A divine person with a human nature was. 

When the Son died he could no longer perform divine acts in human form. Nor could the human nature perform physical acts. Yet the human soul existed and functioned according to an intermediate state. The human soul of the Son was not restricted in thought but it was restricted in bodily function upon death. We are not annihilationists.

But just as the human soul was separated from the body, the divine person was too. So, the second person in and through the divine nature could do all he ever could do - which is all his holy will, upon the second person’s separation from the body. The Son, in both natures, could do what the Son in both natures could do apart from a body. The human nature was restricted upon death but the divine person in his divine nature was not restricted when the second person was separated from the body of the human nature. He could function as always before upon separation from his body.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 9, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> We need to be clear on several terms (which are almost never clarified).
> 
> *When you say "God," do you mean the essence, a divine person, more than one divine person, etc?
> 
> *When you say "die," do you mean the soul is separated from the body, a cessation of consciousness (which isn't even true of humans)?



I like this. It gets to my point. I think people impose non consciousness upon the reality of death, which is akin to annihilation. But if we consider death in terms of a person separated from his body, then that was true of the divine Son.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Nov 9, 2019)

RWD said:


> But just as the human soul was separated from the body, the divine person was too. So, the second person in and through the divine nature could do all he ever could do - which is all his holy will, upon the second person’s separation from the body. The Son, in both natures, could do what the Son in both natures could do apart from a body. The human nature was restricted upon death but the divine person in his divine nature was not restricted when the second person was separated from the body of the human nature. He could function as always before upon separation from his body.



Hmm... This seems to contradict the Belgic Confession 19, "But these two natures are so closely united in one Person that they *were not separated even by His death*. Therefore that which He, when dying, commended into the hands of His Father, was a real human spirit, departing from His body. But *in the meantime the divine nature always remained united with the human, even when He lay in the grave; and the Godhead did not cease to be in Him*, any more than it did when He was an infant, though it did not so clearly manifest itself for a while."

Would you take exception to this article or am I misunderstanding you?

Thanks for clarifying!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 9, 2019)

timfost said:


> Hmm... This seems to contradict the Belgic Confession 19, "But these two natures are so closely united in one Person that they *were not separated even by His death*. Therefore that which He, when dying, commended into the hands of His Father, was a real human spirit, departing from His body. But *in the meantime the divine nature always remained united with the human, even when He lay in the grave; and the Godhead did not cease to be in Him*, any more than it did when He was an infant, though it did not so clearly manifest itself for a while."
> 
> Would you take exception to this article or am I misunderstanding you?
> 
> Thanks for clarifying!



No, as I understand it, I would not take it exception. It’s a great truth but I don’t think what I’ve said even interacts with it.

What you cite from the BC seems to be teaching that the Second Person retained both natures in one person upon death. He did. Whatever the union of the two natures in one person, the Second Person remained a human being and a divine being. One person, two natures, never stopped.

More to the point, since the divine nature of the Son is one and the same (numerically one) with the Spirit and the Father, we should be saying for clarity sake not that the two natures remained united but that the human nature remained united to the divine Second Person. For in the incarnation, neither the Father nor the Son, who fully share the divine nature, emptied themself (“by addition” i.e. by adding humanity to themself). Only the Second Person became forever man.

We must be careful not to say that the divine nature (without any qualification) has a body. The Second Person who is divine does. The Son has a human body. Upon death, the body of the Second Person lay in the grave. The human spirit (nature or essence) was commended into the Father’s hands. The human being was with the Father, apart from the body. Where the human being of Christ is, he is as one person, the undivided Son. But the Son yielded up his human ghost when it was finished. So, no matter the relationship of the human soul and divine nature of the Son, one person with two natures existed as one person, even when the body lay in the grave. Where the human spirit of the Son was, he was there as the undivided God-man, awaiting the resurrection. Yet also, the omnipresent Son was not merely in one place, constrained by time and space.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2019)

RWD said:


> No, as I understand it, I would not take it exception. It’s a great truth but I don’t think what I’ve said even interacts with it.
> 
> What you cite from the BC seems to be teaching that the Second Person retained both natures in one person upon death. He did. Whatever the union of the two natures in one person, the Second Person remained a human being and a divine being. One person, two natures, never stopped.
> 
> ...


Was not Jesus the fullness of God the Son incarnated though, so all of Him was present as Jesus on Earth? So As God Man, He could taste and suffer death in the physical sense as a Man in a real sense, but not as God?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 9, 2019)

timfost said:


> Hmm... This seems to contradict the Belgic Confession 19, "But these two natures are so closely united in one Person that they *were not separated even by His death*. Therefore that which He, when dying, commended into the hands of His Father, was a real human spirit, departing from His body. But *in the meantime the divine nature always remained united with the human, even when He lay in the grave; and the Godhead did not cease to be in Him*, any more than it did when He was an infant, though it did not so clearly manifest itself for a while."
> 
> Would you take exception to this article or am I misunderstanding you?
> 
> Thanks for clarifying!



Neither human nature nor divine nature is synonymous with the soul. BC is saying that the natures aren't separate. It isn't saying that the soul doesn't part (however temporarily) with the body. That's more or less the classic understanding of what death is from Plato to Augustine to Aquinas to Calvin to Belgic.


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Was not Jesus the fullness of God the Son incarnated though, so all of Him was present as Jesus on Earth? So As God Man, He could taste and suffer death in the physical sense as a Man in a real sense, but not as God?



I believe I addressed this above. Maybe consider...

What does it mean to die? When a human dies, is he separated from the body, yet conscious with a will etc.? Is that the essence of death? Was the Second person separated from His body? Do Persons or abstractions die? Did a person die in our stead or an impersonal human composite of body and soul?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2019)

RWD said:


> I believe I addressed this above. Maybe consider...
> 
> What does it mean to die? When a human dies, is he separated from the body, yet conscious with a will etc.? Is that the essence of death? Was the Second person separated from His body? Do Persons or abstractions die? Did a person die in our stead or an impersonal human composite of body and soul?


Jesus really did die in our place as our son bearer, but God cannot everdie in the ultimate sense of that term


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus really did die in our place as our son bearer, but God cannot everdie in the ultimate sense of that term



How are you using the term "God?" That's the whole point behind this discussion.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus really did die in our place as our son bearer, but God cannot everdie in the ultimate sense of that term


Please ask clarifying questions— and then take time to think and study— rather than state thoughts in declarative form. This will benefit everyone much more.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus really did die in our place as our son bearer, but God cannot everdie in the ultimate sense of that term



Perhaps this might be a bit more nuanced than that. By analogy, God is Spirit. He cannot be seen (nor tempted). Jesus is God. Jesus was both seen and tempted. Was “God” tempted? 

The Son was tempted through his human nature and only by that occasion. Notwithstanding, a _person_ was tempted, lest a person did not fulfill all righteousness on our behalf. In the like manner, not just a human nature but an actual person died upon the cross, lest we aren’t redeemed (and only our natures are redeemed). 

Excursus...It’s my understanding that William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland do not think Christ has two wills, a human and divine will. But wouldn’t this imply our wills are not redeemed? As Oliver Crisp points out, they may save themselves from violating Chalcedon. Maybe. But as Crisp also observes, do they violate the 3rd Council of Constantinople? Should we affirm monothelitism? I should say not.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 9, 2019)

RWD said:


> It’s my understanding that William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland do not think Christ has two wills, a human and divine will. But wouldn’t this imply our wills are not redeemed? As Oliver Crisp points out, they may save themselves from violating Chalcedon. Maybe. But as Crisp also observes, do they violate the 3rd Council of Constantinople? Should we affirm monothelitism? I should say not.



Correct. Craig is a monothelite. He wrote that section in _Philosophical Foundations_. Moreland hasn't really commented on that issue.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> How are you using the term "God?" That's the whole point behind this discussion.


God as the Truine Supreme Being, as while Jesus died in a physical sense, the Father and Spirit never did.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2019)

RWD said:


> Perhaps this might be a bit more nuanced than that. By analogy, God is Spirit. He cannot be seen (nor tempted). Jesus is God. Jesus was both seen and tempted. Was “God” tempted?
> 
> The Son was tempted through his human nature and only by that occasion. Notwithstanding, a _person_ was tempted, lest a person did not fulfill all righteousness on our behalf. In the like manner, not just a human nature but an actual person died upon the cross, lest we aren’t redeemed (and only our natures are redeemed).
> 
> Excursus...It’s my understanding that William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland do not think Christ has two wills, a human and divine will. But wouldn’t this imply our wills are not redeemed? As Oliver Crisp points out, they may save themselves from violating Chalcedon. Maybe. But as Crisp also observes, do they violate the 3rd Council of Constantinople? Should we affirm monothelitism? I should say not.


When you say God died, are you meaning both Deity and humanity of Jesus, or just He physically died?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Correct. Craig is a monothelite. He wrote that section in _Philosophical Foundations_. Moreland hasn't really commented on that issue.


SoJesus Judt had the nature of God then let him?


----------



## timfost (Nov 9, 2019)

RWD said:


> No, as I understand it, I would not take it exception. It’s a great truth but I don’t think what I’ve said even interacts with it.
> 
> What you cite from the BC seems to be teaching that the Second Person retained both natures in one person upon death. He did. Whatever the union of the two natures in one person, the Second Person remained a human being and a divine being. One person, two natures, never stopped.
> 
> ...



Perhaps I'm being dense, but I'm still having trouble following you. Here is what is confusing me about what you said:



> But just as the human soul was separated from the body, the divine person was too.



It sounds like you're saying that "just as the human soul was separated from the body, the divine person _was separated from the body_." I could concur if you mean that the Son of Man was separated both body and soul. 

Then you stated:



> The human nature was restricted upon death but the divine person in his divine nature was not restricted *when the second person was separated from the body of the human nature*. He could function as always before upon separation from his body.



Perhaps it is just the wording that is getting me, but I don't believe the second person of the trinity was ever separated from the body or soul of the incarnate Christ. It was only the body and soul that were separated from each other but both remained united to the the divine nature even in the separation of death. 

In your explanation, you said:



> So, no matter the relationship of the human soul and divine nature of the Son, one person with two natures existed as one person, even when the body lay in the grave. Where the human spirit of the Son was, he was there as the undivided God-man, awaiting the resurrection.



Are you saying that the human nature was always united with the divine because the soul went to be with God? Do you believe that the body without the soul in the grave was also still united to the divine nature or was the body separated from the divine nature when separated from the soul?

I appreciate your clarification! I would admit I may have something to learn here!


----------



## timfost (Nov 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> When you say God died, are you meaning both Deity and humanity of Jesus, or just He physically died?



David, everyone has maintained at all times that the divine nature cannot die. Christ, according to the human nature, was both divine and could physically die. I'm not sure if you are taking the time to understand what is being said and you are muddying the water by using terms carelessly. This is a fairly technical conversation and your questions/assertions are not adding clarity to the conversation, but the opposite. 

Would you like some reading materials? I'm sure many here could give you some recommendations! I often come here for reading recommenations myself.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2019)

timfost said:


> Perhaps I'm being dense, but I'm still having trouble following you. Here is what is confusing me about what you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is confusing to me , is it even possible to have Jesus have His twin nature's divided after he died?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2019)

timfost said:


> David, everyone has maintained at all times that the divine nature cannot die. Christ, according to the human nature, was both divine and could physically die. I'm not sure if you are taking the time to understand what is being said and you are muddying the water by using terms carelessly. This is a fairly technical conversation and your questions/assertions are not adding clarity to the conversation, but the opposite.
> 
> Would you like some reading materials? I'm sure many here could give you some recommendations! I often come here for reading recommenations myself.


That would be helpful.


----------



## timfost (Nov 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> This is confusing to me , is it even possible to have Jesus have His twin nature's divided after he died?



The two natures of Christ (divine and human) were not divided after he died. It is only the two parts of the human nature (body and soul) that were separated at death. Does that help?


----------



## timfost (Nov 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> That would be helpful.


Have you read the confessions on this point recently? I would start with the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and then look at the relevant parts in the Three Forms of Unity and Westminster standards. After this, I would look at some of the heresies since it is often helpful to understand our own position better when we compare it to divergent views. I can provide a list of these if you'd like as well. Let me know if you need help finding the relevant portions in the confessions.

Blessings on your studies!


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2019)

timfost said:


> The two natures of Christ (divine and human) were not divided after he died. It is only the two parts of the human nature (body and soul) that were separated at death. Does that help?


So Jesus duel nature's remained in His soul?


----------



## timfost (Nov 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> So Jesus duel nature's remained in His soul?



His soul is _part_ of the human nature. The soul does not have a nature since it is part of a nature. Does that help?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 9, 2019)

timfost said:


> It sounds like you're saying that "just as the human soul was separated from the body, the divine person _was separated from the body_." I could concur if you mean that the Son of Man was separated both body and soul.



It's the doctrine of the Extra Calvinisticum. The divine person isn't circumscribed by the body. The body was in the grave.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 9, 2019)

timfost said:


> His soul is _part_ of the human nature. The soul does not have a nature since it is part of a nature. Does that help?



Correct, the mental temptation is to identify soul with divine nature and body with human, but that is wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 9, 2019)

Tim,

I’d be happy to exegete my posts over the phone but there’s way too much here to try to untangle in such a forum given my time constraints. I’ll make a few comments briefly.

You said:

“It sounds like you're saying that "just as the human soul was separated from the body, the divine person _was separated from the body_." I could concur if you mean that the Son of Man was separated both body and soul.”​The Son of Man was a person. So, I don’t think that gets you much. I’ll try to unpack that more below.

“Separated both body and soul” is very unclear to me. 

Then you say: 

“Perhaps it is just the wording that is getting me, but I don't believe the second person of the trinity was ever separated from the body or soul of the incarnate Christ.”​
Separated from the human _soul_? I tried to labor the point that the the Second Person stayed intact with respect to soul and divinity in one person. I even stated: “So, no matter the relationship of the human soul and divine nature of the Son, one person with two natures *existed as one person*, even when the body lay in the grave. Where the human spirit of the Son was, he was there as the *undivided God-man*, awaiting the resurrection.”

I hope that’s clear now. 

I believe you took issue here, “The human nature was restricted upon death but the divine person in his divine nature was not restricted *when the second person was separated from the body of the human nature*. He could function as always before upon separation from his body.”

First off, humanity is a body soul composite. Priority is given to the soul since our souls exist (as immortal subsistence) when the body dies. We’d never say Joe is at the cemetery. However, we would say, Joe is in heaven. Nothing controversial there I trust. 

But again, the Son performed divine acts through his human nature. When the Second Person died, _his_ body - the body of the Second Person - lay in the grave. _His_ body died and awaited resurrection life. Whose body died? The Divine Son’s body, of course. If you’re saying that the Son of Man’s body died in an effort to get around the Second Person’s body, that would be a move toward Nestorianism (two persons). So, I’m not sure what introducing Son of Man (or Second Adam) type language gets us in this regard. 

Did a person’s body die? If so, then that settles it for me. That’s all that’s meant by the Second Person died on the cross. The Second Person was crucified, dead and buried. For three days the Son only could act apart from His dead, un-resurrected body. (It is even similar in some respects to when human persons die; we exist and behave according to the intermediate state. Having no body was hardly restrictive of the Son, which only underscores my point that we needn’t shy away from the death of the Son upon the cross. We’re not annihilationists.)


----------



## timfost (Nov 9, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's the doctrine of the Extra Calvinisticum. The divine person isn't circumscribed by the body. The body was in the grave.



For my clarification, would you say then that in the grave His body was separated from the divine nature, yet his soul was not?


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> That would be helpful.



Galatians 2:20

Acts 20:28

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 9, 2019)

timfost said:


> For my clarification, would you say then that in the grave His body was separated from the divine nature, yet his soul was not?



The human soul of Christ and his body are separated from each other, but they are still united to the divine person so that the hypostatic union isn't broken.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## py3ak (Nov 9, 2019)

According to WLC 86, the bodies of believers "even in death continue united to Christ." What is true of the members, in this regard, is also true of the head. The death of Christ involved the separation of human soul and body, not the separation of divine person from human body.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Amen 2


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 9, 2019)

py3ak said:


> According to WLC 86, the bodies of believers "even in death continue united to Christ." What is true of the members, in this regard, is also true of the head. The death of Christ involved the separation of human soul and body, not the separation of divine person from human body.



That the human body dies in Christ doesn’t undermine the soul’s separation from the body nor the hypostatic union. But more to the point, the Second Person’s body died. Accordingly, it wasn’t until the resurrection that divine acts could again be performed through the human nature. If one doesn’t want to recognize that three day restriction as a person being separated from his body, then not much more can be said. But let’s not lose sight of what is at stake. If a _person_ didn’t die for the sins of God’s people, then we are men most miserable, still dead in our sins. Praise God that the church was purchased with the _blood of God _and that the Son of God loved the elect and gave _himself_, *not just an abstraction*, up for them. Praise God that a person was crucified, dead and buried.


----------



## timfost (Nov 9, 2019)

RWD said:


> Tim,
> 
> I’d be happy to exegete my posts over the phone but there’s way too much here to try to untangle in such a forum given my time constraints. I’ll make a few comments briefly.
> 
> ...



Would you agree with Jacob's comment in post #46?


----------



## timfost (Nov 9, 2019)

py3ak said:


> According to WLC 86, the bodies of believers "even in death continue united to Christ." What is true of the members, in this regard, is also true of the head. The death of Christ involved the separation of human soul and body, not the separation of divine person from human body.



Thank you for this, as this has been my concern all along.


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 9, 2019)

Yes, as I’ve said in two distinct ways. It’s very useful too, but I don’t think he was intending to offer an exhaustive response to the apparent disagreements regarding death.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 9, 2019)

RWD said:


> That the human body dies in Christ doesn’t undermine the soul’s separation from the body nor the hypostatic union. But more to the point, the Second Person’s body died. Accordingly, it wasn’t until the resurrection that divine acts could again be performed through the human nature. If one doesn’t want to recognize that three day restriction as a person being separated from his body, then not much more can be said. But let’s not lose sight of what is at stake. If a _person_ didn’t die for the sins of God’s people, then we are men most miserable, still dead in our sins. Praise God that the church was purchased with the _blood of God _and that the Son of God loved the elect and gave _himself_, *not just an abstraction*, up for them. Praise God that a person was crucified, dead and buried.



Denying the death of a person would certainly be a significant problem. But I haven't made that denial, nor has Tim. Hence nothing of what you warn against is at stake. On the contrary, your approach seems to dissolve the hypostatic union with reference to the corporeal aspect of Christ's humanity. That would involve the hypostatic union being, at least in part, an on-again off-again proposition. Given that the mystical union with the believer's body is not broken by death, it's difficult to see on what grounds the hypostatic union would be.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## py3ak (Nov 9, 2019)

timfost said:


> Thank you for this, as this has been my concern all along.



Of course! John Brown of Haddington put it like this:
Q. Did Christ's death separate his soul or body from his divine nature?
A. No; Rev. 1:18, 1 Peter 3:18.​(_Questions & Answers on the Shorter Catechism, _p.129 - expounding WSC 27)

Reactions: Informative 1 | Funny 1


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 9, 2019)

py3ak said:


> Denying the death of a person would certainly be a significant problem. But I haven't made that denial, nor has Tim. Hence nothing of what you warn against is at stake. On the contrary, your approach seems to dissolve the hypostatic union with reference to the corporeal aspect of Christ's humanity. That would involve the hypostatic union being, at least in part, an on-again off-again proposition. Given that the mystical union with the believer's body is not broken by death, it's difficult to see on what grounds the hypostatic union would be.



That the WLC teaches that upon death the human body _nebulously_ _somehow_ remains united to Christ does not imply that the standards, let alone Scripture, also teaches that the Spirit of Christ _emphatically_ _indwells_ corpses that lay in the grave, return to dust and see _corruption_. A few more premises would be needed to get us from _p, “_dead body is _united_ to divine person” to _q, _“divine person _indwells_ dead body.” For one thing, union is not always existential union, such as in the _ordo salutis. _Union in election (chosen in Him) pertains to identity, not ontology. So, not only must you get from union of dust to indwelling of dust, your conclusion also assumes symmetry without a supporting argument. Even if we were to allow union to imply indwelling, “humanity —> divine” does not imply “divine —> humanity.” In other words, even if the dead human body somehow indwells the divine essence of the Son in that mystical union, the reverse cannot be assumed, that a symmetry obtains with respect to the divine Son indwelling corruption. That’s simply fallacious, even if true!

Life - God’s life, indwells non life yet the non life remains dead? If so, indwelling is no longer “indwelling”. It’s meaning becomes vacuous. Moreover, to extrapolate out even further any premise that reduces to the Son having use of his dead body, (which is a direct consequence of indwelling a dead body), undermines the death of the Son, the very thing you say you and Tim would like to maintain.

“Given that the mystical union with the believer's body is not broken by death,”

The soul upon death is indeed separated from the body. That’s precisely why the intermediate state is unnatural. Accordingly, that premise, being false, fails to support your conclusion regarding any violation to the hypostatic union. Moreover, if the mystical union is not broken,* then it’s not predicated upon indwelling!*

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 10, 2019)

David, I once read through almost all the Reformed ST's on this subject, and the clearest and most helpful by FAR was Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, volume 2, pp. 378-407.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 10, 2019)

Maybe this might clarify things even further.

“Given that the mystical union with the believer's body is not broken by death, it's difficult to see on what grounds the hypostatic union would be.”

Union means many things. Jesus was united to humanity in the incarnation. We are united to Christ in eternal election. There’s a sacramental union between the elements and the reality. In all such instances, there’s no indwelling between that which is union with another. So, although the Holy Spirit is united in a non existential mystical sense to the waters of baptism and that Christ is mysteriously present by faith in the Supper, such union doesn’t imply life indwells the elements. That Jesus identified with sinners in John’s baptism, such union is not existential. So, when I say that soul departs or that the Son no longer indwells the physical corpse, citing mystical union between life and corpse indeed serves to corroborate hypostatic union, but notwithstanding it doesn’t exclude what I’ve been saying all along. Mystical union is not germane to my point, other than underscoring the hypostatic union remains intact.

Paul speaks of death as a _departure_ from the body. 

The thief on the cross would depart from the body that day, being _separated_ from his body. 

Jesus _gave up _the ghost (from his body). 

Paul states that to be _absent_ from the body is to be present (or home) with the Lord. 

“Absence” and “departure” pertain to death’s separation. In all such instances, the union that is severed is ontic. It’s metaphysical. In death, the soul is severed from the body. So, whatever is meant by the body being “united” to Christ upon death, it must be compatible with the ontic inward reality that contemplates a _*lifeless*_ corpse. That dead bodies are outwardly _identified_ with ones who once occupied them (and in a very _qualified_ sense are said to be “united” to the Son) does not undue the biblical teaching of the soul’s utter release and separation from the body upon death. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Accordingly, that the mystical union is not broken is not at odds with what I’ve put forth. A divine person died and his corpse had no human nor divine _life. _The eternal Son didn’t act through the dead body for three days. The Second Person had died. That in no way undermines the hypostatic union. What it does do is preserve the meaning of death.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 10, 2019)

py3ak said:


> Of course! John Brown of Haddington put it like this:
> Q. Did Christ's death separate his soul or body from his divine nature?
> A. No; Rev. 1:18, 1 Peter 3:18.​(_Questions & Answers on the Shorter Catechism, _p.129 - expounding WSC 27)



That's an entirely different proposition from whether Christ's human body and human soul were separated, which is the universal understanding of "death."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 10, 2019)

This is a great thread. Thanks, I am learning a lot.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 10, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> David, I once read through almost all the Reformed ST's on this subject, and the clearest and most helpful by FAR was Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, volume 2, pp. 378-407.



Lane,

Have you consulted Vos? In Vol. 3 (Christology) of Reformed Dogmatics, Vos notes that “the concept of death includes...Separation of the source of life for the body, because_ the soul can no longer retain in its organic connection_. This was also the case with Christ.” 

He goes on to note that “If the concept of death is _separation, dissolution_, then this characteristic must come to light in the strongest possible way. Hence the soul and body must be_ torn apart_.” 

In the context of eternal death relative to temporal death, Vos compares and contrasts Christ with the lost. Both suffer both types of death, whereas only the elect suffer _only_ temporal death. Regarding the lost, Vos speaks of soul and body being _reunited_ (which presupposes a severed union) upon the temporal death [the intermediate state] giving way to the fullest expression of eternal death in the reunited body and soul. He also observes the order of things. Christ suffered eternal death, then temporal death. The lost experience the same two but in reverse order. In both cases, only in eternal death does the body soul composite remain intact. 

Any appeal to mystical union of believers’ bodies dying in union with Christ has no relevant bearing on the anthropological subject at hand because although the bodies of believers die in Christ, the bodies of the lost don’t. Therefore, any appeal to mystical union of body and soul, if it’s to make a point about how body and soul relate to personhood, must apply to _all_ humanity in the intermediate state. It must apply to quick and the dead. It must transcend union with Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Nov 11, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's an entirely different proposition from whether Christ's human body and human soul were separated, which is the universal understanding of "death."



You're absolutely right. John Brown gives a clear statement of the view that I have expressed, which in no way contradicts the definition of death as the separation of soul and body.



RWD said:


> Maybe this might clarify things even further.



That line feels a little ironic!

While I appreciate the explanation about what it would take to get us to "indwelling" in post #54, I haven't used the word. I certainly have no objection if you want to critique positions I haven't argued for, but I don't see why I would need to be involved in that process.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 11, 2019)

RWD said:


> Lane,
> 
> Have you consulted Vos? In Vol. 3 (Christology) of Reformed Dogmatics, Vos notes that “the concept of death includes...Separation of the source of life for the body, because_ the soul can no longer retain in its organic connection_. This was also the case with Christ.”
> 
> ...


How are you defining temporal death?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 11, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> How are you defining temporal death?



Separation of soul from the body

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 11, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> How are you defining temporal death?



For Vos temporal death is the separation of the body from the soul. Eternal death is the punishment of death that is received when body and soul are united. For Christ, eternal death was first, then he underwent temporal death. Those who die before his coming will experience temporal death prior to eternal death, the final death in which body and soul are reunited.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 11, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Separation of soul from the body


Eternal death would be living apart from God forever then?


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 11, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Eternal death still means that sinners live forever resurrected, do Jesus received after death as saved do, Correct?



I’m not sure I’m understanding.


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 11, 2019)

py3ak said:


> You're absolutely right. John Brown gives a clear statement of the view that I have expressed, which in no way contradicts the definition of death as the separation of soul and body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pastor,

All good at my end, but I would like to say a few things.

My interaction with you began when you posted this:

“According to WLC 86, the bodies of believers "even in death continue united to Christ." What is true of the members, in this regard, is also true of the head. The death of Christ involved the separation of human soul and body, not the separation of divine person from human body.”

My initial response was somewhat exhaustive since I wasn’t clear on what you were trying to say. If you were trying to argue something, then it was an invalid argument. Therefore, I’m _sincerely_ confident you were not trying to argue but merely stating your position, which of course I have no problem with you doing.

You stated four primary premises, none of which were built upon the others. But for an obvious reason you also invoked WLC 86. As I pointed out in various places (more acutely in a post to Lane), WLC 86 isn’t terribly germane given that any appeal to it doesn’t take into account the lack of mystical union the bodies of unbelievers have in the intermediate state. Accordingly, we can’t use it to make a universal anthropological claim. Nor does it save the hypostatic union, which I’ll try to address in more detail below.

Your post entailed:

_Believers’ bodies die in Christ 
“True for its members” —> Christ’s body died in Christ 
Christ’s body and soul were separated in death
The divine person was never separated from his body _

If death entails a separation of a _person_ from his body, then the Second person did not die _if_, as you suggest, the divine person was never separated from his body. More specifically, if death entails a _person_ being separated from his body, then a person with two natures would have to experience both natures (the totality of the person) being separated from his body. If one objects to the conclusion, then he ought to revise the premise regarding the nature of death.

Regardless, such a conclusion that the divine nature was separated from the lifeless corpse hardly undermines the hypostatic union. The hypostatic union is not so fragile as to depend upon the human body to keep the union of two natures in one person intact. But some here have suggested as much, which is precisely why the mystical union of dead bodies to Christ was introduced through WLC 86.

It’s rather apparent that some here believe that to remain orthodox in our Christology we must maintain: (i) mystical (yet non ontic) union of body and soul in temporal death + (ii) the divine nature unseparated from the body for those three days. In that way, it’s believed we maintain the hypostatic union, hence the appeal to WLC 86, which supposedly establishes how we might keep intact the personhood of created persons (with an exception for the lost). Hence your, “According to WLC 86, the bodies of believers ‘even in death continue united to Christ.’ What is true of the members, in this regard, is also true of the head.”

As I understand your position, the most you can claim is (a) _only_ Christ’s humanity was separated from his body and the Second Person did not die, or (b) death doesn’t always entail separation of a person from his body.

[Of course (b) is true for those who remain at the time of the second advent. So, we should probably refine (b) to (b*) the intermediate state between death and resurrection doesn’t always entail separation of a person from his body.]

Therefore, your choices are (a) or (*b), not your (c) “Denying the death of a person would certainly be a significant problem. But I haven't made that denial, nor has Tim.”

Your denial of the death of the Second _Person_ is certainly implicit unless you embrace (*b), or something consistent with (*b). Your position is indeed salvageable, in which case you’d be predicating to the person that which he does only in his humanity.

Your position is that a Person died, but _only_ _in his humanity. _My only point from the very beginning has been, it’s not necessary to qualify the Son’s death in that way. Reason being, the whole Person no longer inhabited the body. The corpse was utterly lifeless, lest the body was not an actual corpse. The Son for three days did not perform divine acts through a body. The body was dead because all life, two natures, one person abandon it in the grave. Notwithstanding, no violence was done to the hypostatic union but we maintain the integrity of death.


----------



## timfost (Nov 11, 2019)

@RWD
I'm having trouble following your reasoning in this thread. A few things would help me:

1. Do you agree with @BayouHuguenot in post #46?

2. Do you think anyone is disagreeing with the assertion that the parts of Christ's human nature were separated in death (body and soul)?

3. Is life a prerequisite for being united? Can the divine nature be united to a lifeless body without a soul?

4. Death is the separation of body and soul. When body and soul are separated, the person is dead. Death is not the separation of a _person_ from a body as you suggest (post #66) but a _soul_ from a body. If I understand correctly, you are conflating person and soul which is leading to misunderstanding and confusion. A person is not a _part_ of humanity.


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 11, 2019)

“Death is the separation of body and soul. When body and soul are separated, the person is dead. Death is not the separation of a _person_ from a body as you suggest (post #66) but a _soul_ from a body.”
​Brother Tim,

1. You should then agree that your construct entails a false dichotomy between person and soul _*if*_ it is true that, “I = my soul” & “souls = persons”. I know you reject those equivalencies, so let’s agree on that. In other words, your construct obviously rejects “I = my soul” & _“_souls = persons”. Fair enough? 

2. If death is not separation of a person from his body (as you maintain), then you should also agree that such a construct as yours renders unintelligible the proposition, “Saint Paul, the _person_, is in heaven (without his natural body)”. After all, for you, “Death is not the separation of a _person_ from a body...but a _soul_ from a body.” 

3. Given your construct, you must instead say the opposite, “Saint Paul, the _person_, is not in heaven awaiting the resurrection of his body.” The reason being, for you: upon death only the soul departs the body.

4. You believe the soul lives on. You believe the person dies. You believe the body dies. Since I’m sure you rightly recognize that the body is not the person and you deny the _person_ leaves his body _as his soul_, you seem to be left with a situation in which persons no longer exist or persons lay in the grave. But if persons do exist in the intermediate state, then where? The grave contains the dead body. Heaven contains the souls made perfect, but where are the persons? Also, are there lost persons in torment or only lost souls? 

“If I understand correctly, you are conflating person and soul which is leading to misunderstanding and confusion.”​
I don’t believe I’m conflating anything, or if I am I don’t think it has been demonstrated.

Maybe look at it this way. Clear the slate...

I believe it’s perfectly intelligible to assert: 

_p_, It’s unnatural for _persons_ in the intermediate state to to be separated from their bodies. (That seems pretty plain to me.) 

Yet we would never assert _p*_: 

_P*_, It’s unnatural for _persons_ in the intermediate state to to be separated from their souls. 

Why is it that _p_ makes sense whereas _p*_ doesn’t? I would humbly submit that the reason _p_ makes sense and _p_* doesn’t is precisely because: “I = my soul” & “souls = persons”. See Vos, Volume ii (Anthropology).


----------



## timfost (Nov 11, 2019)

RWD said:


> “Death is the separation of body and soul. When body and soul are separated, the person is dead. Death is not the separation of a _person_ from a body as you suggest (post #66) but a _soul_ from a body.”
> ​Brother Tim,
> 
> 1. You should then agree that your construct entails a false dichotomy between person and soul _*if*_ it is true that, “I = my soul” & “souls = persons”. I know you reject those equivalencies, so let’s agree on that. In other words, your construct obviously rejects “I = my soul” & _“_souls = persons”. Fair enough?
> ...



For my clarity before any other responses, could you please answer whether or not you agree with the assertion in post 46?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 11, 2019)

timfost said:


> 2. Do you think anyone is disagreeing with the assertion that the parts of Christ's human nature were separated in death (body and soul)?



I thought you were, since RWD and I are saying the same thing.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 11, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Eternal death would be living apart from God forever then?



Yeah, but no one is talking about that in this thread.


----------



## timfost (Nov 11, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thought you were, since RWD and I are saying the same thing.



See post #37


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 11, 2019)

timfost said:


> For my clarity before any other responses, could you please answer whether or not you agree with the assertion in post 46?



No, I won’t oblige because I think what would better serve the discussion between us is you get back to me on my previous post to you. What I wrote to you pretty much brings you to a crossroad and the concepts don’t require nuance. If you’re after clarity, I think my post leads you where you need to go first. Whereas post 46, I can readily interpret it in a way that’s agreeable to me. And, I see no substantive difference between 46 and this analog: “The human soul of Paul and his body are separated from each other, but they are still united to Paul the person.” 

The philosophical distinctions surrounding union are much more nuanced than what I most recently posted you. So, that you’re even asking whether I agree or not with 46 tells me that you might not be recognizing different ways 46 might be understood. Whereas my last post, I think, fleshes out some things in a more obvious way. It think it warrants your response.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 11, 2019)

Is my body still mine as a person who lays in the grave even though my Soul is with the Lord? I think it is. Am I wrong?

I am sorry if this confuses things.


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 11, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is my body still mine as a person who lays in the grave even though my Soul is with the Lord? I think it is. Am I wrong?



Absent from the body, present with the Lord. It’s your body in the grave but you as person have been delivered from the body of death. You, as a person, will be reunited to an incorruptible body on the last day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 11, 2019)

RWD said:


> I’m not sure I’m understanding.





RWD said:


> Absent from the body, present with the Lord. It’s your body in the grave but you as person have been delivered from the body of death. You, as a person, will be reunited to an incorruptible body on the last day.


ZU
our own body shall be raised up and glorified by God.


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 11, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> ZU
> our own body shall be raised up and glorified by God.



Indeed. My post wasn’t stated well. Thanks for that. It’ll be our body. _This_ corruption must put on incorruption! But it’s not precisely the same body. There’ll be identity but also vast difference. For instance, physical birth defects will be no longer.


----------



## timfost (Nov 11, 2019)

RWD said:


> No, I won’t oblige because I think what would better serve the discussion between us is you get back to me on my previous post to you. What I wrote to you pretty much brings you to a crossroad and the concepts don’t require nuance. If you’re after clarity, I think my post leads you where you need to go first. Whereas post 46, I can readily interpret it in a way that’s agreeable to me. And, I see no substantive difference between 46 and this analog: “The human soul of Paul and his body are separated from each other, but they are still united to Paul the person.”
> 
> The philosophical distinctions surrounding union are much more nuanced than what I most recently posted you. So, that you’re even asking whether I agree or not with 46 tells me that you might not be recognizing different ways 46 might be understood. Whereas my last post, I think, fleshes out some things in a more obvious way. It think it warrants your response.



I am sorry, but I'm having trouble making heads or tails out of your position. I cannot even understand how you would answer post 46 in the affirmative. If I'm going to respond, I do need some more information so I can even understand what I'm responding to. If you are unwilling, I guess that means we are at an impasse.

I've been asking since post #49...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 11, 2019)

timfost said:


> I am sorry, but I'm having trouble making heads or tails out of your position. I cannot even understand how you would answer post 46 in the affirmative. If I'm going to respond, I do need some more information so I can even understand what I'm responding to. If you are unwilling, I guess that means we are at an impasse.
> 
> I've been asking since post #49...



What is it about post 68 you don’t grasp? I ask because, I don’t think you’re grasping the ramifications of your own position, which I flesh out for you in 68.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 12, 2019)

RWD said:


> “Death is the separation of body and soul. When body and soul are separated, the person is dead. Death is not the separation of a _person_ from a body as you suggest (post #66) but a _soul_ from a body.”
> ​Brother Tim,
> 
> 1. You should then agree that your construct entails a false dichotomy between person and soul _*if*_ it is true that, “I = my soul” & “souls = persons”. I know you reject those equivalencies, so let’s agree on that. In other words, your construct obviously rejects “I = my soul” & _“_souls = persons”. Fair enough?
> ...


Would not the real us be then our souls, as we're crested by God in our physical bodies at conception?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 12, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The human soul of Christ and his body are separated from each other, but they are still united to the divine person so that the hypostatic union isn't broken.


That union of His divine and human are forever linked due to the Incarnation, correct?


----------



## timfost (Nov 12, 2019)

RWD said:


> What is it about post 68 you don’t grasp? I ask because, I don’t think you’re grasping the ramifications of your own position, which I flesh out for you in 68.



I think it's unfortunate and unhelpful that you are unwilling to answer a simple question. However, I will attempt to answer you. I will also try to put two and two together and work off certain assumptions about your position since you are unwilling to make them explicit for whatever reason.



RWD said:


> 1. You should then agree that your construct entails a false dichotomy between person and soul _*if*_ it is true that, “I = my soul” & “souls = persons”. I know you reject those equivalencies, so let’s agree on that. In other words, your construct obviously rejects “I = my soul” & _“_souls = persons”. Fair enough?



This is not entirely accurate. In the unity of our person, body and soul, what is said of either part is true of the person. For example, I am six feet tall. This refers specifically to my body and therefore is true of my person, though has very little to do with my soul. I can likewise speak to those attributes that are true of my soul-- even after death-- and say that I am in heaven, though separated from my body. Your construction above is only true if _personal attributes_ are only described as that which involves soul and body (e.g. walking, since it necessitates both volition and physical movement). Since personal attributes are true even when they refer to one part of our humanity, I do not reject the proposition you pose above.



RWD said:


> 2. If death is not separation of a person from his body (as you maintain), then you should also agree that such a construct as yours renders unintelligible the proposition, “Saint Paul, the _person_, is in heaven (without his natural body)”. After all, for you, “Death is not the separation of a _person_ from a body...but a _soul_ from a body.”



Based on my rejection of your first proposition, saying that Paul is in heaven poses no problem. 



RWD said:


> 3. Given your construct, you must instead say the opposite, “Saint Paul, the _person_, is not in heaven awaiting the resurrection of his body.” The reason being, for you: upon death only the soul departs the body.



Again, since these propositions are built off of a fallacious premise, there is again no real problem. Saint Paul is in heaven. It does not follow that his _complete person_ is in heaven. It is also true that Saint Paul is dead and in the grave. Human persons are made of both material and immaterial substances.



RWD said:


> 4. You believe the soul lives on. You believe the person dies. You believe the body dies. Since I’m sure you rightly recognize that the body is not the person and you deny the _person_ leaves his body _as his soul_, you seem to be left with a situation in which persons no longer exist or persons lay in the grave. But if persons do exist in the intermediate state, then where? The grave contains the dead body. Heaven contains the souls made perfect, but where are the persons? Also, are there lost persons in torment or only lost souls?



Here is the crux of the problem. You have equated personhood exclusively with the soul. It would seem to logically follow that the body has no real part in the _essence _of mankind, only their souls according to your argumentation. _It now makes perfect sense that you can discard unity between the lifeless body of Christ with the divine nature since the person, in your line of reasoning, is consubstantial with the soul and not the body_. Unfortunately, the logical theological errors of this doctrine are many.

So let me try to clear up the remainder of your post:



RWD said:


> I believe it’s perfectly intelligible to assert:
> 
> _p_, It’s unnatural for _persons_ in the intermediate state to to be separated from their bodies. (That seems pretty plain to me.)



Persons in the intermediate state are not _complete persons_. They are waiting to be reunited with their bodies.



RWD said:


> Yet we would never assert _p*_:
> 
> _P*_, It’s unnatural for _persons_ in the intermediate state to to be separated from their souls.



A complete person is made of body and soul. Your argumentation suggests that the essence of personhood is the soul, which allows you to take the leap that a soul in heaven is a person in heaven, yet a body on earth has nothing to do with a person. Since a human person is a) made of two parts and b) the attributes of each part are true of the person, then c) we can affirm that the souls in heaven are not existing in absence of their person. 



RWD said:


> Why is it that _p_ makes sense whereas _p*_ doesn’t? I would humbly submit that the reason _p_ makes sense and _p_* doesn’t is precisely because: “I = my soul” & “souls = persons”.



The conundrum here should be irrelevant at this point.

Finally, your appeal to Paul's being out of the body and present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8) hardly substantiates your point, since it is the soul that is the _concious_ part of the body. It does not follow that soul = person any more than body = person. Body + soul = person.

I would still appreciate a *concise* answer to your thoughts on @BayouHuguenot 's post #46. I am confused as to your reasons for not answering this simple question. I'll leave my imagination as to the reason out of it.

Blessings,

Tim

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 12, 2019)

Does anyone here know about William Lane Craig's neo-Apollinarian Christology? How does this effect the doctrine we are discussing. if that is off topic please forgive me. 

Tim, Thanks for expressing my concerns. I have always struggled with understanding all this stuff.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

timfost said:


> I would still appreciate a *concise* answer to your thoughts on @BayouHuguenot 's post #46.



I thought he said he agreed with me several times so far.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does anyone here know about William Lane Craig's neo-Apollinarian Christology? How does this effect the doctrine we are discussing. if that is off topic please forgive me.
> 
> Tim, Thanks for expressing my concerns. I have always struggled with understanding all this stuff.



It's troubling. It means he has trouble affirming a full humanity of Christ. I know why he says it, and it is in response to a tough issue, but I think he takes the wrong conclusion.


----------



## timfost (Nov 12, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thought he said he agreed with me several times so far.



I'm not so sure he did...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 12, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's troubling. It means he has trouble affirming a full humanity of Christ. I know why he says it, and it is in response to a tough issue, but I think he takes the wrong conclusion.


Does he think it was the divine person who animated the human body? This was a question I learned about. Why is that incorrect if you can help me here?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 12, 2019)

One more question. How does that effect our doctrine of the hypostatic union? My Son and I are reading this thread intently as we are also discussing Sin and Temptation as it relates to Christ and us.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does he think it was the divine person who animated the human body? This was a question I learned about. Why is that incorrect if you can help me here?



Kind of. He replaces the human nous with the divine mind.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> That union of His divine and human are forever linked due to the Incarnstion, correct?



Yes


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 12, 2019)

timfost said:


> I think it's unfortunate and unhelpful that you are unwilling to answer a simple question. However, I will attempt to answer you. I will also try to put two and two together and work off certain assumptions about your position since you are unwilling to make them explicit for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


God created us to be when compkete both a physical body and a soul, as all those who have died in Christ still await when they are glorified whole again.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 12, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's troubling. It means he has trouble affirming a full humanity of Christ. I know why he says it, and it is in response to a tough issue, but I think he takes the wrong conclusion.


Bible affirms fully God and Man, so he affirms Jesus just faked feeling pain and suffering then? How can Jesus be our sin bearer if not fully human?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 12, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Kind of. He replaces the human nous with the divine mind.


Do God slipped on and than took off his humanity?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Do God slipped on and than took off his humanity?



I don't really understand what you are saying, but what I think Craig is saying is that the divine mind functions for the human mind in Jesus. He is saying that because he thinks if we posit two minds in Christ, then we have to ask the question, "So which mind in Jesus is doing the thinking?"


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Bible affirms fully God and Man, so he affirms Jesus just faked feeling pain and suffering then? How can Jesus be our sin bearer if not fully human?



That is not what Craig is saying. I don't know how you move from "The divine nous replaces the human nous" to "Jesus faked it."


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 12, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't really understand what you are saying, but what I think Craig is saying is that the divine mind functions for the human mind in Jesus. He is saying that because he thinks if we posit two minds in Christ, then we have to ask the question, "So which mind in Jesus is doing the thinking?"


Would he then be saying that the mind of Jesus is just that of God, placed in a human body?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 12, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is not what Craig is saying. I don't know how you move from "The divine nous replaces the human nous" to "Jesus faked it."


IF not fully human, would Jesus not really experience pain and suffering as a Man, especially while upon the Cross?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2019)

RWD said:


> Pastor,
> 
> All good at my end, but I would like to say a few things.
> 
> ...



*[Moderator]*Ron, I discussed your posts with other moderators. If you're unwilling to answer Tim's questions in a straightforward way, the thread will be closed or your participation on it will be restricted.*[/Moderator]*

I am hesitant to say much about the post quoted above, because anything I do say may be subjected to the same process of imaginative and inaccurate expansion. This style of interaction reduces clarity and discourages communication. 

So to the general reader of this thread, my position is the same as that of John Brown of Haddington (quoted in #53 above). I agree with what he says, and I think that WLC 86, which teaches that Christ remains united to the bodies of believers after death, suggests a partial analogy from a related case. More simply:

1. *Christ* died. That is:
*The theanthropic person* experienced the separation of human body and soul.

2. The *hypostatic* *union* remained intact. That is:
*The union of two complete natures in one person* was not interrupted with reference to any aspect of either nature.

Anything beyond this attributed to me is not to be taken as actually expressive of my own views.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> IF not fully human, would Jesus not really experience pain and suffering as a Man, especially while upon the Cross?



All one needs to feel pain is for C-fibers to be firing. Technically, cyborgs could feel pain.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Would he then be saying that the mind of Jesus is just that of God, placed in a human body?


 Sort of.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 12, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> All one needs to feel pain is for C-fibers to be firing. Technically, cyborgs could feel pain.


But not real pain, as in experiencing it as a real human does.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 12, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sort of.


If Jesus not really human, what resurrected then out from the grave?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> If Jesus not really human, what resurrected then out from the grave?



Craig would say the second Person of the Trinity. All Craig is saying is that the Divine Nous replaced 1/3 of Jesus' human soul. Craig is wrong, but he isn't saying what people think he is saying.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> But not real pain, as in experiencing it as a real human does.



Craig would say that Jesus experiences all of human pain that a human experiences except for the subsection of the soul where the Divine Nous replaced the Human Nous. He would say that isn't a problem, since the Nous (on traditional glosses of the soul) is only for intellectual activities.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 12, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does he think it was the divine person who animated the human body? This was a question I learned about. Why is that incorrect if you can help me here?



@BayouHuguenot 

Jacob, You didn't answer my last question above and I wish you would also address the one below in relation to the last question above if you don't mind. I am learning a lot here. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> How does that effect our doctrine of the hypostatic union?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Jacob, You didn't answer my last question above and I wish you would also address the one below in relation to the last question above if you don't mind. I am learning a lot here.



He never addresses that particular issue. It's tricky, even in Patristic debates. Athanasius specifically used that terminology, since it avoids the problem of "which mind of Jesus is thinking right now?" 

The problem is that it really doesn't do justice to what the Church would later teach about the 2 Wills of Christ. 

Craig would say that Jesus has 1 2/3 souls, where has traditional Christology would say that Jesus has 2 souls/minds.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 12, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does he think it was the divine person who animated the human body? This was a question I learned about. Why is that incorrect if you can help me here?





BayouHuguenot said:


> Kind of. He replaces the human nous with the divine mind.





BayouHuguenot said:


> Craig would say that Jesus has 1 2/3 souls, where has traditional Christology would say that Jesus has 2 souls/minds.



Can you tell me why you think it is incorrect to believe the Divine Person animates the human body? I will have more questions about the Divine Person and the body of Christ and what that entails in more detail tomorrow. I have so much to learn.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Can you tell me why you think it is incorrect to believe the Divine Person animates the human body? I will have more questions about the Divine Person and the body of Christ and what that entails in more detail tomorrow. I have so much to learn.



As it stands, it isn't incorrect as long as it affirms a full human mind and will. The problem comes when the Church adopted the two minds/two wills Christology of St Maximus. As Jesus has a full human will and a full human mind, Craig chooses not to affirm that.

Here is the main problem on all sides: in any given situation, which mind is Jesus using: the human or the divine? Remember there is only one divine person (which is why Gordon Clark's disciples are Nestorians. They see this problem and come to a terrible conclusion).

Analytic theologians (rightly, I think) reformulated this along the following lines:

There are two minds in Christ, but there is an asymmetrical accessing relation between the divine and human mind.


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 12, 2019)

timfost said:


> I am sorry, but I'm having trouble making heads or tails out of your position. I cannot even understand how you would answer post 46 in the affirmative. If I'm going to respond, I do need some more information so I can even understand what I'm responding to. If you are unwilling, I guess that means we are at an impasse.
> 
> I've been asking since post #49...



Tim,

I intended to answer you in 51. It was my first post after your 49. The answer was in the affirmative. I then saw that what I had placed in quotes above my response was something that makes no sense and I realized later that you couldn’t have known my post was for you. Last night I edited out what was in quotes. I didn’t even recognize whose quote it was. What remains has been my original response to you.

That said, I then reconsidered whether I could truthfully answer in the affirmative given that I couldn’t be certain what Jacob meant by “united.” So, rather than point you to my previous answer in 51, I sent a pm to Jacob Monday afternoon with my position relative to his direct quote. I didn’t solicit his response nor did I discourage it. I just wanted to make my view of his quote plain to him. From the public thread, it appears to me he thinks we agree. But even if he said we agreed, that agreement would be predicted upon a particular understanding of union. Depending on that, there could be no true agreement. That’s why I can’t give you a simple yes or no.

Here it is:

“The human soul of Christ and his body are separated from each other, but they are still united to the divine person so that the hypostatic union isn't broken.”

Jacob,

My position is, the hypostatic union isn’t dependent upon the divine essence of the Second Person _occupying_ the human body for three days. The _mystical_ union of the Second Person entails a divine person united to a human nature _without division or confusion_. That’s the essence (small pun intended). If the Second Person’s soul can be separated from the body, then so can his divine nature without violating the hypostatic union _just as long as the two natures remain intact as one person._ If a human person can exist in the intermediate state apart from the body yet still remain a human person due to the preeminence of the soul (Vos), then all the more can a divine person with a human and divine nature be separated from his human body while remaining a two nature person. To deny this is to give undo precedence to the body of the Son. It’s also to imply that persons do not exist if separated from the body. Thoughts?

In addition, any union a person, whether divine or human, has with its corpse will be difficult to define. It would be akin to sacramental union or an identity union, but not a union of perichoresis.
​


----------



## User20004000 (Nov 12, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Can you tell me why you think it is incorrect to believe the Divine Person animates the human body? I will have more questions about the Divine Person and the body of Christ and what that entails in more detail tomorrow. I have so much to learn.



Without the Son taking to himself a human mind..., then only mindless humans were redeemed. Of course there aren’t any such humans. So, if men are redeemed, then the Son has a human mind.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2019)

RWD said:


> My position is, the hypostatic union isn’t dependent upon the divine essence of the Second Person _occupying_ the human body for three days.



I don't see a problem with that. Since a "human body" doesn't equal the human nature, and since Jesus gave up the ghost, that seems fairly straightforward.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 13, 2019)

RWD said:


> Without the Son taking to himself a human mind..., then only mindless humans were redeemed. Of course there aren’t any such humans. So, if men are redeemed, then the Son has a human mind.


This is part of the problem here with your responses RWD. py3ak notes to you, "I am hesitant to say much about the post quoted above, because anything I do say may be subjected to the same process of imaginative and inaccurate expansion." I believe you have done the same thing here with me. Some would say it is an obfuscation if it was avoiding answering a question. I can't accuse you of that since I wasn't asking anything from you. At the same time I have to say that the response you write above addresses nothing I was even considering. 


py3ak said:


> I am hesitant to say much about the post quoted above, because anything I do say may be subjected to the same process of imaginative and inaccurate expansion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 13, 2019)

Time for a break from this thread.


----------

