# Who died on the cross?



## inspector

When Jesus died on the cross did His divinity ever leave Him or did His divinity stay in Him until his last breath?


----------



## BobVigneault

What does the scripture say? Go with that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

His human nature died.


----------



## PresReformed

His human body died, but His humanity and divinity never have parted since His incarnation, nor will they ever. Your question does bring up an interesting point though. Did a nature die on the cross or a person? The Son is defined as a person of the Trinity and this person is united to a fully human what? Nature? Christ is *fully man* and fully God. Aren't we considered persons as men? We are not considered natures. Gordon Clark brings up these questions in _The Incarnation_ and yes, I know that Nestorianism is/was considered a heresy, but I think he was onto something. How can the second *person* of the Trinity all of a sudden be defined as a nature in His incarnation?


----------



## PresReformed




----------



## Magma2

PresReformed said:


> His human body died, but His humanity and divinity never have parted since His incarnation, nor will they ever. Your question does bring up an interesting point though. Did a nature die on the cross or a person? The Son is defined as a person of the Trinity and this person is united to a fully human what? Nature? Christ is *fully man* and fully God. Aren't we considered persons as men? We are not considered natures. Gordon Clark brings up these questions in _The Incarnation_ and yes, I know that Nestorianism is/was considered a heresy, but I think he was onto something. How can the second *person* of the Trinity all of a sudden be defined as a nature in His incarnation?




I think you raise the central question and problem - did a person die on the cross? How does a nature, human or otherwise, die? If Christ's human nature is personal, then how is that different from a person? 

Was it a person or a nature that cried; "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME?"

For what it's worth I think when men like Rich say "His human nature died" they're on the right track, but that's not the whole story. Now they just have to define what they mean. Clark certainly pushed that story along, but tampering with tradition, even if it's a tradition of meaningless words or just plain nonsense, is risky business. I know most confessionally Reformed men like to think they're above that, after all the Confession makes clear that Scripture must always trump tradition, but don't let that fool you. From personal experience, the Puritan Board is the wrong venue to try and think through and discuss this question (even as important as it may be). 

I say, close the thread before it too meets the censor's thumb.


----------



## Magma2

Paul manata said:


> Well, if you want to play that game... how does a *person* die?
> 
> What does it mean to say a 'person' died?



I guess that would depend on how you define person, wouldn't it.  



> But a body isn't a person. Persons *have* bodies.



No argument here, that is, I guess, unless someone's a behaviorist. 



> Indeed, the person of Jesus (fully human and fully divine) immediately went to be in paradise when the body died.



No argument here again. So I guess we can say that when it's confessed per the so-called "Apostles" creed that "He descended into hell" we can all agree that's bunk, right?



> The body is a property of a nature (or essence). The body is the property of Jesus' human nature.



So, when Rich said Christ's human nature died on the cross he meant the body of Christ died and the man Jesus -- the person -- did not die. As you said, persons are not bodies. That's because the property of Jesus' human nature was His body. Have I got it? Then can we say Jesus' body died for our sins, yes? Also, what other properties does a human nature have that didn't die on the cross? 



> In this sense you can say his human nature died (though *technically* it didn't).



So did it die or didn't it? But since you've now equated human nature with the body, or, at the very least, the body is a property of a human nature, I assume it's only proper to say "it." Therefore, "it" died on the cross for our sins and not "he." Persons are not bodies and a body is an "it" not a "he." Thanks for clearing that up Paul.  



> If I said that my business was personal, would my business be a person?



That's your business. 



> He's not. The second person "takes on" a human nature.



Since you said; "the body is a property of a nature (or essence). The body is the property of Jesus' human nature," then what you mean is that the Second Person took on a body. So the Incarnation is really just God in a body. While I certainly follow, I can't say I agree. Of course, to be fair, I guess we still need to know what those other properties of a human nature are that didn't die on the cross if we're going to even remotely maintain any semblance of the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation. That will help, even if it doesn't explain how a body and not a person died on the cross as a propitiation for our sins.



> We are persons, but we still have natures. Angels are persons too, and so is God.



Spoken like a good Van Tilian. However, I would say that God is three persons, and, like your business above, while I would say the Godhead is personal, it is not a person. The Godhead is a pluarity of persons.




> We are considered persons as men, and so was Christ. The person of Christ *had* a human and divine nature. One person, two natures.



I don't see how you got here from what you wrote above, but thanks for trying. 

Like I said, I don't think the Puritan Boards are a good forum to think through or even discuss this question and now you've provided another reason.


----------



## Magma2

Paul manata said:


> Oh, forgot to add that Scripture never defines 'nature' and 'person' and so the Clarkians are hard pressed to say that they 'know' what a 'person' and a 'nature' is. And so they don't need a moderator to close the thread, they see themselves out before they even come in.



"For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he . . . ."

That wasn't hard at all.


----------



## PresReformed

Paul manata said:


> We are persons, but we still have natures. Angels are persons too, and so is God.



God is three persons. You contradict yourself when you say...



Paul manata said:


> We are considered persons as men, and so was Christ. The person of Christ *had* a human and divine nature. One person, two natures.



If Christ as man is considered a person and God the Son is considered a person then you have two persons, one Christ. The Son is already defined as a person in the Trinity, and yes it *is* true that in the incarnation the Son is defined as a nature, not a person. You just said so yourself above. God the Son did not "take on" a nature like putting on a shirt. He remains fully God as the second person of the Trinity. The question is...since he is fully man (as we are) wouldn't this man be a person (as we are)? After all Christ has two wills, one divine and one human. There is no mixture between his humanity and divinity, just a union. I need to study Nestorius more, but I find it interesting that he was actually attacking the Roman Catholic's false doctrine of _Mary, the mother of God_ when he put forth his understanding of the incarnation. I wonder if this bias earned him the title of heretic.


----------



## Magma2

PresReformed said:


> but I find it interesting that he was actually attacking the Roman Catholic's false doctrine of _Mary, the mother of God_ when he put forth his understanding of the incarnation. I wonder if this bias earned him the title of heretic.



Rome has quite a history of doing that very thing. Let me know what you find out.


----------



## PresReformed

Here is a little on Nestorius....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorius



> Nestorius, in Greek, Νεστόριος (c. 386–c. 451) was Archbishop of Constantinople from 10 April 428 to 22 June 431. He received his clerical training as a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Antioch and gained a reputation for his sermons that led to his enthronement by Theodosius II as Archbishop following the death of Sisinnius I in 428.
> 
> Nestorius is considered to be the originator of the Christological heresy known as Nestorianism, which emerged when he began preaching against the title Theotokos (in Greek, Θεοτόκος) or Mother of God, beginning to be used of the Virgin Mary. His immediate antagonist was Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. Alongside the Christological debate, other factors were to come into play in the crisis that swiftly arose. These included a political struggle between the supporters of the See of Alexandria and the See of Antioch, the influence of the Emperor over the See of Constantinople, and the patriarchal primacy of the Pope.
> 
> The theological debate centered on the use of the title of "Mother of God" (Theotokos/Θεοτόκος) for the Virgin Mary, which Nestorius did not recognize, preferring in his sermons, "Mother of Christ" (Christotokos/Χριστοτόκος/), on the grounds that the former title compromised Jesus' humanity. His views were opposed by Cyril who argued that Nestorius was actually denying the reality of the Incarnation by making Jesus Christ into two different persons, (one human, one divine), sharing one body. A fuller discussion is at Nestorianism.


----------



## DTK

Paul manata said:


> Well, many people debate about whether Nestorius really held to NestorianISM, but what is labeled NestorianISM is heresy. Jesus is one person, not two.


Bingo. The only extant writings we have from Nestorius are, for the most part, fragments, and most of which we base our information concerning him is drawn from the writings of his avowed enemy, Cyril of Alexandria, who can't be said to be the most objective representative of Nestorius. I tend to be one of those who has serious doubts as to whether Nestorius was genuinely guilty of Nestorianism. Patristic studies abound with literature representing both sides of this argument.

DTK


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Perhaps some assistance from our Confession may be helpful? Notice especially sections 2, 3, 4, and 7.  


Chapter 8. Of Christ the Mediator.
1. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man,a the Prophet,b Priest,c and King;d the Head and Saviour of his Church,e the Heir of all things,f and Judge of the world;g unto whom he did, from all eternity, give a people to be his seed,h and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.i

a. Isa 42:1; John 3:16; 2 Tim 2:5; 1 Pet 1:19-20. • b. Acts 3:22. • c. Heb 5:5-6. • d. Psa 2:6; Luke 1:33. • e. Eph 5:23. • f. Heb 1:2. • g. Acts 17:31. • h. Psa 22:30; Isa 53:10; John 17:6. • i. Isa 55:4-5; 1 Cor 1:30; 1 Tim 2:6.

2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man's nature,a with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin:b being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.c So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.d Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.e

a. John 1:1, 14; Gal 4:4; Phil 2:6; 1 John 5:20. • b. Heb 2:14, 16-17; 4:15. • c. Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Gal 4:4. • d. Luke 1:35; Rom 9:5; Col 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18. • e. Rom 1:3-4; 1 Tim 2:5.

3. The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure;a having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,b in whom it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell;c to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth,d he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a mediator and surety.e Which office he took not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father,f who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.g

a. Psa 45:7; John 3:34. • b. Col 2:3. • c. Col 1:19. • d. John 1:14; Heb 7:26. • e. Acts 10:38; Heb 7:22; 12:24. • f. Heb 5:4-5. • g. Mat 28:18; John 5:22, 27; Acts 2:36.

4. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake,a which, that he might discharge, he was made under the law,b and did perfectly fulfill it;c endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul,d and most painful sufferings in his body;e was crucified, and died;f was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption.g On the third day he arose from the dead,h with the same body in which he suffered;i with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father,k making intercession;l and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.m

a. Psa 40:7-8 with Heb 10:5-10; John 10:18; Phil 2:8. • b. Gal 4:4. • c. Mat 3:15; 5:17. • d. Mat 26:37-38; 27:46; Luke 22:44. • e. Matthew 26-27 throughout. • f. Phil 2:8. • g. Acts 2:23-24, 27; 13:37; Rom 6:9. • h. 1 Cor 15:3-4. • i. John 20:25, 27. • k. Mark 16:19. • l. Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25; 9:24. • m. Mat 13:40-42; Acts 1:11; 10:42; Rom 14:9-10; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 1:6.

5. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father,a and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.b

a. Rom 3:25-26; 5:19; Eph 5:2; Heb 9:14, 16; 10:14. • b. Dan 9:24, 26; John 17:2; Eph 1:11, 14; Col 1:19-20; Heb 9:12, 15.

6. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same, and forever.a

a. Gen 3:15; Gal 4:4-5; Heb 13:8; Rev 13:8.

7. Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself;a 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.b

a. Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 3:18. • b. John 3:13; Acts 20:28; 1 John 3:16.

8. To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same;a making intercession for them,b and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation;c effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit;d overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.e

a. John 6:37, 39; 10:15-16. • b. Rom 8:34; 1 John 2:1-2. • c. John 15:13, 15; 17:6; Eph 1:7-9. • d. John 14:16; 17:17; Rom 8:9, 14; 15:18-19; 2 Cor 4:13; Heb 12:2. • e. Psa 110:1; Mal 4:2-3; 1 Cor 15:25-26; Col 2:15.


----------



## Magma2

Paul manata said:


> You can ask Rich what he meant.
> 
> I wouldn't say "the" property of Jesus' human nature was his body, I said that was *a* property.



OK, so how does this mitigate against the objections already raised to your "theory"? You made it quite clear that the body is a property of human nature and it was that property that died on the cross, not the person (however you might define that, seeing that Scripture doesn't really inform your theology at this point).



> We can say Jesus died for our sins, just like when you die I can say Sean died. But, really, that just means that your body died.



Uh, no, when my parents died it was their persons who were no longer with me, their bodies remained. You've already asserted, to no objection, that a person is not his body and I agree. Death is the separation of the person from the body. It's a curse and people die. Did Jesus the man -- the person -- die on the cross? For you, evidently no so much. An *it* died. A body but not a person died. 



> Well, on property that didn't die is the property of having God's image. That didn't die. There's many others, simply a moments reflection should suffice for you to figure this out. I'll assume the have the requistite cognitive abilities to do so. If not, let me know and I'll try and help.



I've asked for your help, but your view of the cross and the nature of Christ and who or what died seems to me to be complete nonsense. 



> See my qualifications above (and in the sentence you quoted). Try to play your schoolyard trap games with someone else. Funny, for a guy who wants to "think" through these issues, you're being extremely unhelpful.



How is this unhelpful? Is helpful restricted to just knee jerk agreement with everything you say? This is no trap, you state quite clearly that Jesus Christ died in his human nature, restricting human nature to that property that consists of the body. So "technically" his human nature didn't die on the cross at all, just his body. I don't see why this is a trap? You're very clear in what you mean. Therefore, since all men are the image of God, and I assume all have a human nature, then technically no man dies -- no person dies -- for all men have an "immortal soul" (WCF IV:2). 



> I nowhere equated human nature with the body (as I explicitly denied above). But, yes, "it" (the body) is a property of human nature. Properties are had by things. So, an apple might have the property of being red and crisp. Likewise, a human may have the property of being embodied.



Talk about being unhelpful. You did indeed equate human nature with the body being one of its properties. And, it is this property that dies. Jesus the man, the person, *technically* did not die. You've been very clear.



> Precise or common lanuage? You are not your body, so when you die should we say "it" died?



Maybe they'll say that over your grave, but I would prefer to say the person, Paul Manata, died. Not that I'm looking forward to that day btw, I'm just using you as an example. 

People face death, bodies and things which are *its* do not. And people are the aggregate of the thoughts they think. No to people think quite the same number of thoughts in precisely the same way, therefore it follows that no two persons are the same. The body is a tool or a "tent" as Scripture puts it, I think we can agree on that. Yet, Jesus cried out to God His Father "why have you forsaken me?" The man Jesus died on that cross. But you say it was only his body that died. Well, maybe not. How do you account for the resurrection? Did His body just die temporarily, like when one someone drowns and is resuscitated? 



> Well, if we want to be technical, but you don't always need to be. The Scripture writers were not Clarkians, Sean. No, we can say Jesus died.




We can say Jesus died, but what does it mean to you? You've already asserted that the "property that didn't die is the property of having God's image. That didn't die." So far we've established that the only property that died on the cross was not a person but an it; a body. You reiterate that point again here:



> Technically, persons are not bodies, Sean. If so, then if I cut your arm off, you'd be a different person.






> No, not "really just." But, "The Word became flesh."



Indeed He did. But of course there is more to the story or else the Incarnation would be just God in a body. For example, Paul tells us that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, **the man Christ Jesus*** and we're also told that Jesus increased in wisdom. The divine Logos, the Second Person, could not increase in wisdom nor could He die. So, all our bantering aside, you really haven't solved anything.



> Orthodox in respect to what? You're the one who threw the creeds out here. You're the one who wanted to challenge the creeds.



In respect to the idea that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man and that it was a person who died and not an *it* . As for challenging the "creeds," you said that the "person of Jesus (fully human and fully divine) immediately went to be in paradise when the body died." Therefore, it would follow, that Jesus did not first descend into hell. On this point I agree with you. Man, I can't even agree with you without your panties getting all in bunch.  



> I already told you one property that didn't die. Here's another: Jesus' human nature had the property of being finite, finitness didn't die, or else all finite people would have died! Want another? Jesus human nature had the property of 'being brown haired.' "Being brown hairdness' didn't die.



So human nature consists of being finite and having brown hair. Finite aside, how do you know Jesus had brown hair and has brown hair now? You evidently have no hair, are you lacking in your essential human nature?  




> Good, so God's essence is personal, and that's all Van Til meant.



Then he had a very convoluted and weird way of saying it.



> Yet this is not the whole truth of the matter. We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person. We have noted how each attribute is coextensive with the being of God. We are compelled to maintain this in order to avoid the notion of an uninterpreted being of some sort. In other words, we are bound to maintain the identity of the attributes of God with the being of God in order to avoid the specter of brute fact. In a similar manner we have noted how theologians insist that each of the persons of the Godhead is co-terminous with the being of the Godhead. But all this is not to say that the distinctions of the attributes are merely nominal. Nor is it to say that the distinctions of the persons are merely nominal. We need both the absolute cotermineity of each attribute and each person with the whole being of God, and the genuine significance of the distinctions of the attributes and the persons . . . Over against all other beings, that is, over against created beings, we must therefore hold that God’s being presents an absolute numerical identity. And even within the ontological Trinity we must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person. When we say that we believe in a personal God, we do not merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective “personality” may be attached. God is not an essence that has personality; He is absolute personality.




Sorry Paul, back to the drawing board.  




> So, if you're going to have integrity, drop your critique of Van Til, pick on his *meaning* rather than his *words.*



Right, we don't want to let his words get in the way of his meaning.  



> (Oh, here's another one, propositions aren't sentences. But the way you're arguing, I suspect if I burned a sentence in one of Clark's books, you;d say I burned a proposition.)



I don't know of anyone who has said propositions are sentences. Clark certainly never did. He did say, as does my dictionary, that propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences. I think if you ever get serious and finally decide to wrestle with Clark, you will see that what he means is what he says.


----------



## Magma2

Paul manata said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> I asked for a definition of 'nature' or 'person' from Scripture.
> 
> The above is what Sean gave me.
> 
> Does Sean think this was a definition for 'nature' or for 'person?'




A person consists of the thoughts he thinks. It should have been a helpful beginning for you as you progress toward a more complete definition. Of course, for a more complete definition, so you won't confuse persons with elephants, requires a discussion of the doctrine of man, specifically man being God's image. Consequently, it's not just that a person is biblically defined as the thoughts a man thinks, but also how he thinks. 



> In that case, 1 day old fetus' aren't persons since they can't "think."



How do you know a 1 day old fetus can't think? 



> Scripturalism - *yawn*.



Maybe it's time for you to go to sleep if you're tired.


----------



## Magma2

I was thinking more about this and I would like to ask a slightly different question, one hinted at already. In Mark 15:34 we read: "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The question is; Who or what was forsaken? Paul M. says a property of a human nature, specifically Jesus' body, died on the cross. While I'm unconvinced (and Paul hasn't even attempted to define "nature"), the question now is; was a property of a human nature also forsaken? Or, was a person forsaken? And, if a person, can we infer from that verse that Eloi is a reference to all Three Persons and if all three Persons of the Godhead who did the forsaking? And, if so, were the Three Persons forsaking one person or a nature? If it was just a nature, or a property of a nature, or a couple of properties combined, or the whole human nature together (whatever that might be and however it may be defined), can a nature cry out in distress of being forsaken? Or, do persons cry out? 

It struck me that while physical death is a separation of the body, spiritual death is separation from God. Therefore, the moment Adam first sinned he died and the penalty of the curse came upon him in full force. Adam's physical death was the outward working of the spiritual death he already experienced due to sin. So it seems to me there is an added dimension to the idea of death than just a separation from a physical body. Mark 15 again suggests there is a very real separation from God for which Jesus had to endure in order to be made "a curse for us."

I'm confident this thread will be shutdown now and this post censored.  or not, there you have it.


----------



## inspector

It is safe to say that when Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me" that it was not a signal that His deity had left him and only the human Jesus was left to die?


----------



## Magma2

> It is safe to say that when Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me" that it was not a signal that His deity had left him and only the human Jesus was left to die?



So, was it just two persons of the Trinity that Jesus was crying out to or just one? Why then didn't He just cry out to the Father as he had done when he asked that the cup might pass from him? Did the persons of the Trinity subdivide? Did the Persons of the Father and Spirit forsake the Second Person in the person of Jesus?


----------



## Magma2

Paul manata said:


> On his view, living people can be dead.



Eph 2:1; And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins:

I noted:



> Paul hasn't even attempted to define "nature"



What is Paul's definition of nature:



> essence.
> 
> And so one person had two essences in the incarnation. Just like three persons have one essence in the trinity.



 Trying to debate "Shotgun" Manata is like discussing baseball with Bud Abbot. So what's the definition of essence. Substance. What's the definition of substance. Nature. What's the definition of nature? And round and round we'll go. Clark was right, repeating nonsense for hundreds of years really has gotten us nowhere.

Here's what I have for a definition of essence: 



> 1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being



Well this can't be what essence because Paul says that a property of a nature or essence is the body along with brown hair. Paul has no hair and bodies are not permanent, at least not his or mine, and both will return to the dust.



> b : the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence <a painting that captures the essence of the land>




Nope again. Unless Paul wants to argue that Jesus captures the essence of deity as opposed to its existence.



> c : the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is




Close, but did attributes become flesh and dwell among us or did a person? Is a person more than just a collection of properties or attributes? Would seem so, if not the Trinity is lost and the Godhead is truly and numerically one just as Van Til insists and the individual persons are lost. Then we have one person, not three and Paul Manata will prance off into the sunset in paradoxical bliss.



> 2 : something that exists : ENTITY



Doesn't tell us anything. Everything exists. Figments of the imagination exist, including Paul's.



> 3 a (1) : a volatile substance or constituent (as of perfume)




Nope, unless we're going to say the incarnation was explosive. 



> (2) : a constituent or derivative possessing the special qualities (as of a plant or drug) in concentrated form; also : a preparation of such an essence or a synthetic substitute b : ODOR, PERFUME



Nope, unless the Godhead is three persons and one smell.



> 4 : one that possesses or exhibits a quality in abundance as if in concentrated form <she was the essence of punctuality>



Nope, Jesus just wasn't both God and man exhibiting a quality of each even in abundance, He was fully God and fully man.




> 5 : the most significant element, quality, or aspect of a thing or person <the essence of the issue>



Nope, see above.

Try harder Paul. 



> Bottom line: Sean thinks dead people live.



If you'd actually read what I've said death is not merely a physical separation. Adam died the moment he transgressed. 

You're right about one thing so far, I must be a fool to try and discuss anything with you.


----------



## Magma2

Paul manata said:


> In one sense I agree, not in another. People face death in the sense that they are separated from their bodies, their time on earth is cut short, etc. But, in another sense, those people are alive and well with Jesus.



People face death, yet the Three Persons never do. Natures don't face death. If the nature of a human person includes the body, then in the intermediate period immediately after death do we become less than human persons? It would seem so. But death, the death that Jesus faced on the cross, was not merely separation from the body. The curse and penalty of sin is separation from God. Your materialism has clouded your thinking Paul.




> This is a property-thing view of people. I reject it. For one, it makes 1 day old fetuses not people.



A "property-thing" view? I thought you were all about properties. A body is a property of human nature, right?  But, again, your materialism keeps showing. We know from Scripture that babies in the womb think, they respond and even jump for joy. Further, a mind is not a brain. Man is a rational soul or mind even from the moment of conception. 



> How I know that Jesus ahd brown hair is by induction.



Further demonstration that fallacious reasoning informs and guides your theology. No wonder no one can get anywhere with you. 




> Well, if you have problems with Van Til, and you want to keep pushing this charge - which, upon analysis, you only disagree with his words, then you need to salvage Clark:



Nice attempt to switch gears. I do appreciate you're unwillingness to squarely face Van Til's incoherent and irrational doctrine of the Trinity. I for one don't blame you. 



> But that existential propositions of the economic trinity are what individuate the persons makes the realtionship between the persons contingent, not necessary.



The shared attribute of omniscience eliminates that objection. Had you kept reading you would have realized that. 




> I never said that Clark thinks sentences are propositions.



Indeed you did; "(Oh, here's another one, propositions aren't sentences. But the way you're arguing, I suspect if I burned a sentence in one of Clark's books, you;d say I burned a proposition.)" In addition to simply being incorrigible and intemperate, you're a liar too.


----------



## py3ak

Pastor King,

What do you think of Theodoret's Dialogues (Polymorphus) on this topic? I thought they were very good, and was impressed that Theodoret did not consider Nestorius to really be guilty as charged.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

py3ak said:


> Pastor King,
> 
> What do you think of Theodoret's Dialogues (Polymorphus) on this topic? I thought they were very good, and was impressed that Theodoret did not consider Nestorius to really be guilty as charged.



Theodoret is an interesting character. I was just reading about him last night. He tried to walk the fine line between Cyril and Nestorius. He got deposed in the robber synod because of this but then restored at Chalcedon. Church politics were interesting to say the least back then.


----------



## caddy

*Selectively From Schaff on Nestorius...*

Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia (393-428), and which held the divine and human in Christ so rigidly apart as to make Christ, though not professedly, yet virtually a double person.

In Constantinople a second Chrysostom was expected in him, and a restorer of the honor of his great predecessor against the detraction of his Alexandrian rival. He was an honest man, of great eloquence, monastic piety, and the spirit of a zealot for orthodoxy, but impetuous, vain, imprudent, and wanting in sound, practical judgment.

By reason of this partial contact of the two, Pelagianism was condemned by the council of Ephesus together with Nestorianism.


It was of course not the sense, or monstrous nonsense, of this term, that the creature bore the Creator, or that the eternal Deity took its beginning from Mary; which would be the most absurd and the most wicked of all heresies, and a shocking blasphemy; but the expression was intended only to denote the indissoluble union of the divine and human natures in Christ, and the veritable incarnation of the Logos, who took the human nature from the body, of Mary, came forth God-Man from her womb, and as God-Man suffered on the cross. For Christ was borne as a _person_, and suffered as a _person_; and the personality in Christ resided in his divinity, not in his humanity. So, in fact, the reasonable soul of man, which is the center of the human personality, participates in the suffering and the death-struggle of the body, though the soul itself does not and cannot die.
Nestorius claimed that he found the controversy already existing in Constantinople, because some were calling Mary mother of _God_ (θεοτόκος), others, mother of _Man_ (ἀνθρωποτόκος). He proposed the middle expression, mother of _Christ_ (Χριστοτόκος), because Christ was at the same time God and man. He delivered several discourses on this disputed point. “You ask,” says he in his first sermon, “whether Mary may be called _mother of God_. Has God then a mother? If so, heathenism itself is excusable in assigning mothers to its gods; but then Paul is a liar, for he said of the deity of Christ that it was without father, without mother, and without descent. No, my dear sir, Mary did not bear God; ... the creature bore not the uncreated Creator, but the man who is the instrument of the Godhead; the Holy Ghost conceived not the Logos, but formed for him, out of the virgin, a temple which he might inhabit (Joh_2:21). The incarnate God did not die, but quickened him in whom he was made flesh .... This garment, which he used, I honor on account of the God which was covered therein and inseparable therefrom; ... _I separate the natures_, _but I unite the worship_. Consider what this must mean. He who was formed in the womb of Mary, was not himself God, but God assumed him [_assumsit_,_ i.e_., clothed himself with humanity], and on account of Him who assumed, he who was assumed is also called _God_.”

And unquestionably the Antiochian Christology, which was represented by Nestorius, did not make the Logos truly become man.


The Antiochian and Nestorian theory amounts therefore, at bottom, to a duality of person in Christ, though without clearly avowing it. It cannot conceive the reality of the two natures without a personal independence for each. With the theanthropic unity of the person of Christ it denies also the theanthropic unity of his work, especially of his sufferings and death; and in the same measure it enfeebles the reality of redemption.

Nestorius would admit no more than that God passed through (_transiit_) the womb of Mary.

In personal character Cyril stands far below Nestorius, but he excelled him in knowledge of the world, shrewdness, theological learning and acuteness, and had the show of greater veneration for Christ and for Mary on his side; and in his opposition to the abstract separation of the divine and human he was in the right, though he himself pressed to the verge of the opposite error of mixing or confusing the two natures in Christ. In him we have a striking proof that the value of a doctrine cannot always be judged by the personal worth of its representatives. God uses for his purposes all sorts of instruments, good, bad, and indifferent.

Nestorius’s Conflict was dealt with in the *The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. The Compromise*

The doctrinal result, also, was mainly only negative; that is to say, condemnation of Nestorianism.

Now followed a succession of mutual criminations, invectives, arts of church diplomacy and politics, intrigues, and violence, which give the saddest picture of the uncharitable and unspiritual Christianity of that time. But the true genius of Christianity is, of course, far elevated above its unworthy organs, and overrules even the worst human passions for the cause of truth and righteousness.


The division lasted two years longer, till at last a sort of compromise was effected. John of Antioch sent the aged bishop Paul of Emisa a messenger to Alexandria with a creed which he had already, in a shorter form, laid before the emperor, and which broke the doctrinal antagonism by asserting the duality of the natures against Cyril, and the predicate _mother of God_ against Nestorius. “We confess,” says this symbol, which was composed by Theodoret, “that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and body subsisting; as to his Godhead begotten of the Father before all time, but as to his manhood, born of the Virgin Mary in the end of the days for us and for our salvation; of the same essence with the Father as to his Godhead, and of the same substance with us as to his manhood; for two natures are united with one another. Therefore we confess _one_ Christ, _one_ Lord, and _one_ Son. By reason of this _union_, which yet is _without confusion_, we also confess that the holy Virgin is _mother of God_, because God the Logos was made flesh and man, and united with himself the temple [humanity] even from the conception; which temple he took from the Virgin. But concerning the words of the Gospel and Epistles respecting Christ, we know that theologians apply some which refer to the _one person_ to the two natures in common, but separate others as referring to the two natures, and assign the expressions which become God to the Godhead of Christ, but the expressions of humiliation to his manhood.”

The Nestorians differ from the orthodox Greek church in their repudiation of the council of Ephesus and of the worship of Mary as mother of God, of the use of images (though they retain the sign of the cross), of the doctrine of purgatory (though they have prayers for the dead), and of transubstantiation (though they hold the real presence of Christ in the eucharist), as well as in greater simplicity of worship. They are subject to a peculiar hierarchical organization with eight orders, from the catholicus or patriarch to the sub-deacon and reader. The five lower orders, up to the priests, may marry; in former times even the bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs had this privilege. Their fasts are numerous and strict. The feast-days begin with sunset, as among the Jews. The patriarch eats no flesh; he is chosen always from the same family; he is ordained by three metropolitans. Most of the ecclesiastical books are written in the Syriac language.

The Nestorian church flourished for several centuries, spread from Persia, with great missionary zeal, to India, Arabia, and even to China and Tartary, and did good service in scholarship and in the founding of schools and hospitals. Mohammed is supposed to owe his imperfect knowledge of Christianity to a Nestorian monk, Sergius; and from him the sect received many privileges, so that it obtained great consideration among the Arabians, and exerted an influence upon their culture, and thus upon the development of philosophy and science in general.


Under the Mongol dynasty the Nestorians were cruelly persecuted. The terrible Tamerlane, the scourge and the destroyer of Asia, towards the end of the fourteenth century almost exterminated them. Yet they have maintained themselves on the wild mountains and in the valleys of Kurdistan and in Armenia under the Turkish dominion to this day, with a separate patriarch, who from 1559 till the seventeenth century resided at Mosul, but has since dwelt in an almost inaccessible valley on the borders of Turkey and Persia. They are very ignorant and poor, and have been much reduced by war, pestilence, and cholera.
A portion of the Nestorians, especially those in cities, united from time to time, under the name of Chaldaeans, with the Roman church, and have a patriarch of their own at Bagdad.
And on the other side, Protestant missionaries from America have made vigorous and successful efforts, since 1833, to evangelize and civilize the Nestorians by preaching, schools, translations of the Bible, and good books.
The Thomas-Christians in East India are a branch of the Nestorians, named from the apostle Thomas, who is supposed to have preached the gospel on the coast of Malabar. They honor the memory of Theodore and Nestorius in their Syriac liturgy, and adhere to the Nestorian patriarchs. In the sixteenth century they were, with reluctance, connected with the Roman church for sixty years (1599-1663) through the agency of Jesuit missionaries. But when the Portuguese power in India was shaken by the Dutch, they returned to their independent position, and since the expulsion of the Portuguese they have enjoyed the free exercise of their religion on the coast of Malabar. The number of the Thomas-Christians is said still to amount to seventy thousand souls, who form a province by themselves under the British empire, governed by priests and elders.


----------



## caddy

This is the "Gest" I got from Schaff....



py3ak said:


> Pastor King,
> 
> What do you think of Theodoret's Dialogues (Polymorphus) on this topic? I thought they were very good, and was impressed that Theodoret did not consider Nestorius to really be guilty as charged.


----------



## caddy

From Monergism's site:


http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/Christ.html#deity


http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/ST220/ST220.asp


----------



## DTK

py3ak said:


> Pastor King,
> 
> What do you think of Theodoret's Dialogues (Polymorphus) on this topic? I thought they were very good, and was impressed that Theodoret did not consider Nestorius to really be guilty as charged.


I am sympathetic to Theodoret, but being an Antiochian exegete he represents the wide gap in this controversy between Antiochian and Alexandrian exegesis, the former holding to a more wooden and literal interpretation and the latter to an allegorical hermeneutic.

DTK


----------



## DTK

Puritan Sailor said:


> Theodoret is an interesting character. I was just reading about him last night. He tried to walk the fine line between Cyril and Nestorius. He got deposed in the robber synod because of this but then restored at Chalcedon. Church politics were interesting to say the least back then.


Yes, Theodoret felt vindicated by Chalcedon 451 (his understanding of it being one of the differing interpretations of that council); and then lo and behold at the 2nd Council of Constantinople in 553, Theodoret (along with Theodore of Mopsuestia) and his christology was condemned again as heretical. The 2nd Council of Constantinople in 553 simply offered an Alexandrian interpretation of Chalcedon (451), and on and on the controversy went with people continuing to accuse one another of either holding to the error of Apollinarianism on the one hand and Nestorianism on the other, and various mediating positions in the midst of the polarizations which ensued.

I find the comments of the Eastern Orthodox theologian, John Meyendorff, on Chalcedon rather interesting...


> *Meyendorff:* The Chalcedonian definition of 451—two natures united in one hypostasis, yet retaining in full their respective characteristics—was therefore a necessary correction of Cyril’s [of Alexandria] vocabulary. Permanent credit should be given to the Antiochians—especially to Theodoret—and to Leo of Rome for having shown the necessity of this correction, without which Cyrillian Christology could easily be, and actually was, interpreted in a Monophysite sense by Eutyches and his followers. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 33.



DTK


----------



## caddy

I want it in laymen's terms what people here think of Nestorius....

Thoughts on this:

http://www.Jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/macarthur-gods_blood.htm


----------



## Civbert

Paul manata said:


> This is a property-thing view of people. I reject it. For one, it makes 1 day old fetuses not people.



I'm sure this little tidbit has been covered (I'm still reading through the thread), but _thinking_ is not a function of the physical brain. Otherwise, spirits, angels, souls, etc. could not have thoughts.

The idea that a person is comprised of his thoughts is a coherent and biblical view of person. 



> For as he thinks in his heart, so is he. (Pro 23:7 nkj)



A fetus is a person because he has a soul and therefore he can think. John leaped in his mothers womb. Once a soul is created, that soul thinks. The person of a fetus may not be very complicated, but he is still a thinking person.


----------



## Magma2

caddy said:


> I want it in laymen's terms what people here think of Nestorius....
> 
> Thoughts on this:
> 
> http://www.Jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/macarthur-gods_blood.htm





> This line of reasoning can open the door to serious error concerning the Trinity and the incarnation. It can lead a person to say, "Deity has no blood." Dr. MacArthur's statement that "God…has no body and hence no blood" calls into question whether the Apostle Paul was right or not in Acts 20:28. Is Dr. MacArthur saying that the Apostle Paul was wrong to believe "so strongly in the unity of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"? When he says that "God…has no body and hence no blood" he seems to question Paul's belief in the deity of Christ. I for one think it is MacArthur who is wrong, not the Apostle Paul! MacArthur's statement can lead to a very serious error, known as Nestorianism, which arose in the fifth century.



I don't know if this article was at all helpful. Not that I'm in a position to defend MacArthur, and he does say confusing things at time, but saying that God "has no body and has no blood" hardly implies Nestorianism any more than the Confession which asserts that God is without body, parts or passions is a denial of the deity of Christ and the Incarnation.

Also, the author quotes Dr. John R. Rice and says he "was a well-trained and intelligent man. He attended Decatur Baptist College, Baylor University, Southwestern Baptist Seminary and the University of Chicago. He was the author of more than two hundred books." But, isn't this the same Dr. Rice who attacks the doctrine of predestination as being essentially anti-Christian? I got into a debate with an Arminian Baptist not long ago and he referred me to a Dr. Rice to support his arguments against the doctrine of election. Not sure if this is the same Dr. Rice, but I suspect it is.

I think the biblical data is such that I don't know that two natures or essences solves the problem of the Incarnation or, better, explains very much. We know the Second Person became flesh and dwelt among us in. I want to stress the word "Person" here. We don't say the divine nature became flesh and dwelt among us. A Person did - the Logos. Jesus said before Abraham was, "I am." We also know that Jesus grew in wisdom, thirsted and tired. Something the Second Person could not do. Men grow in wisdom, thirst and get tired. Jesus also claimed to be God and not merely a man. Taking for granted all the data supporting Christ's deity, Jesus Christ is most assuredly fully God and fully man. 

I also think most theologians (at least those I've read) distinguish various biblical data as pertaining to Christ's "human" or "divine" natures. My problem is what's a nature? Rich says Christ in His human nature died on the cross. I don't have any problem with that in the least, but, again, what does it mean? {I got nowhere with Manata and I'm sure most of that was my fault}. My problem with the idea that human nature consists of, in part, a body, is that animals have bodies too. What makes a man a man is not a body, but rather it's his rational soul or mind. Man is the image of God. It is reason which makes men responsible for their actions. The forms of logic presuppose moral choice. Animals do not have a rational mind, hence they are incapable of immorality. 

That said, here is my question: In the Godhead we have three distinct persons, yet one God. Not three Gods. Not one Person, but three. Three in one sense, One in another. Nothing earth shattering. Hypothetically - and apart from the obvious objection concerning tradition - what would be the main objection to a two person theory of the Incarnation in which we have a human person and a divine person in one Christ?

Of course "person" needs to be defined (just as those who defend a two natures view are required to define what they mean), but what is the main objection(s) to the above hypothetical?


----------



## Civbert

Just throwing out some ideas.

At this point I like where Sean's is going with his understanding of what death means (spiritual separation). My Great-grandfather is dead (to me) because he is separated from me spiritually. Christ is not dead to me because he is joined to me via the Holy Spirit. My Great-grandfather is alive with Christ because he (his soul) is with Christ. 

So death is a spiritual separation or a separation of a soul from something or someone else. Death is always relative to something. One can be dead and alive, but not in the same sense. When one dies, he is separated from his body - but he is also separated from other people. He is dead to his (biological) living family and friends. If he is a Christian, he is alive with Christ. If he is not saved, he remains spiritually dead to God. 

Ironically, we are conceived as spiritually dead. We may be alive physically, and have some spiritual life relative to other souls we can communicate with, but we remain dead to the Spirit. 


Death is not the end of thought. We have eternal souls, therefore we remain eternally thinking souls. 

I don't believe Christ's physical death is the essential point of his atoning death for our sins. He was raised up with the exact same body, with the same wounds and piercings. Although it does seem Christ was separated from his body, this does not seem to be sufficient to say he died. It seems the atoning sacrifice was not simply a function of physical or biological death. The point of his death was to give us spiritual union with God. Although physical life was a part of the end picture, spiritual union with God is the main point of Christ's resurrection. So in order to justify our spiritual union with God, Christ's death must have been the same kind ours is through Adam - spiritual. 

It seems that the person of Christ of spiritually separated from the persons of God and the Holy Spirit.

Maybe the body/mind issue is significant. The mind is the soul - separate from the brain - but our awareness seems to be linked to our physical brains. Brain injuries effect our ability to reason and understand. I think the physical brain acts as a limiter to our mental awareness. The brain handicaps us by linking us (soul) to the physical world. And when we suffer from brain damage - we loose awareness of our thoughts. 

I'm not sure if the brain/mind issue is import to the discussion. But I'm sure Christ's brain shut down and he did suffer a biological death. Maybe at that point in time, he also suffered real spiritual death too. (I suppose this is some sort of heresy. Please point me to the relevant Scripture so I can know the truth of the matter).


----------



## Civbert

Magma2 said:


> ...That said, here is my question: In the Godhead we have three distinct persons, yet one God. Not three Gods. Not one Person, but three. Three in one sense, One in another. Nothing earth shattering. Hypothetically - and apart from the obvious objection concerning tradition - what would be the main objection to a two person theory of the Incarnation in which we have a human person and a divine person in one Christ?...



First reaction - *WHAT!!!!! Are you nuts!! Have can you say such a thing!!*

But once I get past the "gut" reaction...

Hypothetically speaking ... really I think nothing is _essentially_ wrong with it. As you said, it really matters how you define person. You could define person such that it means the same as "nature". The you would have a personal quadrinity instead of a personal trinity. But then you might need a different term to explain how the two persons of Christ make up a single _something _with is distinguishable from a _something _that is the Father and the _something _that is the Holy Spirit. 

As far as the way terms like person, nature, essence, "hypo-static union" have been tossed about - you could easily have a "two-person" Christ without any inherent contradiction involved. It would be rather more confusing - and people would be even more less likely to define terms. 


And then you'd have people saying things like "God is both unity, trinity, and quadrinity" and thinking that is the ultimate answer to world. I still think "the one and the many" issue is nonsense, but that's another issue for the Van Til/Clark debates. Kind of reminds me of Douglas Adams's "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" where he finds the "Answer to The Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything" is forty-two. 

I think more Christian's need to read Douglas Adams to help them recognize nonsense when they read it. Dilbert helps too.


----------



## Civbert

Paul manata said:


> We have everlasting souls, not eternal ones.



I stand corrected. 



Paul manata said:


> Anyway, given the above, then there's a technical philosophical sense in which we can say that the Person Jesus never died.
> 
> But, there's a more common use, our everyday talk, in which we can say He died.



Yes, but I don't think the "common use" works. (Assuming that by "common use" you mean biological death.) Christ died on the cross for our sins. In what sense? His heart stopped? We are dead _spiritually_! A physical death can not give us spiritual life or we would pay for our own sins by our physical deaths. 

I'm trying to move this along. I don't want to rehash your exchange with Sean, no matter how stimulating and exciting it was for you. 

Besides, I think my comments were much more interesting and you should go back and consider them.  




Paul manata said:


> So, Anthony, re-read the thread and, though I know it's considered treason, argue against a fellow Clarkian.



Paul, this is not so much a debate as a discussion. I happily argue with Sean in the logical sense - I have no need to fight with him. I could pick apart each tiny flaw I perceive in his text, but that would waste my time. And the only thing a Clarkian might consider treason is irrational thinking. As long as Sean continues to present interesting rational arguments - we can have a healthy discussion. So, let's move along.


----------



## Civbert

Paul manata said:


> _{Side note" Many were chastised for allowing images of Christ here. They were called Nestorians (whether that charge sticks on Nestorius). Sean and Civbert just said it was plausible, and that they'd like to see objections to, that Jesus is two persons... wait, I mean Jesuses is two persons. Now, those (like me) who argued for images of Christ we caled Nestorian even though we didn't explicitly hold to it. That was the charge that was said to logically follow from our position. But here you have two guys actually explicitly entertaining/admiting that Christ is two persons. I'll await the reaction.}_



"Reaction" is the name of the game baby!! 

Paul, I recall defending you over your argument of a hypothetical quadrinity. I recall even Sean defended you in that thread. 

How soon we forget.


----------



## Civbert

Interesting:


Magma2 said:


> I don't know if this article was at all helpful. Not that I'm in a position to defend MacArthur, and he does say confusing things at time, but saying that God "has no body and has no blood" hardly implies Nestorianism any more than the Confession which asserts that God is without body, parts or passions is a denial of the deity of Christ and the Incarnation.
> 
> Also, the author quotes Dr. John R. Rice and says he "was a well-trained and intelligent man. He attended Decatur Baptist College, Baylor University, Southwestern Baptist Seminary and the University of Chicago. He was the author of more than two hundred books." But, isn't this the same Dr. Rice who attacks the doctrine of predestination as being essentially anti-Christian? I got into a debate with an Arminian Baptist not long ago and he referred me to a Dr. Rice to support his arguments against the doctrine of election. Not sure if this is the same Dr. Rice, but I suspect it is.
> 
> I think the biblical data is such that I don't know that two natures or essences solves the problem of the Incarnation or, better, explains very much. We know the Second Person became flesh and dwelt among us in. I want to stress the word "Person" here. We don't say the divine nature became flesh and dwelt among us. A Person did - the Logos. Jesus said before Abraham was, "I am." We also know that Jesus grew in wisdom, thirsted and tired. Something the Second Person could not do. Men grow in wisdom, thirst and get tired. Jesus also claimed to be God and not merely a man. Taking for granted all the data supporting Christ's deity, Jesus Christ is most assuredly fully God and fully man.
> 
> I also think most theologians (at least those I've read) distinguish various biblical data as pertaining to Christ's "human" or "divine" natures. My problem is what's a nature? Rich says Christ in His human nature died on the cross. I don't have any problem with that in the least, but, again, what does it mean? {I got nowhere with Manata and I'm sure most of that was my fault}. My problem with the idea that human nature consists of, in part, a body, is that animals have bodies too. What makes a man a man is not a body, but rather it's his rational soul or mind. Man is the image of God. It is reason which makes men responsible for their actions. The forms of logic presuppose moral choice. Animals do not have a rational mind, hence they are incapable of immorality.
> 
> That said, here is my question: In the Godhead we have three distinct persons, yet one God. Not three Gods. Not one Person, but three. Three in one sense, One in another. Nothing earth shattering. Hypothetically - and apart from the obvious objection concerning tradition - what would be the main objection to a two person theory of the Incarnation in which we have a human person and a divine person in one Christ?
> 
> Of course "person" needs to be defined (just as those who defend a two natures view are required to define what they mean), but what is the main objection(s) to the above hypothetical?


----------



## Magma2

Civbert said:


> I don't believe Christ's physical death is the essential point of his atoning death for our sins. He was raised up with the exact same body, with the same wounds and piercings. Although it does seem Christ was separated from his body, this does not seem to be sufficient to say he died. It seems the atoning sacrifice was not simply a function of physical or biological death. The point of his death was to give us spiritual union with God. Although physical life was a part of the end picture, spiritual union with God is the main point of Christ's resurrection. So in order to justify our spiritual union with God, Christ's death must have been the same kind ours is through Adam - spiritual.



While I'm not going to be drawn again into a debate with Paul, at least not at this time around, he has (unwittingly) conceded one point:

"A fetus has a soul, yes,"

Yes, indeed. Among other things, we know the Law of God is written on the hearts or minds of all men. A blank mind is a contradictions in terms. Further, the whole rabbit trail started when I asked how he knew babies don't think. Well, despite his dissecting babies into trimesters and calling them fetuses, he is the one who should have to support his contention, not the other way around. Psa 22:10; I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. 

As to the point about the spiritual nature of death, I agree, even though I didn't get there fast enough for some. I also admit that Clark's books on theology proper are the toughest to get my mind around. I picked up the Incarnation again tonight and came across this which might help:



> Matthew 27:46 and mark 15:34 support [my] view: "My God, my God why hast though forsaken me?" Since a rift within the eternal immutable Persons of the Trinity is absolutely impossible, Jesus here is speaking as a man. An impersonal human "nature" cannot speak. Nor is there much intelligibility in supposing that the Father could forsake a "nature." Those words from Psalm 22:1 were the words of a true man, a real human being, whom the Father forsook, thus imposing the penalty of propitiation by which we are redeemed.


----------



## caddy

http://media.bible.org/mp3/TR9c.mp3


----------



## Magma2

caddy said:


> http://media.bible.org/mp3/TR9c.mp3



Now that was interesting and helpful. Who was it?

Some of his comments I found particularly intriguing: 



> God could just control one of us so that we could live a sinless life and die on a cross



I don't see how this would be possible? First, for those who contend that sin is passed through ordinary generation, the virgin birth was necessary since the line of Adam had to first be broken. Secondly, if a sinless man were to die on a cross thereby fulfilling the covenant of works, wouldn't we be looking to a mere man -- a fellow creature -- as the author of our salvation and wouldn't that be idolatry? Wasn't the Incarnation necessary so that God might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus?



> Was Christ in his person -- His whole person -- separated from God? -- Of course He was.



Then the speaker goes on to say concerning Christ's cry of distress on the Cross, "My God, my god, why have thou forsaken me" that it is something "we have no idea what that means-- it's a mystery." The important thing is that this statement is a mystery precisely because its unintelligible. Could the reason this all important statement in Scripture lacks meaning be due to the theory attached to the Incarnation itself? Shouldn't a theory be able to explain and account for such a critical passage? Frankly, if it is biblical, shouldn't a particular theory or doctrine be able to account for all, and no way controvert any, of the biblical material? And, if it doesn't, isn't this an indication -- or even a tacit admission -- that more work needs to be done?


----------



## caddy

These are off of Monergism's Site:

*Christology: The Humanity of Christ in History* *& the Scriptures* 
by The Theology Program* MP3s*

How did the early Church understand the humanity of Christ?
What is Apollinarianism? 
What is Nestorianism?
What is Monophysitism?
How did the Council of Chalcedon affect Christology?
What are the different interpretations of Chalcedon? 
What do the Scriptures say about the humanity of Christ?
Why was Christ born of a virgin?
What does it mean that Christ "emptied Himself"?​
Was Christ able to sin?​
-------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning Christ's Cry, "Why have you forsaken me," I have questions. Actaully one of my H.S. Student's came to me and asked me this very question. What does it mean. I gave him an answer but told him I would certainly dig to see IF I understood it correctly. Maybe I haven't. Is it possible that Jesus--in His humanity, was experiencing the weight of ALL the Sin ( beginning to end ) via his Human nature? He bore our Sins as God, but He is also fully man is He not? Would not that nature cry out as we cry out to God. Anyhow, I am open to correction and humbly submit to those who think they have understood this passage and His words better than I.  




Magma2 said:


> Now that was interesting and helpful. Who was it?
> 
> Some of his comments I found particularly intriguing:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how this would be possible? First, for those who contend that sin is passed through ordinary generation, the virgin birth was necessary since the line of Adam had to first be broken. Secondly, if a sinless man were to die on a cross thereby fulfilling the covenant of works, wouldn't we be looking to a mere man -- a fellow creature -- as the author of our salvation and wouldn't that be idolatry? Wasn't the Incarnation necessary so that God might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> Then the speaker goes on to say concerning Christ's cry of distress on the Cross, "My God, my god, why have thou forsaken me" that it is something "we have no idea what that means-- it's a mystery." The important thing is that this statement is a mystery precisely because its unintelligible. Could the reason this all important statement in Scripture lacks meaning be due to the theory attached to the Incarnation itself? Shouldn't a theory be able to explain and account for such a critical passage? Frankly, if it is biblical, shouldn't a particular theory or doctrine be able to account for all, and no way controvert any, of the biblical material? And, if it doesn't, isn't this an indication -- or even a tacit admission -- that more work needs to be done?


----------



## Magma2

Here is another verse adduced to show that death isn't simply or merely the separation of the soul from the body, but also is separation from God. 

John 8:51; "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death." 

Since there are many who have kept Christ's word and have died physically, what do you think Jesus is referring to here?

Gill says of this passage:



> . . . he shall never see death; the second death, eternal death, which is an everlasting separation of a man, body and soul, from God: this death shall have no power on such a person, he shall never be hurt by it; and though he dies a corporeal death, that shall not be a curse, a penal evil to him; nor shall he always lie under the power of it, but shall rise again, and live in soul and body, for ever with the Lord: seeing and tasting death, as in Joh_8:52, are Hebraisms expressive of dying.


----------



## Magma2

Paul manata said:


> Glad to see you coming around to what I've been saying, Sean. See, I knew we could agree!



? I really must be missing something, ether that or you are? Jesus said if anyone keeps His word he shall never see death. The death spoken of, per Gill, is not just the separation from a physical body (which, for the believer, is no longer "a curse, a penal evil to him"), but rather "separation of a man, body and soul, from God." It does not follow from this verse, or from Gill's exegesis, that Jesus did not "technically" die or did not experience separation from God. Not only does Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 already adduced strongly suggest that He did experience this separation which you claim is "heretical," but Heb 2:9 states: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Again, Gill is helpful:



> to taste death . . . signifies the truth and reality of his death, and the experience he had of the bitterness of it, it being attended with the wrath of God, and curse of the law; though he continued under it but for a little while, it was but a taste; _and it includes all kinds of death, he tasted of the death of afflictions, being a man of sorrows all his days, and a corporeal death, *and what was equivalent to an eternal one . . . .*_



You completely miss and ignore the force and penalty of death due to sin. 2 Cor 5:21; For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

You and I don't agree on much of anything.


----------



## Magma2

caddy said:


> http://media.bible.org/mp3/TR9c.mp3



Steven, can you tell me who the speaker was on this link?

I couldn't find it at the site. However, I did come across this from The Death of Deaths by Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M. which might be of some use:



> The words of the Psalmist perfectly conveyed the agony of soul of our Lord as the Suffering Servant: “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Psalm 22:1; Mark 15:34). *As someone has rightly pointed out, here is the hell our Lord dreaded, but nevertheless experienced for us. Hell is not merely the presence of pain and suffering, but the absence of God in the midst of that pain.* This is also true for those who reject Christ as their Savior: “And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Thessalonians 1:9).
> http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=629



Consider Clark's comments again on Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34:



> Since a rift within the eternal immutable Persons of the Trinity is absolutely impossible, Jesus here is speaking as a man. An impersonal human "nature" cannot speak. Nor is there much intelligibility in supposing that the Father could forsake a "nature." Those words from Psalm 22:1 were the words of a true man, a real human being, whom the Father forsook, thus imposing the penalty of propitiation by which we are redeemed.



Was Clark correct? It seems to me that the weight of Scripture and the force of logic is still in his favor, in spite of Paul Manata's best efforts.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Remember those fun words _anhypostasia_ and _enhypostasia_? I think they would be relevent at this point of the discussion.


----------



## Civbert

Magma2 said:


> ...
> Consider Clark's comments again on Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34:
> 
> 
> 
> Gordon Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since a rift within the eternal immutable Persons of the Trinity is absolutely impossible, ....
Click to expand...


Why is a "rift within the eternal immutable Persons of the Trinity" impossible?

I agree that "an impersonal human "nature" cannot speak" and that "supposing that the Father could forsake a "nature"" sounds like nonsense with respect to Christ's "Why have you forsaken me". Why would Jesus cry out for the forsaking of an impersonal human nature. Jesus said "Why have you forsaken _me_". Not "my nature". But "me" myself, a person, an individual man.

So can not there have been a rift between the person of Jesus and the persons of the Father and Holy Spirit?? I ask because I would like someone to clearer that up for me. 

_I guess I'm still a step behind._


----------



## Civbert

Puritan Sailor said:


> Remember those fun words _anhypostasia_ and _enhypostasia_? I think they would be relevant at this point of the discussion.



I'm still looking up _anhypostasia_ and _enhypostasia_. 
Could you point me to a sussinct reference?


----------



## Magma2

Puritan Sailor said:


> Remember those fun words _anhypostasia_ and _enhypostasia_? I think they would be relevent at this point of the discussion.




anhypostasis



> 1. The belief that Jesus Christ, when incarnated, did not take on the characteristics of a specific human being, but of humanity in a 'generic' sense; is traditionally rejected by the Church at large as an inadequate explanation of the dynamics involved.






> THE DUAL FORMULA of anhypostasis-enhypostasis has become an increasing popular way of describing the relation of the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ. The formula aims to express the doctrine that the human nature of Jesus has no subsistence (anhypostasis) apart from the union with the Logos, but that it has its being only "in" the subsistence (en-hypostasis) of the incarnate Son of God. The use of this formula is especially prevalent among theologians influenced by Karl Barth who in adopting the terms appealed to "the older dogmatics--using the language of later Greek philosophy."(1) Unfortunately, Barth's appropriation of the terms and his dialectical reconstruction of the formula are problematic in several ways, especially since in fact this is in no way the "language of later Greek philosophy" but an invention of Protestant Scholasticism.



Enhypostasia



> Literally, "being hypostasized," i.e., having substantial existence, this term took on a technical Christological significance in the post-Chalcedonian period (late fifth and sixth centuries), when difficulties arose over the definition of Christ as "two natures (ousiai) in one person (hupostasis)." These difficulties centered around the term ousia (nature or substance) and its philosophical import. Aristotle had taught that every substance (ousia) is composed of both matter and form. In order for matter (hulê) to exist, according to Aristotle, it must be actualized in a form (eidos). Christologically speaking, then, in order for Christ's divine nature to exist, it must be contained in/as a person (hupostasis). The person of Christ, however, is identical with the divine Logos; therefore, it logically follows, the substance or nature of Christ is purely divine. Putting this in Aristotelian terms, Christ's form is the Logos, and His matter is the divine nature - united together a single, divine, person. What place, then, is left (if we follow this reasoning) for the presence of a distinct human nature in the person of Christ? The concept of enhupostasia was developed to answer this question, and to counteract the tendency to downplay the full humanity of Christ. Since Christ, as divine Logos, is identical with the creative power of God, He is not limited to a single nature. In His capacity as Logos, Christ hypostasized both natures, the human and divine, in a single person.




While I suppose anhypostasia can be excluded without further discussion, and while I guess enhypostasia should be applauded for at least trying to maintain Christ's humanity, I still don't see how this theory overcame the difficulties surrounding the words nature or substance? At least from what I've been able to read, enhypostasia really didn't solve anything. Maybe you can show me how it did, that is, if you think it did? It seems to me that it just shifted the confusion from one place to another. However, the above does points to the root of the problem which has plagued the development of the doctrine of the Incarnation and that is its underlying Aristotelianism. 

For what it's worth, Clark's theory at least completely jettisons the word substance (and nature) from his formulation since, and despite some attempts by Hodge, Shedd and others, not to mention more than a few non-Christian philosophers, the word defies any coherent, much less biblical, definition. Clark did however define "person" as being the propositions one thinks and per the Scriptures (Prov. 23:7a). Whereas Hume defined a person as a complex of sensations and images, Clark argues a person is a complex of truths. And, since men think both truths and falsehoods, he settled on the idea that a person is the thought he thinks. 

I think if someone doesn't like his definition, that's certainly fine, but I think they should at least try to come up with something better and simply not dismiss him. The sad thing is that he died right at the conclusion of his monograph. I would have loved to have seen how he would have defended his formula against his critics and how he might have devolved his arguments. I'm certainly not the man to pick up where he left off, but I think his attempt has considerable merit. 

Ironically, and in support of Clark, while Paul can't control his abusive tirade  long enough to even realize what he is saying, he supposes Clark's definition relegates "fetuses" to non persons. Of course, since he also asserts these "fetuses" (as opposed to babies) have souls, he fails to note that a thoughtless soul is as much a contradiction in terms as a blank mind. But, as the ever dedicated Van Tilian devotee he won't let any contradiction in his own thought or theology get in his way.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Civbert said:


> I'm still looking up _anhypostasia_ and _enhypostasia_.
> Could you point me to a sussinct reference?



Macleod in his book The Person of Christ has a helpful discussion of these terms in Ch. 7 (pg. 199-203). He covers their historical development and their importance in Reformed theology. 

By _anhypostasia_ is meant that Jesus took an impersonal human nature to be His own. This doesn't mean that Jesus in his humanity was not an individual or that as a man he was not personal. The term was used in opposition to Adoptionism (and Nestorianism) to basically say that the Logos did not take over the human nature of someone else. God in the Incarnation created a human nature for the Logos which belongs solely to Him. So anhypostasia denies an independent existence of the human nature of Jesus apart from the Logos. Christ's human nature did not belong to another or independently before the Logos was united to it. 

But there are limitations to this idea, which led to the term _enhypostatia_. It means that the human nature of Jesus, though not an individual in itself, be became individualized by the Logos when it was created. It was developed in response to the Monophysite argument that there cannot be a nature without a person. As Macleod explains, "The import of enhypostatos is that the human nature of Christ, although not itself an individual is individualized as the human nature of the Son of God. It does not for a single instant exist as anhypostatos or non-personal." From the moment of conception onward, the full human nature (with all the limitations of human nature) belongs to the Second Person of the Trinity. 

With these terms, its not an either/or. They go together. They both take place at the virgin conception. The human nature created in the womb of Mary did not belong to someone else or exist autonomously apart from the Logos (anhypostatia), and it has always belonged and had its individuality and personality from the Person of the Logos (enhypostatia). Minor but important distinctions. 

Hopefully that will help nudge Sean out of the Nestorian pitfall he seems to be leaning. I'm not trying to criticize Sean on this point. I realized I was leaning into Apollinarianism until recently. These are hard distinctions and its very easy to slip off the edge (especially if you haven't studied the issues before), just as with discussions of the Trinity. The church fathers were building a fence around the mystery of the Incarnation. They often had to argue for what it was not in opposition to heretics, in order to articulate what it was. I would not be so anxious to jettison their use of "person," "subtance," and "nature" (keeping in mind their definitions, not our modern twists on the terms). They have stood the test of time because they work, and because no one yet has been able to think of anything better without slipping into the heretical pitfalls on all sides.


----------



## DTK

> The church fathers were building a fence around the mystery of the Incarnation. They often had to argue for what it was not in opposition to heretics, in order to articulate what it was. I would not be so anxious to jettison their use of "person," "subtance," and "nature" (keeping in mind their definitions, not our modern twists on the terms). They have stood the test of time because they work, and because no one yet has been able to think of anything better without slipping into the heretical pitfalls on all sides.



Patrick has offered a very helpful observation here, _apophatic_ theology (as it's called), which dominated the thought of many eastern church fathers who refused to think that God could in any way be identified with or by any human concept, thus affirming the absolute transcendence of God in a _negative_ way. It is through the emphasis of what God is *not* (apophatically) that one is able to speak the truth concerning God. This emphasis is predominate especially in the theology of the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa & Gregory of Nazianzus), who established this traditional methodology for those who followed after them. It was their emphasis that through the process of elimination of what God is *not* that that divinity is described, but which never truly finds a positive end. Patrick is right, those men did not think the way we do today in their expressions of "person," "substance," and "nature."

DTK


----------



## Magma2

DTK said:


> Patrick is right, those men did not think the way we do today in their expressions of "person," "substance," and "nature."



Patrick may be right, but it's not so important how men thought of the expressions they used, but rather how they defined, or, failed to define them. It's hard for me to imagine the advantage of retaining words that cannot be clearly defined. Certainly Christian scholarship isn't that paltry that it is impossible for a modern to grasp the meaning of a word or concept used by an ancient. Maybe it is impossible, but if that's the case, what good is it? 

in my opinion much of theology in this area has been plagued with interminable verbiage and meaningless phrases that their only usefulness is as a disguise for ignorance. Consider; "The import of enhypostatos is that the human nature of Christ, although not itself an individual is individualized as the human nature of the Son of God. It does not for a single instant exist as anhypostatos or non-personal." Is this like a puppet? The "Being John Malkovich" doctrine of the incarnation? Seriously, what is an individualized non-individual or something that is personal without any relation to a real person? Does the Second Person animates an impersonal human nature or substance making it, whatever *it* is, personal? Again, a puppet comes to mind. Yet, the Scriptures say the man Christ Jesus. 

Further, what is a nature? A substance? Hodge says they're the same thing. OK, does a nature or a substance thirst? How does a nature or a substance become a man? Matthew said he can defined substance but it would take him at least 8 pages to do it. Well, I can read 8 pages, but I guess he had better things to do. So where do I find this definition? Someone has to have a citation somewhere? Supposing enhypostatos can be explained and is intelligible, where are the biblical arguments in its defense? Where are the deductions from Scripture? Could you imagine if the idea of Trinity was advanced without any arguments or support from Scripture? If you look over just this short thread I've provided a number of passages and Scriptural references in support of the idea that Jesus was a real man, a real human person, not an *it* or an overcoat or even an individualized non-individual, and I could easily provided more. 

Again, maybe you or Patrick can answer my question posed earlier and slightly revised here; Hypothetically - and apart from the obvious objection concerning tradition - and provided "person" is clearly and biblically defined - what is the main objection to a two person theory of the Incarnation in which we have a human person and a divine person in one Christ, fully man and fully God? What other doctrine or doctrines does this view undermine or controvert? I would be happy to say that Gordon Clark was all wet, but am I wrong to want to see some arguments advanced in order to refute him? 

I am thankful to the mods for letting this thread go on for as long as they have (I'm very surprised) and I apologize for my part in the spitting match with Paul Manata, but I just don't think Chalcedon has given us the final word and I think there are legitimate biblical questions that the theory, to the extent it is intelligible, simply does not answer.


----------



## DTK

> Again, maybe you or Patrick can answer my question posed earlier and slightly revised here; Hypothetically - and apart from the obvious objection concerning tradition - and provided "person" is clearly and biblically defined - what is the main objection to a two person theory of the Incarnation in which we have a human person and a divine person in one Christ, fully man and fully God?


I decline the invitation. I've seen how you conduct exchanges, and for myself I'm not interested. I was only interested in underscoring Patrick's very helpful insight.

DTK


----------



## PresReformed

Paul manata said:


> that Mary didn't have twins!



Exactly. Mary isn't the mother of God, but she did give birth to a human being, a person. A person united to the second person of the Trinity.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Magma2 said:


> Again, maybe you or Patrick can answer my question posed earlier and slightly revised here; Hypothetically - and apart from the obvious objection concerning tradition - and provided "person" is clearly and biblically defined - what is the main objection to a two person theory of the Incarnation in which we have a human person and a divine person in one Christ, fully man and fully God? What other doctrine or doctrines does this view undermine or controvert? I would be happy to say that Gordon Clark was all wet, but am I wrong to want to see some arguments advanced in order to refute him?



Before I enter into such a discussion, I would like you to read and think about Berkhof's ST, Part 3, chapter 3 on the Unipersonality of Christ. See if it answers your immediate questions. 

Men much more capable than I have already dealt with this question long ago. I encourage you to thoughtfully reflect on their writings on the Trinity and Incarnation. Read for yourself (not through the lenses of Clark or other historians) the Cappadocians, Hilary of Poitiers, Augustine, Asthanasius, even John of Damascus. Then read Calvin. Read Bavinck, who provides helpful historical reviews of these doctrines in his Reformed Dogmatics and interacts with more modern insights. Berkhof provides some helpful summaries as well. Deal with the primary sources first. I'm sure Rev. King could supply more. Then read Clark again and see if he contributes anything to the discussion. Your trying to reinvent the wheel Sean. Until you've done your homework and understand the concerns of the early church, you won't appreciate their insights, nor the development since then. Most of these men were pastors. These doctrines were hammered out because of practical problems in the faith of the Church. They were not concerned with articulating profound intellectual insights. 

I have found this warning helpful from Berkhof, "The doctrine of the two natures in one person transcends human reason. It is the expression of a supersensible reality, and of an incomprehensible mystery, which has no analogy in the life of man as we know it, and finds no support in human reason, and therefore can only be accepted by faith on the authority of the Word of God." (ST, pg. 322)


----------



## Magma2

Puritan Sailor said:


> Before I enter into such a discussion, I would like you to read and think about Berkhof's ST, Part 3, chapter 3 on the Unipersonality of Christ. See if it answers your immediate questions.




Thank you. It's on the list.



> Men much more capable than I have already dealt with this question long ago. I encourage you to thoughtfully reflect on their writings on the Trinity and Incarnation. Read for yourself (not through the lenses of Clark or other historians) the Cappadocians, Hilary of Poitiers, Augustine, Asthanasius, even John of Damascus. Then read Calvin. Read Bavinck, who provides helpful historical reviews of these doctrines in his Reformed Dogmatics and interacts with more modern insights. Berkhof provides some helpful summaries as well. Deal with the primary sources first. I'm sure Rev. King could supply more. Then read Clark again and see if he contributes anything to the discussion. Your trying to reinvent the wheel Sean. Until you've done your homework and understand the concerns of the early church, you won't appreciate their insights, nor the development since then. Most of these men were pastors. These doctrines were hammered out because of practical problems in the faith of the Church. They were not concerned with articulating profound intellectual insights.



There is no question I have to do more work, but I don't think I'm totally unsympathetic or completely in the dark as to the concerns and serious problems Chalcedon was trying to avoid and did avoid. I completely and without reservation confess that Chalcedon was the high water mark of Chistology. That said, I just don't think it is, or can be, the last word. Admittedly, I'm not as well read as I should be on this subject, but that shouldn't prohibit me from raising questions and objections particularly for those who are more "up to speed," even if some refuse to interact with me personally. 



> I have found this warning helpful from Berkhof, "The doctrine of the two natures in one person transcends human reason. It is the expression of a supersensible reality, and of an incomprehensible mystery, which has no analogy in the life of man as we know it, and finds no support in human reason, and therefore can only be accepted by faith on the authority of the Word of God." (ST, pg. 322)



I don't find this warning helpful at all. The Scriptures were given so that we might understand, know and believe -- and this too by God's grace. I don't agree at all that the truths of Scripture, even those truths concerning the Incarnation, "transcends human reason." Jesus said that the Spirit 'will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear . . . ." I think that is more encouraging to the pursuit of truth than the brickwall Berkof erects in its place.


----------



## Magma2

Paul manata said:


> And this is what Van Til was getting at with paradox.
> 
> Rather than let our "rationalism" dictate the rules, Scripture does,



I see, thanks Paul. It's rationalism to believe the Scriptures and not Berkof or Van Til. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Civbert

Puritan Sailor said:


> ...
> I have found this warning helpful from Berkhof, "The doctrine of the two natures in one person transcends human reason. It is the expression of a supersensible reality, and of an incomprehensible mystery, which has no analogy in the life of man as we know it, and finds no support in human reason, and therefore can only be accepted by faith on the authority of the Word of God." (ST, pg. 322)


 
I too find this unhelpful. If Berkhof wants to be really honest, he could have simply said he didn't understand the doctrine of the incarnation. 

The term "supersensible reality" merely says to me it is "supernatural" issues. No problem there. I can understand things from a supernatural perspective. God created everything in 6 days, flooded the whole earth, raised the dead, turned water into wine. There are are events with supernatural causes. That the Son of God was born fully man, and to a virgin, is clearly a supernatural event. 

To claim it is "incomprehensible mystery, which has no analogy in the life of man as we know it, and finds no support in human reason," says he simply could not resolve all of the internal contradictions in a satisfactory manner. That is fine also. The Scriptures may not give us enough information to resolve all the problems in the doctrine of the incarnation. 

But it also means that all the intricate formulations Berkhof was working with entailed some error. That does not mean they were completely false, only false at some points. A system which contains contradiction does not tell you which proposition is false, only that one _must_ be false. We may never know _which _is false, but we do know something is undoubtedly false. 

Now does this mean the truths of Scripture are beyond human reason? Not if we are to believe them. It only means that Berkhof's understanding of the truths of scripture is faulty when it comes to the incarnation. Something in Berkhof's understanding is not scriptural. 

So the main problem I have with what Berkhof said comes when he said it then must be "accepted by faith on the authority of the Word of God." Now I have not problem accepting anything on the authority of the Word of God. But I also know that there is nothing false or unreasonable in God's Word. If any doctrine of the incarnation is beyond " support in human reason" then it is unbelievable. One can not believe something that one finds is unreasonable or contradictory. 

Berkhof seem to have the Thomistic view of reason and faith (or I should say reason verses faith), that faith is belief in what is not reasonable. I say one can not have faith in a contradiction or paradox. If upon examining a set of statements, one finds they lead to a contradiction, then one must accept they do not understand the statements correctly, or one or more of the statements is false. There is no other choice. One can not believe all the statements and still believe they cause a paradox. Any attempt to do so makes the whole system irrational. Berkhof should not ask anyone to accept any doctrinal formula he knows is irrational.

Now, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I guess I should assume he is saying that we should simply believe simply that Jesus was the divine Son of God and was also fully man, even if we don't know how. I can do that just as I can believe that Jesus turned water into wine without knowing how he did it. But if I try to understand how exactly Jesus was fully man and fully God, and my reasoning leads to contradictions, they I must accept I do not understand what being fully man and fully God means. And this means my faith in the doctrine of incarnation is itself a shallow one. But I guess this is inevitable when we can not define the terms we use to explain what fully man and fully God means (nature, person, substance, etc.)


----------



## Magma2

This will be my final post on this thread, but I did want to leave anyone interested with at least a few more objections and/or problems to consider that I have been chewing on (honestly, this has been keeping me up at night):

Mat 24:36; " But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” The parallel in Mark adds specific mention of the Son; “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”

Here we have a situation where there is a proposition that Jesus did not know. The problem here is how can the unity and simplicity of the Godhead be maintained so that omniscience is not lost, since the Second Person knows all truth, is all truth, and is “as omniscient” as the other two divine Persons? How does a substance or nature, or even an individualized non-individual or a personalized non-person know or not know anything? Wouldn’t a human person know or not know something? If we grant that a person is a complex of thoughts, then here we have an instance of the person, the man Christ Jesus, not knowing something. 

On that note, here is another passage which supports the idea, along with Prov. 23.7a, that a person is the thoughts he thinks: 

1 Cor 2:11; For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

To know a person is to know the thoughts he/she thinks. 

Another problem is that in much of what I’ve read concerning the doctrine of the incarnation, where we have one person and two natures or substances is that, and ironically, many theologians do not consistently apply this formulation even when insisting upon it. I’ve read many times were the Second Person became flesh. Not surprising, because it’s completely biblical and supported by John 1 and elsewhere. However, no one says (or, I suppose almost no one), that the substance or the nature of the Second Person took on flesh. The Second Person took on flesh and became a man. Few seem to have problems affirming the divine person is still a real person in the Incarnation, but the human person is nowhere to be found. What we really have is a divine person and an impersonal human nature. Which, if I understand it, and I think I do, is what is meant by enhypostatia. The divine personhood is maintained and asserted and it is that divine person who “individualizes” and “personalizes” the non-individual and non-personal human “substance”?

I consider Brian Schwertley a first class theologian, so this isn't any criticism against him, I'm just using him as one example of what I mean. In “The Incarnation of Christ” he writes; 



> “God the Son (who was and is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit) became man. The second person of the trinity assumed a human nature . . . When the second person of the trinity was incarnated He was hypostatically united to a genuine human nature. The Mediator did not unite Himself to a human person with a separate personality but with a human nature and thus the personality of Christ and the personality of the Logos are one and the same. The unipersonality of the Mediator is by far the most difficult aspect of the incarnation to understand. The doctrine of the two natures in one person is to a certain degree beyond human comprehension.”



Echoes of Berkof. However, note that the two natures or substances in one person disappears almost by sleight of hand. The Second Person, not the nature or substance of the Second Person, “assumed a human nature.” Why is the idea of person maintained and allowable when applied to the divine "substance" and dropped and not allowable when applied to the human "substance"? I guess if it is true that this is all "beyond human comprehension," then I suppose there is little sense even studying the doctrine in the first place and I should just get a good night sleep. 

Schwertley also writes:



> Because our Lord’s human nature is not lacking any of the essential qualities belonging to that nature (e.g., a real body, a genuine soul) and also has its individuality and personhood in the person of the Son of God, the human nature should not be considered imperfect and incomplete.




. . . just not considered a human person.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Anthony, the quote is from the same chapter I recommended to Sean to read. I recommend the same reading list to you. 

And I will add to it Donald MacLeod's The Person of Christ. He answers your questions specifically Sean.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Magma2 said:


> This will be my final post on this thread, but I did want to leave anyone interested with at least a few more objections and/or problems to consider that I have been chewing on (honestly, this has been keeping me up at night):
> 
> Mat 24:36; " But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” The parallel in Mark adds specific mention of the Son; “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”
> 
> Here we have a situation where there is a proposition that Jesus did not know. The problem here is how can the unity and simplicity of the Godhead be maintained so that omniscience is not lost, since the Second Person knows all truth, is all truth, and is “as omniscient” as the other two divine Persons? How does a substance or nature, or even an individualized non-individual or a personalized non-person know or not know anything? Wouldn’t a human person know or not know something? If we grant that a person is a complex of thoughts, then here we have an instance of the person, the man Christ Jesus, not knowing something.


This is an instance where we encounter the finite limitations of Jesus' human nature. Just as Jesus grew tired, hunger, thirsty, etc. his human knowledge was also limited. He had a human mind as well as a divine "mind." As such, in His human mind, it is impossible to know everything His infinite divine mind knows. His human mind could only know that which the divine mind communicated to it. So in the verse above, the divine person of Christ did not communicate to His human mind the knowledge of His second coming. 



> Another problem is that in much of what I’ve read concerning the doctrine of the incarnation, where we have one person and two natures or substances is that, and ironically, many theologians do not consistently apply this formulation even when insisting upon it. I’ve read many times were the Second Person became flesh. Not surprising, because it’s completely biblical and supported by John 1 and elsewhere. However, no one says (or, I suppose almost no one), that the substance or the nature of the Second Person took on flesh. The Second Person took on flesh and became a man. Few seem to have problems affirming the divine person is still a real person in the Incarnation, but the human person is nowhere to be found. What we really have is a divine person and an impersonal human nature. Which, if I understand it, and I think I do, is what is meant by enhypostatia. The divine personhood is maintained and asserted and it is that divine person who “individualizes” and “personalizes” the non-individual and non-personal human “substance”?


I think your confusion may be over the idea of what defines human nature. 
Personhood does not define human nature per say. Person's have natures. 

Otherwise all humans would be one person/nature or there would be no humans at all, just billions of similiar looking creatures called Sean, Paul, Patrick, etc. Jesus took up a human nature (body, soul, mind, will, emotions, etc.) whatever defines man in the biblical sense, and take it as his own.

Similar within the Trinity, it is not the essence of God taking up the human nature but the person of the Son who is God. If it were the essence of God, then the entire Trinity would be incarnate in Jesus. Instead we have the person of the Son within the Godhead uniting a human nature to himself, but somehow not united to the Father or Holy Spirit. 

So everything that makes a man human, Jesus has taken up so that we can confess faithful with the Scriptures that Jesus is a man. And at the same time he is still the second person of the Trinity and is to be worshipped and adored. His personality as a human is the same personality as the Son of God.

That's about as far as I am willing to probe for now. I always fear becoming heretical when discussing this delicate matters. Chew on it, think it over and read what I recommended above, especially Calvin, Berkhof, and MacLeod on your specific questions.


----------

