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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?