scottmaciver
Puritan Board Sophomore
Is there any sense that it could be said that God suffers outwith Christ's sufferings? It doesn't sit right with me as it would seem to suggest that God would change.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is there any sense that it could be said that God suffers outwith Christ's sufferings?
One needs to tread very carefully here:In the sense that what is predicated of the human nature is predicated of the person, by virtue of the hypostatic union. So it can be said that God suffered and died on the cross.
One needs to tread very carefully here:In the sense that what is predicated of the human nature is predicated of the person, by virtue of the hypostatic union. So it can be said that God suffered and died on the cross.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/here-interesting-line-study-thought-56658/
and
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7899
AMR
No, what you said afterwards, was that is could be said that "God suffered and died on the cross". Perhaps an infelicitous use of words, no?I said it was predicated of the person, not the divine nature. One needs to tread carefully in both directions.
No, what you said afterwards, was that is could be said that "God suffered and died on the cross". Perhaps an infelicitous use of words, no?I said it was predicated of the person, not the divine nature. One needs to tread carefully in both directions.
AMR
Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
So it can be said that God suffered and died on the cross.
Note that Craig goes on to explain, that while we "can" say this, we should not, as it is misleading, and instead speak that the person of Jesus Christ died on the Cross...as has been noted by others herein. BTW, I pointed to the Craig link as secondary to a thread already contained here at PB, simply to note that even outside of the Reformed community, the topic gets some attention. It has come in handy within some discussion venues outside of PB where anything from a Reformed source is immediately dismissed.I don't think so. Could you clarify? This is from your link, which I assume you approve: "In short, yes, we can say that God died on the cross because the person who underwent death was a divine person."
So it can be said that God suffered and died on the cross.
Louis, I think that consistency would require your conclusion to read "so it can be said that Jesus Christ suffered ..." By virtue of the fact that the Person, Jesus Christ, suffered in His human nature, it can therefore be said that the Person (Jesus Christ) suffered.
But the question then is, who is the person?
So was humanity's eternal debt paid by Christ qua the Divine nature or qua the human nature?
The debt was not paid by a nature. The debt was paid by a Person. The God-Man Jesus Christ our Lord.
In that case, it was that same person who suffered.
The Person in question, became in time and forever after shall be, the Theanthropos; the God-Man.
wherein he makes it rather emphatic that what is predictable of either nature is predictable of the person,
Could we say that though the Divine nature did not suffer, that a Divine person suffered because that Divine Person became a human person and so became capable of suffering? That is to say, that since God-in-Himself is incapable of suffering, therefore the Son (who is fully God) became man in order to suffer. For even though God-in-Himself is incapable of suffering, God-as-true-man (Jesus Christ) could and did suffer.
What I am trying to make sure is clear here is that the one who suffered (Jesus) was fully Divine, even as He suffered. Is that a fair concern?
Mea culpa! Thanks!Patrick, it seems that a naughty little "t" sneaked its way in there!
These sorts of discussions always drive home for me the importance of mystery for our faith.
These sorts of discussions always drive home for me the importance of mystery for our faith.
James, I agree. I found this piece by Kevin DeYoung timely
Nuance Is Necessary – Kevin DeYoung
...both natures are joined in one person: yet it was not as God that he died, though the person that was God died.
(...)
God is said to have purchased his Church with his own blood; not that the Godhead could suffer, but he that was God suffered. So of the man Christ it may be said that he is omnipotent, yet not as man, but the person that was and is man, is omnipotent. So the person that is God died, though not as God, but in respect of his human nature, and as he was man.