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?
Does God Suffer?
- Thread starter scottmaciver
- Start date
- Status
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
God is impassible. This is orthodox dogma.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
http://www.puritanboard.com/google....g&sa.x=9&sa.y=5&siteurl=www.puritanboard.com/
http://www.puritanboard.com/google....sa.x=6&sa.y=6&siteurl=www.puritanboard.com%2F
http://www.puritanboard.com/google....sa.x=6&sa.y=5&siteurl=www.puritanboard.com%2F
There are various threads on this. Passibility in God is not orthodox Reformed teaching, although it's somewhat mysterious how Christ suffered in His human nature but not as a Divine Person.
http://www.puritanboard.com/google....sa.x=6&sa.y=6&siteurl=www.puritanboard.com%2F
http://www.puritanboard.com/google....sa.x=6&sa.y=5&siteurl=www.puritanboard.com%2F
There are various threads on this. Passibility in God is not orthodox Reformed teaching, although it's somewhat mysterious how Christ suffered in His human nature but not as a Divine Person.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Kevin DeYoung gave an excellent talk on this topic at the Together for the Gospel conference two years ago. Showed why impassability matters and makes the gospel bigger.
louis_jp
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
One needs to tread very carefully here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/here-interesting-line-study-thought-56658/
and
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7899
AMR
louis_jp
Puritan Board Freshman
I said it was predicated of the person, not the divine nature. One needs to tread carefully in both directions.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
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?
AMR
louis_jp
Puritan Board Freshman
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."
KingofBashan
Puritan Board Freshman
The apostles understand the union of the divine and human nature to be such that they felt free to call Christ's blood "God's own blood". I think it might be in line with their use of language to say "God died on the cross". The phrase is a bit more loose than what we find in Acts 20:28.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
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.
AMR
louis_jp
Puritan Board Freshman
Bob,
All are agreed that He suffered in His human nature, not the divine. I said that up front. And you are correct that since He suffered in His human nature, then that statement can be attributed to His person as well. Otherwise, we would have to say that it was a generic, personless human nature that hung on the cross, and not a person at all. Which isn't correct. But the question then is, who is the person? It is in fact the Son of God. His person is not a composite of the human and the divine. It is the pre-existent Son who took on human nature. So when we say that "He" suffered on the cross, we mean that the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, suffered on the cross (in His human nature, of course). I know the language is uncomfortable, but with the necessary qualifications, I believe it is orthodox.
Here is how one Reformed author puts it:
"This one person, the Son of God, is the agent behind all of the Lord's actions.... We can never say, 'the divine nature did this' or 'the human nature did this.' We must say, "He did this: he, the Son of God!' He was born, baptized, tempted, and transfigured. He beheld the city and wept over it. He agonized in Gethsemane. He was betrayed, arrested, and condemned. He was flogged, immolated, crucified, dead and buried. He rose from the dead. He reigns.
"In him God acts, speaks and suffers for our redemption. In him, God provides and even becomes the atonement which he demands." (Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ, Contours of Christian Theology, pp. 189-90).
Recall, the OP asked if there was *any sense* in which *it could be said* that God suffers. I don't think it's best to run around saying that God suffered on the cross, but it is legitimate to put it that way, in the sense that I gave, and in the sense that Macleod meant it. Certainly other traditions have no hesitation in saying it, as it isn't any different than calling Mary "God-bearer," even if the Reformed would insist that it's a rhetorical attribution only.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
Thanks Louis, and I am trying to parse all that has been said. You ask
To which I answer, in the context of this thread, that The Person in question, became in time and forever after shall be, the Theanthropos; the God-Man. And just as there were things during His earthly ministry which could be predicated of his human nature (thirst, limited knowledge, etc.) which could not be predicated of His divine nature, so too could pain and suffering be predicated of His Person (qua man) that cannot be predicated of His Person (qua deity).
To which I answer, in the context of this thread, that The Person in question, became in time and forever after shall be, the Theanthropos; the God-Man. And just as there were things during His earthly ministry which could be predicated of his human nature (thirst, limited knowledge, etc.) which could not be predicated of His divine nature, so too could pain and suffering be predicated of His Person (qua man) that cannot be predicated of His Person (qua deity).
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
Precisely.
louis_jp
Puritan Board Freshman
As long as we acknowledge that this is "not to be so understood as to convey the impression that a new person -- a mediatorial, complex person -- began to be, who did not exist before; or that, whereas the person of the Son of God was, previous to the incarnation, simple, it is since composite." (Girardeau, "Discussions of Theological Questions, pp.394-95).
Rather, "it is the same person that now has two natures, who, previous to the incarnation, had actually, though not in the divine decree, one only. The assumption of human nature into connection with the person of the Son of God involved no intrinsic addition to his personality... We have then... the eternal, divine personality of Christ... the creation and assumption of the human nature of Christ -- the assumption not of a human personality, but of a human nature, into connection with the divine person of Christ." (id.)
More directly related to this thread:
"From this it follows, that what is predicable of either nature is predicable of the person.... God as such cannot suffer.... it was the human nature which was the subject of suffering. In consequence also of the hypostatic union the sufferings of the human nature are predicated of the divine person, but that by no means shows that it was the divine person which actually experienced the sufferings." (pp. 396-7, 409).
Which I think is what we all mean to say, and perhaps we should just leave it at that.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Louis,
Thank you for the quotes from Giradeau. I have not read this work and now plan to do so. I like what he has to say, especially the discussion of the pre/post Incarnate Christ simple/complex cautionaries that often get muddied up, with the small quibble being the last bit, wherein he makes it rather emphatic that what is predictable of either nature is predictable of the person, versus our confessional statement (posted by Joshua above):
VIII.VII. Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself;[SUP]a[/SUP] 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.
AMR
Thank you for the quotes from Giradeau. I have not read this work and now plan to do so.
I like what he has to say, especially the discussion of the pre/post Incarnate Christ simple/complex cautionaries that often get muddied up, with the small quibble being the last bit, wherein he makes it rather emphatic that what is predictable of either nature is predictable of the person, versus our confessional statement (posted by Joshua above):VIII.VII. Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself;[SUP]a[/SUP] 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.
AMR
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
Patrick, it seems that a naughty little "t" sneaked its way in there!
predicable
adj
: capable of being asserted
Word Police
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
I found Jack's recommendation (post #4) of Kevin DeYoung's sermon on God's impassibility to be excellent on this subject of Christ's two natures. From it I may conclude that the person of Christ suffered in His human nature, while His divine nature experienced no change (suffering). Why did the Second person of the Trinity have to be incarnated? If He could have suffered in His divine nature, why the Incarnation? He was incarnated "so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). The Divine nature could not suffer nor die.
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?
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?
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes Philip,
The Person who suffered the outpouring of the wrath of God for His elect is the God-Man, Jesus Christ. He Himself, the One who is very God and very Man, did in His Person endure the Cross. His divine nature was unaffected; His human nature suffered the hell we deserved.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Thank you.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
