D
DivineNames
Guest
Question: “Did the entire, whole complete God die in Christ on Good Friday?â€Â
Longer answer:
The question itself, as worded, can lead to confusion and misunderstanding and might be answered either “yes†or “no†depending on what is meant or understood by “the entire, whole, complete God.â€Â
On the one hand, if someone intends or understands this phrase to mean “the Holy Trinity,†then the answer is clearly “no.†The “Holy Trinity†did not “die in Christ on Good Friday.†God the Father did not die on Good Friday, nor did God the Holy Spirit. Only Christ, the Son of God,true God and true man, died on the cross on Good Friday. The ancient heresy of“Patripassianism†is a fifth-century teaching that in the work of redemption God the Father himself “suffered and died†for our sins. The Christian church has always rejected this teaching.
On the other hand, however, if someone intends or understands the phrase “the entire, whole, complete God†to be a reference to the fact that Christ, who died on the cross, is not only man but also “truly, completely, fully God,†then the question might be answered “yes.†But this answer would need further careful qualification, since we do not believe, teach and confess that “the divine nature†as such died on the cross.
The reason we can speak rightly and properly about “God dying on the cross†(e.g., TLH 154:3)â€â€though with due reverence and restraint in view of the profound mystery involved hereâ€â€is because of Scripture’s teachings regarding the personal union of the two natures of Christ and the communication of attributes. According to the Formula of Concord, it is not enough to say that “Christ suffered and died only as a man†or that “only the human nature of Christ suffered and died.†Otherwise (if his divine nature did not somehow “participate†in his suffering and death through the communication of attributes), his death would have been a “merely human†death and could not have accomplished our salvation.
Therefore, we believe, teach and confess that the whole Christâ€â€the Christ who is both true God and true manâ€â€suffered and died on the cross for our sins. He did so, however, “according to the assumed human nature,†not “according to the divine nature,†which “can neither suffer nor die.†FC SD VIII, 20 puts it this way: “On account of this personal union, without which such a true communion of the natures is unthinkable and impossible, it is not only the bare human nature (whose property it is to suffer and to die) that has suffered for the sin of the world, but the Son of God himself has truly suffered (although according to the assumed human nature) and, in the words of our plain Christian Creed, has trly died, although the divine nature can neither suffer nor die†(Tappert, 595).
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/med ... Christ.pdf
Would any Christian like to try and explain all this doctrinal malarky?
Longer answer:
The question itself, as worded, can lead to confusion and misunderstanding and might be answered either “yes†or “no†depending on what is meant or understood by “the entire, whole, complete God.â€Â
On the one hand, if someone intends or understands this phrase to mean “the Holy Trinity,†then the answer is clearly “no.†The “Holy Trinity†did not “die in Christ on Good Friday.†God the Father did not die on Good Friday, nor did God the Holy Spirit. Only Christ, the Son of God,true God and true man, died on the cross on Good Friday. The ancient heresy of“Patripassianism†is a fifth-century teaching that in the work of redemption God the Father himself “suffered and died†for our sins. The Christian church has always rejected this teaching.
On the other hand, however, if someone intends or understands the phrase “the entire, whole, complete God†to be a reference to the fact that Christ, who died on the cross, is not only man but also “truly, completely, fully God,†then the question might be answered “yes.†But this answer would need further careful qualification, since we do not believe, teach and confess that “the divine nature†as such died on the cross.
The reason we can speak rightly and properly about “God dying on the cross†(e.g., TLH 154:3)â€â€though with due reverence and restraint in view of the profound mystery involved hereâ€â€is because of Scripture’s teachings regarding the personal union of the two natures of Christ and the communication of attributes. According to the Formula of Concord, it is not enough to say that “Christ suffered and died only as a man†or that “only the human nature of Christ suffered and died.†Otherwise (if his divine nature did not somehow “participate†in his suffering and death through the communication of attributes), his death would have been a “merely human†death and could not have accomplished our salvation.
Therefore, we believe, teach and confess that the whole Christâ€â€the Christ who is both true God and true manâ€â€suffered and died on the cross for our sins. He did so, however, “according to the assumed human nature,†not “according to the divine nature,†which “can neither suffer nor die.†FC SD VIII, 20 puts it this way: “On account of this personal union, without which such a true communion of the natures is unthinkable and impossible, it is not only the bare human nature (whose property it is to suffer and to die) that has suffered for the sin of the world, but the Son of God himself has truly suffered (although according to the assumed human nature) and, in the words of our plain Christian Creed, has trly died, although the divine nature can neither suffer nor die†(Tappert, 595).
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/med ... Christ.pdf
Would any Christian like to try and explain all this doctrinal malarky?