I like this point philosophically, and probably nearly accept it. My sticking point becomes the absolute reconciliation of the human and the divine in Jesus (God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation) and in that I take it not simply that Jesus had a message, but also that he lived that message, and indeed is the core content of the message. In dying Christ defeated death, and that cannot simply be his human nature. It is indeed this defeat of death, that makes the topic of this thread meaningful. Some part of our theology of the Incarnation and the Atonement will not simply be rationality, but rather will be rationality in company with mystery and the ineffable. In terms of atonement, I am less inclined to select one, but rather acknowledge that they all highlight some of the mystery, and if I was pushed for the one I find most helpful, I would opt for Christus Victor, but that will be no surprise given what I have written. To quote the debauched by glorious Dean of St Paul's, John Donne: Oh death were is your sting, Of death where is your victory, One short sleep past we wake eternally.
.... Well, let me see if I have gained some understanding of this subject. I'll begin by citing the Chalcedonian Creed: We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. 1: Strictly speaking, I don't see anything in the creed that says Christ's divine nature died on the cross. 2. Christ's divine nature is His eternal Being. Eternal beings, by definition don't die: they're eternal. 3. Based on 1 & 2, Christ's divine nature did not die on the cross. 4. Nonetheless, His divine nature experienced mortal death first-hand on the cross. 5. Man is spirit, soul and body. At death the body of a man ceases to function: it dies. Yet the spirit of man continues to exist, for God has brought it into existence, and God has promised to return the spirit to an incorruptible body at the time of resurrection and judgment. 6. When Jesus died on the cross, His two natures remained inseparable. His spirit continued, and were joined to His resurrected body on the 3rd day. 7. Based on 5 & 6, Jesus tasted what we normally call 'death' (that is, physical death) in His two natures together; but the spirit of Jesus, in both of His natures, did not cease to exist or "die". Agree? Disagree?
The Chalcedonian Definition does not address the the specific matter in the terms that you suggest, in the main because the specific issue in question in the Chalcedonian Definition is the Incarnation and the Christology that springs from that. So 'strictly speaking' it does not address the death of Christ in any way. 'inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten,' This is of course important, however I get the other side of the coin, which I guess is the question 'can God die?' You want to tell that that it is not possible, but I am not sure that is what scripture teaches, save of course that the Resurrection teaches us that God does not die eternally. I get who you want to say that, however I am concerned that you are undoing the power of the Gospel. I get that Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachthani conveys something of the great abandonment that the Cross speaks of, and yet we know it us uttered by the whole Christ 'inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably'. I think I have made this point I probably accept your anthropology at this point, though it seems more Greek than Hebrew. I think I have made this point I am not sure that writers before the dawn of existentialism would have equated 'cease to exist' with death. I don't know I want an agree/disagree option, I am generally not given to the binomial. But I am happy to discuss it. Nuw we see in a glass darkly, then face to face.
Well, just keep in mind that the members on this forum make up an extremely tiny portion of the Anglican community worldwide, and we might be neither fully representative nor "average" Anglicans in all respects. We are all individuals, with minds that work differently and with varying life experiences.
I would not take a bunch of laymen arguing as anything representative of our clergy or even our churches as a whole. Actually go talk to some clergy
I am beginning to see it both ways. I think maybe it's largely a matter of perspective, of how one defines and thinks of death. How I've felt until now has been, death is equated with (and commonly known as) a cessation of the life force. So if one says that the divine nature died, in the mind this means the divine ceased to live. But God cannot cease to live, to exist, to be. On the other hand, if we set aside the appearance of finality of physical death and we recognize that this "cessation of life" only involves the corruptible body and that the spirit continues to live (even though it is 'homeless' without a body and without natural sensory input), then the thing we call 'death' is not a cessation of existence at all (plants and mere animals excepted, most likely). Certainly, Jesus in His two inseparable natures did experience the full range of human existence: birth, growth, hunger and thirst, temptations, emotions, physical discomfort, agony, and death. - - - - - There are those who will still say, however, that since Christ existed prior to His incarnation, he was a divine person before taking on a human nature; thus there was a time when His two natures were not inseparable, but were actually separate. And one could speak of what Christ does or how He is relative to one of his two natures. For example, Christ is omnipotent relative to his divine nature but he is limited in power relative to his human nature. He is omniscient with respect to His divine nature but did not know all things with respect to his human nature. He is immortal with regard to His divine nature, but mortal with regard to His human nature. I think these statements are pretty well supported in scripture. My question is, can anyone reconcile (a) this line of reasoning from scripture with (b) the Chalcedonian Creed?
God's love for us is so deep and so profound that we will never have the words to adequately describe it. That is why I specifically used the word ineffable (untellable, unable to be put into words. It is probably important to remember that God exists outside the realms of time and space, from before time began. The Creed that the Council of Chalcedon affirmed was the Creed of the 1st Council of Constantinople (what we generally refer to as the Nicene Creed). The statement we are discussing is normally referred to as the Chalcedonian Definition, and whilst some call it the Chalcedonian Creed, I find that gets a little confusing.
Thanks for clarifying the name. I think the formulators of the Chalcedonian Definition would surely have written it in a manner which they felt was consistent with and supported by scripture. So it seems important that we also read the Definition in light of, and interpreted by, scripture. In other words, we would not want to read something into the Definition, something that we assume it is intended to mean, if that 'something' (the interpolation) might contradict the word of God.
Whilst I acknowledge that your position is entirely consistent with Article XXI, I for myself would feel that the Chalcedonian Definition is one of those places where I would not be pointing the finger. My view is that the reason why the Jerusalem Declaration specifically includes the Council of Chalcedon, the fourth of the Oecumenical Councils, is to make it clear that the Christology they were to endorse was the historic Christology of the Church East and West. The Chalcedonian Definition is consistent with Holy Scripture. I have not sought to read into the Chalcedonian Definition anything other than what is there. Spoiler: John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
I would take it a step further and suggest that what the Fathers did at Chalcedon was say that the Definition is the rule for how the Scriptures ought to be read (even in instances where they appear to be saying something else). The idea that one should be able to prove the Chalcedonian Definition from the Scriptures is something that I think would have been foreign to their way of thinking.
That is from a wiki which is partly fictional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ill_Bethisad https://news.assyrianchurch.org/why-do-we-pray-for-the-intersession-of-saints/