Re: impassibility

From: Dr. David Campbell <amblema@bama.ua.edu>
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 16:02:55 EST

> I am not, as I've said several times, a "patripassian" in the
> traditional sense - i.e., I don't think that the Father was
> crucified. My views can - with those of Luther & some of the modern
> theologians I mentioned in my later & longer post - be described as
> "deipassian." A refusal to accept such a view ends up meaning, among
> other things, that the cross did not have any effect on the Father.
> You cannot say, as with the Son, that the person of the Father
> suffered because of a communication from an assumed passible nature
> to the divine because the Father assumed no human nature. So the
> crucifixion literally made no difference to the Father. & this is
> not helped by considerations about divine foreknowledge. On this
> view God would have eternally been just the same if humanity had not
> sinned & Christ had never been crucified.

Regarding "if humanity had not sinned and Christ were not crucified"
as a meaningful possibility seems to assume that these were not fully
predestined to occur, which does not mesh well with a heavy emphasis
on God's unchanging nature. If you assume that the incarnation,
crucifixion, resurrection, etc. are expressions of God's fundamental
nature, and accept His unchanging nature, then the specific event of
the crucifixion made no difference in the Father because He already
knew the love and the anguish involved. Cf. Jesus being slain from
the foundation of the world.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections Building
Department of Biological Sciences
Biodiversity and Systematics
University of Alabama, Box 870345
Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345  USA
Received on Tue Nov 22 16:05:46 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 16:05:46 EST