Re: impassibility (Was Re: Vienna cardinal draws lines in Intelligent Design row)

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 16:44:41 EST

I do not hold that "the divine nature of which that person is one
hypostasis doesn't." This translates the notion of the eternal Trinity
into a temporal one that doesn't feel until the temporal event occurs. If
God is eternal in the sense of being outside of time except through the
unique Incarnation, this is impossible, contradictory. So the view has to
be that God is eternally staurocentric, unchangingly knows the cost of
sin and redemption, infinitely reacts (though that term has totally wrong
connotations). He is impassive because nothing from temporal history is
added to what he eternally knows, not because he is not involved. There
may be different hermeneutical approaches, but I contend that no viable
interpretive principle can support a contradiction. This allows some
things to be true within Lutheran theology that cannot be incorporated
into Reformed doctrine, and vice versa. But the divine eternity is basic
to all orthodoxy, though often misunderstood..

As for scriptural foundations, besides the express statements I consider
the requirements of such passages as Romans 8:29f. To what extent you
find such persuasive, Luther held to predestination as strongly as
Calvin. But Lutherans generally have changed. Hermeneutics again.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:14:15 -0500 "George Murphy" <>
2 replies & then I'm afraid I'm done for the day:

To Dave S: I apologize for misrepresenting your views. I'm quite aware
that you hold the Chalcedonian view that the person of the Son suffers
because it is the person of the assumed human nature. Perhaps you had
not seen my later post in which I corrected my original inept wording.
But then, as I indicated, you have the strange result that the divine
person suffers but the divine nature of which that person is one
hypostasis doesn't. It's hard for me to make sense of that.

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.
Received on Tue Nov 22 16:49:57 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 16:49:57 EST