The Father Died (revised 1)

I thought all right-thinking would agree with me on the following:

*Original Post*

In the death of God the Son, the Father (who operates inseperably with and mutually indwells said Son) died in the Human Nature of the Person of the Son?

Thus the Father died, but not as God nor as the Son since it was the humanity of the Son (not his divinity) and the Person of the Son (not the Father) who died.

That's the Reformed Orthodox consensus, isn't it? Or rather, the true and necessary consequences of the Bible: what the Protestant Scholastics believe now and would have believed then if they'd thought about it much? Would Dr Weinandy agree with me? What's his email address, I wonder?

Or does the Father only indwell the divine nature of the Son not his human nature? Or is that heresy? There is scope for useful hair-splitting on the mode of perichorisis here, then? Dr Ovey?

It always feels that one is a semi-colon from Anathema in such discussions, don't you think?

* But it seems that my good readers all disagree with me. So I've revised my views: *

Thank you for bothering to address your disagreement, Gentle Commentors.

But the stuff above still seems to me the set of options if you accept the corrolate ideas of:

(1) Inseperable Operation

and

(2) Mutual Indwelling or Perichorisis

By (1) I mean, in Augustine's phrase, that the Father is not (ever) without the Son and vice versa. The inseperability is of a different order from that merely of friends who always agree. Father and Son always do the same actions together and in every act and every aspect of that act they act together. Yet their modes or manners of action may be distinguished. The Father does not have to act in the same way as the Son though he must do all the actions of the Son with the Son. For example, the Son is begotten and the Father is not but the being begotten of the Son is not an action independent from or seperable from the Father. In this action Father and Son are not merely subject and object as if they are to seperate persons involved in the same stuff. John 5 would be the main text here, I think.

Which is related to (2). The actions of the Trinity ad extra are undivided since the persons indwell one another.

The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and so on, as Rahner's dictum has it. They are eternally related: in one another. A kind of dance?! (see Ros's blog, was it, on the Triune Conga? - who leads etc? hierarchy and subordination of dance partners!)

The Father is in the Son not so much in a spacial way as the Father has no physicality. But the Father is always "there", in and with the Son. If you've got the Son you havent just got "God" (some divine essence behind the persons) you've got The Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I imagine the Father indwells the Person of the Son, but perhaps in the divine nature only.

Though the Father is certainly in the Human Son by the Spirit (whom the Father also indwells!). Tricky.

So once again, maybe as I suggest above it is just as simple as saying that the Father only indwells the divine nature of the Son not his human nature? This seems a bit wierd to me, but perhaps that's right. It is corrolate with the correct orthodox view that the Son dies according to his humanity or in his human nature not in his divinity, yet it is truly the Divine Son who really dies...

I'm not at all sure.

So what we are after is a non-heretical articulation of the death of God which upholds the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son and their inseperable operation without seperating the divine persons, please?

And some good historical articulations would be happy too, if you've got them handy. Ta.

To complicate matters, what of the Spirit? Surely the Spirit must indwell the Son (1) as a divine person from all eternity (2) as a man, the architypal believer.

But Dr Ovey must have all this at the tip of his tongue? I'll email him this. As my supervisor, perhaps he'll be alarmed into action if I really am going heterodox here.