Jason Dulle article:
 

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/GodLeaveJesusBody.htm
For all the oneness believers still around, do you find any problems with the language used in this article?

Prax, do you find any issues with the article?

Re: Jason Dulle article:
 

Makes it seem as if he did not have a human spirit..and that "spirit" is a synonym for Person

Re: Jason Dulle article:
 

Both Bernard and Dulle err in assuming that Christ was in 'hypostatic union' with the Father, in the sense that two things are joined together. This was a problem throughout much of antenicene and post nicene catholic trinitarian development up until the Council of Chalcedon made an official formula of words to use to describe the issue.

The Bible does not teach that God was 'united with' Christ in the sense such terminology suggests. The suggestion is that the union is similar to when bread and meat are 'united' to make one sandwich, or when tea acids and water are 'united' to make one (glass) of tea. The theory is that something called 'the divine essence or nature' was 'united' with the 'human essence or nature' to produce one 'hypostasis' or 'person'.

Oneness, in holding to the Chalcedonian definition of Christ being 'one hypostasis in two natures' or 'two natures united hypostatically', has created some unnecessary difficulties for itself.

For example, the 'Spirit' is said to be that which was united with the humanity. But the 'Spirit' is not the divine nature itself (except when trinitarians are equivocating...) but rather the 'Holy Spirit'. The Holy Spirit is not merely the 'essence' or 'nature' of God but is a descriptive term for God Himself. So Chalcedonian Oneness Christology has a two edged problem: Either the Person of God (the Holy Spirit) was 'united hypostatically' to the humanity in the Person of Christ (which logically leads to two Persons?), OR the Holy Spirit is not God Himself but merely the divine essence (which logically leads to a denial of the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, that is, a denial that the Holy Spirit is Jesus Himself spiritually present and active).

Furthermore, by claiming a hypostatic union of two natures relying on trinitarian (and thus Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics), we fall into the problem described above in the quotation from Dulle - the divine essence 'departing' from Christ at ANY point, whether at the cross, at the moment of death, in the grave, or what have you. For if the Divine Essence departs from Christ in any meaningful sense, then either Christ ceases to exist as a person, OR there are two persons (one God, the other a man). Bernard's approach leads to this dilemma.

Dulle attempts to get around this dilemma by proposing that the divine Spirit departs from Christ in the same way the human spirit departs from a man at death. He says " Indeed, I would argue that if the divine Spirit did not depart from Jesus’ body at the point of death, Jesus could not have died, because death only occurs when the spirit separates from the body. Since Jesus’ spirit is the divine Spirit incarnate, the divine Spirit had to depart from Jesus’ body in order for death to occur. "

But this is unproven. Dulle did not demonstrate that Christ could not die unless the Divine Spirit departed from his body, except by the unproven claim that the hypostatic union is functionally identical to the union of spirit and flesh in a human being.

The problem is, the Spirit is not merely 'the divine essence', it is God Himself. And if the Divine Essence departed from Christ, it is not the same as when a human spirit departs from a body of flesh. The Divine essence, in Chalcedonian Christology, is not united to the flesh body of Jesus, it is united to the human nature. Therefore, he only separation possible is for the Divine Essence to be disunited from the human nature (the entire man), and thus Christ ceases to possess the Divine nature, and thus ceases to be God. On the other hand, if the Spirit is in fact (as the Bible teaches) God Himself, then God Himself was united to the human nature, and the separation is a separation of God and the man, thus again resulting in Christ CEASING TO BE GOD in any meaningful sense.

All this however can be avoided by rejecting Platonic, Aristotelian, Catholic trinitarian metaphysical terms and paradigms, and sticking with the Biblical statements themselves.

The Word (who was God) became flesh. Not the Word was 'hypostatically united to a human nature', nor that the Word was 'hypostatically united to a human body', but that the Word which was God 'came to be' flesh (ie a physical, genuine, human being, as 'flesh' does not mean merely the physical body, but refers to a living human).

So when Jesus died, what actually happened? The HUMAN SPIRIT departed from the HUMAN BODY, and the MAN DIED (this is what happens to every human who dies). God did not 'depart' because God was never 'united' in any way that a 'departure' or 'separation' could be possible. God WAS the man, he was existing AS THE MAN. As the man, he died a human death (human animus or spirit separating from the human physical body). He remained in that condition until the third day, when human spirit was re-united with the human body, and the MAN came alive once again.

If we stay within the confines of leftover trinitarian concepts like Chalcedonian Christology, we might as well seriously argue and debate and try to figure out how many angels can really 'dance on the head of a pin'.

Re: Jason Dulle article:
 

I don't think the specific language, as in the wording, is problematic. It all works within the confines of the logic Dulle has introduced according to his stated beliefs. That is to say, that within Dulle's paradigm, the language works just fine.

But the ideas represented by the language are a different matter. I find such an explanation faulty in a number of ways.

The chief complaint I have about the article is this:

It overly spiritualizes and complicates a rather simple concept.

Why did Jesus die? Because He was flagellated and crucified. End of story.

This idea that Christ could not have died unless some particular event in the unseen divine realm occurred in just such a way (God leaving Him, or what have you) indicates an unwillingness to admit to the true humanity of Jesus.

And one of the facts of true humanity is that humans, especially their bodies, can only sustain a certain amount of trauma before succumbing to death. Jesus experienced traumatic blood loss and stress upon his heart. He likely died of cardiac arrest brought about by shock, exposure, and personal injury.

There isn't any metaphysical explanation needed. He was appointed to die by the predetermined counsel of God, and at the appointed time, He was delivered up and murdered. Case closed.

Trying to argue the how and why and whatever to make some esoteric theological point goes beyond the necessary affirmations required by the faith for salvation.

I mean, are we to believe that if God hadn't left Him, or whatever, that Jesus would still be hanging on the cross to this day?

Re: Jason Dulle article:
 

:nod

It is a very complicated explanation, indeed.

Re: Jason Dulle article:
 

I have not stood on either ground of explanation, since some of these things are moot, really. But the reasoning behind Him dying only by the Father leaving Him is due to the idea that he was without sin, and those without sin need not die. Death only came by sin.

Re: Jason Dulle article:
 

Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

He died by a voluntary act of his will. He waited until the time of the evening sacrifice and said 'It is finished' and 'gave up the ghost' and died. Nobody took his life from him, he did it by choice.

So the idea that because he was sinless he couldn't die seems unscriptural. He chose to die.

Re: Jason Dulle article:
 

This is a misapplication of terms. The word Hypostasis refers to a Person.

The Hypostatic Union refers to a person (God) being United with a human nature, not a human person.


To word it as "Christ was in hypostatic union with the Father" makes it sound as if Dulle teaches there are two persons that are joined together.

Re: Jason Dulle article:
 

Those were my concerns.

Re: Jason Dulle article:
 

From a Oneness perspective, the 'hypostatic union' would be a union between the man and God, would it not? 'Hypostatic union with the Father' is clearly erroneous way of speaking from a trinitarian point of view. But neither Dulle nor Bernard are trinitarians. So then what was united to what in a 'hypostatic union'? If a purely Chalcedonian definition is followed, I do not see how one can be Oneness! For the definition of Chalcedon is that human nature and divine nature were hypostatically united in Christ, that is, two natures united in one person or hypostasis of Christ. But that would mean Christ is a distinct hypostasis from the Father... ie binitarian or trinitarian theology.

So, from a Oneness view, attempting to adapt the definition of Chalcedon to a Oneness understanding, we would have to have Christ in hypostatic union with ... what? A divine 'essence'? Or God? That is to say, the man is united with God in One Person?

This is the whole problem with borrowing trinitarian theology and Christology and trying to express Oneness concepts. It creates a confusion of words, terms, etc. And leads to some strange (logically) conclusions.

My opinion, anyway, YMMV.