Incarnation and Sufferings of the Son and Divine Impassibility

 

The Doctrine of the Incarnation and Sufferings
of the Son of God and the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility

taken from Confessing the Impassible God: The Biblical, Classical, & Confessional Doctrine of Divine Impassibility, 210-23, Copyright © 2015 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

 

Prior to entering a formal discussion dealing with the incarnation, the communicatio idiomatum, and divine impassibility, it may help to discuss briefly an important text in the Gospel of Luke. Luke 2:52 says, “And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (NASB). Some might want to take this as inferring that God’s favor is something in God that can increase and decrease. A brief response would be that the text says “Jesus kept increasing . . . in favor with God,” not that God kept increasing his favor. As Christ, according to his human nature, developed, as he changed, as he “kept increasing,” he conformed more and more to Heaven’s never-changing standard of justice and righteousness. Christ’s image-bearing capacity, according to his human nature, was a dynamic reality, not a static one. The change here is not in Christ according to his divine nature, but in the developing human nature of the incarnate Son and the revelation of the divine approbation of such development.

Luke 2:40 is related to Luke 2:52 in terms of development in the incarnate Son. It says, “The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him” (NASB). This “increasing in wisdom” was a constant experience of our Lord according to his human nature during the state of humiliation. He kept increasing in his ability to skillfully use the knowledge he obtained. Again, the change here is not in Christ according to his divine nature, but in the developing human nature of the incarnate Son and the revelation of the divine approbation of such development (i.e., “and the grace of God was upon Him.”). The divine standard in heaven is the same throughout; the change takes place on the earth in the realm of creation. Though the incarnate Son could and did “increase . . . in favor with God,” this increase changes nothing in God. God is not in the business of creating more favor to display upon those that please him on the earth. He does reveal his favor but he is not in the business of manufacturing more or becoming more favorable.

It is important at this point to mention and discuss the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum/communicatio proprietatum. Muller defines it as follows: “communication of proper qualities; a term used in Christology to describe the way in which the properties, or idiomata, of each nature are communicated to or interchanged in the unity of the person.”[1] To what is this referring? The Confession gives assistance at this point:

 

Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature. (2LCF 8.7 [cf. WCF 8.7])

 

The texts cited by the Confession are John 3:13 and Acts 20:28. John 3:13 says, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (KJV). Leaving some of the interpretive issues[2] and the textual issue (i.e., the final clause) aside, since the phrase “Son of man” refers to our Lord’s incarnate state, how is it that he can claim that the Son of man “came down from heaven”? The answer is that sometimes the Bible attributes that which is proper to one nature to the person of the Son. In the case of John 3:13, the Son of man preexisted in heaven but according to his divine nature alone. The phrase at the end of John 3:13 in the KJV, “which is in heaven,” assuming it is the best reading for argument’s sake, refers to the divine nature, though predicated of “the Son of man.”

The same way of speaking may be illustrated from Acts 20:28, which reads, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (KJV). Assuming this translation and leaving the textual variant aside, this text illustrates the communication of idioms doctrine. Here God is said to have blood. Scripture is clear, as has been proven, on the invisibility of God and that he is a distinct order of being different from that which has been made. In other words, God, as God, does not have blood. Blood is creature; God is not. Here is another example where “that which is proper to one nature [is] . . . attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.”

When considering Christ’s incarnation and the union of the two natures in the person of the Son, Muller says, “the two natures are here considered as joined in the person, and the interchange of attributes is understood as taking place at the level of the person and not between the natures.”[3] This is crucial to understand and is the theology which gave rise to 2LCF 8.7. This means, for example, that though the human nature of our Lord is not omniscient, it is yet true that this finite human nature is united to the divine nature in the person; and it is according to the divine nature, which is essentially omniscient, that Christ, the one person, may be said to be omniscient. The human nature was “united to the [omniscient] divine [nature], in the person of the Son” (2LCF 8.3a). This means, though our Lord suffered according to his human nature (and only according to his human nature), the human nature remained united to the divine nature and was supported and sustained throughout the sufferings, for this is what God does in relation to that which has been made, which is but the truth of divine providence. The incarnate Son, according to his divine nature, upheld the incarnate Son, according to his human nature (Col. 1:17). The work of mediation is the work of both the human and divine natures of the Son. In fact, the Son’s work of mediation, according to his divine nature, actually predates the incarnation itself (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 1:10-11) and in that sense could only be the work of the divine nature.

In light of the discussion above, some relevant texts which interact briefly with the doctrine of the communication of idioms and our Lord’s passion will now be considered. It will be shown that the New Testament clearly implies (even demands) the doctrine of the communication of idioms. It will also be shown that some have not been faithful to this crucial teaching, especially as it relates to the sufferings of our Lord. It will become more obvious that it is crucial to distinguish between what Christ does according to his divine nature and what he does according to his human nature, lest suffering be attributed to the divine.

First, consider John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (NASB). This is a classic text on the incarnation. It comes in an important context, so some awareness of that context is necessary. John 1:1 mentions “the Word” three times and John 1:2-3 imply it. John 1:1-3 reads:

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (NASB)

 

The Word is obviously a person. In fact, he is a divine person, because creative power is predicated of him (John 1:3); he is God, as John says. But it is clear also that the Word was “with God” as well as being God. In other words, the Word and God may be distinguished, yet both are of the order of divine being. These verses also echo the first verse of the Bible: “In the beginning, God [Elohim, plural] created [singular] the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). This is an early hint at plurality in the Godhead. The divinity of the Word is clear from John 1:1-3. When verse 14 is considered, it is the Word, who is God, who “became flesh.” Due to the fact that God is eternal, unchanging, and invisible, becoming flesh cannot infer a change in the divinity of the Word. If the Word is God, then he possesses all the essential attributes of God. Any change in his deity is impossible. This is why our Confession asserts the following:

 

The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father’s glory, of one substance and equal with him, who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he made, did, when the fullness of the time was come, take upon him man’s nature . . . (2LCF 8.2a).

 

Though he became flesh, he never ceased being what he always was and ever shall be, “who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen” (Rom. 9:5).[4] This is the mystery and glory of the incarnation. The Word becoming flesh is not the Word ceasing to be what he always was. The incarnation wrought no change in the Word’s deity. As Louis Berkhof says:

 

When we are told that the Word became flesh, this does not mean that the Logos ceased to be what He was before. As to His essential being the Logos was exactly the same before and after the incarnation. . . . He acquired an additional form, without in any way changing His original nature.[5]

 

When John says, “And the Word became flesh,” it is understood as the person of the Son assuming the nature of man.

Another passage which speaks to the issue of the incarnation and has been the seedbed of confusion is Philippians 2:5-8.

 

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (NASB)

 

Some have taken this to mean that the Son of God emptied himself of something of the divine in order to become man or in becoming man. However, the words “emptied Himself” are immediately qualified by a participial clause which denies he became less divine or became divine in another way than he previously existed. Paul says, “. . . taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” Thus, emptying himself is the assumption of human nature, while existing in the form of God. The word “form” is used while describing Christ’s divine and human natures in this passage (Phil. 2:6-7), which should not deter from affirming both his full deity and full humanity. Moreover, the clause “He existed in the form of God” can be translated “being in the form of God” (NKJV) which highlights the present active participial form used here, indicating a continual state of being.[6] In other words, his divine nature never ceased being just that—divine. John Owen’s words are worth considering at this juncture.

 

It is not said that he ceased to be in the form of God; but continuing so to be, he “took upon him the form of a servant” in our nature: he became what he was not, but he ceased not to be what he was.[7]

 

Of special interest to this discussion is the fact that Philippians 2:5 says, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus.” “Christ Jesus” obviously refers to our incarnate Lord. Then in verse 6, Paul says, “who [i.e., Christ Jesus], being in the form of God . . .” Did the human Jesus exist in the form of God prior to his incarnation? Obviously not. Again, here is another example where “that which is proper to one nature [is] . . . attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.”

Speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ, the writer of Hebrews says:

 

And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END” (Heb. 1:10-12, a quotation of Psalm 102:25-26, NASB).

 

This text is of interest because it speaks of the firstborn who was brought into the world (cf. Heb. 1:6). In Hebrews 1:10-12, the firstborn (i.e., the incarnate Son of God) is said to be the one who “. . . LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH . . .” This obviously refers to the Son according to his divine nature, not his human nature. His human nature did not exist when the foundation of the earth was laid, nor when Psalm 102 was penned. Yet note that Hebrews 1:6 says, “And when He again brings the firstborn into the world . . .” (NASB). This refers to the incarnation, yet verses 10-12 cannot refer to acts or attributes of the Son’s acquired human nature. Here is another example where “that which is proper to one nature [is] . . . attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.”

Hebrews 13:8 states, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (NASB). In light of the discussion above, it seems obvious that this cannot refer to our Lord’s human nature. It is known that “The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40, NASB). In terms of our Lord’s human nature, it was not “the same yesterday and today and forever.” In fact, he suffered and then entered into glory (Luke 24:26, 46; Acts 26:23; 1 Pet. 1:11) and his resurrected state (i.e., glory) was an advance for his human nature (Rom. 1:1-4). The Lord’s human nature was passive in the sense that it underwent change. So what does Hebrews 13:8 mean? Owen claims that “it is the person of Jesus Christ that is spoken of,” and “Where the person of Christ is intended, there his divine nature is always included; for Christ is God and man in one person,” and “It is from his divine person, that, in the discharge of his office, he was . . . ‘the same’.”[8] Once again, here is an example of “that which is proper to one nature [being] . . . attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.”

One point where some disagree with divine impassibility, as classically understood, is connected to the incarnation, especially with the sufferings or passion of Christ.[9] Failing to maintain the Creator/creature distinction, among other important biblical and theological distinctions, some ascribe suffering to the divine nature of Christ and even to the Father and Holy Spirit. This is a mistake with mammoth implications. For example, in a recent book, Donald Macleod says:

 

Clearly, the unity of the divine Trinity remains unbroken throughout the passion. Even while the Father is angry with the Mediator, the Son is still the beloved and still fully involved in all the external acts (the opera ad extra) of the Trinity. Just as it was true in his infancy he was still the eternal Logos, performing all his cosmic functions as the one in whom all things consist (Col. 1:17), so in the darkness and desolation of Golgotha he was still carrying the universe on his shoulders (Heb. 1:3). But this very fact of the trinitarian unity has profound implications for the traditional Christian doctrine of divine impassibility. If it is true at the human level that where one member of the church suffers all other members suffer with her, must the same not be true of the Trinity? The Son, we remember, is one and the same in substance (homoousios) with the Father. “They” are not only generically identical, but numerically one. It is the one only and eternal God who is enfleshed in Jesus, the son of Mary of Nazareth; and though the Father is not the divine person who suffers on the cross, he is one with the sufferer, and must therefore suffer with him, though in his own way.

Besides, there is the fact of the perichoresis.[[10]] Not only are God the Father and God the Son one and the same in substance and being, but they dwell in and around each other. The Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father (John 14:10; 17:21). The trinitarian persons are not three separate gods. On the contrary, where the One is, the Three are. The Three, then, are at Calvary suffering not only from the sin of the world, but suffering for it. The Son’s passion cannot be external to the Father and the Holy Spirit. They are in it, as they embrace and include the Son. The pain of the cross is the pain of the triune God.[11]

 

The problems with this formulation are numerous. First, notice the way that Macleod argues from the creature to the Creator. He says, “If it is true at the human level that where one member of the church suffers all other members suffer with her, must the same not be true of the Trinity?” In the context of his discussion, he assumes the answer must be yes. In fact, he argues this way elsewhere. He says, “The intercourse between them [i.e., the Father and the Son at the cry of dereliction] is suspended, or at least limited to the Son’s cry of lament; and it would break any father’s heart. And God’s, too, if we are made in his image.”[12] At best, these statements reflect the fact that the Creator/creature distinction is one more of uniformity than distance.[13] Arguing from us to the divine life in this manner produces serious doctrinal difficulties. When a human father’s heart is broken, it is because something from the outside came upon him and altered his state of mind. Information came to him and he was changed. That which he did not know he came to know and was affected by it. He was passive. He received something from the created realm that brought about a change in him. Also, the cry of lament was an act peculiar to the Son according to his human nature. Arguing from the solidarity of suffering on “the human level” to the solidarity of the Trinity in the sufferings of Christ is erroneous and incoherent. It lays aside the distinct mystery of the incarnation and attributes vicarious suffering (the only kind of suffering the incarnate Lord underwent) to the Trinity. It is not true that when the Son suffered the wrath of God, the Trinity suffered the wrath of God or suffered in any sense.[14] What Christ suffered, he did so according to his human nature, as punishment for human sin due to the justice of God. Deity was not guilty of deserving such punishment, though man was. Macleod’s view, at worst, appears to be a form of theopassianism (i.e., God suffered) and at best a form of patripassianism (i.e., the Father suffered), both of which were amply discussed and condemned by the early church.[15]

Second, Macleod says, “The Son, we remember, is one and the same in substance (homoousios) with the Father. ‘They’ are not only generically identical, but numerically one.” Then he goes on to say, “It is the one only and eternal God who is enfleshed in Jesus, the son of Mary of Nazareth . . .” What does this mean, especially in light of our discussion above? Is the triune God enfleshed in Jesus? If so, how so and why? He goes on, “and though the Father is not the divine person who suffers on the cross [which is correct], he is one with the sufferer, and must therefore suffer with him, though in his own way.” The Father suffers with the Son? It seems impossible to avoid accusing Macleod of some form of patripassianism. The Father is God and the Son is God, but the Son in his sufferings suffered according to his human nature. God, as God, cannot suffer. If he could, it would mean that the wrath of God was poured out on God, as God. God’s wrath is not against God; it is against man in sin, the guilt of which was imputed to Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). Also, suffering implies the deprivation of something good or the loss of something good. Neither of these can be true of God, as God, without there being change in God, as God. There is no way for God, as God, to suffer without some change in God for the worse. But Christ can and did suffer, according to his human nature alone.

Third, Macleod seems to confuse the divine life of God, as God (ad intra), and the works of God ad extra. The earthly work of the Mediator is a work ad extra, the assumption of human nature by the Son, a work peculiar to the Son that does not disrupt the life of God ad intra. Again, Macleod says:

 

The Three, then, are at Calvary suffering not only from the sin of the world, but suffering for it. The Son’s passion cannot be external to the Father and the Holy Spirit. They are in it, as they embrace and include the Son. The pain of the cross is the pain of the triune God.[16]

 

Because God is omnipresent, we affirm the presence of the triune God at Calvary (and the work of the Father and the Spirit in relation to the incarnation and work of the Mediator [e.g., Gal. 4:4; Luke 1:35; Matt. 3:16-17]). However, we deny that “The Three, then, are at Calvary suffering not only from the sin of the world, but suffering for it.” Suffering for sin is the work of Christ the Mediator, for us and for our salvation. It is not the work of the Father and the Spirit (though “willed and effected by Father, Son, and Spirit”[17]) nor is it the work of Christ according to his divine nature. Christ according to his divine nature cannot and need not suffer for sin. Deity is not guilty. Our Lord suffered and died as man, as he lived as man, for us. His sufferings were due to our sin and endured by him according to his human nature alone, though upheld by the divine nature. Remember, each “nature [does] that which is proper to itself,” as our Confession asserts and, interestingly, as does Macleod’s.[18] The pain of the cross is experienced by the Mediator, according to his human nature. God, as God, does not suffer the pain of the cross in any sense. If that were the case, then vicarious suffering would be an attribute of God, co-extensive with his existence and, therefore, eternal. This would mean that God is in the perpetual state of being deprived of or losing something good, an impossibility for the God of Holy Scripture, who is “infinite in being and perfection,” “without . . . passions” (2LCF 2.1), and “having all . . . blessedness” (2LCF 2.2a).

Maybe Macleod would argue that it is not God ad intra that suffers but God ad extra. This appears to be the case above. If it is, it needs to be asked that if God, as God, ad extra, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the economy of redemption, takes on the ability to suffer for sin, why the incarnation of the Son? And if the Trinity takes on the ability to suffer (i.e., passibility) ad extra, then this assumption is something not God ad intra (i.e., eternally and essentially), and that which is not God is creature (i.e., passibility is a creaturely potential). This would make the triune God both God and not God at one and the same time, though not eternally so. How can this be? Scripturally, it cannot.

Macleod utilizes the doctrine of the perichoresis“the coinherence of the persons of the Trinity in the divine essence and in each other . . .”[19]—to bolster his position. He argues from this to “The three, then, are at Calvary, suffering not only from the sin of the world, but suffering for it.”[20] But suffering is not the only thing Christ underwent while on the earth. He also “increased in wisdom and stature” (Luke 2:52). Can it then be said that the three, then, are with the young Jesus, increasing in wisdom and stature, even if qualified by saying, “in their own way”? Obviously not, since increasing in wisdom and stature is peculiar to creatures (and to the human nature of our incarnate Lord). The incarnate Son according to his divine nature did not and cannot increase in wisdom and stature, and neither can the other persons of the Trinity. The same goes for suffering; the incarnate Son according to his divine nature did not suffer and neither did the Father or the Holy Spirit. Also, if the perichoresis is an ad intra trinitarian conjunction, an ontological category, then arguing from it to the three suffering at Calvary (an economic category) does not follow because the only one who suffered the wrath of God at Calvary was the incarnate Son according to his human nature.[21] Macleod’s view confuses ad intra and ad extra categories.[22]

It appears that Macleod is attempting also to uphold the doctrine of opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa (i.e., the external or ad extra works of the Trinity are undivided). This is a crucial doctrine to maintain.  Muller explains that

 

since the Godhead is one in essence, one in knowledge, and one in will, it would be impossible in any work ad extra . . . for one of the divine persons to will and to do one thing and another of the divine persons to will and do another.[23]

 

But does this destroy the doctrine of the incarnation as a personal work of the Son? Muller continues:

 

Sometimes the Protestant scholastics will speak of the opera ad extra as opera certo modo personalia, personal works after a certain manner, because the undivided works ad extra do manifest one or another of the persons as their terminus operationis, or limit of operation. The incarnation and work of the mediator, e.g., terminate on the Son, even though they are willed and effected by Father, Son, and Spirit.[24]

 

The incarnation and work of the Mediator terminate on the Son, though “willed and effected” by each person of the Godhead.

Macleod fails to uphold the mystery of the hypostatic union and to distinguish between what Christ does according to his human nature and what he does according to his divine nature. Against this, we must confess (in good Chalcedonian fashion) that “Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself” (2LCF 8.7a).[25] Suffering is not proper to the divine nature of Christ, nor the Father, nor the Holy Spirit ad extra or ad intra. As Lister says:

 

. . . we should not think that the Son (or Father or Spirit) suffers ahistorically, divinely, or ceaselessly. The Son, in other words, did not ontologically cease to be the Son for the duration of the crucifixion. Simply put, the person of the Son tasted death the only way he could—humanly . . .[26]

 

________________________________________________________

[1] Muller, Dictionary, 72.

[2] The title “Son of man” comes from Dan. 7:13-14 and the language of ascending and descending echoes Genesis 28, alluded to in John 1:51. For discussion on the order of ascending then descending in John 3:13 see Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 136.

[3] Muller, Dictionary, 72. Cf. Oliphint, God with Us, 220-22, where he applies the doctrine of the communication of idioms to the so-called pre-incarnate assumption of covenantal properties. This seems to be a novel use of this doctrine. Cf. also Oliphint, God with Us, 43, where he says, “This chapter [chapter 2, “I Am . . . Your God”] will begin to introduce a relatively new approach to a discussion of God’s character.”

[4] Cf. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 568.

[5] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1939; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 334.

[6] The Greek participle is ὑπάρχων.

[7] Owen, Works, 1:326.

[8] Owen, Works, 23:427.

[9] The passion of Christ refers to his sufferings and extends to the entire state of humiliation, during which he experienced the common infirmities of human nature, “yet without sin,” as our Confession says (2LCF 8.2). More strictly, it refers to “the final trials and crucifixion” of our Lord. Cf. Muller, Dictionary, 219.

[10] The coinherence of the persons of the Godhead in the divine essence and in each other. Cf. Muller, Dictionary, 67.

[11] Donald Macleod, Christ Crucified: Understanding the Atonement (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 50, italics original.

[12] Macleod, Christ Crucified, 52.

[13] It seems that Macleod assumes a univocal view of God and man. This would mean that whatever is predicated of man must necessarily be predicated of God. Thanks to Stefan Lindblad for sharpening the wording (and my thinking) at this and other points.

[14] See the discussion below.

[15] For detailed discussion on this see chapter four of Gavrilyuk, Suffering. For a very brief discussion see R. C. Sproul, “Did God Die on the Cross?” Available at http://www.ligonier.org/blog/it-accurate-say-god-died-cross/. Accessed 2 August 2014.

[16] Macleod, Christ Crucified, 50.

[17] These are the words of Muller which are referred to below.

[18] Dr. Macleod is a retired Free Church of Scotland theologian.

[19] Muller, Dictionary, 67.

[20] Macleod, Christ Crucified, 50. In a discussion of John Frame’s view of impassibility, Rob Lister says, “Where he [i.e., Frame] seems to agree with Moltmann is that on the cross the Father suffered differently, but genuinely, with the Son because of the doctrine of the mutual indwelling of the Trinitarian persons.” Lister, God is Impassible and Impassioned, 165, n. 74.

[21] Cf. Muller, PRRD, 4:185-86 for a brief discussion of this doctrine.

[22] From what Lister said in footnote 42 above, it appears that John Frame does the same thing.

[23] Muller, Dictionary, 213.

[24] Muller, Dictionary, 213.

[25] The Creed of Chalcedon says, “. . . 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 . . .” The 2LCF follows the WCF verbatim at this point.

[26] Lister, God is Impassible and Impassioned, 278, emphasis original.