Who died on the Cross?

Oberland's picture

Hi all,

At our mid week bible study the Pastor said that God (as in the second person of the Trinity) died on the Cross. Instinctively I believed that to be wrong, and so I checked it out, first from the Word and then from trusted sources, I ended up with R.C.Sproul saying that it was impossible for God (the second person of the Trinity) to die, and John Macarthur said that God did die on the cross.I'm hoping that someone could shed some light on the subject.

Thank you



While I believe, along with both the majority of the Catholic and Protestant churches, this propositional truth [hypostatic union] to be accurate, I cannot explain the how and the why of it.

I'm not hunting for a right answer here, or trying to corner you. But I do have an honest question about this. You say that you cannot explain the how or why of hypostatic union, but you seem to accept the doctrinal theory as true. If you can't explain or understand something, why do you accept it? Is it to sustain a further theological conclusion which requires this "unexplained" factor in order to support it? What is risked if we rethink the hypostatic Christology? Not abandon it, but rephrase and recategorize?

I don't intend this critically; sometimes I feel like the dogmas that were crucial in a long-ago culture don't make as much sense in a world which thinks about reality and truth in significantly different epistemological terms. The electronic nature of the forums makes tone difficult to read, so I want to restate again that none of this is intended critically, sarcastically, or heatedly. I'm trying to reconcile the (apparent) inconsistency in the Protestant rejection of blindly embraced Catholic dogmas when compared to the Protestant demand for adherence to a perceived orthodoxy which originates from within a Catholic frame.