Is Buswell doing well...

[SATS PROF]

...when he asserts that the Son did not have a human soul, rather His divine soul became a human soul . The human nature is God, Himself? (JO Buswell, ST:1:251;1:55).

And which understanding of Christ is Buswell affirming?

a. Christ's human nature is an entity that acts in distinction from His deity

or

b. Christ's divine nature is the Subject of all actions of Christ

(Yes, dearly I love this Subject)

 

[Deacon]

He isn't doing very well... he died quite a while back.

I haven't opened Buswell's text in a long time.
I'll have to put him on a reading list again.
We used his ST text in my first doctrine class a long, long time ago. It's quite unique!

Reading the previous pages helps to understand where Buswell stands.

...discussing the imputation of Adam's sin... ...the Scripture is clear that we sinned in Adam's sin, but the Scripture is not at all clear, and the data of experience are not clear, that the actual process of procreation are the processes by which sin is transmitted. (1:250)​

In his conclusion he writes, "In the birth of Jesus no new personal being came into existence." ... His soul became a human person, a human soul, without in any way ceasing to be a divine Person, a divine Soul.

IMO, Buswell would choose "b" but he equivocates "I would conclude with Augustine therefore, that on biblical grounds we cannot firmly establish either the traducian or the creationist view of origin of the human soul."

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

...when he asserts that the Son did not have a human soul, rather His divine soul became a human soul . The human nature is God, Himself? (JO Buswell, ST:1:251;1:55).

And which understanding of Christ is Buswell affirming?

a. Christ's human nature is an entity that acts in distinction from His deity

or

b. Christ's divine nature is the Subject of all actions of Christ

(Yes, dearly I love this Subject)

No one is doing well when they assert things scripture does not give details of.