I too, along with Ben, would like to have a deeper and fuller understanding of the “hypostatic union” and am endeavoring to read up on this subject. Meantime though, I have some questions that either Pilgrim or Speratus could field.....or any others:

Quote
Pilgrim said:
The PERSON of the Lord Jesus Christ was not and is not Omnipresent!! Chalcedon makes it crystal clear that this is error; i.e., the two natures though inseparable were not intermixed.

Since there is one person with two natures, it seems that this distinction of the “person” of Christ would not be correct. Couldn’t it be said of the person that “whatever may be affirmed of either nature may be affirmed of the person” Hodge Systematic Theology Vol II pg 392

Berkof says: “The person can be said to be almighty, omniscient, omnipresent..and so on...Systematic Theology, pg 324

If this is true...then does it follow as Hodge goes on to say..”....Christ is finite and He is infinite....that He is less than God and equal with God...that He existed from all eternity and He was born in time?”

Certainly..,it would seem to me, it would be correct to say that the “person” of Christ is omnipresent..or omnipotent...or omniscient.. but only in His divine nature....not in His human nature.
(“recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person..”)Chalcedon

Am I understanding correctly here?

Dave