God the Son didn't have a human nature.—RC Sproul

[Calminian]

He had the limited mind of an infant, while he upheld the universe in transcendent wisdom.

He is the same forever, yet he grew in wisdom and stature.

He was acted upon by grief, yet he is powerful over all things.

He was the mighty and the fearful, yet he sweated blood with anxiety.

He died, yet he was life.

Christ is both human and divine. He has the human attributes insofar as he is human, and divine attributes insofar as he is divine. Simultaneously. Without division. He can exist in two seemingly-inconsistent ways without division, because no purpose of his can be thwarted.

If we try to collapse this wonder by dividing Christ into two, or by denying "incompatible" human or divine attributes, then we hide from beauty beyond us in favor of safe thinking!

I have to say, I agree, at this point. Dabbling with a distinction between Jesus and God the Son is borderline something. I can agree with White a Sproul on a whole host of things, but sometimes theologians just need to step back rethink things. The Word becoming flesh is such a simple concept.

 

[Nanopants]

That's a tough one. It brings several questions to mind.

Yep. Good questions though.

1) John says the Word of God (God the son) became flesh (John 1:14). That seems to mean God (specifically God the Son) became man. That seems to make it impossible to separate God the Son, from Jesus, as God the Son become Jesus.

Alright, well, if Jesus Christ pre-existed His birth, this is beginning to sound like Platonism, where Jesus Christ is the immutable, ideal and Perfect Man who at one point in time (or more), entered into our plane of reality. If that is the case, it sets up a separation between the common believer and union with God as a child or son, rendering passages such as Mat 10:25, John 1:12 and 17:22 to be nonsensical, since where there is and has only been one physically manifested Son who walked this earth, to think He could possibly dwell in you is ridiculous. Beyond that it also implies that Jesus Christ, being the Perfect Man, was not really human in the sense that we are, having pre-existed His birth and having been "manifested" from some other place. So we are perpetually separated from God (minus an incomprehensible salvation yet to come) being something completely other than what Jesus was: an other-worldly super Human who has stopped in from time to time for mysterious purposes and to be executed.

It would seem that emphasizing the humanity of Jesus would lead to this conundrum that Sproul arrived at, if one also holds onto a Platonic view of the Incarnation. At least it seems to be closely related to the trouble beneath the surface of this statement:

The most influential theologians, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, never addressed the question that this debate has pushed Sproul and White to wrestle with: Doesn't the Son's Incarnation disprove Plato's teaching of utter divine immutability?

2) Also, if the Son of God is immutable, but Jesus is not, then what do we do with Heb. 13:8, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.? Is that not a reference to immutability, attributing it to Jesus?

I'd like to hear more on this one as well. I've heard others explain it away as though Jesus' divinity could not suffer, as though "God" should have an "-ish" suffix attached when saying "Jesus is God" to more accurately convey what is really meant. Of course, I may not have understood or perhaps they were communicating a misunderstanding.

3) Also, is the statement Jesus is 100% God compatible with this view? If Jesus is 100% God, and if Jesus is not immutable, then God is not immutable. Right? Wrong?

4) Also I've often defined Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, as 1 who, and 2 whats, being that He has 2 natures. The Trinity is 3 whos and 1 what, and Christ is 1 who and 2 whats. But Sproul and White seem to be saying that Jesus is 2 whos and 2 whats—the Son of God being a separate who from Jesus.

I think it all hinges on what it means for a man to be God. Does it necessarily mean that He is Aristotle's Prime Mover, or Plato's Perfect Man? Could there be other alternatives not of Western origin? I suspect so.

Anyone got any helpful insights on this? BTW, I'm not accusing anyone of blasphemy. But I'm just surprised at what I'm hearing from 2 guys are know are orthodox christians, and believe in the trinity and deity of Christ. I'm just wondering if their out on their own on this, or if they're mainstream.

"Son of God" as a concept, isn't necessarily the brainchild of Western philosophy. In fact, we should know better.

 

[katherine2001]

I agree, Jesus had 1 nature. While fully man He possessed the Holy Spirit in His whole being, which made Him completely divine, and conceived of the Holy Spirit, completely pure.

Christ had (and still has) 2 natures. If Christ didn't have a human nature, He wasn't truly human and we are still dead in our sins. In order to save us, He had to be human as we are human. If Christ is not human, then He didn't save us. The Scriptures make it clear that Christ was like us. He had free will, and He chose to not sin.

 

[Gunny]

Anyone got any helpful insights on this?

Over many years it appears that God's Holy Word revealed to the follower of Jesus Christ by the ministry of the Holy Spirit appears to be more reliable than the quotes of individuals.

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come".

John 16:13
NIV


"Your commands make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever with me. I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on your statues. I have more than understanding than the elders, for I obey your precepts".

Psalms 119:98-100
NIV

 

[PaladinValer]

Nestorianism and Monophysitism are both non-Christian heresies because they deny the Creed.

It would appear Sproul's theology is heretical based on that fact.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

As to the OP.

Clowns to left of me; jokers to the right, here I am... stuck in the middle with you.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Nestorianism and Monophysitism are both non-Christian heresies because they deny the Creed.

It would appear Sproul's theology is heretical based on that fact.

I'd have called you Capt. Obvious if you hadn't used the word "appear".

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is crypto-Nestorian Christology. It treats God the Son/Word and Jesus as two names for two different beings, respectively.

Against this, the Fifth Council declares:

"If anyone shall say that the wonder-working Word of God is one, and the Christ that suffered another; or shall say that God the Word was with the woman-born Christ, or was in him as one person in another, but that he was not one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and made man, and that his miracles and the sufferings which of his own will he endured in the flesh were not of the same: let him be anathema.

"If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema."

This.

When I read "This makes no more sense than Jesus the man had a divine nature" I was thinking, "Well, of course He did."

Jesus, the man, did have a divine nature.
Jesus, the Word, did have a human nature.

Because Jesus the man and Jesus the Word are one and the same, inseparate, there is one Lord Jesus Christ. He is both God and man, unconfusedly and without separation. We cannot speak of "Jesus the man" apart from His eternal divinity, and we cannot speak of "Jesus the Word" apart from His humanity received from Mary, Theotokos.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nik0s]

Look's like Mr. Sproul needs to brush up on his theology.

 

[graceandpeace]

I agree, Jesus had 1 nature. While fully man He possessed the Holy Spirit in His whole being, which made Him completely divine, and conceived of the Holy Spirit, completely pure.

No, stating Jesus had only 1 nature is Monophysitism, which is a heresy. And the Holy Spirit is not what "made" Jesus divine - He is God the Son, fully God & fully man.

 

[Calminian]

…..Because Jesus the man and Jesus the Word are one and the same, inseparate, there is one Lord Jesus Christ. He is both God and man, unconfusedly and without separation. ...

I'm trying to think of something more basic to Christianity. And I can't imagine Sproul or White disagreeing with this, and I don't see how it threatens immutability in their view.

Enyart was pressing White as to whether or not God changes, pointing to the incarnation. "Did the God the Son take on a human nature?" White responded, "Yes He did." Enyart: "Is that a change?" This lead to Sproul's later comments and White's denial (backtrack, whatever it was).

It would seem White is taking things to an extreme believing that if God becomes flesh, then He's no longer immutable, and we can no long trust Him not to change his character on us. Enyart, BTW, takes this, IMO, way to far in the other direction, saying it's possible for God to change, but that we can trust He won't based on His past actions. Eek.

BTW, it may be helpful to listen to the exchange that lead to all the aftermath. Start Listening at 1:04:10, which will start Enyart's cross examination of White.

James White vs. Bob Enyart - Open Theism Debate

I realize this is a tough issue, but I think White is going beyond a defense of immutability with this and I think Enyart pounced, particularly on the statements that came in the aftermath. Had White just let it be with his original debate comments I think it would have been fine, though.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm trying to think of something more basic to Christianity. And I can't imagine Sproul or White disagreeing with this, and I don't see how it threatens immutability in their view.

Enyart was pressing White as to whether or not God changes, pointing to the incarnation. "Did the God the Son take on a human nature?" White responded, "Yes He did." Enyart: "Is that a change?" This lead to Sproul's later comments and White's denial (backtrack, whatever it was).

It would seem White is taking things to an extreme believing that if God becomes flesh, then He's no longer immutable, and we can no long trust Him not to change his character on us. Enyart, BTW, takes this, IMO, way to far in the other direction, saying it's possible for God to change, but that we can trust He won't based on His past actions. Eek.

[/URL]

I realize this is a tough issue, but I think White is going beyond a defense of immutability with this and I think Enyart pounced, particularly on the statements that came in the aftermath. Had White just let it be with his original debate comments I think it would have been fine, though.

At first the immutability question seems impossible to reconcile. But ... Did God (the Son) REALLY change at the Incarnation?

The reason I ask is that we consider God to exist not encumbered by time, correct? And we read in Scripture about "the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world".

Maybe by insisting that God changed when He took on human nature and flesh, we are really relegating Him to the passage of time, and that's why it seems like a conundrum?

(BTW I hope I'm not repeating a point from the video or some longer comment or link here, as I have not had time to pursue anything like that).

 

[Calminian]

At first the immutability question seems impossible to reconcile. But ... Did God (the Son) REALLY change at the Incarnation?

The reason I ask is that we consider God to exist not encumbered by time, correct? And we read in Scripture about "the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world".

Maybe by insisting that God changed when He took on human nature and flesh, we are really relegating Him to the passage of time, and that's why it seems like a conundrum?

(BTW I hope I'm not repeating a point from the video or some longer comment or link here, as I have not had time to pursue anything like that).

And I guess it would really come down to, "change" in what sense? Did God's character change in any way, when He became flesh? Does somehow the flesh that was born of Mary change the Divine? I would say emphatically no.

White had mentioned that Enyart was confusing change with action, and that may be a key. Also, perhaps we need to make distinctions between nature and essence? And I have no problem simply chalking it up as a mystery. God the son became man, and Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever.

But a separation between Christ and the Son of God just doesn't fly.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It was Christ that walked in the garden.

Just saying.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Nanopants]

As for the Sproul put downs, have you ever listened to his teaching? The man is brilliant, and one of my favorite theologians from our time. I really do not think it's reasonable to assume he hasn't done his homework, but rather much more likely that the problem he's arrived at is indicative of an inherent flaw in the subject material which is finally being brought out of the closet.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

As for the Sproul put downs, have you ever listened to his teaching? The man is brilliant, and one of my favorite theologians from our time. I really do not think it's reasonable to assume he hasn't done his homework, but rather much more likely that the problem he's arrived at is indicative of an inherent flaw in the subject material which is finally being brought out of the closet.

Naw. The problem occurs when we attempt to explain what we have not the wisdom or full knowledge to explain.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Kung Pow - Wimp Lo - YouTube

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Nanopants]

Lol. I suppose that's also a possiblity.

By "subject material" I don't mean Reality though, but a collection of theologies expounded on by fallible, human minds.

 

[Calminian]

As for the Sproul put downs, have you ever listened to his teaching? The man is brilliant, and one of my favorite theologians from our time. I really do not think it's reasonable to assume he hasn't done his homework, but rather much more likely that the problem he's arrived at is indicative of an inherent flaw in the subject material which is finally being brought out of the closet.

Totally agree. I don't know if you had me specifically in mind, but I have no doubt he's thought deeply about this, and that he's much smarter than I am. Same with White and Enyart. No disrespect to any of them, and I wouldn't want to be in their crosshairs. That said, I think he's wrong on this (with the upmost respect). Smart thoughtful guys are as susceptible to error as are average joes like us.

I also think there's a tendency for really smart guys (relatively speaking) to sometimes veer from the foundation, and the simple truths of Scripture, thinking they'll have no problem finding their way back. And in most cases they find their way back with no problem, and bring back to us the fruits of their labor. But they may get temporarily lost from time to time. Us lesser minds may be less prone to that, as we can't veer even a little from the basics.

Naw. The problem occurs when we attempt to explain what we have not the wisdom or full knowledge to explain.

Yeah, I would tend to agree. Some truths just can't be systematized. We absolutely have to try, I'm not against it. But sometimes, we just need to reset and admit this is beyond me at this time. God became man in time. The Lamb was slain from the foundations of the world. God does not change.

 

[WisdomTree]

Looks more monophysite than Nestorian to me... Or maybe even docetic.