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

[Mama Kidogo]

Kung Pow - Wimp Lo - YouTube

God be gracious to me a sinner.

That last line says it all.
We have purposely trained him wrong, as a joke.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

I think the most basic answer is that God, in assuming our human nature, did not change. It was not a change or alteration to His Deity to take on our nature, what He was from everlasting to everlasting was what He was in Mary's womb, walking in our midst, on the cross, risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, and the consummation of all things and forever and ever more.

It was not an alteration of His Being to take upon Himself what we are, and thus it is not a violation of His eternal immutability.

And yet, yes, in the Mystery of the Incarnation we see the Immutable and Eternal One grow up as infant, child, youth, and adult, the Scriptures say He grew in wisdom before both men and God. And yet He is, even there, the Immutable and Eternal One, Who changes not, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

That is the Mystery of the Incarnation: He who is Eternal, Immutable, Immortal, Impassible became man--man who suffered, man who grew, man who died.

God who cannot die, died.
God who cannot suffer, suffered.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I think the most basic answer is that God, in assuming our human nature, did not change. It was not a change or alteration to His Deity to take on our nature, what He was from everlasting to everlasting was what He was in Mary's womb, walking in our midst, on the cross, risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, and the consummation of all things and forever and ever more.

It was not an alteration of His Being to take upon Himself what we are, and thus it is not a violation of His eternal immutability.

And yet, yes, in the Mystery of the Incarnation we see the Immutable and Eternal One grow up as infant, child, youth, and adult, the Scriptures say He grew in wisdom before both men and God. And yet He is, even there, the Immutable and Eternal One, Who changes not, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

That is the Mystery of the Incarnation: He who is Eternal, Immutable, Immortal, Impassible became man--man who suffered, man who grew, man who died.

God who cannot die, died.
God who cannot suffer, suffered.

-CryptoLutheran

Well said.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It was Christ that walked in the garden.

Just saying.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

Jesus is also mentioned in Jude 1.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7826207/#post66206851

Originally Posted by The Boxer
And many places in the new testament declare that Christ is Yahwah.
It was Jesus who led the people out of Egypt.

For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people,
who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, Who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. Jude 1: 4-5 ESV

.

 

[Calminian]

I think the most basic answer is that God, in assuming our human nature, did not change. It was not a change or alteration to His Deity to take on our nature, what He was from everlasting to everlasting was what He was in Mary's womb, walking in our midst, on the cross, risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, and the consummation of all things and forever and ever more.

It was not an alteration of His Being to take upon Himself what we are, and thus it is not a violation of His eternal immutability.

And yet, yes, in the Mystery of the Incarnation we see the Immutable and Eternal One grow up as infant, child, youth, and adult, the Scriptures say He grew in wisdom before both men and God. And yet He is, even there, the Immutable and Eternal One, Who changes not, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

That is the Mystery of the Incarnation: He who is Eternal, Immutable, Immortal, Impassible became man--man who suffered, man who grew, man who died.

I would agree.

God who cannot die, died.
God who cannot suffer, suffered.

Another tough one. Yes there is a sense in which God the Son died on the cross, as He cannot be separated from Christ. That merely says He experienced physical death. Did God the Son experience spiritual separation from God? Can the Godhead be separated? Is the answer yes and no?

 

[hedrick]

I've looked at a couple of Sproul's writings. He has a fairly recent book that reviews key Christian doctrines, "Essential Truths of the Christian Faith." In it he says

"That God the Son took upon Himself a real human nature is a crucial doctrine of historic Christianity. The great ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in a.d. 451 affirmed that Jesus is truly man and truly God and that the two natures of Christ are so united as to be without mixture, confusion, separation, or division, each nature retaining its own attributes."

This would appear to directly contradict the statement that God the Son doesn't have a human nature, which he makes not just in the dialog quoted in the OP, but in the Q&A section of "The Truth of the Cross" he talks again about the question of Jesus' death:

"It's the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn't capable of experiencing death."

When he says that the atonement is done by the human nature, I think he's talking about death specifically. I would argue that the atonement involves much than this, and that as a whole it's an act of the whole God-man. I see nothing to suggest that he would disagree.

I think the statements in the OP do not indicate any heresy, but that he's using language that can easily be misleading, in order to emphasize a purist view of the unchangeableness of God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I would agree.



Another tough one. Yes there is a sense in which God the Son died on the cross, as He cannot be separated from Christ. That merely says He experienced physical death. Did God the Son experience spiritual separation from God? Can the Godhead be separated? Is the answer yes and no?

I think this presumes that Jesus' death was a "spiritual separation from God". I don't think that is a definition of death inherent in Scripture, in fact we read in the Psalms, "If I make my bed in She'ol, You are there". One cannot escape God in death, even in the depths of death--Hades/She'ol/"Hell"--God is there.

So no, the Eternal Logos did not experience spiritual separation from God [the Father]; but when we say "Jesus died" we can't go about trying to argue that "only the human Jesus died" because if the two natures are truly inseparable (and they are) then we can only say "Jesus died". That is, "Jesus who is both God and man died on the cross." That is the orthodox position.

Now of course we want to raise our hand in objection, saying, "Yeah, but God cannot die." Which is true, and yet Jesus--who is fully and entirely God--died. That's the incomprehensible mystery we confess. God, who cannot die, died.

God suffered a human death.

In St. John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily he says, "Hades received a body, and encountered God. It received earth, and confronted heaven."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nanopants]

Jesus is also mentioned in Jude 1.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7826207/#post66206851




.

That's an interesting translation...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Jesus is also mentioned in Jude 1.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7826207/#post66206851
.
​

That's an interesting translation...

I am not sure how many translations use "Jesus" in that verse, but it does appear in the DR.........
[I am just too tired to look thru all the versions right now]. Go to the link in my post you quoted to learn more about this.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1&version=DRA

Douay Rheims 1899
1:5
I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not:


.

 

[Calminian]

I've looked at a couple of Sproul's writings. He has a fairly recent book that reviews key Christian doctrines, "Essential Truths of the Christian Faith." In it he says

"That God the Son took upon Himself a real human nature is a crucial doctrine of historic Christianity. The great ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in a.d. 451 affirmed that Jesus is truly man and truly God and that the two natures of Christ are so united as to be without mixture, confusion, separation, or division, each nature retaining its own attributes."

This would appear to directly contradict the statement that God the Son doesn't have a human nature, which he makes not just in the dialog quoted in the OP, but in the Q&A section of "The Truth of the Cross" he talks again about the question of Jesus' death:

"It's the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn't capable of experiencing death."

When he says that the atonement is done by the human nature, I think he's talking about death specifically. I would argue that the atonement involves much than this, and that as a whole it's an act of the whole God-man. I see nothing to suggest that he would disagree.

I think the statements in the OP do not indicate any heresy, but that he's using language that can easily be misleading, in order to emphasize a purist view of the unchangeableness of God.

And I suspect you're right. It almost feels like an overreaction to a tough line of questioning they were not prepared for, and I don't think they come across stuff they're not prepared for too often. It was a heated debate, and got a bit emotional.

Or, worst case scenario, maybe Sproul is losing some of his former brilliance and just misspoke, or was inarticulate and needs to clarify.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I've looked at a couple of Sproul's writings. He has a fairly recent book that reviews key Christian doctrines, "Essential Truths of the Christian Faith." In it he says

"That God the Son took upon Himself a real human nature is a crucial doctrine of historic Christianity. The great ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in a.d. 451 affirmed that Jesus is truly man and truly God and that the two natures of Christ are so united as to be without mixture, confusion, separation, or division, each nature retaining its own attributes."

This would appear to directly contradict the statement that God the Son doesn't have a human nature, which he makes not just in the dialog quoted in the OP, but in the Q&A section of "The Truth of the Cross" he talks again about the question of Jesus' death:

"It's the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn't capable of experiencing death."

When he says that the atonement is done by the human nature, I think he's talking about death specifically. I would argue that the atonement involves much than this, and that as a whole it's an act of the whole God-man. I see nothing to suggest that he would disagree.

I think the statements in the OP do not indicate any heresy, but that he's using language that can easily be misleading, in order to emphasize a purist view of the unchangeableness of God.

I think you're assuming Sproul is in any way consistent. He might be able to mentally copy and paste correct Trinitarian and Christological answers to direct questions when that's the topic under discussion, but his thinking doesn't seem to be patterned on Trinitarianism and Christology in any substantial way. Like so many in the Reformation and their theological heirs (Lutheran and Calvinistic), the pattern of thought that governs theology is essentially non-Trinitarian and non-Chalcedonian, with the Nicene and Chalcedonian doctrines serving merely as adjuncts that preserve their claims to classical orthodoxy.

It's but a small step from their to Schleiermacher's theology of utter dependence and his dismissal of the Trinity as basically unimportant to the whole system.

 

[Calminian]

I think this presumes that Jesus' death was a "spiritual separation from God". I don't think that is a definition of death inherent in Scripture, in fact we read in the Psalms, "If I make my bed in She'ol, You are there". One cannot escape God in death, even in the depths of death--Hades/She'ol/"Hell"--God is there.

So no, the Eternal Logos did not experience spiritual separation from God [the Father]; but when we say "Jesus died" we can't go about trying to argue that "only the human Jesus died" because if the two natures are truly inseparable (and they are) then we can only say "Jesus died". That is, "Jesus who is both God and man died on the cross." That is the orthodox position.

Now of course we want to raise our hand in objection, saying, "Yeah, but God cannot die." Which is true, and yet Jesus--who is fully and entirely God--died. That's the incomprehensible mystery we confess. God, who cannot die, died.

God suffered a human death.

In St. John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily he says, "Hades received a body, and encountered God. It received earth, and confronted heaven."

-CryptoLutheran

Not sure it could be said better.

 

[hedrick]

It's but a small step from their to Schleiermacher's theology of utter dependence and his dismissal of the Trinity as basically unimportant to the whole system.

Given what I know about Sproul, that's a pretty steep slippery slope. I think it's also misleading to accuse the Reformed tradition of not being Trinitarian.

One of the most unpleasant things about Christians is how unsympathetically we treat each other. Surely we need to be careful not to treat those with whom we disagree unfairly.

 

[Calminian]

Given what I know about Sproul, that's a pretty steep slippery slope. I think it's also misleading to accuse the Reformed tradition of not being Trinitarian.

One of the most unpleasant things about Christians is how unsympathetically we treat each other. Surely we need to be careful not to treat those with whom we disagree unfairly.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Given what I know about Sproul, that's a pretty steep slippery slope. I think it's also misleading to accuse the Reformed tradition of not being Trinitarian.

One of the most unpleasant things about Christians is how unsympathetically we treat each other. Surely we need to be careful not to treat those with whom we disagree unfairly.

I did, if you read my post, include Lutherans in that.

 

[Cappadocious]

Yes there is a sense in which God the Son died on the cross, as He cannot be separated from Christ.

God the Son is not united to Christ. God the Son is Christ.

The subsistent person of God died on the cross.

 

[Calminian]

God the Son is not united to Christ. God the Son is Christ.

The subsistent person of God died on the cross.

It's what I meant. He become Christ, and thus can't in anyway be thought of as separate. United was a poor choice of words as it indicates 2 persons coming together. It can happen to the worst of us.

 

[BobRyan]

I am not inclined to jump into the pit with those in the OP post who claim to know all that goes on with infinite God when it comes to the infinitely complex subject of the incarnation. there is only "One person" when it comes to the second person of the Godhead - and that person became incarnate -- and still holds to both natures - fully God and fully man.

How he does it - and what is the correct label - and can we argue that "God the Son" is not in any way connected to His own incarnation - well that is for those whith lower pay grades than the Bible writers to mess with. The rest of us should follow the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Mama Kidogo]

It's what I meant. He become Christ, and thus can't in anyway be thought of as separate. United was a poor choice of words as it indicates 2 persons coming together. It can happen to the worst of us.

He always was and always will be. He didn't become the Christ. It's an Alpha and Omega thing.

 

[Knee V]

What I see in Sproul is that he pays lip service to the historic creeds and councils, and in the next breath he puts Christ under the dicer and chops him up. He'll repeat the creeds and councils verbatim, and then describe a Christ who is something else altogether.