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

[PaladinValer]

I hate to jump in the middle of a conversation, without having read every post. However, there is no biblical support that Jesus had two souls.

A nature is not a soul. A nature is what something is; that which makes it itself.

Jesus has two Natures because He is both God and human.

Even in Nestorianism and Monophysitism there is no teaching of double souls.

 

[sozo]

A nature is not a soul. A nature is what something is; that which makes it itself.

Jesus has two Natures because He is both God and human.

Even in Nestorianism and Monophysitism there is no teaching of double souls.

Okay, so then His being human (or having a "human nature") does not equate to Him having two souls or spirits, minds, wills, or identities, correct? Jesus is solely God in the flesh (flesh being His human nature), correct?

 

[PaladinValer]

Okay, so then His being human (or having a "human nature") does not equate to Him having two souls or spirits, minds, wills, or identities, correct? Jesus is solely God in the flesh (flesh being His human nature), correct?

Well, I guess I must retract something I said earlier: Nestorianism would technically teaches two souls as they separate Jesus the Man from Jesus the God.

Will is not the same as nature. Nature, again, is that which makes something that thing. Will is something else: will is ability; something that drives the intellect and mind.

We need to remember what these words mean during the times and now how we commonly use the words (rightly or wrongly) today. Context is everything.

Jesus is both God and human. He therefore has the nature of both humanity and God because He is the God-Man: God the Son Incarnate, Man Divine. He likewise has the will of both God and humanity. These are in a Hypostatic Union as One Person: a union of what seemingly is two as one. Equally God and equally human. Each unchanged, unconfused, indivisible, and inseparable.

 

[Cappadocious]

Okay, so then His being human (or having a "human nature") does not equate to Him having two souls or spirits, minds, wills, or identities, correct? Jesus is solely God in the flesh (flesh being His human nature), correct?

He does have two wills. But a "will" back then was pretty much just something's movement toward an end; a drive, basically. So he gets the human will (toward hunger, thirst, desire for sleep, self-preservation, etc.) when he takes on flesh. Two wills doesn't mean two minds/souls.

The reason why people brought up this "will" talk in the first place is because heretics said that Christ didn't have to struggle or face temptations the same way that we did; he just used his divinity to power through human life like a play-act. Which makes a farce out of the Gospel, and had to be answered.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Jesus is two things and one thing, just like He is three things and one thing. That is my thoughts on it.

 

[sozo]

Jesus is both God and human. He therefore has the nature of both humanity and God because He is the God-Man: God the Son Incarnate, Man Divine. He likewise has the will of both God and humanity. These are in a Hypostatic Union as One Person: a union of what seemingly is two as one. Equally God and equally human. Each unchanged, unconfused, indivisible, and inseparable.

I wholly reject the "hypostatic union" theory, because there is no biblical support for it. It is man-made, and accepted by men, because men have a difficult time understanding what it means for God to be in the flesh.


Phil 2:6-7 "...who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men."

Jesus existed as God, that is, His PERSON is God, who took on the "form" (external appearance) of a bond-servant , and appeared in the "likeness" (image; resemblance) of men. Jesus is God in the flesh. That is His PERSON - His IDENTITY.

 

[sozo]

He does have two wills. But a "will" back then was pretty much just something's movement toward an end; a drive, basically. So he gets the human will (toward hunger, thirst, desire for sleep, self-preservation, etc.) when he takes on flesh. Two wills doesn't mean two minds/souls.

The reason why people brought up this "will" talk in the first place is because heretics said that Christ didn't have to struggle or face temptations the same way that we did; he just used his divinity to power through human life like a play-act. Which makes a farce out of the Gospel, and had to be answered.

I see. So then, God (who was in Christ) did not have the same will that "Jesus" did when God was suffering in human flesh?

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Still dissecting God I see.

Please sew him back up when you're done.

 

[PaladinValer]

I see. So then, God (who was in Christ) did not have the same will that "Jesus" did when God was suffering in human flesh?

No.

As I said: the two Natures and two Wills are "unchanged, unconfused, indivisible, and inseparable"

I wholly reject the "hypostatic union" theory, because there is no biblical support for it. It is man-made, and accepted by men, because men have a difficult time understanding what it means for God to be in the flesh.

This is a denial of the Nicene Creed then. Posting in the orthodox area isn't possible and promoting that theology isn't allowed either in the orthodox area.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

No.

As I said: the two Natures and two Wills are "unchanged, unconfused, indivisible, and inseparable"



This is a denial of the Nicene Creed then. Posting in the orthodox area isn't possible and promoting that theology isn't allowed either in the orthodox area.

And this is exactly what happens when we dissect God.

 

[sozo]

As I said: the two Natures and two Wills are "unchanged, unconfused, indivisible, and inseparable"

Then that would be one will. LOL

This is a denial of the Nicene Creed then.

Okay.

Posting in the orthodox area isn't possible and promoting that theology isn't allowed either in the orthodox area.

I see. So then, this is not really a "Christian" forum, but a "creed" based forum.

When you "creed" followers, can actually prove your case from the Bible, then perhaps we can have a real discussion concerning the truth of who Jesus is and what He has done.

Sproul, in his efforts to maintain that Jesus is a man, has abandoned the truth that Jesus has come in the flesh. Seriously, John writes that Jesus has come. That means that He existed before He came. The One who is "in the flesh" has come. He is God, come in the flesh.

John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."


2 John 1:7 "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

John explains to us that the "Word" (who is God) "became flesh". There is nothing spoken here (or anywhere) that Jesus became a soul, or another "person", but that the PERSON (who is God) became flesh. The divine nature became flesh. Not "two natures", but One nature - God in the flesh.

Heb 2:14 "Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil"

God took on "flesh and blood". He did not "add" another soul/spirit, mind, will, person, or identity. He is God in the flesh.

Heb 10:5 "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me"

Again, we see that God came into the world and lived in a "body" that was prepared for Him. Nothing stated about a soul/spirit, mind, will, identity, or distinct person being "added" to this body.

Heb 1:2-3 "in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high"

His nature is that of God. One nature, one mind, one Soul/Spirit, One PERSON, One identity - Jesus is God in the flesh.

 

[PaladinValer]

And this is exactly what happens when we dissect God.

The safest solution is always to say the following:

"I trust in the Scriptural Nicene Creed's statement to be accurate and don't venture to try to understand it"

Salvation is very unintellectual. Mere trust is all that is required. That is why in orthodoxy there are no barriers unlike in heterodox and unorthodox theology for any possible type of person to find salvation. Absolutely no barriers at all.

So, that may be simplistic, but it is a surefire way of avoiding any theological entanglements. For those who are new to or may just not be gifted with that particular charism, it is the best solution to any question relating to Trinitarian or Christological theology.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

This explains it perfectly. no heresy, no error;

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I think this song explains all we need to know

Don't know much ( with lyrics ) - Linda Ronstadt and Aaron Neville. - YouTube

 

[Calminian]

I wholly reject the "hypostatic union" theory, because there is no biblical support for it. It is man-made, and accepted by men, because men have a difficult time understanding what it means for God to be in the flesh…..

So you deny that Jesus was a man? He just appeared to be a man? Gnosticism?

1John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.​

Do you deny Jesus was the son of man?

 

[sozo]

The idea that "orthodox" presumes that someone is a "Christian" is tantamount to the Pharisees claiming that they were God's children, simply because they were descendants of Abraham. The same "spirit" exists here, only it is based on a tradition of believing the "creeds" of men, who also deny in their hearts, the very God they honor with their lips.

 

[PaladinValer]

Then that would be one will. LOL

Nope.

It is two wills in cooperation, acting as if one.

Two humans have the same nature but entirely different wills. They still can agree however.

Okay. I see. So then, this is not really a "Christian" forum, but a "creed" based forum.

CF goes by the historic Christian formula of deciding what is orthodox and what is not.

When you "creed" followers, can actually prove your case from the Bible, then perhaps we can have a real discussion concerning the truth of who Jesus is and what He has done.

Since your beliefs are based on a very faulty concept of will and nature, your opinions based on those inaccurate beliefs are not viable.

And no Miaphysite would agree with what your theology suggests. Their united nature/will theology still makes it quite explicit that it is still the wholeness of the will and nature of God and human in their utter entirety; nothing dissolved or subsumed.

 

[PaladinValer]

The idea that "orthodox" presumes that someone is a "Christian" is tantamount to the Pharisees claiming that they were God's children, simply because they were descendants of Abraham. The same "spirit" exists here, only it is based on a tradition of believing the "creeds" of men, who also deny in their hearts, the very God they honor with their lips.

I suggest a length study on the history of Christian theology and the Christian religion in general, because that idea does not match with the historical record.

 

[hedrick]

I hate to jump in the middle of a conversation, without having read every post. However, there is no biblical support that Jesus had two souls.

1 John 1:1-2 "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us"

John tells us that the person that has been manifested (made known; revealed) was "with the Father". John is telling us that the person being made known is eternal. He was "with the Father" BEFORE being "manifested" (revealed; made known) to us. He is not a "new" person, or an "added" person, but God Himself in the flesh.

I think Chalcedon can be understood as consistent with the Biblical picture. I have a separate posting about that.

I'm not sure anyone ever said there are two souls in Christ. What I said was the it was decided (correctly, I think) that Christ had a human soul. Normally soul or spirit is used to refer to the spiritual component of a person. Since God is only spiritual, I'm not sure people normally say that he has a soul.

But the orthodox position is that Jesus is really human. That means having a human soul. The reason this came up is that some people said that there was a human body, but not a human soul. (Actually I think it was closer to not having a human mind. "Soul" was used differently than we use it now.) I believe the Logos supposedly took the place of what would normally be a human soul. The mainstream church said that this is inconsistent with the Biblical picture of Jesus as a real human being, since real human beings have human souls.

It also means that Jesus has a normal human will. Since God is assumed to have a will, this means that there are two wills in Christ. We may be getting beyond the point where this kind of analysis makes sense. But it clearly seems wrong to say that Jesus doesn't have a human will, since that would make him not a real human being.

 

[sozo]

I'm not sure anyone ever said there are two souls in Christ. What I said was the it was decided (correctly, I think) that Christ had a human soul. Normally soul or spirit is used to refer to the spiritual component of a person. Since God is only spiritual, I'm not sure people normally say that he has a soul.

Matthew 12:18; Hebrews 10:38

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

The idea that "orthodox" presumes that someone is a "Christian" is tantamount to the Pharisees claiming that they were God's children, simply because they were descendants of Abraham. The same "spirit" exists here, only it is based on a tradition of believing the "creeds" of men, who also deny in their hearts, the very God they honor with their lips.

So the Holy Spirit is stronger than you than in the church councils that decided these things?