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

[Gxg (G²)]

"Docetic" in relation to what? When examined within the historical context, it would appear that the early Church argued in such an extreme manner to counter the opposite extreme of the combined Gnostic and Arian tendencies to associate Christ with the Demiurge rather than the Eternal Logos, on the one hand, and to reduce him to a created being, on the other.

Very true...

 

[hedrick]

"Docetic" in relation to what? When examined within the historical context, it would appear that the early Church argued in such an extreme manner to counter the opposite extreme of the combined Gnostic and Arian tendencies to associate Christ with the Demiurge rather than the Eternal Logos, on the one hand, and to reduce him to a created being, on the other.

Perhaps. But this orientation is too consistent to be the result of careless language in the middle of an argument.

Let’s start with Athanasius. When reading the Incarnation, he speaks of Christ as a single actor, using the body pretty much as an instrument. People who know him better than I say there are some places where he’s more careful, but mostly it looks like Christ is a theophany: God himself using a body to appear to us visibly. That’s not incarnation.

As Norris (the editor of “The Christological Controversy,” which is a collection of extracts from major documents on this object) comments, Athanasius doesn’t explicitly deny the existence of a human soul, but a reader certain gets that impression.

Of course when it was explicitly claimed, the Church rejected it, so now we’ve got Christ with both a human body and a human soul.

But still, is this actually a human being, or is the Logos just manipulating an additional part of a human? My impression is the latter. And I think the rejection of Theodore makes that clear. Of course Church politics had a lot of impact on that, not to mention Mariological hysteria. But still, the Church branded as heretical a position that is basically identical to Aquinas, and seems pretty clearly have been intended to be orthodox, because it was considered heresy to give any metaphysical reality to the human being. Sorry, but that’s overtly docetic.

The next question was, of course, that of the human will. Again, once it’s explicitly brought up the Church accepted that there has to be a human will. But the will is a kind of interesting thing. It’s not an actual part, like the liver or spleen. The will is a function of a person, that of deciding and taking action. So in saying that there are two wills and two natural operations, the Church is basically saying that there’s a real human being there. As someone from a scientific background, I basically don’t believe that a hypostasis has any existence in the real world. The best attempt to define it precisely that I’ve seen is in the Summa. And I’ll buy Aquinas’ argument that there’s only one in Christ. But still, from my non-metaphysical perspective, once you’ve got a stream of human decisions and actions, you’ve got a human person, even if we choose not to speak of it as a hypostasis.

In the end, the Logos is still the active agent. But instead of manipulating a set of parts of a human, after Constantinople, one would think he’s working through an actual human being.

But in the very statement defining all this, the writer was still unable to speak of it straightforwardly.

“For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (ὄρῳ τε καὶ λόγ&#8179, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.””

Animated flesh??? Is Jesus a zombie? The problem with this is that it’s describing the flesh and the will as being possessions of the Logos but not connected to each other in any normal way. The only relationship between the human will and the human flesh is that they are both the Logos’. But that’s nonsense. It’s meaningless to speak of a human will if the human will doesn’t control the actions of a human being. The Logos isn’t controlling a bunch of parts but is incarnate in a whole human being. A person, in any definition I would recognize, although not a Person as used in traditional theology.

----------

Just to be clear: I am just as convinced as Athanasius that God is the ultimate subject of all of Christ's actions. I just think he's incarnate in an actual human being and not a bunch of human parts.

 

[Cappadocious]

Let’s start with Athanasius. When reading the Incarnation, he speaks of Christ as a single actor, using the body pretty much as an instrument. People who know him better than I say there are some places where he’s more careful, but mostly it looks like Christ is a theophany: God himself using a body to appear to us visibly. That’s not incarnation.

That's an "excess" common to the Alexandrian school, which is why it was counterbalanced in the condemnations of Apollinarus, Eutyches, the Monothelites, etc. But the Alexandrian school was not the only word at the time, nor before.

The next question was, of course, that of the human will. Again, once it’s explicitly brought up the Church accepted that there has to be a human will. But the will is a kind of interesting thing. It’s not an actual part, like the liver or spleen. The will is a function of a person, that of deciding and taking action.

If you've read Aquinas, then you know that the will is not the faculty of deciding or taking action. Will is volition, i.e. drives(s) which is/are parsed by the intellect.

So in saying that there are two wills and two natural operations, the Church is basically saying that there’s a real human being there.

Yeah, God's the real human being there.

As someone from a scientific background, I basically don’t believe that a hypostasis has any existence in the real world.

As someone with something approaching grammatical competency, I don't think you can communicate without resorting to the real existence of hypostaseis.

once you’ve got a stream of human decisions and actions, you’ve got a human person, even if we choose not to speak of it as a hypostasis.

When we say "divine hypostasis", we are emphasizing the continuity between the pre-incarnate and the incarnate Christ. Christ is a person who is human, and he's the same person who was pre-incarnate. That's what we're communicating.

In the end, the Logos is still the active agent. But instead of manipulating a set of parts of a human, after Constantinople, one would think he’s working through an actual human being.

He is an actual human being. God has worked through actual human beings since the beginning of humanity; he became a human being in the fullness of time. If your metaphysical system cannot handle "God became a real man" then your metaphysical system is deficient, not the Gospel.

Animated flesh??? Is Jesus a zombie?

Only if John the Evangelist was talking about a zombie when he said "the Word became flesh," and "the Christ has come in the flesh." "The flesh" refers to being human here. Animated flesh = human body animated by a human soul. I.E. being a real human being.

The problem with this is that it’s describing the flesh and the will as being possessions of the Logos

My flesh and will are my possessions, too. I am a real human being.

It’s meaningless to speak of a human will if the human will doesn’t control the actions of a human being.

Once again, I don't think you understand what is meant by "will". It's our volition, not our decision-making process as such. If you want to understand Aquinas's rather fascinating treatment of the decision-making and action process vis-a-vis the will, I recommend Dr. Eleonore Stump's Aquinas, which provides a detailed and comprehensible analysis.

I just think he's incarnate in an actual human being and not a bunch of human parts.

The ancients are describing the parts in order to affirm the whole (i.e. the whole was being denied by denying proper parts.) That said, you keep saying "in" an actual human being, and not as an actual human being. There is no reward to be gained by dodging the Gospel.

 

[hedrick]

There seems to be some uncertainty exactly what the monothelites meant by “will.” However by speaking of a human will and natural operation, it would seem that the council is including will, choice and action, so the exact part of it represented by will is not critical. By connecting will to operation they are doing what I said, which is saying that the will is not just an isolated thing, but that it is connected with a human life. I’m just not so sure that the exposition reflects that understanding.

Scripture speaks of the incarnation in various ways: as God’s word becoming flesh, as God speaking by a Son, as God’s fulness being present in Christ. By speaking of God being present in Christ I am using one of those, without denying the others.

 

[Cappadocious]

There seems to be some uncertainty exactly what the monothelites meant by “will.” However by speaking of a human will and natural operation, it would seem that the council is including will, choice and action, so the exact part of it represented by will is not critical.

Well, we were speaking about will a second ago. But if you want to expand our discussion to the powers and operations as well, sure.

"Cappadocious makes choices qua his human nature" or "Cappadocious swats the fly via his reflex operation" does not imply "Cappadocious is some docetic entity walking around in a human suit". Nor is it the case for the Christ.

will is not just an isolated thing, but that it is connected with a human life.

Well, of course.

Scripture speaks of the incarnation in various ways: as God’s word becoming flesh, as God speaking by a Son, as God’s fulness being present in Christ. By speaking of God being present in Christ I am using one of those, without denying the others.

Yet you weren't comfortable with "flesh" a minute ago, calling animated flesh a zombie (which makes you and I zombies, evidently).

 

[Cappadocious]

There seems to be some uncertainty exactly what the monothelites meant by “will.” However by speaking of a human will and natural operation, it would seem that the council is including will, choice and action, so the exact part of it represented by will is not critical.

Well, we were speaking about will a second ago. But if you want to expand our discussion to the powers and operations as well, sure. We have volition, which is parsed and channeled by intellect, etc. And Christ has a human intellect. So to defend free choice, you can do human will+human mind.

"Cappadocious makes choices qua his human nature" or "Cappadocious swats the fly via his reflex operation" does not imply "Cappadocious is some docetic entity walking around in a human suit". Nor is it the case for the Christ.

will is not just an isolated thing, but that it is connected with a human life.

Well, of course.

Scripture speaks of the incarnation in various ways: as God’s word becoming flesh, as God speaking by a Son, as God’s fulness being present in Christ. By speaking of God being present in Christ I am using one of those, without denying the others.

Yet you weren't comfortable with "flesh" a minute ago, calling animated flesh a zombie (which makes you and I zombies, evidently).

 

[hedrick]

Yet you weren't comfortable with "flesh" a minute ago, calling animated flesh a zombie (which makes you and I zombies, evidently).

That's one sentence from a whole Gospel. The Gospel as a whole doesn't lead me to suspect that John felt Jesus was other than a human being. Not so with a lot of early Christian writing.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Perhaps. But this orientation is too consistent to be the result of careless language in the middle of an argument.

Let’s start with Athanasius. When reading the Incarnation, he speaks of Christ as a single actor, using the body pretty much as an instrument. People who know him better than I say there are some places where he’s more careful, but mostly it looks like Christ is a theophany: God himself using a body to appear to us visibly. That’s not incarnation.

As Norris (the editor of “The Christological Controversy,” which is a collection of extracts from major documents on this object) comments, Athanasius doesn’t explicitly deny the existence of a human soul, but a reader certain gets that impression.

Of course when it was explicitly claimed, the Church rejected it, so now we’ve got Christ with both a human body and a human soul.

But still, is this actually a human being, or is the Logos just manipulating an additional part of a human? My impression is the latter. And I think the rejection of Theodore makes that clear. Of course Church politics had a lot of impact on that, not to mention Mariological hysteria. But still, the Church branded as heretical a position that is basically identical to Aquinas, and seems pretty clearly have been intended to be orthodox, because it was considered heresy to give any metaphysical reality to the human being. Sorry, but that’s overtly docetic.

The next question was, of course, that of the human will. Again, once it’s explicitly brought up the Church accepted that there has to be a human will. But the will is a kind of interesting thing. It’s not an actual part, like the liver or spleen. The will is a function of a person, that of deciding and taking action. So in saying that there are two wills and two natural operations, the Church is basically saying that there’s a real human being there. As someone from a scientific background, I basically don’t believe that a hypostasis has any existence in the real world. The best attempt to define it precisely that I’ve seen is in the Summa. And I’ll buy Aquinas’ argument that there’s only one in Christ. But still, from my non-metaphysical perspective, once you’ve got a stream of human decisions and actions, you’ve got a human person, even if we choose not to speak of it as a hypostasis.

In the end, the Logos is still the active agent. But instead of manipulating a set of parts of a human, after Constantinople, one would think he’s working through an actual human being.

But in the very statement defining all this, the writer was still unable to speak of it straightforwardly.

“For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (ὄρῳ τε καὶ λόγ&#8179, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.””

Animated flesh??? Is Jesus a zombie? The problem with this is that it’s describing the flesh and the will as being possessions of the Logos but not connected to each other in any normal way. The only relationship between the human will and the human flesh is that they are both the Logos’. But that’s nonsense. It’s meaningless to speak of a human will if the human will doesn’t control the actions of a human being. The Logos isn’t controlling a bunch of parts but is incarnate in a whole human being. A person, in any definition I would recognize, although not a Person as used in traditional theology.

----------

Just to be clear: I am just as convinced as Athanasius that God is the ultimate subject of all of Christ's actions. I just think he's incarnate in an actual human being and not a bunch of human parts.

Intensive...

 

[MKJ]

This rather reminds me of the question "what did God do before he created the universe".

 

[RJNavarrete]

Found this thread via a Google search due to a conversation I'm having with a brother about whether it is within Orthodox / Chalcedonian framework to say, "God died on the cross." Lots of good stuff in here.

But, is it me, or did many people in this thread confuse R.C. Sproul, Jr. with R.C. Sproul?

 

[The Liturgist]

Found this thread via a Google search due to a conversation I'm having with a brother about whether it is within Orthodox / Chalcedonian framework to say, "God died on the cross." Lots of good stuff in here.

But, is it me, or did many people in this thread confuse R.C. Sproul, Jr. with R.C. Sproul?

Well I don’t really read much R.C. Sproul, the elder or the yonger, so on that I cannot comment.

However from a purely Chalcedonian perspective that takes us back to the 6th century and Emperor Justinian vacillating between Theopaschitism and Apthartodocetism. Due to the complexity of Apthartodocetism and the inescapable logic of communicatio idiomatum, and an extreme respect for the persecuted Oriental Orthodox whose Chalcedonian-compatible Miaphysite Christology is also explicitly Theopaschite. Theopaschitism seems further confirmed by other scriptures, for example the Psalm, no. 73 LXX which I look forward to hearing our Eastern Orthodox brethren sing with gusto this weekend, which we know in the West as Arise, O God, or by its Latin title Exsurge Domine.

 

[fhansen]

The quote in the title is from the aftermath of a debate between James White and Bob Enyart, who were debating Open Theism. It was an interesting debate (I wouldn't want to debate either of them), but in the aftermath, some clarifications were made. Later on after the debate in an interview, RC Sproul responded to a line of questioning by Enyart regarding the immutability of God. James White initially answered that God the Son took on a human nature. Responding to this, in a later interview, Sproul said the following:

R.c. Sproul Jr.: God the Son didn't go from one nature to two. God the Son didn't have a human nature. Jesus did.

Will Duffy: R.C. Sproul Jr., thanks for your comment. I've noticed for years that theologians have an extremely hard time regarding the Incarnation. That is why theologians for centuries have not dealt with it [regarding immutability and timelessness], including Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin.

Traditional Christianity believes that God the Son still has a human nature in the eternal state. (See the Creed of Chalcedon.) Do you agree that God the Son even now has two natures for all of eternity?

R.c. Sproul Jr.: God the Son does not now nor has He ever had two natures. Jesus, however, has two natures in one person. That's my point. To say that "God the Son has a human nature" is word salad, making no more sense than saying "Jesus the man has a divine nature."

Will Duffy: R.c. Sproul Jr., that's interesting. I'll have to think about what you're saying. I've never heard this from any theologian. Even James White agreed last night that God the Son has two natures in what theologians call the "hypostatic union," which [term] originated at Chalcedon. Here's a small quote from the creed itself:

"...acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis…"​

I listened to White answer in the affirmative to Enyart's question, but then he said he never did, and took Sproul's side, saying:

"God the Son does not have two natures. I did not 'admit' that He did/does/will etc. Jesus of Nazareth was one Person with two natures."

But when Enyart asked originally, he used the term God the Son. Maybe White just slipped up in the debate. Here is the page where you can check out the debate:

JAMES WHITE VS. BOB ENYART OPEN THEISM DEBATE

This is a new one for me. I'm not an open theists and don't want to debate that here, but I didn't know this view existed among orthodox theologians.

Jesus Christ has two natures, but the Son of God does not, never did and ever will?? The Son of God is immutable, but Jesus is not??

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

They're not necessarily orthodox at all. But they often like to sound confident about things they don’t necessarily know. Jesus will remain enigmatic to a degree regardless because God is simply too far beyond us and the Incarnation retains aspects of mystery. But what we know is that when we’ve seen Jesus the man we’ve also truly seen God. To put that into words, to define the concept, is a struggle.

 

[The Liturgist]

They're not necessarily orthodox at all. But they often like to sound confident about things they don’t necessarily know. Jesus will remain enigmatic to a degree regardless because God is simply too far beyond us and the Incarnation retains aspects of mystery. But what we know is that when we’ve seen Jesus the man we’ve also truly seen God. To put that into words, to define the concept, is a struggle.

Well one thing is obvious, Will Duffy never read of Nestorius or Diodore of Tarsus or Theodore or Mopsuestia. But RC Sproul Jr. seems to me to be so far out in left field, I don’t think even Diodore was that radical. His Christology strikes me as being Adoptionist or some Adoptionist-Apollinarian fusion.

I also note that none of the Church Fathers Duffy mentions were heavily involved in the Christological controversy, that rather being the province of Saints Athanasius and Cyril and the Cappadocians, and Pope Leo I, and indeed St. Severus of Antioch (who was incorrectly branded a heretic but whose Theopaschitism now represents to no small extent Christological orthodoxy, at least in my opinion, as opposed to the convoluted Apthartodocetism that Emperor Justinian came to advocate).

 

[BobRyan]

James White initially answered that God the Son took on a human nature. Responding to this, in a later interview, Sproul said the following:

R.c. Sproul Jr.: God the Son didn't go from one nature to two. God the Son didn't have a human nature. Jesus did.

Will Duffy: R.C. Sproul Jr., thanks for your comment. I've noticed for years that theologians have an extremely hard time regarding the Incarnation. That is why theologians for centuries have not dealt with it [regarding immutability and timelessness], including Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin.

Traditional Christianity believes that God the Son still has a human nature in the eternal state. (See the Creed of Chalcedon.) Do you agree that God the Son even now has two natures for all of eternity?

R.c. Sproul Jr.: God the Son does not now nor has He ever had two natures. Jesus, however, has two natures in one person. That's my point. To say that "God the Son has a human nature" is word salad, making no more sense than saying "Jesus the man has a divine nature."

​

Yes two natures in one person as Sproul said. But in other ways I think Sproul may be making a mistake.

But prior to the incarnation God the Son was a person. One Person. After the incarnation He is still one person and remains one person in heaven to this very day. One person with two natures. The human nature was added.​

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes two natures in one person as Sproul said. But in other ways I think Sproul may be making a mistake.

But prior to the incarnation God the Son was a person. One Person. After the incarnation He is still one person and remains one person in heaven to this very day. One person with two natures. The human nature was added.​

Indeed, this is essentially Chalcedonian Christology: one person, of one essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in one hypostasis (each person of the Trinity having a particular hypostasis but a common ousios, variously translated as essence, substance or nature). In the person of Christ his human and divine natures are united in one hypostasis, thus making Him theanthropic. And there is a communication of properties between the human and divine natures via the hypostatic union, the principle of communicatio idiomatum.

I hold to either this, or as an alternative, as the Miaphysites (Oriental Orthodox) argue, in the Incarnation He retained one theanthropic nature from a human and divine nature. This is fully compatible with Chalcedonianism, since the humanity and divinity are regarded as united without change, confusion, separation or division, and the Christological principle of communicatio idiomatum is equally valid and used equally.

Indeed Theopaschitism was actually championed against the unusual doctrine of apthartodocetism (promoted by Emperor Justinian) which is theoretically Chalcedon-compliant but not Oriental Orthodox miaphysite compliant, by St. Severus of Antioch, and in most Christians are now Theopaschite.

There was a bitter schism at Chalcedon between the Oriental Orthodox, represented by St. Dioscorus the Pope of Alexandria who were literally restating what St. Cyril wrote in refutation of Nestorius, and the Chalcedonians, who followed the Tome written by Pope Leo I of Rome, but were reacting against a heresy preached by Eutyches, who had already been anathematized by Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria, but who had previously been defended by him at a problematic Second Council of Ephesus which the Chalcedonians decried as a latrocinium (robber synod), before Pope Dioscorus discovered the heresy. There were also tragic Machiavellian manipulations by crypto-Nestorians, but thankfully this schism, in which the Oriental Orthodox were falsely accused of Monophysitism which was the doctrine of Eutyches, is finally healing, thanks to ecumenical reconciliation between the Syriac and Antiochian Orthodox Churches in the Levant, and between the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and an increased closeness between the Eastern Orthodox and the Armenians, with Eastern Orthodox churches having memorial services for the Armenian genocide.

The goal with both of these models, which I think if theopaschitism is agreed to, are effectively equivalent, is to avoid either the unnatural division of the divinity and humanity of Christ as in Nestorius, or the unnatural confusion, as in Eutyches.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The quote in the title is from the aftermath of a debate between James White and Bob Enyart, who were debating Open Theism. It was an interesting debate (I wouldn't want to debate either of them), but in the aftermath, some clarifications were made. Later on after the debate in an interview, RC Sproul responded to a line of questioning by Enyart regarding the immutability of God. James White initially answered that God the Son took on a human nature. Responding to this, in a later interview, Sproul said the following:

R.c. Sproul Jr.: God the Son didn't go from one nature to two. God the Son didn't have a human nature. Jesus did.

Will Duffy: R.C. Sproul Jr., thanks for your comment. I've noticed for years that theologians have an extremely hard time regarding the Incarnation. That is why theologians for centuries have not dealt with it [regarding immutability and timelessness], including Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin.

Traditional Christianity believes that God the Son still has a human nature in the eternal state. (See the Creed of Chalcedon.) Do you agree that God the Son even now has two natures for all of eternity?

R.c. Sproul Jr.: God the Son does not now nor has He ever had two natures. Jesus, however, has two natures in one person. That's my point. To say that "God the Son has a human nature" is word salad, making no more sense than saying "Jesus the man has a divine nature."

Will Duffy: R.c. Sproul Jr., that's interesting. I'll have to think about what you're saying. I've never heard this from any theologian. Even James White agreed last night that God the Son has two natures in what theologians call the "hypostatic union," which [term] originated at Chalcedon. Here's a small quote from the creed itself:

"...acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis…"​

I listened to White answer in the affirmative to Enyart's question, but then he said he never did, and took Sproul's side, saying:

"God the Son does not have two natures. I did not 'admit' that He did/does/will etc. Jesus of Nazareth was one Person with two natures."

But when Enyart asked originally, he used the term God the Son. Maybe White just slipped up in the debate. Here is the page where you can check out the debate:

JAMES WHITE VS. BOB ENYART OPEN THEISM DEBATE

This is a new one for me. I'm not an open theists and don't want to debate that here, but I didn't know this view existed among orthodox theologians.

Jesus Christ has two natures, but the Son of God does not, never did and ever will?? The Son of God is immutable, but Jesus is not??

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

....dating back to Apostolic times.

Docetism is not properly a Christian heresy at all, as it did not arise in the Church from the misunderstanding of a dogma by the faithful, but rather came from without. Gnostics starting from the principle of antagonism between matter and spirit, and making all salvation consist in becoming free from the bondage of matter and returning as pure spirit to the Supreme Spirit, could not possibly accept the sentence, "the Word was made flesh", in a literal sense.
*In order to borrow from Christianity the doctrine of a Saviour who was Son of the Good God, they were forced to modify the doctrine of the Incarnation. Their embarrassment with this dogma caused many vaccinations and inconsistencies; some holding the indwelling of an Aeon in a body which was indeed real body or humanity at all; others denying the actual objective existence of any body or humanity at all; others allowing a "psychic", but not a "hylic" or really material body; others believing in a real, yet not human "sidereal" body; others again accepting the of the body but not the reality of the birth from a woman, or the reality of the passion and death on the cross. Christ only seemed to suffer, either because He ingeniously and miraculously substituted someone else to bear the pain, or because the occurence on Calvary was a visual deception. Simon Magus first spoke of a "putative passion of Christ and blasphemously asserted that it was really he, Simon himself, who underwent these apparent sufferings." As the angels governed this world badly because each angel coveted the principality for himself he [Simon] came to improve matters, and was transfigured and rendered like unto the Virtues and Powers and Angels, so that he appeared amongst men as man though he was no man and was believed to have suffered in Judea though he had not suffered" (passum in Judea putatum cum non esset passus — Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I, xxiii sqq.). The mention of the demiurgic angels stamps this passage as a piece of Gnosticism. Soon after a Syrian Gnostic of Antioch, Saturninus or Saturnilus (about 125) made Christ the chief of the Aeons, but tried to show that the Savior was unborn (agenneton) and without body (asomaton) and without form (aneideon) and only apparently (phantasia) seen as man (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., XXIV, ii).



CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Docetae

 

[dms1972]

The Word became = assumed flesh

The Athanasian interpretation is that He is one "not by the conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of the manhood into God" (article 35)

Also in the words of Augustine: "Christ added to himself that which he was not; he did not lose what he was."

Theologian Donald Bloesch states his own view: "I affirm both the anhypostasia (impersonal humanity) and enhypostasia (personality in God). Jesus has no independent human personality: he has his personality in God. These terms as originally used do not mean that Christ's human nature lacks personality (as we understand it today). Instead, it has no independent existence or being. 'His manhood is only the predicate of His Godhead.' Jesus is not autonomous or self-existent. God is the acting Subject in Jesus." quoted from Jesus Christ - Saviour and Lord (Christian Foundations series)

 

[The Liturgist]

Theologian Donald Bloesch states his own view: "I affirm both the anhypostasia (impersonal humanity) and enhypostasia (personality in God). Jesus has no independent human personality: he has his personality in God. These terms as originally used do not mean that Christ's human nature lacks personality (as we understand it today). Instead, it has no independent existence or being. 'His manhood is only the predicate of His Godhead.' Jesus is not autonomous or self-existent. God is the acting Subject in Jesus." quoted from Jesus Christ - Saviour and Lord (Christian Foundations series)

That strikes me as Monothelitism, the denial that Christ has a human will and a divine will, which was declared heretical at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, resulting in Pope Honorius I becoming the only Pope in the history of the Roman Catholic Church to have held a doctrine later anathematized by an Ecumenical Council accepted by both Catholics and Orthodox to this day (there is the case of the filioque controversyand the Photian Synod, held by Patriarch St. Photius of Constantinople, which some Eastern Orthodox do call the Eighth Ecumenical Council, because for a brief time, the Roman church did accept it, before rejecting it, but obviously insofar as it was rejected and the Filioque clause firmly established as Latin Church doctrine, this is quite different than in the case of Pope Honorius I).

Indeed because of this notoriety, in the 16th century or so a grimoire was even psuedepigraphically attributed to Pope Honorius I, which is of course ridiculous and absurd as we have no evidence that grimoires in the modern occult witchcraft sense even existed during the lifetime of Honorius I, although non-Christian religions did have compendiums of occult practices which could be said to have a similar function, but the idea the archbishop of what was at the time still the most important metropolitical diocese and patriarchate for all Christians (as even the Chalcedonian schism was not firmly established), would author such a work is ridiculous.

But even if Bloesch is not a Monothelite, he does seem to have violated the cardinal principle of Chalcedonian (and Miaphysite) Christology: Jesus Christ is one person, with one hypostasis, fully God and fully man, and in taking on our human nature, he became both God and man without change, confusion, separation, or division.

 

[dms1972]

But even if Bloesch is not a Monothelite, he does seem to have violated the cardinal principle of Chalcedonian (and Miaphysite) Christology: Jesus Christ is one person, with one hypostasis, fully God and fully man, and in taking on our human nature, he became both God and man without change, confusion, separation, or division.

I am not sure that Bloesch does violate that principle, if anhypostasia and enhypostasia are not two different hypostasias, I think both terms could both be understood as refering to the one hypostasis, or terms for use in explication of that.

2015, Andrew Purves, “Christology: The Mystery of Christ—the Homoousion and the Hypostatic Union”, in Exploring Christology & Atonement: Conversations with John McLeod Campbell, H. R. Mackintosh and T. F. Torrance, Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, →ISBN, page 90:​

• "It was in view of a weakening emphasis on Jesus' individuality, on his particular humanity, in part stimulated by the fights against Arianism and Adoptionism, that the notion of Christ's impersonal humanity took hold. Two theological words were used to try to overcome the problem: anhypostasis, which refers to the divinity of Jesus' person, and enhypostasis, which insists that, nevertheless, Jesus was truly a human being. The anhypostasis was meant to protect the view that if the Word had not become flesh, Jesus would not have existed. The person of Jesus, in other words, lay in the Logos."