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

[Calminian]

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.

 

[Cappadocious]

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."

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Respectively it can be summed out in one sentence ....Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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:...........................

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.
.

Yes, it is tough, and will take some serious digesting of that view before I can even begin to respond.



.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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."

Tada!

 

[98cwitr]

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.

 

[hedrick]

First, I wonder whether Sproul is using God the Son differently from the Son of God. He says other places that the Son of God has a human nature, e.g. The Omnipresent Son of God | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org.

I suspect he’s using God the Son to mean specifically the divine nature, the second person of the Trinity. If that’s right, he uses Son of God and Jesus Christ to refer to the composite Person, which he certainly agrees has two natures. But God the Son would be a reference to the divine nature, which by definition can’t have a human nature. That’s why he says “God the Son has a human nature is word salad.” If God the Son refers specifically to the divine nature, then it’s nonsense to say that it has a human nature.

The problem is that most people would think that God the Son refers to the second person of the Trinity. That’s a person, not a nature, and unless you want to abandon Chalcedon entirely, that person has a human nature. But here’s another statement, maybe not from Sproul, but from his web site: “God the Son, who remains united to a human nature in the person of Christ Jesus, simply needs to say the word, and all things would cease to exist.” (God's Powerful Sustaining Word | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org) This also suggests that he’s using God the Son for God, and “the person of Christ Jesus” for the composite person.

This sounds very confused to me, but it would require a longer discussion with Sproul to see what he really means.

There is other evidence that Sproul pushes Christology to or possibly beyond the limits of Nestorianism. I’m particularly concerned with his statement that the atonement is an act of the human nature. The early history of the incarnation was moved by the concept that salvation can’t be achieved by either God or man alone, so only the God-man can do it. To say that only the human atoned thus seems unexpected.

I actually believe that a robust separation of the natures is right. However I think that needs to be supplemented with an understanding that the actions of the human being are also the actions of God. Col 1:19-20.

Like many here, I greatly respect N T Wright. I particularly like his discussion of the incarnation. (JESUS AND THE IDENTITY OF GOD by N. Thomas Wright) He sees Jesus the human being the place where God is present with us. In fact, Wright is not an admirer of Chalcedon. Rather than using the ontological language of Chalcedon and the later discussions, this is more of a functional language.

But if you’re commited to the traditional description, I think his ideas can be used to supplement Chalcedon. This is particularly the case for a Christology that pushes the limits of separating the natures ontologically, which I actually think is a good idea. You could then use Wright’s ideas to help flesh out the personal union so that is seen as a functional union as well as an ontological one. That could help restore the concept of salvation being a genuine divine-human action in a Christology such as Sproul’s that maximizes the ontological separation between the natures.

 

[Calminian]

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."

In fairness, I'm not sure that's how Sproul or White would put it. I have a feeling both would emphatically proclaim the two to be one. Eek, even that is stumbling.

Wondering too, if this may come from some overzealousness on other issues. The immutability of God is something I would certainly ascribe to, as well as the immutability of Christ. But I don't know if the way to preserve it is to proclaim a difference between the Son of God, and Christ. There's also the sonship of issue of the 2nd person of the Trinity, which is bickered about from time to time.

Really hoping someone will just lay it out in a way I can grasp onto it. But I really don't like how White and Sproul are explaining this. Wonder where MacArthur is on this.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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."

Thank you. And thank you, GCC for backing this up.

In reading the OP, I got the distinct impression that the one quoted was somehow trying to divide Jesus Christ into two, not the hypostatic union, but two distinct persons. (I think that's what the OP understood it to be as well.)

No matter how you slice it, that just doesn't seem to stand up. I thought R.C.Sproull had a better handle on all of this. It sounds strange to me that anyone would call Chalcedon into question?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Cappadocious

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."

Tada!

Interesting.

Anathema came up in Canon 29 of the CofL concerning the Jewish sabbath:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5340106/
Anathema to Sabbath-keepers - Council of Laodicea

Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea (ca. A.D. 360) explicitly condemns the veneration of the Sabbath and enjoins working on such a day in order to show a special respect for Sunday:

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians.
But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)

Which churches believe this today?
Roman Catholic?
Eastern Orthodox?
Any others?

What does anathema mean in this canon?

 

[Calminian]

First, I wonder whether Sproul is using God the Son differently from the Son of God. He says other places that the Son of God has a human nature, e.g. The Omnipresent Son of God | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org.

I suspect he’s using God the Son to mean specifically the divine nature, the second person of the Trinity. If that’s right, he uses Son of God and Jesus Christ to refer to the composite Person, which he certainly agrees has two natures. But God the Son would be a reference to the divine nature, which by definition can’t have a human nature. That’s why he says “God the Son has a human nature is word salad.” If God the Son refers specifically to the divine nature, then it’s nonsense to say that it has a human nature.

The problem is that most people would think that God the Son refers to the second person of the Trinity. That’s a person, not a nature, and unless you want to abandon Chalcedon entirely, that person has a human nature.

Exactly. Is Christ Himself, as a whole, not the 2nd Person of the Trinity? Is the Son of God not the 2nd Person of the Trinity? Only God the Son is the 2nd Person? And does scripture not say that the Word (which would have to be God the Son) became flesh? If God the Son became, how can we say He's separate?

But here’s another statement, maybe not from Sproul, but from his web site: “God the Son, who remains united to a human nature in the person of Christ Jesus, simply needs to say the word, and all things would cease to exist.” (God's Powerful Sustaining Word | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org) This also suggests that he’s using God the Son for God, and “the person of Christ Jesus” for the composite person.

Which doesn't seem compatible with this latest statement. I have to just wonder if maybe Enyart just caught James White off guard with the immutability issue, and maybe Sproul sought to rescue him, and was just inarticulate.

This sounds very confused to me, but it would require a longer discussion with Sproul to see what he really means.

I'd bet money he'd backtrack a bit.

There is other evidence that Sproul pushes Christology to or possibly beyond the limits of Nestorianism. I’m particularly concerned with his statement that the atonement is an act of the human nature. The early history of the incarnation was moved by the concept that salvation can’t be achieved by either God or man alone, so only the God-man can do it. To say that only the human atoned thus seems unexpected.

I actually believe that a robust separation of the natures is right. However I think that needs to be supplemented with an understanding that the actions of the human being are also the actions of God. Col 1:19-20.

But wouldn't this mean that God along with Christ died on the Cross?

Like many here, I greatly respect N T Wright. I particularly like his discussion of the incarnation. (JESUS AND THE IDENTITY OF GOD by N. Thomas Wright) He sees Jesus the human being the place where God is present with us. In fact, Wright is not an admirer of Chalcedon. Rather than using the ontological language of Chalcedon and the later discussions, this is more of a functional language.

But if you’re commited to the traditional description, I think his ideas can be used to supplement Chalcedon. This is particularly the case for a Christology that pushes the limits of separating the natures ontologically, which I actually think is a good idea. You could then use Wright’s ideas to help flesh out the personal union so that is seen as a functional union as well as an ontological one. That could help restore the concept of salvation being a genuine divine-human action in a Christology such as Sproul’s that maximizes the ontological separation between the natures.

Processing….

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Cappadocious

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

In fairness, I'm not sure that's how Sproul or White would put it. I have a feeling both would emphatically proclaim the two to be one. Eek, even that is stumbling.

Wondering too, if this may come from some overzealousness on other issues. The immutability of God is something I would certainly ascribe to, as well as the immutability of Christ. But I don't know if the way to preserve it is to proclaim a difference between the Son of God, and Christ.
There's also the sonship of issue of the 2nd person of the Trinity, which is bickered about from time to time.

Really hoping someone will just lay it out in a way I can grasp onto it. But I really don't like how White and Sproul are explaining this.

Wonder where MacArthur is on this.

Yes, me too.

One can try to, but it is not an easy topic to discuss, w/o perhaps confusing some in the process.

Paul mentions that Jesus could indeed claim to be Son of God, thru His resurrection from the dead.

Rom 1:4
and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power
by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Notice these 2 verses in Revelation showing Jesus both resurrected, ascended and proclaiming Himself the Son of God. Pretty fascinating verses, imho.

Reve 1:18
and the living One!
And I became dead and behold! I am living into the Ages of the Ages.
And I am having the Keys of the Hades and of the Death

Revelation 2:18
And to the messenger of the Assembly in Thyatira, write!
Now this is saying the Son of God,
the One having the eyes of Him as flame of fire,
and the feet of Him as to burnished-brass.


.




.

 

[Cappadocious]

Wondering too, if this may come from some overzealousness on other issues. The immutability of God is something I would certainly ascribe to, as well as the immutability of Christ. But I don't know if the way to preserve it is to proclaim a difference between the Son of God, and Christ.

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!

 

[Gottservant]

Too many questions. (sorry)

You have to take it by faith, that the Son of God is Jesus Christ and that the faith being in the Son of God either empowers Jesus Christ (to be One) or the faith goes to Jesus Christ (in which case He can have many natures).

Many natures is not a sin, if you can clarify which works of them you intend.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Everytime a flawed human intellegence tries to define God and His relationship to Himself I find it amusing and somewhat sad. Christ is Christ, God is God, I am a man and cannot possibly comprehend these things as I presently am abled. Nor is it necessary to be able to do so.
▶ Farther Along - YouTube

 

[KEPLER]

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.

Why are Calvinists always flirting with Nestorianism? I prefer Luther: all theology begins with God in a manger.

 

[KEPLER]

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."

I really should read before I reply. Someone already made my point.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Calminian

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:

​

Why are always flirting with Nestorianism?
I prefer Luther: all theology begins with God in a manger.

Sounds logical........tho both Calvin and Luther's achievement with breaking away from the RCC is quite impressive.........

http://www.christianforums.com/t7437997-9/#post54059895

AHRC Updates

*snip*

"If I were younger I would want to learn this language [i.e. Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture….
For that reason they have said correctly:
'The Jews drink out of the original spring,
The Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream,
The Latins, however, out of the puddle.'"
--Martin Luther (1483-1546)

 

[NorrinRadd]

This is the sort of gobbledygook jibber-jabber that happens when egghead theologians try to explain every detail in Scripture, rather than allowing some mystery to remain mysterious.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This is the sort of gobbledygook jibber-jabber that happens when egghead theologians try to explain every detail in Scripture, rather than allowing some mystery to remain mysterious.

What fun would that be?


.