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

[Cappadocious]

Ah, I see. No offense, but your wording makes it sound like God just put on a skin suit.

Only if flesh=outward skin, which it doesn't mean from the Scriptures. St. John's letter uses this expression "in the flesh".

Jesus has two natures, one deity, the other humanity. We agree on this, yes?

Yes, and the Person who is Jesus is God the Son, rather than some union involving God the Son.

From Chalcedon: "...one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ..."

Also consult Constantinople I here:

NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Metal Minister]

Only if flesh=outward skin, which it doesn't mean from the Scriptures. St. John's letter uses this expression "in the flesh".

Yes, and the Person who is Jesus is God the Son, rather than some union involving God the Son.

From Chalcedon: "...one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ..."

Also consult Constantinople I here:

NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I think you may have misunderstood, the emoticon ( ) was meant to convey that I was jesting. Myself, I like this quote from a paper I read on it:

Describing the hypostatic union, Leo the first explained how "the proper character of each Nature was kept inviolate and together they were united in one person. "The Council of Chalcedon summarized Leo's Tome thus: Christ is one person, the divine hypostasis; this divine person subsists in two perfect natures: one divine, one human; the union of natures is substantial, not accidental, yet distinct and not mixed; and the activities of each nature are directly predicated of that one Person.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by 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.

​

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.

There was actually another thread from last year called Nestorianism Much? which sought to address the subject. Others felt there that R.C Sproul was guilty of Nestorianism - something which has been brought up for years...reference for that being places such as here

• Did God Die On The Cross? by R.C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries Blog

R.C Sproul also wrote on the issue as far back as 1998 in his book entitled Essential Truths of the Christian Faith ...and it was noted even in 2010 where people noticed that Sproul advocated that it was impossible for God (the second person of the Trinity) to die.

Growing up at a predominately Reformed Christian highschool (due to where the teachers/families of students came from even though it was non-denominational in name), I am not surprised to see others taking issue with what Sproul has said. We used to debate those things in highschool all the time - and it always perplexed me. With Sproul doing as he did, it seems to be one more link in the great chain showing how it has manifested in differing ways elsewhere.

• Reformed theology is Nestorian | Wicket's take
• "Reformed Christology: Modern Nestorianism?"
• Was Gordon Clark a Nestorian? | Reformed Libertarian
• "Ancient Christian Defense: Reformed Christology & Nestorianism"
• "Liturgical Nestorianism - Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed" ( )
• Why the Reformed Tend to be Nestorian and the Lutherans ...

I agree with others who noted the following:

Folks, one isn’t Nestorian unless one believes in Christ having two separate persons. And it isn’t Nestorian to say that something can happen to one nature and not the other, any more than it is Nestorian to say that Jesus sometimes acts according to one nature, and sometimes acts according to the other nature. What is true for the activities of Jesus is also true of the passivities, especially since Jesus actively took upon Himself the suffering.


One must make a distinction, if you will pardon the pun, between the distinction of Christ’s two natures (which is Chalcedonian!), as opposed to the separation of the two natures (which is Nestorian). But again, here we must say that just because something happens to one nature and not the other does not mean that we are separating the two natures. That is a definite confusion I am seeing in some of the comments. Just because one does not scrape one’s violin bow across the tuning pegs of a violin does not mean that one has separated the violin strings from the tuning pegs. Now, every analogy will break down, of course. My only point here is that positing suffering of only the human nature of Christ does not constitute Nestorianism in any way, shape, or form.
​

For many, the mindset is that the charge of Nestorianism is limited since all believers are such in one way or another....and the charge of "Nestorianism" has often been brought up in accusation before toward many others wrestling over the exact nature of Christ. If you believe in things such as the Hypostatic Union (Luke 1-2)---or Christ growing/learning as Luke 2:51-52 & Luke 2:39-41 & Hebrews 5:5-10 make clear---then you also believe by default that there's a degree of Neostarism that is inherent in the theology of Christianity since there are DUAL natures.......Christ didn't grow in knowledge or power as it concerns his Divinity - but he did grow as it concerns his human nature.

Others feel that it must be dual for Christ to do all that He did. For as the logic goes, how can he grow in knowledge/wisdom if He was already ALL-KNOWING/OMNISCIENT at all times? How could he be hungry and tired ( Matthew 4:1-3, Luke 4:1-3 , etc ). How can the man be amazed at the level of faith others had (Matthew 15:26-28, Mark 6:5-7 , Luke 7:8-10 , ) if it was impossible in one of his natures to never be surprised --unless, of course, the natures were seperate to a degree....

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]To be clear, of course, I think that Jesus had one nature - with two different expressions (which can also be termed as a nature on some level). He was ONE PERSON - One being - but with two differing aspects of who He was (i.e. Divine vs. Humanity) and certain things would impact one aspect of who he was that would not impact the other automatically. But Christ truly did experience death for our sakes

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
​

​

One person endured the horrors of the Cross/sin and conquered it - Jesus was very God and very man, yet one Christ, as we know when seeing historical Christianity in comparision to other versions (including Nestorianism, which is something Nestorius never actually taught even though the error is now associated with him even when he sought to address it and other groups associated with him - like the Assyrian Church of the East - have often had to clarify the issue and show what it means to be ONE person with two aspects united together). For reference to other places to investigate on the issue:

• Gregory Nazianzen | Eclectic Orthodoxy

• Jesus Christ: Man or a man? | Eclectic Orthodoxy

• The Unitive Christology of St Gregory the Theologian | Eclectic Orthodoxy...

• St Vincent of Lérins: Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible? | Eclectic Orthodoxy

• Chalcedon Visits Wonderland, or Why Jesus Ain’t Thor | Eclectic Orthodoxy

Ultimately, the Divine Nature is Fully God and Human nature is Fully Man....with the One Person of Christ being in both of the two natures, therefore meaning that the One Person of Christ is both Fully the God-man.

[URL="http://1689commentary.org/2011/03/07/1081/"]

​

[/URL]

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by hedrick
“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.
[/INDENT]
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.

R.C Sproul seemed to advocate a mindset similar to what John Calvin noted when it came to the Eucharist, as Calvin believed that Jesus was always God even as a human and thus had access to all the aspects of His Godhood even though he chose to intentionally limit himself (the beautiful process known as kenosis) when on the Earth - meaning that his sacrifice on the Cross did not mean that all aspects of God were solely present on the cross and nowhere else (more discussed elsewhere here/ here).


That said, even if Sproul may be pushing Christology to or beyond the limits of Nestorianism, IMHO, I think it's wise for everyone in the discussion to quit being quick to throw around the term "Nestorianism" as if all aspects connected to that are automatically bad. Many do not see Nestorius as an issue since Nestorius spoke of Christ as one person (prosopon) in two natures (physis), human and divine---and within that realm of thought, its interesting to see some of the intricacies that were connected on the issue.....as it concerns the subject of Diophysitism. For Dyophysite describes the position of the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) and the term was primarily used by those rejecting the Chalcedonian position, in contrast to their own Christology which was arguably either Monophysite - that is, Christ had one nature that was divine, or Miaphysite - that is, Christ was both divine and human in one nature.

As it concerns the Split in the Church in Rome between EAST and WEST, there was a rivalry that developed between the church leaders and theological schools in the east...and those in the cities of Antioch and Alexandria differed vastly in their approaches to scripture, resulting naturally in specific disagreements theologically. For the Antiochian scholars used a literal hermeneutic, sharply distguishing Christ as Son of God (Deity) and Son of Man (Humanity)---with their primary studies being the person of Christ in the Gospels. Thus, these scholars vigorously opposed any doctrine that denigrated or destroyed Christ’s humanity, including Docetism and Apollinarianism......but consequently, their emphasis on the humanity of Christ caused them be considered as obscuring His Deity.

Conversely, the Alexandrian school greatly subordinated the human nature of Christ to the divine...stressing the transcendental side of Christ’s person.....mainly as a resuly of their mystical, speculative hermeneutic. The Alexandrians concerned themselves with the affect of Christology on Soteriology, whereby they viewed Christ’s divinity as much more important. Ultimately, the focuses of Antioch on Christ’s humanity and the Alexandrians on Christ’s deity produced a natural rivalry, as each school obscured what the other supremely valued. Within the early church philosophical schools of interpretation were often associated with geographic centers. For Antioch in Syria and the churches in the East tended to view Jesus as having two distinct natures, one fully divine and the other fully human, culminating in the person of Jesus (thus the term diophysitism from the Greek words for "two" and "nature"). Thus, they argued, Mary should be spoken of as "the bearer of Christ." An opposing interpretation was offered by the school of Christians associated with Alexandria in Egypt, who insisted that Christ was of one nature only: fully divine (monophysitism), and thus Mary should be termed "the mother of God."

With the First council of Ephesus, they extolled the Monophysite heresy (as they saw it) that was rejected subsequently at Chalcedon, which in many ways vindicated Nestorius since they used his very wording in their confession. Nestorius even subscribed to all the anathemas that came out, with the exception of the Theotokos one, which he thought was nonsense....and Nestorius believed that Jesus was all divine by the Father, and all human by the Mother, and that two substances existed as one, inseparable in One.

This context cannot be forgotten when it comes to understanding what Nestorius was about. Financial aspects cannot be ignored either -
Even with Nestorianism, some have noted that his opposition (in the form of Cyril) was in control of A LOT of gold ( i.e. CASH/MONEY$$$$$), and with it the man carried POLITICAL LEVERAGE over other powerful authorities who chose to support him. The Power of Bribes ( Deuteronomy 10:16-18, 1 Samuel 8:2-4, Proverbs 17:8, Proverbs 29:4, Isaiah 33:14-16, Ezekiel 22:11-13, Amos 5:11-13, Micah 7:2-4, etc ) and the lack of dealing with issues of justice apart from PARTIALITY is always wild to consider. It's something I cannot dismiss with Nestorious..

Another crucial factor with Nestorius we cannot forget is his work in regards to addresisng other heresies that caused him to respond the way he did. We don't live in the same kind of era that Nestorious did and it's hard to really understand what Nestorius was about if we don't know the background - unlike the timeframe Nestorius lived in, there are no cults of Mary (which were supported by Plucheria in the Imperial Court) that are being fought against to influence like it was when Nestorius was seeking to combat them since devotion to the Virgin Mary was a big, driving force and all around the Roman Empire, people believed in venerating or worshiping the Virgin Mary as Mother of God. It makes sense with what occurred when seeing how many people believed that it made Mary sound like the mother of one of the great pagan god and made her a great pagan goddess, at the time when the pagan temples were still standing and there was a worrisome idea of syncretism that tainted the term “Mother of God” for many. And again, others have often noted that it remains open to debate whether Nestorius did in fact hold the views attributed to him - and it's interesting that “Just five days after his ordination, he was busily destroying an Arian chapel, inciting a riot and an outbreak of arson in the process. Within months, he was striking out generally at deviant Christians, against Novations, Quartodecimans, Macedonians, any and all remnants of long-defeated heresies and schisms, as he ordered the seizure of churches and the suppression of services" (more in The Image of the Virgin Mary in the Akathistos Hymn - Leena Mari Peltomaa - Google Books and The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century: A Fresh Look at Some Old and New Sources | Stephen Shoemaker - Academia.edu )


There are many excellent resources on the issue that help to place Nestorious into his proper context - for One of the best scholars around on Syrian culture and the Syriac Orthodox Tradition - Dr.Sebastian Brock - did some good reviews on the issue as it concerns the ways that some things are not as easily understood when considering how terminology can get lost in translations. For more, one can go here or online/check out the book entitled Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology And Liturgy.

Also, there is a great blog about Church of the East theology by an Antiochan Orthodox presbyter who used to be a member of the Church of the East - called "East meets East". The Dialogue with the Assyrian Chruch of the East that has been going on with the Oriential Orthodox Church has been interesting to follow whenever it comes to seeing miscommunications - and properly understanding Assyrian religion and the culture which Jonah himself was sent to... ...or the many ways that others in the East (including those in Islam) have understood the Nestorian model more so than others (as noted in Trinitarian Monotheism? and Nestorian Christians - Non-Traditional Chinese Religions)

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

• Socotra: The Mysterious Island of the Assyrian Church

• The Jesus Sutras (Part 1): Introduction | The Jesus Question

• The Jesus Sutras (Part 10): ?He is the scaling ladder? | The Jesus Question

• Mar Thoma: The Apostolic Foundation of the Assyrian Church and the Christians of St. Thomas in India

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by 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.
​

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.

Even Nestorious had reconsiderations on trying to explain things as it concerns a robust separation of the natures - noting that it was all one person. As for Nestorios, I think one would be in good company to read the earlier and later Nestorious. Sometimes, being exiled to an oasis in the middle of nowhere can give one the time needed to rethink things. Of course, others took things further than he went in amazing ways like Babai the Great....and even St. Isaac of Nineveh had views reminiscent of Nestorius - more in The images of 'heart' and Isaac the Syrian | Hyung Guen Choi - Academia.edu - but that's another issue.

With Nestorius and not demonizing him or anything else associated with his name, as another noted best:

As Matthew Steenberg has commented elsewhere on this site, later generations have created a Nestorianism which Nestorius would not recognise; these things have become labels, and once one penetrates beyond them, one sees how complex and nuanced things were - and are. Demitrios Bethrellos' The Byzantine Christ (2004), which is an excellent work by an impeccably Orthodox scholar, and certainly not well-disposed to non-Chalcedonians, is a good place to find an informed discussion of some of these Christological issues. He acknowledges the insights that came from some of the Nestorian theologians, as well as their limitations. A simple condemnation of a whole tradition, which would, itself, reject the notion that it has ever taught 'two sons', seems an unhelpful approach.
​

[/INDENT​

​

​

]

Comparing Nestorius to his contemporaries who disagreed with him as others do todaY (like with Cyril), I think it's important to look at Cyril of Alexandria in terms of his theology predicated on two states for the Son: the state that existed prior to the Son (or Word/Logos) becoming enfleshed in the person of Jesus and the state that actually became enfleshed in and through the Incarnation – Cyril made the following conjecture: Only the Logos “Incarnate” suffered and died on the Cross and that has implications for how we read Romans 8:3."

As others have noted, logically, there cannot be a’dislocated engagement’ of the Son in relation to Romans 8:3 and the mature thought of Nestorius is a better statement on the ‘integrated engagement’ of the Son in relation to Romans 8:3.

I think it makes sense to note that if God can suffer in his Divinity, then he’s not really God....and there's no suffering divinity in Orthodoxy except in the Incarnation, where it is the Word’s humanity that suffers, not as a separate person, but as the locus of where the suffering occurs. Of course, if the Divine Logos in the Incarnation remains “Impassible” then how does one reconcile this verse from Ephesians 4:30 with Divine Impassibility when it says "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God" then? Personally, here is where I would fall back on apophatic theology, noting the limitedness of our language. Additionally, I would ask others to keep in mind that not all passions are inherently sinful and therefore less than divine. So, there may be something akin to what we call “grief,” but in a way that we cannot fully comprehend, such that we use the word but do not think the use of the word means God himself is sinfully suffering or less than God. We do this with love.... God loves, and we say this, even saying “God is love” and Christ takes on blameless passions and truly has them and weeps over Lazarus, but we do not think God himself is subject to suffering in a manner that makes him subject to something outside himself.

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]This is something that has to be considered even in regards to things noted by Cyril - and on the issue, Fr. John McGuckin’s study, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy ( ) - is really a powerful read when it comes to examining Cyril within the context he developed in and the things left out that impacted others like Nestorius:[/FONT][FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]

• [FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy[/FONT]
  
  [FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]
  [/FONT]

​

I thought it was interesting that John McGuckin suggested that Nestorius proposed the notion of ‘conjunction by interrelation’ (shetike synapheia); indwelling (kat’ enoikasin); appropriation (oikeosis); or by the habituated possession (skhesis) of the human prosopon by the prosopon of the Logos. Essentially, in each of the analogical models one discerns the eternal element of his thought to be an epmphasis on the divine provenience and initiative whereby the Logos binds himself to the man Jesus in an unassailably intimate union, without destroying any of the free capacities of the human life he graces with his unlimited power and presence.

Something to consider is 1 Corinthians 15.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

​

If one can understand the attributions of the ‘New Adam’ in comparison to the ‘Old Adam’ then the relationship of the Godhead to our [New] Humanity in and through the Incarnation becomes immediately clear. A Soteriological inter-fusion by mutual engagement. As said elsewhere:

40. “The divinity makes use of the humanity’s prosopon, and the humanity that of the divinity. In this way we say that there is only one single [inter-fused]prosopon for both. In such a manner is God shown to be complete, since his nature suffers no diminishment from the union. In the same way the man is complete and lacking nothing (as a result of the union) of all the functions and limitations of his nature…The natures are [inter-fused] without confusion and make mutual use of their respective prosopa.”
Nestorius, Heraclides, 172. [remixed...in a single word].​

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Dialogue can make a world of difference....and with Nestorius' thought, we can see the same reality present when it comes to reassessing what Nestorius was actually about and why so many seemed to be fighting against based on a lack of understanding.

On the issue of dialogue, being OO myself (as well as working with EOs) I am aware of others in my own camp which still do not like the Nestorians due to how deep the schism was - and the same goes with regards to battles between the OOs and the EOs as well. But I'm thankful for the work of unification being documented in-depth so that others can be made aware of how much miscommunication in language occurred (more here and here) - as seen in Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles | Dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East and its effect on the Dialogue with the Roman Catholic alongside Ecumenical Relations of the Syriac Orthodox Church as well as Nestorius and Cyril - concept - Villanova University as well as Eastern “Blind Spot” or “Cross-Pollination”? | Orthocath and Ecclesiology and the Dialogues Between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches « Orthodox Unity (Orthodox Joint Commission) (as noted here).

Ultimately, Going back to R.C Sproul, I do hope we can all be a lot more gracious in our assessments of him and where he is going so that we don't make him out to support something he doesn't...​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Was Jesus actually tempted?

Interesting to consider the extent of the temptation.

For I was talking with someone recently (last night, actually) on the issue when it came to considering that even Christ had to deal with the battle of suicidal tendency - radical of a thought as that is since he was the one who noted in Matthew 26:38 "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow - to the point of death" when noting to his disciples that he needed prayer - with the Lord not being one to waste words - and had to repeatedly pray to the Lord just to stay in it since even he asked "If there's any other way"....the Luke 22 account being more intensive when seeing him praying in the Garden and sweating blood.

Hebrews 12 came to mind in our conversation last night when it came to why Jesus prayed many times in the Garden before going further - as Hebrews 12 says : "It was for the Joy set before him that he endured the Cross, scourning its shame...."

To see that Christ himself went through the Human experience can never be minimized....

Jesus is truly love - and on the issue, he truly is the one from where we get our strength since HE is the vine (John 15):

​

 

[hedrick]

Since you’ve quoted me, let me say some things I should have said in that posting but didn’t.

1) I’m not convinced that any significant theologian (including Nestorius) has actually been Nestorian. It’s a remarkably slippery accusation, which generally seems to be combined with other reasons for disagreement (some of them political). After all, no one actually says there are two Christs. But the accusation is commonly used against Reformed by Lutherans. The accusation against Theodore seems to have been primarily for political reasons, and was probably not justified. There's even question whether Nestorius himself was Nestorian.

2) I am personally probably about as close to being Nestorian as anyone. My Christology is fairly typical of mainline theology, which means it’s similar to N T Wright, Richard Bauckham, or (more to the point) Donald Baillie. I’m not sure whether Nestorian as a category actually applies, since that theology doesn’t normally find the ontological categories in which the debate was carried out all that useful. But if you try to impose 5th Cent ontological language on it, that theology (as well as Paul’s theology) could look Nestorian.

However even making that allowance, to say that God the Son doesn’t have a human nature seems at least confusing. Sproul seems to be concerned with protect God the Son's impassibility, which he seems to think is inconsistent with taking on a human nature. (Like many modern theologians, I’m less concerned with divine impassibility than Sproul is. I don’t think the Bible makes God sound very impassible.) But as far as I can tell, even if you believe in impassibility, it would apply only to the divine nature. If you apply it to the entire incarnate person, then Jesus couldn’t have done anything. But I also think the incarnation involves the divine nature. While I tend to take the NT passages on preexistence somewhat non-literally, they do at least seem to say that the Logos was always intended to be incarnated in Jesus, and in some non-literal sense Jesus was there in the form of the Logos even before creation. If that’s right, then the divine nature was always “incarnatable.” The Christian God isn’t a Muslim God who just happened to get incarnated. The Incarnation implies a difference in concept of God: God was suitable for incarnation from the beginning.

So if you’re worried about the incarnation being a challenge to the impassibility of the Logos, I think it’s better to say that the Incarnation didn’t involve any change to God the Son, because he was already incarnatable, than to somehow try to separate God the Son from the Incarnation in order to protect it from change.

But since making the original posting I read more of Sproul. I think the statements quoted are atypical of him. He does speak of God the Son having a human nature elsewhere. He made that comment while trying to make a specific point about impassibility, and for that purpose he made a distinction in terminology that he doesn’t make elsewhere and that I think ultimately he’d find it hard to carry out consistently.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

....While I tend to take the NT passages on preexistence somewhat non-literally, they do at least seem to say that the Logos was always intended to be incarnated in Jesus, and in some non-literal sense Jesus was there in the form of the Logos even before creation. If that’s right, then the divine nature was always “incarnatable.” The Christian God isn’t a Muslim God who just happened to get incarnated. The Incarnation implies a difference in concept of God: God was suitable for incarnation from the beginning.

So if you’re worried about the incarnation being a challenge to the impassibility of the Logos, I think it’s better to say that the Incarnation didn’t involve any change to God the Son, because he was already incarnatable, than to somehow try to separate God the Son from the Incarnation in order to protect it from change.

But since making the original posting I read more of Sproul. I think the statements quoted are atypical of him. He does speak of God the Son having a human nature elsewhere. He made that comment while trying to make a specific point about impassibility, and for that purpose he made a distinction in terminology that he doesn’t make elsewhere and that I think ultimately he’d find it hard to carry out consistently.

Interesting perspectives ... both yours and Sproul's ... subscribing

 

[ananda]

Human <> man

 

[Cappadocious]

I agree with others who noted the following:

Folks, one isn&#8217;t Nestorian unless one believes in Christ having two separate persons. ​

The actual Christology of Nestorius (which is much debated, especially after the discovery of his Bazaar of Heraclitus) does not have direct bearing on the definition of the heresy we call Nestorianism; rather, the belief which was condemned is what has direct bearing on the definition; at least as far as ancient Christianity is concerned.

Constantinople II gives the following condemnations:

I.
If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.



III.
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.



IV.
If anyone shall say that the union of the Word of God to man was only according to grace or energy, or dignity, or equality of honour, or authority, or relation, or effect, or power, or according to good pleasure in this sense that God the Word was pleased with a man, that is to say, that he loved him for his own sake, as says the senseless Theodorus, or so far as likeness of name is concerned, as the Nestorians understand, who call also the Word of God Jesus and Christ, and even accord to the man the names of Christ and of Son, speaking thus clearly of two persons, and only designating disingenuously one Person and one Christ when the reference is to his honour, or his dignity, or his worship; if anyone shall not acknowledge as the Holy Fathers teach, that the union of God the Word is made with the flesh animated by a reasonable and living soul, and that such union is made synthetically and hypostatically, and that therefore there is only one Person, to wit: our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema.



As a matter of fact the word &#8220;union&#8221; has many meanings, and the partisans of Apollinaris and Eutyches have affirmed that these natures are confounded inter se, and have asserted a union produced by the mixture of both. On the other hand the followers of Theodorus and of Nestorius rejoicing in the division of the natures, have taught only a relative union. Meanwhile the Holy Church of God, condemning equally the impiety of both sorts of heresies, recognises the union of God the Word with the flesh synthetically, that is to say, hypostatically. For in the mystery of Christ the synthetical union not only preserves unconfusedly the natures which are united, but also allows no separation.



V.
If anyone understands the expression &#8220;one only Person of our Lord Jesus Christ&#8221; in this sense, that it is the union of many hypostases, and if he attempts thus to introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or two Persons, and, after having introduced two persons, speaks of one Person only out of dignity, honour or worship, as both Theodorus and Nestorius insanely have written; if anyone shall calumniate the holy Council of Chalcedon, pretending that it made use of this expression [one hypostasis] in this impious sense, and if he will not recognize rather that the Word of God is united with the flesh hypostatically, and that therefore there is but one hypostasis or one only Person, and that the holy Council of Chalcedon has professed in this sense the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema. For since one of the Holy Trinity has been made man, viz.: God the Word, the Holy Trinity has not been increased by the addition of another person or hypostasis.



VI.
If anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense, believing that she bare only a simple man and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born; if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her the mother of a man or the Mother of Christ, as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be the Mother of God: let him be anathema.



VII.
If anyone using the expression, &#8220;in two natures,&#8221; does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema.


VIII.
If anyone uses the expression &#8220;of two natures,&#8221; confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression &#8220;the one nature made flesh of God the Word,&#8221; and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.



IX.
If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence of the united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.



X.
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.

 

[James Is Back]

Subscribing myself.

 

[Cappadocious]

There are those who affirm one person in Christ, and yet by "person" they mean the visible facade of an invisible reality.

In other words, they treat Divine nature and human nature as the basic foundations of who Christ is. They treat them as ultimate agents, too, and are thus able to say imprecise or heretical things like, "The human nature made atonement" or "the Divine nature healed people."

We do not say "my human nature is tired," we say "I am tired because of my human nature." If we say, "my hand picked up that spoon," we imply that "I" is the ultimate agent, not the hand.

Orthodox Christians treat his Person as his foundation. We say that Christ's Person is his hypostasis (which means roughly "that which stands under"; a foundation). Christ, the Divine Person, made atonement through his incarnation. Christ healed people by his divinity working through his humanity. Christ has two natures; two natures do not have a Christ.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The actual Christology of Nestorius (which is much debated, especially after the discovery of his Bazaar of Heraclitus) does not have direct bearing on the definition of the heresy we call Nestorianism;

As you quoted, it has often been said the actual Christology of Nestorius does not have direct bearing on the definition - but that is often done after condemning Nestorius in the process as if he always supported the definition.

The Council of Chalcedon went counter to the formula accepted in the 3rd council - and the fact that Leos tome is clearly Nestorian is something to consider, seeing that Nestorius himself, in the Bazaar of Heracles, says that the tome is a "vindication of the truth." For Pope Leo opposed Eutyches&#8217;s extreme theology for mixing and blending the natures of Christ. ...addressing the severe error of the Robber Synod.


On Leo's Tome, as he noted:

He is God by reason of the fact that &#8220;in the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God&#8221; [John 1:1]. He is human by reason of the fact that &#8220;the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us&#8221; [John 1:14]. He is God by reason of the fact that &#8220;all things have been made through him, and without him nothing was made&#8221; [John 1:3]. He is human by reason of the fact that &#8220;he was made out of a woman, made under the law&#8221; [Gal. 4:4].

The fact that it was flesh which was born reveals his human nature, while the
fact that he was born of a virgin gives evidence of the divine power. The state of infancy proper to a child is exhibited by the meanness of his cradle; the greatness of the Most High is declared by the voices of the angels. The one whom Herod sets out to kill is like an ungrown human being, but the one whom the Magi worship with humble joy is the Lord of all. Lest the fact that his flesh was the veil of deity go unrecognized, the voice of God thundered from heaven as early as the time at which he came to the baptism
ministered by his forerunner John: &#8220;This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased&#8221; [Matt. 3:17]. So the one whom the devil&#8217;s cunning tempted as a human being is the same one to whom the angel&#8217;s services were rendered as God. Plainly it is a human think to hunger and thirst and get tired and sleep. But to satisfy five thousand men with bread and to bestow on a Samaritan woman living water whose consumption enables its drinker to
thirst no more, to walk on the surface of the sea without sinking and to moderate &#8220;the swellings of the waves&#8221; when a storm has come up &#8211; that is a divine thing without question. But let us pass over much of the evidence and sum the matter up.

It is not an act of one and the same nature to weep over a friend&#8217;s death in an access of pity and to summon that very friend back to life with the power of a word after opening the grave in which he had been buried for four days; or to hand from the cross and to cause the stars to tremble in their courses after turning day into night; or to be pierced with nails and to open the gates of paradise to the faith of a their. By the same token, it is not an act of one
and the same nature to say, &#8220;I and the Father are one&#8221; [John 10:30], and to say &#8220;The Father is greater than I&#8221; [John 14:28]. Even though there is, in our Lord Jesus Christ, one person of God and of a human being, nevertheless the principle in virtue of which both share in glory is another. A humanity inferior to the Father comes to him from us, and a divinity equal to the Father&#8217;s comes to him from the Father. Because of this unity of person, which must be understood to subsist in a twofold nature, we read that the Son of man came down from heaven (since the Son of God took on flesh from the Virgin of whom he was born), and conversely we say that the
Son of God was crucified and buried (even though he endured these things not in that divine nature in virtue of which, as Only Begotten, he is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of his human nature). Consequently we all also confess in the creed that the only-begotten Son was crucified and buried, in accordance with the words of the apostle: &#8220;For if they had known, they would never have crucified
the Lord of glory&#8221; [1 Cor. 2:8].
​

Moreover, as said elsewhere (for brief excerpt):

That Nestorius and other Antiochenes were accused of preaching &#8220;two persons&#8221; in Christ is therefore not surprising; this misinterpretation typically occurs when &#8220;the context and characteristics of the Christological language of the Antiochene tradition are ignored." One of the main problems seems to have been Alexandria&#8217;s inability to accept the symmetrical Christology of Antioch, where divinity and humanity both played key roles, united in the person of Christ. By contrast, Cyril and other Alexandrians insisted on the subject of their Christology being the divine Logos, with the result that Christ&#8217;s humanity became less important. Any attempt by Nestorius or other Antiochenes to present a balanced picture was interpreted as &#8220;preaching two persons.&#8221; However, Nestorius expressly denies any belief in two Sons or two Christs, ascribing this view to the followers of Paul of Samosata (&#8220;They speak of a double son and a double Christ&#8221. In an exposition of the introduction to John&#8217;s gospel, which refers to the divine Word of God indwelling Christ, he says, &#8220;How then can we understand this to be one Son,and Christ to be another Son, and one that is man only?&#8221;

Elsewhere, he remarks, &#8220;God the Word and the man in whom He came to be are not numerically two&#8221; and &#8220;He is a single(person), but&#8230; He is different in the natures of manhood and Godhead&#8221; and &#8220;I call Christ perfect God and perfect man, not natures which are commingled, but which are united&#8221;(Bethune-Baker 1908, 82-5; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 45-6, 50). Thus, judged by his own words, Nestorius comes across not as a &#8220;heretic,&#8221; but as orthodox, in agreement with the theology articulated at Chalcedon. Indeed, he was incomplete accord with the Tome of Leo, commenting when he read it, &#8220;I gave thanks to God that the Church of Rome was rightly and blamelessly making confessions, even though they happened to be against me personally&#8221; (Bethune-Baker 1908, 191-2; cf. Driver and Hodgson1925, 340). A letter of Nestorius to the inhabitants of Constantinople, probably from 449,further states: &#8220;It is my doctrine which Leo and Flavian are upholding... Believe as our holy comrades in the faith, Leo and Flavian!&#8221; (Loofs 1914, 25).Nonetheless, Nestorius&#8217; use of prosopon is sometimes confusing and undoubtedly supported his enemies&#8217; accusations. Besides describing the union occurring in one prosopon ,he also refers in places to two prosopa in Christ, although the former use is much more common than the latter (Loofs 1914, 79). Anastos concludes that he used prosopon
in two distinct senses: A) &#8220;the exterior aspect or appearance of a thing&#8221; (as Loofs observed) and B)&#8220;an approximate equivalent of our word &#8216;person&#8217;.&#8221; The first relates to the two natures of Christ, indicating that &#8220;each had a substantive reality&#8230; which remained undiminished after the union&#8221; while the second relates to Jesus Christ as &#8220;the common prosopon of the two natures.&#8221; Nestorius is then able to speak of the &#8220;two prosopa (sense A)&#8230; in the one prosopon ( sense B) of Jesus Christ&#8221; (Anastos 1962, 129-30; cf. Chesnut 1978, 402; Uthemann 2007,478). Put another way, &#8220;Nestorius&#8217; theory was that the two distinctly existing persons combine to make a new person, who is called Jesus. Hence, Jesus is one person made up of two persons&#8221; (Braaten 1963, 258). [/B][/U][/I]​

We need to have to keep context in mind at all times

the belief which was condemned is what has direct bearing on the definition; at least as far as ancient Christianity is concerned.

Constantinople II gives the following condemnations

Of course it's appreciated with sharing Constantinople II. Nonetheless, we already know what Constantinople said on the matter (as was referenced earlier). However, distinction in the roles of things happening in one facet of nature are what are in view - as well as seeing whether Nestorius really advocated that concept for life.

This was mentioned earlier when saying the following:

G

T
I agree with others who noted the following:

Folks, one isn&#8217;t Nestorian unless one believes in Christ having two separate persons. And it isn&#8217;t Nestorian to say that something can happen to one nature and not the other, any more than it is Nestorian to say that Jesus sometimes acts according to one nature, and sometimes acts according to the other nature. What is true for the activities of Jesus is also true of the passivities, especially since Jesus actively took upon Himself the suffering.


One must make a distinction, if you will pardon the pun, between the distinction of Christ&#8217;s two natures (which is Chalcedonian!), as opposed to the separation of the two natures (which is Nestorian). But again, here we must say that just because something happens to one nature and not the other does not mean that we are separating the two natures. That is a definite confusion I am seeing in some of the comments. Just because one does not scrape one&#8217;s violin bow across the tuning pegs of a violin does not mean that one has separated the violin strings from the tuning pegs. Now, every analogy will break down, of course. My only point here is that positing suffering of only the human nature of Christ does not constitute Nestorianism in any way, shape, or form.
​

.....................

Ultimately, the Divine Nature is Fully God and Human nature is Fully Man....with the One Person of Christ being in both of the two natures, therefore meaning that the One Person of Christ is both Fully the God-man.

God loves, and we say this, even saying &#8220;God is love&#8221; and Christ takes on blameless passions and truly has them and weeps over Lazarus, but we do not think God himself is subject to suffering in a manner that makes him subject to something outside himself.

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]This is something that has to be considered even in regards to things noted by Cyril - and on the issue, Fr. John McGuckin&#8217;s study, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy ( ) - is really a powerful read when it comes to examining Cyril within the context he developed in and the things left out that impacted others like Nestorius:[/FONT][FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]

• [FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy[/FONT]
  
  [FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]
  [/FONT]

​

I thought it was interesting that John McGuckin suggested that Nestorius proposed the notion of &#8216;conjunction by interrelation&#8217; (shetike synapheia); indwelling (kat&#8217; enoikasin); appropriation (oikeosis); or by the habituated possession (skhesis) of the human prosopon by the prosopon of the Logos. Essentially, in each of the analogical models one discerns the eternal element of his thought to be an epmphasis on the divine provenience and initiative whereby the Logos binds himself to the man Jesus in an unassailably intimate union, without destroying any of the free capacities of the human life he graces with his unlimited power and presence.

[/COLOR][/FONT]

40. &#8220;The divinity makes use of the humanity&#8217;s prosopon, and the humanity that of the divinity. In this way we say that there is only one single [inter-fused]prosopon for both. In such a manner is God shown to be complete, since his nature suffers no diminishment from the union. In the same way the man is complete and lacking nothing (as a result of the union) of all the functions and limitations of his nature&#8230;The natures are [inter-fused] without confusion and make mutual use of their respective prosopa.&#8221;
Nestorius, Heraclides, 172. [remixed...in a single word].​

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/SIZE]

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Since you&#8217;ve quoted me, let me say some things I should have said in that posting but didn&#8217;t.

1) I&#8217;m not convinced that any significant theologian (including Nestorius) has actually been Nestorian. It&#8217;s a remarkably slippery accusation, which generally seems to be combined with other reasons for disagreement (some of them political). After all, no one actually says there are two Christs. But the accusation is commonly used against Reformed by Lutherans. The accusation against Theodore seems to have been primarily for political reasons, and was probably not justified. There's even question whether Nestorius himself was Nestorian.

2) I am personally probably about as close to being Nestorian as anyone. My Christology is fairly typical of mainline theology, which means it&#8217;s similar to N T Wright, Richard Bauckham, or (more to the point) Donald Baillie. I&#8217;m not sure whether Nestorian as a category actually applies, since that theology doesn&#8217;t normally find the ontological categories in which the debate was carried out all that useful. But if you try to impose 5th Cent ontological language on it, that theology (as well as Paul&#8217;s theology) could look Nestorian.

However even making that allowance, to say that God the Son doesn&#8217;t have a human nature seems at least confusing. Sproul seems to be concerned with protect God the Son's impassibility, which he seems to think is inconsistent with taking on a human nature. (Like many modern theologians, I&#8217;m less concerned with divine impassibility than Sproul is. I don&#8217;t think the Bible makes God sound very impassible.) But as far as I can tell, even if you believe in impassibility, it would apply only to the divine nature. If you apply it to the entire incarnate person, then Jesus couldn&#8217;t have done anything. But I also think the incarnation involves the divine nature. While I tend to take the NT passages on preexistence somewhat non-literally, they do at least seem to say that the Logos was always intended to be incarnated in Jesus, and in some non-literal sense Jesus was there in the form of the Logos even before creation. If that&#8217;s right, then the divine nature was always &#8220;incarnatable.&#8221; The Christian God isn&#8217;t a Muslim God who just happened to get incarnated. The Incarnation implies a difference in concept of God: God was suitable for incarnation from the beginning.

So if you&#8217;re worried about the incarnation being a challenge to the impassibility of the Logos, I think it&#8217;s better to say that the Incarnation didn&#8217;t involve any change to God the Son, because he was already incarnatable, than to somehow try to separate God the Son from the Incarnation in order to protect it from change.

But since making the original posting I read more of Sproul. I think the statements quoted are atypical of him. He does speak of God the Son having a human nature elsewhere. He made that comment while trying to make a specific point about impassibility, and for that purpose he made a distinction in terminology that he doesn&#8217;t make elsewhere and that I think ultimately he&#8217;d find it hard to carry out consistently.

Makes more than enough sense - I think a lot of people have read into Sproul...and the same goes for Nestorius, who never really advocated Nestorianism as much as others seem to assume. But as it concerns the Incarnation, there will never be any escaping the reality that it was and always will be a unique event. Additionally, what you noted about impassibility makes a world of difference as well when it comes to the limits of extension with how far one takes it. There was another thread elsewhere addressing the matter, as seen in Does God have emotion? - we understand the UNION of Divine and Human natures of Christ into one person, even though we know that what happened in one did not automatically impact the other in all cases. And there develop (if we're not careful) ideologies that make the Incarnation appear to be an illusion - or we end up making it something that we can fully comprehend in this life when there's the reality of paradox and Divine Mystery as I Timothy 2 notes alongside other scriptures...

Knowing how language can make a difference is one reason others have said there's no problem accepting what Nestorius believed while also condemning the idea that it seemed was being portrayed in his language when it came to him seeking to do justice with showing how differing aspects of Christ's nature had specific elements that did not react in the same way as another - for those in OO culture, there has been a gradual realization of this over time in light of their emphasizing the Oneness of God in Unity which still recognizes ONE nature with differing expressions as opposed to ONE aspect above the other. And there's a realization that even the "Nestorian" theology underwent a major revision under Babai the Great, around the time of the Fifth Council (as noted here) -

Similar dynamics are present today when it comes to Reformed Theology and the language of its expression - and with others like Sproul, unless asked directly on what they mean, it's hard to really say they advocated wrongly for something since no one knows the full heart of what they meant or the context. Here's a video of what Sproul said on the Resurrection of Christ - the nature Christ had and what Christ was about..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkcNtN76-_w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7ZS6WrvLys

 

[hedrick]

One thing I noticed in a brief review of Nestorius (only a couple of his letters -- I've read the Bazaar of Heraclides, but I don't have a copy of it here) is that he tended to see the single person as Christ, made up both of God and man. Nominally this is probably OK according to Chalcedon. But it leads to results that I think are troubling. He is unwilling to say that God died for us. Christ, yes. He's serious about the unity of Christ, and is perfectly willing to say both that Christ died and that Christ is God. But he treats God and human as two components of the union, so that while the united person can be said to die, God can't.

That's not the case with Theodore, who is willing to say that God died, though only by virtue of being incarnate.

My understanding is that the major NT Christological texts see Jesus as the way God becomes present with us. God was in Christ reconciling the world. So it seems to me that whatever your philosophical terms (and I'm not particularly happy with the traditional ones) it needs to see God as being present through the human being in such a way that it is actually God acting.

Now, with reference to the supposed topic of this thread, it just struck me that Sproul may indeed be using the Nestorian model. As I noted above, in his other writing, Sproul is serious about the unity of Christ. In fact he has said in other works exactly what he rejected in the passage quoted in the OP. But in saying that Christ has a human nature while God the Son does not, he's using precisely Nestorius' model: that there's a united person, Christ, to whom we can attribute the characteristics and actions of both natures. But we can't attribute the actions of the man directly to God.

I don't think Sproul holds this position consistently, but I think it explains what he meant by the statement in the OP.

In the past I have been unsympathetic to anhypostasia. This is the idea that the united person is specifically the hypostasis of the Logos, and thus that the situation is asymmetric. There is no human person. What bothers me about this is that it leads a docetic concept of Jesus. To deal with this, the 7th council, and even more medieval Christology, turned the human nature into kind of a pseudo-hypostasis. But the strength of anhypostasia is that it makes it clear that the Logos himself is acting in Jesus, and not a third entity as in my reading of Nestorius. It is Athanasius’ view of the Logos assuming a human, rather than the Logos and a human being united into a composite Christ.

My concern about Athanasius is that he really spoke most of the time of the Logos assuming a human body. That’s clearly unsatisfactory, as the Apollinarian controversy showed. I think the Logos assumed a full human person. I’ll defer to tradition and say that this human person shouldn’t be called a hypostasis, but it’s just like a hypostasis. I refer you to the Summa, 3.2, the last paragraph (reply to objection 3) of SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The mode of union of the Word incarnate (Tertia Pars, Q. 2). The human nature is an individual substance. It’s not considered a hypostasis simply because it’s the incarnation of the Logos, but it’s not missing anything that a normal human hypostasis has.

 

[Cappadocious]

This was mentioned earlier when saying the following:
Originally Posted by Gxg (G²) T
I agree with others who noted the following:

Folks, one isn’t Nestorian unless one believes in Christ having two separate persons.​

​

Instead of fighting about this where we obviously disagree, perhaps jettisoning the term "Nestorianism" for a minute will be helpful.

Let us use, instead, the more general "Docetism," which can refer, in its general meaning, to any incarnation-denying heresy.

Believing Christ has, or is, two distinct persons: Docetism.
Two distinct &#965;&#960;&#959;&#963;&#964;&#940;&#963;&#949;&#953;&#962;: Docetism.
Two distinct foundations: Docetism.
Two distinct subsistences: Docetism.
Two distinct supposits: Docetism.
Two distinct ultimate agents: Docetism.

Agree, or disagree?

 

[Cappadocious]

In the past I have been unsympathetic to anhypostasia. This is the idea that the united person is specifically the hypostasis of the Logos, and thus that the situation is asymmetric. There is no human person. What bothers me about this is that it leads a docetic concept of Jesus. To deal with this, the 7th council, and even more medieval Christology, turned the human nature into kind of a pseudo-hypostasis. But the strength of anhypostasia is that it makes it clear that the Logos himself is acting in Jesus, and not a third entity as in my reading of Nestorius. It is Athanasius&#8217; view of the Logos assuming a human, rather than the Logos and a human being united into a composite Christ.

My concern about Athanasius is that he really spoke most of the time of the Logos assuming a human body. That&#8217;s clearly unsatisfactory, as the Apollinarian controversy showed. I think the Logos assumed a full human person. I&#8217;ll defer to tradition and say that this human person shouldn&#8217;t be called a hypostasis, but it&#8217;s just like a hypostasis. I refer you to the Summa, 3.2, the last paragraph (reply to objection 3) of SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The mode of union of the Word incarnate (Tertia Pars, Q. 2). The human nature is an individual substance. It&#8217;s not considered a hypostasis simply because it&#8217;s the incarnation of the Logos, but it&#8217;s not missing anything that a normal human hypostasis has.

Treating the incarnation of Christ as the assumption of just Aristotle's primary substance, or just Aristotle's kind-nature, both seem unsatisfactory, at least in the treatments with which I've been presented.

Thomas Flint explains the former by attributing a primary substance to Christ named "Created Human Nature", which would be a complete mere human guy if he were not assumed in the incarnation (so there are possible worlds in which the man Jesus lived a sinless life without incarnating the Word). Now, this is obviously a problem.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

One thing I noticed in a brief review of Nestorius (only a couple of his letters -- I've read the Bazaar of Heraclides, but I don't have a copy of it here) is that he tended to see the single person as Christ, made up both of God and man. Nominally this is probably OK according to Chalcedon. But it leads to results that I think are troubling. He is unwilling to say that God died for us. Christ, yes. He's serious about the unity of Christ, and is perfectly willing to say both that Christ died and that Christ is God. But he treats God and human as two components of the union, so that while the united person can be said to die, God can't.

That's not the case with Theodore, who is willing to say that God died, though only by virtue of being incarnate.

My understanding is that the major NT Christological texts see Jesus as the way God becomes present with us. God was in Christ reconciling the world. So it seems to me that whatever your philosophical terms (and I'm not particularly happy with the traditional ones) it needs to see God as being present through the human being in such a way that it is actually God acting.

Some of what Nestorius noted seemed to be in line with the ideology expressed in the Early Church that LIFE ITSELF could never die....as it concerns God being unable to ever be defeated. Hence, for Nestorius, his ideology led him to advocate plainly that Christ was God and Christ could die - but when it came to God the Father and the rest of the Trinity, they could never be extinguished.

Some of this gets into the territory that others have often brought up in Church history when wondering what it means for the Lord to die - with others noting that it was impossible for the devil to defeat the Lord. I Corinthians 15 notes this in detail when it came to death being defeated because of the work of the Lord - as the Author of Life can never be destroyed (John 11)...he can no more be defeated/perish than God can stop being eternal since his very nature will not allow for it. So in a very real sense, it can be noted rather easily that God himself can die (in the person of Christ) even though God himself did not die as it concerns the rest of the Holy Trinity.

The dualistic dynamic with language makes a world of difference - as two natures existed in one person with Jesus, as seen in 2 Cor 5:19 when it notes “that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” and Phil.2:8 notes “Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” Additionally, we see in John 10:18 where Jesus said “no one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of myself.” And yet even though Jesus was God and in communion with the Father, Jesus in committing his spirit to the Lord (as seen when He cried out once more to His Father saying, “Into Your hands I commit My Spirit” and then breathed His last and died) was obviously aware that His Father did not die on the Cross - the Father, who has always existed and NEVER died, was the one Christ (also God) turned to.

William Lane Craig noted this when having to address the issue. In his words:

Christ could not die with respect to his divine nature but he could die with respect to his human nature. What is human death? It is the separation of the soul from the body when the body ceases to be a living organism. The soul survives the body and will someday be re-united with it in a resurrected form. That's what happened to Christ. His soul was separated from his body and his body ceased to be alive. He became temporarily a disembodied person. On the third day God raised him from the dead in a transformed body.

In short, yes, we can say that God died on the cross because the person who underwent death was a divine person. So Wesley was all right in asking, "How can it be, that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?" But to say that God died on the cross is misleading in the same way that it is misleading to say that Christ died on the cross in relation to his human nature, but not in relation to his divine nature.​

Jesus was God - and it was more than possible for God to die, as evidenced in Christ. Nonetheless, God the Father was not the one who died on the Cross even as Christ was fully God/Fully man - and yet the paradox doesn't have to be resolved. We can have the concept of truth in tension - knowing that Jesus really cannot be defeated. For Rev.1:18 says of Jesus “I am He who lives and was dead, and behold I Am alive forever more.”...with this mentioned again in Rev.4:8-9 when it says he is the one “who was and is and is to come.

As another noted best, "Was Nestorius promoting the heretical idea that two distinct persons resided in Jesus? It is hard to say because of the political and ecclesiastical rivalries that involved him in the church. Also, his ambiguous language was easily misunderstood among the many heresies swirling about (e.g. adoptionism, docetism, Apollonarianism, etc.) Nestorius was viewed as not fully appreciating the unity of Christ’s person. The West resolved the debate of the two-natures at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD).......It should be acknowledged that Chalcedon did not entirely remove the mystery of the paradox that exists in the person of Christ. At best, the Chalcedonian Creed states what the “two natures in one person” does not mean"

With Nestorius in what he emphasized when saying Jesus (as God) could die but God the Father (as well as God the Holy Spirit) could not, it really is reflective on several levels with what the early Church noted when it came to Jewish believers (in the first century beforethe councils) had battles as it concerns the concept of the Divine Council - and the reality of the Two Powers in Heaven idea that helped many Jews come to faith in Christ and developa Christological Monotheism since they could understand that the rabbis always taught that God had a lesser power to Him (regent) who was God as well and they co-ruled. Many are not aware of the relationships between rabbinic Judaism, Merkabah mysticism, and early Christianity - as it was the case that "Two powers in heaven" was a very early category of heresy and one of the basic categories by which the rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity...yet they did not understand the reality of what Christianity advocated on the role of the Messiah nor did they know the history of what the rabbis before them had already said in agreement with the Messiah being Divine.


One Jewish scholar who did an amazing job on the issue is Daniel Boyarin, who wrote Two Powers in Heaven; Or the Making of Heresy as well as the book entitled Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (as well as The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John and the work "The Jewish Gospels" where he noted at multiple points where the concept of the Messiah was always rooted in Jewish thought and echoed by what the rabbis said....and for Jews, the two powers are one and a person does not worship one without the other and even Second Temple literature is replete with forms of bitheism, including the philonic logos and the Ezekiel traditions of an Angel of God in the image of a man appearing on the throne. ).


Additionally, Dr. Michael Heisner (of LOGOS Bible Software) did an excellent job covering the issue in his presentation entitled The Naked Bible » Two Powers in Heaven ....more here in The Divine Council and Jewish Binitarianism - YouTube or the following:

Dr. Michael Heiser: The Jewish Trinity - YouTube

Michael Heiser - Two Powers of the Godhead - May 4, 2013 - YouTube

Holy Trinity - Dr. Michael Heiser - YouTube

All of that is again said to bring home the point that Nestorius was very much in line with the Jewish Binatarianism concept - although others are free to debate it.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

trying to read the posts because of the stretch is like eating corn on the cob. I didn't get enough sleep to have grits this early btb

 

[Gxg (G²)]

He's serious about the unity of Christ, and is perfectly willing to say both that Christ died and that Christ is God. But he treats God and human as two components of the union, so that while the united person can be said to die, God can't.

That's not the case with Theodore, who is willing to say that God died, though only by virtue of being incarnate.
.

I agree with you that Theodore seemed to be FAR more refined in his language than Nestorius was when it came to to what he advocated with God being able to die only in a certain sense - although when seeing the whole of what Nestorius said, I can see why he tended to emphasize that God could not die since his audience made a difference. It did not seem to be far from his thoughts that God could die (as it concerns the Incarnation/being incarnate) - but when seeing who he was seeking to combat and how adamant he was in noting that the ENTIRE Trinity never became Incarnate/subject to death ....in addition to the dynamics of language itself changing due to geographical regions one was in..it's not a surprise.

With knowing that Christ as God can die and yet God the Father is separate, Nestorius was not extremely different at many points from Theodore since Theodore advocated similar when it came to the Holy Spirit - as noted before:

Essentially, Theodore's view would be similar to camps within much of the Pentecostal world that emphasize the role and importance of the Holy Spirit in the development of Christ - both in his conception and his development throughout life, despite being God. I appreciate how another noted it when saying "In the thought of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Augustine, Christ became the model of the operation of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of Christians." And this view does go with the many scriptures noting where it was the Holy Spirit who rose Christ from the dead (as Romans 8 and I Peter 3:18 notes among other places) and the Holy Spirit whom Christ did many of his works through.

We see where he noted &#8220;I am the resurrection and the life&#8221; (John. 11:25) and we see what he noted in John 10:17-18 when saying &#8220;I lay down my life that I may take it up again&#8230; I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.&#8221; Additionally, we can see where Hebrews 7:16 says that Jesus lives for ever because he possesses &#8220;the power of an indestructible life.&#8221; So there's no escaping where the Logos was always present - Christ was Divine /fully God.

But the work of the Spirit was highly necessary as it concerns Christ in his humanity - something that was present but had to continually develop (as Hebrews 5:7-9) and was not at its greatest till the Resurrection - Christ, the NEW Adam, showing what man was meant to be and reflecting the process of theosis. Without the work of the Spirit growing him in his humanity - and focusing on that as Theodore did - one ends up missing the purpose of the Incarnation. For Romans 1:4 states that Jesus &#8220;was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead&#8221; (Rom. 1:4) and Romans 8:11 says, &#8220;If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.&#8221;

Jesus was born of the Spirit - filled with the Spirit from the womb, yet baptized in the Spirit later (Matthew 3) and daily growing in th Spirit- and Theodore had no problem with that.

​

[


​

As said best in Theosis, St. Silouan and Elder Sophrony | Everyday Liturgy (for brief excerpt):

... we have the Gospel narrative of the Transfiguration in Luke 9:28, where we first see Christ praying, performing, that is, an act which is proper to His human but not to His divine nature; while moments later, we find His humanity sharing in, indeed resplendent with. His divine glory, which is proper only to the divine nature. Saint Cyril of Alexandria describes the scene in this way: &#8221;The blessed disciples slept for a short while, as Christ gave Himself to prayer. For He voluntarily fulfilled His human obligations (ta anthropina). Later, on waking they became beholders (theoroi) of His most holy and wondrous change&#8221; (5).

Staretz Sophrony points out that the union of the human nature in Christ is of course hypostatic or prosopic, that is to say, that Christ is a divine Person, the Person of the Son and Word of God; but, it is equally important to note that the union of the two natures in Christ is also energetic (6). The significance of this energetic interpenetration of the divine and human natures in each other is of paramount importance for us human beings in that it forms the basis of our own union with God, which is also energetic and not essential or hypostatic. In other words, it proves to us that the example of Christ is also realizable, also attainable, by us human persons, and that theosis to the point of divine perfection, far from being optional, is in fact an obligation.​

• 2013 « Orthodox Unity (Orthodox Joint Commission) « Page 4

• DID AUGUSTINE&#8217;S CHRISTOLOGY DEPEND ON THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA?

• HIGHLIGHTS IN THE DEBATE OVER THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA'S CHRISTOLOGY 1

• Methodology: How We Read the Bible ? Theodore of Mopseustia | Fr. Ted's Blog

• East Meets East: Chalcedon in the Assyrian Church: A Third Helping

Theodore believed in the close and inseperable unions of the Divine and Human natures into one person - the Church of the East reflected his thoughts greatly...


Theodore of Mopsuestia did an excellent job of bringing out the issue of how the human nature is separate from the Divine Nature for Christ - and many of his views make sense when seeing how he saw mankind in its development in general.

In example, Clement of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopseustia held that human death was part of God&#8217;s plan before the Fall - in addition to holding the mindset that Adam was created mortal from day one as a part of his nature.

Theodore notes in his treatise Against Those Who Assert That Men Sin by Nature and Not by Will:

Whether God did not know that Adam was going to sin: this should be the response for these exceedingly wise men, that it is most insane even to consider this notion. It is obvious that [God] knew he was going to sin, and that on account of this he would, without a doubt, die. How then is it not suggestive of extreme madness to believe that first [God] made him immortal, for six hours, &#8230; but appointed him to be mortal after the sin? Because it is certain that if [God] had wanted him to be immortal, not even the intervention of the act of sin would have changed the divine decree, for God did not reduce the devil from immortality to mortality, and he was the originator of all evils!​

To be clear, this argument by no means surrenders the foundational theological principle that death is a punishment for sin, but on the contrary, it assumes it. What it tries to safeguard, however, is divine sovereignty: for if God had created Adam immortal, Theodore argues, he should have remained immortal even in his post-lapsarian state, forever under the punishment of death, with no possibility of redemption&#8212;just like the devil. Essentially, what is on the line is not just Adam&#8217;s ontological transformation, but God&#8217;s justice and sovereignty as well. It was in God&#8217;s justice that death is the appropriate punishment for Adam&#8217;s sin and also the means of deliverance.

As said best elsewhere, Mortality is at once the consequence of sin and an aspect of humanity&#8217;s original state.

As stated by Theodore of Mopsuestia on the need for death:

God did not place death upon man either unwillingly or against his better judgment, neither did he provide access to sin for no good purpose; for he was able, if he did not wish this to be so, to do otherwise. But he knew it was beneficial for us, nay more, for all rational creatures, at first to have access to evils and inferior things, and thereafter for these to be blotted out and better things introduced.

Therefore God divided the creation into two states, the present and the future. In the latter he will bring all to immortality and immutability. In the former he gives us over to death and mutability. For if he had made us at first immortal and immutable, we should not have differed from irrational animals, who do not understand the peculiar characteristics by which they are distinguished.
​

Augustine held views similar to that:

"God, who is supremely good in his creation of natures that are good, is also completely just in his employment of evil choices in his design, so that whereas such evil choices make a wrong use of good natures, God turns evil choices to good use. . . .

City of God 11.17; 14.11.

​

Going back to Theodore, when one sees how he saw Adam, it makes sense as to why He felt that Christ - the SECOND Adam - was similar in many ways, despite the Christ as Logos....AND it is because Adam was limited in his humanity and had to grow in theosis thru fasting/discipline and prayer that Theodore felt Christ had to grow in the same way as well in one side of who He was.

Theodore is similar to camps who say that Christ was God - but he primarily grew in his walk with God (in light of being made like us at all points according to Hebrews 2 and tempted) with his manhood developing as it is with all mankind whom he represents - his will and reliance upon the Holy Spirit aiding in his fulfilling His calling rather than relying on the Logos alone.

It's hard to really understand Theodore outside of really knowing the culture and the context which he grew up in - and for more information that can help with that (as the school he came from in Antioch tended to stress Christ's humanity counter to Alexandria and language meant differently for them ), one can read Christianity in Iraq: Its Origins and Development to the Present Day By Suha Rassam

Theodore addresses the question of the sense in which we can say that God was born and died. He says that God was born and died by virtue of the union, but not by nature. This seems like an inevitable distinction. His actual language could be troubling: "she is God&#8217;s mother, since God was in the man who was fashioned&#8212;not circumscribed in him by nature but existing in him according to the disposition of his will." In speaking of death, he says "because he was with him." But looking at the pattern of his language, he's actually pretty close to Athanasius. Athanasius saw the Logos as using his body as an instrument. That's unsatisfactory, because the incarnation involves more than a body.

​