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 whatsthe 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.