Is John MacArthur a Nestorian?

[Pomopu]

Monophysite is not a term that Orientals gave themselves. Later Chalcedonians, many of whom would not have been in agreement with much of Cyril, used it to mean that the the divine nature absorbs the human nature like a glass of wine absorbs a drop of water.

Miaphysite means a specific hypostasis, the Logos, took on the properties of flesh. They would not cash it out between human nature and divine nature. For them, nature is a universal, and Jesus didn't take on the universal of the entire human race. He took on specific properties.

Severus of Antioch said in Christ after the union there is difference but not duality. Severus is operating with the older Athanasian view that physis = hypostasis, existent reality. Because there cannot be “two existent Jesuses,” there can only be one hypostasis in Jesus. His opponents, by contrast, are working with a newer, post-Basil the Great, understanding of hypostasis and ousia.

In other words, a substance, on the post-Cappadocian reading, is the common property of a class, be it divinity or humanity. The problem, as Severus sees it, is to form a particular hypostasis from two common universals. For, the common class of humanity would include all humans! Even worse, the whole Trinity would have assumed all of humanity!

Rather, following Gregory of Nazianzus, the whole Trinity “is above substance and above nature, and is not subject to these designations” (Allen, Severus of Antioch 85). Because substance is capable of division, we do not use substance (as such) to refer to the Trinity. The two “natures” are not “substances,” for they do not hold together many hypostases (87). Furthermore, because the two are not “substances,” divinity and humanity cannot create a new tertium quid (91).

Ok, ok ok. I think I understand. Thank you much.

 

[PreDustined]

Completely agree

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Okay. I must have been confused.

Well, if that is the case, then RC Sproul certainly had a Nestorian streak.

Sproul did have a Nestorian streak, though he wouldn't have acknowledged it himself. He believed it was ok to have images of Christ because he didn't think they were images of a divine person. Similarly, he believed it was theoretically possible for Christ to have sinned, whereas the classic (and correct) view is that he could not have sinned because his actions are the actions of a divine person, and a divine person cannot sin.

 

[RamistThomist]

Well, if that is the case, then RC Sproul certainly had a Nestorian streak.

That is correct, and he was wrong for that.

 

[MyCrows]

Sproul did have a Nestorian streak, though he wouldn't have acknowledged it himself. He believed it was ok to have images of Christ because he didn't think they were images of a divine person. Similarly, he believed it was theoretically possible for Christ to have sinned, whereas the classic (and correct) view is that he could not have sinned because his actions are the actions of a divine person, and a divine person cannot sin.

I'm curious if you have a source for this. I have actually never heard him posit this before.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I'm curious if you have a source for this. I have actually never heard him posit this before.

www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/could-Jesus-have-sinned

The best theologians, past and present, have been divided on the question of whether Jesus could have sinned. I believe that since Jesus was fully human, it was possible for him to sin. - Sproul

I may be wrong, but I think it is wrong to believe that Christ's divine nature made it impossible for his human nature to sin. - Sproul

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Sproul did have a Nestorian streak, though he wouldn't have acknowledged it himself. He believed it was ok to have images of Christ because he didn't think they were images of a divine person. Similarly, he believed it was theoretically possible for Christ to have sinned, whereas the classic (and correct) view is that he could not have sinned because his actions are the actions of a divine person, and a divine person cannot sin.

Okay... well then maybe I am Nestorian! Or a combination. I do believe that theoretically Christ could have sinned. One question would be, why do we say he was tempted if he had no ability to sin?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Okay... well then maybe I am Nestorian! Or a combination. I do believe that theoretically Christ could have sinned. One question would be, why do we say he was tempted if he had no ability to sin?

I'd advise against identifying with heresies that have been condemned by every Christian church for the last 1550+ years. Perhaps you could read some commentaries on Hebrews 4:15.

 

[paranymph]

Okay... well then maybe I am Nestorian!

Let's not go there! Sproul certainly wouldn't.

 

[RamistThomist]

Okay... well then maybe I am Nestorian! Or a combination. I do believe that theoretically Christ could have sinned. One question would be, why do we say he was tempted if he had no ability to sin?

Again, Sproul is wrong. An invincible army could still be attacked, but that doesn't mean it will lose. And if there were a possibility that Christ could have sinned, then some form of open theism, albeit a mild form, obtains.

 

[Knight]

Nestorius rejected that Christ's humanity is anhypostatic. From The Bazaar of Heracleides:

…the union of the prosôpa took place for the prosopon and not for the ousia and the nature. It is not indeed that one ousia without hypostasis should be conceived, as if by union into one ousia and there were no prosôpon of one ousia, but the natures subsist in their prosôpa and in their natures and in the prosôpon of the union. For in respect to the natural prosôpon of the one the other also makes use of the same on account of the union; and thus [there is] one prosôpon of the two natures. The prosôpon of the one ousia makes use of the prosôpon of the other ousia in the same [way]. For what ousia seekest thou to make without a prosôpon? That of the divinity? Or that of the humanity? Therefore thou wilt not call God the Word flesh nor the flesh Son.

 

[Pomopu]

Okay... well then maybe I am Nestorian! Or a combination. I do believe that theoretically Christ could have sinned. One question would be, why do we say he was tempted if he had no ability to sin?

Arguing he could have sinned then, implies he could still sin now, given he has not essentially changed, though he has been glorified. Jesus is God, no? God can't sin; why might Jesus, the Word become flesh, have been able to sin? 'Cuz, he is truly God.

Nestorius rejected that Christ's humanity is anhypostatic. From The Bazaar of Heracleides:

…the union of the prosôpa took place for the prosopon and not for the ousia and the nature. It is not indeed that one ousia without hypostasis should be conceived, as if by union into one ousia and there were no prosôpon of one ousia, but the natures subsist in their prosôpa and in their natures and in the prosôpon of the union. For in respect to the natural prosôpon of the one the other also makes use of the same on account of the union; and thus [there is] one prosôpon of the two natures. The prosôpon of the one ousia makes use of the prosôpon of the other ousia in the same [way]. For what ousia seekest thou to make without a prosôpon? That of the divinity? Or that of the humanity? Therefore thou wilt not call God the Word flesh nor the flesh Son.

Also, what is the significance of this quote, and what does this quote mean?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

People defend Nestorius, the man, and say he was misunderstood. Whether it is so or not, or whether he should have been condemned along with the theological position that bore/now bears his name--

The fact remains that the position defined, with the name "Nestorianism," is properly heretical.

(side note: Rev. Winzer pointed this out several years ago; just thought I ought to acknowledge)

 

[Knight]

Also, what is the significance of this quote, and what does this quote mean?

Nestorius is saying:

1. Natures subsist in prosopa.
2. The divinity and humanity must each have its own prosopon.
3. The union of the prosopa (the prosopon of the divinity and the prosopon of humanity) took place for the prosopon [of Christ].

John McGuckin writes that Cyril of Alexandria

“…was appalled by the way Nestorius kept referring to the different prosopa as well as to the prosopon of the union… The problem was that Nestorius was using one and the same technical term to connote the disparate concepts of differentiation and convergence: there are two prosopa (Jesus and the Logos) and only one prosopon (Christ). There is of course, no sensible context whatsoever that would allow one to speak of three prosopa."

Christ is a prosopon, implying "prosopon" = person (or else we really have a Christological problem), "prosopa" = persons.

If prosopon = person, though, then #1 and #2 mean Christ's humanity subsists in its own person. In other words, Christ's humanity is not anhypostatic. The implication - despite Nestorius' attempt to unite the prosopa into a third prosopon - is two persons, two Sons, two worships. Thus, you can reread him as saying:

"The person of the one essence makes use of the person of the other essence" (and vice versa).

This is very bad, obviously.

 

[JvMill]

Reading the actual JMac quote it seems like he is mostly just ignorant, not trying to be Nestorian.

Seems that when he says it wasn’t the blood of God he is trying to say God doesn’t have blood in his nature, since he is spirit - which is correct.

But he must be ignorant to the fact that such phrases (Mary the mother of God, the blood of God, one of the Trinity died for us, etc.) are technical theological phrases to express orthodox Christology.

And he misinterprets Acts 20:28.

And he just ain’t that theological.

Also, he actually held to a Christological heresy, I’m pretty sure, the one where the Son wasn’t a Son until his baptism (even though he did have pre existence). I don’t remember the exact name though.

 

[Knight]

Reading the actual JMac quote it seems like he is mostly just ignorant, not trying to be Nestorian.

Seems that when he says it wasn’t the blood of God he is trying to say God doesn’t have blood in his nature, since he is spirit - which is correct.

But he must be ignorant to the fact that such phrases (Mary the mother of God, the blood of God, one of the Trinity died for us, etc.) are technical theological phrases to express orthodox Christology.

And he misinterprets Acts 20:28.

And he just ain’t that theological.

Also, he actually held to a Christological heresy, I’m pretty sure, the one where the Son wasn’t a Son until his baptism (even though he did have pre existence). I don’t remember the exact name though.

Adoptionism

 

[JvMill]

Adoptionism

I thought it was a little different than straight up adoptionism, but I could be mistaken. He took ‘today I have begotten you’ to mean the relationship to the first and second person of the Trinity was not a Father Son relationship until his baptism.

That, to me, is way more clear and worse.

 

[Pomopu]

Nestorius is saying...

Ok final question, is "an" or "en" hypostatic union the correct one?

 

[Knight]

Ok final question, is "an" or "en" hypostatic union the correct one?

Considered on its own, Christ's humanity is anhypostatic (impersonal).

Of course, Christ's humanity never exists on its own at all. It was enhypostatized (assumed into the hypostasis of) the Logos.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

I'd advise against identifying with heresies that have been condemned by every Christian church for the last 1550+ years. Perhaps you could read some commentaries on Hebrews 4:15.

Tempted without sin! Yes! But that doesn't mean tempted without the hypothetical possibility of sin.

Let's not go there! Sproul certainly wouldn't.

It really depends on the precise definition.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Again, Sproul is wrong. An invincible army could still be attacked, but that doesn't mean it will lose. And if there were a possibility that Christ could have sinned, then some form of open theism, albeit a mild form, obtains.

Christ could not have sub-came to temptation in reality. He would have if he could have, there was no man tempted more ferociously. But He always had the choice, and ability to choose.

And he certainly did not call on His deity, once in his lifetime. He lived by the same Spirit we do. I very important thing to understand.

He was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin. In every way including that he had to lean on the Spirit to resist. An amazing truth! It overwhelms the soul. God Himself, becoming dependent as we are.

 

[Pomopu]

Considered on its own, Christ's humanity is anhypostatic (impersonal).

Of course, Christ's humanity never exists on its own at all. It was enhypostatized (assumed into the hypostasis of) the Logos.

Okkkk, ok ok. Thank you. I'm learning much today

 

[MarrowMan]

Christ could not have sub-came to temptation in reality. He would have if he could have, there was no man tempted more ferociously. But He always had the choice, and ability to choose.

What do you think this means? What does "the ability to choose" mean to you?

 

[Ben_Leevey]

What do you think this means? What does "the ability to choose" mean to you?

It means that he had open to Him the option, and could have chosen it, apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, in whom he rested perfectly.

His divinity had nothing to do with it.

 

[MarrowMan]

It means that he had open to Him the option, and could have chosen it, apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, in whom he rested perfectly.

His divinity had nothing to do with it.

So he was absolutely free to choose whatever, with no contribution from His nature whatsoever?

 

[Ben_Leevey]

So he was absolutely free to choose whatever, with no contribution from His nature whatsoever?

Yes. But not apart from the Godhead's power.

We have the Spirit, He had the Spirit.

I don't know if Adam did.

 

[MarrowMan]

Yes. But not apart from the Godhead's power.

We have the Spirit, He had the Spirit.

I don't know if Adam did.

I see. So one's nature and one's choice are separated from each other?

 

[MW]

I thought it was a little different than straight up adoptionism, but I could be mistaken. He took ‘today I have begotten you’ to mean the relationship to the first and second person of the Trinity was not a Father Son relationship until his baptism.

Yes, he denied the eternal Sonship, but to his credit he later repudiated his error.

https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A235/reexamining-the-eternal-sonship-of-Christ

I think you are correct that it is simply ignorance, not a conscious acceptance of Nestorianism.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

I see. So one's nature and one's choice are separated from each other?

Brother Ryan, the LORD had a holy nature. But there is some mystery about exactly what He laid aside in the incarnation. We do know He was tempted just as we are except without sin. This can't be if he had a divine nature to call on. If he depended on the same Holy Spirit we do, that is not different from the conditions under which we are tempted, except that He is and was without sin (note: I'm not saying He's tempted now).

 

[MarrowMan]

Brother Ryan, the LORD had a holy nature. But there is some mystery about exactly what He laid aside in the incarnation. We do know He was tempted just as we are except without sin. This can't be if he had a divine nature to call on. If he depended on the same Holy Spirit we do, that is not different from the conditions under which we are tempted, except that He is and was without sin (note: I'm not saying He's tempted now).

What do you think "just as we are" means?