Is John MacArthur a Nestorian?

[paranymph]

exactly what He laid aside in the incarnation.

In him the fullness of deity dwelt bodily. He did not lay anything of his divine nature aside.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

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

Simply put, I think it means what it says.

Identically, except for His being without sin.

In him the fullness of deity dwelt bodily. He did not lay anything of his divine nature aside.

Agreed. But that says nothing of His divine powers.

 

[MarrowMan]

Simply put, I think it means what it says.

Identically, except for His being without sin.

Was Jesus born with a sin nature, humanly speaking?

 

[John The Baptist]

Simply put, I think it means what it says.

Identically, except for His being without sin.


Agreed. But that says nothing of His divine powers.

He upholds the universe by the word of his power. Did He take a break when incarnate?

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Was Jesus born with a sin nature, humanly speaking?

Certainly not!

He upholds the universe by the word of his power. Did He take a break when incarnate?

No.

 

[RamistThomist]

In every way including that he had to lean on the Spirit to resist.

Could the divine essence sin?

 

[MarrowMan]

Certainly not!

You have just identified something that disqualifies "identical" then, haven't you? And a disqualification rooted in nature, nonetheless.

 

[paranymph]

Agreed. But that says nothing of His divine powers.

What do you mean? What of his divine powers did he lay aside?

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Could the divine essence sin?

No.

You have just identified something that disqualifies "identical" then, haven't you? And a disqualification rooted in nature, nonetheless.

Again, Hebrews does state one aspect that is not identical. He was tempted without sin, he had no sin.

 

[RamistThomist]

No

No more questions, your honor.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

What do you mean? What of his divine powers did he lay aside?

I can't define it with precision.

No more questions, your honor.

Far from that.

 

[MarrowMan]

No.


Again, Hebrews does state one aspect that is not identical. He was tempted without sin, he had no sin.

So you are up to two points of non-identity. This isn’t working out well for your identical understanding of “just the same”.

I can't define it with precision.

Yet you feel confident enough to define it as “having nothing to do with” his sinlessness.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Yet you feel confident enough to define it as “having nothing to do with” his sinlessness.

Note, I'm talking about power, not character.

So you are up to two points of non-identity. This isn’t working out well for your identical understanding of “just the same”.

I'm saying what Hebrews says. It makes one exception. I mentioned that exception from the start.

 

[MarrowMan]

Note, I'm talking about power, not character.

I'm saying what Hebrews says. It makes one exception. I mentioned that exception from the start.

Nature =/= character.

Sorry, but you are up to two exceptions. One having to do with response, the other to do with nature. You need to learn to stop presuming what you are to prove, especially when presented with exceptions from that presumption.

 

[Pomopu]

It took me a 5 second google search; Ben, how would you respond?
modus tollens:

1. If it is possible that Jesus could sin, then it is possible that the Second Person could sin.

2. It is false that it is possible that the Second Person could sin.

3. Therefore, it is false that it is possible that Jesus could sin.

 

[MW]

I'm saying what Hebrews says. It makes one exception. I mentioned that exception from the start.

To be clear, Hebrews never says that Jesus could sin. That is an extrapolation you are making from the fact He was tempted. OTOH, Hebrews says much more than the single exception that He was without sin. It states very clearly that Jesus is the Son of God, and it is as the Son of God that He comes to fulfil the office of high priest in a higher order than the sons of Aaron. So the question really is, Can the Son of God, a Divine Person, sin? Only once you have answered that question are you in a fit position to extrapolate from His temptation.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

It took me a 5 second google search; Ben, how would you respond?
modus tollens:

1. If it is possible that Jesus could sin, then it is possible that the Second Person could sin.

2. It is false that it is possible that the Second Person could sin.

3. Therefore, it is false that it is possible that Jesus could sin.

In a sense, I would very much agree! He did not sin, and so proved he would not sin.


But then again, what is the point of temptation if someone is utterly incapable of choosing to sin? Is Christ really the second Adam if he is incapable of eating the fruit?

Jesus did not walk calmly to gethsemane, there was a real battle. These all seem to me (feel free to point out where I'm wrong) to be signs that there where the pieces of the puzzle that made the choice logically possible, in the he had the ability to sin, apart from His will. But His will will not sin, and thus in a sense He cannot.

To be clear, Hebrews never says that Jesus could sin. That is an extrapolation you are making from the fact He was tempted. OTOH, Hebrews says much more than the single exception that He was without sin. It states very clearly that Jesus is the Son of God, and it is as the Son of God that He comes to fulfil the office of high priest in a higher order than the sons of Aaron. So the question really is, Can the Son of God, a Divine Person, sin? Only once you have answered that question are you in a fit position to extrapolate from His temptation.

I don't think you chaps are hearing the nuance I'm drawing, look at the post above.

 

[MarrowMan]

In a sense, I would very much agree! He did not sin, and so proved he would not sin.


But then again, what is the point of temptation if someone is utterly incapable of choosing to sin? Is Christ really the second Adam if he is incapable of eating the fruit?

Jesus did not walk calmly to gethsemane, there was a real battle. These all seem to me (feel free to point out where I'm wrong) to be signs that there where the pieces of the puzzle that made the choice logically possible, in the he had the ability to sin, apart from His will. But His will will not sin, and thus in a sense He cannot.


I don't think you chaps are hearing the nuance I'm drawing, look at the post above.

You aren’t answering questions and we see you

 

[MW]

But then again, what is the point of temptation if someone is utterly incapable of choosing to sin? Is Christ really the second Adam if he is incapable of eating the fruit?

When a sinner tempts God he doesn't tempt God to sin. When God tempts Abraham He doesn't tempt him to sin. You are making a gratuitous assumption about temptation.

The question is, Is He really the second Adam if He is not the Lord from heaven? As in Adam all die, so In Christ shall all be made alive. He is the second Adam, and more than Adam.

 

[erickinho1bra]

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).

You’re saying Jesus did not have a divine nature?

 

[Elias_Amare]

Jesus did not walk calmly to gethsemane, there was a real battle. These all seem to me (feel free to point out where I'm wrong) to be signs that there where the pieces of the puzzle that made the choice logically possible, in the he had the ability to sin, apart from His will. But His will will not sin, and thus in a sense He cannot.

"Scripture, however, prompts us to recognize in Christ, not just an empirical sinlessness, but a necessary sinlessness as well. He is the Son of God, the Logos, who was in the beginning with God and himself God. He is one with the Father and always carries out his Father’s will and work. For those who confess this of Christ, the possibility of him sinning and falling is unthinkable. For that reason Christian theology maintained, against Arians, Pelagians, and nominalists such as Duns Scotus, Biel, Durandus, Molina, and others that Christ could not sin. For in that case either God himself would have to be able to sin—which is blasphemy—or the union between the divine and the human nature is considered breakable and in fact denied."
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 3: Sin and salvation in Christ, P. 314

Also, see "The revelation in the probation of Jesus" on Vos's, Biblical Theology Old and New Testaments and W.G.T. Shedd; Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, Christology, ch. 5, pp. 330-349

 

[RamistThomist]

This is probably the single greatest lecture on Christology ever given. I've gone through this lecture series probably 20 times. You will learn a million times more Christology from this one lecture than from a dozen seminary classes. I don't agree with some of his so-called Barthian moments, but McCormack is probably the most formidable Reformed theologian alive (in distinction from renowned historians like Muller). Everything I learned about theological analysis I got from him.

Go to Lecture #5

2011 Kantzer Lectures Archives

henrycenter.tiu.edu

 

[Ben_Leevey]

You’re saying Jesus did not have a divine nature?

No. He does.

 

[RamistThomist]

No. He does.

But you are using sloppy language. You earlier said he has a holy nature, which is true, but tells me nothing if it is divine or human. When you were presented with the modus tollens which proved Jesus could not sin, you agreed, saying he would not . Could and would mean very different things.

This is why, to echo an earlier discussion, you need dogmatics and confessions. They protect one from vague thinking.

 

[MarrowMan]

No. He does.

Scripture is quite clear in tying nature and will together. A Biblicist like yourself needs to come to terms with that.

 

[alexanderjames]

Much of the debate over the peccability of Christ seems largely to be over words.

I do appreciate the motivation behind wanting to assert that in some way there was a hypothetical ability for Christ to choose sin, because we want to uphold the fact that He lived as a man, and was subject to the all the consequences of the fall in this world, with the exception of sin in Himself.
Sinclair Ferguson rightly emphasised this point when asked by Sproul about his views on the question. Warfield's contribution is similarly important in this regard ('The Emotional Life of our Lord'). Philippians 2:7 is a difficult passage theologically.

That all being said, I am in agreement with those above that strictly speaking it is not correct to conclude that Christ was able to sin as the comments above make abundantly clear.

 

[Pomopu]

This is probably the single greatest lecture on Christology ever given. I've gone through this lecture series probably 20 times. You will learn a million times more Christology from this one lecture than from a dozen seminary classes. I don't agree with some of his so-called Barthian moments, but McCormack is probably the most formidable Reformed theologian alive (in distinction from renowned historians like Muller). Everything I learned about theological analysis I got from him.

Go to Lecture #5

2011 Kantzer Lectures Archives

henrycenter.tiu.edu

Word. Thanks for this. Your high praise tells me it will be well worth watching this lecture and lecture series.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Could and would

Agreed! I was trying to make that distinction. I'm sorry I was unclear.

you are using sloppy language

I'm sorry, I will try to be more precise. None is holy outside of God. Psalm 14. Romans 3.

This is why, to echo an earlier discussion, you need dogmatics and confessions. They protect one from vague thinking.

That is part of the problem in my mind. Do you know that

Much of the debate over the peccability of Christ seems largely to be over words.

I do appreciate the motivation behind wanting to assert that in some way there was a hypothetical ability for Christ to choose sin, because we want to uphold the fact that He lived as a man, and was subject to the all the consequences of the fall in this world, with the exception of sin in Himself.
Sinclair Ferguson rightly emphasised this point when asked by Sproul about his views on the question. Warfield's contribution is similarly important in this regard ('The Emotional Life of our Lord'). Philippians 2:7 is a difficult passage theologically.

That all being said, I am in agreement with those above that strictly speaking it is not correct to conclude that Christ was able to sin as the comments above make abundantly clear.

Baptist's use the 1689 to prove that people can be saved eternally without knowing the gospel?

Scripture is quite clear in tying nature and will together. A Biblicist like yourself needs to come to terms with that.

Sorry brother, I struggle with pulling up exactly what your referencing. Could you quote the scriptures you have in mind?

That all being said, I am in agreement with those above that strictly speaking it is not correct to conclude that Christ was able to sin as the comments above make abundantly clear.

As far as his will, totally agree brother! There are nuances here that I think we're struggling to pin down.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm sorry, I will try to be more precise. None is holy outside of God. Psalm 14. Romans 3.

Again, the question is not whether Christ has a holy nature, but whether he has a divine nature as well as a human nature.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

Again, the question is not whether Christ has a holy nature, but whether he has a divine nature as well as a human nature.

He did and does. But what is essential for His nature to be divine is the question.