PRCA Rev. Hoeksema taught all Human Beings, including Christ, are Person + Human Nature.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rainee

Puritan Board Freshman
The study group I belong to discovered the following quote on p. 354 of Rev. Hoeksema's Reformed Dogmatics (1966 single volume version) in his teachings about Nestorianism where he said it is important to make a Person and Nature distinction (defining the human nature as body and soul, including a human mind and a human will).

"Hence, it is certainly correct to say that in the case of the incarnation the Person of the Son came from God, then nature from the virgin Mary. But if this is true of the incarnation, it must also be true of the birth of every human individual. The whole nature is born; the person comes into being by an act of God."

Do you agree with us that this teaching elucidates the Creed of Chalcedon while also clarifying what all human beings are including Christ?
 
Is a human person not body + soul? The body is that which we derive from our parents and the soul is immediately from God.

Christ is a divine person: He has a proper human nature in that He has a body of flesh (derived from the nature of His mother) and a reasonable soul. But this is the human nature of the second person of the Trinity, a divine person. It is the joining together of the divine nature of the Son with the human nature which constitutes the man Christ Jesus (a divine person).
 
But if this is true of the incarnation, it must also be true of the birth of every human individual. The whole nature is born; the person comes into being by an act of God.

It might be true but I am not sure that using the incarnation as a model for all humanity that therefore "must" be true exactly follows. Is not the incarnation of the divine a singularly unique event?

I was just reading Berkhof on the two natures of Christ this past Sunday and there is definitely a distinction between nature and person in his Systematic Theology chapter "The Unipersonality of Christ":

"1. Definition of the Terms 'Nature' and 'Person.' - With a view to the proper understanding of the doctrine, it is necessary to know the exact meaning of the terms 'nature' and 'person,' as used in this connection. The term 'nature' denotes the sum-total of all the essential qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a substance possessed in common, with all the essential qualities of such a substance. The term 'person' denotes a complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. Personality is not an essential and integral part of a nature, but is, as it were, the terminus to which it tends. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality. Now the Logos assumed a human nature that was not personalized, that did not exist by itself. . . .The Logos furnishes the basis for the personality of Christ. It would not be correct, however, to say that the person of the mediator is divine only. The incarnation constituted Him a complex person, constituted of two natures. He is the God-man." (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 321-22, Eerdman's, 1996.)

Berkhof also has a chapter entitled "The Constitutional Nature of Man" which would be helpful but I haven't read it and can't provide much further help.
 
What's the name of this study committee investigating Rev Hoeksema's teachings? You all have been meeting since the summer of 2021, correct?
 
What do you meant, @RamistThomist , by "Here we go again"?

There have been numerous theads (most of which were in a small time frame in 2021) on this topic.
And the 2nd Person of the Trinity did not assume a human person, agreed?

Correct
Isn't the differnce between Christ as a human being and all other human beings is that He is an uncreated infinite divine person, while all other human beings are created finite persons?

This might be grammatical, but I wouldn't call Christ a "human being."

but Adam's human nature pre-existed the creation of his human person?

This is very close to the pre-existence of the soul.
 
I'm not sure what Hoeksema is getting at. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "human nature" something that has existed since...God created Adam? So when an individual is conceived, a person comes into existence, but that person's "human nature" is a product of their parents. I would tend to view a "nature" as independent of any one specific person.

Jesus on the other hand is an eternal person with a divine nature - a product of no one and no thing. At the incarnation, he took on a human nature, from his mother, which was united to his divine nature, but all under the person of Jesus Christ - the God man.

I hope I have not just espoused some heresy.
 
Kindly please, @alexandermsmith , explain your understanding of the Creed of Chalcedon with respect to the contents of your comment.

If the human nature (body and a rational soul, thus including a human mind and a human will) constitutes a person, in and of itself, then aren't you saying the 2nd Person of the Trinity assumed a human person?

Isn't this Nestorianism?
The paragraph above is plain Nestorianism, but how is that even remotely similar to anything Alexander said?
 
So is this "Nestorian Research Group" any kind of legitimate, official body or is it an informal group of people with a theological hobby horse? Is Nestorianism really a major threat to the church where you need to be spending your time?
 
She says she invited you to join our group in early 2021 but you would not respond to the invitation.

I don't recall any of this. It might have gotten lost in the system.
DV you, Jacob, will become an ally instead of a foe, and for this we have been praying for a long time.

I have no idea why you think I am a foe. For the past 15 years I have promoted Patristic Christology.
 
Hopefully this will help you remember how you have been our foe for several years. This all started in 2021 when we came to PB to try to persuade you to delete your comment that kept showing up in Google search results containing erroneous information because you never read Gordon H. Clarks' books on the Trinity, nor his book on the Incarnation. We begged you to delete the comment because in our group's discussions for the preceding year with followers of Clark who were becoming Nestorian many would quote your comment.

Oh, that. No, I'm not deleting that comment. I have been a hostile critic of Clark for almost 20 years. I'm fairly certain no one is becoming Nestorian because of that comment.
 
Dear Puritan Board Admins,

A theologian & pastor whom I respect greatly recommends deleting all of my comments.

Would you please also delete this thread?

FYI: @RamistThomist
 
Dear Puritan Board Admins,

A theologian & pastor whom I respect greatly recommends deleting all of my comments.

Would you please also delete this thread?

FYI: @RamistThomist

Last summer or two I posted and analyzed at least twelve definitions of person from historic church figures. You didn't interact with any of them. You basically just pleaded with me to retract a single quote I made about Clark.
 
A surreal thread.

Check out the others on this point. Surreal is the best word.
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...n-the-cross-”-in-his-incarnation-book.106085/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top