A few days ago I posted an in-depth explanation regarding some of my concerns with Dr. RC Sproul’s articulation of the Hypostatic Union. Highlighting some specific comments that appeared to be an essentially Nestorian perspective, I explained what I saw to be the problem.
I also commented that I didn’t like doing it, and have in other places commented that I would love to find evidence that this is just infelicitous language, rather than some kind of substantive issue in his theology.
After posting my article, one of my readers pointed me to just such a statement.
In this video, the specific question is asked how Jesus died, but God did not die.
I want to say first, I think that Dr Nichol’s answer is much clearer as an explanation than Dr Sproul’s usually is. He is pretty spot on.
However, what happens when Sproul takes the mic is absolutely priceless in regards to this discussion.
He says specifically that “the God-man, in union” dies “touching his human nature.” He then goes on to explicitly and emphatically says “the person dies.”
His explanation here and answer falls squarely in line with the Chalcedonian definition, and it brings me great joy to say that.
While I think there are still some problems with his articulation, my critique now falls into the realm of linguistic weakness, rather than substantive theological weakness. I would still prefer that Dr Sproul confesses along with the majority of Christian history that God the Son dies on the cross, but as it stands I can joyfully say that my previous critique (although I stand by the fact that based on what was written not taking this clarification into account was an apt assessment) is no longer necessary.