The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed by Anjela Paje of Spokane, WA, from the tape, GC 1301-X, titled "Bible Questions and Answers Part 26."  A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE.  ©1983. All Rights Reserved.

Questioner

I have a question that has, basically, two parts. First part is more of semantics, and that is, our D. E. [Discipleship Evangelism] Manual refers to my Lord, Jesus Christ as having two natures, the divine nature and the human nature. And, in some of our dealings with people I run across, this conjures up ideas of psychological problems, split personalities and what. And, then wondering would you think it would be better to refer to my Lord Jesus Christ as being totally God and totally man, or fully God and fully man? And the other part of the question is this, one of these concepts, in other words, the two-nature concept vs. the fully-God and fully-man concept. Is one of these concepts more apt to lead to heresy?

John MacArthur's Answer

Well, I don’t think one or the other is more apt to lead necessarily to heresy because you’re only talking about semantics. You know, words can have meaning that varies from person to person. That’s why we talk about buzz words. You know, you can say a word that conjures up all kinds of meanings. When you say two natures, Christ has two natures--the Bible doesn’t say that. And, so I understand why they say that because they’re trying to unscrew the unscrutable. They’re trying to explain the inexplicable. And, it’s true that Jesus Christ is God, and He is man.

I would choose, myself, to say He is fully God and fully man at the same time. And, I would, I would rather talk in those terms of apparent paradox because they’re more biblical. I mean, He is expressed in the scripture as fully God. He is also presented as fully man. When you start using psychological terminology, which is the two-nature terminology, I think it’s a little confusing.

The same thing occurs when we’re talking about Romans 7. We do that with Christians, we say they have an old nature and a new nature, and again, we’re sort of compartmentalizing them psychologically, which isn’t really biblical, either. Those aren’t terms used in reference to a Christian, so, I, I always opt out for a biblical term because I think you protect the content that way. As soon as you use a nonbiblical term to refer to a biblical idea or theological truth, then you have to give it meaning, or you have to let the culture, as they understand it give it meaning. But, if it’s in scriptural terms, the Bible is its context. So, I would prefer that.

Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur's Questions and Answers" by:

Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Our websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
Online since 1986