Kristen

I see “Christ” as a role or title, not a statement of the Son’s nature, whether human or divine. “Christ” means “the Anointed One, the Messiah.” I do think that the Son took on the role and title “Christ/Messiah” when He was incarnated– but can we really say that He is ONLY Messiah in His human flesh and not in His divine nature? Is the Son divided to that extent? Look at 1 Cor. 8:6: ‘for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things– and we exist through Him.” Paul makes it clear that it is also as the Christ that He is the Lord by Whom all things exist and through Whom we exist. The Word and the Christ are not so divided from one another that we can say only the Word can create and only the Christ can save. John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . full of grace and truth.” Then in verse 17, “Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” He did not cease to be the Word when He became Christ. He was, in God’s divine anticipation, the Christ even before He became flesh, for He was appointed to be slain from the very foundation of the world. We must not make Him into two beings rather than one divine/human Entity.
The Word and Christ are not synonymous, but that doesn’t mean we can divide them up into slices. And “Christ” is not merely a reference to His human nature, though He needed to become human in order to complete the Christ’s task. “Christ” is Who He is, just as much as “the Son” or “the Word.” Whatever Cheryl may have meant when she wrote to NN, I cannot agree that His natures should be separated like that.