The Hypostatic Union??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prin.Ciples
  • Start date Start date
P

Prin.Ciples

Guest
What is your view of the Hypostatic Union?

The unlearned try to treat the Incarnation as if there really isn't a "union" of natures. They simply appeal to the humanity of Christ or the Divinity of Christ based on which one is in their "theological best interest" at the time.

I'll start by saying that God, Himself, In the Eternal Personage of the Son, was joined much in the same way the "breath" of God produced in Adam a "Living Soul" within a flesh and blood body.......Not that something was actually "produced", but rather being "joined" in the Incarnation. The preexisting, Eternal Son joined with a body of flesh and blood.

I'll expand the thought by saying that Christ was/is different than Adam in the "Living Soul" sense, In that Christ was Impeccable. That, in the Incarnation, Christ was incapable of sin by the power of His Divine, Eternal, Nature.

While I don't agree completely with this article. It is very close to what I believe

https://bible.org/seriespage/person-and-work-christ-%E2%80%94-part-vii-impeccability-christ

Shedd has defined this point of view in these words: “Again, the impeccability of Christ is proved by the relation of the two wills in his person to each other. Each nature, in order to be complete, entire, and wanting nothing, has its own will; but the finite will never antagonizes the infinite will, but obeys it invariably and perfectly. If this should for an instant cease to be the case, there would be a conflict in the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ similar to that in the self-consciousness of his apostle Paul. He too would say, ‘The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me?’ Rom 7:19, 20, 24. But there is no such utterance as this from the lips of the God-man: On the contrary, there is the calm inquiry of Christ: ‘Which of you convinceth me of sin?’ John 8:46; and the confident affirmation of St. John: ‘In him was no sin.’ 1 John 3:5. There is an utter absence of personal confession of sin, in any form whatever, either in the conversation or the prayers of Jesus Christ. There is no sense of indwelling sin. He could not describe his religious experience as his apostle does, and his people do: ‘The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,’ Gal 5:17.”4

What do you believe?

 
FSSL said:
Prin.Ciples said:
The unlearned try...

Nothing like "bait" to get people involved!

Its sorta like heretic and Gnostic isn't it?

I believe it is much kinder and gentler than trying to actually inferring that those who believe in Christ are destined for damnation. At least I haven't stooped to that level. ;)
 
Who said heretics are unequivocally destined for damnation? Can someone provide that quote please?
 
The Chalcedonian Definition said:
We then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers handed down to us.
 
You mean that electric shock you get when you touch your partner in the winter? 
 
rsc2a said:
Who said heretics are unequivocally destined for damnation? Can someone provide that quote please?

Well, I have done a little study of the use of "heretic" within the Scripture. If you had done the same, then you would know the exegesis of John 8:48. Do yourself a favor and know the terms you use to describe someone.
 
"I'm making crap up and cannot provide any evidence so let me throw out a random verse for no reason then imply you are an idiot."
 
rsc2a said:
"I'm making crap up and cannot provide any evidence so let me throw out a random verse for no reason then imply you are an idiot."

I didn't make anything up. You provided no definition for what you believe "heretic" means. If you have, then prove it.

I know what the term means. People do not use such terms to extol the value of those in Christ.
 
Ransom said:
The Chalcedonian Definition said:
We then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers handed down to us.

While I don't believe "Godhead" or "Godhood" is an entirely accurate term to describe the "Ousia" of the Trinity, this is a common translation of the surviving Greek and Latin text. The Latin term being trinitatem from which we get "Trinity".

Do you see any room in the definition to allow for a union of "out of two natures"?

This is not often discussed and it should be. The doctrine of the "Impeccability of Christ" is perfect place to talk about this union. The quote I provided says....

but the finite will never antagonizes the infinite will, but obeys it invariably and perfectly

Do you believe this to be true?
 
Prin.Ciples said:
Do you see any room in the definition to allow for a union of "out of two natures"?

The point of the Chalcedonian Definition is to define the union of two natures.
 
Ransom said:
Prin.Ciples said:
Do you see any room in the definition to allow for a union of "out of two natures"?

The point of the Chalcedonian Definition is to define the union of two natures.

That is also my take on it.
 
Ransom said:
Prin.Ciples said:
Do you see any room in the definition to allow for a union of "out of two natures"?

The point of the Chalcedonian Definition is to define the union of two natures.

I think you're missing my point or purposely ignoring my question. It seems you are unwilling to actually answer my question. I gave an example of the Impeccability of Christ. That Christ's Divine nature could never be subject to the nature of "man" to the point there even existed the possibility that God could sin in the Person of Jesus Christ.

In other words, even though there existed/exists two natures, out of those two natures we have a union in Christ Jesus. A union inwhich one nature is subject to the other. One nature is greater than the other. One nature is Supreme and has absolute authority over the other.

Do you believe each nature had equal authority?
 
bgwilkinson said:
Ransom said:
Prin.Ciples said:
Do you see any room in the definition to allow for a union of "out of two natures"?

The point of the Chalcedonian Definition is to define the union of two natures.

That is also my take on it.

It does very little to describe that union or the scope and application of that union. It talks about the two natures individually as if they have no union and then basically says there is an union.

What do you believe about the Impeccibility of Christ? This is a perfect place to talk about that "union".
 
Prin.Ciples said:
Ransom said:
Prin.Ciples said:
Do you see any room in the definition to allow for a union of "out of two natures"?

The point of the Chalcedonian Definition is to define the union of two natures.

I think you're missing my point or purposely ignoring my question. It seems you are unwilling to actually answer my question.

Or, perhaps, your question was vague or ambiguous or poorly worded. I took my best guess at what you meant by "allow for a union of 'out of two natures,'" because it seemed to be gibberish.

In other words, even though there existed/exists two natures, out of those two natures we have a union in Christ Jesus.

See, this is what I mean by poorly worded. How do you get a union "out of...two natures"? Are you arguing for Eutychianism - that the human and divine were blended in Christ into a new, single nature? What the Chalcedonian Definition argues for is Christ's dual nature united in a single person, without either confusing the natures or dividing the person.

A union inwhich one nature is subject to the other. One nature is greater than the other. One nature is Supreme and has absolute authority over the other.

Which is which, then?
 
Ransom said:
Or, perhaps, your question was vague or ambiguous or poorly worded. I took my best guess at what you meant by "allow for a union of 'out of two natures,'" because it seemed to be gibberish.

Gibberish? I just assumed you knew the subject.

http://www.logoslibrary.org/boethius/eutyches/7.html

See, this is what I mean by poorly worded. How do you get a union "out of...two natures"? Are you arguing for Eutychianism - that the human and divine were blended in Christ into a new, single nature? What the Chalcedonian Definition argues for is Christ's dual nature united in a single person, without either confusing the natures or dividing the person.

The Chalcedonian Definition has long been considered inadequate a description. It was written as a compromise to please various bishops (mostly from the Eastern Church) after the sudden death of emperor Theodosius. It looks as if you weren't as confused as you pretended to be. You knew exactly what "out of two natures" references.

Which is which, then?

What do you mean which is which? Has any human had authority over anything? Quit being coquettish.

Are you going to address the Impeccibility of Christ or not?

No edit. - Ransom
 
Prin.Ciples said:
Gibberish? I just assumed you knew the subject.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions that no one else shares.

The Chalcedonian Definition has long been considered inadequate a description.

By whom? Examples please.

What do you mean which is which?

Duh! You said that in Christ, "[o]ne nature is greater than the other. One nature is Supreme and has absolute authority over the other." So which nature is the supreme one in the person of Christ?

Quit being coquettish.

LOL. I know that you are fully aware of what I was asking above. Of course, I wouldn't accuse you of being a coquette. You're really more of a weasel.

Are you going to address the Impeccibility of Christ or not?

I wasn't aware that a thread titled "The Hypostatic Union??" was actually about the impeccability of Christ. Excuuuuuuuuuse me for staying on-topic.
 
Ransom said:
By whom? Examples please.

Ever heard of Leanne Van Dyk?

Provide references for the definitons influence. The definition never found its way in the "Westminster Confession of Faith". Its largely abandoned until someone wants to use the defintion as evidence of some universal truth agreed upon by a universal concensus with the "church".

I dare say, that most people had no idea it even existed.

Duh! You said that in Christ, one nature dominated the other. Which nature is the dominant one?

I said authority. I did not use the word dominate. You're the one playing word games. I already answered your question. There is no reason to rephrase the question with a word I did not use, and then pretend I never answered the first question.

You're the one who posts innuendo and claims couched in weasel words, and you accuse me of being coquettish? It is to laugh.

Reference the "innuendo"....

I wasn't aware that a thread titled "The Hypostatic Union??" was actually about the impeccability of Christ. Excuuuuuuuuuse me for staying on-topic.

I made it part of my OP. Pardon me for expect you to include it in your responses or say its not rationally part of the discussion and why. Obviously, ethics aren't your "strong suit".
 
Prin.Ciples said:
Ever heard of Leanne Van Dyk?

Nope. Guess she's not that important.

Provide references for the definitons influence. The definition never found its way in the "Westminster Confession of Faith". Its largely abandoned until someone wants to use the defintion as evidence of some universal truth agreed upon by a universal concensus with the "church".

Are you kidding? The Chalcedonian Definition stands alongside the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed as one of the most significant theological statements of the early Church.

I dare say, that most people had no idea it even existed.

That's their problem.

I said authority. I did not use the word dominate. You're the one playing word games.

You know full well what I was asking, weasel. Answer it.

Lord Xenu Almighty, you are dense.
 
Back
Top