Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[Giordano Bruno]

@Giordano Bruno

So far, my question hasn't been addressed. In my opinion, miaphysitism and dyophysitism, both properly understood, amount to nothing more than a semantical difference. If you insist that it's more than a semantical difference, then lay out what the practical difference is.

Dyophysitism doesn't deny that the divine nature is united with the human nature. They affirm the hypostatic union. If you're saying that the two natures are united in such a way that they are mixed or conflated then that is indeed monophysitism, which is heresy.

As I said. The Bible says God is One.

It would be pretty odd if the Bible didn't include a description of Christ's own Nature, wouldn't it?

Practically speaking, I think knowing the Truth brings you closer to God. Though, there is a humility in not thinking oneself discerning enough to find it.

Miaphysitism gets a bad rap because it gets confused for monophysitism and because the Second Council of Ephesus was a fiasco. To be clear, I recognize the difference between monophysitism and miaphysitism, but the imprecision of miaphysite language can lead to monophysitism.

I do not consider miaphysitism to be heresy, in fact, anyone who believes in the hypostatic union already affirms a oneness, but I favor the dyophysite formula because it better safeguards against monophysitism.

What do you mean by safeguarding better?

Why would you decide theology based on how to avoid heresy? Isn't that something that we have examples of actually leading to heresy multiple times?

The truth is the truth. Do not fear. He promised the Church would never end in Daniels 2.

365 ‘Do not be afraid’ verses?

I recently saw a post on Pinterest which declared that ‘Do not fear’ is written in the Bible 365 times – ‘one for each day of the year’. This sounded very encouraging. Having done some Bible …

millyjonesblog.wordpress.com

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

As I said. The Bible says God is One.

It also describes Jesus as God and man.

Practically speaking, I think knowing the Truth brings you closer to God. Though, there is a humility in not thinking oneself discerning enough to find it.

This is still too vague. Are you saying that miaphysites are closer to God than dyophysites because of the terminology they use?

What do you mean by safeguarding better?

Why would you decide theology based on how to avoid heresy? Isn't that something that we have examples of actually leading to heresy multiple times?

I mean that dyophysite language is clearer and therefore doesn't slope into monophysite heresy as easily as miaphysitism does. One of the chief points of the councils was to decide on theology that best avoids heresy.

 

[Giordano Bruno]

It also describes Jesus as God and man.

Let me quote Pope Shenouda III because to be honest I am not as versed in this subject as I should be.

"Naturally, as long as we consider that this Nature is One, the Will and the Act must also
each be one. What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen
by the human nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever
between the will and the action of both.

The Lord Jesus Christ said: "My meat is to do the Will of Him that sent Me to finish His
work. " (Jn. 4:34). This proves that His Will is the same as that of the Father. In this
context, He said about Himself "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees
the Father do, for what things soever He does, these also does the Son likewise. " (Jn.
5:19).

He does not seek for Himself a will that is independent of that of the Father.
Consequently He Says "Because I seek not Mine Own Will, but the Will of the Father,
who has sent Me. " (Jn. 6:38).

It is obvious that the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity have One Will, for the
Lord Jesus Christ said: "I and My Father are One," (Jn. 10:30).
Hence, since He is one with Him in the Godhead, then He is essentially one with Him
concerning the Will. Again, the Son, in His Incarnation on earth, was fulfilling the Will of
the heavenly Father. Thus it must be that He Who united with the manhood had One
Will.

If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His human
nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict. Far be it from Him! How then could
Christ be our guide and our example... to follow in His footsteps (1 Jn. 2:6)?.
The complete righteousness which marked the life of our Lord Jesus was due to
His Divine as well as His Human will.

This is still too vague. Are you saying that miaphysites are closer to God than dyophysites because of the terminology they use?

Not because of terminology, I believe it is a more accurate belief. To speak of two after the Union has happened is inaccurate.

I mean that dyophysite language is clearer and therefore doesn't slope into monophysite heresy as easily as miaphysitism does. One of the chief points of the councils was to decide on theology that best avoids heresy.

I did not know that.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Not because of terminology, I believe it is a more accurate belief.

So far, you haven't provided an example of how it draws you closer to God. You're essentially saying "My terminology will draw you closer to God than your terminology will." I could simply assert the same thing, but it would be meaningless. Unless you can give a pragmatic difference in what the terminology results in, the issue is still only theoretical and semantical.

To speak of two after the Union has happened is inaccurate.

Am I allowed to recognize that the divine nature is not the same thing as the human nature after the union or do I have to believe that they are identical to each other?

"Thus it must be that He Who united with the manhood had One Will."

"The complete righteousness which marked the life of our Lord Jesus was due to
His Divine as well as His Human will."

So which is it? Does Jesus have only one will or two, a divine and human will?