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?

 

[Giordano Bruno]

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.

I think I've come up with something.

So, before Christ was born, he didn't have a human nature yet right?

That's why Saint Cyril says after the Union we do not speak of two.

In this way Dyophysitism is vague temporally. It implies that the Union hasn't finished yet.

In essence it does not clearly testify the birth of Christ.

This I think is why Jews can join the Roman Catholic Church to subvert and then leave. It is like a gap in a fortress.

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?

Saint Cyril certainly did, but he also affirmed that the Union made them as one.

It's not a case of being allowed either. What matters is a Churches Official Theology. As laity we follow the Church.

That's why I brought it up. Protestants are weirdly diverse in opinion yet in some ways they are not.

You have Jehovah's Witnesses, but no Miaphysites. It seems strange to me.

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

The implication is that like him being his own Divine person, he has his own will. Yet like how we submit our Will to him to join with God, he submits his Will to the Father in his perfect humility.

He is without sin, yet he chooses to serve the Father.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

That's why I brought it up. Protestants are weirdly diverse in opinion yet in some ways they are not.

You have Jehovah's Witnesses, but no Miaphysites. It seems strange to me.

I don't grant that JW's are Protestants or even Christians. Not only are they not Trinitarian, they outright deny Sola Scriptura, asserting the necessity of human tradition.

The Reformers, being descendents of the Western tradition, were Chalcedonian in their Christology. The West was always Chalcedonian. It was only in the East that this issue was as controversial as it was.

The implication is that like him being his own Divine person, he has his own will. Yet like how we submit our Will to him to join with God, he submits his Will to the Father in his perfect humility.

My point is the source you cited speaks of two wills after the Incarnation. Not a will of Jesus and a will of the Father, but two wills of Jesus. This is no different than Chalcedonians recognizing a distinction of the two natures after the Incarnation as well.

 

[Giordano Bruno]

My point is the source you cited speaks of two wills after the Incarnation. Not a will of Jesus and a will of the Father, but two wills of Jesus. This is no different than Chalcedonians recognizing a distinction of the two natures after the Incarnation as well.

I do not think Wills are the same as Natures. Afterall, isn't it 3 Divine Persons, not 2, as One Being that is the True God?

That brings me to another point which I nearly forgot about.

Pope Shenouda III in the source I read brought up that the complexity of the Trinity and the inability to fully understand it is an argument in it's favour.

It is a Divine Mystery. The Sun can burn your eyes out from a distance of 92 million miles, so we should not expect to easily comprehend the nature of it's creator.

I feel that Miaphysitism matches this, while Dyophysitism does not. Two Natures that are united is rather simple. One Nature of Both Man and God in which neither are changed, altered, mingled, separated or divided.

We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I do not think Wills are the same as Natures. Afterall, isn't it 3 Divine Persons, not 2, as One Being that is the True God?

What's funny about this is that the Monophysite controversy had implications for another controversy about a century later, Monothelitism. The logic is that the will is a product of the nature, and if Christ is said to have two natures, then He must also have two wills. To speak of two wills already implies a Chalcedonian Christology, or at least shows it's necessity.

I feel that Miaphysitism matches this, while Dyophysitism does not. Two Natures that are united is rather simple. One Nature of Both Man and God in which neither are changed, altered, mingled, separated or divided.

The real mystery is the Hypostatic Union, which both Miaphysitism and Chalcedonianism affirm.

That said, I don't think deciding the truth of one or the other based on it's mystery factor is the best way to go about things. That is more of the Greek philosophical approach, but my concern is over what aligns best with what the Scriptures teach. That will be the deciding factor for me.

 

[Giordano Bruno]

What's funny about this is that the Monophysite controversy had implications for another controversy about a century later, Monothelitism. The logic is that the will is a product of the nature, and if Christ is said to have two natures, then He must also have two wills. To speak of two wills already implies a Chalcedonian Christology, or at least shows it's necessity.

It is rather amusing yes, though I would argue it doesn't make Chalcedon necessary. If the two natures are unchanged and unaltered but yet unified in One, we should surely assume the same of the Wills also.

The real mystery is the Hypostatic Union, which both Miaphysitism and Chalcedonianism affirm.

That said, I don't think deciding the truth of one or the other based on it's mystery factor is the best way to go about things. That is more of the Greek philosophical approach, but my concern is over what aligns best with what the Scriptures teach. That will be the deciding factor for me.

For that, I can only refer to my previous arguments that the Bible repeatedly says that God is one.

Galatians 3:20
King James Version
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Romans 12:5
King James Version
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Surely, if we ourselves are one body in Christ, there is no need to say that Christ Natures are two either, for they have joined, as we join with him.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

It is rather amusing yes, though I would argue it doesn't make Chalcedon necessary. If the two natures are unchanged and unaltered but yet unified in One, we should surely assume the same of the Wills also.

Correct, and yet he spoke of two wills anyway. Even he sees the necessity of recognizing the distinction in the two natures (Chalcedonian Christology). He may not be consistent with it, but it's unavoidable. At some point, you have to speak about two wills and two natures unless you utterly conflate them.

For that, I can only refer to my previous arguments that the Bible repeatedly says that God is one.

Galatians 3:20
King James Version
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Romans 12:5
King James Version
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Surely, if we ourselves are one body in Christ, there is no need to say that Christ Natures are two either, for they have joined, as we join with him.

These are not comments on Christ's nature(s).

"God is one" in Galatians 3:20 is not about Christ's human and divine natures but about God directly ratifying the Abrahamic Covenant to Abraham without a mediator (as opposed to the Law).

As for Romans, do you believe that Christ's body is a divine body or a human body?

 

[Giordano Bruno]

Correct, and yet he spoke of two wills anyway. Even he sees the necessity of recognizing the distinction in the two natures (Chalcedonian Christology). He may not be consistent with it, but it's unavoidable. At some point, you have to speak about two wills and two natures unless you utterly conflate them.


These are not comments on Christ's nature(s).

"God is one" in Galatians 3:20 is not about Christ's human and divine natures but about God directly ratifying the Abrahamic Covenant to Abraham without a mediator (as opposed to the Law).

As for Romans, do you believe that Christ's body is a divine body or a human body?

So a good friend of mine talked with me today. He's my first Soul Father's son Abba Michael.

We briefly touched on this subject and he brought up Metaphysics because it's one of his passions.

One thing he found really strange is that point I mentioned about the Wikipedia article saying Dyophysite argue Saint Cyril was Dyophysite because he was Miaphysite.

I'd appreciate help finding if that's true, because it still makes no sense to me.

The other thing was that he said we exist on different planes. There is an older self and younger self, and a self in a darker place and in a lighter place. But they are all you.

Just as the Saints said that the Bible has many parables. It is not merely literally true, it is also metaphorically true, spiritually true and scientifically true.

For God is the truth.

Of course this doesn't make my specific interpretation better than yours, but I think it's a beautiful way to look at the Bible, since the whole point of Christ descending to us was God becoming Man so that Man could become God.

In that sense, we become One. I think in both Nature and Being also. We may not agree on this, and I will admit to bias since I of course believe my Church is right, but do you understand where I am coming from?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

One thing he found really strange is that point I mentioned about the Wikipedia article saying Dyophysite argue Saint Cyril was Dyophysite because he was Miaphysite.

Both sides like to claim Cyril for their own. Chalcedonians believe they're accurately reflecting Cyril's theology, just as Miaphysites do.

Of course this doesn't make my specific interpretation better than yours, but I think it's a beautiful way to look at the Bible, since the whole point of Christ descending to us was God becoming Man so that Man could become God.

I agree that Miaphysitism lends itself to the Theosis schema better. That said, Theosis is more of an Eastern emphasis. Theosis was popularized by an Alexandrian theologian, Athanasius, the same school that championed Miaphysitism. For the West, the overarching emphasis was not in trying to have man become God but to have man reconciled to God, which Chalcedonianism lends itself to very nicely since the two natures emphasize the duality that God unifies.

 

[Giordano Bruno]

Both sides like to claim Cyril for their own. Chalcedonians believe they're accurately reflecting Cyril's theology, just as Miaphysites do.

No, you do not understand. The Wikipedia claims they state he was Dyophysite because he was Miaphysite.

Miaphysitism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Giordano Bruno]

I agree that Miaphysitism lends itself to the Theosis schema better. That said, Theosis is more of an Eastern emphasis. Theosis was popularized by an Alexandrian theologian, Athanasius, the same school that championed Miaphysitism. For the West, the overarching emphasis was not in trying to have man become God but to have man reconciled to God, which Chalcedonianism lends itself to very nicely since the two natures emphasize the duality that God unifies.

On this, I think I agree with you.