Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I want to point out that the "critique" of PSA that was shared earlier in the thread was written by some lawyer who dabbles in theology and is not reflective of what actual Orthodox authorities teach. This Twitter account does a good job of exposing Orthobroxy which masquerades as real Orthodoxy.

 

[Iakobos]

the "critique" of PSA that was shared earlier in the thread was written by some lawyer who dabbles in theology

Ad hominem, attacking the author not the argument; made ironic by immediately pivoting to contrast a random anon X account as a strong and valid source.

what actual Orthodox authorities teach.

You're not fooling anyone, you don't care what Orthodox authorities and the consensus of the fathers teach and you're once again appealing to authority that you don't recognize as authority as a transparent attempt to make a 'gotcha'. If you were actually interested to know and present the Orthodox teaching, and not strawman it, it would be ludicrous to use this quote as your cornerstone. This asymmetrical tactic of yours does not bear engaging with so I will not be drawn into a tit-for-tat quote mine battle. But for any other readers I will share St. Athanasius, a true foundational Orthodox authority, teaching that the purpose of Christ's death was to purify, atone and heal humanity from corruption.

St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation:

Although being himself powerful and the creator of the universe, he prepared for himself in the Virgin the body as a temple, and made it his own, as an instrument, making himself known and dwelling in it. And thus, taking from ours that which is like, since all were liable to the corruption of death, delivering it over to death on behalf of all, he offered it to the Father, doing this in his love for human beings, so that, on the one hand, with all dying in him the law concerning corruption in human beings might be undone (its power being fully expended in the lordly body and no longer having any ground against similar human beings), and, on the other hand, that as human beings had turned towards corruption he might turn them again to incorruptibility and give them life from death, by making the body his own and by the grace of the resurrection banishing death from them as straw from the fire.

You can read or simply CTRL+F the entire treatise: punish, 0 results, wrath, 0 results. Nothing about Father abandoning Son.

The funny part is that it's impossible to find Patristic quotes debunking PSA. Why? Because no one taught PSA in the first 1000 years of the Church.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The funny part is that it's impossible to find Patristic quotes debunking PSA. Why? Because no one taught PSA in the first 1000 years of the Church.

None of the Fathers debunked it because they taught it. It is actually you who doesn't care about what Orthodox authorities teach. All you are interested in is presenting some malformed anti-Protestant brand of Christianity. You cited some lawyer who's not even a ranking church member and you sooner believe him than you do actual priests, bishops, and church fathers because he scratches your ears. So much for tradition.

 

[Iakobos]

None of the Fathers debunked it because they taught it.

Claim: PSA wasn't taught by the Church Fathers of the first 1000 years.
Counter-Claim: PSA WAS taught by the Church Fathers of the first 1000 years.
Supporting Evidence: A quote from the 21st century.

IDK maybe debate ain't for you homie.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Claim: PSA wasn't taught by the Church Fathers of the first 1000 years.
Counter-Claim: PSA WAS taught by the Church Fathers of the first 1000 years.
Supporting Evidence: A quote from the 21st century.

IDK maybe debate ain't for you homie.

Well Ive already cited a quote from Augustine that you ignored. I'll cite it again for posterity's sake:

"Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment which follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment." (Contra Faustum)

And just for kicks I'll cite more of them:


But please, tell us more about how you know better than these teachers.

 

[Iakobos]

None of those quotes are teaching your Calvinist PSA lol. And for the 1000th time you're being dishonest by appealing to the fathers when you don't ascribe authority to the fathers (what a joke that you accuse me of setting myself over them when doing so is literally your foundational position as a Sola Scripturist). I'm not going to waste my time engaging with a position that you will happily retreat from when it suits you. Such snaky behavior.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

None of those quotes are teaching your Calvinist PSA lol. And for the 1000th time you're being dishonest by appealing to the fathers when you don't ascribe authority to the fathers (what a joke that you accuse me of setting myself over them when doing so is literally your foundational position as a Sola Scripturist). I'm not going to waste my time engaging with a position that you will happily retreat from when it suits you. Such snaky behavior.

No. None of those quotes are teaching the anti-gospel that you are spreading, which is denying that Christ was punished for our sins in our place in order to save us.

It's not dishonest of me to cite the Church Fathers. I can cite them to point out that you're a hypocrite who doesn't follow them whenever they say something you don't believe in, even though you pretend like you follow them. The standards that you love to apply to others, I'm applying to you.

 

[Giordano Bruno]

Okay, I think it might just be a error, but reading the Terminology section of the Miaphysite Wikipedia, the refutation for Miaphysitism is arguing that Saint Cyril said Jesus had One Nature.

That makes no sense to me, is it an error of citation or something? Why would Dyophysites argue for their opponent? Surely it's the opposite and the wording is the other way around.

Even then, that's not an argument against Miaphysitism. It's just an argument against Saint Cyril explicitly saying it.

For the idea that he is referring to a rough equivalent to hypostasis, is hypostasis anti-Miaphysite because I like using that word.

Miaphysitism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The word miaphysite derives from the Ancient Greek μία (mía; "one") and φύσις (phúsis; "nature"). Miaphysites claim that the teaching is based on Cyril of Alexandria's formula μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, meaning "one physis of the Word of God made flesh" (or "... of God the Word made flesh"), with early miaphysite Christians claiming such terminology was furthermore present in early patristic writers such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Julius I of Rome, and Gregory Thaumaturgus.[6]

However, Dyophysites interpret Saint Cyril's reference to "one nature" to mean Christ's human nature as the adjective "incarnate" is used in reference to nature and not person. The 451 Council of Chalcedon used physis to mean "nature" (as in "divine nature" and "human nature"), and defined that there is in Jesus one hypostasis (person) but two physeis (natures). It is disputed whether Cyril used physis in that sense.

John Anthony McGuckin says that in Cyril's formula "physis serves as a rough semantic equivalent to hypostasis".[7] The 431 Council of Ephesus used physis to signify the single subjecthood of Christ and also condemned speaking of two physeis (natures) in various homilies contained within the official minutes.[8]

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

For the idea that he is referring to a rough equivalent to hypostasis, is hypostasis anti-Miaphysite because I like using that word.

Neither side has the monopoly on hypostasis/person. Both sides agree that the Son is one person. They disagree about the physis/nature/natures of the Son.

No one would dispute that Cyril explicitly referred to one nature in that quote. The question is if he was using the word 'nature' in a miaphysite sense since the word's meaning would depend on its context. Sometimes, physis can refer more to 'character' than strictly 'nature'.

I find it unlikely that Cyril was a miaphysite since he elsewhere explicitly refers to Christ as having two natures that are unmixed but united, which is the dyophysite position.

 

[Giordano Bruno]

Neither side has the monopoly on hypostasis/person. Both sides agree that the Son is one person. They disagree about the physis/nature/natures of the Son.

No one would dispute that Cyril explicitly referred to one nature in that quote. The question is if he was using the word 'nature' in a miaphysite sense since the word's meaning would depend on its context. Sometimes, physis can refer more to 'character' than strictly 'nature'.

I find it unlikely that Cyril was a miaphysite since he elsewhere explicitly refers to Christ as having two natures that are unmixed but united, which is the dyophysite position.

Where did he say this? I found a source for one of his letters where he says Christ has one nature.

“Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts, but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one phusis [nature] of the Son, as one, however, one who became man and was made flesh.”

Letter 40 To Acacius of Melitene (153-167)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32b26n

Here's a Scribd file containing the later. Pages don't seem to fit, so Letter is on page 170/254.



In Letter 44, he elaborates more and it gets kinda confusing...

”For we, when asserting their union, confess one Christ, one Son, the one and same Lord, and finally we confess the one incarnate phusis of God. It is possible to say something such as this about any ordinary man, for he is of different natures, both of the body, I say, and of the soul. Both reason and speculation know the difference, but when combined then we get one human phusis. Hence knowing the difference of the natures is not cutting the one Christ into two.”

”…again he says that the man born of woman is separately another Lord conjoined to the first by worthiness or equality of honor. But how is saying that in this way God the Word is named Christ because he has the conjoining with Christ not clearly stating that there are two christs, if a christ has a conjoining with a christ as one with another? But the bishops from the East have said no such thing; they only separate the sayings. And they separate them in this manner. Some are proper to his divinity, others are human, and others have a position in common as being both proper to his divinity and his humanity.”

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Cyril of Alexandria Letter to John of Antioch

We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself. For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as pertaining to the one person, and other things they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity [to his humanity].

@Giordano Bruno
What is your take on this?

I think the quotes you cited were fairly potent as well. To describe the natures as a "combination" would seem to be out of reach for dyophysitism, but to then say that the two natures are "unmixed" would seem to be out of reach for miaphysitism. Though, the "combination" seems to refer to human nature in general, a combination of body and soul. Not about Christ having one nature as in a combination of Divine and human nature.

 

[Giordano Bruno]

Cyril of Alexandria Letter to John of Antioch



@Giordano Bruno
What is your take on this?

I think the quotes you cited were fairly potent as well. To describe the natures as a "combination" would seem to be out of reach for dyophysitism, but to then say that the two natures are "unmixed" would seem to be out of reach for miaphysitism. Though, the "combination" seems to refer to human nature in general, a combination of body and soul. Not about Christ having one nature as in a combination of Divine and human nature.

I don't think any Oriental Orthodox Churches would say Miaphysitism means the Natures are mixed in the union.

Miaphysitism asserts that after the Incarnation, the divine and human natures of Christ are united into one composite nature, without separation, confusion, or alteration. This doctrine is held by the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

If they are mixed, then Jesus isn't Fully Human and Fully Divine, he is something else.

So with my laymen's understanding, I would not call Christ's Nature of God and Man mixed.

I'm not an expert though.

This was what I found online.

Zoxsasi
July 2013
The Coptic Orthodox Church says that God took flesh from St Mary and United it with His Divinity in the person of Christ.

The union between both natures was without mingling, nor confusion, NOR did they separate, for a moment, or "a twinkle of an eye".

we do not talk about the unity as if it is like two elements mixing and creating a new substance - i.e. like Carbon and Oxygen can combine to create Carbon Dioxide. No. It is a hypostatic union. Its more along the lines of Fire uniting with metal. When fire unites with a metal, the fire remains fire.

Divinity and humanity of Christ

What are the different views on the unity of the two? ie. Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox.

tasbeha.org

It seems that God's natures mixing was a pre-existing heresy that the Oriental Orthodox Church does not accept.

D) The Heresy of Eutyches (Eutychianism):
Eutyches was an archimandrite of a monastery in Constantinople. He zealously
opposed the Nestorian heresy and was so highly concerned about the unity of the two
natures in Christ, which Nestorus tore apart, that he fell into another heresy.
Eutyches said that the human nature was absorbed and dissolved in the Divine nature
as a drop of vinegar in the ocean. In this way, he denied the human nature of Christ.
After St. Dioscorus had excommunicated him, Eutyches pretended that he repented and
accepted the true faith and St. Dioscorus allowed him to return on the condition that he
would refute his heresy. Later on however, he again declared his corrupt belief and was
condemned by the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 A.D., and was also
excommunicated by the Coptic Church.

https://www.copticchurch.net/pdf/theology/nature_of_christ.pdf

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I don't think any Oriental Orthodox Churches would say Miaphysitism means the Natures are mixed in the union.



If they are mixed, then Jesus isn't Fully Human and Fully Divine, he is something else.

So with my laymen's understanding, I would not call Christ's Nature of God and Man mixed.

I'm not an expert though.

This was what I found online.

Divinity and humanity of Christ

What are the different views on the unity of the two? ie. Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox.

tasbeha.org

It seems that God's natures mixing was a pre-existing heresy that the Oriental Orthodox Church does not accept.

https://www.copticchurch.net/pdf/theology/nature_of_christ.pdf

At that point then, the difference in terminology seems to be a distinction without a difference.

I think the boundary markers between Orientals and the other sacerdotalist churches will remain since they are borne more from political history than theology proper, but the theology is essentially the same between them on this issue.

 

[Giordano Bruno]

At that point then, the difference in terminology seems to be a distinction without a difference.

I think the boundary markers between Orientals and the other sacerdotalist churches will remain since they are borne more from political history than theology proper, but the theology is essentially the same between them on this issue.

“Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts, but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one phusis [nature] of the Son, as one, however, one who became man and was made flesh.”

I'm not sure I'd agree.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

“Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts, but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one phusis [nature] of the Son, as one, however, one who became man and was made flesh.”

I'm not sure I'd agree.

Yeah, that's a pretty powerful statement. I don't think I could go as far as to say that the "distinction is done away with." Yet, when you then assert that Christ's one nature is a composite, unmixed nature of the two natures then you start getting more into a semantical difference over a real, pragmatic one. I would argue that to assert one composite nature is to still recognize that there is a real distinction between the two natures.

 

[Giordano Bruno]

Yeah, that's a pretty powerful statement. I don't think I could go as far as to say that the "distinction is done away with." Yet, when you then assert that Christ's one nature is a composite, unmixed nature of the two natures then you start getting more into a semantical difference over a real, pragmatic one. I would argue that to assert one composite nature is to still recognize that there is a real distinction between the two natures.

I agree it seems like semantics to any layman, but I don't think it actually is.

We say One Nature, because after the Union, they have become as One.

Just as how we say after marriage, Man and Women become one flesh.

Similarly, to say that Jesus' human nature is dissolved is a heresy because it implies that his human nature is diminished, even if it recognises both a Union and Distinction between two natures.

To be honest, I would hope we would not be judged for not getting this kind of theology perfectly right because I myself find it complicated and confusing, but in the end, we are yet to know.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I agree it seems like semantics to any layman, but I don't think it actually is.

What is the practical difference then?

 

[Read_Lives_of_Saints]

What is the practical difference then?

This is the best explication that I've read:

"One night, the Most Holy Mother of God and Saint John the Theologian appeared to Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea, and revealed with great clarity the mystery of the unity of the divine Nature and of the distinction of the three Persons in these words:"

'There is only one God, Father of the living Word, of the hypostatic Wisdom, of the eternal Power and of the eternal Imprint. He is the perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten. There is one only Lord, the Unique come forth from the Unique, God come forth from God, Imprint and Image of the Divinity, all-accomplishing Word: Veritable Son of the Veritable Father, Invisible come forth from the Invisible, Eternal come forth from the Eternal. There is one only Holy Spirit, who proceeds from God the Father and is revealed by the Son. He is the origin of life, the Holy well-spring and principle of sanctification. In Him, God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all, manifest themselves—perfect Trinity. In the Trinity there is nothing created or subservient, nothing subsequent, which has not always been. Thus, neither has the Son ever been lacking to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son.'

 

[Giordano Bruno]

What is the practical difference then?

To add, the Bible says God is one many times. It never says God is two, or refers to Christ's nature or natures. I think that being able to say God has one Nature that is the Union of Man and God is important, because the whole point of Christ was that God became Man so that Man could become God.

The most high descended to our level, instead of the reverse.

I think being able to say that gives greater credence to the whole Bible, and as God is truth, I think that we should aim to find the truth in all things to be closer to him, just as we should love greatly that we may have him within us.

James 2:19
King James Version
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Furthermore, that lack of discussion or even notoriety of Miaphysitism confuses me.

I find it strange that despite Protestantism finding fault in Roman Catholicism, I can't find a single example of a Miaphysite Protestant Church.

The only Miaphysite Churches are to my knowledge, Oriental Orthodox. Why I find odd. As you said, it is not really even mutually exclusive with Dyophysitism. We do not declare Dyophysitism heresy, and while there was some confusion over us being Monophysites, today nobody calls Miaphysitism heresy.

So then, I have to question why so few embrace it.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

@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.

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.