The 2 Natures in Christ

[civic]

In orthodoxy, Christ has two natures, human and divine, in one person.

In Nestorianism, Christ has two natures, human and divine in two persons.

Your solution to the erroneous two persons of Nestorianism, is to agree that there
cannot be two natures in one person and, therefore, to deny the human person,
asserting a divine person only, with a human nature simply added.
It is still Nestorianism, for in resolving the two persons error, you simply delete one of the persons and ascribe human nature to no person.
The remedy is worse than the malady.

Two problems:
1) Ontologically, there cannot be a human nature without a human person.
2) A perfect human person is required to qualify as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of human persons.

In orthodoxy, the one person of Christ is both divine and human due to his two natures.

Try telling me something I don’t know . My OP says the same thing about His Person and natures .

The problems mentioned are off topic.

 

[donadams]

All believers in Christ are the holy priesthood of believers (1 Pe 2:5, 9) offering spiritual sacrifices (Ro 12:1, Php 4:8) of praise (Heb 13:15) and doing good (Heb 13:16).

You right! But that’s not the low priests
Christ is eternal heb 7:17 and high priest heb 8:1 according to the order of melchisedec not the royal priesthood of the faithful
Thanks

 

[Eleanor]

Try telling me something I don’t know . My OP says the same thing about His Person and natures .

The problems mentioned are off topic.

You wish.

Assertion without demonstration is without merit.

 

[Binyawmene]

You are contradicting yourself: both divine and human vs. only divine with a human nature.

Couple of questions:

1. Are the properties of Divine and human from the natures or from the Person?
2. Cyril argument against Nestorian: You can't have it both ways. If the Son-Person is in the human nature is both Divine and human, then would that imply the self-same Divine and human Son-Person in the Divine Nature too? So, the Divine nature has the property of humanness?
3. The Divine Son-Person that assumed a human nature. What constitutes Him as a human?

When a Hypostatic Unionist use the phrase "God in the flesh," the word "God" in the phrase means "God the Son" (second person in the Trinity) according to the Divine Nature and he is the same underlying person of the human nature (Chalcedonian language Latin "subsistence" or Greek "hypostasis"). The created human nature has no person 'existing prior to or apart from' the incarnate Son (or the Divine Person), while instantaneously and synchronously, the human nature is 'existing in and through' the Divine Person. Technically the created human nature was not for a moment impersonal rather created in-personal and made completely in the Divine Person. And he goes by the name Jesus Christ in the incarnate state. And "Jesus Christ" refers to both God and man (we don't separate God from the man, it's the self-same individual) when Scriptures are taken as a whole.

Nestorius was involved into Apollinarism and Arianism debates, even though they lived centuries apart. Which Arius is the one who claimed that hypostasis and ousia has the same meaning. And the Council in Alexandria, in 362. under Athanasius resolved such issues, and after this the usage of hypostasis in the sense of ousia was gradually abandoned.

Nestorius generally used hypostasis in the older sense, as a synonym for ousia. For him, both the divine and the human in Christ each had not only their own nature, but also their own hypostasis / ousia. Since the Nicene Creed had declared the Son to be homoousios (of one ousia) with the Father, Nestorius was unwilling to distinguish the hypostasis (equal to the ousia in his mind) of the Son from that of the Father, a necessary requirement for a hypostatic union to take place (since it only took place in the Son, not the Father or the Spirit). Because the ousiai of Godhead (which Christ shared with the Father and the Spirit) and manhood (which he shared with all humanity) were completely different essences, they could not be combined with each other.

However, Nestorius was still stuck in the old schism "hypostasis/ousia" which resulted into two persons, even if that wasn't his intention (or internally believed otherwise), his terms that he employed and the structure of the framework flat-out resulted into two persons. There is simply no way around it from a logical standpoint.

Cyril pointed out the "conjunction" that Nestorius use implies two persons, such as: "with" or "together" and phrases "worship-together" or "glorify-together" etc. Then Nestorius in his defense pointed out that Cyril also used "conjunction," so he is implying two persons too. In other words, Nestorius was superimposing his Christology upon Cyril's Christology.

1. Nestorius used conjunction between two hypostases.
3. Cyril used conjunction between two natures.

 

[Binyawmene]

1) Ontologically, there cannot be a human nature without a human person.

That's if you are going to make logical analytical critique and assessment. Let's take a Two-sided Coin. The obverse of a coin is commonly called heads and the converse is called tails. While the heads-side is always depicted as the prominent person or A two-sided coin is both A and B and overall A. In other words, the Jesus Christ's Person is both Divine and Human and overall Divine.

1. If that were the case, what is created from Mary would not have a full and complete human nature. After-all, the human nature has no human person. And the human nature would not be made complete in HIM? As if the Divine Person replaced the human person? So, the Divine Person would have to be both divine and human, and human upon the incarnation. He became human as constituted. The Person is Divine according to the Divine Nature and human according to the human nature. Because in Chalcedonian Christology teaches a theanthropic person. If the Person is divine only in the union without being human too, then it would rob Jesus Christ of his humanity as being incomplete. He would not also be a complete human, but rather a human nature possessing a Divine Person. <--- Doesn't sound like fully human at all.

The Divine Person who has continued remaining what he was fully Divine, while also simultaneously became what he previously has not been before fully Human. And the Divine Person is that underlying existence of both natures. The Son is "God in the flesh" and the prominence of him being "overall Divine" in the union. That is the conceptual idea was to emphasized Christ's DEITY, that is, a Divine Person displaying Divine characteristics being ascribed to him. This is why Hypostatic Unionists identify incarnate Divine Person as the Living God the Son in the Trinity and Divine according to the Divine Nature and also Divine in the human nature.

 

[Eleanor]

Couple of questions:

1. Are the properties of Divine and human from the natures or from the Person?

From the two natures of the one person.

2. Cyril argument against Nestorian: You can't have it both ways. If the Son-Person is in the human nature is both Divine and human, then would that imply the self-same Divine and human Son-Person in the Divine Nature too? [
So, the Divine nature has the property of humanness?

The two natures in the one person are not combined, any more than the three personhoods in the Trinity are combined. They are separate.

3. The Divine Son-Person that assumed a human nature. What constitutes Him as a human?

Well, we can start with his flesh, blood and bones, which divine persons (Father, Holy Spirit) do not have.
Then we can go to his immortal human spirit, which divine persons do not have.
And we can go to his sentient nature which divine persons do not have.
To qualify as the sacrificial atonement for humans, Jesus had to be a perfectly full human being with a perfectly full human nature.

When a Hypostatic Unionist use the phrase "God in the flesh," the word "God" in the phrase means "God the Son" (second person in the Trinity) according to the Divine Nature and he is the same underlying person of the human nature (Chalcedonian language Latin "subsistence" or Greek "hypostasis"). The created human nature has no person 'existing prior to or apart from' the incarnate Son (or the Divine Person),

No human nature exists apart from the person, and that includes Jesus' human nature existing apart from the person Jesus, who was both human and divine.

while instantaneously and synchronously, the human nature is 'existing in and through' the Divine Person.

Both the divine and the human natures are existing in the one person Jesus of Nazareth, who is both divine (begotten by God) and human (conceived by Mary).

Technically the created human nature was not for a moment impersonal rather created in-personal and made completely in the Divine Person. And he goes by the name Jesus Christ in the incarnate state. And "Jesus Christ" refers to both God and man (we don't separate God from the man, it's the self-same individual) when Scriptures are taken as a whole.

It's the self-same person, both divine and human, when Scriptures are taken as a whole.

Nestorius was involved into Apollinarism and Arianism debates, even though they lived centuries apart. Which Arius is the one who claimed that hypostasis and ousia has the same meaning. And the Council in Alexandria, in 362. under Athanasius resolved such issues, and after this the usage of hypostasis in the sense of ousia was gradually abandoned.
Nestorius generally used hypostasis in the older sense, as a synonym for ousia. For him, both the divine and the human in Christ each had not only their own nature, but also their own hypostasis / ousia. Since the Nicene Creed had declared the Son to be homoousios (of one ousia) with the Father, Nestorius was unwilling to distinguish the hypostasis (equal to the ousia in his mind) of the Son from that of the Father, a necessary requirement for a hypostatic union to take place (since it only took place in the Son,

not the Father or the Spirit). Because the ousiai of Godhead (which Christ shared with the Father and the Spirit) and manhood (which he shared with all humanity) were completely different essences, they could not be combined with each other.
However, Nestorius was still stuck in the old schism "hypostasis/ousia" which resulted into two persons, even if that wasn't his intention (or internally believed otherwise), his terms that he employed and the structure of the framework flat-out resulted into two persons. There is simply no way around it from a logical standpoint.

Nestorius posited two persons in Jesus of Nazareth, each with his own nature.
Jesus is one person, with two natures, human and divine.

Cyril pointed out the "conjunction" that Nestorius use implies two persons, such as: "with" or "together" and phrases "worship-together" or "glorify-together" etc. Then Nestorius in his defense pointed out that Cyril also used "conjunction," so he is implying two persons too. In other words, Nestorius was superimposing his Christology upon Cyril's Christology.

1. Nestorius used conjunction between two hypostases.
3. Cyril used conjunction between two natures.

It's not a conjunction of two natures anymore than it is a conjunction of three persons in the Trinity.

 

[Eleanor]

The human nature was in willing submission to the divine nature in the one person of Christ.

 

[Ritajanice]

The human nature was in willing submission to the divine nature in the one person of Christ.

@Eleanor

They were in harmony with each other?

His human nature was inline with his divine nature ?

 

[Eleanor]

@Eleanor

They were in harmony with each other?

His human nature was inline with his divine nature ?

Yes, they were in harmony, with his human nature/will in willing submission to his divine/nature will.

We can see the two natures/wills in the Garden of Gethsemane, when the humanity of the person of Christ pleaded with the divine Father, but always in submission to the Father's will.

 

[Ritajanice]

Yes, they were in harmony, with his human nature/will in willing submission to his divine/nature will.

We can see the two natures/wills in the Garden of Gethsemane, when the humanity of the person of Christ pleaded with the divine Father, but always in submission to the Father's will.

Amen!!

 

[Binyawmene]

Binyawmene: 1. Are the properties of Divine and human from the natures or from the Person?

Eleanor: From the two natures of the one person.

That's a good start. The Hypostatic Union use a phrase “according to” to designate which nature gives the particular attribute in question to the subject-Person. From this framework we might say as God, Jesus Christ is the bread of life "according to the Divine Nature" or as Man, Jesus Christ is thirsty “according to the human nature”.

Communication of Properties is the 'attributes'' or properties and laws of either natures are being communicated to the subject-Person. Then he performs a single undivided personality and character that is ascribed to himself by which he uniformly speaks and acts of himself as a single subject-Person. Because all the 'properties' from the human nature, and all the 'properties' from the Divine Nature is attributed to the subject-Person. For the subject-Person receives the effects from both natures. Not from two persons for what each nature does has the value of both in a single and Indivisible Person as one subject of predication.

Binyawmene: 2. Cyril argument against Nestorian: You can't have it both ways. If the Son-Person is in the human nature is both Divine and human, then would that imply the self-same Divine and human Son-Person in the Divine Nature too? So, the Divine nature has the property of humanness?

Eleanor: The two natures in the one person are not combined, any more than the three personhoods in the Trinity are combined. They are separate.

You misunderstood Cyril argument. I will rephrase the argument for you.

The Son-Person is both Divine and human. If Jesus Christ is a Theanthropic Person in the human nature, then he is also a Theanthropic Person in the Divine Nature. Or, if the Son-Person being Divine in the human nature, then the Son-Person being human in the Divine Nature. After all, there is only "one subsistence" for both natures.​

Also, the two natures are not separate in the union, but are inseparable.

Binyawmene: 3. The Divine Son-Person that assumed a human nature. What constitutes Him as a human?

Eleanor: Well, we can start with his flesh, blood and bones, which divine persons (Father, Holy Spirit) do not have.
Then we can go to his immortal human spirit, which divine persons do not have.
And we can go to his sentient nature which divine persons do not have.
To qualify as the sacrificial atonement for humans, Jesus had to be a perfectly full human being with a perfectly full human nature.

Great. So, yes, Jesus Christ is a "human" would be identified by his nature. For example, Jesus Christ being Fully Human is derived from the human nature being composed of the whole body and soul/spirit, with all of the human attributes and properties. That is what qualify him as human. And "God" and "Man" are not properties and attributes of the Natures or of the Person. Rather it's what the natures have constituted what the Son-person to be, like: the Divine Nature constitutes the Son-person to be God and the Human Nature constitutes the selfsame Son-person to be Man.

Binyawmene: When a Hypostatic Unionist use the phrase "God in the flesh," the word "God" in the phrase means "God the Son" (second person in the Trinity) according to the Divine Nature and he is the same underlying person of the human nature (Chalcedonian language Latin "subsistence" or Greek "hypostasis"). The created human nature has no person 'existing prior to or apart from' the incarnate Son (or the Divine Person),

Eleanor: No human nature exists apart from the person, and that includes Jesus' human nature existing apart from the person Jesus, who was both human and divine.

We only distinguish the act of the incarnated Word in the logical sense. That mean logically the created human nature is first, which doesn’t have an Independent Subject (person/hypostasis) existing prior to or apart from the Word himself. Why is the created human nature being first logically? Because the Word cannot manifest instantaneously without a created human nature not being there present for incarnation. It must logically follow first. Then, synchronously (at that moment of creation) logically the Word incarnated.

a). The human nature is created.
b). Then the Word incarnated.

The incarnation framework is synchronous in the act. There is no room for 1 second or any form of time-frames and time-marks in-between (a) and (b). Both are coinciding together in the same instant of time and not separated. If you isolate and separate one from the other. Then you are distorting the framework. The created human nature and the manifestation of the Word has happen instantaneously and simultaneously, which the Word became flesh is a true incarnation. Therefore the conclusion is that the human nature doesn’t exist prior to or apart from the Word, and the human nature exist in and through the Word. Its always been a complete human nature because the human nature itself is complete in Him/Word.

Binyawmene: while instantaneously and synchronously, the human nature is 'existing in and through' the Divine Person.
Eleanor: Both the divine and the human natures are existing in the one person Jesus of Nazareth, who is both divine (begotten by God) and human (conceived by Mary).

[/QUOTE]

Now you agree with me. Why did you say the incarnation was "apart" and "separated" act?

Binyawmene: Technically the created human nature was not for a moment impersonal rather created in-personal and made completely in the Divine Person. And he goes by the name Jesus Christ in the incarnate state. And "Jesus Christ" refers to both God and man (we don't separate God from the man, it's the self-same individual) when Scriptures are taken as a whole.

Eleanor: It's the self-same person, both divine and human, when Scriptures are taken as a whole.

Good. You agree with me. Example, the personal pronoun "I" doesn't mean "God along with him" as if the pronoun "I" is plural and not singular. We don't conceive God and Man separately, but rather as both God and Man being the whole of HIM in the singular. So when you read Scriptures about Jesus Christ in regard to personal pronouns, like "I or Me," etc. The pronoun "I" would be the whole of HIM (subject-person) as being Theanthropic (God-Man) who is Jesus Christ. No division is required, but a one single God-Man Person is constituted. The pronoun "I" cannot be divided or separated into two for its impossible to undergo such division. The pronoun reveals a whole indivisible of Him to be demonstrated within the "I". The Scriptures does not differentiate between the Divine Nature and Human Nature from the personal pronoun "I". But what being differentiated is the implication of Scriptures that clearly implied who the subject-person is acting or speaking from, either from his Divine Nature as God or from his Human Nature as Man.

Nestorius posited two persons in Jesus of Nazareth, each with his own nature.

Jesus is one person, with two natures, human and divine.

Thats not true. Nestorius' theory was that the two distinctly existing persons combine to make a new person, who is called Jesus. A Tertium Quid at best. Not only did Nestorius has issues with Cyril, but also with Eutychianism that taught Monophysitism or two natures combined together to make a new nature being fully Divine-only. I wonder if Nestorius believe this "new person" was DIVINE-ONLY? However, this dual sense of the word for person was never clearly explained by Nestorius. It's confusing and opens him up to criticism.

It's not a conjunction of two natures anymore than it is a conjunction of three persons in the Trinity.

Seriously? You been saying a conjunction between the two natures. Look at what you just mention:

It's the self-same person, both divine and human, when Scriptures are taken as a whole.​

I'm in 100% agreement of using conjunctions between the two natures.

 

[Eleanor]

Seriously? You been saying a conjunction between the two natures. Look at what you just mention:

It's the self-same person, both divine and human, when Scriptures are taken as a whole.​

I'm in 100% agreement of using conjunctions between the two natures.

I understand you to use conjunction to mean "combine" into one.
The two natures are not combined. They are each individual.

 

[Binyawmene]

I understand you to use conjunction to mean "combine" into one.
The two natures are not combined. They are each individual.

Cyril pointed out the "conjunction" that Nestorius use implies two persons, such as: "with" or "together" and phrases "worship-together" or "glorify-together" etc. Then Nestorius in his defense pointed out that Cyril also used "conjunction," so he is implying two persons too. In other words, Nestorius was superimposing his Christology upon Cyril's Christology.

12 Anathemas of Cyril in historical context, numbers 3 and 8:

3) If anyone makes in the one Christ a division of hypostases after the union, connecting them only in a conjunction which is according to dignity or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together which is according to a union of natures: let him be anathema.

8. If anyone dares to say that the man who was assumed ought to be worshipped and glorified together with the divine Word and be called God along with him, while being separate from him, (for the addition of "with" must always compel us to think in this way), and will not rather worship Emmanuel with one veneration and send up to him one doxology, even as "the Word became flesh", let him be anathema.​

What do you mean by "The two natures are not combined?" You mean the two natures are inconfusedly? If so, then you are jumping to an whole entirely different topic in the Hypostatic Union.

The Council of Chalcedon purpose was to re-examine and to re-assert the Council of Ephesus against both Eutyches and Nestorius. They emphasize a great deal on Christ's humanity especially against Monophysitism (two nature emerge into one nature that was completely divine only) which was the view of Eutyches. But the Council was more focus on the relationship between the two natures. For instance, the terms "inconfusedly" and "unchangeably" was defined to refute Eutychianism. Also, the terms "indivisibly" and "inseparably" were defined to refute Nestorisnism. If you ever taken the time to study out what Eutyches and Nestorius meant behind the two natures. Then you would understand why those four terms was defined and mention in the Chalcedonian Creed:

"...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..."​

 

[Eleanor]

Cyril pointed out the "conjunction" that Nestorius use implies two persons, such as: "with" or "together" and phrases "worship-together" or "glorify-together" etc. Then Nestorius in his defense pointed out that Cyril also used "conjunction," so he is implying two persons too. In other words, Nestorius was superimposing his Christology upon Cyril's Christology.
12 Anathemas of Cyril in historical context, numbers 3 and 8:

3) If anyone makes in the one Christ a division of hypostases after the union, connecting them only in a conjunction which is according to dignity or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together which is according to a union of natures: let him be anathema.
8. If anyone dares to say that the man who was assumed ought to be worshipped and glorified together with the divine Word and be called God along with him, while being separate from him, (for the addition of "with" must always compel us to think in this way), and will not rather worship Emmanuel with one veneration and send up to him one doxology, even as "the Word became flesh", let him be anathema.​

What do you mean by "The two natures are not combined?" You mean the two natures are inconfusedly? If so, then you are jumping to an whole entirely different topic in the Hypostatic Union.
The Council of Chalcedon purpose was to re-examine and to re-assert the Council of Ephesus against both Eutyches and Nestorius. They emphasize a great deal on Christ's humanity especially against Monophysitism (two nature emerge into one nature that was completely divine only) which was the view of Eutyches. But the Council was more focus on the relationship between the two natures. For instance, the terms "inconfusedly" and "unchangeably" was defined to refute Eutychianism. Also, the terms "indivisibly" and "inseparably" were defined to refute Nestorisnism. If you ever taken the time to study out what Eutyches and Nestorius meant behind the two natures. Then you would understand why those four terms was defined and mention in the Chalcedonian Creed:

"...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..."​

Union does not destroy individuality.

The United States of America does not mean the states are not individual and separate entities, joined in a union.

As with the two natures of the one person, Jesus of Nazareth, two separate entities joined in a union.

 

[Binyawmene]

Union does not destroy individuality.

The United States of America does not mean the states are not individual and separate entities, joined in a union.

As with the two natures of the one person, Jesus of Nazareth, two separate entities joined in a union.

Yes. The Divine Nature and the human nature are separate entities but are distinct in the union by the Son-Person. So, in one sense they are separate, and, in another sense, they are distinct in the union. But there was never a time that Christ's human nature wasn't in the union.

 

[Eleanor]

Yes. The Divine Nature and the human nature are separate entities but are distinct in the union by the Son-Person. So, in one sense they are separate, and, in another sense, they are distinct in the union. But there was never a time that Christ's human nature wasn't in the union.

You aren't including the time before he was conceived, are you?

 

[Binyawmene]

You aren't including the time before he was conceived, are you?

You believe the incarnation was "apart" and "separated" act. Some people teach the human nature was created in the Son-Person through Mary. I don't and my position was already given in this thread.

We only distinguish the act of the incarnated Word in the logical sense. That mean logically the created human nature is first, which doesn’t have an Independent Subject (person/hypostasis) existing prior to or apart from the Word himself. Why is the created human nature being first logically? Because the Word cannot manifest instantaneously without a created human nature not being there present for incarnation. It must logically follow first. Then, synchronously (at that moment of creation) logically the Word incarnated.

a). The human nature is created.
b). Then the Word incarnated.

The incarnation framework is synchronous in the act. There is no room for 1 second or any form of timeframes and time-marks in-between (a) and (b). Both are coinciding together in the same instant of time and not separated. If you isolate and separate one from the other. Then you are distorting the framework. The created human nature and the manifestation of the Word has happened instantaneously and simultaneously, which the Word became flesh is a true incarnation. Therefore, the conclusion is that the human nature doesn’t exist prior to or apart from the Word, and the human nature exist in and through the Word. It's always been a complete human nature because the human nature itself is complete in Him/Word.

 

[Eleanor]

You believe the incarnation was "apart" and "separated" act. Some people teach the human nature was created in the Son-Person through Mary. I don't and my position was already given in this thread.

We only distinguish the act of the incarnated Word in the logical sense. That mean logically the created human nature is first, which doesn’t have an Independent Subject (person/hypostasis) existing prior to or apart from the Word himself. Why is the created human nature being first logically? Because the Word cannot manifest instantaneously without a created human nature not being there present for incarnation. It must logically follow first. Then, synchronously (at that moment of creation) logically the Word incarnated.

a). The human nature is created.
b). Then the Word incarnated.

Natures don't exist apart from persons or other living beings.

The incarnation framework is synchronous in the act. There is no room for 1 second or any form of timeframes and time-marks in-between (a) and (b). Both are coinciding together in the same instant of time and not separated. If you isolate and separate one from the other. Then you are distorting the framework. The created human nature and the manifestation of the Word has happened instantaneously and simultaneously, which the Word became flesh is a true incarnation. Therefore, the conclusion is that the human nature doesn’t exist prior to or apart from the Word, and the human nature exist in and through the Word. It's always been a complete human nature because the human nature itself is complete in Him/Word.

 

[Binyawmene]

Natures don't exist apart from persons or other living beings.

Are you now agreeing with me?

 

[Eleanor]

Are you now agreeing with me?

I don't think so, I understand you to be separating nature from person.

That's like separating human life from person.