Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Modern Miaphysites vs. Orthodox Dyotheletism/Dyoenergism


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#21 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 09:11 PM

Christ wished how the cup could pass from him, but not his will but his Fathers be done. Anotherwords there is a distinction made by Christ, his human will naturally wanting to preserve his life. The composite/oo understanding blurs free will. If Christ is fully man then he has free will to choose which is an attribute of human nature.


The Oriental Orthodox way of understanding this is simple: Christ the Incarnate Logos wished how the cup could pass from Him; Christ the Incarnate Logos said to the Father "not my will but yours be done". It is the entire Incarnate Logos acting and speaking to the Father, not just the human nature, and not jus the divine nature.

As Oriental Orthodox Christ came from two natures, Divine and Human. At His Incarnation and forever thereafter He remained fully divine and fully human, lacking nothing of the human nature (except sin) and lacking nothing of the Divine Nature.

The One who wills, the One who acts, the One who prays, fasts, struggles, the One who sleeps, weeps, bleeds, suffers, heals, forgives sins, raises the dead, casts out demons, the One who was crucified, experienced separation of soul from body at death, descended into Hades, Rose from the dead and ascended into heaven is Christ, Incarnate Logos who is at once perfect (complete) God and perfect (complete Man- body, soul, and spirit). The Two Natures remain in Christ without mingling, without confusion, without alternation, and without separation.


This is the Orthodox Christian understanding of our Lord's Incarnation. Neither of the heretics Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, or Appolinarius would agree with this. This is what was taught up to the Third Ecumentical Council- This is the Faith of Sts. Athanasius, Cyril, and Dioscorus and today's Coptic, Armenian, Malankarian, Ethiopean, Syrian, and Eretrian Orthodox Christians.

Splitting hairs beyond this with many further definitions would deny 1 Timothy 3:16's statement that the Incarnation is a Mystery that can be so finely defined in human terms. "Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh"

The Tomb of Leo's way of describing Christ, while clearly not indending to be heretical was accepted by Nestorius, and could be interpreted by Nestorians to mean that each of the natures of Christ does what is according to them without the involvement of the other nature. To talk of the human nature bleeding while His Divinity walks on water and heals the sick. To preserve the fight against Nestorianism, it is better to state, the Logos Incarnate Bleeds, the Logos Incarnate Heals, the Logos Incarnate walked on water.

#22 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 09:29 PM

Fr. John Romanides wrote an essay on the Orthodox and Oriental consultation of some years back: http://www.romanity....htm/ro4enfm.htm


This is an excellent clarification which should hopefully assist with future considerations of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox unity.


I wonder if we avoid the words "in two natures" due to the ancient confusion in different languages about the words, physis, ousia, and hypostasis, if we simply state that Christ continues to be fully God and fully man after the incarnation, would that not be just as satisfctory and mean the same thing as the Chalcedonia understanding of "in two natures".

The "in two natures" is acceptable to Nestorius. The phrase that Christ is fully God and Fully man would not be acceptable to him.

#23 Rdr Daniel (R.)

Rdr Daniel (R.)

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 06 December 2011 - 09:59 PM

The Tomb of Leo's way of describing Christ, while clearly not indending to be heretical was accepted by Nestorius, and could be interpreted by Nestorians to mean that each of the natures of Christ does what is according to them without the involvement of the other nature. To talk of the human nature bleeding while His Divinity walks on water and heals the sick. To preserve the fight against Nestorianism, it is better to state, the Logos Incarnate Bleeds, the Logos Incarnate Heals, the Logos Incarnate walked on water.



Dear Jack R,

It does not mater whether Nestorians agree with the tomb of Saint Leo or not what mater's is that it was found (by the council of Chalcedon) in agreement with the writings of Saint Cyril. Without Saint Leo's tomb we fall into what we see as the error of Monophysism and Miaphysism, that is we see only one nature in Christ.

Now Chalcedon does not define Christology, so does Ephesus, and so does the Second council of Constantinople.

In Christ.
Daniel,

#24 Bryan J. Maloney

Bryan J. Maloney

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:26 PM

One little detail: It's the "Tome of Leo", not the "Tomb of Leo". A "tome" is a "book" or other writing. Whenever we refer to the Tome of Leo, we must, as Orthodox, also remember that it is also used by Roman Catholics to claim justification for their heretical doctrine of Papal supremacy. They claim that the Council's "Peter has spoken through Leo!" means that the Council simply accepted St. Leo's statement as normative specifically due to special status owed to the office of Pope of Rome. So, whatever it meant to the Council, it is obvious that it can be severely abused today.

#25 Rdr Daniel (R.)

Rdr Daniel (R.)

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:57 PM

One little detail: It's the "Tome of Leo", not the "Tomb of Leo". A "tome" is a "book" or other writing.


I thought tomb did not sound right, but my spelling is not very good so I thought nothing of it.

#26 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 08 December 2011 - 03:36 AM

I can't find it right now, but yesterday Fr Irenee had a post that was very helpful for me at least to come an understanding about this. Jesus Christ then is one divine-human Person. He is not a union of two persons, divine and human, but rather the one Person of the pre-eternal Logos Who then adopts humanity through His incarnation through the Holy Virgin. In other words, as we put it in more technical theological language, the pre-eternal Word is the 'subject' of the incarnate Christ, because He is the acting Person within the divine-human union, divine as pre-eternal Word, but at once also incarnate man. To come back to this point very briefly then- we must avoid anything that suggests that Christ is the Word of God Who then adopts a human Jesus. This would indeed leave us with idea that Christ is two persons and nothing really more than a moral union of God & man such as we already find in the prophets. Then Christ is no more than the greatest of the prophets and of the saints- which of course is a crude heresy. So then in Orthodox understanding Christ is the pre-eternal Word, both God and man.

One last point is that we use the word person to refer to Christ rather than personality. This is because the word 'person' was developed over many centuries by the Fathers in order to convey the concept of distinct divine or human being (eg Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct; or St Peter, St Paul as distinct) in distinction from the common nature (eg Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God, people are human). Personality though is a modern concept that conveys the idea that a person is defined by various psychological states. This is an idea which actually is in contradiction to what person means in Orthodox theology.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael


Fr. with respect, I do not believe this is correct. Please let me explain why. Jesus is all and only a divine person. The inclusion and assumption of human nature into the hypostasis of the Son does not make the Son's hypostasis created or human. While it is not disputed that the divine person after the union can be said to be composite, Christ as such is not a product of the union. This formulation of a divine-human person is actually a Nestorian formulation and was reproduced in later Calvinist confessions, notably, the Westminster Confession, sec. 8.2

#27 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 08 December 2011 - 03:53 AM

Jack R,

There are a few problems with the account you proffer from a Dyothelite position.

First, Jesus does more than wish to preserve his lie. He actively wills to preserve his life. On a Dyothelite position, Christ wills both things simultaneously since both things are good and willed by God. God both wills the salvation of humanity and the preservation of human existence and life.

The power of choosing is human and hence natural, but the person choosing is all and only divine, which makes Christ’s human act of choosing unique and transformative for human nature as a whole.

Further, it is potentially problematic to speak of Christ coming “from” two natures. This was both how Eutyches spoke as well as Nestorius. The person is not from the two natures.

As for “splitting hairs” this is only useful rhetoric when there is an attending demonstration shows that it is either beyond our finding out or makes no difference between the two parties.

While the Tome of Leo can be interpreted wrongly, Leo made it quite clear that should there be any doubt, he agrees with Cyril and Cyril’s meaning. This was both true at Chalcedon and after.

Furthermore, 2nd Constantinople makes it clear that the natures are not agents and formally excludes the reading of Theodoret of Cyrrus as Nestorian and condemned.

Dyothelites are quite happy to confess that it is the divine Son who suffers and dies on the Cross, sucks at the Virgin’s breast and so forth. But if there be no human power of choice and thought employed by the divine Son then there is no true incarnation and salvation amounts to the withering of humanity and that is no salvation at all.

#28 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 09 December 2011 - 02:04 AM

Dear Jack R,

It does not mater whether Nestorians agree with the tomb of Saint Leo or not what mater's is that it was found (by the council of Chalcedon) in agreement with the writings of Saint Cyril. Without Saint Leo's tomb we fall into what we see as the error of Monophysism and Miaphysism, that is we see only one nature in Christ.

Now Chalcedon does not define Christology, so does Ephesus, and so does the Second council of Constantinople.

In Christ.
Daniel,


St. Cyril was certainly a Miaphysite in his Christology, and used the the very greek word for Miaphysis in describing his formula of One Nature of the Logos Incarnate. Although he may have at times also used dyophysite terminology, he was certainly not in error when he spoke frequently in Miaphysistic terms, which better protects against Nestoriansm and better guards the teaching of the Logos' true hypostatic union of His Divine and Human Natures. From the Third Ecumenical Council, all the Orthodox bishops fully agreed with St. Cyril's Miaphysis formula, that the Logos became begame Incarnate and remained fully God and fully Man so we can hardly say that this was any error, God forbid.

#29 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 09 December 2011 - 02:33 AM

There are a few problems with the account you proffer from a Dyothelite position.

First, Jesus does more than wish to preserve his lie. He actively wills to preserve his life. On a Dyothelite position, Christ wills both things simultaneously since both things are good and willed by God. God both wills the salvation of humanity and the preservation of human existence and life.


Oriental Orthodox Miaphysites would agree with this. The Incarnate Logos wills both.

The power of choosing is human and hence natural, but the person choosing is all and only divine, which makes Christ’s human act of choosing unique and transformative for human nature as a whole.


The Person choosing is the Incarnate Logos. He chooses as a Man and as God, although He is One Hypostasis, One Person choosing.

Further, it is potentially problematic to speak of Christ coming “from” two natures. This was both how Eutyches spoke as well as Nestorius. The person is not from the two natures.


The Logos united His Divine Nature in a real Hypostatic Union with Human Nature. He united Human Nature with Himself and became the Incarnate Logos. The phrase in two natures was problematic becuase of the different understanding of Hypostasis, Physis, and Ousia among the different culutres and schools such that some spoke of them almost interchangeably. For some, in two natures could mean, in two hypostasis or in two persons or in two minds.

Additionally, one imperfect analogy is that each of us inherits certain characteristics and traits from our mothers and fathers (although they are both of the same nature (human). We are therefore, in a sense, from our mothers and fathers, not "in" our mothers and fathers.

While the Tome of Leo can be interpreted wrongly, Leo made it quite clear that should there be any doubt, he agrees with Cyril and Cyril’s meaning. This was both true at Chalcedon and after.


Agreed, but becasue Nestorius, when he finally read the Tome stated that he agreed with it and had he been present, would have signed off on it, it seemed dangerous to the other party. It is reported that he stated, "this was his faith all along."

#30 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 09 December 2011 - 02:37 AM

Dyothelites are quite happy to confess that it is the divine Son who suffers and dies on the Cross, sucks at the Virgin’s breast and so forth. But if there be no human power of choice and thought employed by the divine Son then there is no true incarnation and salvation amounts to the withering of humanity and that is no salvation at all.


Miaphysites agree that the One Incarnate Logos has the full power of human choice and action and thought by virtue of being the INCARNATE Logos. The Human Nature of Christ does not act independantly of the Divine Nature. He is Divine and Human at the same time, that is why he could be tempted in all things as we were. The Incarnate Logos was tempted in all things as we were, because he is also fully Human, he makes a pefect human decision and fulfils the law perfectly not to sin, because He is human. There is no human person distinct from the divine logos that is making decisions, the One Mind fo the Incarnate Logos makes the right decision as a man who is free to act as a human being.

#31 Bryan J. Maloney

Bryan J. Maloney

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 December 2011 - 12:29 PM

As I think I understand the matter, the Person/Hypostasis of the Son existed before the Incarnation. The Son pre-existed His assumption of human nature/essence/ousia. He did not become a different Person/Hypostasis upon the Incarnation.

#32 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 10 December 2011 - 02:00 PM

Miaphysites agree that the One Incarnate Logos has the full power of human choice and action and thought by virtue of being the INCARNATE Logos. The Human Nature of Christ does not act independantly of the Divine Nature. He is Divine and Human at the same time, that is why he could be tempted in all things as we were. The Incarnate Logos was tempted in all things as we were, because he is also fully Human, he makes a pefect human decision and fulfils the law perfectly not to sin, because He is human. There is no human person distinct from the divine logos that is making decisions, the One Mind fo the Incarnate Logos makes the right decision as a man who is free to act as a human being.


Jack,

If the Copts agree that Christ has the full power of human choice, then why decline saying he has two wills? What else is the human power of choice than a human will? Why implicitly retain the idea that the will is hypostatic rather than natural?

Second, saying that Christ has a natural human will does not impl that the human nature acts or acts independantly since natures do not act, persons do.

Third, to say that the one mind of the incarnate Logos makes a decision is problematic. First because it smacks of Apollinarianism. Nous or mind or intellect is of the nature and it is used by the person. hence Christ has two intellects or two minds, which is how he can be omniscient and ignorant, relative to the capabilities of both minds. The mind then is of the nature or natural. minds do not make decisions or acts because minds are not persons. If minds were persons then there would be three intellects in the Trinity and three wills along with it.

#33 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 10 December 2011 - 02:09 PM

Oriental Orthodox Miaphysites would agree with this. The Incarnate Logos wills both.



The Person choosing is the Incarnate Logos. He chooses as a Man and as God, although He is One Hypostasis, One Person choosing.



The Logos united His Divine Nature in a real Hypostatic Union with Human Nature. He united Human Nature with Himself and became the Incarnate Logos. The phrase in two natures was problematic becuase of the different understanding of Hypostasis, Physis, and Ousia among the different culutres and schools such that some spoke of them almost interchangeably. For some, in two natures could mean, in two hypostasis or in two persons or in two minds.

Additionally, one imperfect analogy is that each of us inherits certain characteristics and traits from our mothers and fathers (although they are both of the same nature (human). We are therefore, in a sense, from our mothers and fathers, not "in" our mothers and fathers.



Agreed, but becasue Nestorius, when he finally read the Tome stated that he agreed with it and had he been present, would have signed off on it, it seemed dangerous to the other party. It is reported that he stated, "this was his faith all along."


The language of "in" two natures could not be swallowed by Severus, Dioscorus, et al, because they tended to confuse the terminology relative to person and nature. When phusis can stand in for both person and nature as they used it, then to say that Christ is in two phusis would be to say that Christ is in two persons. But that is not how the Chalcedonians (and even Cyril) used the term. Phusis means nature or essence, not hypostasis. So the usage is consistent between Triadology and Christology, God is one as to phusis and three as to hypostasis, Christ is two as to phusis and one as to hypostasis.

The problem then is that the Copts use a Platonic and unrefined usage of the terms since Greek philosophy never had a distinction between person and nature.

To say that Christ is in two minds or intellects is not Nestorian and here is why. The Mind is not the person, but a power of the nature, which is why there is only one intellect in the Trinity. To say that that there is one mind in the incarnate logos smacks of Apollinarianism.

#34 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 10 December 2011 - 02:14 PM

St. Cyril was certainly a Miaphysite in his Christology, and used the the very greek word for Miaphysis in describing his formula of One Nature of the Logos Incarnate. Although he may have at times also used dyophysite terminology, he was certainly not in error when he spoke frequently in Miaphysistic terms, which better protects against Nestoriansm and better guards the teaching of the Logos' true hypostatic union of His Divine and Human Natures. From the Third Ecumenical Council, all the Orthodox bishops fully agreed with St. Cyril's Miaphysis formula, that the Logos became begame Incarnate and remained fully God and fully Man so we can hardly say that this was any error, God forbid.


Needless to say, I disagre. Cyril hasn't carved out a tehnical terminology apart from hellenistic usage yet, but it is clear that he is trying to. To speak of one incarnate nature as Cyril does is fine because what he means by phusis there is a concrete instance, not a denial of two essences. If it were the latter, Eutychianism would be true and Christ would be neither divine nor human but some third hybrid, as Arius thought! So it doesn't matter that he used a specific term, it matters how he used it.

From where I stand the Coptic position protects better against Nestorianism at the expense of Apollinarianism. And since both Apollinarianism and Nestorianism confused the person with the nature, this indicates that the same confusion that afflicted Nestorius and Apollinarius is still at work in Coptic theology.

#35 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 12:07 AM

The language of "in" two natures could not be swallowed by Severus, Dioscorus, et al, because they tended to confuse the terminology relative to person and nature. When phusis can stand in for both person and nature as they used it, then to say that Christ is in two phusis would be to say that Christ is in two persons. But that is not how the Chalcedonians (and even Cyril) used the term. Phusis means nature or essence, not hypostasis. So the usage is consistent between Triadology and Christology, God is one as to phusis and three as to hypostasis, Christ is two as to phusis and one as to hypostasis.

The problem then is that the Copts use a Platonic and unrefined usage of the terms since Greek philosophy never had a distinction between person and nature.


Agreed.

... To say that that there is one mind in the incarnate logos smacks of Apollinarianism.


No. The One Mind of the Incarnate Logos is not Apollinarian. Apollinarianism would mean that the Mind of the Logs Incarnate is Divine only. Miaphysites teach that Christ is fully Divine and Fully Human, mind and all.

This is like saying that "to say that there is two minds of the incarnate logos smacks of Nestorianism"

If you ask Nestorius how many minds does Christ make use of, he will say two, two minds. We know when Easter Orthodox say this, they do not mean to be Nestorians, neither do Miaphysites espouse either Apollinarius nor Eutechiansim. Both Sts. Cyril and the recent agreements between the heads of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox agree that neither family is Nestorian nor Eutychian in what they intend by their terminology.

Edited by Jack R., 14 December 2011 - 12:08 AM.
spelling


#36 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 12:45 AM

Needless to say, I disagre. Cyril hasn't carved out a tehnical terminology apart from hellenistic usage yet, but it is clear that he is trying to. To speak of one incarnate nature as Cyril does is fine because what he means by phusis there is a concrete instance, not a denial of two essences. If it were the latter, Eutychianism would be true and Christ would be neither divine nor human but some third hybrid, as Arius thought! So it doesn't matter that he used a specific term, it matters how he used it.

From where I stand the Coptic position protects better against Nestorianism at the expense of Apollinarianism. And since both Apollinarianism and Nestorianism confused the person with the nature, this indicates that the same confusion that afflicted Nestorius and Apollinarius is still at work in Coptic theology.


Copts do not deny that Christ is of Two Essences. There certainly was confusion over the terms Prosopos, Physis, and Hypostasis, between different languages and cultures, partuclarly those between Egyptian, Greek, and Syrian backgrounds, but in no way do Copts espouse Nestorianms or Apollinariansim. Copts believe that Christ is fully God and Fully man (body, soul, spirit, mind, will, and all).

I don't think the polemics in modern times are about what we believe. Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have the same Christology essentially expressed in different terms. I don't think its about. I think it is in the manner of speaking in that the Eastern Orthodox, in having the Antiochian School are more prone to overemphasizing the distinction between the two natures as to sound Nestorian to the other family, whereas the Alexandrian Oriental Orthodox emphasize the unity of the One Incarnate Logos without overemphasizing the distinction between the two natures in accordance with St. Cyril who expressed the view that this distinction of two natures is "in thought alone"

#37 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 12:51 AM

Neither do Copts believe in a "hybrid" nature. Hybrid means half and half. Copts confess that in everything Christ is fully, completely, perfectly God and fully, completely perfectly Man- body, soul, spirit, will, mind, essence and all.

If the Eastern and Oriental both believe this then they are both Orthodox in their Christological beliefs even if they have not agreed on the best way or words to express this.

#38 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 09:08 PM

Agreed.



No. The One Mind of the Incarnate Logos is not Apollinarian. Apollinarianism would mean that the Mind of the Logs Incarnate is Divine only. Miaphysites teach that Christ is fully Divine and Fully Human, mind and all.

This is like saying that "to say that there is two minds of the incarnate logos smacks of Nestorianism"

If you ask Nestorius how many minds does Christ make use of, he will say two, two minds. We know when Easter Orthodox say this, they do not mean to be Nestorians, neither do Miaphysites espouse either Apollinarius nor Eutechiansim. Both Sts. Cyril and the recent agreements between the heads of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox agree that neither family is Nestorian nor Eutychian in what they intend by their terminology.


Jack,

This is why saying that there is one mind in the incarnat Logos is Apollinarian. The Mind or Nous is not the person, as Apollinariaus thought. since the Nous is not the hypostasis and the nous is a faculty or power of the nature, since Christ has two natures, he has two minds, just as he has two intellects. The two minds are used or employed by the one divine Person.

#39 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 09:15 PM

Copts do not deny that Christ is of Two Essences. There certainly was confusion over the terms Prosopos, Physis, and Hypostasis, between different languages and cultures, partuclarly those between Egyptian, Greek, and Syrian backgrounds, but in no way do Copts espouse Nestorianms or Apollinariansim. Copts believe that Christ is fully God and Fully man (body, soul, spirit, mind, will, and all).

I don't think the polemics in modern times are about what we believe. Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have the same Christology essentially expressed in different terms. I don't think its about. I think it is in the manner of speaking in that the Eastern Orthodox, in having the Antiochian School are more prone to overemphasizing the distinction between the two natures as to sound Nestorian to the other family, whereas the Alexandrian Oriental Orthodox emphasize the unity of the One Incarnate Logos without overemphasizing the distinction between the two natures in accordance with St. Cyril who expressed the view that this distinction of two natures is "in thought alone"


Jack, ISTM that the confusion over terminology and philosophical content continues. I don't put much purchase in the historical device of "Antiochian school"/"Alexandrian school." There seems to me to be far too many exceptions for that to map history adequately. That said, I agree and I think most Chalcedonians do, that Theodoret of Cyrrus was in fact Nestorian, despite his disavowal of Nestorius.

Cyril makes the statement that the natures are distinct mentally alone because he is thnking of the matter in terms of a single concrete instance, a single being, not two boards glued together and in this he is quite right. But Cyril did not mean that the qualities of the natures and the essences themselves whose properties they were ceased to be after the union. So the real question is again, can the Copts affirm Dyothelitism and Dyoenergism and if not, why not?

#40 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 09:20 PM

If you ask Nestorius how many minds does Christ make use of, he will say two, two minds. We know when Easter Orthodox say this, they do not mean to be Nestorians, neither do Miaphysites espouse either Apollinarius nor Eutechiansim. Both Sts. Cyril and the recent agreements between the heads of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox agree that neither family is Nestorian nor Eutychian in what they intend by their terminology.


This is because the Nestorians, like the Apollinarians took the mind or nous to be the person. They both suffer under Arian assumptions, that what is predicated of the Logos is predicated of the nature. For Arius, Eunomius, et al. this meant that since change was attributable to the Word, the Word could not be consubstantial with the Father. For the Nestorians, they agreed with the assumption but relativized the predications to two different natures/person. Consequently the Nestorians also lack a sufficiently clear distinction between person and nature. Nestorianism is therefore the logical flip side of Arianism.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users