# Is a proper undersatnding of the hypostatic union necessary for salvation?



## alexamasan (Jan 13, 2016)

There have been several understandings of the nature of Jesus that has been deemed heretical. Euthychianism where the divine and human nature were mixed into something different and monophysitism where the two natures combined into a single divine-human nature are examples. I would say that this is some pretty advance level theology and I must admit that it doesn't seem right with me that if you do not have a correct understanding of something that is not explicitly stated in the bible, the hypostatic union, that you would not be going to heaven. It would seem to me that so long as you have a proper understanding of the gospel, how the two natures of Christ are in relation to each other seems to be a secondary issue. It seems to be more of a philosophical point than a scriptural one. Are views like euthychianism and monophysitism really heresies? and those who believe in these systems are not saved?


----------



## rickclayfan (Jan 13, 2016)

Individually (in regard to a new convert or a believer plagued with ignorance, excluding those who explicitly deny the doctrine), knowledge of such theological truths is not absolutely vital, but the lack thereof has damaging effects on one's understanding and perception of the work of Christ. Recognizing the deity of Christ at the expense of His humanity (His humanity can still be affirmed, but cast into the background) practically tends to create perceptions of a distant Christ (contrary to Heb. 4:15-16). The humanity at the expense of His deity tends to degrade the dignity and supremacy of Christ (as is seen today with references to Jesus as "Buddy" or "Friend"). A person can be saved without a full theological understanding of these truths, but will most certainly possess deficient views of Christ (if erroneous views are entertained). Saving faith, faith in the full sufficiency of Christ and the helplessness of self, saves a man. The extent to which wrong views are held also determines whether a person can be saved (hindering him from savingly believing in Christ). 

On a larger scale (the Church and its thought), the proper and correct knowledge of the hypostatic union is of the utmost importance. Wrong views of the person of Christ breed further heresy.


----------



## Herald (Jan 13, 2016)

alexamasan said:


> There have been several understandings of the nature of Jesus that has been deemed heretical. Euthychianism where the divine and human nature were mixed into something different and monophysitism where the two natures combined into a single divine-human nature are examples. I would say that this is some pretty advance level theology and I must admit that it doesn't seem right with me that if you do not have a correct understanding of something that is not explicitly stated in the bible, the hypostatic union, that you would not be going to heaven. It would seem to me that so long as you have a proper understanding of the gospel, how the two natures of Christ are in relation to each other seems to be a secondary issue. It seems to be more of a philosophical point than a scriptural one. Are views like euthychianism and monophysitism really heresies? and those who believe in these systems are not saved?



Alex, you are correct when you conclude that a proper understanding of the gospel is what is necessary for a person to be saved. Knowing what scripture teaches on a more comprehensive basis is certainly helpful and important, but to make those things necessary for salvation is wrong.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 13, 2016)

alexamasan said:


> It would seem to me that so long as you have a proper understanding of the gospel, how the two natures of Christ are in relation to each other seems to be a secondary issue. It seems to be more of a philosophical point than a scriptural one. Are views like euthychianism and monophysitism really heresies? and those who believe in these systems are not saved?



Are we seriously having this discussion? Are we seriously to believe that the person of Christ is a secondary issue? Unless you have an orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ, there is no gospel to preach. If Christ is not fully human, for example, he cannot mediate on behalf of human beings and thus we would be of all men most miserable. No, the denial of hypostatic union is a damnable heresy, and whoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is fully human, fully divine, two natures in one person is anathema.


----------



## Herald (Jan 13, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> alexamasan said:
> 
> 
> > It would seem to me that so long as you have a proper understanding of the gospel, how the two natures of Christ are in relation to each other seems to be a secondary issue. It seems to be more of a philosophical point than a scriptural one. Are views like euthychianism and monophysitism really heresies? and those who believe in these systems are not saved?
> ...



Daniel, I am more concerned with someone who denies the hypostatic union than I am with someone who does not understand it. Do we really need to place a new convert under a panel of questions to see if they have their theology right? How many people come to faith in Christ and have no idea about weighty points of theology? I daresay quite a few. As their time as a Christian matures we start to see their level of understanding, or lack thereof. Obviously if a person outright embraces heresy when it comes to the person and nature of Christ, there is a serious problem. But we have to be careful about putting the proverbial cart before the horse. I am very thankful that my theological ignorance during my early Christian years did not disqualify my conversion.


----------



## Cymro (Jan 13, 2016)

Though a new convert would be ignorant of the hypostatic Union as a theological term, yet there would be an elementary grasp of its essence. That is, the nature that had sinned must pay for sin by that nature, and to give eternal value to that offering another nature of divine ability was necessary,thus the Godman. Though the doctrine as such would not be fully formed or totally appreciated by a recent convert, yet the substance of it would be imperfectly and no doubt hazily accepted. And surely this doctrine is the glorious centre of the gospel, salvation hinges on it. Allowances are made for newborn babes, but not for seasoned heretics.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 13, 2016)

Herald said:


> Daniel, I am more concerned with someone who denies the hypostatic union than I am with someone who does not understand it. Do we really need to place a new convert under a panel of questions to see if they have their theology right? How many people come to faith in Christ and have no idea about weighty points of theology? I daresay quite a few. As their time as a Christian matures we start to see their level of understanding, or lack thereof. Obviously if a person outright embraces heresy when it comes to the person and nature of Christ, there is a serious problem. But we have to be careful about putting the proverbial cart before the horse. I am very thankful that my theological ignorance during my early Christian years did not disqualify my conversion.



Bill, I understand what you are getting at, but the OP makes a central truth of Christianity sound like a "secondary issue" and a philosophical rather than a scriptural matter. That sort of talk strikes me as very dangerous and wrong-headed, even if the person raising the point is well-meaning.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2016)

A better question: Does a faulty Christology undercut soteriology? Yes. However, I am hesitant to make Chalcedon a retro-active sine qua non. Justin Martyr, for example, had a faulty construction of the Trinity (posited two Logoi: Logos enthiatos and Logos Prosphorikos), but I hope he is in heaven.

We have more knowledge post-Chalcedon, so we have more responsibility.


----------



## alexamasan (Jan 13, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Bill, I understand what you are getting at, but the OP makes a central truth of Christianity sound like a "secondary issue" and a philosophical rather than a scriptural matter. That sort of talk strikes me as very dangerous and wrong-headed, even if the person raising the point is well-meaning.



Can we get further in to this? Because this is what I don't understand. Just to make sure we are not talking past each other, when I say "secondary issue," I'm speaking about a secondary issue when it comes to salvation. So is it your understanding that you must believe in the hypostatic union in order to be saved? Making it a primary issue when it comes to salvation? The reason I have a hard time believing this is because the hypostatic union is not something that is taught in churches very often and most people who have posted so far seem to think that only new converts do not know about the hypostatic union. 

Honestly, the only reason I know about it is because of some christian apologists that I follow and even though the term may be mentioned every now and then at my church, it is never really defined. I think that most churches that promote an orthodox teaching of the gospel do not teach the technicalities of the hypostatic union. Perhaps you disagree? If you ask a lay-person at a random (but orthodox) church, to describe how Jesus can be both man and God, I find it very likely that they might unknowingly stumble into a heresy, since that is not something that most Christians think about (I think there is a similar situation when you ask people to explain the Trinity, but that's another topic). Perhaps you disagree and would say that most lay people would be able to give a correct explanation of the hypostatic union? 

The reason I called it more of a philosophical issue (and I could be wrong so I look for correction) is that I don't see any scriptures that both describe the hypostatic uninion while also excluding something like monophysitism. Yes, there are scriptures that do support the hypostatic union, but I don't see how they explicit enough to make it clear that some other viewpoints cannot also utilize those scriptures. Again, I am looking for correction and reproof, so I would appreciate your response.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 13, 2016)

How many typical believers could pass a test:

Trinity: https://challies.typeform.com/to/I1ntTT

Christology: https://challies.typeform.com/to/zfV3mn


----------



## Justified (Jan 13, 2016)

What a deplorable state the Church is in when most of our parishioners do not know heresy from orthodoxy.


----------



## Herald (Jan 13, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel, I am more concerned with someone who denies the hypostatic union than I am with someone who does not understand it. Do we really need to place a new convert under a panel of questions to see if they have their theology right? How many people come to faith in Christ and have no idea about weighty points of theology? I daresay quite a few. As their time as a Christian matures we start to see their level of understanding, or lack thereof. Obviously if a person outright embraces heresy when it comes to the person and nature of Christ, there is a serious problem. But we have to be careful about putting the proverbial cart before the horse. I am very thankful that my theological ignorance during my early Christian years did not disqualify my conversion.
> ...



Daniel,

For the record, Euthychianism and Monophysitism are deadly heresies that imperil the person believing, and/or, teaching them. I agree with you that they are not secondary, or merely, philosophical issues. I just want to point out the distinction between a limited understanding of theological constructs at conversion and a more well-rounded understanding as a Christian matures.


----------



## Herald (Jan 13, 2016)

Herald said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Herald said:
> ...



Which, if may respond to my own post, is the reason why our churches must teach and catechize new converts starting day one (and it is the job of parents to do this with their children). Our world is full of deadly snares, with false teachers galore.


----------



## KMK (Jan 13, 2016)

A heretic is one who understands orthodoxy but rejects it and teaches others to reject it as well. It is one thing to be ignorant of the Nicene Creed, for example, and another to know the Nicene Creed, reject it, and teach others to reject it also.


----------



## Cymro (Jan 13, 2016)

If the churches are not teaching this central doctrine, does that not explain why true spirituality has declined and a lighter kind of Christianity dominates.The uniqueness of the person of Christ is why we have salvation. Pastors should teach it, Elders expect it, and new converts instructed in it. Otherwise there is vagueness about the knowledge of the incomparable Saviour.


----------



## Vox Oculi (Jan 13, 2016)

I thought the OP was meaning that he understood that Christ possessed both a human nature and a divine nature, without either one being subordinate to the other or mixing the two into one nature. Just that he didn't know exactly what the hypostatic union entails and excludes when fully comprehended?

Useful shortlist: https://carm.org/heresies



> Heresies
> Adoptionism--God granted Jesus powers and then adopted Him as a Son.
> Albigenses--Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
> Apollinarianism--Jesus' divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
> ...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 13, 2016)

Vox Oculi said:


> I thought the OP was meaning that he understood that Christ possessed both a human nature and a divine nature, without either one being subordinate to the other or mixing the two into one nature. Just that he didn't know exactly what the hypostatic union entails and excludes when fully comprehended?



The OP wondered "It would seem to me that so long as you have a proper understanding of the gospel, how the two natures of Christ are in relation to each other seems to be a secondary issue. It seems to be more of a philosophical point than a scriptural one. Are views like euthychianism and monophysitism really heresies"

I wonder how one juxtaposes "_proper understanding of the gospel_" with "_two natures of Christ_" being "_secondary issues_". Chalcedon seemed clear that euthychianism and monophysitism are really heresies, assuming that "heresy" (*if* Naselli's definition below is correct), to be defined as:

"Heresy may be defined in three broad ways: 
(1) any theological error, that is, teaching that is incorrect to any degree; 
(2) divisive theological error, that is, teaching that is both incorrect to any degree and especially divisive; or 
(3) extreme theological error, that is, teaching that denies essential elements of the gospel. 

The first type of “heresy” is merely inaccurate; the second is both inaccurate and destructive to the body of Christ; the third is both inaccurate and damning. A Christian can hold to the first and even the second, but not to the third. The third definition essentially combines all three definitions because extreme theological error is errant by definition and divisive by nature. Theologians have generally used “heresy” in accordance with the third definition, i.e., when a person deliberately chooses to reject fundamental biblical truth and accept and propagate extreme theological error." Src: here​
Given the idol factories of our minds, creating an intellectual idol of Our Lord and then going off worshipping it seems to put one in great peril.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 13, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Given the idol factories of our minds, creating an incorrect intellectual idol of Our Lord and then going off worshipping it seems to put one in great peril.



Precisely, Patrick. The tendency among the modern "Reformed" to denigrate orthodox theology proper, Christology, and Trinitarianism shows how little they understand the relationship between the Reformed religion and catholic Christianity and betrays a serious imbalance in their thinking. Case in point: a prominent "Reformed" theologian denied eternal generation and yet retained his chair at a Reformed seminary and his systematic theology was even used as a text book in one Reformed seminary that I am aware of. 

Our Reformed distinctives are contingent upon catholic orthodoxy; without the orthodox doctrines of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity there is no gospel to preach. We can hardly be surprised when ex-Reformed folk convert to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy when we have done such a bad job of defending basic Christianity.


----------



## Edward (Jan 13, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> (if Naselli's definition below is correct), to be defined as:
> 
> "Heresy may be defined in three broad ways:
> (1) any theological error, that is, teaching that is incorrect to any degree;
> ...



I find that definition as not useful as it is grossly overbroad. There are many theological errors that don't reach level of heresy. Never heard of him before. Doesn't appear to be a loss on my part.


----------



## MW (Jan 13, 2016)

Perhaps we should consider the place of Coptic Christianity in this discussion.


----------



## Vox Oculi (Jan 13, 2016)

My understanding is that coptic 'christianity', doctrinally, is apostate?


----------



## MW (Jan 13, 2016)

Vox Oculi said:


> My understanding is that coptic 'christianity', doctrinally, is apostate?



Yes; so that is effectively saying that a proper understanding of the hypostatic union is necessary for salvation so far as the church is concerned. What God "might" do extraordinarily outside the church is in His own secret purpose; but as revealed to us He ordinarily saves by means of the church, and this doctrine is necessary for the church.


----------



## Vox Oculi (Jan 13, 2016)

Is that what they differ on? I don't know details off the top of my head.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 13, 2016)

I know the moment I became a new creation. All I can say is that Jesus Christ revealed himself to me in power as Lord and God and the one who demanded my full surrender and allegiance.

I'd say it took at least a month to figure out the basics. Nothing is necessary to be saved except the Lord regenerating your heart in a moment of time. Placing a new heart and new spirit within. Often, the mind comes slower. 

I think a better question is to ask if a person has been a Christian for a while and consistently, adamantly, rejects orthodoxy, are they really saved? Or just stubborn and not there yet. 

I have mentioned an old friend here a couple times who got saved into the UPC (modalism/oneness). It was years until she and her husband became trinitarians and understood Christology. I think the Reformed can be far too quick to write people with terrible doctrine off. Give it time.


----------



## Herald (Jan 13, 2016)

MW said:


> Perhaps we should consider the place of Coptic Christianity in this discussion.



Matthew, would it be safe to say that the Coptics not only have a deficient christology, they also have a deficient soteriology? So, it's not just Christ's nature that they get wrong.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 13, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Our Reformed distinctives are contingent upon catholic orthodoxy; without the orthodox doctrines of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity there is no gospel to preach.



Thank you for pointing this out, Daniel. It does no good to be Calvinists if we are not Christians first.


----------



## timfost (Jan 13, 2016)

alexamasan said:


> Is a proper undersatnding of the hypostatic union necessary for salvation?



I think the question is flawed. Technically speaking, Abraham didn't understand this, yet he was saved. But the question assumes there is a _quantifiable_ "essential knowledge" requisite for salvation. Heidelberg 21 is helpful in this regard:



> *21. What is true faith?*
> 
> True Faith is not only a sure knowledge *whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word*, but also a hearty trust...



The point is that Abraham believed God as He revealed Himself in His word. Since we have God's complete Self-revelation, we are to "hold for truth" a greater quantity of revelation, though the faith exhibited is of the same quality that demonstrates the same response in believers.

We can safely say that if Abraham had the completed Scriptures, he _would have_ believed every word contained therein.

Since we have the complete Canon of Scripture, we are duty-bound to believe every word. One can be ignorant of a particular doctrine, but the quality of faith should be ready to accept it when illuminated. However, one that would deny the hypostatic union when confronted with the Word may be demonstrating that he doesn't have the faith of Abraham that believes God at His word.


----------



## Vox Oculi (Jan 14, 2016)

What Tim said


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 14, 2016)

py3ak said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Our Reformed distinctives are contingent upon catholic orthodoxy; without the orthodox doctrines of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity there is no gospel to preach.
> ...



Precisely. Many have helpfully pointed out that individual believers may be confused about the nature of Christ.

The proper understanding of Christ is a most basic building block to a doctrine of salvation. The Church is formed by the Word and its Confession of what the Word teaches forms the type of Church it is. The nature of the Godhead and of the Person and work of Christ are properly basic doctrines. If you will, the theology of the Church regarding salvation will be formed as it works up from Who God is and what the nature of Christ is. The Church asked itself what kind of God is is that saves us? What kind of Christ is He Who saves us? The answers to these questions then form the nature of the Covenant and the outworking of that Covenant by a Mediator and Who and what that Mediator is.

If a Church gets the basic answer to Who Christ is wrong then every other theological docrtrine will be affected. A Church that denies the hypostatic union cannot arrive at a Christ Who saves and will teach a distorted/false Gospel.

A Church that understands Who Christ is can still preach a false Gospel (e.g. the Roman Catholoic Church is orthodox on the hypotstatic union). Furthermore, a Church can get Christ and the Gospel right and a believer can properly apprehend and be saved by that Gospel as he rests in Christ but might still be confused about aspects of Christ's nature.


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2016)

Herald said:


> So, it's not just Christ's nature that they get wrong.



In the historical situation in which they were judged "wrong," the person of Christ was the issue. In the debates of those times the underlying dogma was, Christ is salvation -- that which is not assumed is not healed. One nature does not allow for assumption as it requires assimilation. To deny the union of natures was paramount to saying that Christ did not come in the flesh.

From an individual and experiential perspective, a believer might not understand this doctrine in its formal structure, but we still have to say from the orthodox standpoint that his salvation is dependent upon it. This is true whether he acknowledges it or not. He confesses Christ as his salvation; the believer therefore has the seed of the doctrine in his confession of faith. It only requires means to bring him to the formal acknowledgement of it. The church supplies those means. If the church does not confess the hypostatic union it is not preaching the biblical doctrine of salvation, and is at the very least placing stumbling-blocks before Christ's little ones.


----------



## Herald (Jan 14, 2016)

MW said:


> From an individual and experiential perspective, a believer might not understand this doctrine in its formal structure, but we still have to say from the orthodox standpoint that his salvation is dependent upon it.



Matthew, I concur without equivocation. However I become concerned when understanding the doctrine "in its formal structure" becomes _sine qua non_ in regard to salvation. This problem is not unique to christology or soteriology. I can cite my experience with the charismatic movement nearly 37 years ago, when speaking in tongues was considered requisite for someone to be a Christian. I suppose that is why this topic always touches an exposed raw nerve with me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 14, 2016)

Herald said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > From an individual and experiential perspective, a believer might not understand this doctrine in its formal structure, but we still have to say from the orthodox standpoint that his salvation is dependent upon it.
> ...



Bill,

I'm not trying to be annoying but you are equivocating on Matthew's point. He did not state that a Christian needs to be able to articulate and apprehend the definition of Chalcedon to be saved. He's saying that a Christian might be confused by the nature of Christ but the only Christ that saves is the Person Who assumes and saves mankind. No other Christ will do. No other Christ is revealed. No other Christ exists. Our Mediator is God and Man is one Person unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2016)

Herald said:


> Matthew, I concur without equivocation. However I become concerned when understanding the doctrine "in its formal structure" becomes _sine qua non_ in regard to salvation. This problem is not unique to christology or soteriology. I can cite my experience with the charismatic movement nearly 37 years ago, when speaking in tongues was considered requisite for someone to be a Christian. I suppose that is why this topic always touches an exposed raw nerve with me.



Bill, I can understand the feeling of raw nerves. There is nothing worse than having a bad religious experience at the expense of vain-glorious religious teachers. The difference here is that this is truth, and the truth will heal those raw nerves. It is part of the "wholeness" of salvation, good for the believer in every way. It is to be taught as a necessary part of the believer's salvation, and a desirable object of contemplation for the support and strengthening of faith. The misunderstanding of it will be harmful, like the slicing open of the flesh, and the rejection of it will be like taking a pair of tweezers and pinching the raw nerves. Continuing in this exposed state will only bring on infection, and when the infection spreads to the vitals it means death is drawing near.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 14, 2016)

MW said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew, I concur without equivocation. However I become concerned when understanding the doctrine "in its formal structure" becomes _sine qua non_ in regard to salvation. This problem is not unique to christology or soteriology. I can cite my experience with the charismatic movement nearly 37 years ago, when speaking in tongues was considered requisite for someone to be a Christian. I suppose that is why this topic always touches an exposed raw nerve with me.
> ...



Poignant. They say a picture paints a thousand words...but I'd say your post is an exception.


----------



## Herald (Jan 15, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...



Rich,

Good to hear from you! It's been a while.

This is not the first time I've expressed myself poorly. I apologize. 

I agree with Matthew, and I was not trying to put words in his mouth or take away from what he said. I agree with the christology Matthew, and others, have articulated. Since I'm agreement, I'll just leave it at that. 

Blessings, brother!


----------



## MCM180 (Feb 2, 2016)

I tend to make a lot of the thief on the cross. His theology was likely very deficient, even by the standards of what was knowable at the time (I.e., before the NT was written). Yet he was saved. 

Romans 10:9ff tells us who will be saved. I don't see a terribly high doctrinal standard there. 

If we are to make new converts elaborate on the hypostatic union before admitting them to membership...well, I think we're overreaching scripture by far. There are believers who lack the intellectual gifts to properly understand a lot of Reformed theology's most cherished doctrines. Does God only save those with completely consistent logic?

I would consider anyone actively rejecting the union to be in great error and in need of correction and possibly heretical (or simply erroneous-Peter needed correction on the sufficiency of Christ's work and would we say he was unsaved then?) But simply misunderstanding it? I don't see any Scriptural support for a position that denies salvation to those calling on Christ's name but not understanding those things that are less plain.


----------

