Hypostatic Union

[PuritanCovenanter]

I'm baaaacccckkkkk. Beware...

Nah, I ain't that bad...

I was discussing Christ with a modalistic monarchist Friday night who said he was Trinitarian for 40 years only to see the light of God's oneness just recently. Then he went on about Revelation and three frogs coming up out of the earth and that was a prophecy about the demonic teachings of the Pope and of the Trinity.

Anyways, as I was discussing the Hypostatic Union I realized it is time to brush up on this topic. I have been wanting but hadn't done it. now I am motivared.

What would be some of the best resources for this. I like reading. But I also want a good video on the subject for easy reference for this younger generation.

Anyways... I am back on the app.

Thanks guys.

 

[Mrs. B-N]

Following. I recently had a similar conversation.

 

[RamistThomist]

I plan to link some resources later

 

[davejonescue]

There is a work by John Arrowsmith entitled "Theanthropos - God-Man" I have heard in high regard. Its one I plan on doing for Monergism, Lord Willing, when I get around to collecting the 150 or so Greek instances. But for now you can find it on Google or EEBO-TCP.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Is there a book or pdf download anywhere?

 

[davejonescue]

Sorry, I guess Google doesnt have it, here is a copy from Archive: https://archive.org/details/bim_ear...700_-or-god-man_arrowsmith-john_1660/mode/2up

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I can listen to it too. Thanks.

Please keep recommendations coming.

Thanks Jacob. I will look later also. Have a good evening guys.

 

[RamistThomist]

The most important thing is to define the terms. The following definitions might seem overwhelming, but they are absolutely crucial to understanding the issue.

Ousia: Essence, substance, being, genus, or nature.

Physis: Nature, make up of a thing. (In earlier Christian thought the concrete reality or existent.)

Hypostasis: The actual concrete reality of a thing, the underlying essence, (in earlier Christian thought the synonym of physis.)

Prosopon: The observable character, defining properties, manifestation of a reality.

Even at first sight it is clear that the words bear a range of meanings that overlap in some areas so as to be synonymous. This is particularly so with the terms Physis and Hypostasis which in the fifth century simultaneously bore ancient Christian meanings and more modern applications.. In relation to Physis, Cyril tended to use the antique meaning, Nestorius the modern. In relation to Hypostasis the opposite was the case.”

McGuckin, 138-139.

7. “Ousia is the genus of a thing. Once can think, for example of the genus ‘unicorn.’ Such a genus exists, but only theoretically, not practically or concretely. It does not exist, that is, ‘in reality’ as we would say today. Nonetheless, it makes sense to talk of the necessary characteristics of a unicorn such as its magical horn, its horse like appearance, its whiteness, its beard and lion’s tail, and so on. Thus the genus of unicorn is the ousia, that which makes up the essential being of a thing.. The notion of the physis of our unicorn is intimately related to this. It connotes what we might call the palpable and ‘physical’ characteristics of a unicorn such as outlined above-but always understanding that his possession of a physis-nature still does not necessarily imply that such a creature is real…In some circles, especially those represented by the Christian thinkers of Alexandria following Athanasius, the word physis signified something slightly different from this sense of ’physical attributes’ and had been used to connote the physical existent-in the sense of a concrete individual reality. In the hands of Cyril the word is used in two senses, one in what might be called the standard ‘physical usage where it connotes the constituent elements of a thing, and the other in which it serves to delineate the notion of individual existent-or in other words individual subject. This variability in the use of a key term on Cyril’s part goes some way to explaining Nestorius’ difficulties in following his argument over the single Physis of the Incarnate Word (Mia Physis tou Theou Logou Sesarkoene). By this Cyril meant the one concrete individual subject of the Incarnated Word. Whereas Nestorius heard him to mean the one physical composite of the Word (in the sense of an Apollinarist mixture of fusion of the respective attributes of the natures of man and God.)

McGuckin, 139-140.

“The prospon is the external aspect or form of a physis as it can be manifested to external observation and scrutiny. It is a very concrete, empirical word, connoting what appears to outside observation. Each essence (ousia) is characterized by its proper nature (physis), everything that is, which makes it up, and in turn every nature that is hypostatically real presents itself to the scrutiny of the senses in its own prosopon-that list of detailed characteristics or ‘propria’ that constitute this thing individually and signal to the observer what nature (physis) it has and thus to what genus (ousia) it belongs. In the system Nestorius is following, every nature has its own prosopon, that such of proper characteristics (idiomata) by which it is characterized in its unique individuality and made known to others as such. The word carried with it an intrinsic sense of ‘making known’ and appeared to Nestorius particularly apt in the revelatory context of discussing the incarnation.”

McGuckin, 144.

McGuckin, John. Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy.

On a more manageable level, I recommend browsing the better works on the Christological debates. Pride of place goes to JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines.

Oliver Crisp's The Word Enfleshed has some good suggestions.

 

[MW]

Hi Martin. Wendelin's Theology, translated by Dr. Dilday, was just made available and is excellent. Scroll down a little to see the posts on Christology.

Wendelin-Theology

Marcus Friedrich Wendelin's Christian Theology. Wendelin (1584-1652) was a Reformed Theologian and educator. He served as Rector at Zerbst from 1610 to 1652. His Christian Theology is clear and concise, opening the internal logic of Biblical Teaching. Powerful!

www.fromreformationtoreformation.com

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Thanks Rev Winzer. The issue I am having is probably simple, but I could turn a very simple thing very complex quickly. People like me confuse terms like person with being or essence, especially the Cultist. I am trying to know how to correctly discuss this with Mormons, JW's, or anyone who is Arian. They most likely have never heard of Arius.

Does that help narrow the scope any?

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks Rev Winzer. The issue I am having is probably simple, but I could turn a very simple thing very complex quickly. People like me confuse terms like person with being or essence, especially the Cultist. I am trying to know how to correctly discuss this with Mormons, JW's, or anyone who is Arian. They most likely have never heard of Arius.

Does that help narrow the scope any?

A good start is this:
A person is a who.
A nature is a what.
They are not the same thing. Natures do not act. Persons do.

Per Cyril of Alexandria (think Third Ecumenical Council); The Word is united with human flesh as a single hypostasis. Union is “the concurrence into one reality (en) of the things united” (Un. Chr. 3.62/ Ep. Eulog. 64).

“The human nature is conceived as the manner of action of an independent and omnipotent power—that of the Logos; and to the Logos alone can be attributed the authorship of, and responsibility for, all its actions” (McGuckin 186). The subject is unchanged, but that subject now expresses the characteristics of his divinely powerful condition in and through the medium of a passible and fragile condition.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

A good start is this:
A person is a who.
A nature is a what.
They are not the same thing. Natures do not act. Persons do.

Let's play this out a bit.

I understand what you are telling me. It is very confusing to an Arian. We would say God acts according to his nature. He is one being. The problem is getting an Arian to view a person as not a being. They see three separate persons as beings.

 

[RamistThomist]

Let's play this out a bit.

I understand what you are telling me. It is very confusing to an Arian. We would say God acts according to his nature. He is one being. The problem is getting an Arian to view a person as not a being. They see three separate persons as beings.

Then we would have to define what we mean by "being." We need to be clear on what we mean by essence/substance. Best to take it slow. Focus on one aspect at a time.

 

[MW]

Martin, person and being is easily confused when we make our reason the ultimate reference point. But man is just one small creature inhabiting a vast reality. Reality is much, much bigger than man. The idea that man would contain within himself the sum of all things is evidently false.

When we begin with man we recognise in ourselves a single person -- being and person are one. If we reason from ourselves to God we will conclude that God must be unipersonal also. But if this were the case all we would have is an "I." There would be no other. We could not exist. Or, if we believe in our own existence, we must conclude that we are God. At that point reason has closed in on itself to make itself the only reality.

The reality in which man exists reveals something greater. There is "I" and "thou." I am writing to you. There is a second person reference. Reality is by nature differentiated, and that not only by first and second person, but by a third person as well. I can refer to a person observing our conversation as "he." As soon as we look outside ourselves we are confronted by an ultimate reality that is much greater than ourselves.

If God were one person there could be nothing else besides Him. Creation is a personal act. It requires personal communication from one thing to another. If that is not eternally in God He would not have the capacity to communicate anything. But it is in God. It is Word. The Word is with God and it is God. God communicates with Himself. There is a another person and by that person God creates. All things are made by the Word.