Question on the two natures of Christ

[LadyCalvinist]

Hello,

I have been reading Berkhof's The History of Christian doctrines and while it is very good there are times when some of the material goes over my head. For example, would someone explain the difference between between the
Monothelite and the Monophysites? What were there positions and where were they wrong>



Also, what is Kenosis? I know I read in one of Philip Yancey's books something about Christ divesting himself of his divinity but I really don't understand that.

Thanks.

 

[py3ak]

Monophysites held that Christ had only one nature: rather than true divinity and true humanity joined in one person, there was only one nature, whether a hybrid of the two, or the humanity being absorbed by the divinity. It is wrong because it is quite clear in Scripture that Christ is both true God and true man.
Monothelites held that Christ had only one will; but will belongs to nature, and if Christ had two natures, He must also have two wills. That is quite clear in Scripture from the prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane. As you can see, monothelitism is a form of of monophysitism, but the focus has come to be specifically on the wills of Christ.
Kenosis is the idea that God the Son somehow despoiled himself of His divinity in the incarnation - that He was ontologically diminished. It was very popular in a variety of forms at the beginning of the 20th century. But it is an utterly incoherent theory. The divine nature is not capable of change or alteration, so it is not capable of diminution, or of cessation. It's based on a bad interpretation of Philippians 2:6, and B.B. Warfield's sermon "Imitating the Incarnation" will go a long way towards giving a better idea of what that passage does mean. You could say that the incarnation brought the person of the Son into a new relation to God: made of a woman, He was made under the law. Certainly the reality of His deity was to some extent concealed in the assumption of the humanity; but He was always true God in the fullest sense of the term, and from the moment of the Incarnation onwards forever He is also always true man, in the fullest sense of the term.