WCF and Nestorianism.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
It seems that by criticizing the catechisms for not including the human nature of Christ in the answer to the question, "What is God", I was actually capitulating to a subtle form of Eutychianism.

It does not deny the Trinity to say God is spirit.


I openly repent of this error here and now.




"œSix Common Heresies Regarding the Nature of Christ"

Ebionism "“ teaches that Jesus was not God, but that the Spirit and Power of God came upon the man Jesus at His baptism. The same infilling departed and left Jesus at the cross, for God cannot die. (Human Nature under God´s influence. No Divine Nature.)

Arianism "“ teaches that Jesus was not fully God. In fact, Arianism denies the Trinity and says that Jesus was created by God since God cannot share His nature or be divided among "œpersons". (Modern day Jehovah´s Witness theology). (One indivisible God created Jesus as a perfect man, human nature with no divine nature)

Docetism "“ teaches that Jesus was not a physical man, but only appeared to be "“ he looked human but was in fact a phantom without substance. (No Human nature, only Divine Nature. No body of flesh.)

Apollinarianism "“ teaches that Jesus took on flesh as a man but did not have a human nature. (Divine Nature without a Human Nature)

Nestoriansim "“ teaches that Jesus was two persons in one body. He was as God, the Word, and as Jesus, the Man. Jesus was born a man and later became God. Two natures in Two Persons in one Body).

Eutychianism "“ teaches that Jesus had one nature composed of both the divine and human. (A Fused Divine-Human Nature).

Person (or personality) has been defined in the orthodox tradition.

One definition supplied by Boethius (that is Aristotelian): persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia or, "a person is the individual substance of rational nature". This seems to me not nearly as effective as Richard of St. Victor's definition:

persona est divinae incommunicabilis existentia, or "a person is incommunicable existence of divine nature"

Person, therefore, inherently includes relationship to other persons. In God (in whose image we have been made), there has always been relationship (hence the Trinity). That would mean that Christ could not have more than one person, since he does not relate to Himself, but rather to the other members of the Trinity (to say otherwise is to invite modalism).

In conjunction with relationship to others, there must also be something that is irreducible to each person, else we become Hindus.

Most importantly, behind the idea of personhood is God, who is, as has been said, persona personones, or a person-consitituting being; whereas man is persona personata or personalized person.

This concept of person is critical for a proper understanding of the Trinity (which is, after all, how it came about) and also why non-Christian (espo. Eastern) thought cannot properly understand human rights.
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by Saiph
It seems that by criticizing the catechisms for not including the human nature of Christ in the answer to the question, "What is God", I was actually capitulating to a subtle form of Eutychianism.

It does not deny the Trinity to say God is spirit.


I openly repent of this error here and now.




"œSix Common Heresies Regarding the Nature of Christ"

Ebionism "“ teaches that Jesus was not God, but that the Spirit and Power of God came upon the man Jesus at His baptism. The same infilling departed and left Jesus at the cross, for God cannot die. (Human Nature under God´s influence. No Divine Nature.)

Arianism "“ teaches that Jesus was not fully God. In fact, Arianism denies the Trinity and says that Jesus was created by God since God cannot share His nature or be divided among "œpersons". (Modern day Jehovah´s Witness theology). (One indivisible God created Jesus as a perfect man, human nature with no divine nature)

Docetism "“ teaches that Jesus was not a physical man, but only appeared to be "“ he looked human but was in fact a phantom without substance. (No Human nature, only Divine Nature. No body of flesh.)

Apollinarianism "“ teaches that Jesus took on flesh as a man but did not have a human nature. (Divine Nature without a Human Nature)

Nestoriansim "“ teaches that Jesus was two persons in one body. He was as God, the Word, and as Jesus, the Man. Jesus was born a man and later became God. Two natures in Two Persons in one Body).

Eutychianism "“ teaches that Jesus had one nature composed of both the divine and human. (A Fused Divine-Human Nature).

Person (or personality) has been defined in the orthodox tradition.

One definition supplied by Boethius (that is Aristotelian): persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia or, "a person is the individual substance of rational nature". This seems to me not nearly as effective as Richard of St. Victor's definition:

persona est divinae incommunicabilis existentia, or "a person is incommunicable existence of divine nature"

Person, therefore, inherently includes relationship to other persons. In God (in whose image we have been made), there has always been relationship (hence the Trinity). That would mean that Christ could not have more than one person, since he does not relate to Himself, but rather to the other members of the Trinity (to say otherwise is to invite modalism).

In conjunction with relationship to others, there must also be something that is irreducible to each person, else we become Hindus.

Most importantly, behind the idea of personhood is God, who is, as has been said, persona personones, or a person-consitituting being; whereas man is persona personata or personalized person.

This concept of person is critical for a proper understanding of the Trinity (which is, after all, how it came about) and also why non-Christian (espo. Eastern) thought cannot properly understand human rights.

You are forgiven my son. ;)

BTW, you are not the only one who has touble explaining the trinity!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top