One divine person in Jesus

[Theophilus Agapee]

I did not separate the actions of Christ. Any action of Christ is both Divine and human. To eat, to suffer, to walk - human action by nature and divine by union. To perform miracles - divine action by nature and human by union. If we separate actions of Christ - then God will not suffer, and man will not perform miracles.

I see. So you didn't link any action of Christ to His human essence alone. Thank you for clarifying.

We do not believe in "two natures". We believe in "from two natures". One nature from two natures after union.

So how can you talk of a "human nature" as distinct from the "Divine Nature" after the union?

Christ’s hand is not divine by nature, but divine by union.

What is the nature of His hand? Only human?

 

[Tigran1245]

So how can you talk of a "human nature" as distinct from the "Divine Nature" after the union?

We distinguish, but do not separate natures after the union.

What is the nature of His hand? Only human?

Nature of hand is nature of hand, not human or divine. But we can say that hand is divine by union.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

We distinguish, but do not separate natures after the union.

So we can't talk of each nature separately, right?

Nature of hand is nature of hand, not human or divine. But we can say that hand is divine by union.

Isn't the hand perfectly human and perfectly Divine per Miaphysite formulation? (Just like everything in the Person of Christ).

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

The second person is from two natures and has action out of two actions: divine action (common for Trinity) and human action (Christs only).

I am asking, because in this post you separated the action of the human Christ from the action of the Divine Christ, as if Christ had two natures after the union.

 

[ViaCrucis]

We distinguish, but do not separate natures after the union.

That would be a diaphysite perspective though? I'm a Chalcedonian, Chalcedonians confess Christ as one Hypostasis and Prosopon of two natures, two physes.

Nature of hand is nature of hand, not human or divine. But we can say that hand is divine by union.

It's the hand one the one Divine Person, Jesus Christ, the God-Man. That's true regardless whether one holds to a miaphysite or diaphysite position.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Actually,

That would be a diaphysite perspective though? I'm a Chalcedonian, Chalcedonians confess Christ as one Hypostasis and Prosopon of two natures, two physes.

No, we also distinguish the Humanity from the Divinity, but we do not make them two natures. We do NOT believe in one Nature (i.e. Eutychianism); we condemn that doctrine as heresy. We believe in one UNITED Nature. We are NOT Monophysite, but Miaphysite.

It's the hand one the one Divine Person, Jesus Christ, the God-Man. That's true regardless whether one holds to a miaphysite or diaphysite position.

-CryptoLutheran

Exactly. Both formulas are orthodox in doctrine.

 

[Tigran1245]

So we can't talk of each nature separately, right?

Yes, we can’t.

Isn't the hand perfectly human and perfectly Divine per Miaphysite formulation? (Just like everything in the Person of Christ).

Absolutely divine, but not by nature, but by union. All attributes of human nature are divine and attributes of divine nature are human. But not by nature, but by union. If we say by nature, we get monophysitism, which we condemn.

St. Gregory of Tatev:

“Word is immortal in its nature, and the same becomes mortal by unification; as also humanity becomes immortal by unification, and is mortal in its property.“

 

[ViaCrucis]

Actually,

No, we also distinguish the Humanity from the Divinity, but we do not make them two natures. We do NOT believe in one Nature (i.e. Eutychianism); we condemn that doctrine as heresy. We believe in one UNITED Nature. We are NOT Monophysite, but Miaphysite.

Right. I was specifically focused on the use of a distinction of natures--speaking of a distinction of natures (physes) is specifically diaphysite. Both Diaphysites and Miaphysites reject the confusion of the Divinity and Humanity; it's the semantic use of "nature" that differentiates the Miaphysite and Diaphysite formulations, not material doctrine.

It's why I found it surprising for someone of a Miaphysite position using what looked like Diaphysite language.

Exactly. Both formulas are orthodox in doctrine.

Amen. One undivided and unconfused Jesus Christ, One Person, God and Man.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tigran1245]

I am asking, because in this post you separated the action of the human Christ from the action of the Divine Christ, as if Christ had two natures after the union.

No one separates the action, but we distinguish what in a one action and will is from the Divine nature, and what is from the human. What is human by nature and Divine by unity, and vice versa.

For example, St. Nerses the Gracious wrote:

“And this does not at all show a struggle of will, but only independence: human will could not overcome the divine, as happens in us, ..., but the human will in Christ followed the Divine will."

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Absolutely divine, but not by nature, but by union. All attributes of human nature are divine and attributes of divine nature are human. But not by nature, but by union. If we say by nature, we get monophysitism, which we condemn.

St. Gregory of Tatev:

“Word is immortal in its nature, and the same becomes mortal by unification; as also humanity becomes immortal by unification, and is mortal in its property.“

Your quote doesn't say we can't say by Nature. Christ's one Nature is both fully Divine and fully human. So by Nature everything in His Person is fully Divine and fully Human.

If you say by union, denying that it is by Nature, then you contradict the fact that it's one Nature.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

No one separates the action, but we distinguish what in a one action and will is from the Divine nature, and what is from the human. What is human by nature and Divine by unity, and vice versa.

For example, St. Nerses the Gracious wrote:

“And this does not at all show a struggle of will, but only independence: human will could not overcome the divine, as happens in us, ..., but the human will in Christ followed the Divine will."

And Pope Shnouda III said Jesus has one will.

So is there disagreement between theologians of the Oriental Orthodox Churches?...

Note that Nerses the Gracious made some compromises with the Eastern Orthodox Church to come to an agreement with them. And I didn't check if he really said what you quoted, because I don't have the means now.

 

[Tigran1245]

That would be a diaphysite perspective though? I'm a Chalcedonian, Chalcedonians confess Christ as one Hypostasis and Prosopon of two natures, two physes.

The Chalcedonians deny natural union, teaching only hypostatic unity. But since nature is the definition and source of hypostasis, sometimes, teaching about two natures, one can arrive at two hypostases. As Pope Leo essentially did. In his quote, he called the concrete subject (hypostasis) - nature:

“For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.”

It's the hand one the one Divine Person, Jesus Christ, the God-Man. That's true regardless whether one holds to a miaphysite or diaphysite position.

We believe that the Person of Christ is not only Divine, but God-human.

 

[Tigran1245]

Christ's one Nature is both fully Divine and fully human. So by Nature everything in His Person is fully Divine and fully Human.

No. Christ as a whole has one nature. But each part of Christ has its own nature. Hand has a nature of hand, soul - the nature of soul. And in union all is one nature, not to count all of them. St. Gregory of Tatev writes:

“And if you want to speak about the division of natures, then do not speak about two natures, but about three, that is, about the nature of the body, soul and matter. And not only this, but also speak about the four elements of the body, which have four natures: hot, cold, dry, wet. Accordingly, it must be asserted that Christ has seven natures, and each element has two qualities: generative and accidental. Accordingly, you must say that there are eleven natures of Christ. And if you think that the nature of the body is different, bones are different, tendons, veins, skin, hair, bile are different, then, accordingly, you must teach about the multitude of natures of Christ.”

If you say by union, denying that it is by Nature, then you contradict the fact that it's one Nature.

Union - natural union. Word has only divine nature, flesh has only human nature. Word incarnate (Christ) is of divine-human Nature from two natures. So, Word doesn’t suffer by its nature (divine), but by union (flesh with human nature). And this union is possible because of one nature of Christ.

Similarly, with the nature of man. The soul cannot walk by its nature. The soul has no legs, it is immaterial. But since the soul and body together are one nature of man, the soul can walk by connection with the body. The soul does not walk by nature, but by unity:

all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten (Gen.46:27).

 

[Tigran1245]

And Pope Shnouda III said Jesus has one will.

We believe in one will, but not single will. If we talk about will as a decision, then there is strictly one will. If we speak about will as ability to take decisions, then one will from two wills. Christ takes decisions both as God and as man. This is what the Council of the Armenian Church under Catholicos Gregory IV decided:

"Furthermore, the will is also visible in Him, that is, the natural movement of our soul, so that in Him a man may be seen who strives for justification of his own accord, and not under compulsion. The action according to the flesh is also visible, so that it may be evident that our salvation was achieved by labor, and not taken by force, through the fact that we have acquired the right to trample the enemy in justice."

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Chalcedonians deny natural union, teaching only hypostatic unity. But since nature is the definition and source of hypostasis, sometimes, teaching about two natures, one can arrive at two hypostases. As Pope Leo essentially did. In his quote, he called the concrete subject (hypostasis) - nature:

“Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.”

We believe that the Person of Christ is not only Divine, but God-human.

I am not fully immersed in Oriental Orthodox language, though in the Chalcedonian perspective we confess that the Divine Person of the Son is fully united with humanity--He is a DIvine Person who is also human by way of union, i.e. Hypostatic Union--hence when we speak of the Divinity and Humanity as two natures (δύο φύσεων), we are merely referring to the Humanity and the Divinity as real and distinct. The union of the Divine with the human is therefore understood as a Personal or Hypostatic union--the assumption of the human by the Divine. So that Christ is, as He always was, the Eternal Divine Son and Word; and in no less way is also the real flesh and blood Child of Holy Mary, by which virtue she is rightly called Theotokos and mother of God (Luke 1:43). And in this way the flesh and human hand of Christ is, indeed, the hand of God; the blood spilled upon Calvary is the blood of God (Acts 20:28). The Divine Person is human, because of the union of the (so we Chalcedonians say) natures.

In the ancient and tragic and wrongful divide between the Diaphysites and Miaphysites this has, at its core, been a semantic issue. The issue is fundamentally the difference by what we mean by "nature"; Diaphysites use "nature" to refer to Divinity and Humanity respectively, united indivisibly and unconfusedly in the one Hypostasis and Person. Miaphysites, as I have long understood it, use "nature" to describe the one undivided Person and Hypostasis; thus two natures vs one united nature (both of which firmly reject the errant formulations and theologies of Nestorian and Eutyches).

Of course the one Person of Christ is Theanthropos (God-Man), but the Chalcedonian approach is to speak of the Divine Person assuming, being united witg, humanity; and thus Christ is what He has always been (and always is and always will be, the Divine Son and Word, Eternal God) and simultaneously is also human by way of the Incarnation. The Divine Person became human (ἐνανθρωπήσαντα). The One that always has been, Son and Word of the Father, the One who is homousian with the Father, out of love and for us human beings and our salvation became one of us, is one of us, human and flesh, suffered and died and rose again.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tigran1245]

Diaphysites use "nature" to refer to Divinity and Humanity respectively, united indivisibly and unconfusedly in the one Hypostasis and Person. Miaphysites, as I have long understood it, use "nature" to describe the one undivided Person and Hypostasis;

In this sense we recognize that one nature is made up of two natures, and not mixed.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Right. I was specifically focused on the use of a distinction of natures--speaking of a distinction of natures (physes) is specifically diaphysite. Both Diaphysites and Miaphysites reject the confusion of the Divinity and Humanity; it's the semantic use of "nature" that differentiates the Miaphysite and Diaphysite formulations, not material doctrine.

It's why I found it surprising for someone of a Miaphysite position using what looked like Diaphysite language.

Yes, I was also surprised like you, as you see in my discussion with Tigran.

Amen. One undivided and unconfused Jesus Christ, One Person, God and Man.

-CryptoLutheran

Amen!

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

No. Christ as a whole has one nature. But each part of Christ has its own nature. Hand has a nature of hand, soul - the nature of soul. And in union all is one nature, not to count all of them. St. Gregory of Tatev writes:

“And if you want to speak about the division of natures, then do not speak about two natures, but about three, that is, about the nature of the body, soul and matter. And not only this, but also speak about the four elements of the body, which have four natures: hot, cold, dry, wet. Accordingly, it must be asserted that Christ has seven natures, and each element has two qualities: generative and accidental. Accordingly, you must say that there are eleven natures of Christ. And if you think that the nature of the body is different, bones are different, tendons, veins, skin, hair, bile are different, then, accordingly, you must teach about the multitude of natures of Christ.”

You are confusing the different natures in the human nature with the human nature itself. Man has different natures: the soul has its nature, and the body has its nature. But both the soul and the body are human by nature.

But we are not talking about this. We are talking about the human nature itself and the Divine Nature itself. Well, according to the teaching of the Bible and according to the Miaphysite formula, Christ has ONE united Nature: the fully Divine and Human Nature, the Nature of the Word Incarnate. So Christ's soul has ONE Nature, fully Divine and fully Human. The body of Christ has ONE Nature, fully Divine and fully Human.

Union - natural union. Word has only divine nature, flesh has only human nature. Word incarnate (Christ) is of divine-human Nature from two natures. So, Word doesn’t suffer by its nature (divine), but by union (flesh with human nature). And this union is possible because of one nature of Christ.

I am very sad that you don't notice that what you just said here is a heresy. There is nothing called flesh independently from the Word. It is the flesh of the Word Himself. The Word  became flesh; He didn't just take an independent flesh from the Blessed Theotokos and add it to His Person. He was  incarnated.

The Divine Nature doesn't suffer and die by Nature, but the Word suffers and dies by Nature, because He is 100% Human as well as 100% God by Nature.

Similarly, with the nature of man. The soul cannot walk by its nature. The soul has no legs, it is immaterial. But since the soul and body together are one nature of man, the soul can walk by connection with the body. The soul does not walk by nature, but by unity:

But both the body and the soul of man have only ONE nature, the human nature. There is very little similarity between the soul and body of man and the two Essences of Christ.

all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten (Gen.46:27).

This is a very simple way of expression in the semitic languages: they say "soul", but they mean "individual". This has nothing to do with our topic.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

We believe in one will, but not single will. If we talk about will as a decision, then there is strictly one will. If we speak about will as ability to take decisions, then one will from two wills. Christ takes decisions both as God and as man. This is what the Council of the Armenian Church under Catholicos Gregory IV decided:

"Furthermore, the will is also visible in Him, that is, the natural movement of our soul, so that in Him a man may be seen who strives for justification of his own accord, and not under compulsion. The action according to the flesh is also visible, so that it may be evident that our salvation was achieved by labor, and not taken by force, through the fact that we have acquired the right to trample the enemy in justice."

Your quotation does NOT say He has two wills. It says that Christ has a fully human will. And this is exactly what the one will of Christ is: both fully Human and fully Divine.

And it is vain philosophy to say His decision is one, but the ability to take decision is two. He is One Person and He has One Nature, so He has One Will, the Will of the Word Incarnate, and He has one decision, the decision of the Word Incarnate according to His One Physis.

Here is what Pope Shenouda III says in his book "The Nature of Christ":

ONE WILL AND ONE ACT.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

In this sense we recognize that one nature is made up of two natures, and not mixed.

But we don't speak of two natures anymore. Mía Physis!