Effects of the Filioque?

[ArmyMatt]

The Word is a person, not a nature

a Divine Person, not a human person. this is why it's a hypostatic union. in His Person, He unites humanity and Divinity, but the Person remains Divine and only Divine.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

a Divine Person, not a human person. this is why it's a hypostatic union. in His Person, He unites humanity and Divinity, but the Person remains Divine and only Divine.

The flesh is part of the person

 

[ArmyMatt]

The flesh is part of the person

the flesh is a part of the conposite Christ yes, but no more than humanity united to Divinity. not that Christ is a human person, or humanity added anything to the Logos, because the Logos is eternal.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

the flesh is a part of the conposite Christ yes, but no more than humanity united to Divinity. not that Christ is a human person, or humanity added anything to the Logos, because the Logos is eternal.

Since the Logos is synonymous with the person, the flesh is part of the Logos

 

[ArmyMatt]

Since the Logos is synonymous with the person, the flesh is part of the Logos

then the Logos changed, which violates Chalcedon. unless the compositeness of the Person does not mean the Person changed.

again, I don't think you and He are defining things the same.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

then the Logos changed, which violates Chalcedon. unless the compositeness of the Person does not mean the Person changed.

again, I don't think you and He are defining things the same.

Chalcedon says the Word's divinity didn't change, which it didn't. The Word did become human in addition though, without his divinity being compromised

Do you think John, by Christ's hypostasis, means something other than the Word?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Chalcedon says the Word's divinity didn't change, which it didn't. The Word did become human in addition though, without his divinity being compromised

Do you think John, by Christ's hypostasis, means something other than the Word?

and the Logos is Divine which is also unchanging.

no I don't, I have said in this thread the Person is the Word. I just don't think you are reading St John right because he also says that whatever is applied to the Father is applied to the Son. so if the Father in His Person is immutable and unchanging, so is the Son.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

and the Logos is Divine which is also unchanging.

The Logos is divine and human. His divinity did not change, but he did take on humanity in addition to his divinity; this is a change, but not a change in his divinity, it is the addition of humanity. John of Damascus says the taking of humanity did not alter the divinity, BUT the divinity did interpenetrate and mingle with the flesh: "we hold that the natures of the Lord permeate one another, yet we know that the permeation springs from the divine nature."

no I don't, I have said in this thread the Person is the Word. I just don't think you are reading St John right

I think I'm reading him right.

"the very hypostasis of God the Word was changed into the hypostasis of the flesh"

"The divine Apostle in truth says that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, that is to say in His flesh."

because he also says that whatever is applied to the Father is applied to the Son. so if the Father in His Person is immutable and unchanging, so is the Son.

The Father's person is obviously distinct from the Word's respecting humanity: "the hypostasis of the Word, which was formerly simple, became compound , yea compounded of two perfect natures, divinity and humanity, and bearing the characteristic and distinctive property of the divine Sonship of God the Word in virtue of which it is distinguished from the Father and the Spirit"

Could the Father become human? Certainly, but he didn't and never will.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Logos is divine and human. His divinity did not change, but he did take on humanity in addition to his divinity; this is a change, but not a change in his divinity, it is the addition of humanity. John of Damascus says the taking of humanity did not alter the divinity, BUT the divinity did interpenetrate and mingle with the flesh: "we hold that the natures of the Lord permeate one another, yet we know that the permeation springs from the divine nature."

yes, divine and human by nature, not by Person. yes, He became man, but our hymns over and over again say that this was not by any change to what He was before. not to mention, St Cyril flat out rejects in the Formula of Reunion that the Person of the Word changed. the addition of humanity is with no change to the Logos.

I think I'm reading him right.

"the very hypostasis of God the Word was changed into the hypostasis of the flesh"

"The divine Apostle in truth says that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, that is to say in His flesh."

because the hypostasis took on flesh, but the hypostasis of the Word as is, did not change.

The Father's person is obviously distinct from the Word's respecting humanity: "the hypostasis of the Word, which was formerly simple, became compound , yea compounded of two perfect natures, divinity and humanity, and bearing the characteristic and distinctive property of the divine Sonship of God the Word in virtue of which it is distinguished from the Father and the Spirit"

yes, the Person of the Word took on humanity, but His Person did not change.

Could the Father become human? Certainly, but he didn't and never will.

yeah, that is not what this is about. we are talking about the qualities of being Divine. which St John says the Son has exactly like the Father. so the Person of the Word is unchanging, as is the Person of the Father and the Spirit. St Leo's Tome also affirms this, that whatever property the Logos had in both Divinity and humanity, He maintained. so the Divine Person does not change. yes, assumes humanity and becomes what He was not, but this is not by any alteration to His Person or to Divinity,

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

yes, divine and human by nature, not by Person.

There is no such thing as nature without corresponding hypostasis any more than there is such a thing as species without specimens. It's like having a blanket dyed red and saying, "The blanket's redness is red, but the blanket itself is not red." That's Platonist gobbledygook. Human nature doesn't exist except as humans.

yes, He became man, but our hymns over and over again say that this was not by any change to what He was before.

That is correct, his divinity did not change. The manhood was an addition to his divinity, not an alteration of his divinity.

not to mention, St Cyril flat out rejects in the Formula of Reunion that the Person of the Word changed. the addition of humanity is with no change to the Logos.

The Person of the Word didn't change in terms of his divinity being altered or transformed. He only "changed" in the sense of taking on humanity in addition. This is not an alteration to what the Word is eternally and was before, but is rather a temporal incorporation which does not compromise the integrity of the divine word.

yeah, that is not what this is about. we are talking about the qualities of being Divine. which St John says the Son has exactly like the Father. so the Person of the Word is unchanging, as is the Person of the Father and the Spirit. St Leo's Tome also affirms this, that whatever property the Logos had in both Divinity and humanity, He maintained. so the Divine Person does not change. yes, assumes humanity and becomes what He was not, but this is not by any alteration to His Person or to Divinity,

This depends on how you are defining alteration. There was absolutely not alteration the sense of the integrity of the Word of God and the Word's divinity being compromised. If you are saying there was not alteration in the sense that the Word did not become man, that the Word isn't man as truly as He is God, then I don't agree with that and neither does John of Damascus. John says his person itself is compound, that is, comprised of two elements. If the Word is not human, then his person would NOT be compound, but simple; we'd only be talking about his natures. But, again, nature does not exist without hypostasis. Hypostasis IS existence; if Christ's humanity doesn't have a hypostasis (the Word), then it literally doesn't have an existence. You are saying Christ's nature is human and divine, but his existence is only divine; this doesn't make any sense. A nature unless it has existence is purely imaginary...like munchkin nature, which has no hypostases.

 

[ArmyMatt]

There is no such thing as nature without corresponding hypostasis any more than there is such a thing as species without specimens. It's like having a blanket dyed red and saying, "The blanket's redness is red, but the blanket itself is not red." That's Platonist gobbledygook. Human nature doesn't exist except as humans.

and the hypostasis is the Divine Logos, as we discussed the last time we disagreed, there is no human person in Christ. there is only a Divine Person. this is why in the Creed we say Christ became man, not that He became a man. I am not using Platonist anything.

That is correct, his divinity did not change. The manhood was an addition to his divinity, not an alteration of his divinity.

and the Logos, being Divine, also did not change in His Person, not only in His nature.

The Person of the Word didn't change in terms of his divinity being altered or transformed. He only "changed" in the sense of taking on humanity in addition. This is not an alteration to what the Word is eternally and was before, but is rather a temporal incorporation which does not compromise the integrity of the divine word.

which is what I have been saying. the Person of the Word did not change. which means if He was unchanging prior to the Incarnation, He was unchanging in His Person since the Incarnation as well.

John says his person itself is compound, that is, comprised of two elements. If the Word is not human, then his person would NOT be compound, but simple; we'd only be talking about his natures. But, again, nature does not exist without hypostasis. Hypostasis IS existence; if Christ's humanity doesn't have a hypostasis (the Word), then it literally doesn't have an existence. You are saying Christ's nature is human and divine, but his existence is only divine; this doesn't make any sense. A nature unless it has existence is purely imaginary...like munchkin nature, which has no hypostases.

no I am saying the humanity DOES have a hypostasis, which is that of the Divine Logos which is not a human hypostasis. there is no human hypostasis in Christ. to say there is is to be Nestorian or semi-Nestorian. the hypostasis of Christ is the Word, and it is because the Word has both human and divine natures fully within Himself, is why He is compound. NOT because there is a human Person in Christ.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

and the hypostasis is the Divine Logos, as we discussed the last time we disagreed, there is no human person in Christ. there is only a Divine Person. this is why in the Creed we say Christ became man, not that He became a man. I am not using Platonist anything.



and the Logos, being Divine, also did not change in His Person, not only in His nature.



which is what I have been saying. the Person of the Word did not change. which means if He was unchanging prior to the Incarnation, He was unchanging in His Person since the Incarnation as well.



no I am saying the humanity DOES have a hypostasis, which is that of the Divine Logos which is not a human hypostasis. there is no human hypostasis in Christ. to say there is is to be Nestorian or semi-Nestorian. the hypostasis of Christ is the Word, and it is because the Word has both human and divine natures fully within Himself, is why He is compound. NOT because there is a human Person in Christ.

If Christ's existence isn't human, then Christ's humanity doesn't exist

 

[ArmyMatt]

If Christ's existence isn't human, then Christ's humanity doesn't exist

no, it does. that is the great mystery of the Incarnation. there is no human person in Christ. His humanity is real because His Person is real and Divine and enhypostasizes human nature. the only Person is the Divine Word, Who only is a Divine Person.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

no, it does. that is the great mystery of the Incarnation. there is no human person in Christ. His humanity is real because His Person is real and Divine and enhypostasizes human nature. the only Person is the Divine Word, Who only is a Divine Person.

I believe that God is a man.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I believe that God is a man.

by nature not by Person. the Person is Divine

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

by nature not by Person. the Person is Divine

So you believe the Word is a member of the human species, but not a specimen of the human species?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So you believe the Word is a member of the human species, but not a specimen of the human species?

if you mean that the Word took on human nature, but His Person is Divine, yes. there is no human person in Christ

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

if you mean that the Word took on human nature, but His Person is Divine, yes. there is no human person in Christ

Then there is no human nature in him either, since nature is nothing but category of particulars.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Then there is no human nature in him either, since nature is nothing but category of particulars.

no, He can have a human nature while His Person is Divine. He is God after all, and where God wills, the order of nature is over turned. plus, there is no Father I have ever read who says His Person is human, and every professor here at Seminary I asked the last time you said there is a human person in Christ said no.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

no, He can have a human nature while His Person is Divine. He is God after all, and where God wills, the order of nature is over turned.

"Nature" is a human term. It can be defined many different ways here. The way the Cappadocian Fathers used and defined it is a category. John of Damascus further refined the term to mean a species that cannot be divided into other species. I might remind you that species is just an abstract concept, not an actual reality; actual reality is only specimens. A hypostasis is a reality, a nature is something that must be realized as hypostasis. A non-realized nature would be an imaginary nature.

God overturns nature by becoming a man. According to you, God does not become a man, he rather just attaches abstract manliness to him like a tumor, but keeps his divinity firmly insulated from it.

plus, there is no Father I have ever read who says His Person is human, and every professor here at Seminary I asked the last time you said there is a human person in Christ said no.

I've quoted John of Damascus saying over and over and over that Christ's hypostasis is human and divine, that his flesh is part of his hypostasis. Your only response as been that he uses terms different than I do, but you have never specified which terms or how he uses them differently.