Hypostasis of the Son

[Andrewn]

God is 3 hypostases. Recently I was thinking of Chalcedon's formula: Christ has 2 physes in one hypostasis. This means that hypostasis of the Son became one with the human hypostasis. It follows that the hypostasis of the Son changed at the incarnation. This contradicts the dogma of immutability of God. How does the Church reconcile this?

 

[-57]

God is 3 hypostases. Recently I was thinking of Chalcedon's formula: Christ has 2 physes in one hypostasis. This means that hypostasis of the Son became one with the human hypostasis. It follows that the hypostasis of the Son changed at the incarnation. This contradicts the dogma of immutability of God. How does the Church reconcile this?

The change would have been if the Son didn't incarnate.

Before the foundations of the earth it was determined what Jesus would do.

! Peter 1:He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you

 

[Andrewn]

Not sure I understand your response.

 

[-57]

Not sure I understand your response.

You had said "This contradicts the dogma of immutability of God."
I was trying to say, Christ didn't change. This is who he was from the beginning.

 

[Jonaitis]

God is 3 hypostases. Recently I was thinking of Chalcedon's formula: Christ has 2 physes in one hypostasis. This means that hypostasis of the Son became one with the human hypostasis. It follows that the hypostasis of the Son changed at the incarnation. This contradicts the dogma of immutability of God. How does the Church reconcile this?

The hypostasis of the Son is the nature of the Godhead, not to be confused with hypostates of the members. The incarnation was the union of the human nature to the divine person, not a change of the divine person.

 

[Andrewn]

I was trying to say, Christ didn't change. This is who he was from the beginning.

Are you saying that the Holy Son had a human nature from the beginning?

 

[Andrewn]

The hypostasis of the Son is the nature of the Godhead, not to be confused with hypostates of the members. The incarnation was the union of the human nature to the divine person, not a change of the divine person.

Hypostasis / nature / person. I don't think mixing terms without defining them will clarify issues.

 

[-57]

Are you saying that the Holy Son had a human nature from the beginning?

No. The plan from the beginning was for the Word to become flesh....while remaining fully God.

 

[sdowney717]

The word of God, (Christ), became flesh and dwelt among us. And we have beheld His majesty, that of the only begotten Son of God full of grace and truth.

So before He became flesh, He was not flesh as in having a body of flesh as a Human being before He was born as a babe.

 

[Andrewn]

> So before He became flesh, He was not flesh as in having a body of flesh as a Human being before He was born as a babe. <

> The plan from the beginning was for the Word to become flesh....while remaining fully God. <

Yes, of course. The question is whether the divine hypostasis of the Son changed after the hypostatic union at the incarnation.

Hypostatic union - Wikipedia