Monophysitism and Nestorianism

[Not David]

So I was having a discussion with a friendly user here in CF regarding the use of images in worship.

He said: "The incarnation was not a depiction of God, but the union of the second person of the Godhead to a human nature. In our view, we saw the physical form of his humanity, but hidden in the mystery of the hypostatic union his Godhood was evidently there, invisible to human sight."

I said: "We might have to agree to disagree. This is coming to an issue about weather we worship the divine portion of Christ or the person as a whole."

He answered back: "It is an issue of conflating and of mixing the distinct natures of Christ. While Christ's person is divine, we must acknowledge the distinction between his natures. If we say that him being God, his humanity becomes God, we will be leaning too much toward the heresy of Monophysitism."

And then I finished: "It might also lead to Nestorianism"

So what's your opinion about the exchange?

 

[dzheremi]

It leads me to think of Colossians 1:15, wherein Christ is explicitly called "the image of the invisible God".

Note that it does not say that His divinity alone (somehow!) is the image of the invisible God, or even for that matter His humanity (alone), but He Himself.

 

[ViaCrucis]

My apologies if I'm barging in here, but if it's welcome, my input:

Christ's Hypostasis is the pure reflection of the Father's Hypostasis (Hebrews 1:3). To behold Christ is to behold the Father, because Jesus in His Person shows us the Person of His Father. He says, "If you have seen Me" not "If you have seen My humanity" or "If you have seen My divinity" but "If you have seen Me".

Attempting to divide the natures is always a bad idea; we ought never to confuse them either obviously, but we must always insist upon the undivided unity of His Person. There is one Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jonaitis]

It leads me to think of Colossians 1:15, wherein Christ is explicitly called "the image of the invisible God".

Note that it does not say that His divinity alone (somehow!) is the image of the invisible God, or even for that matter His humanity (alone), but He Himself.

The "image of God" is the same thing as the "word of God" (John 1:1), the "radiance of the glory of God" (Hebrews 1:3) and being "begotten of God." It all conveys the same thing. It does not refer to a display of God in the flesh of the incarnation, but rather the analogous language of the relationship between the Son and the Father. He is the "word" that speaks forth God, the "revelation" that explains God, the very one who proceeds (as it were) as the second person from the first.

 

[dzheremi]

It does not refer to a display of God in the flesh of the incarnation, but rather the analogous language of the relationship between the Son and the Father.

So is Christ "true God from true God" in this conception or not? Because, yes, we can talk about the relation of the Persons of the Trinity til we are blue in the face, but this all corresponds to an actual, flesh-and-blood reality with/in the incarnation of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

Or it doesn't and you are given over to some kind of heresy, as indicated in the OP.

 

[Jonaitis]

So is Christ "true God from true God" in this conception or not? Because, yes, we can talk about the relation of the Persons of the Trinity til we are blue in the face, but this all corresponds to an actual, flesh-and-blood reality with/in the incarnation of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

Or it doesn't and you are given over to some kind of heresy, as indicated in the OP.

I was going to respond, but then I read your religious affiliation.

 

[Jonaitis]

So is Christ "true God from true God" in this conception or not? Because, yes, we can talk about the relation of the Persons of the Trinity til we are blue in the face, but this all corresponds to an actual, flesh-and-blood reality with/in the incarnation of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

Or it doesn't and you are given over to some kind of heresy, as indicated in the OP.

I'll respond anyways.

Let me ask you this.

Was Jesus always and eternally begotten, or did that occur after the Incarnation?

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, Christ is the eternally-begotten Word of the Father, begotten before all ages.

...are you meaning to argue with the Creed, not with me?

 

[Jonaitis]

Yes, Christ is the eternally-begotten Word of the Father, begotten before all ages.

...are you meaning to argue with the Creed, not with me?

It is a reaffirming question, since you take it that the "image of God" corresponds to the incarnation with "flesh and blood reality."

 

[dzheremi]

It is a reaffirming question, since you take it that the "image of God" corresponds to the incarnation with "flesh and blood reality."

Yes, of course I do...it's the incarnation. That's precisely what we're talking about at this level. Christ is not some kind phantasm. He is a flesh and blood human being, having united the divine with the earthly in being incarnate, the taking of true human flesh from his mother St. Mary the Theotokos, and being endowed with a rational soul. He's not 100% divine and 76% man or whatever. It's 100% and 100%.

Am I just not understanding what you are trying to say? I feel like I'm not understanding what you are trying to say.

 

[Not David]

Yes, of course I do...it's the incarnation. That's precisely what we're talking about at this level. Christ is not some kind phantasm. He is a flesh and blood human being, having united the divine with the earthly in being incarnate, the taking of true human flesh from his mother St. Mary the Theotokos, and being endowed with a rational soul. He's not 100% divine and 76% man or whatever. It's 100% and 100%.

Am I just not understanding what you are trying to say? I feel like I'm not understanding what you are trying to say.

I believe he is saying that Jesus Christ as a man happened in a point in time, so there was a time he was not man.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh, I see. Well yeah. I wasn't aware that anyone disputed that here.

 

[zippy2006]

I feel like one-liner Christology is a recipe for disaster. Elaboration is needed in such matters.

 

[ArmyMatt]

to the OP, yes, we worship the humanity of Christ because it is the humanity of God Himself, which He truly made His own despite that the fullness of humanity is preserved in Him.

 

[Not David]

to the OP, yes, we worship the humanity of Christ because it is the humanity of God Himself, which He truly made His own despite that the fullness of humanity is preserved in Him.

That wouldn't be monophysitism, right?

 

[ArmyMatt]

That wouldn't be monophysitism, right?

no, because His humanity eternally remains human, that isn't annulled by saying that His flesh was truly His own.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and I should add, it is more proper to say we worship Christ, Who is the Incarnate Word and Son of God.

 

[hedrick]

So I was having a discussion with a friendly user here in CF regarding the use of images in worship.

He said: "The incarnation was not a depiction of God, but the union of the second person of the Godhead to a human nature. In our view, we saw the physical form of his humanity, but hidden in the mystery of the hypostatic union his Godhood was evidently there, invisible to human sight."

I said: "We might have to agree to disagree. This is coming to an issue about weather we worship the divine portion of Christ or the person as a whole."

He answered back: "It is an issue of conflating and of mixing the distinct natures of Christ. While Christ's person is divine, we must acknowledge the distinction between his natures. If we say that him being God, his humanity becomes God, we will be leaning too much toward the heresy of Monophysitism."

And then I finished: "It might also lead to Nestorianism"

So what's your opinion about the exchange?

It's dangerous to comment without hearing the other side. You talk about "whether we worship the divine portion of Christ or the person as a whole." If he said we only worship the divine portion of Christ, I think this is Nestorian pretty much by definition.

The term "divine portion of Christ" is itself theologically dubious, but presumably it refers to the divine nature. I don't think many Christians would want to separate the Logos from his incarnation. Even a modernist like me would say that we worship God through Christ. But I think the traditional orthodox position would go further, and say that the unified person is worthy of worship, and that by the communication of attributes, even the human nature itself is worthy of worship.

It's the use of the communication of attributes that saves this from being monophysite. That maintains the distinction of nature while still allowing worship. At least in the traditional Western theology I'm familiar with. Perhaps the East handles it differently.

 

[dzheremi]

A thought occurred to me earlier, when I was trying to puzzle out what sense could be made of the contrary position expressed in the OP: if the objection to iconography is that "the incarnation is not a depiction of God" (however one takes that), then what are we to make of those icons or other early Christian art that are not depictions of Christ to begin with? Are these then 'okay' because nobody claims that they illustrate the exact relationship that is supposedly described through the use of the term 'image', as in the reply to my earlier note on Colossians? Such artistic depictions developed very early on, being present in the catacombs of Rome (for example) perhaps as much as a century before the decidedly aiconic (not sure if it would be right to call them 'iconoclastic' in this context) guidelines found in some of the canons of the Synod of Elvira, for instance (c. 305 AD).

The three saintly youths, from the catacomb of Priscilla (c. early 3rd century)

Noah in the ark, catacomb of Sts. Marcellinus and Peter

 

[Antoni]

So I was having a discussion with a friendly user here in CF regarding the use of images in worship.

He said: "The incarnation was not a depiction of God, but the union of the second person of the Godhead to a human nature. In our view, we saw the physical form of his humanity, but hidden in the mystery of the hypostatic union his Godhood was evidently there, invisible to human sight."

I said: "We might have to agree to disagree. This is coming to an issue about weather we worship the divine portion of Christ or the person as a whole."

He answered back: "It is an issue of conflating and of mixing the distinct natures of Christ. While Christ's person is divine, we must acknowledge the distinction between his natures. If we say that him being God, his humanity becomes God, we will be leaning too much toward the heresy of Monophysitism."

And then I finished: "It might also lead to Nestorianism"

So what's your opinion about the exchange?

I think you had a good comeback. The balancing act between Monophysitism and Nestorianism is one that has challenged the Church since back in the early centuries and even up until now. Go away from one end of the spectrum brings you closer to the other end! The truth is somewhere in the middle!

It is Orthodox to say that the incarnated Christ is an image of God. The Scriptures alone say that. It is not debatable. Of course, we are not saying that the essence of the divinity can be seen (which Christ is referring to when He said ‘no one has seen the Father’), for the essence of God is unassailable and unknowable to created man, but we can see and experience God through His energies (for example, the Uncreated Light) as well economically through the incarnation of the Logos of God as well as through the Holy Spirit.