Issues with the Nature of Christ again! WAAAAA!

[DarkNLovely]

I'm really struggling here,friends! :(

I see the light in the OO point of view! I believe it. I see it as Biblical. But in researching this more, I have come to understand the Apollianarian argument, and it is also making some sense. Maybe if you could help me understand why Apollianrianism is heretical, I will be better able to understand. My issue is this. I have always seen Christ human nature as less then His Divine. His humanity always seemed like a simple default condition of being born into this world and was thus simply an inconvenience to His Divine purpus.<<<How do you spell that? :D So, Apollianrianism seems to make some sense. Maybe it's because the language is SOOOOOO UBBER CONFUSING is the reason that I am strugging. Any advice? http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/traurig/sad-smiley-019.gif

[Anglian]

Dear DarkNLovely,

Christology caused problems in the ancient Church, and it can still cause us difficulties. I will quote this from the eminent Eastern Orthodox theologian, Fr. John Romanides to show how important this topic is:
the fundamental criterion of Orthodox Christology was the acceptance of the fact that the Logos Who is consubstantial with His Father became Himself consubstantial with us by His birth as man from His mother, the Virgin Mary. In contrast, the Nestorian position was that Christ is a person who is the product of the union of the two natures in Christ. For Nestorius and Theodoret (up to 451) it is not the Logos Himself Who became by nature man and consubstantial with his mother and us. For both of them the very idea that the Logos could be united to His human nature by nature meant that He was united by a necessity of His divine nature. Thus for Nestorius and Theodoret the one nature of the Logos is consubstantial with the Father and the created nature of the Logos is consubstantial with us. The Logos did not become man and son of Mary by nature and the Virgin Mary did not become the mother of the Logos incarnate. The Basic question was not whether one accepted two natures or one nature in Christ, but whether one accepted that the Logos Himself, Who is cosubstantial with His Father, became Himself consubsantial with his mother and us without confusion, change, separation, division, etc. Neither Nestorius nor Theodoret accepted that the Logos Himself became consubstantial with his mother and us and was born and died as man.

If the Word did not become man then we are not saved. As St. Gregory Nazianzus put it: 'What is not assumed is not healed' - so the human nature, far from being incidental to the Divine purpose was central to it. By taking our nature He was able to heal it; had He done otherwise we would not be healed.

In Christ,

Anglian

[DarkNLovely]

Dear DarkNLovely,

Christology caused problems in the ancient Church, and it can still cause us difficulties. I will quote this from the eminent Eastern Orthodox theologian, Fr. John Romanides to show how important this topic is:


If the Word did not become man then we are not saved. As St. Gregory Nazianzus put it: 'What is not assumed is not healed' - so the human nature, far from being incidental to the Divine purpose was central to it. By taking our nature He was able to heal it; had He done otherwise we would not be healed.

In Christ,

Anglian

Hi Anglian!

That makes sense. But what if He was only some human? I guess there is really no point in philosophozing on something worked out ages ago, but wouldn't that still mean our humanity was healed? Man I see why this caused problems! LOL! :tutu: St. Gregory sounds like he was pretty great! Any other stuff written by him on the matter or on other Christology? :pink:

[Anglian]

Dear DarkNLovely,

I'm glad you found it useful. I'll look out some more for you if it would be helpful.

There's way too much stuff on the various Christological disputes, but by far the best comment I have ever read comes from one of the Syriac Fathers of the Church, Jacob Bar Hebraeus:

When I had given much thought and pondered on the matter, I became convinced that these quarrels of Christians among themselves are not a matter of factual substance, but rather one of words and terms. For they all confess Christ Our Lord to be perfect God and perfect human, without any commingling, mixing, or confusion of the natures. This bipinnate 'likeness' ( Phil. 2:6-7) is termed by one party a 'nature', by another 'a hypostasis' and by yet another a 'person'. Thus I saw all the Christian communities, with their different Christological positions, as possessing a single common ground that is without any difference. Accordingly I totally eradicated any hatred from the depths of my heart, and I completely renounced disputing with anyone over confessional matters


Sounds good to me!:pray:

In Christ,

Anglian

[DarkNLovely]

Dear DarkNLovely,

I'm glad you found it useful. I'll look out some more for you if it would be helpful.

There's way too much stuff on the various Christological disputes, but by far the best comment I have ever read comes from one of the Syriac Fathers of the Church, Jacob Bar Hebraeus:


Sounds good to me!:pray:

In Christ,

Anglian
Wow! Me too! :pink: