Tuesday, October 26, 2010
What's the subject of this sentence?
Just checking, what's the subject of this sentence? "God suffered in the flesh, and not in his aseity." I believe it is God, but I man be mistaken. The reason I ask is that over on Brad Littlejohn's blog I asserted that the divine nature is neither subject nor object, but that God the Word is. The response I received, claimed that my position was outside the patristic doctrine since, the fathers said "God suffered in his flesh, and not in his aseity." But if I am correct that the subject of that sentence is "God", which in this case must mean God the Word, then the response is wholly irrelevant and not on point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Divine Logos is the sole subject of all incarnate actions. As you are no doubt aware, we Cyrillians do not speak of individual natures in Christ. I understand the protestant wanting to avoid the fact that God's nature didn't die on the cross--and in a theoretical sense, that's true.
ReplyDeleteBut even so, death isn't to us what it is to the protestant. We don't see death as a cessation of all being for all time. That's why we pray to saints. The saints have not ceased to exist per their "death" (Revelation 6). So even when we say, as we must, that God the Word suffered and died, we are not saying that God's divine nature died along with the human nature--at least not the way the modernist is using the word "death."
Yeah, it was really weird. He accused me of being rude and ill-mannered because I said there is only one Divine subject, not two, and disproved this by saying that the orthodox position is that the Word suffered in the human nature. Which is entirely off point, since my point is that the one subject is the Word, not the Nature, and the Word is the subject of that statement.
ReplyDeleteI quoted Cyril, but he told me I should acknowledge Chalcedon moved away from Cyril, and now we should (so far as I can tell) say Christ exists in two separate natures. I told him that Chalcedon linguistically moved away from Cyril, but that Chalcedon was judged by this, not Cyril, and the final solution was Cyrilian. He told me I was off topic.
You sure do pick you facebook friends well.
Which is to say it wasn't Brad who disagreed with me, but a friend of yours from facebook.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the Word suffered in his human nature, but that is not the same as saying that the human nature suffered as Christ. I think he is confusing these two. A divine person suffers, dies and sucks at the breast.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Chalcedon moved away from Cyril is in fact a thesis defended first by Catholics to show the superiority of the papacy, because that thesis would situate Leo's Tome as a normative corrective to Eastern Christology. That thesis is largely refuted it seems on the basis of the facts.
Yeah, I know it is correct that God suffered in his human nature. But Steven seems to think that "God suffered in his human nature" is short hand for "God did not suffer, but his human nature did." Which is blatant Nestorianism.
ReplyDeleteI really don't know where the accusation that I believe the divinity of Christ suffered comes from--but since I have repeatedly denied it, it amounts to slander.
I think it comes from a conversation where I said God loved Mary and did not know God. If we take this to mean that prior to the Incarnation God loved Mary and not God, it's literally nonsense. Or if we refuse to make a distinction between the infant God in time, and God outside of time, it is problematic. But I have several times made both those distinctions.
So I don't think the problem is that I have been unclear. I think he believes "God suffered in his humanity" is synonomous for "God did not suffer, but rather his humanity did."
In this post his reaction to my claim that there is a single subject is proof enough, but he has also said:
"As to theotokos, I believe that the title only works as a trope, making use of the communicatio idiomatum. In no real way is Mary the orignator of God, nor does she enjoy such glory or adoration."
And, in defense of the just quoted comment:
"Regarding Chalcedon, you are factually incorrect. It states, "He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God."
Notice the distinction there, "He was begotten from the Father... as to his divinity... and was born as to his humanity of the Virgin Mary."
It also adds, "The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis."
Chalcedon just as roundly condemned monophysitism as Nestorianism, and for that reason many Cyrillian churches refused to receive it."
Thanks for the comment.