Excellent Substack that bodes well with my current study of Christology. Yes, these fine points do matter for the very reasons you state. Ignorance is not bliss in theology!
Fascinating. At a church I pastored we discovered that we had a Modalist in our church after he complained about my comment that Jesus was not just God in a Jesus suit, which was what he believed.
Also, I would love for you to flesh out how this issue relates to the transgender belief that a person can be housed in the wrong body. It seems to me that if we believe that the body suffered but the Christ did not then we lend that argument some credence.
Probably fine. For Cyril, at least, it's more about emphasizing that the one Lord Jesus Christ is the single subject of all that he does, while admitting that Christ added to himself what he was not (flesh) while remaining what he was (divine). There is one divine Person, the Logos, who is always the subject of his own actions.
Excellent Substack that bodes well with my current study of Christology. Yes, these fine points do matter for the very reasons you state. Ignorance is not bliss in theology!
I think that's right. Too often, we let historical distance convince us that these matters were just people wrangling over words. Not so!
I actually haven’t come across this argument before. (In the thick of motherhood.) Most helpful and interesting. Thanks for delving into this!
Glad it was helpful! Mothers need the best of all Christological theology!!!
Fascinating. At a church I pastored we discovered that we had a Modalist in our church after he complained about my comment that Jesus was not just God in a Jesus suit, which was what he believed.
Also, I would love for you to flesh out how this issue relates to the transgender belief that a person can be housed in the wrong body. It seems to me that if we believe that the body suffered but the Christ did not then we lend that argument some credence.
In two sentences:
In every way that the Person of the Son took on a human nature, in these the Person of the Son truly and fully suffered.
In every way that the Son's divine nature is distinct from His human nature, in these the Son is truly and fully impassible.
Yes, no, kinda? Thx
Probably fine. For Cyril, at least, it's more about emphasizing that the one Lord Jesus Christ is the single subject of all that he does, while admitting that Christ added to himself what he was not (flesh) while remaining what he was (divine). There is one divine Person, the Logos, who is always the subject of his own actions.
Makes sense. Thx!