Hypostatic Union, what in the world is that, you may be asking yourself. Put very simply it is the doctrine that states that Christ,when on earth, had both a human and divine nature. Now on the surface it may seem to be a simple doctrine with a long name, but this particular doctrine is far from simple. Hypostatic Union teaches that Christ's two distinct natures, divine and human, co-existed substantively and in reality in the single person of Jesus Christ. The aim,or goal if you will, of this doctrine is to defend the truth that Christ was simultaneously truly God and truly man. Athanasius and other early church fathers were the ones that dubbed this doctrine with the name hypostatic union.
The doctrine of the hypostatic union (the two natures of Jesus) was adopted as orthodox doctrine at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Three major schools of theology were involved at the council: Alexandria, Antioch, and the West. The consensus of these three schools in the Chalcedonian Creed illustrates the catholicity (i.e. universality) of the ancient church. The creed asserted two distinct natures, human and divine, and affirmed the one person of Jesus Christ.
One of the clearest passages in Scripture concerning the two natures of Jesus comes from John 1 . The Word (i.e. Jesus) "was with God, and the Word was God." Moreover, the Word took on human flesh (John 1:14). Luke also says that Jesus "increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).
"Some conclude that when Jesus took on his human nature he possessed two minds, a human mind and a Divine mind, with the human mind responsible for Jesus' knowledge rather than the Divine mind. Others hold that Jesus had one mind but while in his mortal body he chose to have a subconscious mental part that was inaccessible to the conscious mind and then, after his resurrection, his humanity became dominated by the Divine so his subconscious became accessible."
For an example of the "two minds view", see The Logic of God Incarnate, by Thomas Morris. For the "divided mind" view, which speaks of "two systems of belief [in one mind] to some extent independent of each other", see Richard Swinburne's Christian God, p. 201 For a critique of these, see "The Inclusion model of the Incarnation: Problems and Prospects", by Tim Bayne.
The view that Jesus only has one will is called Monothelitism
Here are some contrasting views pertaining to the Doctrine of Hypostatic Union:
Apollinarianism
Apollinarians argued that in the incarnation the Son of God assumed a human nature but not a human soul. Instead, his divine nature took the place of the soul. This view diminished the full humanity of Jesus and was condemned at the Council of Constatinople in 381. This view is similar to docetism.
Nestorianism
Nestorianism insisted that there were two natures but that there were also two persons: one divine and the other human. Rather than unifying Jesus, this view separated the person of Jesus along with his two natures.
Eutychianism
This view essentially absorbed the human nature into the divine nature. In an attempt to unify the person of Jesus, Eutychianism denied the two natures of Jesus and affirmed a new, or third, nature. This issue is also similar to that of monophystism (mono - one; physis - nature).
All of these views have been condemned as heretical.
In Conclusion, Hypostatic Union is a doctrine held to by all orthodox Christians, but as with all orthodox doctrines it has not been without debate, and at times very heated argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is no evidence that there was any controversy in the early Church regarding the belief that God saves and forgives sins in water baptism.
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence of any controversy regarding baptizing the infant children of converts nor the infants of Christian parents for the purpose of remission of sins/salvation. The only controversy found is that of Tertullian, who believed that not only children, but widows and single adults should not be baptized: Why? Because Tertullian believed that baptism only forgives sins committed prior to baptism, not sins committed after baptism. Tertullian was denounced as a heretic by the other early Christian leaders. I will bet that Baptists and evangelicals do not subscribe to his false belief either.
Nor is there any evidence of any controversy in the early Church regarding the True Presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper.
There is no evidence that Baptistic believers hid out in caves for 1,000-1,500 years since the days of the Apostles, as some Baptists teach.
So how did the Baptistic beliefs of: 1. Adult-only baptism as a public profession of one’s decision to believe (it has nothing to do with salvation or the forgiveness of sins), 2. The Lord’s Supper is simply a symbolic memorial service. Christ is not really present in the elements, and 3. Sinners must have the maturity and intelligence to make an informed decision to believe, before God will save them…develop?
I have absolutely no proof, but I will bet that this is what occurred:
Devout Christians living sometime between 800-1,000 AD in Europe, who loved the Lord and followed his commands, looked around and saw all these people who had been baptized as infants living in absolute depravity, sinning worse than pagans, but still expecting that they would get into heaven based on their infant baptism. These devout, God-fearing Christians asked themselves, “Can these people really be Christians? Is this really how God intended the Christian Faith to be?”
So they started reading the Bible and came across verses that said “the just will live by faith”, “he that believes on the name of Jesus Christ will be saved”, “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” These devout believers also did not find any verses in the Bible, during their studies, which specifically mention infant baptism.
So these devout Christians read these verses and said to themselves, “Ah hah! The Church has been wrong all this time! The Apostles could not have taught that God saves people in infant baptism because these verses say very clearly that one must believe, confess, repent, call…and infants cannot do those things! Therefore, infant baptism is unscriptural! All these infant-baptized people are not really saved. That is why they live lives of willful sin! In order to be a true Christian, a sinner must make an informed, adult decision to believe and then be baptized."
"Sinners are saved when they make a decision to believe, not when they make a decision to be baptized!” they proclaimed.
And over the generations this belief system grew among Baptistic believers until after a few generations, these believers were saying things like: “There have always been true believers with baptistic beliefs.” "The Apostles themselves taught baptistic doctrine.” “The “Catholics” have completely distorted the true Faith and have destroyed all evidence that there have always been baptistic believers since the days of the Apostles.” “Baptistic believers have been hiding in caves for 1,000 years”, and on and on it grew, until today, many Baptists/evangelicals believe, as fact, that there have been Baptists/evangelicals ever since the earliest Christians!
The problem is…there is not ONE shred of evidence, found anywhere on planet earth, to back up this very well-intentioned belief system as having been the doctrines/teachings of Jesus Christ, as taught by his Apostles.