/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

(((Prots))) gonna (((Prot)))

Stop making these posts calling everyone and everything Nestorian, it's obnoxious

>>714478

Nestorius believed in one Christ, not two: "Diverse are the natures which have come unto a true union; but from them both there has resulted one Christ and Son, not because the diversity in the natures has been abolished by reason of the union, but because they have perfected for us rather one Lord and Messiah and Son."

>anime

>>714507

Nestorius might do so, but Sproul certainly didnt when he claims God cannot die, which is the same thing Nestorius also affirmed. Whether Nestorius did say only the human nature atoned for us, I dont know but when Sproul said that, he is clearly against Cyril and Chalcedon

Calvinists are Nestorians

I was gonna point out why you're retarded but then I noticed you're just disingenuous

>>714600

Stop being a Eutychian monophysite

>>714507

exactly, the problem is that many users and some of the mods are mixed up on apologetics and seem to have no clue what the Nestorian heresy actually is.

The nestorian herey means

1. rejecting that Christ was both human and divine natures in one person and saying that the divine and human natures were seperate persons

2. saying that because of the reasoning in prg 1 Mary is the mother of Christ's human nature but not the mother of Christ's divine nature

Nestorianism has nothing to do with modern protestant rejections of Mary and pretending that it does is a thinly veiled attempt by some of my less spirit filled catholic brethern to bully protestants and baptists

>>714648

Are you mad that you are blatantly opposing Chalcedon and Ephesus?

>God didnt die

>Human nature made the atonement

If you want a retarded statement, this is it. He even explicitly denies the Second Person of the Trinity died, contra the authotity of Chalcedon and Ephesus, Cyril. In fact had you actually bothered to read what he says against Nestorius, you would had known this basic fact!

And dont go "muh two sons". Nestorius clearly didnt believe that. If any, he simply taught two prosopha that operate within its own distinctive spheres and when Jesus Christ suffered, it is not God who suffered but the human prosopha!

>>714661

You know what is funny, this reasoning is precisely what Cyril records Nestorius as using

>>714661

See, this right here is proof it's retarded for the (((mods))) to ban anyone who denies the phrase mother of God for being Nestorian. This anon doesn't object because he's a Nestorian, he objects because he's a non-Trinitarian

>>714664

what is wrong with you?

> what does Nestorius Prosophic theory says? It says that it is inapproriate to say God died and suffered. It's only Christ the human prosopha that died, suffered and was resurrected.

how is that different from saying that Christ's human and divine are distinct?

You're screaming "wrong you don't understand you didn't read etc"

but you're not presenting a counterargument you're just reiterating what I just said in different words

>>714661

This is what he(Nestorius) said then, when he pronounced the term ‘Theotokos’ unsound as applied to the holy Virgin:

1 (((I(Nestorius) often asked them (that is, those who contradict him), ‘Do you say that the Godhead has been born of the holy Virgin?’))) At once they pounce on the phrase, ‘And who,’ they say, ‘is so sick with such a blasphemy as to say that in her who gave birth to the temple, in her was God conceived by the Spirit?’ (((Then when I reply to this, ‘What is wrong, then, about our advising the avoidance of this expression and the acceptance of the common meaning of the two natures?)))’ then it seems to them that what we have said is blasphemy. (((Either admit clearly that the Godhead has been born from the blessed Mary))), or if you avoid this expression as blasphemous, why do you say the same things as I do, yet pretend that you are not saying them?18

From:Against Nestorius, quoted from Norman Russell's "Cyril of Alexandria"(pg.132)

>>714671

>1. rejecting that Christ was both human and divine natures in one person and saying that the divine and human natures were seperate persons

>separate persons

That was never Nestorius' belief. In fact given you cant even understand what the basic Prosopha theory he held to shows you hardly have any understanding of the Christological controversy at all.

Come back when you actually read some Cyril

>>714671

>1. rejecting that Christ was both human and divine natures in one person and saying that the divine and human natures were seperate persons

>separate persons

That was never Nestorius' belief. In fact given you cant even understand what the basic Prosopha theory he held to shows you hardly have any understanding of the Christological controversy at all.

Come back when you actually read some Cyril

And come back when you actually see how different Prosopha theory is from Cyril's own views and description. Cyril would reject Sproul's abhorrence for the Second Person dying or suffering. Nestorius would easily appaud it!

>>714675

>>714678

no I don't have to read Cyril because there are secondary sources out there that outline what what the Nestorian heresy is

we don't know what Nestorius beleived, you think you do because you don't know what you're talking about, but his actual beliefs aren't clear because his writings haven't survived

What we do know, and what's actually relevant in this discussion is what the Nestorian heresy actually is because that's what was condemned by the early church, and that's the belief that there are 2 separate persons in Christ ( a divine and human and Mary was only a parent of the divine)

and we don't have to believe your authority or read Cyril we can just check the wikipedia page on Nestorius

>Shortly after his arrival in Constantinople, Nestorius became involved in the disputes of two theological factions, which differed in their Christology. Nestorius tried to find a middle ground between those that emphasized the fact that in Christ, God had been born as a man and insisted on calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, "God-bearer") and those that rejected that title because God, as an eternal being, could not have been born. Nestorius suggested the title Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος, "Christ-bearer"), but he did not find acceptance on either side.

>"Nestorianism" refers to the doctrine that there are two distinct hypostases in the Incarnate Christ, the one Divine and the other human. The teaching of all churches that accept the Council of Ephesus is that in the Incarnate Christ is a single hypostasis, God and man at once.[4] That doctrine is known as the Hypostatic union.

>Nestorius's opponents charged him with detaching Christ's divinity and humanity into two persons existing in one body, thereby denying the reality of the Incarnation. It is not clear whether Nestorius actually taught that.

>>714696

>we don't know what Nestorius believed

This is outright false when we literally have Nestorius' Book of Heraclides where the Christology presented matches what we now know to be his Christology. All you shown is you dont even know what you are talking about

Second, the reason Chalcedon and Ephesus considered the Nestorian view as heresy and as "two sons" is because that is the implication of such a belief, eventhough as it is clear in Cyril's own personal writings, he denies this. You are simply butthurt one of your Reformed guys ended up describing Christology in a manner the real Nestorius would had done and one contrary to what Ephesus and Chalcedon would had done.

>muh wiki

Which surprise, aligns with what I had stated this whole time

>>714702

so you take a quote from the wiki, say that it's outright false and then say that the wiki aligns with what you believed

>>"Nestorianism" refers to the doctrine that there are two distinct hypostases in the Incarnate Christ, the one Divine and the other human.

>"Nestorianism" refers to the doctrine that there are two distinct hypostases in the Incarnate Christ, the one Divine and the other human.

does that align with what you said the whole time, because it sounds like the opposite of what you've been saying in this thread

>>1. rejecting that Christ was both human and divine natures in one person and saying that the divine and human natures were seperate persons (me)

(you)

>>separate persons

>>That was never Nestorius' belief. In fact given you cant even understand what the basic Prosopha theory he held to shows you hardly have any understanding of the Christological controversy at all

you are either insincere or confused and either way it seems like there's little worth in continuing this conversation

>>714704

so your problem is that you read a piece of apologetics that's outside of your reading level, didn't understand it and now think you understand anything

read the first thing you highlighted

>Nestorius believed the Cyril was wrong because Cyril mixed the divine and human spheres

(which implies Nestorius believed they could not be mixed and were separate)

Second highlight

Cyril wanted to preserve the singleness of Christ (ie. the singleness of Christs human and divine natures) Nestorius opposed that - this implying two natures

The last paragraph of 133 also talks about how Nestorius thought it was ludicrous to talk of Christ's human and divine natures being one being the human nature is tiny and the divine nature is big and because it would result in Christ praying to himself

>>714705

>making a strawman

Look at what I explicitly said, I said the wiki agrees with my point. And this is obvious, it states that Nestorius' opponents accused him of espousing a "two sons view". It defining Nestorian Christology as "two distinct hypothasis" matches my point because as I said, Nestorius believed the two natures of Christ must remain separate in their distinct sphere of operations. Here's a fun fact, "hypostasis", "ousia", "physis" all have a wide semantic range of meaning. In fact the way you defined it here is as "person", which is misleading as not even Cyril uses "hypostasis" as "individual person". As Mcguckin notes in "Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy". Hypostasis can actually mean the same thing as "physis" too(pg.141) and it's definition is broad enough that Athanasius before him have to clarify what he meant by "Hypostasis", using it to refer to "Ousia"

Both Cyril and Nestorius also uses hypostasis differently too, a basic fact you ignored all the while trying to misrepresent scholarship. Rather than acting so confused and silly, actually read Mcguckin as he says. What he says shows Nestorius agrees with RC Sproul and you are just butthurt over this basic fact

>>714718

>>714718

so now you're argreeing with my view that Nestorius believed in distinct human and divine natures of Christ and pretending that's what you've been saying all along?

So will you let go of the Nestorianism is about not accepting the Catholic definition of Mary as the mother of God and using it to bully and get protestants banned or are you going to try and obscure and confuse that as well somehow?

This is not Nestorianism, and if you knew what the term meant you would not have made this thread.

>>714727

It is. If you deny God made atonement and died on the Cross, you are following Nestorius

>>714721

Are you unable to read?

Mcguckin shows that both Cyril and Nestorius have widely differing Christologies. RC Sproul clearly follows the latter, which makes him either a Nestorian heretic, or a follower of Nestorius himself.

How can a set of attributes make atonement. How can a "nature" suffer? You cant simply say that God didnt atone and die only to say later on the Godman died. That is disingenuous!

>>714730

so are you a different poster or the same poster with a new IP, cause you sound like that first guy who embarrassingly deleted his first two posts saying exactly the opposite of what he was saying later

I don't know what RC Sproul follows and as a Catholic I don't care, my comments in this thread didn't address him and were solely about the misinterpretation and misapplication of what the Nestorian heresy refers to

>>714705

You only show yourself here to either have no idea what Nestorius' Prosophic view is, or you are being deliberately confusing.

OP simply states that Sproul follows a Nestorian Christology. Shown by how Cyril uses contradictory langauge than him when describing Christ's union and refuting the attempted Sproul internet defense force that he isnt, with the explanation of "two sons", which Nestorius never believed. So even without the two sons view, Sproul is still Nestorian, as the prosophic view is what Chalcedon and Ephesus both argue against by using Cyril as their main

>>714735

okay so definately the same guy with a different IP because your writing style and diction are the same,

I don't care about Sproul, never read him, and don't know what he said. I'm just talking about what the Nestorian heresy was, and was debating it with a poster who deleted his first two posts after being shown they were wrong

>>714732

It is stated by me so many times that Nestorius didnt believe "two sons". So why do you get so mad?

My point simply is RC Sproul who is a Protestant Calvinist held to a Nestorian Christology. Look, I accept that Nestorius never taught a two sons view. I know he rejected it and I apologize for mistaking you as trying to clear Sproul of that charge and confusing what you said.

But, please tell me if someone said God didnt die on that Cross or that God didnt atone for our sins but a human "nature", what do you think that means?

>>714728

No, he would have to explicitly affirm two separate persons in Christ to be a Nestorian, and Sproul nowhere does this in any of the quotes you gave.

If you want to disagree with him and call him a heretic thats fine, but its dishonest to call him a Nestorian.

>>714741

As many explained ITT, he doesnt need to say "Two sons". Denying that God suffered and died on the Cross is essentially what Prosophic theory accepts. Nestorius denies the two sons view himself

>>714740

that's not what I'm debating about, I'm not clear on what Nestorius believed, no one is because what we know about his teachings come from his worst enemies

but the heresy refers to those who confess the "two sons" view - ie believed in distinct divine and human parts to Christ

I was arguing with a person who said that this is not what nestorianism is and made some weird arguments to that effect

As for Sproul I'm not going to comment on some proddy theologian I've never heard of based on a few quotes from some people on 8chan

>>714744

His Book of Heraclides is of his hand which is essentially Nestorius' own reflections of Ephesus.

>>714743

Then why was he condemned as teaching two sons theology?

>>714743

And as others have already said we are using the term Nestorianism as a technical term to refer to two sons theology. This is the common usage and would hold independent of what Nestorius thought.

>>714747

Because that is seen as the logical outcome of Nestorius' prosophon theory. And here's the thing, you cannot isolate that from the condemnation of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Because they are presupposing the Christology of Cyril and well, the prosophon view is precisely what Cyril is going against and he himself is aware, otherwise he would not had mentioned that Nestorius claimed to deny the two sons view.

This sort of argumentation isnt new, early ante nicene fathers used it against Gnostics and use the illustration of moral laxity or fatalism to show the logical implications of their Stoic compatabilist view of agency

>>714514

Now that is the real heresy in this thread!

>>714650

Nestorius never claimed Christ was two persons, he claimed Christ was in two natures, which was what Chalcedon later affirmed.

RC Sproul=Nestorius

animefag what do you get out of this aren't you a atheist? ///

>>718479

>>718479

>t. butthurt at the truth

>>718468

Fact

>>720009

I don't think Sproul was a Nestorian, I think you are a Monophysite. Suffering and death did not enter into the divine being, and we absolutely should shrink back in horror at the notion they did. That's all Sproul is saying, and if you think otherwise, you are not a Christian. It was indeed the second person of the trinity who died, but He did so only as a man, the God lived on. The Council of Ephesus spoke and condemned in the context of the Nestorian controversy, and that was NOT the context Sproul spoke in. When the Council said that the Word of God died, they did not mean He suffered death in His Godhead, but that as Sproul says it was the God-man who died, which God-man was denied by Nestorius, and apparently by you.

>>720038

No, Sproul is Nestorian. There is no need for any context there too. You cant say "we should shrick away from any idea that God died on the Cross" or that a "human nature atoned" and then say later it's the Godman who did it. That's a contradiction and is against what Ephesus and even Chalcedon taught.

A "nature" cannot atone for anything, it's just a set of attributes that something possesses, not an entity. A divine person have to suffer and died as the people at Ephesus and Chalcedon agree on. The only person that literally says it is inappropriate to say God suffered or died is Nestorius.

Saying the context is different doesnt excuse Sproul too, as there is NO clarification from Sproul at all on the matter, there is NOTHING in there that says or indicates that a "divine person suffered or died" but only a "nature" which makes his last statement that the godman died and suffered a contradiction.

>>720167

>s***post

This is a Christian board. Let's keep the language a little more pg-13, okay?

>>714466

strictly speaking God can't "die" in any sense, a body he uses as a puppet might die, but that isn't his being/essence/substance dying. He can't degrade himself, because he can't change and has no need or purpose for such mutilation.

>>720252

>strictly speaking God can't "die" in any sense, a body he uses as a puppet might die

get ready to be declared a Nestorian

>reminder actual Nestorians and the Catholic Church are in communion with each other and that the whole thing is overblown:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html

>>720341

That document was signed by Pope John Paul II and the Catholicos of the Assyrian Church of the East, which is not in communion with the Catholic Church. The Nestorians in communion with Rome are those of the Chaldean Catholic Church, which is not just a copy of the ACOE in communion with Rome. The Chaldean Church goes back at least to the 17th century, and has had a lot of Roman Catholic influence. They are Nestorian in the sense of denomination, but not meaning that they uphold the beliefs that Nestorius was condemned for. For example, in Michigan, there is even a Mother of God Chaldean Catholic Church.

As for the ACOE, as stated in that document, they do not deny the term Theotokos.

>The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour". In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as "the Mother of God" and also as "the Mother of Christ". We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.

This is a different belief from Nestorius. Nestorius did not say that he personally thought the term "Mother of God" was open to misunderstanding while affirming it's orthodoxy. Instead he preached that the term should be abolished, using stupid arguments like "Mary can't be the mother of someone who existed before her" or implying that there were two seprate Christs. The ACOE here affirms the orthodoxy of "Mother of God" and says that it uses an alternative term, "Mother of Christ our God," which has exactly the same meaning as "Mother of God" in more words.

>>720245

>This is exactly the proposition that Sproul rejects

No it isn't, not if you treat him with respect by respecting the context. He is clearly talking about the divine nature, which can also be referred to by divine names, and how the divine nature did not suffer death (which, again, you are not a Christian if you disagree). That's why he says "That would be a mutation within the very being of God, because when we look at the Trinity we say that the three are one in essence, and that though there are personal distinctions among the persons of the Godhead, those distinctions are not essential in the sense that they are differences in being", which would not apply if he was talking about the person of Christ. The Word of God the Father dying in His flesh alone would not have Trinitarian ramifications.

>That's irrelevant

No it isn't. Do you think someone saying something like "the God and man are different" would be interpreted the same way if he said this at Ephesus or Chalcedon? If someone was saying that Mary gave birth to 'divine flesh', would it not be orthodox in this context to deny that she gave birth to God? Words only have value in that they convey meaning, and the meaning of words is modified by context.

>If someone today were to say, Jesus Christ is not of the same essence with the Father, or that the Father existed before the Son

Apples and oranges.

>The best argument you can make to defend Sproul against Nestorianism is that what he says is total nonsense and that his words are poorly thought-out

No, what he says is fact, and disagreement with it is disagreement with the Christian religion. Did the divine nature of Jesus die, yes or no?

>Christ was a divine being who suffered and died, so this is either an ignorant opinion or a denial of the creed.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until this point. It is you who denies the creed, because it says "Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man". There was no suffering or death in the divine being, to even suggest it is a gross blasphemy. Only the man Jesus Christ suffered death on the cross, and when His soul went to hell, His undying Godhood went with.

>We only say that God is living in an analogical sense

I'm well aware. I gave no implication of proper life in God. The "life" of God is not truly life, but is so far beyond what we as creatures are capable of comprehending, that when we contemplate it we rationalize it to the closest thing we know, namely life, which itself has similarity to God by virtue of it being a poor copy of His nature.

>Christ died as a man (or expressed better, maybe according to his humanity), but it was Christ both God and man who died. To say that man-Christ died while Christ-God lived necessarily implies two Christ persons, which is wrong

The deity of Jesus Christ exists independently of His humanity. His body was broken and killed, but this had no impact on God the Word. It is completely wicked and profane to say this God died with the man, as if the two are one chimeric nature.

>I thought I was a monophysite? Now I'm a Nestorian too?

No. Nestorius denied the unity of the God-man, but you deny the existence of the man.

>Natures don't experience things

He is using the meaning which is synonymous with "undergo".

>beings do

The word being means existence, and the divine and human nature are unequivocally different modes of Christ's existence.

>But when a human being dies, it is not human nature that dies. It is the human being that dies.

The human nature of Christ is not abstract. It possesses tangible being. It is completely correct to say it died.

>As far as being/essence goes, Christ dieing isn't a change in his nature or essence anymore than any other of Christ's human actions are changes in his nature or essence.

Death is a fundamental alteration of being. If the divine nature had died, it would create a real difference of essence within the Godhead, because death is essential. We could not feasibly say a dead thing is identically the same as a living thing.

>Was it a change in God's being when the Second Person of the Trinity assumed (mortal) human nature?

Well no it was not Mr. Eutyches, because the human nature was assumed into His person, not His being. The man was added to His person and one united hypostasis out of two natures was left.

You are still misuing the term "nature." Natures exist in (subsistent) beings, not by themselves. A human being is not a human nature. A human being has a human nature. Jesus Christ is a divine being who has both a human nature and a divine nature. Jesus Christ is one being having two natures. Natures do not do things. Natures cause us to act in accordance with our nature.

The divine nature did not die. Again natures do not die. Jesus Christ, who has both a human nature and a divine nature, died in his human nature.

>The word being means existence,

The word "being" can mean a lot of things. I obviously was using it here in the sense of subsistent being. A particular human is a human being.

>There was no suffering or death in the divine being, to even suggest it is a gross blasphemy. Only the man Jesus Christ suffered death on the cross, and when His soul went to hell, His undying Godhood went with.

This is poorly worded, especially given that you are trying to prove that you are not Nestorian. In the first sentence, it would be clearer to say that there was no suffering in Christ in his divine nature, because "being" is easily understood hear as meaning a subsistent being. When you say "only the man…" you sound as if you are stating that there is a Christ being (or person or hypostasis or whatever term you want) that is only man, which is distinct from the Christ that is a divine being. Rather, there is a single being, possessing the two natures, that performed human actions in his human nature and divine acts in his divine nature. If you say that the human nature did something, this has to be understood only in the sense that the single being, fully human and fully divine, did that thing in his human nature. If dieing were a change in the divine nature, then any human act on the part of Christ, even to be human, would be a change in the divine nature. We could not say that the Son of God became man suffered, was crucified or was buried.

Actually read through the texts of the Council of Ephesus and what St. Cyril says.

>If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

<Nestorius: If any one assigns the expressions of the Gospels and Apostolic letters, which refer to the two natures of Christ, to one only of those natures, and even ascribes suffering to the divine Word, both in the flesh and in the Godhead; let him be anathema.

Or

>If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδῳ), which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσικὴν): let him be anathema.

<Nestorius: If any one says that Christ, who is also Emmanuel, is One, not [merely] in consequence of connection, but [also] in nature, and does not acknowledge the connection(συνάφεια) of the two natures, that of the Logosand of the assumed manhood, in one Son, as still continuing without mingling; let him be anathema.

Or

> Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he has become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that gives life: let him be anathema.

<Nestorius: If any one, in confessing the sufferings of the flesh, ascribes these also to the Word of God as to the flesh in which he appeared, and thus does not distinguish the dignity of the natures; let him be anathema.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

>>720451

>You are still misuing the term "nature." Natures exist in (subsistent) beings, not by themselves. A human being is not a human nature. A human being has a human nature. Jesus Christ is a divine being who has both a human nature and a divine nature. Jesus Christ is one being having two natures. Natures do not do things. Natures cause us to act in accordance with our nature.

It is not enough to affirm some abstract human nature that has no tangible existence. Jesus Christ didn't just have a human essence, He existed as a man just as much as you or I. And men act. Men live, and men die. It was this man, Jesus of Nazareth, who died upon the cross, and not one bit of divinity died with Him in any way.

>The word "being" can mean a lot of things

Not in theology

>you are trying to prove that you are not Nestorian

Actually, I am setting forth the correct doctrine so you may repent and accept it. I am not interested in proving I am not Nestorian as if I'm on trial.

>"being" is easily understood hear as meaning a subsistent being

It is not possible for a man proficient in English and reading my words in good faith to mistake my meaning for 'subsistence', especially given the context and use of the article.

>When you say "only the man…" you sound as if you are stating that there is a Christ being (or person or hypostasis or whatever term you want) that is only man, which is distinct from the Christ that is a divine being

That was a calculated risk, as the alternative was to drop the article and refer not so much to Christ as to some vague general man.

>If you say that the human nature did something, this has to be understood only in the sense that the single being, fully human and fully divine, did that thing in his human nature

Of course, the God-man died, but He did so in His humanity alone. No deity died, it would only be correct to say God died if it was meant in relation to His human nature.

>Actually read through the texts of the Council of Ephesus and what St. Cyril says.

I have. The Twelve Anathemas were negative condemnations of Nestorian doctrine. You need to look at Cyril's positive doctrine in his Second Letter to Nestorius, which is quoted in that very Council

<For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.

>>720382

There is no context because Sproul doesnt give us any. He is Nestorian or heavily inconsistent

Get over it stupid Fatalist scum

>>720762

>>720762

Answer this question without committing a heresy

1. Jesus Christ died

2. God the father did not die

3. Jesus is a part of the trinity

Did the trinity die when Jesus died? If not, how since Jesus is a part of the trinity and they make up one god?

>>720763

Hypostatic union is the answer. Christ's human body died, but both His human and divine nature went into hell and conquered death.

Next question!

>>720765

woah hold on a second there, you just said Christ's human body died but his divine nature didn't thus, under your very uncharitable interpretation, committed the very Nesotarian heresy that you just accused Sproul of committing.

>>720769

Wrong. When my body dies, does this mean my soul dies? No. So, when Christ's body dies, what does this have to do with the Trinity? God the Father and God the Holy Spirit do not have human natures in their person-hoods, and Christ has always existed before His own human nature was birthed.

>>720770

oh, and now that I think about it, the Scriptures affirm that we ourselves are also known well before we are birthed!

>>720770

you're changing your statement to backtrack

>Christ's human body died, but both His human and divine nature

suggests that the human died but divine nature lived

>what does this have to do with the trinity

because while you affirm that Christ the man died, the trinity didn't die seeping further into nesotarianism

>When my body dies, does this mean my soul dies?

yes, this whole idea of disembodied souls running around is also heresy. The nicene creed clearly states that there will be a resurrection of the body not this ghost thing you're going to

>>720773

They are distinct persons but they are also one person. So if they are one person then when Jesus dies the trinity should also have died. Unless. . . you accept the non-nesotarian position that the divine nature continued to exist in the trinity

>>720775

>suggests that the human died but divine nature lived

I've back-tracked on nothing, you clearly do not understand the Christian conception of what a human is. Man is both animal body and immortal soul. My own body can die, yet my immortal soul lives on.

>because while you affirm that Christ the man died, the trinity didn't die seeping further into nesotarianism

The animal body died, but the immortal human/divine soul lived on. Did He not say that He could raise His own body?

>yes, this whole idea of disembodied souls running around is also heresy. The nicene creed clearly states that there will be a resurrection of the body not this ghost thing you're going to

OK, what is a human then? When my body dies, am I truly dead? Are we not taught to not fear man, because he can only kill the body?

>>720777

>ou clearly do not understand the Christian conception of what a human is.

You keep telling everyone who responds to you that they don't understand Christianity but you couldn't even get the nicene creed right

>Man is both animal body and immortal soul. My own body can die, yet my immortal soul lives on.

says who where? Where in scripture or Catholic tradition does it say that the soul can live without the body. Tradition and scripture say that man is a unity of coporeal body and immortal soul as in one cannot exist without the other)

>When my body dies, am I truly dead? Are we not taught to not fear man, because he can only kill the body?

once again you miss the context,

>Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

let's read that again

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy == both soul and body in hell.==

does that sound like a disembodied soul to you.

Maybe you should learn basic Christianity before running around calling people nesotarians and telling them they don't understand the faith

>>720778

so now you're commiting a heresy by denying that the trinity is both one person and three persons at once

you're arguing for Hypostatsis but you don't even seem to know what it means

>he distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)

>>720780

>ays who where? Where in scripture or Catholic tradition does it say that the soul can live without the body.

"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."

"And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God"

> Tradition and scripture say that man is a unity of coporeal body and immortal soul as in one cannot exist without the other)

???

>does that sound like a disembodied soul to you.

OK, then do you believe in Purgatory? That's mandatory Catholic dogma, by the way.

>>720782

>>720782

"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."

let's read that last part again

"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy ==both soul and body in hell."==

are the words "both body and soul" in that sentence referring to just a disembodied soul in your mind?

And I'm sorry I don't even have the faintest clue why you think the second quote proves your point

and I'm sorry don't tell me about Catholic dogma, you don't even accept the nicene creed's definition of the resurrection of the body - it's up for debate whether you're even Christian at this point

>>720783

Listen, you're either extraordinarily confused, or you are only pretending to be Catholic.

If there are no disembodied souls, then there can be no Purgatory. Quit LARPing.

>>720785

>If there are no disembodied souls, then there can be no Purgatory.

Why? Show me the part in the church doctrine that says that?

Also

>While "pain of the senses" (as opposed to "pain of longing" for the Beatific Vision) is not doctrinally defined as being a part of purgatory, the overwhelming consensus of theologians has been that it does involve pain of the senses.

Still doesn't sound like a disembodied soul - where is this notion that souls in pergatory are disembodied coming from other than your own nesotarian heretical imagination?

>>720787

>Why? Show me the part in the church doctrine that says that?

What do mean "Why"? There can be NO PURGATORY without disembodied souls. Period.

This isn't your only problem.

-Explain the PARTICULAR JUDGEMENT; wherein the Soul is immediately judged by Jesus Christ and is either set aside to Hell or Heaven (or Purgatory, then Heaven)

-Explain Indulgences and Masses in honor of the departed.

-Explain how the General Resurrection, where ALL SOULS, both reprobate and the saved are re-united with their bodies for the FINAL JUDGEMENT

>where is this notion that souls in pergatory are disembodied coming from other than your own nesotarian heretical imagination?

Once again, you're either seriously confused or you should not pretend to be Catholic to mislead others.

>>720790

I said show me the part of Catholic doctrine that says souls in pergatory are disembodied. You couldn't so like a child you throw a tantrum, "say that's just the way it is period" because you said so and you seem to have a pope complex

There's no discussion with unreasonable people and you are unreasonable

You already tried to go to scripture and were shown why that didn't back up the point you thought it did because of your poor understanding of scripture. So now all you have is "that's just the way it is"

Souls in purgatory have a body - they must because if they weren't physical they wouldn't feel any pain and purgatory would be kinda pointless.

You just seem to think it's not possible for God to create bodies for souls in purgatory because you're a larper

>>720791

>Souls in purgatory have a body - they must because if they weren't physical they wouldn't feel any pain and purgatory would be kinda pointless.

???

>You just seem to think it's not possible for God to create bodies for souls in purgatory because you're a larper

???

Why would God create two bodies?

???

>You already tried to go to scripture and were shown why that didn't back up the point you thought it did because of your poor understanding of scripture. So now all you have is "that's just the way it is"

I skipped it because it was so poor, honestly.

Man is only able to kill body, but not soul. God is able to kill both body and soul. Ergo, when the body dies, either through man or natural causes, the soul still lives.

>You couldn't so like a child you throw a tantrum, "say that's just the way it is period" because you said so and you seem to have a pope complex

It's ok, you can call me a papist.

>>720792

Why would God create two bodies?

that's exactly what he does in the resurrection - you get a second body - that's what the Catholic church and Jesus teaches. Like I said, learn basic doctrine before you go on your larp.

> skipped it because it was so poor, honestly.

>Man is only able to kill body, but not soul. God is able to kill both body and soul. Ergo, when the body dies, either through man or natural causes, the soul still lives.

see now you're willfully misrepresenting scirpture to try and win an argument

"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can '''destroy both soul and body in hell."'

does that sentence say the body is being destoryed on earth and then the soul in hell? Or does it say "destroy both the soul and body in hell"

>>720793

>that's exactly what he does in the resurrection - you get a second body - that's what the Catholic church and Jesus teaches.

…no, it's the RESURRECTION. do you know what RESURRECTION means? do you think Jesus Christ invisible'd his old body and made a new one at His own resurrection?

>does that sentence say the body is being destoryed on earth and then the soul in hell? Or does it say "destroy both the soul and body in hell"

Why do you insist on moving the goal-posts?

Do you think that God could not destroy both animal body and immortal soul (which both compromise a human) any time, anywhere He wills?

>>720793

To be frank, I think you're just trying to get yourself banned so people can rail on the mods with screencaps and other accusations.

>>720794

>Do you think that God could not destroy both animal body and immortal soul (which both compromise a human) any time, anywhere He wills?

where did I say that? All I'm saying here is that you misrepresented scirpture and did so willfully to try and make it seem like God destorys disembodied souls in hell

>…no, it's the RESURRECTION. do you know what RESURRECTION means? do you think Jesus Christ invisible'd his old body and made a new one at His own resurrection?

It wasn't the same old body was it - it was different which you would know if you had read scripture or Catholic teachings.

>But someone may ask, “How will the dead be raised? What kind of bodies will they have?

> There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies

that's from 1 Corinthians 15

I don't know if you have some sort of friendship with the mods where you can get people banned, but I don't care. You're wrong on this, you've been proven wrong on many things many times in this thread and you keep going treating everyone who challenges you like crap and claiming they don't understand and calling them ignorant or worse accusing them of being non-christian

The way you act is an embarrassment to the Catholic church

>>720797

you're better off spamming fake pro/anti baptist threads

>>720750

>Get over it stupid Fatalist scum

Are you literally incapable of speaking without sperging out about Calvinism?

>>720762

So you are overtly a monophysite, whereas the other guy was a moderate monophysite, you are so radically monophysite that you explicitly denied the humanity of Jesus Christ , since you said "It is not a man or a "human nature" that died or make Atonement on the Cross".

>They arent two independent natures

If they do not exist independent of one another, they do not exist apart from each other at all, as independence conveys self-existence. But independence does not convey isolation, as they might be united in one hypostasis without mixture. Hence, the correct doctrine is that the natures are strictly independent, but just as strictly inseparable.

>They are distinct and retain their intergrities which is how the natures arent confused with one another. Years before the Christological Controversy, Irenaeus shown how there can be a 'mixture' of humanity and divinity in Christ through Stoic mixture theory which explicitly states two substances retain their intergrities, composition and doesnt mesh into some hybrid. In that state however, the two arent "independent". To say they are goes against Cyril's Christology and the importance of deification of the human nature.

You might not confuse the natures insofar as you deny what belongs to one belongs to the other, but that is a plain inconsistency with your affirmation of a mixture, such scandalizing monophysite language demonstrating your belief that there is one nature which behaves like two, against the explicit teaching of Cyril that "we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh", and "the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union", which cannot be construed to mean only that the properties remain distinct, since if there is a mixture it is undeniable that the nature of the Word would be mixed with a nature that entails flesh, and the difference between the natures is not simply that they have different properties, but that one is of the unchanging God and the other of the creature man. Nor does your appeal to the doctrine of theosis do you any good, since the Orthodox doctrine is not analogous to the Mormon belief that men become true gods, which is what you argue for Christ's humanity, but is much more like the Protestant doctrine of progressive sanctification that throughout the Christian life the Christian's union with Christ is perfected and he is made more like God. You repeat the error of Eutyches.

>Of course it isnt in His Divinity a Divine person experiences pain but it is in the assumed humanity

Which is all I intended to express, so why do you still find fault? Because you do not agree, you agree with Eutyches that before the union there were two natures, but after there is but one. Hence you do not believe the God-man suffered only in His assumed humanity, since you believe the assumption was into His nature, otherwise there is no mixture.

>However a Divine person is still the subject that perceives the pain!

But not in His divine nature, since though there is but one divine subject, He nonetheless partakes of both humanity and divinity even in His one mind. Hence the divine person may experience the pains of torture, and at the same time God does not. How marvelous this blessed mystery truly is! I find the beauty of the hypostatic union to be nothing short of incredible.

>>720762

>Hence you cannot say "a man Jesus Christ died"

If it was not a man, namely Jesus Christ, who died, we have no hope and we are still in our sins. This is because as scripture says "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted". Furthermore it is the explicit statement of scripture that Jesus Christ is a man, as Paul says "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". And it was the teaching of the Christian Church since the ancients, for Leo the Great wrote against the heretic Eutyches "Without detriment therefore to the properties of either nature and substance which then came together in one person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the paying off of the debt belonging to our condition inviolable nature was united with possible nature, so that, as suited the needs of our case , one and the same Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, could both die with the one and not die with the other".

>Also what "natures" is are a set of attributes an agent or thing has, it isnt the thing itself but properties belonging to an agent or a thing

That is one sense of the term, but as I pointed out Christ is true man, possessing concrete existence as a man, just as much as us. But let us go with your definition, if a nature is only a set of properties possessed by a thing, not the thing itself, and Jesus Christ's only relation to humanity is insofar as He possessed a human nature, then from your perspective would it not be impious and Nestorian to under any circumstances and in any sense to say Jesus Christ is a man?

>>720805

God is both three persons and one person and the same time, if you deny that you're not a Christian

>>720812

>Mcguckin

Is he the guy in that pdf you posted? Because he claims Chalcedon was Nestorian. Interesting how your sole source for the fathers being Monophysites are unbelieving scholars, because you can't get that from the fathers themselves.

>Saying the natures self exists

If they do not exist independently, they exist as one, and there is no difference. But I'm basically wasting my time by continuing to point out the fact you're a Monophysite because that's pretty well established by now and given your replies you have no defense. As a result I'm going to try and ignore everything that's completely irrelevant, already refuted, or laughably absurd, which is nearly everything.

>>720816

>It cannot be a man who died

You are not a Christian, that much is certain. Repent and believe, for the kingdom of God is at hand.

>And on your final point, it doesnt add anything here as my point still stands, a human nature cannot die because nature is not a person but a set of attributes. And why dont I say a man died? That is because that is Nestorian as Sproul also follows. Because now it isnt God who died and atoned but some abstract set of attributes called "human nature".

I consider this capitulation because here you fully and readily admit to being a Monophysite heretic and opposing the scriptures I cited which themselves say God became exactly like us and is a true man.

>>720822

Had you read John or Hebrews, you know that a divine being came in the flesh to save us. Godman came to save and deify us as Cyril's presupposition would have it. A mere man cannot bring deification. Only a Divine person can do this. Even if we say God needs satisfaction, only someone of infinite value can pay for dishonour against an infinite being! A man cant do it. Only Jesus who atones in our stead can do it and He is a divine person who assumed human flesh for that purpose.