Below is a comment I made on the blog. Gerety banned me from comments on his blog because he wants to pretend that his arguments are ipso facto true. Therefore anyone who raises objections to his arguments can be banned and Gerety can continue the charade that the definition of Chalcedon is false and that Nestorianism is true. However, it will not prove that Nestorianism is true no matter how many false arguments the neo-Nestorians put forward or how many times they try to dominate the debate or discussion by shutting down those supporting the biblical view that "the Word became flesh" and that Jesus Christ is the exact imprint of the divine nature. He is one person in hypostatic union, two natures united in one "substance" or hypostasis.
Charlie J. Ray has left a new comment on your post "Misrepresentations and Misunderstanding by Neo-Nes...":
It suddenly occurred to me that Gerety wants to put words in my mouth by asking me to define "soul." When I then define the human soul, Gerety then takes my definition and applies it to God and tries to say that God has a soul.
This is the most dishonest way of arguing for Nestorianism since it attempts to set up one's opponent by asking misleading questions. It's really just another form of the straw man fallacy.
First of all, the orthodox position is that the Logos assumes a human soul into a hypostatic union with Himself. So the Logos does not in and of Himself have a "soul" but He assumes a human soul into the divine essence by way of a hypostatic union. This union is a hypostasis or spiritual substance, the word hypostasis being taken from Hebrews 1:3. Hypostatis is translated in Hebrews 1:3 as "nature." So the hypostatic union is the "exact imprint" of God's nature or substance. But this imprint in Jesus is a union of the divine nature and the human nature and is not equal to the ousios or divine nature of the trinity but is rather an "exact imprint" of it.
Charlie
Posted by Charlie J. Ray to Reasonable Christian at 7:26 AM
It suddenly occurred to me that Gerety wants to put words in my mouth by asking me to define "soul." When I then define the human soul, Gerety then takes my definition and applies it to God and tries to say that God has a soul.
This is the most dishonest way of arguing for Nestorianism since it attempts to set up one's opponent by asking misleading questions. It's really just another form of the straw man fallacy.
First of all, the orthodox position is that the Logos assumes a human soul into a hypostatic union with Himself. So the Logos does not in and of Himself have a "soul" but He assumes a human soul into the divine essence by way of a hypostatic union. This union is a hypostasis or spiritual substance, the word hypostasis being taken from Hebrews 1:3. Hypostatis is translated in Hebrews 1:3 as "nature." So the hypostatic union is the "exact imprint" of God's nature or substance. But this imprint in Jesus is a union of the divine nature and the human nature and is not equal to the ousios or divine nature of the trinity but is rather an "exact imprint" of it.
Charlie
Posted by Charlie J. Ray to Reasonable Christian at 7:26 AM
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment