Jason Dulle article:

[Esaias]

Both Bernard and Dulle err in assuming that Christ was in 'hypostatic union' with the Father, in the sense that two things are joined together. This was a problem throughout much of antenicene and post nicene catholic trinitarian development up until the Council of Chalcedon made an official formula of words to use to describe the issue.

The Bible does not teach that God was 'united with' Christ in the sense such terminology suggests. The suggestion is that the union is similar to when bread and meat are 'united' to make one sandwich, or when tea acids and water are 'united' to make one (glass) of tea. The theory is that something called 'the divine essence or nature' was 'united' with the 'human essence or nature' to produce one 'hypostasis' or 'person'.

Oneness, in holding to the Chalcedonian definition of Christ being 'one hypostasis in two natures' or 'two natures united hypostatically', has created some unnecessary difficulties for itself.

For example, the 'Spirit' is said to be that which was united with the humanity. But the 'Spirit' is not the divine nature itself (except when trinitarians are equivocating...) but rather the 'Holy Spirit'. The Holy Spirit is not merely the 'essence' or 'nature' of God but is a descriptive term for God Himself. So Chalcedonian Oneness Christology has a two edged problem: Either the Person of God (the Holy Spirit) was 'united hypostatically' to the humanity in the Person of Christ (which logically leads to two Persons?), OR the Holy Spirit is not God Himself but merely the divine essence (which logically leads to a denial of the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, that is, a denial that the Holy Spirit is Jesus Himself spiritually present and active).

Furthermore, by claiming a hypostatic union of two natures relying on trinitarian (and thus Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics), we fall into the problem described above in the quotation from Dulle - the divine essence 'departing' from Christ at ANY point, whether at the cross, at the moment of death, in the grave, or what have you. For if the Divine Essence departs from Christ in any meaningful sense, then either Christ ceases to exist as a person, OR there are two persons (one God, the other a man). Bernard's approach leads to this dilemma.

Dulle attempts to get around this dilemma by proposing that the divine Spirit departs from Christ in the same way the human spirit departs from a man at death. He says " Indeed, I would argue that if the divine Spirit did not depart from Jesus’ body at the point of death, Jesus could not have died, because death only occurs when the spirit separates from the body. Since Jesus’ spirit is the divine Spirit incarnate, the divine Spirit had to depart from Jesus’ body in order for death to occur. "

But this is unproven. Dulle did not demonstrate that Christ could not die unless the Divine Spirit departed from his body, except by the unproven claim that the hypostatic union is functionally identical to the union of spirit and flesh in a human being.

The problem is, the Spirit is not merely 'the divine essence', it is God Himself. And if the Divine Essence departed from Christ, it is not the same as when a human spirit departs from a body of flesh. The Divine essence, in Chalcedonian Christology, is not united to the flesh body of Jesus, it is united to the human nature. Therefore, he only separation possible is for the Divine Essence to be disunited from the human nature (the entire man), and thus Christ ceases to possess the Divine nature, and thus ceases to be God. On the other hand, if the Spirit is in fact (as the Bible teaches) God Himself, then God Himself was united to the human nature, and the separation is a separation of God and the man, thus again resulting in Christ CEASING TO BE GOD in any meaningful sense.

All this however can be avoided by rejecting Platonic, Aristotelian, Catholic trinitarian metaphysical terms and paradigms, and sticking with the Biblical statements themselves.

The Word (who was God) became flesh. Not the Word was 'hypostatically united to a human nature', nor that the Word was 'hypostatically united to a human body', but that the Word which was God 'came to be' flesh (ie a physical, genuine, human being, as 'flesh' does not mean merely the physical body, but refers to a living human).

So when Jesus died, what actually happened? The HUMAN SPIRIT departed from the HUMAN BODY, and the MAN DIED (this is what happens to every human who dies). God did not 'depart' because God was never 'united' in any way that a 'departure' or 'separation' could be possible. God WAS the man, he was existing AS THE MAN. As the man, he died a human death (human animus or spirit separating from the human physical body). He remained in that condition until the third day, when human spirit was re-united with the human body, and the MAN came alive once again.

If we stay within the confines of leftover trinitarian concepts like Chalcedonian Christology, we might as well seriously argue and debate and try to figure out how many angels can really 'dance on the head of a pin'.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Both Bernard and Dulle err in assuming that Christ was in 'hypostatic union' with the Father, in the sense that two things are joined together.

This is a misapplication of terms. The word Hypostasis refers to a Person.

The Hypostatic Union refers to a person (God) being United with a human nature, not a human person.


To word it as "Christ was in hypostatic union with the Father" makes it sound as if Dulle teaches there are two persons that are joined together.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is a misapplication of terms. The word Hypostasis refers to a Person.

The Hypostatic Union refers to a person (God) being United with a human nature, not a human person.


To word it as "Christ was in hypostatic union with the Father" makes it sound as if Dulle teaches there are two persons that are joined together.

From a Oneness perspective, the 'hypostatic union' would be a union between the man and God, would it not? 'Hypostatic union with the Father' is clearly erroneous way of speaking from a trinitarian point of view. But neither Dulle nor Bernard are trinitarians. So then what was united to what in a 'hypostatic union'? If a purely Chalcedonian definition is followed, I do not see how one can be Oneness! For the definition of Chalcedon is that human nature and divine nature were hypostatically united in Christ, that is, two natures united in one person or hypostasis of Christ. But that would mean Christ is a distinct hypostasis from the Father... ie binitarian or trinitarian theology.

So, from a Oneness view, attempting to adapt the definition of Chalcedon to a Oneness understanding, we would have to have Christ in hypostatic union with ... what? A divine 'essence'? Or God? That is to say, the man is united with God in One Person?

This is the whole problem with borrowing trinitarian theology and Christology and trying to express Oneness concepts. It creates a confusion of words, terms, etc. And leads to some strange (logically) conclusions.

My opinion, anyway, YMMV.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

From a Oneness perspective, the 'hypostatic union' would be a union between the man and God, would it not? 'Hypostatic union with the Father' is clearly erroneous way of speaking from a trinitarian point of view. But neither Dulle nor Bernard are trinitarians. So then what was united to what in a 'hypostatic union'? If a purely Chalcedonian definition is followed, I do not see how one can be Oneness! For the definition of Chalcedon is that human nature and divine nature were hypostatically united in Christ, that is, two natures united in one person or hypostasis of Christ. But that would mean Christ is a distinct hypostasis from the Father... ie binitarian or trinitarian theology.

So, from a Oneness view, attempting to adapt the definition of Chalcedon to a Oneness understanding, we would have to have Christ in hypostatic union with ... what? A divine 'essence'? Or God? That is to say, the man is united with God in One Person?

This is the whole problem with borrowing trinitarian theology and Christology and trying to express Oneness concepts. It creates a confusion of words, terms, etc. And leads to some strange (logically) conclusions.

My opinion, anyway, YMMV.

the Hypostatic Union is where a Person, God, is Personally joined with a Human nature

In other words that Person becomes Human by obtaining a Human nature in addition to His own nature.

The New nature is JOINED To His Person. Both Natures are united, not mixed.

The only difference between Oneness and Trinity is WHO was Hypostatically joined with a human nature...or who was incarnate.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

From a Oneness perspective, the 'hypostatic union' would be a union between the man and God, would it not? 'Hypostatic union with the Father' is clearly erroneous way of speaking from a trinitarian point of view. But neither Dulle nor Bernard are trinitarians. So then what was united to what in a 'hypostatic union'? If a purely Chalcedonian definition is followed, I do not see how one can be Oneness! For the definition of Chalcedon is that human nature and divine nature were hypostatically united in Christ, that is, two natures united in one person or hypostasis of Christ. But that would mean Christ is a distinct hypostasis from the Father... ie binitarian or trinitarian theology.

So, from a Oneness view, attempting to adapt the definition of Chalcedon to a Oneness understanding, we would have to have Christ in hypostatic union with ... what? A divine 'essence'? Or God? That is to say, the man is united with God in One Person?

This is the whole problem with borrowing trinitarian theology and Christology and trying to express Oneness concepts. It creates a confusion of words, terms, etc. And leads to some strange (logically) conclusions.

My opinion, anyway, YMMV.

Dulle is very much a Chalcedonic Christologist, augmented of course, by His Oneness views. See here:

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/chalcedon.htm

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Dulle is very much a Chalcedonic Christologist, augmented of course, by His Oneness views. See here:

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/chalcedon.htm

Oh yes, I am aware of brother Dulle's thoughts on Chalcedonian Christology.

I just think using an early medieval trinitarian philosophical definition or exposition of the greatest mystery that has ever been delivered to mankind is a bit unnecessary. I think it leads to questions such as the one this thread is about, questions that to me are really unnecessary and would not even come about unless the mishmash of apostate philosophical speculations are brought to the table.

I think Servetus had the same opinion of the Doctors of the 'church' and their metaphysics, so I guess I'm in decent company.

[mizpeh]

Esaias said, "All this however can be avoided by rejecting Platonic, Aristotelian, Catholic trinitarian metaphysical terms and paradigms, and sticking with the Biblical statements themselves.

The Word (who was God) became flesh. Not the Word was 'hypostatically united to a human nature', nor that the Word was 'hypostatically united to a human body', but that the Word which was God 'came to be' flesh (ie a physical, genuine, human being, as 'flesh' does not mean merely the physical body, but refers to a living human).

So when Jesus died, what actually happened? The HUMAN SPIRIT departed from the HUMAN BODY, and the MAN DIED (this is what happens to every human who dies). God did not 'depart' because God was never 'united' in any way that a 'departure' or 'separation' could be possible. God WAS the man, he was existing AS THE MAN. As the man, he died a human death (human animus or spirit separating from the human physical body). He remained in that condition until the third day, when human spirit was re-united with the human body, and the MAN came alive once again."

What do you mean when you say "God WAS the man"? How did God become a human spirit? Did he inherently cease to be God in the context of becoming a man?

I have my own way of looking at this but I do not deny that the person who became flesh was God and I can without equivocation say that God walked on the earth, God died on the cross, and God rose from the grave as the man, Jesus Christ. And not like any of the examples you gave above using Dulle and Bernard. I'd like to hear your answers to my questions before I propose and explain another way to look at the incarnation of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

What do you mean when you say "God WAS the man"? How did God become a human spirit? Did he inherently cease to be God in the context of becoming a man?

John says the Word was made flesh. Did the Word cease to be the Word when it was made flesh? He also says the Word was God, and was made flesh. Did the Word cease to be God when it was made flesh?

Obviously not. God cannot cease to exist, or cease to be whatever He is. God however can become a man, because that does not involve ceasing to be something, but rather taking on a new way of being. God 'took on himself human nature', isn't that what everyone says? So God became a man - that is what 'assuming to himself human nature' means, indeed, that is all it CAN mean because a Person, who has human nature, is a MAN (ie human being). So when God 'took human nature to himself' he began to exist as a man, a genuine human being. Yet, God did not cease to exist as God, such a thing is a logical impossibility.

I have my own way of looking at this but I do not deny that the person who became flesh was God and I can without equivocation say that God walked on the earth, God died on the cross, and God rose from the grave as the man, Jesus Christ. And not like any of the examples you gave above using Dulle and Bernard. I'd like to hear your answers to my questions before I propose and explain another way to look at the incarnation of God.

God did all those things, as a human being, did he not? Therefore, he did them 'as a man'. It was God who did them, via the human nature (the human existence). Dulle and Bernard seem, to me, to be trying to express a Biblical truth via trinitarian christological terminology, which derives from Greek pagan metaphysics. My point is that going that route, instead of simply sticking to the Biblical data and statements, leads to unnecessary complication of a simple fact - God became a man, died for us, rose again, and demonstrated to us in living technicolor the very character and will of God.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Esaias

John says the Word was made flesh. Did the Word cease to be the Word when it was made flesh? He also says the Word was God, and was made flesh. Did the Word cease to be God when it was made flesh?

No. Jesus is God in the flesh. Everything that makes God to be God dwelled bodily as Jesus Christ. When we look at Jesus, we are seeing all we will ever see of God (as far as I know).

I believe the use of "Word" is a synecdoche.

Obviously not. God cannot cease to exist, or cease to be whatever He is. God however can become a man, because that does not involve ceasing to be something, but rather taking on a new way of being. God 'took on himself human nature', isn't that what everyone says? So God became a man - that is what 'assuming to himself human nature' means, indeed, that is all it CAN mean because a Person, who has human nature, is a MAN (ie human being). So when God 'took human nature to himself' he began to exist as a man, a genuine human being. Yet, God did not cease to exist as God, such a thing is a logical impossibility.

I basically agree with what you've said. Who says that God ceased to exist as God?

God did all those things, as a human being, did he not? Therefore, he did them 'as a man'. It was God who did them, via the human nature (the human existence).

Yes, of course.

Dulle and Bernard seem, to me, to be trying to express a Biblical truth via trinitarian christological terminology, which derives from Greek pagan metaphysics. My point is that going that route, instead of simply sticking to the Biblical data and statements, leads to unnecessary complication of a simple fact - God became a man, died for us, rose again, and demonstrated to us in living technicolor the very character and will of God.

I agree with you. I think Dulle would agree with you also. Thanks for the explanation.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

No. Jesus is God in the flesh. Everything that makes God to be God dwelled bodily as Jesus Christ. When we look at Jesus, we are seeing all we will ever see of God (as far as I know).

I believe the use of "Word" is a synecdoche.

I basically agree with what you've said. Who says that God ceased to exist as God?

Yes, of course.

I agree with you. I think Dulle would agree with you also. Thanks for the explanation.

How is it a synecdoche?