Jason Dulle article:

[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.