{"id":1625,"date":"2010-04-05T07:00:40","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T11:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=1625"},"modified":"2010-04-09T12:32:06","modified_gmt":"2010-04-09T16:32:06","slug":"christology-and-heresy-5-monophysitism-proper-jt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/christology-and-heresy-5-monophysitism-proper-jt\/","title":{"rendered":"Christology and Heresy 5 – Monophysitism Proper (JT)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
I'm a hybrid. I'm made of lines, but I also shine (as indicated by more lines).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In the last post, I explained that Nestorians believe that a complete individual human nature is indiscernible from an individual human person.<\/p>\n

Monophysites also take this idea very seriously. In fact, the Monophysite takes very seriously the more general claim that a complete individual nature of any kind is indiscernible from the corresponding individual that belongs to that kind (for instance, a complete individual cow-nature just is the individual cow in question). So if there are two natures in Christ, then there will be two individuals that correspond to each of those natures.<\/p>\n

But the Monophysite does not want to say that there are two persons in Christ, so he will insist that there is just one nature<\/strong> in Christ. That way, there will just be one person. But since Christ is both human and divine, this one nature must be a special hybrid of divinity and humanity<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The strongest form of Monophysitism would claim that this hybrid Christness-nature has all<\/strong> divine properties, and all<\/strong> human properties. This, however, is incoherent, for it would amount to two persons as well. After all, having all the divine properties is sufficient for membership in God’s-kind, and having all human properties is sufficient for membership in human-kind. There would, then, still be two natures, which contradicts the initial claim that there is just one (allegedly) hybrid nature.<\/p>\n

So the more careful Monophysite will want to say that Christ lacks at least some of the properties required for either or both of God’s-kind or human-kind. That way, there will not be two natures (and hence, not two persons).<\/p>\n

This allows us to distinguish between various forms of ‘weak’ monophysitism. For example:<\/p>\n

(a) One could say that Christ only lacks a human feature<\/strong> (e.g., rationality). That’s Apollinarianism<\/strong> (a weak form of Monophysitism).<\/p>\n

(b) One could say that Christ lacks certain divine features<\/strong> (e.g., omnipotence). That’s kenoticism<\/strong> (a weak form of Monophysitism as well).<\/p>\n

(c) One could say that Christ lacks certain divine features and certain human features<\/strong> (e.g., an Apollinarian-Kenoticist?), and that would be the weakest form of Monophysitism.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the last post, I explained that Nestorians believe that a complete individual human nature is indiscernible from an individual human person. Monophysites also take this idea very seriously. In fact, the Monophysite takes very seriously the more general claim that a complete individual nature of any kind is indiscernible from the corresponding individual that… Read More »Christology and Heresy 5 – Monophysitism Proper (JT)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":1626,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[15,18,4,14,33,9,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-christology","category-guest-posts","category-heresy-orthodoxy","category-history","category-incarnation","category-philosophy","category-theories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1625","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1625"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1625\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1688,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1625\/revisions\/1688"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1626"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}