Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!concert!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: ejalbert@husc3.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker
Message-ID: <May.9.05.40.58.1993.27537@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 9 May 93 09:40:59 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: Harvard University Science Center
Lines: 113
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <May.6.00.34.58.1993.15426@geneva.rutgers.edu>, db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>>		- Mike Walker 
>> 
>>[If you are using the standard formula of fully God and fully human,
>>that I'm not sure why you object to saying that Jesus was human.  I
>>think the usual analysis would be that sin is not part of the basic
>>definition of humanity.  It's a consequence of the fall.  Jesus is
>>human, but not a fallen human.  --clh]
> 
I differ with our moderator on this.  I thought the whole idea of God coming
down to earth to live as one of us "subject to sin and death" (as one of
the consecration prayers in the Book of Common Prayer (1979) puts it) was
that Jesus was tempted, but did not succumb.  If sin is not part of the
basic definition of humanity, then Jesus "fully human" (Nicea) would not
be "subject to sin", but then the Resurrection loses some of its meaning,
because we encounter our humanity most powerfully when we sin.  To distinguish
between "human" and "fallen human" makes Jesus less like one of us at the
time we need him most.

> [These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different
> things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously
> different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I
> don't think there's any question that there is a problem with
> Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form
> without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be
> a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions
> suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from
> orthodoxy as many had thought.  Nestorius was an extreme
> representative of one of the two major schools of thought.  More
> moderate representatives were regarded as orthodox, e.g. Theodore of
> Mopsuestia.  My impression is that the modern monophysite groups
> inherit the entire tradition, not just Nestorius' version, and that
> some of them may have a sufficient balanced position to be regarded as
> orthodox.  --clh]

First, the Monophysites inherited none of Nestorius's version -- they 
were on the opposite end of the spectrum from him.  Second, the historical
record suggests that the positions attributed to Nestorius were not as
extreme as his (successful) opponents (who wrote the conventional history)
claimed.  Mainly Nestorius opposed the term Theotokos for Mary, arguing
(I think correctly) that a human could not be called Mother of God.  I mean,
in the Athanasian Creed we talk about the Son "uncreate" -- surely even 
Arians would concede that Jesus existed long before Mary.  Anyway, Nestorius's
opponents claimed that by saying Mary was not Theotokos, that he claimed
that she only gave birth to the human nature of Jesus, which would require
two seperate and distinct natures.  The argument fails though, because
Mary simply gave birth to Jesus, who preexisted her either divinely,
if you accept "Nestorianism" as commonly defined, or both natures intertwined,
a la Chalcedon.

Second, I am not sure that "Nestorianism" is not a better alternative than
the orthodox view.  After all, I find it hard to believe that pre-Incarnation
that Jesus's human nature was in heaven; likewise post-Ascension.  I think
rather that God came to earth and took our nature upon him.  It was a seperate
nature, capable of being tempted as in Gethsemane (since I believe the divine
nature could never be tempted) but in its moments of weakness the divine nature
prevailed.

Comments on the above warmly appreciated.

Jason Albert

[There may be differences in what we mean by "subject to sin".  The
original complaint was from someone who didn't see how we could call
Jesus fully human, because he didn't sin.  I completely agree that
Jesus was subject to temptation.  I simply object to the idea that by
not succumbing, he is thereby not fully human.  I believe that you do
not have to sin in order to be human.

I again apologize for confusing Nestorianism and monophysitism.  I
agree with you, and have said elsewhere, that there's reason to think
that not everyone who is associated with heretical positions was in
fact heretical.  There are scholars who maintain that Nestorius was
not Nestorian.  I have to confess that the first time I read some of
the correspondence between Nestorius and his opponents, I thought he
got the better of them.

However, most scholars do believe that the work that eventually led to
Chalcedon was an advance, and that Nestorius was at the very least
"rash and dogmatic" (as the editor of "The Christological Controversy"
refers to him) in rejecting all approaches other than his own.  As
regular Usenet readers know, narrowness can be just as much an
impediment as being wrong.  Furthermore, he did say some things that I
think are problematical.  He responds to a rather mild letter from
Cyril with a flame worthy of Usenet.  In it he says "To attribute also
to [the Logos], in the name of [the incarnation] the characteristics
of the flesh that has been conjoined with him ... is, my brother,
either the work of a mind which truly errs in the fashion of the
Greeks or that of a mind diseased with the insane heresy of Arius and
Apollinaris and the others.  Those who are thus carried away with the
idea of this association are bound, because of it, to make the divine
Logos have a part in being fed with milk and participate to some
degree in growh and stand in need of angelic assistance because of his
fearfulness ...  These things are taken falsely when they are put off
on the deity and they become the occasion of just condemnation for us
who perpetrate the falsehood."

It's all well and good to maintain a proper distinction between
humanity and divinity.  But the whole concept of incarnation is based
on exactly the idea that the divine Logos does in fact have "to some
degree" a part in being born, growing up, and dying.  Of course it
must be understood that there's a certain indirectness in the Logos'
participation in these things.  But there must be some sort of
identification between the divine and human, or we don't have an
incarnation at all.  Nestorius seemed to think in black and white
terms, and missed the sorts of nuances one needs to deal with this
area.

You say "I find it hard to believe that pre-Incarnation that Jesus's
human nature was in heaven."  I don't think that's required by
orthodox doctrine.  It's the divine Logos that is eternal.

--clh]
