First of all the fact that in the final Episode of the Early Church Schisms series and the entire Justinian Saga they keep saying “Monophysite” in the videos proper to then in the Liars videos acknowledge the Miaphysite distinction but stills defend their Academic use of Monophysite really bugs me.
No one Self Identified as principally a Monophysite even the few niche Heretics who didn’t prefer Miaphysite. But those people are never talked about in any of these videos, it’s all about the 5th and 6th Century Christians who became what we now know as the Oriental Orthodox Church. They are ONLY talking about the Miaphysites who find the Monophysite label offensive.
Monophysite is a term that shouldn't exist.
But I’ve grown to be annoyed even by how they initially defined the distinction between Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Christology.
Yes I agree that ultimately the difference between either them and Nestorianism is Demantical, all three view Jesus as Fully Divine and Fully Human and that nuanced issues of how the two natures interact I can’t really as a Low Church Protestant find a Sola Scriptura answer to, it’s a Mystery that maybe God didn’t want us overthinking this much. Unfortunately I am a Nerdy overthinker by nature.
Years ago a thing for mildly preferring the Nestorian Formula, the more I’ve learned about how Divine Impassibility is uniquely vital to their Logic the more I’ve drifted away from that. But let’s return to the topic at hand.
Extra Credits chooses to define Chalcedonian Christology as “Two natures that are Mixed” and Miaphysite Christology as “One Nature that is both Divine and Human”. This is mistaken however, there is nothing about Mixing or Mixture in the Chalcedonian Definition.
Rather the clause in the Chalcedonian Definition that the Oriental Orthodox object to “in Two Natures” while they prefer “Out of Two Natures”.
When I define how I personally view the Incarnation without trying to fit into the box of Late Antiquity Greeks arguing over nuanced distinctions of Hellenic Verbiage, I like to say it like this.
In The Incarnation Christ Unified both the Divine and Human Natures, and that Unification is not ultimately just in Christ but at the future Consumption, when all the Dead are Bodily Raised and All Things are Made New the separation between Divine and Human will fade away. That of course also needs to be understood in the Context of my Materialist (maybe a little Stoic) understanding of Divinity in contrast to the Platonism more popular in modern Mainstream Christianity.
One can see how at face value the way Extra Credits had defined them made Chalceodoniams seem more compatible with my perspective, while the real distinction makes the Miaphysite model seem more compatible. However I also suspect many Christians in both camps would say my way of looking at it can fit theirs.
I’ve been wanting to write this post for a while now but keep putting it off because it feels like every time I look into the “In Two natures” vs “Out of Two natures” distinction I change my mind on which one I prefer. Sometimes I get a little too paranoid that the “Out of Two Natures” phrasing could be taken out of context to imply Jesus is a New Third Nature neither Human or Divine.
Honestly I feel like I’m sometimes biased against the Oriental Orthodox because of my personal distaste for Cyril of Alexandria. Yes the Chalcedonians also consider him a Saint but the Miaphysites often seem like they are basing their entire self identity on being the “True Cyrilians”. But it’s important to remember that people are complicated, Cyril could be right on Christology and a Bad Tyrannical Leader at the same time.
The Branch of Oriental Orthodoxy most directly connected to Cyril, the Copts, are now the religious Minority in Egypt. They have more in common with those Cryil persecuted than Cyril however much they may be in denial of Cyril’s villainy.
Regardless of which Christology I prefer, I'm not eligible to join any Denomination that adheres to the Second Ecumenical Council because of my Congregationalist views on Church Governance and opposition to Infant Baptism.
No comments:
Post a Comment