Hypostatic Union explanation

General discussions about Christianity including salvation, heaven and hell, Christian history and so on.
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#16

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:36 pm

IceMobster wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:In each of us resides the self of the past the current and the self of the future. Often these selves are in conflict with one another. If you stop to dwell on it you may never be able to resolve these entities logically yet one knows that they exist in one body. Logic and reason may allow one to understand things but the ultimate truth resides in experience.
Mind elaborating on this? Self of the past, self of the current and self of the future? What the hell?
Lol

On the three selves, have you ever started something and failed to complete it? Why?
Are all your memories accessible at any time? How and when do they come to you?

On knowledge and experience.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Vergil
Established Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:16 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 7 times

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#17

Post by Vergil » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:00 am

May i have a link to study Hypostatic Union?
Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.
- Jesus Christ

Disappointment is inevitable. But to become discouraged, there's a choice I make. God would never discourage me. He would always point me to himself to trust him. Therefore, my discouragement is from Satan. As you go through the emotions that we have, hostility is not from God, bitterness, unforgiveness, all of these are attacks from Satan.
- Charles Stanley

IceMobster
Senior Member
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Europe
Has liked: 172 times
Been liked: 42 times

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#18

Post by IceMobster » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:06 am

Uh. Hey Rick, pass on the LSD, please.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOXMf6yDCU

Fecisti nos ad te, Domine, et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te!

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#19

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:23 am

RickD wrote:Ok everyone,

I'm trying to explain the Hypostatic Union to my son, and it's not working. Anyone have a way to explain it so a teenager can understand. Links, or anything would be appreciated.
Considering that theologians don't agree on how to express it, good luck !

On a serious note though, one of the mistakes that has been made was trying to explain the trinity ( actually putting a name to it didn't help either of course).
I wonder how those before the term "hypostatic union" understood the relation between Father, Son and HS?

They didn't use words like "trinity" and "hypostatic union" and yet they understood.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#20

Post by Jac3510 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:40 am

Vergil wrote:May i have a link to study Hypostatic Union?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm
PaulSacramento wrote:
RickD wrote:Ok everyone,

I'm trying to explain the Hypostatic Union to my son, and it's not working. Anyone have a way to explain it so a teenager can understand. Links, or anything would be appreciated.
Considering that theologians don't agree on how to express it, good luck !

On a serious note though, one of the mistakes that has been made was trying to explain the trinity ( actually putting a name to it didn't help either of course).
I wonder how those before the term "hypostatic union" understood the relation between Father, Son and HS?

They didn't use words like "trinity" and "hypostatic union" and yet they understood.
Sure, Paul. The problem is that the HU is the explanation. The data is fairly easy: Jesus is fully God and fully man. When someone says, "How can that be?" and you begin to explain it, then (if you want to avoid various Christological heresies) the explanation you provide is the HU.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#21

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:17 am

Jac3510 wrote:
Vergil wrote:May i have a link to study Hypostatic Union?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm
PaulSacramento wrote:
RickD wrote:Ok everyone,

I'm trying to explain the Hypostatic Union to my son, and it's not working. Anyone have a way to explain it so a teenager can understand. Links, or anything would be appreciated.
Considering that theologians don't agree on how to express it, good luck !

On a serious note though, one of the mistakes that has been made was trying to explain the trinity ( actually putting a name to it didn't help either of course).
I wonder how those before the term "hypostatic union" understood the relation between Father, Son and HS?

They didn't use words like "trinity" and "hypostatic union" and yet they understood.
Sure, Paul. The problem is that the HU is the explanation. The data is fairly easy: Jesus is fully God and fully man. When someone says, "How can that be?" and you begin to explain it, then (if you want to avoid various Christological heresies) the explanation you provide is the HU.
You make it sound so simple ;)

My point is that in trying to explain such things we are slaves to words and analogies and metaphors and so much more.
There is no way around it.
The analogy of the blind man you stated is an apt one, for how does one explain the color red to a person that can NOT see and has NEVER seen?

Now, I am not saying it can't be done ( explaining the hypostatic union), what I am saying is that I have found that ONE way does NOT work for everyone and that we need various methods of explaining the "unexplainable".
Like I said earlier, the first generations were able to understand and explain without the verbiage we use and, to be honest, I have heard from many that it is the very verbiage that cause them issues.
I recall one person saying to me, " I believe that Christ is God like The Father in spite of the trinity doctrine, not because of it".

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#22

Post by Jac3510 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:51 am

It is simple. The first thing to do is stop offering analogies. The second thing to do is to give them the biblical data. The third thing to do is to teach people the proper language. The last thing, if people are so inclined, is to explore that language--why it is constructed the way it is. The biblical data is very simple. It's two propositions: Jesus Christ is fully man. Jesus Christ is fully God. Now, people can just accept that on shear faith, saying, "I don't know how that's true, but okay!" Or people can ask how that it is true. Then you give them the language. You say, "Jesus is human in virtue of having a human nature. He is divine in virtue of having a divine nature. Necessarily, those natures are not comingled into some human-divine nature that is neither human in and of itself nor divine in and of itself (as would be the case of a demigod). These two natures are united in one Person." And if someone asks, you can tell them that's where the word hypostatic comes from--from the Greek word meaning "person" (hupostasis). The natures are united in a Person. Anything beyond that requires understanding those words. What is a nature? What is a person? When dealing with human persons, what is the form/matter composite, and how does that relate to the divine person who is pure form? But those are all just background questions--things that help us understand the language. As you answer them, they way raise more background questions. What is a form in a form/matter composite. What is matter? What is actuality and potentiality? What is a substance (Gk ousia) and how does that relate to a person (hupostasis). That's why analogies don't help any of this, because the problem here isn't relating to it. It is just being educated enough to know what the terms mean. And even after all the education, even when you "get" it, that doesn't mean that you have an experiential comprehension of it. If "getting it" means to have a conception of it the way I have a subjective understanding of, say, color, then we will never "get it." But that doesn't mean we can't make it logically consistent enough that we can't give it our intellectual assent and feel comfortable accepting it by faith.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#23

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:25 am

Simple...LOL.
These users liked this post by PaulSacramento:
Philip (Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:50 am)

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#24

Post by Jac3510 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:11 am

Simple <> easy :fyi: ;)
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 648 times
Been liked: 665 times

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#25

Post by Kurieuo » Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:53 pm

SoCalExile shared this on the Lordship Salvation thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnIH_UTMrys

If you watched it, then the guy explains a hypostatic union of sorts within us too.
Just find the similarity interesting.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

User avatar
Nicki
Senior Member
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Western Australia
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 68 times

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#26

Post by Nicki » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:50 pm

What do you mean exactly by 'form'? To me it basically means 'shape' - something physical.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#27

Post by Jac3510 » Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:54 am

Nicki wrote:What do you mean exactly by 'form'? To me it basically means 'shape' - something physical.
Read this firist: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... -soul.html

Form doesn't mean "shape" in this context. It is the principle that makes something what it is.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Nicki
Senior Member
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Western Australia
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 68 times

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#28

Post by Nicki » Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:09 am

Jac3510 wrote:
Nicki wrote:What do you mean exactly by 'form'? To me it basically means 'shape' - something physical.
Read this firist: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... -soul.html

Form doesn't mean "shape" in this context. It is the principle that makes something what it is.
So - rereading your posts as well - the form is the same thing as the soul, and produces a body. How does that fit in with DNA making the body what it is? And why is intellect immaterial, but not imagination?

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#29

Post by Jac3510 » Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:30 am

Nicki wrote:So - rereading your posts as well - the form is the same thing as the soul, and produces a body.
Less "the same thing as" and more the definition of. The soul, by definition, is the form of the body. So, yes, the soul is what produces the body. Think of it this way: the matter that makes up your body is informed by the soul.
How does that fit in with DNA making the body what it is?
DNA is a part of the body and so informed (that is, made what it is) in virtue of the soul. Human DNA is human DNA precisely because it is a human soul that informs it.
And why is intellect immaterial, but not imagination?
Imagination, like the intellect, is an internal faculty of the soul (there are others as well--memory, will, etc.). The intellect is not identical with the soul, but is (like imagination) a power of it. The materiality or immateriality of something is related to its own nature and therefore how it is expressed/realized. The body is material insofar as the body is what the material production of the soul. It is just the nature of the body to be material. The intellect is immaterial insofar as it is the cognitive power of the soul. It is just the nature of the intellect to be immaterial. And so it is with the imagination. It's just immaterial by nature. It is not distinct from the soul, as if the immaterial part of you is part soul, part intellect, part imagination, etc. Rather, the immaterial part of you is just soul, and the soul has various powers and faculties. Some of those powers and faculties are and are expressed immaterially (even if they have material instrumental causes), e.g., the intellect and imagination. Some are and are expressed materially, e.g., the body.

For more on the imagination, read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07672a.htm
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Nicki
Senior Member
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Western Australia
Has liked: 359 times
Been liked: 68 times

Re: Hypostatic Union explanation

#30

Post by Nicki » Sun May 01, 2016 6:05 pm

Jac3510 wrote:
Nicki wrote:So - rereading your posts as well - the form is the same thing as the soul, and produces a body.
Less "the same thing as" and more the definition of. The soul, by definition, is the form of the body. So, yes, the soul is what produces the body. Think of it this way: the matter that makes up your body is informed by the soul.
How does that fit in with DNA making the body what it is?
DNA is a part of the body and so informed (that is, made what it is) in virtue of the soul. Human DNA is human DNA precisely because it is a human soul that informs it.
Okay - it's philosophy I guess. It's not really biblical - I'm not saying it's unbiblical either, but how do you know these ideas are true? Is it just the one philosophy which makes the most sense to you?
And why is intellect immaterial, but not imagination?
Imagination, like the intellect, is an internal faculty of the soul (there are others as well--memory, will, etc.). The intellect is not identical with the soul, but is (like imagination) a power of it. The materiality or immateriality of something is related to its own nature and therefore how it is expressed/realized. The body is material insofar as the body is what the material production of the soul. It is just the nature of the body to be material. The intellect is immaterial insofar as it is the cognitive power of the soul. It is just the nature of the intellect to be immaterial. And so it is with the imagination. It's just immaterial by nature. It is not distinct from the soul, as if the immaterial part of you is part soul, part intellect, part imagination, etc. Rather, the immaterial part of you is just soul, and the soul has various powers and faculties. Some of those powers and faculties are and are expressed immaterially (even if they have material instrumental causes), e.g., the intellect and imagination. Some are and are expressed materially, e.g., the body.

For more on the imagination, read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07672a.htm
The article you linked to said the intellect (among other aspects of us) was immaterial but not the imagination - it basically said a disembodied soul would have no imagination because the imagination was dependent on matter; something along those lines.

Post Reply