Hypostatic Quaternity

[Diogenes]

The whole thing when looked at dispassionately is a nonsense.

However, with that opinion and if you were a figure within the court you may well have been subjected to Cyril of Alexandria's bribery to persuade you to agree to depose Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople. Cyril's materialistic desires for his city's, and by definition his own, supremacy were as much a factor as any theological position he may have held.

Nestorius, if I remember, favoured Christotokos and advocated two natures in a prosopic union. I'm not all convinced his prosopic union is functionally different than the Hypostatic Union. I doubt I would have ousted him due to a bribe.

However, given my avatar perhaps I am a little biased!

Given that the modern narrative of Hypatia is myth, I'm not surprised.

Mother goddess worship has a long history, particularly in Egypt, where the Marian cult was most prominent in the early centuries of Christianity. .

While it's always fun to "blame the pagans" for Christian practices, I doubt Marian nonsense is necessarily rooted in mother goddess worship.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

1.) I guess the Flesh part was the part that died? The human part. Obviously the Spirit part didn't die cause God can't die. It was the Son and the Son was the Flesh part. That was the Sacrifice. I don't think any of us know what exactly our Spirit or Soul really is anyway. I can see how God could have dwelled inside a Flesh body, then that body die and the Spirit go elsewhere.

The question is how and where?

2.) I always heard he went to Hell.

For what purpose?

3.) Which brings another question here. How many Spirits does God have anyway.

Ah well now....

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I've always thought calling Mary the Theotokos odd as Christotokos is much more applicable.

The whole thing when looked at dispassionately is a nonsense.

However, with that opinion and if you were a figure within the court you may well have been subjected to Cyril of Alexandria's bribery to persuade you to agree to depose Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople. Cyril's materialistic desires for his city's, and by definition his own, supremacy were as much a factor as any theological position he may have held.

However, given my avatar perhaps I am a little biased!

I've never been comfortable with Marian devotion.

Mother goddess worship has a long history, particularly in Egypt, where the Marian cult was most prominent in the early centuries of Christianity. .

[Machinist]

Yet Jesus body contained two natures.

That suggests the apocryphal work the Gospel of Nicodemus with its exciting account of the descent into hell.

1.) I guess the Flesh part was the part that died? The human part. Obviously the Spirit part didn't die cause God can't die. It was the Son and the Son was the Flesh part. That was the Sacrifice. I don't think any of us know what exactly our Spirit or Soul really is anyway. I can see how God could have dwelled inside a Flesh body, then that body die and the Spirit go elsewhere.

2.) I always heard he went to Hell.

3.) Which brings another question here. How many Spirits does God have anyway. I'm not really asking you in particular this, but God's Spirit seems like it's everywhere all at once...at this revival, at this Church, at this location in Communist China, etc. etc.

4.) And when We say God's Spirit, God IS a Spirit. It doesn't make sense to say the Spirit's Spirit.

[Machinist]

When I've been assistant pastor or youth pastor, that was my goal -- and if we ever came to a point where we could not agree, I would plan to leave in an adult manner - not causing trouble.

I go to a PCA church which I believe they are fundamentally Calvinist. They have teachings there that I am not so sure I agree with. But i've met some really nice people, and I really like the pastors insightful sermons.

[Cow Poke]

I try to live this.

When I've been assistant pastor or youth pastor, that was my goal -- and if we ever came to a point where we could not agree, I would plan to leave in an adult manner - not causing trouble.

[Machinist]

The best way is to be humble and honest about everything and be open to seeing the truth. I'm not sure if that truth will come to all though. God weighs the heart, and He should know if your heart was really open to seeing the truth. There are many view points expressed here on this forum, and all the major posters here put forth solid arguments yet still completely disagree. Are some just not getting it because of Pride? Is Pride blinding their eyes so that they may not see the correct theology? There seems to be an assumption that if anyone truly sought truth, then they would arrive at a particular doctrine and theology, and if they don't then they weren't truly open to seeing the truth. I'm not so sure that that is true in every case.

[Machinist]

Next day he stopped in and said, "I've been thinking about any differences you and I might have theologically, and I think the only place we differ is on tongues. MORE important to me is submission of the Church to pastor leadership, so you have my word that I will NEVER teach or express beliefs that would be contrary to your teaching as pastor, and will ALWAYS subject myself to your leadership as long as I'm here".

.

I try to live this.

[Cow Poke]

Which was why I noted that the core belief constituted the "basic, essential, minimal requirements"

I had a guy once who was a very solid guy, but he believed in speaking in tongues as an essential gift.
We disagreed, but he was a great candidate for helping to lead our college ministry.

I was really struggling with that, whether that was too big a problem for me to overcome, so I put it to prayer.

Next day he stopped in and said, "I've been thinking about any differences you and I might have theologically, and I think the only place we differ is on tongues. MORE important to me is submission of the Church to pastor leadership, so you have my word that I will NEVER teach or express beliefs that would be contrary to your teaching as pastor, and will ALWAYS subject myself to your leadership as long as I'm here".

I was amazed, over the next 6 years, how well we worked together, and the 'tongues issue' never became a problem. As a matter of fact, he really seemed to come around to the point that the gifts are to be distributed as the Holy Spirit wishes, and we have no right to "claim" a particular gift as "ours".

[rogue06]

I think I basically have three classifications....

A) to be saved, you need to know very little
2) to be a growing Christian, you actually need to be learning and trusting
c) to be a teacher/deacon/elder, there is a bigger list of things on which we must agree for you to be a teacher in our fellowship.

Which was why I noted that the core belief constituted the "basic, essential, minimal requirements"

[Cow Poke]

Which yet again brings up something I've frequently noted, the sentiment expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, although incorrectly, attributed to St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]").

While it does indeed appear to have been a view that Augustine held^[1] it actually seems to originate with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis' De republica ecclesiastica in 1617^[2]. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing.

The point being that there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on things that aren't a requisite to being a Christian, or salvific, although for the bedrock pillars of the faith there should be unity among Christians. For instance, whether or not angels sing or Adam had a bellybutton are just not something that is important.




1. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

2. See A common quotation from "Augustine"?

I think I basically have three classifications....

A) to be saved, you need to know very little
2) to be a growing Christian, you actually need to be learning and trusting
c) to be a teacher/deacon/elder, there is a bigger list of things on which we must agree for you to be a teacher in our fellowship.

[rogue06]

EGGzackly.

I once was lost, but now am found
was blind, but now I see,
twas trusting Jesus as my Lord
not The-o-lo-gy.

Which yet again brings up something I've frequently noted, the sentiment expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, although incorrectly, attributed to St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]").

While it does indeed appear to have been a view that Augustine held^[1] it actually seems to originate with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis' De republica ecclesiastica in 1617^[2]. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing.

The point being that there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on things that aren't a requisite to being a Christian, or salvific, although for the bedrock pillars of the faith there should be unity among Christians. For instance, whether or not angels sing or Adam had a bellybutton are just not something that is important.




1. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

2. See A common quotation from "Augustine"?

[Cow Poke]

At a certain point it does get reduced to, shall we say, the fundamentals. For that we can turn to, for instance what Paul and Sylas to their jailer in Philippi

Scripture Verse: Acts 16:31

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

© Copyright Original Source

We can see this expressed again by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans

Scripture Verse: Romans 10:9-10

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

© Copyright Original Source

Those appear to be the basic, essential, minimal requirements.

EGGzackly.

I once was lost, but now am found
was blind, but now I see,
twas trusting Jesus as my Lord
not The-o-lo-gy.

[rogue06]

Although it's not "in the Bible" as "the Trinity", I believe it is biblical. That said, I do not believe it's necessary for Salvation. I think there are a lot of things that are necessary to be a teacher or a preacher or an elder or a deacon or even a growing Christian.

I don't think one has to believe in the Trinity or even the Virgin Birth to be saved.

Now, I do NOT believe one can be saved DENYING the Trinity or the Virgin Birth.

At a certain point it does get reduced to, shall we say, the fundamentals. For that we can turn to, for instance what Paul and Sylas to their jailer in Philippi

Scripture Verse: Acts 16:31

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

© Copyright Original Source

We can see this expressed again by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans

Scripture Verse: Romans 10:9-10

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

© Copyright Original Source

Those appear to be the basic, essential, minimal requirements.

[Diogenes]

Then there was the status of his mother. By the fifth century the virgin Mary was increasingly becoming the object of personal devotion and this led to the question about her role as the mother of Jesus. Did she give birth to the Christ, to God, or to a man? This raised another thorny question, can God be birthed by a mortal woman? Certainly the mythology of the Hellenistic world showed that demi-gods and heroes could be. However, the God that is the Alpha and Omega was another matter.

I've always thought calling Mary the Theotokos odd as Christotokos is much more applicable. I've never been comfortable with Marian devotion.