Author Topic: Miaphysitism vs duophysitism  (Read 1853 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NathanZook

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Miaphysitism vs duophysitism
« on: June 26, 2004, 01:25:15 AM »
While chasing a completely unrelated topic, I hit upon miaphysitism--and immediately thought it supperior to duophysitism.  I have been trying to resolve whether my first impression is true, and these forums would appear to be my best chance to resolve the question.  Unfortunately.  I am a mathematician, by birth and training, and none so far have addressed the issue in a way which can help me.  To a mathematician, a statement it true if and only if it can be properly derived from other propositions which have been accepted as true.  It is false if and only if it or its implications contradict accepted truth or the implications of accepted truth.  Note that undecidable propositions are quite acceptable to a mathematician--if unsatisfying.

The first problem is that we do not agree on what is to be considered accepted truth (axioms).  Many here accept the seven counsels, many only three.  Personally, I accept the Lutherian criticism, and therefore limit my axioms to the 66 books.  There is only one method to handle this problem if proper debate is intended, and it is far from clear to me that it has ever been so handled here.  This method is to respect the set of axioms that others accept as the ones upon which to base arguments to them.  

It is fruitless to state, as I have seen stated here,  "My position is the declaration of the Chalcedon counsel, therefore you must accept it", when the person addressed has expressly and repeated stated that they reject said counsel.  Again, I doubt all of the counsels, so for me personally, appeals to their authority, as opposed to their reasoning,  will receive the consistent response, "I do not accept the authority of the counsels, but I wish to hear their reasoning."  I believe that my ability to maintain this response exceeds that of some of those I have read.  I also believe that the repeating of such appeals is baiting, which would seem to me to be a fruit not of the spirit.

In the probably 20,000 or so words I have read in these pages, I found one (1) hyperlink to a long article which after much diatribe actually addressed the reasoning of the counsel, and attempted an attack on miaphysitism in a scholarly fashion.  Linus7 posted it twice in Feb or March.  If he would be so kind as to repost this pair of links, the second might actually be useful.

As an aside, many of the 20,000 or so word were devoted to attempts at useful debate, just not addressing my question.

The charge against miaphysitism, so far as I can determine, is that the principle upon which it was based undermines the trinity--which is logically not an attack upon miaphysitism itself at all, but upon the underlying principle.  This principle was that there is a one-to-one correspondence between natures and persons.  According to the article, the proponents of miaphysitism were loathe to abandon the priniciple, and strove to reconcile it with the trinity.  According to their article, their attempts were worthy of an April Fool.

I reject this principle outright--all humanity can be said to be born with the same nature, but we are certainly different persons.  Likewise, the trinity is one in essence, and therefore one in nature, but three in person.  I prefer miaphysitism to duophysitism because I cannot reconcile two natures to a single will, and I see Messiah with a single will.   Did the second Nicean council address this?

So my guantlet to the EO members is this:  demonstrate to me logically that miaphysitism contradicts the 66 books, or principles logically derived from them.  (prove it false)

My guantlet to the OO members is this:  demonstrate to me logically that miaphysitism is contained on the 66 books, or can be derived logically from them.  (prove it true)

My request to the moderator is this:  Please be gentle with the apostate!

To all: I am an uneducated man, with no Latin or Greek training, and only beginning in Hebrew.  I am having signficiant problems keeping the relevant Greek terms in place.

My understanding of critical terms:

                           Body       Will          Persons         Natures
Nestorianism:         Human    Two        Two              Two
Miaphysitism(00):   Human    (One)      One               United (Echad)
Eutychianism:         Human+  (Divine)   One               Divine
Monothelitism:       Human    Divine      One               Two
Duophysitism (EO): Human   Two*        One               Two

In the above, the "twos" listed are always considered Divine & Human, not the yitzer ha ra/yitzer ha tov (fleshly/spritual inclination) aspects of the Hebrew understanding of the human soul.

*The two wills position of the duophysitics would appear to be derived from duophysitism at a late counsel, rather than technically be duophysitism itself.  I accept the logic, (that it necessarily derives from duophysitism) and include the entry on that basis as well as for completeness.

The united/echad entry for miaphysitism is understood in a very similar fashion to the united/echad nature of the Godhead.  It is as imprecise to equate it to monophysitism as it would be to equate the muslim monotheism with the christian trinitarianism.

We all reject Nestorianism, Eutychianism, and Monothelitism.

For Him Who is True,

Nathan Zook