Extra Biblical use of words.

Sometimes. But more often than not it is an issue of not knowing definitions.

1. Trinity means God in three persons.

It is not a word from the Bible, but neither is "atonement". That does not mean these words do not express truths written in the text of Scripture (the basic doctrine of the Trinity is expressed in the Biblical text, "atonement" literally means "revonciliation".

2. Penal Substitution is a type of substitution (as opposed to ontological substitution, satisfactory substitution).

While not in the text of Scripture, it is an atonement theory that has been defined quite often (it is not a debatable theory)


3. The term for Jesus' nature is "hypostatic union" which refers to the divine nature united with the human nature, without mixture, inseparable, in the person of Jesus Christ.

This has been the orthodox position for a long time.


But sometimes little changes make a huge deal.


For example, saying Jesus has a human nature and a divine nature is very different from the union of divine nature and human nature in the person of Jesus. The former is a heresy, the latter is Christian doctrine.


Saying Christ died for our sins and Christ died instead of us for our sins are similar, but not at all the same.



I think often it is just a careless with words.

 

Hypostasis is just the Greek word for "substance". The issue was about the substance of Jesus.

The conclusion was that Jesus is 100% God, 100% man. Jesus is represented by two natures (man and God), but in Christ there is a union of these two natures (indivisable, without mixture, one substance).

So Jesus' nature is as such that He is the God/man, 100% God and 100% man.

Your position was that Jesus was 100% God prior to the Incarnation and obtained a second nature (100% human), making Jesus 50% God and 50% man, with two seperate natures.

 

I wasn't talking about it's use in the Bible. I was talking about it's use in "hypostatic union".

Sorry I didn't clarify.

 

I was explaining why the people who defined the nature of Christ as a "hypostatic union" used the word "hypostatic"

The doctrine was developed in the 5th century to guard against hetesies that came up regarding Jesus.

But no, the doctrine is not the Word of God. It is a definition for orthodoxy regarding the topic.

 

@37818

I think we may be talking past one another when it comes to these terms.

I do insist that foundational doctrines (doctrines upon which we build other doctrines, essential doctrines, and such) be in the text of Scripture ("what is written").

I believe this for several readons, but the most important are:

1. I believe God accurately revealed essential doctrines in His Word, literally.

2. We can only test doctrine against "what is written". If we test a teaching against what we believe is taught then our understanding is ultimately the criteria.


BUT we, by necessity, also hold beliefs that are not in Scripture.

Theology develops over time, and it is always correct (in its development) to the time it was developed.

The Doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was developed to guard against false teachings that arose among Christians.

The teaching called Hypostatic Union was developed to correct errors along the same line.

Substitution Theory (Anselm) was developed to replace a form of Ransom Theory that was unbiblical.


We can talk theology.

My point of hypostatic union is not that it is a foundational doctrine. It is not. It does not have to be in the Bible. Christians can dismiss it. Obe dies not have to believe it to be saved.

BUT it DOES define "heresy" in regard to orthodox Christianity.

So when people disagree with it, it is up to them to prove their alternate position.

This applies to any developed theological doctrine.

I think it is proper to go back and reexamine doctrine.

 

These people did not live during the NT times. They lived 400 years later. The word was not used, but was the base word for "hypostatic".

The term is ὑπόστασις hypóstasis. It refers to Jesus' divinity and humanity in one hypostasis (individual personhood).

In the definition they clarify "one person and one substance").


You have to remember they were defending Christianity against heresies that had arisen as Christians sought to work through the nature of the Trinity. The century before they had combat heresies such as Arianism. By the time this issue arose the nature of Christ was at stake.

There were some who taught that Jesus only appeared to be man, Jesus possessed two seperate natures (a duality), Jesus was man who became divine....etc.

So they wrote a definition based on Scripture about Christ's nature in order to prevent those errors.

What they did not do is explain how. They simply assembled truths found in the Bible and stated those facts were true, leaving the "how" to "mystery" beyond human understanding.