The Evangelical Universalist Forum



  1. what is it?
  2. does it have merit?

Randy, perhaps…?

Historically much of Christendom thought that after his incarnation, Jesus had two natures: human and divine. Monophysites believed that He had only one nature.

Probably, historically monophysitism went beyond that simple definition. But if we restrict it to that definition I would have to say that I subscribe to it. For I believe that the Son of God was begotten by God the Father and that that act marked the beginning of time. Therefore He had a fully divine nature. After His incarnation, He divested Himself of His divine attributes and became fully and only human (Philippians 2:5-8). He retained nothing of His previous existence except His identity as the Son of God. After His resurrection, God glorified Him and He became fully divine again. While on earth as a human being, He got hungry and thirsty and had the characteristics of any human being. He was tempted in all ways such as we are, yet He always chose righteousness and never sinned. In this way, He showed what is possible for any human being. He could do no miracles by His own power, but God performed miracles through Him, that is, by means of Him. He said, "I do nothing on my own authority. (John 8:28)

Hi, there. Paidion always has excellent answers. Here are some links you can also explore:

Monophysitism - Wiki
Monophysitism - CARM
Monophysitism - Theopedia
Monophysitism - Got Questions

This is something more than kenosis? How close to Unitarianism are we here?

I know those two questions come from completely different starting points; the first from Divinty down and the latter from Humanity up, but still, what would you say?

This is something DIFFERENT from “kenosis.”

According to Wikipedia:

This isn’t that of which the Son of God emptied Himself when He became man. He emptied Himself of His divine attributes, but regained them again upon His resurrection. He was entirely submissive to His Father’s will even before He became man.

This view isn’t close to Unitarianism at all. Proponents of Unitarianism presumes that Jesus isn’t divine. I affirm that He was divine right from His begetting, the first of God’s acts.

Even though He emptied Himself of His divine attributes upon becoming man, He retained His identity as the Son of God, and in that sense was still divine when He walked the earth.

Proponents of Unitarianism affirm that Jesus didn’t pre-exist His birth. I affirm that God begat Him as His first act, and that this act marked the beginning of time. So unlike Arian, Unitarian, or Christadelphian doctrine, there was never a time at which the Son of God did not exist.

Aren’t most mainstream protestant (fundies like me) churches today monophysites without even realizing it, or am I wrong?

We affirm Chalcedon, for example, on the dual nature/hypostatic union of Jesus. On how He is perfect(complete?) in manhood and truly (fully?) man while also God. But they only count that as two parts. Shouldn’t it be three? If Mary had a human body and human soul, shouldn’t Jesus have body, soul and divinity?

And then when we take that to the death on the cross, confuse it some more. When we ask what happened to Jesus’ human soul, we get blank stares; “well…He went to the Father”. No. His divinity did. What of the other immortal component of His makeup. Was it absorbed into divinity? How is that not monophysitism?

And then there’s Chalcedon’s ‘indivisible and inseparable’ issue. Fundies say that death is separation. Even at Jesus’ so called death, the part that matters most was still alive apart from His body.

I don’t get Chalcedon. I don’t get fundie Christology. I was exploring Unitarianism, but maybe monophysitism will satisfy me for awhile. Either way, I’m a heretic, right?

PS I work on the ocean and we are weighing anchor today, so it’ll be a couple weeks before I can get back to this. Not that I’m the guy who makes the world go round, I’m just saying.

The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ:[14]

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.