**In allusion to our recent episode with David Erhan, here is one of his most popular articles**
Anyone who knows me knows that I loathe quote mining, it is a very lame and bad way to try to win arguments just by spamming quotes and acting like you are a victor for doing so. Nevertheless, the Fathers saw it fit to collect quotations for a certain purpose and in some instances and scenarios, quote mining is what’s needed to illustrate a certain point. The point here is simple: According to Oriental (Monophysite/Severan Miaphysite/Strict Miaphysite) historiography, the Fathers do not teach a diphysite Christology and that it is ultimately a Chalcedonian innovation. Those quotes that supposedly teach a diphysite Christology in reality are merely talking about Christ being out of two natures, but not in two natures.
As I’ve said, debates don’t start and end with people pointing out a magic term to say “see this proves us!” However, the claim the Orientals make in regards to the Church Fathers is a hard claim, if Chalcedon is theologically Nestorian primarily due to its confession of two natures, then this necessitates that two natures christology in general would be heretical and not seen in the fathers. The challenge I am trying to respond to is simple: The church of Chalcedon is the church of eastern (Sts. Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria etc.) and western (Sts Hilary of Poitiers, Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian etc.) fathers.
In short, the fatality of this argument is that for the Oriental Churches, diphysite christological expressions that speak of two natures fully existing even after the hypostatic union of Christ are completely unacceptable in any way, shape or form, yet this expression is very commonly used by fathers such as not only St. Cyril of Alexandria, but also many more.
St. Paul
Philipians 2:5-11
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Through the patristics, form is seen as a synonym of nature, not only just in the west with St. Leo and St. Augustine, but also in the east with St. Cyril. Seeing that Christ, who is already in the form of God, takes the form of a bondservant without losing either of those forms He is now in, it is safe to say He is in two forms, meaning two natures. Ultimately, all diphysite christology has its basis from scripture.
St. Gregory of Nyssa
St. Gregory of Nyssa Book 5 Against Eunomius:
It is not the Human Nature that raises up Lazarus, nor is it the power that cannot suffer that weeps for him when he lies in the grave: the tear proceeds from the Man, the life from the true Life. It is not the Human Nature that feeds the thousands, nor is it omnipotent might that hastens to the fig-tree. Who is it that is weary with the journey, and Who is it that by His word made all the world subsist? What is the brightness of the glory, and what is that that was pierced with the nails? What form is it that is buffeted in the Passion, and what form is it that is glorified from everlasting? So much as this is clear, (even if one does not follow the argument into detail,) that the blows belong to the servant in whom the Lord was, the honours to the Lord Whom the servant compassed about, so that by reason of contact and the union of Natures the proper attributes of each belong to both
St. Gregory of Nyssa very blatantly speaks of two natures and their respective energies operating in the one Christ. He speaks of the distinct forms going through their proper experiences. One cannot assume St. Gregory is Nestorian however, even if he calls each of the natures/forms “who”, because he considers them grammatical persons, in the same way St. Paul considers the body and soul grammatical persons when he speaks of the inner man and the outer man.
The rest of the article can be found in David's top secret blog over here: https://therealmedwhite.substack.com/p/church-fathers-on-the-two-natures -------------------------------
David Erhan is an Orthodox convert from Turkey who mostly focuses on Christological disputes concerning the Monophysite crisis. He’s also the creator of the “History of Christian Theology” series on YouTube where he explains the theology of the great Church Fathers such as the Cappadocians, Hilary, Ambrose, Cyril, Maximus, and John of Damascus which help reveal the true Apostolic Christianity the world has forgotten.