Theology Club: Open Theism and Genesis 1

[themuzicman]

I think one of the best cases for Open Theism is found in the creation of man.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

The idea of dominion is that God has delegated authority over these things to man, so that man may do as he wishes with them. Being fruitful and multiplying is integral, as two people couldn't possibly take dominion over the earth.

But the idea that man may do as he wishes implies an open future. If the future is already fixed, then God has actually determined what man will do, and man wouldn't really have dominion.

Thus, the very creation of the earth and God's giving dominion over it to man tells us that God created the universe with an open future.

 

[Desert Reign]

I think one of the best cases for Open Theism is found in the creation of man.

The idea of dominion is that God has delegated authority over these things to man, so that man may do as he wishes with them. Being fruitful and multiplying is integral, as two people couldn't possibly take dominion over the earth.

But the idea that man may do as he wishes implies an open future. If the future is already fixed, then God has actually determined what man will do, and man wouldn't really have dominion.

Thus, the very creation of the earth and God's giving dominion over it to man tells us that God created the universe with an open future.

He doesn't exactly do as he wishes. He does what he wishes and what he can do within the constraints of his abilities. It is certainly a good point.

But I would like to ask: if God created the universe with an open future, as you suggest, where does the open universe end and God begin? What is the boundary line between God and this universe? Think of it as a topological question.

 

[themuzicman]

He doesn't exactly do as he wishes. He does what he wishes and what he can do within the constraints of his abilities. It is certainly a good point.

But I would like to ask: if God created the universe with an open future, as you suggest, where does the open universe end and God begin? What is the boundary line between God and this universe? Think of it as a topological question.

Open Theism holds to a complete ontological distinction between God and creation. God is not part of creation, creation is not part of God.

 

[Desert Reign]

Open Theism holds to a complete ontological distinction between God and creation. God is not part of creation, creation is not part of God.

I was referring to your idea that the created universe was open to its own future. If it is, then you can't conclusively say that there is no absolute boundary between God and the world. That was my question - if there is a complete distinction, then what does the boundary between them look like, given the universe is open? I mean, you could for example say that the creation is simply a matter of history. After that moment, anything goes. But clearly, you wouldn't say that, would you? If there is such a complete ontological distinction, then how do you account for the incarnation and other manifestations of God in the world? These are not antagonistic questions, I am an open theist. I am just interested in your logic.

 

[themuzicman]

I was referring to your idea that the created universe was open to its own future. If it is, then you can't conclusively say that there is no absolute boundary between God and the world.

There is no reason for an open future to imply any ontological question regarding the distinction between God and creation.

That was my question - if there is a complete distinction, then what does the boundary between them look like, given the universe is open?

Are you saying that it is impossible for God to create a universe such that He can observe the development of that universe from outside of it? It seems apparent that God is able to do so.

I mean, you could for example say that the creation is simply a matter of history. After that moment, anything goes. But clearly, you wouldn't say that, would you?

Are you saying that it is impossible for God to create something that He does not fully control? Maybe you could define what you mean by "anything goes." I think the idea of God giving dominion to man tells us what we need to know about God's intention for creation.

If there is such a complete ontological distinction, then how do you account for the incarnation and other manifestations of God in the world?

Ontological distinction does not preclude intervention. Obviously the incarnation creates some questions in this regard, but Chalcedon makes it clear that there is no confusion between the two natures in the one person who is fully God and fully man. Thus, this one person exists within creation with respect to his human nature, and yet is distinct from creation in his nature as God the Son, even as he interacts with creation.

These are not antagonistic questions, I am an open theist. I am just interested in your logic.

The incarnation is really the only "question" that need be answered when we speak of ontological distinction, and Chalcedon already answers it for us, with two natures in one person.

 

[Desert Reign]

There is no reason for an open future to imply any ontological question regarding the distinction between God and creation.

Are you saying that it is impossible for God to create a universe such that He can observe the development of that universe from outside of it? It seems apparent that God is able to do so.

Are you saying that it is impossible for God to create something that He does not fully control? Maybe you could define what you mean by "anything goes." I think the idea of God giving dominion to man tells us what we need to know about God's intention for creation.

Ontological distinction does not preclude intervention. Obviously the incarnation creates some questions in this regard, but Chalcedon makes it clear that there is no confusion between the two natures in the one person who is fully God and fully man. Thus, this one person exists within creation with respect to his human nature, and yet is distinct from creation in his nature as God the Son, even as he interacts with creation.

The incarnation is really the only "question" that need be answered when we speak of ontological distinction, and Chalcedon already answers it for us, with two natures in one person.

If God (the son) has been incarnated, then he can't observe the universe (being defined as what he has created) from the outside. He would be observing himself as a part of that universe. The creed does explicitly state that Jesus, the Son, was not created. Remember that Chalcedon was decreed on the basis of a dualistic world view that was predominantly Greek in character and not on openness concepts. That's why I was curious as to how you manage this. The world for them was closed and God inserted himself into it. If the world is open then I don't see how you can usefully conceive of the world being totally separate from God. God is open, the world is open. Why not just state that from a logical viewpoint, the world and God, together, are open? Isn't that simpler and more constructive? I paint a painting and that painting is there in front of me. I can feel it, see it smell it. It is now a part of my world. It is now a part of me. Ontology becomes a meaningless concept. It is a part of me whether it shares substance with me or not. Being a part of me is not an issue of substance but of relationship. Isn't that what openness is all about?
E.g. In him we live and move and have our being.

 

[themuzicman]

If God (the son) has been incarnated, then he can't observe the universe (being defined as what he has created) from the outside. He would be observing himself as a part of that universe.

Not sure how this follows. If the divine nature of Jesus exists outside of the universe, and the human nature of Jesus Christ is a part of it, why could he not see himself in that manner?

The creed does explicitly state that Jesus, the Son, was not created.

Well, it cited Nicea in stating that God the Son was not created. Calcedon specifically states that God the Son received his human nature from Mary, and thus was not "created" as much as he was procreated, through an act of the Holy Spirit.

Remember that Chalcedon was decreed on the basis of a dualistic world view that was predominantly Greek in character and not on openness concepts.

That doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

That's why I was curious as to how you manage this. The world for them was closed and God inserted himself into it. If the world is open then I don't see how you can usefully conceive of the world being totally separate from God. God is open, the world is open.

How, exactly, are you referring to the world as being "open"?

"Open" theism refers to the future being open, that it is not settled. That does not appear to be how you are using the term.

Why not just state that from a logical viewpoint, the world and God, together, are open?

You'll have to define what you mean by "open", here, because it diverges from how Open Theism uses the term.

However, the ontological distinction between God and the Universe is what distinguishes us from Process Theists, which has been shown to be heresy. Further, doctrines such as creation 'ex nihilo' and even God's sovereignty (not in the Calvinist sense) are at least put into question, when we go down this road.

Isn't that simpler and more constructive?

No and no. It creates issues in historical theology. It creates issues in kosmology. It creates issues in theology proper. All issues that are not really in dispute, presently.

I paint a painting and that painting is there in front of me. I can feel it, see it smell it. It is now a part of my world. It is now a part of me.

Unless you are a tattoo artist, it is not part of you. Yes, the universe is present to God in the sense that He creates and interacts with it, but it is not part of God.

Ontology becomes a meaningless concept.

Ontology is never meaningless. In any theology of creation, ontology is always a central issue.

It is a part of me whether it shares substance with me or not. Being a part of me is not an issue of substance but of relationship. Isn't that what openness is all about?
E.g. In him we live and move and have our being.

No. Openness is about the future being open rather than settled. That there remains real contingency for the future. That's what the "open" in "open" theism means.


What's interesting is that you object to Greek dualism, and yet the phrase you quote from Paul is spoken to communicate with a dualistic Greek audience, and thus needs to be understood from that perspective. All Paul is saying here is that life as we know it would not be possible without God. Paul then quotes a Greek philosopher as part of this sentence.

So, what actually appears to be happening is that you're citing a phrase intended to communicate with a dualistic Greek audience, and then objecting to Greek dualism.

Keep in mind that one indicator that one is in error is if one's claims cause us to re-examine large swaths of non-controversial historical theologies, which is what process theism does.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well, it cited Nicea in stating that God the Son was not created. Calcedon specifically states that God the Son received his human nature from Mary, and thus was not "created" as much as he was procreated, through an act of the Holy Spirit.

This is an error now making the rounds in China. See a 12-part series discussing the matter here:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/02/christological-confusion-china-11.php

This view also ignores the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of the Incarnation.

Our Lord was one Person, two natures. It was the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, Who assumed a human nature. That Person did not assume another person, only a nature, else now we would have two persons, not one Person. The fully divine Son is the person who took upon full humanity and remains the one Person of the God-man. The human nature of Christ, although not itself an individual, is individualized as the human nature of the Son of God.


Before it (peccability) is raised up as an issue, Persons act, natures are. Divinity is sinless. Jesus has a divine nature. "I and the Father are one." God cannot sin. Therefore Jesus cannot sin. Nor can it be argued that because Jesus has a human nature it is possible for Him to sin, because, as noted, only Persons act, not natures. Our Lord had no original sin to deal with, and therefore He was suitably empowered by nature to obey God's will, just as was Adam before the fall. We need to remember that sin is not essential to the human nature qua nature.

AMR

 

[themuzicman]

This is an error now making the rounds in China. See a 12-part series discussing the matter here:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/02/christological-confusion-china-11.php

This view also ignores the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of the Incarnation.

Our Lord was one Person, two natures. It was the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, Who assumed a human nature. That Person did not assume another person, only a nature, else now we would have two persons, not one Person. The fully divine Son is the person who took upon full humanity and remains the one Person of the God-man. The human nature of Christ, although not itself an individual, is individualized as the human nature of the Son of God.


Before it (peccability) is raised up as an issue, Persons act, natures are. Divinity is sinless. Jesus has a divine nature. "I and the Father are one." God cannot sin. Therefore Jesus cannot sin. Nor can it be argued that because Jesus has a human nature it is possible for Him to sin, because, as noted, only Persons act, not natures. Our Lord had no original sin to deal with, and therefore He was suitably empowered by nature to obey God's will, just as was Adam before the fall. We need to remember that sin is not essential to the human nature qua nature.

AMR

Ah, yes, the need for the reformed to change nearly everything historical in the church to fit Calvinism.

Denying the human person of Christ is a violation of Chalcedon. You cannot simply assert that God the Son is animating a human body and think that's sufficient to comply, as this is a denial that Jesus is fully human.

Further, the historical belief about Jesus' humanity is that it came from Mary, as would be necessary for Jesus to be of the human race to be a proper sacrifice for it.

I realize this causes several problems for Calvinism (not the least of which is its view of original sin), but you can't start a theology 1550 years late and get to demand wholesale changes.

If one wants to understand the person of Christ, one only needs read the Council of Chalcedon. We don't need a 12 part series trying to explain it away.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Denying the human person of Christ is a violation of Chalcedon.

Nonsense. You do not understand Chalcedon if this is what you believe. "..but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence"

Further, the historical belief about Jesus' humanity is that it came from Mary, as would be necessary for Jesus to be of the human race to be a proper sacrifice for it.

I have no idea what you are actually trying to say here.

I realize this causes several problems for Calvinism (not the least of which is its view of original sin), but you can't start a theology 1550 years late and get to demand wholesale changes.

Nonsense again. Chalcedon still stands as the answer to many heresies. Per the Chalcedonian Definition...the union of the divine and human natures is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

What do you disagree with from the above denunciations Chalcedon declared as heresies?

If one wants to understand the person of Christ, one only needs read the Council of Chalcedon. We don't need a 12 part series trying to explain it away.

Apparently you do, given your claims.

AMR

 

[themuzicman]

I have no idea what you are actually trying to say here.

...

6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);

...

Apparently you do, given your claims.

AMR

Apparently you need to study some Church history. Monophysitism includes that idea that Christ only had one will.

From your links:

Christ took human nature, but he did not take a man. He took the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7), but not a servant. He did not even take an existing human genotype or embryo. He created the genotype in union with himself, and it’s ‘personality’ developed only in union with the Son of God . . . [H]e is a divine person who, without ‘adopting’ an existing human person took our human nature and entered upon the whole range of human experiences.

There is a kind of asymmetry in Christology. While (symmetrically) Jesus is both fully God and fully man—and has fully divine and fully human minds, emotions, and wills—Jesus has been divine much longer than he’s been human (asymmetrically). As the second person of the Trinity, Jesus has been fully divine from all eternity, while he added full humanity to that divinity at a certain point in time, the incarnation, which we celebrate at Christmas.

...

Considered in itself, on the other hand, and abstracted from its personalizing by the eternal person of the Son, the human nature of Jesus Christ is simply human nature, and is not personal. The human nature of Christ, therefore, is both anhypostatic (not personal in itself) and enhypostatic (personalized by union with the eternal person of the Son)

The authors deny the "personal" piece of the human nature in an attempt to put the entire person of Christ in God the Son, who just animates a human body, which does not participate in the person of Christ at all.

In removing (and creating an asynchronous) Christ, and saying that the human nature isn't "personal", these articles have removed the human will of Christ (in spite of the attempt to retain them by claiming they are still there, as the author is clearly aware of the requirements of Chalcedon), engaging in Monophysitism, which is a heresy.

Yes, Christ is one PERSON, but there isn't an asynchronous relationship between Jesus as God and Jesus as human. The human nature of Christ is just as personal as the divine nature of Christ, even as they are one person. Both are fully present and fully personal, including each will. That's directly from Chalcedon, and fairly obviously denied by the articles you posted.


ETA: I just realized that this is probably a result of the very low view that Calvinism has of the human will, being really nothing more than the executor of what the nature determines via its "strongest desire." In reducing the human nature and human will to being nothing more than an input/output device, the idea that Christ could have an impersonal human will, and yet somehow asynchronously have a divine will would be internally consistent, even as it contradicts an important Christian council.

 

[themuzicman]

Just thought of another consequence, here:

If Christ's humanity is impersonal, then all of humanity is impersonal. In effect, to Calvinists, humans aren't really persons at all.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yes, Christ is one PERSON, but there isn't an asynchronous relationship between Jesus as God and Jesus as human. The human nature of Christ is just as personal as the divine nature of Christ, even as they are one person. Both are fully present and fully personal, including each will. That's directly from Chalcedon, and fairly obviously denied by the articles you posted.

ETA: I just realized that this is probably a result of the very low view that Calvinism has of the human will, being really nothing more than the executor of what the nature determines via its "strongest desire." In reducing the human nature and human will to being nothing more than an input/output device, the idea that Christ could have an impersonal human will, and yet somehow asynchronously have a divine will would be internally consistent, even as it contradicts an important Christian council.

With all this appeal to the personal you are attempting to have two Persons in the Incarnate Christ, despite your "one person" agreement. Error.

Two wills are not denied in the incarnation, they being always united in the willing thereof.

Monothelites held that Christ had only one will; but will belongs to nature, and given that Christ had two natures, He must also have two wills. That is quite clear in Scripture from the prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane. Monothelitism is a form of of monophysitism, but the focus has come to be specifically on the wills of Christ.

Further, each will belongs to the nature rather than to the Person. See Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 227. The doctrine of the two natures implies the doctrine of two wills in Christ. Either nature would be incomplete and defective without the voluntary quality of property in it. Each nature, in order to be whole and entire, must have all of its essential elements. A human nature without voluntariness would be as defective as it would be without rationality.

You are creating a straw man to argue this is something to do with Calvinism, when it is the claim of the church since Chalcedon.

"(1) If Jesus’ human nature had existed by itself, independent of his divine nature, then it would have been a human nature just like that which God gave Adam and Eve. It would have been free from sin but nonetheless able to sin. Therefore, if Jesus’ human nature had existed by itself, there was the abstract or theoretical possibility that Jesus could have sinned, just as Adam and Eve’s human natures were able to sin. (2) But Jesus’ human nature never existed apart from union with his divine nature. From the moment of his conception, he existed as truly God and truly man as well. Both his human nature and his divine nature existed united in one person." [Grudem, W. A. (2004). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine]

My summarizations are the church's de fide. You are treading dangerously close to the bounds of orthodoxy. Beware.

AMR

 

[themuzicman]

With all this appeal to the personal you are attempting to have two Persons in the Incarnate Christ, despite your "one person" agreement. Error.

No, I've stated that there is one person, and that both the divine AND human are personal.

You've reduced Christ to being a human body animated by the divine, and that's heresy.

Two wills are not denied in the incarnation, they being always united in the willing thereof.

You cannot be impersonal and have a will.

Monothelites held that Christ had only one will; but will belongs to nature, and given that Christ had two natures, He must also have two wills. That is quite clear in Scripture from the prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane. Monothelitism is a form of of monophysitism, but the focus has come to be specifically on the wills of Christ.

And you've denied the human will of Christ by making the human impersonal.

Further, each will belongs to the nature rather than to the Person. See Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 227. The doctrine of the two natures implies the doctrine of two wills in Christ. Either nature would be incomplete and defective without the voluntary quality of property in it. Each nature, in order to be whole and entire, must have all of its essential elements. A human nature without voluntariness would be as defective as it would be without rationality.

And when you make Christ's humanity impersonal, you remove his human will.

You are creating a straw man to argue this is something to do with Calvinism, when it is the claim of the church since Chalcedon.

You're the one citing articles claiming Christ's humanity isn't personal.

"(1) If Jesus’ human nature had existed by itself, independent of his divine nature, then it would have been a human nature just like that which God gave Adam and Eve.

If it was different, he couldn't be our sacrifice, and we couldn't be resurrected like He is.

It would have been free from sin but nonetheless able to sin.

Christ being able the sin is the only way he could have been tempted in every way we are.

Therefore, if Jesus’ human nature had existed by itself, there was the abstract or theoretical possibility that Jesus could have sinned, just as Adam and Eve’s human natures were able to sin. (2) But Jesus’ human nature never existed apart from union with his divine nature. From the moment of his conception, he existed as truly God and truly man as well. Both his human nature and his divine nature existed united in one person." [Grudem, W. A. (2004). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine]

While it is true that the incarnation always had the human and divine together in one person, this does not go as far as the articles you cited go. Your articles said that the incarnation was "asynchronous", and that the human side was "impersonal." That's heresy.

My summarizations are the church's de fide. You are treading dangerously close to the bounds of orthodoxy. Beware.

AMR

However, the articles you cited are NOT. They depart from Chalcedon.

 

[patrick jane]

Jesus Christ was able to sin on earth as a man. He was capable of sinning but did not.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No, I've stated that there is one person, and that both the divine AND human are personal.

You have also stated:

Denying the human person of Christ is a violation of Chalcedon.

There is no human person of Christ. You are not using words carefully. The Person of Jesus Christ is the Person of God the Son. You admitted this, as well you should.

What are you actually trying to say each time you say "both the divine and the human {natures} are personal"? You keep complaining about those two linked items, yet both plainly state that the human nature assumed by the Person of God the Son was impersonal. Further, the author plainly state that by "impersonal" it is meant that the Person of God the Son did not assume another Person, for that would be the nonsense of two Persons. Why are you struggling with this and trying to make it mean more than it states?

AMR

 

[themuzicman]

You have also stated:


There is no human person of Christ. You are not using words carefully. The Person of Jesus Christ is the Person of God the Son. You admitted this, as well you should.

What are you actually trying to say each time you say "both the divine and the human {natures} are personal"? You keep complaining about those two linked items, yet both plainly state that the human nature assumed by the Person of God the Son was impersonal. Further, the author plainly state that by "impersonal" it is meant that the Person of God the Son did not assume another Person, for that would be the nonsense of two Persons. Why are you struggling with this and trying to make it mean more than it states?

AMR

As you do with scripture, you also tear my comments form context in an attempt to cover your own heresy.

I was referring to the personal aspect of the human nature of Christ, which you deny.


Maybe you could answer this question: How does the impersonal have a will?

Or this: Is Christ's human nature like our human nature?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

As you do with scripture, you also tear my comments form context in an attempt to cover your own heresy.
I was referring to the personal aspect of the human nature of Christ, which you deny.
Maybe you could answer this question: How does the impersonal have a will?
Or this: Is Christ's human nature like our human nature?

As you do with scripture, you also tear my comments form context in an attempt to cover your own heresy.

I was referring to the personal aspect of the human nature of Christ, which you deny.

Maybe you could answer this question: How does the impersonal have a will?

Or this: Is Christ's human nature like our human nature?

How is it you claim I deny something that you have yet to explain? You claim I take your comments out of context, yet you have not provided a single contextual element other than to keep saying "personal aspect of the human nature". Unpack that with some examples or more explanation versus leaving it to the reader to read your mind.

As to your question about Jesus' human nature and our own, His human nature was just like our human nature except for the corruption of sin.

The use of impersonal in this discussion means that which is not a person. The word is not being used to mean something is irrelevant or insignificant.

The will of a Person is associated with their nature. Jesus, one Person, has two natures, therefore, two wills. Sp if you want to say Jesus' human nature is personal to Him, no one is arguing with you. So is His divine nature personal to Him. But these statements alone can mean many things to the reader. What do you mean? For example, by "personal to Him" do you mean, "really important", as in someone "taking this or that personally"?

Your usage of "impersonal" in a complaining fashion implies you have not understood how the word was being used. Again, the only meaning in this discussion was that it meant that which is not a person. Period. You repeat over and over Jesus' human nature was personal to Him, yet you stop there and expect someone to grasp what you mean.

This leaves me with being only able to assume that when you speak of "personal aspects of the human nature" you can only mean Our Lord possesses the fullness of physical, mental, and spiritual components of humanity. Now where have I denied such? So, if you want to say Jesus' human nature is personal to Him along these lines, no one is arguing with you. So the same may be said of His divine nature.

If you mean something else, then please explain, preferably with examples.

AMR

 

[themuzicman]

Sorry, but you're off into the absurd, now. You claim that Christ's humanity is "impersonal", and then insist that all the elements of the human person are still there. Yes, Christ is one person, but he has every aspect of the human nature, including the personal.

Maybe you could try this one: Are human beings impersonal?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sorry, but you're off into the absurd, now. You claim that Christ's humanity is "impersonal", and then insist that all the elements of the human person are still there. Yes, Christ is one person, but he has every aspect of the human nature, including the personal.

Maybe you could try this one: Are human beings impersonal?

Why not simply provide examples of what you mean with "personal" instead of playing twenty questions? You obviously have an opinion so get on with it.

Human beings are not impersonal. The human nature taken up by our Lord was not a human being, for then we would have the being of God the Son, the Logos, as well as the being of a human, which would be two beings, that is Two persons, in the Incarnate Christ. That is error for Persons act, natures are. You get this and are just being combative for no real reason.

Now answer a simple question of my own: Do you deny the anhypostasis and enhypostasis? Try not to get wrapped around the axle these linked items and just focus on the distinctions being made between anhypostatic (not personal in itself) and enhypostatic (personalized by union with the eternal person of the Son).

If you deny, an explanation for your reasons would be much appreciated. The notion that the human nature assumed by God the Son was an individuated human being that could exist outside the assumption by the divine God is an error—a very dangerous one. Your cavils are not with me nor with Calvinism. Your complaints are directed to the church that has spoken on the matter in response to many heresies:

"Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ.."

Jesus Christ participates perfectly in two natures, divine and human; he possesses the fullness of human life in all its physical, mental, and spiritual components; his two natures are not combined into a third kind of nature; but they are nonetheless united in one person.

A. A. Hodge on the topic:

Spoiler

The same Person is called God because of his divinity, while it is affirmed that he shed his human blood for his Church. Again: while standing among his disciples on the earth, he says. “The Son of man, which is in heaven.” Here the same Person, who is called Son of man because of his humanity, is declared to be omnipresent — that is, at the same time on earth and in heaven — as to his divine nature. This, of course, implies absolute singleness of Person, including at once divine and human attributes.

Again: the Scriptures teach us that this amazing personality does not centre in his humanity, and that it is not a composite one originated by the power of the Spirit when he brought the two natures together in the womb of the Virgin Mary. It was not made by adding manhood to Godhead. The Trinity is eternal and unchangeable. A new Person is not substituted for the second Person of the Trinity, neither is a fourth Person added to the Trinity. But the Person of Christ is just the one eternal Word, the second Person of the Trinity, which in time, by the power of the Holy Ghost, through the instrumentality of the womb of the Virgin, took a human nature (not a man, but the seed of man, humanity in the germ) into personal union with himself. The Person is eternal and divine. The humanity is introduced into it. The centre of the personality always continues in the eternal personal Word or Son of God.

Let me illustrate this by your personality and mine. We consist of soul and body, two distinct substances, but one person. This personality, however, is not composed of the union of soul and body at birth. The personality from the first to the last centres in the soul, and is only shared in by the body. By soul we mean only one thing — that is, an incarnate spirit, a spirit with a body. Thus we never speak of the souls of angels. They are pure spirits, having no bodies. Put a spirit in a body, and the spirit becomes a soul, and the body is quickened into life and becomes a part of the person of the soul. Separate soul and body, as death does, and the soul becomes a ghost and the body becomes a corpse. When death takes place the body passes out of the personality, is called “it,” and is placed in the grave; while the soul, still continuing the person, goes at once to be judged of God. At the resurrection the same personal soul will return and take up the same body once discarded, and, receiving it again into its personality, will stand before God a complete man.

So the divine Word, which from eternity was the second Person of the Trinity, did eighteen hundred years ago take, not a human person, but a human nature into his eternal personality, which ever continues, not a human person nor a divine-human person, but the eternal second Person of the Trinity, with a human nature embraced in it as its personal organ.

For your further study:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830815376
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080544422X

AMR