Refuting Oriental Orthodoxy (& Sam Shamoun) Part 3: Paradigms as Presupposition
In the latest installment of Jay Dyer's series on Oriental Orthodoxy, he addresses various theological misunderstandings related to Christology, particularly in the context of claims made by Sam Shamoun. Dyer emphasizes the necessity of adhering to the teachings of the ecumenical councils, highlighting distinctions between hypostasis and essence, and critiques the multiple hypostasis view held by Oriental Orthodox theologians. The discussion explores the implications of different paradigms in understanding divine nature and human purpose, with Dyer defending Cyril of Alexandria’s teachings as central to Orthodox Christology. He systematically critiques Oriental interpreters while underscoring the significance of maintaining clear theological definitions to avoid conflating nature and person. Overall, Dyer argues for a unified understanding of Christ's nature that resonates with Orthodox orthodoxy, presenting a strong case against the positions held by Oriental Orthodoxy.
Chain 6 steps
- Sam Shamoun: Misunderstandings of terms can lead to theological errors.“you're going to commit a lot of word-concept fallacy”
- Sam Shamoun: The hypostatic union is accepted by both Orthodox and Oriental churches, but understood differently.“both us as Orthodox and the Orientals will profess belief in the hypostatic union.”
- Sam Shamoun: The view held by Severus indicates a belief in multiple hypostases in Christ within Oriental theology.“a lot of orientals who are very ignorant of their own tradition of their own theology...”
- Sam Shamoun: Theosis is essential for understanding how humanity receives divine love through Christ's incarnation.“the son in his divinity and humanity is one and the same hypostasis”
via Oriental Orthodoxy- Sam Shamoun: Cyril's ontology never changes upon Christ's incarnation, contradicting Oriental Orthodox views.“that Christ's hypostatic ontology never changes”
via Apollinarianism- Jay Dyer: Maximus argues there is no substantial change in the Logos when He became incarnate.“he underwent no change so it's not a substantial change”
Subjects
21Jay references Saint Cyril's writings to support his arguments against the Oriental position.
Jay refers to the condemnation of Nestorius at the Ecumenical Council and argues against the suggestion that the council misrepresented his theology.
Jay critiques Oriental Orthodoxy for its inability to answer fundamental theological questions and for denying the concept of theosis.
Jay critiques Nestorianism's metaphysical paradigm, arguing it leads to a dual subject Christology that Orthodox teaching rejects.
Jay Dyer acknowledges confusion within the Orthodox community regarding composite hypostasis and emphasizes the need to clarify its meaning.
Jay explains Apollinarianism's views on the nature of Christ and critiques its implications for understanding hypostasis.
Jay refers to St. Cyril's position on Christ's hypostatic union and critiques the misunderstanding by Nestorius and Oriental theologians.
Jay explains that Maximus teaches that the Logos underwent no change when becoming incarnate, addressing misconceptions about his views.
Jay critiques Sam Shamoun's understanding of apostolic Christianity, asserting that it cannot encompass various competing doctrines contrary to orthodoxy.
Jay notes that Severus argues for the necessity of specific hypostasis for humanity within Christ, which Jay critiques, asserting that a singular divine subject is sufficient.
Jay argues that the logic used by the Orientals regarding hypostasis conflicts with the orthodox understanding of the Trinity.
Jay argues that theosis is crucial for understanding humanity's purpose and receiving divine love.