Monophytism

[IBreakCellPhone]

The traditional Christology believes that Christ has two different, unmixed, yet undivided natures: one human and one divine. The Oriental Orthodox churches believe differently.

What arguments are on each side?

I know one for the traditional side: If Christ did not have our nature, could He have been our substitute on the Cross?

Talk amongst yourselves. :)

[Jezz]

The traditional Christology believes that Christ has two different, unmixed, yet undivided natures: one human and one divine. The Oriental Orthodox churches believe differently.
Actually, in the last 10 years or so there has been something of a breakthrough here. Both sides largely agree that there is no difference in their Christology - only one of terminology. Thus, the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches are in the process of restoring communion.

The reason for the misunderstanding stems from the fact that the Orientals used the word "nature" as interchangable with "person". Because Christ is one person in Orthodox Christology, it therefore follows in this terminology that Christ has only one nature - to do otherwise is to divide the persons. This natures is both divine and human. However, so long as such people acknowledge that the divine and the human do not mix, and yet are not divided, their Christology is the same.

In effect, what they are saying is that the "one" nature of Christ (the nature of his person) consists of two natures - the nature of His divine essence and the nature of His human essence. These two natures of His essence do not mix and are not divided.

You can find out more about this at here (http://www.orthodoxunity.org/).

What arguments are on each side?

I know one for the traditional side: If Christ did not have our nature, could He have been our substitute on the Cross?
Sorta. The argument is "that which was not assumed by Christ has not been redeemed by Christ". Thus, unless Christ has a fully human nature (including a human will), we cannot be fully redeemed - because we (including our wills) are fully human.

I do not know of the arguments for the "monophysite" side. One needs to be careful to distinguish between genuine monophysitism and a simple difference in terminology, as I discussed above. Those who are concerned about terminology are concerned about the possibility of lapsing into Nestorianism - the idea that the divine and the human natures of Christ were two different persons. I don't know of any arguments for genuine monophysitism.