Modern theologians have expressed, and continue to suggest, different, sometimes contradictory, opinions regarding the historical usage of the term «enhypostatic» by various Church Fathers and more recent theologians. Touching on the history of the research works fulfilled in this field we concentrate on the main problem of the interpretation of the meaning of the term «ἐνυπόστατον» used by Leontius, John Grammaticus and St.John Damascene. The paper analyses in detail St. John’s definition of the term «ἐνυπόστατον», his explanation of the inequality of the notions «hypostasis» and «enhypostatic», correlation of the term «hypostasis» with the notions of «individuated nature» and «πρόσωπον». It’s shown how the term «ἐνυπόστατον» acquired its new meaning in the Christological context. A qualitative difference between incarnation of the God the Word as a Person and «incarnation by grace» is discussed.
The central idea of this article is that the term «enhypostatic» enables the description of both the real subsistence of one or several distinct natures in one hypostasis, and that of one nature in several hypostases. It is suggested that the term «enhypostatic» is fairly universal and can be applied efficiently almost in all areas of theology. Meanwhile the primary meaning of the term (in the sense of really existing, objective as opposed to illusory) retains its great value. It is shown how this primary meaning stops one from manipulating the term arbitrarily.
The key characteristic of human likeness with God as hypostatic-natural unity is presented. It’s argued that this unity of hypostasis and nature is defined most powerfully by the term «ἐνυπόστατον».
No comments:
Post a Comment