Comments for Blogogetics http://blogogetics.com Giving an apologia (defense) for the faith we have Sun, 09 Aug 2009 02:36:36 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 CommentsForBlogogeticshttp://feedburner.google.com Comment on The Theoanthropos – a hypostatic union by CD-Host http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForBlogogetics/~3/rqwcTpRzRoQ/ CD-Host Sun, 09 Aug 2009 02:36:36 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=17#comment-2758 I yesterday posted a <a href="http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/08/10-questions-on-hypostatic-union.html" rel="nofollow">series of 10 questions</a> on the topic of the union. Honestly I've never been able to figure out how a sinless inerrant person is meaningfully human at all. You did a nice defense of the orthodox statement. Similar to most of the trinity in answer to (a) or (b) just assert "both" with the how being a mystery. That being said this is a well written apology for the doctrine and I'm going to link to it. I yesterday posted a series of 10 questions on the topic of the union. Honestly I’ve never been able to figure out how a sinless inerrant person is meaningfully human at all.

You did a nice defense of the orthodox statement. Similar to most of the trinity in answer to (a) or (b) just assert “both” with the how being a mystery. That being said this is a well written apology for the doctrine and I’m going to link to it.

]]> http://blogogetics.com/2008/11/the-theoanthropos-a-hypostatic-union/comment-page-1/#comment-2758 Comment on Hyper-Calvinism by Dr. James Willingham http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForBlogogetics/~3/rUTt_t4STTk/ Dr. James Willingham Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:11:13 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=14#comment-2583 My ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernesrt R. Campbell, would tell you from the pulpit and person to person that he was a supralapsarian, a hyper-calvinist (using both terms in that order). He earned his Ph.D. from Bob Jones, pastored many churches, in SC, MO, FL, & KY. He preached a revival in a country church in GA in which he had 100 professions of faith. He also founded the American Race Track Chaplaincy (cf. Who's Who in Religion, 2nd edn. Chicago: Marquis, 1977). Dr. Campbell was a compassionate person, a beloved pastor, and had many young people called to the service of God under his ministry. Dr. R. G. Lee put it in his will that Dr. Campbell would preach his funeral, the only person named therein. He was a soul-winner. He once pleaded with a member of my family until tears ran down my relative's cheeks. The aim of that hyper-calvinist was to win souls to Christ and then make devoted belivers out of every one of them My ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernesrt R. Campbell, would tell you from the pulpit and person to person that he was a supralapsarian, a hyper-calvinist (using both terms in that order). He earned his Ph.D. from Bob Jones, pastored many churches, in SC, MO, FL, & KY. He preached a revival in a country church in GA in which he had 100 professions of faith. He also founded the American Race Track Chaplaincy (cf. Who’s Who in Religion, 2nd edn. Chicago: Marquis, 1977). Dr. Campbell was a compassionate person, a beloved pastor, and had many young people called to the service of God under his ministry. Dr. R. G. Lee put it in his will that Dr. Campbell would preach his funeral, the only person named therein. He was a soul-winner. He once pleaded with a member of my family until tears ran down my relative’s cheeks. The aim of that hyper-calvinist was to win souls to Christ and then make devoted belivers out of every one of them

]]> http://blogogetics.com/2008/12/hyper-calvinism/comment-page-1/#comment-2583 Comment on The Theoanthropos – a hypostatic union by Robert T. Bobar http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForBlogogetics/~3/BLBpGsT668k/ Robert T. Bobar Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:29:36 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=17#comment-2447 You are quite wrong about the antichrist Apollanarius his type of antichrist teaching was that the “the logos” was the substituted mind in a “human sensitive soul”, a kind of division between though and emotion; so he also did not believe that Jesus came “in the flesh” either. The problem was when antichrists departed from using the standard of the bible all kinds of false teaching that qualify as an antichrist teach started to emerge since there no long was the standard that “Jesus came in the flesh”. But all who believe in Hypostatic Union are antichrists the Bible teaches this (John 4: 1-3). The Hypostastic Union crowd do not believe that Jesus came in the flesh they are using the word incarnation incorrectly to mean inpsychation since they believe that the Messiah came into a man (i.e. a human soul) and NOT in the flesh; compare how Pual understood the phase “in the flesh” (Philipians 1: 19-30 You will not find any mysterious union in his understanding of the phase “in the flesh”.). From the beginning Satan has misleadingly implied to Eve that she would be like God. And Moses warded Is real repeatedly NOT to Warship other gods even placing into the Ten Commandments that He is Jealous God as a warning. Logically you should not come to an opinion which would make the charges that had lead to Jesus’ crucifixion out to be true, you should not come to opinion which would resemble the deification of the Roman Emperors nor should you come to agree with the Greek Philosophers who disputed Paul over the idea that flesh was inferior. And one last point just ground logic, it would make no sense for salvation to be by the crucifixion and resurrection if a human could be saved by his own works (Galatian 3: 21) since they claim that Jesus is human but what is the biblical view “not from a man nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ” (Galatian 1: 1). As for the word tempted this Greek word is tested and it’s used also of The Father as well. Many have taught that the title The Son of man is a claim to being human but if you look in context “What if you should see The Son of man ascend to where he was at first” (John 6: 62) within context of the same scroll “the first” is a reference to the prolog of this scroll (John 1: 2). It should not seem odd to you that God would give himself a title like this since He had mad man after his own image and likeness sort of like making man according to His own blue-print. You asked why should this matter? Let me ask you something, do you want to study the bible only to end up in hell? Because if you believe in Hypostatic Union that is where you’re going, the letter of John is so clear against Antichrists that John’s latter warns believers not to even greet them; that pretty strong. The bible writes to struggle to enter the narrow way and few are they that find it; I can see by the comments on this site and many others that this is indeed unfortunately true!!!! You are quite wrong about the antichrist Apollanarius his type of antichrist teaching was that the “the logos” was the substituted mind in a “human sensitive soul”, a kind of division between though and emotion; so he also did not believe that Jesus came “in the flesh” either. The problem was when antichrists departed from using the standard of the bible all kinds of false teaching that qualify as an antichrist teach started to emerge since there no long was the standard that “Jesus came in the flesh”. But all who believe in Hypostatic Union are antichrists the Bible teaches this (John 4: 1-3). The Hypostastic Union crowd do not believe that Jesus came in the flesh they are using the word incarnation incorrectly to mean inpsychation since they believe that the Messiah came into a man (i.e. a human soul) and NOT in the flesh; compare how Pual understood the phase “in the flesh” (Philipians 1: 19-30 You will not find any mysterious union in his understanding of the phase “in the flesh”.). From the beginning Satan has misleadingly implied to Eve that she would be like God. And Moses warded Is real repeatedly NOT to Warship other gods even placing into the Ten Commandments that He is Jealous God as a warning. Logically you should not come to an opinion which would make the charges that had lead to Jesus’ crucifixion out to be true, you should not come to opinion which would resemble the deification of the Roman Emperors nor should you come to agree with the Greek Philosophers who disputed Paul over the idea that flesh was inferior. And one last point just ground logic, it would make no sense for salvation to be by the crucifixion and resurrection if a human could be saved by his own works (Galatian 3: 21) since they claim that Jesus is human but what is the biblical view “not from a man nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ” (Galatian 1: 1). As for the word tempted this Greek word is tested and it’s used also of The Father as well. Many have taught that the title The Son of man is a claim to being human but if you look in context “What if you should see The Son of man ascend to where he was at first” (John 6: 62) within context of the same scroll “the first” is a reference to the prolog of this scroll (John 1: 2). It should not seem odd to you that God would give himself a title like this since He had mad man after his own image and likeness sort of like making man according to His own blue-print. You asked why should this matter? Let me ask you something, do you want to study the bible only to end up in hell? Because if you believe in Hypostatic Union that is where you’re going, the letter of John is so clear against Antichrists that John’s latter warns believers not to even greet them; that pretty strong. The bible writes to struggle to enter the narrow way and few are they that find it; I can see by the comments on this site and many others that this is indeed unfortunately true!!!!

]]> http://blogogetics.com/2008/11/the-theoanthropos-a-hypostatic-union/comment-page-1/#comment-2447 Comment on The Church and the Parachurch by Tim Carlson http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForBlogogetics/~3/CoBdtlddlGg/ Tim Carlson Thu, 28 May 2009 03:34:46 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=24#comment-1985 This is a most excellent article. Thank you. It helped me to crystalize some of my thinking on the relationship of the parachurch to the Church and in particular, the danger of the parachurch because it is not under the authority of the Church. It, in essence, is a law unto itself. Very dangerous. My guess is that some parachurch organizations continue to be "successful" because they place a high value of its members being accountable to the Church and because the organization itself stays closely involved with the Church. This is a most excellent article. Thank you. It helped me to crystalize some of my thinking on the relationship of the parachurch to the Church and in particular, the danger of the parachurch because it is not under the authority of the Church. It, in essence, is a law unto itself. Very dangerous. My guess is that some parachurch organizations continue to be “successful” because they place a high value of its members being accountable to the Church and because the organization itself stays closely involved with the Church.

]]> http://blogogetics.com/2008/09/the-church-and-the-parachurch/comment-page-1/#comment-1985 Comment on The Church and the Parachurch by dave bish http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForBlogogetics/~3/BFx1vlpQWyI/ dave bish Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:44:21 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=24#comment-979 From your pleas, I suggest 1. Parachurch isn't a necessity because of problems in the church but often the outworking of a strength in a good direction. The missionary zeal led Christians to partner together rather than apart, because together they could be more than the sum of their parts. 2. I agree. Anyone who suggests that Christians can claim to be Christians without being committed to a local church is way off beam. 3. Parachurch absolutely has to exist for the good of the local church - at it's best it really really does that, and it's worst it's as bad as bad local churches.. Parachurch should never be an alternative to being in a church - a student involved in one should be fully a part of a local church... parachurch leadership has to be there to serve local churches - with some form of accountability though the specifics of this would vary massively. The issue of a student transitioning between them shouldn't even be a question - a student should always be in the local church and can then also engage in the parachurch/partnership ministry. In the case of a student missions partnership that mission would have as its goal to bring new believers into the local churches in that partnership.... At least that's how the student mission ministry i'm involved in is working :) From your pleas, I suggest
1. Parachurch isn’t a necessity because of problems in the church but often the outworking of a strength in a good direction. The missionary zeal led Christians to partner together rather than apart, because together they could be more than the sum of their parts.

2. I agree. Anyone who suggests that Christians can claim to be Christians without being committed to a local church is way off beam.

3. Parachurch absolutely has to exist for the good of the local church – at it’s best it really really does that, and it’s worst it’s as bad as bad local churches..

Parachurch should never be an alternative to being in a church – a student involved in one should be fully a part of a local church… parachurch leadership has to be there to serve local churches – with some form of accountability though the specifics of this would vary massively.

The issue of a student transitioning between them shouldn’t even be a question – a student should always be in the local church and can then also engage in the parachurch/partnership ministry. In the case of a student missions partnership that mission would have as its goal to bring new believers into the local churches in that partnership….

At least that’s how the student mission ministry i’m involved in is working :)

]]> http://blogogetics.com/2008/09/the-church-and-the-parachurch/comment-page-1/#comment-979 Comment on is Once Saved, Always Saved? by Once saved, always saved | archshrk http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForBlogogetics/~3/ZOrG5IkGCHs/ Once saved, always saved | archshrk Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:03:28 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=117#comment-947 [...] So, do you believe God can lose a Christian? Learn More [...] [...] So, do you believe God can lose a Christian? Learn More [...]

]]> http://blogogetics.com/2008/10/is-once-saved-always-saved/comment-page-1/#comment-947 Comment on The Church and the Parachurch by worship trench » Blog Archive » Church and Para-Church Part II http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForBlogogetics/~3/CPjh-WoJsk8/ worship trench » Blog Archive » Church and Para-Church Part II Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:37:24 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=24#comment-911 [...] Still reflecting. A phenomenal article on the distinctions and importance of someone becoming a “member.” Grab it here. [...] [...] Still reflecting. A phenomenal article on the distinctions and importance of someone becoming a “member.” Grab it here. [...]

]]> http://blogogetics.com/2008/09/the-church-and-the-parachurch/comment-page-1/#comment-911 Comment on The Theoanthropos – a hypostatic union by Jonathan http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForBlogogetics/~3/9qZJledgxUY/ Jonathan Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:16:06 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=17#comment-844 Duane, I wanted to thank you for the time you put into these replies. I sent you an email via your church website. I think I'm beyond the seemingly teenage-type-angst struggle and I would rather carry on an honest conversation not written for all to read. Let me know if you got my email, if not I'll try again. Jonathan Duane,

I wanted to thank you for the time you put into these replies. I sent you an email via your church website. I think I’m beyond the seemingly teenage-type-angst struggle and I would rather carry on an honest conversation not written for all to read. Let me know if you got my email, if not I’ll try again.

Jonathan

]]> http://blogogetics.com/2008/11/the-theoanthropos-a-hypostatic-union/comment-page-1/#comment-844 Comment on The Theoanthropos – a hypostatic union by Jonathan http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForBlogogetics/~3/f6MAufbKnFE/ Jonathan Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:04:43 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=17#comment-790 Duane, This isn't my "official" response to your last comment, I just wanted to say a few things. I wish I would've found your community/ministry a few years ago. Without trying to contribute to the abuse Christians have emposed on this one adjective, it's awesome. What you're doing and all the things you are focused on are exactly what I was all about a few years ago. Even though I'm not in the same place I was then, I can still appreciate what you're doing. Good job, man. I'm not in So. Cal or even near it. If I ever am I'll definitely hit you up for coffee or a beer. Thanks for the invite. I'll be taking my time with this response in order to do it justice, but in the mean time Happy Thanksgiving. Jonathan Duane,

This isn’t my “official” response to your last comment, I just wanted to say a few things.

I wish I would’ve found your community/ministry a few years ago. Without trying to contribute to the abuse Christians have emposed on this one adjective, it’s awesome. What you’re doing and all the things you are focused on are exactly what I was all about a few years ago. Even though I’m not in the same place I was then, I can still appreciate what you’re doing. Good job, man.

I’m not in So. Cal or even near it. If I ever am I’ll definitely hit you up for coffee or a beer. Thanks for the invite.

I’ll be taking my time with this response in order to do it justice, but in the mean time Happy Thanksgiving.

Jonathan

]]> http://blogogetics.com/2008/11/the-theoanthropos-a-hypostatic-union/comment-page-1/#comment-790 Comment on The Theoanthropos – a hypostatic union by Pastor Duane Smets http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CommentsForBlogogetics/~3/9iI0kyVb3x8/ Pastor Duane Smets Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:58:14 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=17#comment-789 Hi Jonathan, Been crazy busy...but I really do care about this conversation. So, yes, as you say, you are not alone in your thinking by far. I think one of the biggest challenges we face today is the overload of information and experts. I think our tendency is just to dismiss everything because it is too hard, too difficult, and/or takes too much time to really attempt at sorting out. It's one of the reasons I like you..because you are taking the time. But what do you do when two scholars reach different conclusions, how do you decide, can one position be correct? I actually wrote a little piece on this called "Controversy" (you can read it here: http://www.duanesmets.com/2008/10/02/controversy ). I think your observation, "“What if I’m wrong and I have to face judgment, is this really worth it?” is very keen. In fact it is a question a great mathemetician and philosopher named Blaise Pascal asked in a work of his called Pensées. In it he argues, that God's existence is unprovable by reason (which may or may not be true, personally as you have discovered I think the question of God's existence presupposes his existence...and I'm open to evidence, though not proof). Then he moves to say that either our reason or our happiness is at stake in the wager of whether or not God is so. He ends up saying it is wiser to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing." I too grew up in a Pentecostal upbringing and departed from it, so I completely understand and sympathize with your experience probably more than you know. It was almost as if you didn't speak in tongues you weren't Christian and the Bible meant whatever the preacher felt like it meant...which is merely authoritarianism. Pentecostals tend to be very fundamentalistic, legalistic, and have a religion based purely upon human experience and works which epistemologically really does not separate them from any of the eastern religions. Anyway, I feel honored that you'd share that with me and share with me your list. As far as the Genesis story is concerned. Of course I have a viewpoint on it, but I think there is room for varying perspectives. The main point of the book named "beginning" (Genesis in Hebrew) is that God is the creator. No matter what view of Genesis you take, even if it is ancient mesopatamian myth like the epic of Gilgamesh, the Atrahasis epic, or if it is an account of evolution with time gaps, or a literal 7 day account...the point of Genesis remains in its' intent to say that God is the creator (and I would add "redeemer"). There may be differences in how he created, but even the most fundamentalistic athiests cannot account for the cosmological question of beginnings (the problem of infinite regression). On morality...I'm not so sure we are talking about a God who is "being that is way more moral and loving than I could ever dream of being." But rather a God who is the ground and source of morality and has a plan and a way to transform us into his very love and pure morality. I think it is important to distinguish between the essence/source of morality, the act(s) of immorality, and the motives of immorality. I like your analogy of the prison...But I guess I would ask if being able to recognize morality equates goodness? But all this is sort of a side note, I'll get to the real issue and question. Your last question (the "sum up") is perhaps the best question you have asked yet in our entire exchange. It is at least the most difficult to answer, not in my estimation because of whether it is a solid answer or not, but in terms of the difficulty of swallowing the answer. What you ask essentially what is known as "the problem of evil." I have spent a lot of time on this one...so rather than try and give a pithy response here let me direct you to two places: 1. A piece I wrote called "The So Called 'Problem of Evil'" http://theresolved.com/downloads/evil.pdf 2. A sermon addressing this very issue from Romans 9:19-29 http://www.theresolved.com/?p=323 As a sidenote, as I understand election in the Bible, it has nothing to do with being born into a "Christian home." Rather no one knows who is elect, except God. The elect are those he has determined beforehand to have mercy at a specific time. How he determined who was going to be elect is an utter mystery (Deut 29:29). Well I think I hit most the stuff you brought up. I don't want to bag on your upgringing, you know...but is it possible that you may have never really ben taught or really heard the gospel? It sounds like you may have been part of a teaching which was just Christianized Phariseeism all over again...where Christianity was just an offer to work harder, get more religious, and then feel extra guilty when you didn't measure up. As I understand the gospel of Jesus it is a message not of guilt, but freedom from guilt. Not a message of fear but a message of forgiveness. Not a message of nothingness but a message of deep meaning. Hey Jonathan...if there were at least plausible answers to your questions, do you think it could actually have the effect of getting you to reconsider Jesus once again. Not a hippie, feminine, lovey dovey feel good Jesus, but the Jesus who people were both amazed by his teaching and overwhelmed with his acceptance? If there were at least somewhat sufficient answers to your questions, would it be enough for you or is there something deeper? Maybe you've just needed to actually talk to a level headed Christian? I'm not saying that because I think there is something deeper, maybe there is, I'm just saying that in talking to you, it doesn't sound like your asking for certainty...just a worldview where you can conceive that maybe it is true and no one has actually been able to show you one. Just wondering. Where you at? If you're in So. Cal lets get together for coffee or a beer. Duane Hi Jonathan,

Been crazy busy…but I really do care about this conversation.

So, yes, as you say, you are not alone in your thinking by far. I think one of the biggest challenges we face today is the overload of information and experts. I think our tendency is just to dismiss everything because it is too hard, too difficult, and/or takes too much time to really attempt at sorting out. It’s one of the reasons I like you..because you are taking the time. But what do you do when two scholars reach different conclusions, how do you decide, can one position be correct? I actually wrote a little piece on this called “Controversy” (you can read it here: http://www.duanesmets.com/2008/10/02/controversy ).

I think your observation, ““What if I’m wrong and I have to face judgment, is this really worth it?” is very keen. In fact it is a question a great mathemetician and philosopher named Blaise Pascal asked in a work of his called Pensées. In it he argues, that God’s existence is unprovable by reason (which may or may not be true, personally as you have discovered I think the question of God’s existence presupposes his existence…and I’m open to evidence, though not proof). Then he moves to say that either our reason or our happiness is at stake in the wager of whether or not God is so. He ends up saying it is wiser to wager that God exists, since “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.”

I too grew up in a Pentecostal upbringing and departed from it, so I completely understand and sympathize with your experience probably more than you know. It was almost as if you didn’t speak in tongues you weren’t Christian and the Bible meant whatever the preacher felt like it meant…which is merely authoritarianism. Pentecostals tend to be very fundamentalistic, legalistic, and have a religion based purely upon human experience and works which epistemologically really does not separate them from any of the eastern religions. Anyway, I feel honored that you’d share that with me and share with me your list.

As far as the Genesis story is concerned. Of course I have a viewpoint on it, but I think there is room for varying perspectives. The main point of the book named “beginning” (Genesis in Hebrew) is that God is the creator. No matter what view of Genesis you take, even if it is ancient mesopatamian myth like the epic of Gilgamesh, the Atrahasis epic, or if it is an account of evolution with time gaps, or a literal 7 day account…the point of Genesis remains in its’ intent to say that God is the creator (and I would add “redeemer”). There may be differences in how he created, but even the most fundamentalistic athiests cannot account for the cosmological question of beginnings (the problem of infinite regression).

On morality…I’m not so sure we are talking about a God who is “being that is way more moral and loving than I could ever dream of being.” But rather a God who is the ground and source of morality and has a plan and a way to transform us into his very love and pure morality. I think it is important to distinguish between the essence/source of morality, the act(s) of immorality, and the motives of immorality. I like your analogy of the prison…But I guess I would ask if being able to recognize morality equates goodness? But all this is sort of a side note, I’ll get to the real issue and question.

Your last question (the “sum up”) is perhaps the best question you have asked yet in our entire exchange. It is at least the most difficult to answer, not in my estimation because of whether it is a solid answer or not, but in terms of the difficulty of swallowing the answer. What you ask essentially what is known as “the problem of evil.” I have spent a lot of time on this one…so rather than try and give a pithy response here let me direct you to two places:
1. A piece I wrote called “The So Called ‘Problem of Evil’” http://theresolved.com/downloads/evil.pdf
2. A sermon addressing this very issue from Romans 9:19-29 http://www.theresolved.com/?p=323

As a sidenote, as I understand election in the Bible, it has nothing to do with being born into a “Christian home.” Rather no one knows who is elect, except God. The elect are those he has determined beforehand to have mercy at a specific time. How he determined who was going to be elect is an utter mystery (Deut 29:29).

Well I think I hit most the stuff you brought up. I don’t want to bag on your upgringing, you know…but is it possible that you may have never really ben taught or really heard the gospel? It sounds like you may have been part of a teaching which was just Christianized Phariseeism all over again…where Christianity was just an offer to work harder, get more religious, and then feel extra guilty when you didn’t measure up. As I understand the gospel of Jesus it is a message not of guilt, but freedom from guilt. Not a message of fear but a message of forgiveness. Not a message of nothingness but a message of deep meaning.

Hey Jonathan…if there were at least plausible answers to your questions, do you think it could actually have the effect of getting you to reconsider Jesus once again. Not a hippie, feminine, lovey dovey feel good Jesus, but the Jesus who people were both amazed by his teaching and overwhelmed with his acceptance? If there were at least somewhat sufficient answers to your questions, would it be enough for you or is there something deeper? Maybe you’ve just needed to actually talk to a level headed Christian? I’m not saying that because I think there is something deeper, maybe there is, I’m just saying that in talking to you, it doesn’t sound like your asking for certainty…just a worldview where you can conceive that maybe it is true and no one has actually been able to show you one. Just wondering.

Where you at? If you’re in So. Cal lets get together for coffee or a beer.

Duane

]]> http://blogogetics.com/2008/11/the-theoanthropos-a-hypostatic-union/comment-page-1/#comment-789