Citations:anhypostasia

English citations of anhypostasia

1. (Christianity (Christology)) The state of union of the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ in God, with the divine nature superseding the human one.
   • 1867, Philip Schaff, “Theology. Development of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy.”, in History of the Christian Church, volumes III (From Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great, A.D. 311–600), New York, N.Y.: Charles Scribner and Company, →OCLC, part III (The Christological Controversies), § 142 (The Orthodox Chrisology. Analysis and Criticism.), paragraph 7, pages 757–758:

     The anhypostasia, impersonality, or, to speak more accurately, the enhypostasia, of the human nature of Christ. This is a difficult point, but a necessary link in the orthodox doctrine of the one God-Man; for otherwise we must have two persons in Christ, and, after the incarnation, a fourth person, and that a human, in the divine Trinity. The impersonality of Christ's human nature, however, is not to be taken as absolute, but relative, as the following considerations will show. […] The divine nature is therefore the root and basis of the personality of Christ. […] And the human nature of Christ had no independent personality of its own, besides the divine; it had no existence at all before the incarnation, but began with this act, and was so incorporated with the pre-existent Logos-personality as to find in this alone its own full self-consciousness, and to be permeated and controlled by it in every stage of its development.

   • 1992, Wiel Logister, “In the Name of Jesus Christ: Christology and the Interreligious Dialogue”, in Catherine Cornille, Valeer Neckebrouck, editors, A Universal Faith?: Peoples, Cultures, Religions, and the Christ [...] Essays in Honor of Prof. Dr. Frank De Graeve (Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs; 9), Louvain: Peeters Press; [Grand Rapids, Mich.]: W[illiam] B. Eerdmans, →ISBN, pages 172–173:

     When, for instance, theology speaks of Jesus' anhypostasis and his enhypostasis, these ontological terms must be understood in the light of the concrete ways in which Jesus acted and spoke in the name of God, the ways in which he maintained the distinctions between himself and God through his self-abnegation, and how he left others with no impression of pedantry or dogmatism.