They have to do with our understanding and interpretation of that truth, with how we take the eternal, enhypostatic
truth of Christianity and embody and adapt it in a specific time and place, but do not meddle with the essence of that truth.
As both a divine and a human essence harmoniously coexist in the person (hypostasis) of the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ, without the confusion or diminishment of either essence, so also does the human person, in the process of divinization, come to union with the person of Christ, without any confusion or diminishment of his or her personhood with that of Christ, and so freely experiences within him or herself the "enhypostatic" grace that divinized Christ's humanity.
In referring to the grace of divinization as "enhypostatic," Gregory sought to emphasize the hesychast belief that this grace is experienced neither as an abstract quality, as though it were an intellectual construct, nor as a temporal reality, existing one moment but passing away the next, but a stable, effective, essential energy of God that makes of be human person an adopted son or daughter of God by conforming his or her humanity alter the image of the divinized humanity of the Son, the Incarnate Word Jesus Christ.
Viewed from the perspective of the divine economy thus far pursued, it ought to be further elucidated that a fully robust and mature Christian pneumatology proceeds from presence and power to recognition of the inpersoned or enhypostatic
nature of life in the Spirit.
Leontius became inevitable: the adversaries were quite right in saying that the human nature of Jesus could not be anhypostatic, but they were wrong in concluding that He had a human hypostasis; the correct conclusion is that the humanity of Jesus was enhypostatic. On the basis of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the Leontian position cannot be avoided; if there is not someone who is eternal and someone else who is born of Mary, then there is only one who is God and man; if the one-who-ness is eternal, then it is not created at the Incarnation; it follows that the human nature defined by Chalcedon has its existence in the person of the Word.(28)
This "reversal" is not to be confused with that made by Piet Schoonenberg, who asserts, "It is primarily not the human nature which is enhypostatic in the divine person, but the divine nature in the human person."(35) This is a highly problematical, even contradictory, position.
As early as 1938, Marcel Richard recognized that for Leontius all natures (substances, ousia) are "enhypostatic
," but he did not push the logic to show that this contradicts the reading by Loofs.(27) Of course all natures are "enhypostatic
" because the latter simply means "hypostasized" or "subsisting" and, given Aristotelian assumptions, a nature cannot subsist ante rem but only in rebus.