A problem with the nature of the Incarnation

[GloriousOrder]

WARNING: THIS THREAD IS FOR PEOPLE OF A THOMIST OR SCHOLASTIC BENT. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THIS APPROACH TO THE BLESSED LORD, RUN AWAY FROM HERE VERY QUICKLY.

For all the good nature that God has implanted in my human soul, I cannot figure out the Incarnation at even the basic level. This does not mean that I want to discover every last divine mystery of the blessed Incarnation of God; indeed, that would be presumptuous and arrogant of so small a being as myself. My problem is with ontology, and specifically with the definition of essence/nature.

My belief in God was formed by coming to learn that He is perfect, immutable, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. Our beloved Father is a total Thought; an endless Thought, and a sentient being. He is the spirit of Truth: He is Justice, and He is the all-cleansing Good. Being these things, it seems that whatever God is from eternity, He is that forever, simply because His infinity fills up everything. If God is a spirit in eternity, then God is always a spirit; else, being changed, He is no different from mortal beings. If God’s very essence can change, then He is not God, because God is the Eternal Necessity, totally perfect and unmoved (thank you, dear St. Thomas).

If God cannot be destroyed at all, that means God cannot have been assembled at all. Now, whatever can be destroyed is inevitably destroyed by dissolution; by dismantling. God has no parts, being a pure spirit of ever-loving perfection. This is why He cannot be destroyed! He’s totally whole, relying on nothing in time or space; indeed, He created those things.

Now, if Christ is indeed God (an indisputable notion in my mind), He is God from eternity, and totally immutable in essence, following the ontological necessity of God. It seems that, in “becoming man”, a fundamental addition was made to His divine nature: that is, He took on a human nature in addition to His divinity. Christ being God, how can He (perfect and unmoved) be moved from One Nature (Divine) to Two Natures (Divine and Human)? How can the hypostatic union actually exist as a change, Christ only assuming a human nature after the Incarnation? It seems to contradict the very criteria for calling a being eternal, for eternity does not shift.

Sorry if this is confusing, or if I’ve made it pointlessly complex. That’s how my mind ruins things at times.

 

[TimothyH]

Sorry if this is confusing, or if I’ve made it pointlessly complex. That’s how my mind ruins things at times.

No, this is a fabulous question which I would never have thought to ask and have no clue how to answer other than by pressing the “Mystery of faith” button.

I was rejected in another thread (about why there was evil in the world) for saying that God is perfection and he alone possesses all perfection. If God did not possess all perfection, he would be less than perfect and it is not possible for God (the one you described) to be anything less than perfect. I went further by claiming that If anything else posessed perfection it would also be God and having two Gods, both which posesse all perfection is not possible. Therefor, anything whichis not God must be less than total perfection, that is to say, must possess some imperfection.

My conclusion was that there was evil in the world because we are not God. Anyway, I’m off track but your question stands and I would like to hear a good stab at an answer!

-Tim-

 

[davidv]

WARNING: THIS THREAD IS FOR PEOPLE OF A THOMIST OR SCHOLASTIC BENT. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THIS APPROACH TO THE BLESSED LORD, RUN AWAY FROM HERE VERY QUICKLY.

For all the good nature that God has implanted in my human soul, I cannot figure out the Incarnation at even the basic level. This does not mean that I want to discover every last divine mystery of the blessed Incarnation of God; indeed, that would be presumptuous and arrogant of so small a being as myself. My problem is with ontology, and specifically with the definition of essence/nature.

My belief in God was formed by coming to learn that He is perfect, immutable, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. Our beloved Father is a total Thought; an endless Thought, and a sentient being. He is the spirit of Truth: He is Justice, and He is the all-cleansing Good. Being these things, it seems that whatever God is from eternity, He is that forever, simply because His infinity fills up everything. If God is a spirit in eternity, then God is always a spirit; else, being changed, He is no different from mortal beings. If God’s very essence can change, then He is not God, because God is the Eternal Necessity, totally perfect and unmoved (thank you, dear St. Thomas).

If God cannot be destroyed at all, that means God cannot have been assembled at all. Now, whatever can be destroyed is inevitably destroyed by dissolution; by dismantling. God has no parts, being a pure spirit of ever-loving perfection. This is why He cannot be destroyed! He’s totally whole, relying on nothing in time or space; indeed, He created those things.

Now, if Christ is indeed God (an indisputable notion in my mind), He is God from eternity, and totally immutable in essence, following the ontological necessity of God. It seems that, in “becoming man”, a fundamental addition was made to His divine nature: that is, He took on a human nature in addition to His divinity. Christ being God, how can He (perfect and unmoved) be moved from One Nature (Divine) to Two Natures (Divine and Human)? How can the hypostatic union actually exist as a change, Christ only assuming a human nature after the Incarnation? It seems to contradict the very criteria for calling a being eternal, for eternity does not shift.

Sorry if this is confusing, or if I’ve made it pointlessly complex. That’s how my mind ruins things at times.

I couple of thoughts.
Why do think taking on human nature changed God. It seems to me it is only a change from our perspective, from within time. Would it be so from God’s perspective, from eternity?

Using the term “after” is meaningless from God’s perspective. “All” is to Him in the eternal now. So to me any understanding must come by somehow disconnecting our thinking from time and imagining these things from timelessness. For many of us, this may be near impossible.

 

[jetpack_joe]

Summa Part 3, Question 3, Article One, Objection One:

Objection 1. It would seem that it is not befitting to a Divine Person to assume a created nature. For a Divine Person signifies something most perfect. Now no addition can be made to what is perfect. Therefore, since to assume is to take to oneself, and consequently what is assumed is added to the one who assumes, it does not seem to be befitting to a Divine Person to assume a created nature.

And skipping to the reply:

Reply to Objection 1. Since the Divine Person is infinite, no addition can be made to it: Hence Cyril says [Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 26]: “We do not conceive the mode of conjunction to be according to addition”; just as in the union of man with God, nothing is added to God by the grace of adoption, but what is Divine is united to man; hence, not God but man is perfected.

newadvent.org/summa/4003.htm#article1

 

[VeritasSeeker]

WARNING: THIS THREAD IS FOR PEOPLE OF A THOMIST OR SCHOLASTIC BENT. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THIS APPROACH TO THE BLESSED LORD, RUN AWAY FROM HERE VERY QUICKLY.

For all the good nature that God has implanted in my human soul, I cannot figure out the Incarnation at even the basic level. This does not mean that I want to discover every last divine mystery of the blessed Incarnation of God; indeed, that would be presumptuous and arrogant of so small a being as myself. My problem is with ontology, and specifically with the definition of essence/nature.

My belief in God was formed by coming to learn that He is perfect, immutable, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. Our beloved Father is a total Thought; an endless Thought, and a sentient being. He is the spirit of Truth: He is Justice, and He is the all-cleansing Good. Being these things, it seems that whatever God is from eternity, He is that forever, simply because His infinity fills up everything. If God is a spirit in eternity, then God is always a spirit; else, being changed, He is no different from mortal beings. If God’s very essence can change, then He is not God, because God is the Eternal Necessity, totally perfect and unmoved (thank you, dear St. Thomas).

If God cannot be destroyed at all, that means God cannot have been assembled at all. Now, whatever can be destroyed is inevitably destroyed by dissolution; by dismantling. God has no parts, being a pure spirit of ever-loving perfection. This is why He cannot be destroyed! He’s totally whole, relying on nothing in time or space; indeed, He created those things.

Now, if Christ is indeed God (an indisputable notion in my mind), He is God from eternity, and totally immutable in essence, following the ontological necessity of God. It seems that, in “becoming man”, a fundamental addition was made to His divine nature: that is, He took on a human nature in addition to His divinity. Christ being God, how can He (perfect and unmoved) be moved from One Nature (Divine) to Two Natures (Divine and Human)? How can the hypostatic union actually exist as a change, Christ only assuming a human nature after the Incarnation? It seems to contradict the very criteria for calling a being eternal, for eternity does not shift.

Sorry if this is confusing, or if I’ve made it pointlessly complex. That’s how my mind ruins things at times.

Correct me if I am wrong but is what your saying is that by becoming man God does something that contradicts his very essence(i.e being eternal, immaterial, omniscient, etc)? If that is the case then no, the doctrine of the Incarnation states that the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity took on a human nature, thus becoming man----whilst retaining his divine nature. It is not a contradiction. Take for example, a red apple. The apple is red, but from the inside it is white or non-red. Thus the apple is both red and white at the same time, but it is not a contradiction. The apple is red with respect to its outside and white with respect to its inside. The same with the doctrine of the Incarnation. Jesus is eternal,immaterial, and omniscient with respect to his divine nature and non-eternal, material, and ignorant with *respect *to his human nature. You would have to show that it is logically impossible for God the Son to take on a human nature----whilst retaining his divine nature(a feat which no one has yet accomplished). It is very important to understand that the divine nature of God **never changes **during the incarnation. The human nature of Christ is a contingency while the divine nature is a necessity.

 

[WetCatechumen]

WARNING: THIS THREAD IS FOR PEOPLE OF A THOMIST OR SCHOLASTIC BENT. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THIS APPROACH TO THE BLESSED LORD, RUN AWAY FROM HERE VERY QUICKLY.

For all the good nature that God has implanted in my human soul, I cannot figure out the Incarnation at even the basic level. This does not mean that I want to discover every last divine mystery of the blessed Incarnation of God; indeed, that would be presumptuous and arrogant of so small a being as myself. My problem is with ontology, and specifically with the definition of essence/nature.

My belief in God was formed by coming to learn that He is perfect, immutable, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. Our beloved Father is a total Thought; an endless Thought, and a sentient being. He is the spirit of Truth: He is Justice, and He is the all-cleansing Good. Being these things, it seems that whatever God is from eternity, He is that forever, simply because His infinity fills up everything. If God is a spirit in eternity, then God is always a spirit; else, being changed, He is no different from mortal beings. If God’s very essence can change, then He is not God, because God is the Eternal Necessity, totally perfect and unmoved (thank you, dear St. Thomas).

If God cannot be destroyed at all, that means God cannot have been assembled at all. Now, whatever can be destroyed is inevitably destroyed by dissolution; by dismantling. God has no parts, being a pure spirit of ever-loving perfection. This is why He cannot be destroyed! He’s totally whole, relying on nothing in time or space; indeed, He created those things.

Now, if Christ is indeed God (an indisputable notion in my mind), He is God from eternity, and totally immutable in essence, following the ontological necessity of God. It seems that, in “becoming man”, a fundamental addition was made to His divine nature: that is, He took on a human nature in addition to His divinity. Christ being God, how can He (perfect and unmoved) be moved from One Nature (Divine) to Two Natures (Divine and Human)? How can the hypostatic union actually exist as a change, Christ only assuming a human nature after the Incarnation? It seems to contradict the very criteria for calling a being eternal, for eternity does not shift.

Sorry if this is confusing, or if I’ve made it pointlessly complex. That’s how my mind ruins things at times.

My take on it is that although Christ assumed a human nature within the context of time, the fact of his human nature became eternal because he is in fact an eternal being.

The Lamb of God was slain on the cross on Calvary 2,000 years ago, but he was also slain before the foundations of the world.

The Incarnation is both an eternal and a temporal event. How else could temporal beings such as ourselves become eternal beings such as him? For as such a reason became the Son of God man, in order to make men gods.

“You have united, O Lord, your divinity with our humanity and our humanity with your divinity, your life with our mortality and our mortality with your life. You have given us what is yours and assumed what is ours for the life and salvation of our souls. To you, O Lord, be glory forever.” - Maronite prayer of the conmixture.

Remember that first he made us in his own image. Who is the true image of the very God? Jesus Christ, God made manifest in visible form.

 

[sidbrown]

WARNING: THIS THREAD IS FOR PEOPLE OF A THOMIST OR SCHOLASTIC BENT. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THIS APPROACH TO THE BLESSED LORD, RUN AWAY FROM HERE VERY QUICKLY.

For all the good nature that God has implanted in my human soul, I cannot figure out the Incarnation at even the basic level. This does not mean that I want to discover every last divine mystery of the blessed Incarnation of God; indeed, that would be presumptuous and arrogant of so small a being as myself. My problem is with ontology, and specifically with the definition of essence/nature.

My belief in God was formed by coming to learn that He is perfect, immutable, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. Our beloved Father is a total Thought; an endless Thought, and a sentient being. He is the spirit of Truth: He is Justice, and He is the all-cleansing Good. Being these things, it seems that whatever God is from eternity, He is that forever, simply because His infinity fills up everything. If God is a spirit in eternity, then God is always a spirit; else, being changed, He is no different from mortal beings. If God’s very essence can change, then He is not God, because God is the Eternal Necessity, totally perfect and unmoved (thank you, dear St. Thomas).

If God cannot be destroyed at all, that means God cannot have been assembled at all. Now, whatever can be destroyed is inevitably destroyed by dissolution; by dismantling. God has no parts, being a pure spirit of ever-loving perfection. This is why He cannot be destroyed! He’s totally whole, relying on nothing in time or space; indeed, He created those things.

Now, if Christ is indeed God (an indisputable notion in my mind), He is God from eternity, and totally immutable in essence, following the ontological necessity of God. It seems that, in “becoming man”, a fundamental addition was made to His divine nature: that is, He took on a human nature in addition to His divinity. Christ being God, how can He (perfect and unmoved) be moved from One Nature (Divine) to Two Natures (Divine and Human)? How can the hypostatic union actually exist as a change, Christ only assuming a human nature after the Incarnation? It seems to contradict the very criteria for calling a being eternal, for eternity does not shift.

Sorry if this is confusing, or if I’ve made it pointlessly complex. That’s how my mind ruins things at times.

This does seem to be a problem. For example, according to Matthew 26:39: “And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying, and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
But if Jesus, being God, knew that the cup would not pass from Him, then why would He pray to His Father that the cup would pass from Him?

 

[GloriousOrder]

I couple of thoughts.
Why do think taking on human nature changed God. It seems to me it is only a change from our perspective, from within time. Would it be so from God’s perspective, from eternity?

Using the term “after” is meaningless from God’s perspective. “All” is to Him in the eternal now. So to me any understanding must come by somehow disconnecting our thinking from time and imagining these things from timelessness. For many of us, this may be near impossible.

Yes, God should never be pigeon-holed into temporal reality. That is impossible, because time moves and withers, but God is not moved, nor does He wither. My problem is that the Incarnation seems to have taken place in time. There was a moment when blessed Gabriel told the blessed Virgin “thou shalt bear a son”. This seems to indicate that Christ’s material human nature was not part of His divine Person before the Incarnation, which is an impossibility, because a Person who is Divine must have the unchanging quality of Divinity. The Universe changes, so it is not the thing on which all things are predicated; only that which is unchanging can be the foundation.

Summa Part 3, Question 3, Article One, Objection One:

Objection 1. It would seem that it is not befitting to a Divine Person to assume a created nature. For a Divine Person signifies something most perfect. Now no addition can be made to what is perfect. Therefore, since to assume is to take to oneself, and consequently what is assumed is added to the one who assumes, it does not seem to be befitting to a Divine Person to assume a created nature.

And skipping to the reply:

Reply to Objection 1. Since the Divine Person is infinite, no addition can be made to it: Hence Cyril says [Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 26]: “We do not conceive the mode of conjunction to be according to addition”; just as in the union of man with God, nothing is added to God by the grace of adoption, but what is Divine is united to man; hence, not God but man is perfected.

newadvent.org/summa/4003.htm#article1

I did indeed read Summa T. 3/3/1/1, and it is what started me on this problem. Is St. Thomas saying that the Word had both a Divine Nature and Human Nature before the Incarnation, before Mary? If so, why was the Incarnation even required? If not, it seems that God did change, by splitting His Divine Person between two natures; whereas, before the Incarnation, there was only One Nature (if that was the case).

It is not a contradiction. Take for example, a red apple. The apple is red, but from the inside it is white or non-red. Thus the apple is both red and white at the same time, but it is not a contradiction. The apple is red with respect to its outside and white with respect to its inside. The same with the doctrine of the Incarnation. Jesus is eternal,immaterial, and omniscient with respect to his divine nature and non-eternal, material, and ignorant with *respect *to his human nature.
…
The human nature of Christ is a contingency while the divine nature is a necessity.

Yes! What I’m wondering is: was the “apple” of Christ not entirely white on the inside and outside before the Incarnation, or was He both red and white before the Incarnation?

If the human nature assumed by Christ is contigent and His divine nature is accidental, how can it be said that He is now glorified in Heaven with two natures? Surely, only that which is essential would have been retained in the eternal God. If God is made up of any part that is not essential, He would cease to be God altogether. The essential quality of anything means that it must be 100% essential, with no superfluities. This is the only way I believe in God: that He is unmoved, even by Himself. If God can change His own composition, He is objectively changeable, and thus not God.

The Incarnation is both an eternal and a temporal event. How else could temporal beings such as ourselves become eternal beings such as him? For as such a reason became the Son of God man, in order to make men gods.

Now, you see, this is even worse for me. How can God be affected by a temporal event, the very dimension of which (time) He made? Can the eternal creator be made a new creation by His own children? Anyway, if the Divine Nature is truly Essential and Necessary to the existence of the Universe, it certainly could not make men into something equal to itself. This is why polytheism makes no sense, because God must be one; divinity, being diffused among many beings, isn’t divinity. God must be one, singular being.

This is obviously splitting hairs on my part, since God wants us united to Him, not necessarily to become equal to Him.

 

[GloriousOrder]

This does seem to be a problem. For example, according to Matthew 26:39: “And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying, and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
But if Jesus, being God, knew that the cup would not pass from Him, then why would He pray to His Father that the cup would pass from Him?

My whole problem here was started by a homily which Father gave on the Feast of the Holy Family. He held up the beautiful love of the Holy Family as an example of Motherhood and Fatherhood. The rector said that Joseph taught Christ in manly pursuits, and the blessed Virgin taught Christ in love and prayer. They both taught Him to walk, to talk, and to be responsible. This did not (he stressed) abrogate Christ’s divinity, but showed the good simplicity of His human nature.

Why did this trouble me? God being perfect, and Christ being God, there seems to be no perfection that can be added to His human nature which was not already in His divine nature. Christ IS one Person, and according to the Church His two natures are co-equal. I suppose my problem is acknowledging that the Divine Nature (which is infinitely higher than human nature) could be subjected to human nature. How could Christ learn to walk and to talk when He, eternal Word, invented walking and talking by His holy creation?

The only answers I can come up with are three:

1. The Incarnation is true, and God’s Divine Person added Humanity to His Divinity at the Incarnation, in time and space (but perhaps beforehand, mystically). It is a mystery beyond our knowledge, so we ought to drop the subject.
2. The Incarnation is true in image, and God’s Divine Person added a shadow human nature merely for the purpose of appearing to us, but it was not really a human nature because Divinity is unchanging and perfect. In this case, God never really became man and the Cross was a pointless show.
3. The Incarnation was not a real event, but merely the birth of a man. This absolutely destroys the Christian faith, and must be surmounted.
4. is the Church’s teaching, 2. is Manichaeism (though without the notion that “flesh is evil”, just imperfect), and 3. is Deism.

Observe the fact that such a seemingly trivial and hair-splitting distinction can have world-destroying consequences. I can go wherever God’s truth is, but not where He is not.

Thank you, God, for reason and logic, and for the love of Your majesty. Help us see your true nature, flawed though we are, through the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[tonyrey]

This does seem to be a problem. For example, according to Matthew 26:39: “And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying, and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
But if Jesus, being God, knew that the cup would not pass from Him, then why would He pray to His Father that the cup would pass from Him?

Since Jesus was like us in all things except sin His knowledge was limited while He was on earth. He wouldn’t have said that prayer if He knew for certain that He had to suffer and die. Although He believed it was His mission and trusted in the Father He experienced doubt and temptation like us. It is impossible to know to what extent His divinity is blended with His humanity. What we do know is that no one could have predicted that His love for us is so great that He would suffer and die for us. That dispels any doubts about whether He is the Son of God.

 

[FightingFat]

Now, if Christ is indeed God (an indisputable notion in my mind), He is God from eternity, and totally immutable in essence, following the ontological necessity of God. It seems that, in “becoming man”, a fundamental addition was made to His divine nature: that is, He took on a human nature in addition to His divinity. Christ being God, how can He (perfect and unmoved) be moved from One Nature (Divine) to Two Natures (Divine and Human)? How can the hypostatic union actually exist as a change, Christ only assuming a human nature after the Incarnation? It seems to contradict the very criteria for calling a being eternal, for eternity does not shift.

If you shout very loudly at a child about to stick a fork into an electric socket (for example) your words have an immediate effect on that small being. How much more efficacious is the eternal Word of God then? This is a Word Mary heard and which was so efficacious, it took form in her womb and became Incarnate. Awesome!

 

[Hastrman]

My spin on the Incarnation RE: God’s omnipotence is, “omnipotence” means only being able to actualize any potential (thus he cannot make a square circle, etc.). However, a thing’s potential comes from its nature, and Original Sin had marred human nature. Therefore not even omnipotence could fix it, since it can only actualize potentials.

So God took on human nature, became basically a Second Adam—because in such a manner, he could fix human nature, and thus restore the potential, something for his omnipotence to act upon.

Not sure if that’s your question or not, but it’s something I had some trouble with a while back.

 

[tonyrey]

My spin on the Incarnation RE: God’s omnipotence is, “omnipotence” means only being able to actualize any potential (thus he cannot make a square circle, etc.). However, a thing’s potential comes from its nature, and Original Sin had marred human nature. Therefore not even omnipotence could fix it, since it can only actualize potentials.

So God took on human nature, became basically a Second Adam—because in such a manner, he could fix human nature, and thus restore the potential, something for his omnipotence to act upon.

Your point is supported by the fact that God’s omnipotence is constrained by His gift of free will. He shares His power with us even though we defy His will and disfigure what He has created. The world is out of His control in direct proportion to the extent that it is under our control. That is why salvation had to come from humanity…

 

[GloriousOrder]

Well, if we ordinary people can’t figure it out, perhaps it’s time to look to the saints. Surely, the answer lies in Aquinas somewhere; rather, he has the key to the library. It’s quite something to see just how far that great man has brought us, thanks to God.

 

[VeritasSeeker]

Yes! What I’m wondering is: was the “apple” of Christ not entirely white on the inside and outside before the Incarnation, or was He both red and white before the Incarnation?If the human nature assumed by Christ is contigent and His divine nature is accidental, how can it be said that He is now glorified in Heaven with two natures? Surely, only that which is essential would have been retained in the eternal God. If God is made up of any part that is not essential, He would cease to be God altogether. The essential quality of anything means that it must be 100% essential, with no superfluities. This is the only way I believe in God: that He is unmoved, even by Himself. If God can change His own composition, He is objectively changeable, and thus not God.

You seem to misunderstand the doctrine of the Incarnation. The 2nd person of the Trinity’s human nature did not exist before the incarnation. Before the incarnation he had a divine nature, which is **not accidental ** as you say, but necessary. In the incarnation, the divine nature of the Son was joined but not mixed with the human nature in one divine Person, who was both “truly God and truly man”. 100% God, 100% man.

 

[GloriousOrder]

You seem to misunderstand the doctrine of the Incarnation. The 2nd person of the Trinity’s human nature did not exist before the incarnation. Before the incarnation he had a divine nature, which is **not accidental ** as you say, but necessary. In the incarnation, the divine nature of the Son was joined but not mixed with the human nature in one divine Person, who was both “truly God and truly man”. 100% God, 100% man.

I am truly sorry. In re-reading that post of mine, I realised that I said “the divine nature is accidental”, when I most certainly meant “essential”! What a huge blunder!