Hypostatic Union violates law of non-contradiction

[pro_universal]

B’luved. This stuff has all been worked out. It floats in and out of my ability to regurgitate it but I am sure that a little looking would lead you to good discussions of all of this. I wish I knew where to point you – other than to Augustine’s De Trinitate. Sounds like you need to start just a little lower down on the ladder (no insult there: this is heady stuff and you need to creep up on it in baby steps.)

Mercygate,

Actually, De Trinitate is where I got my deepest understanding of the trinity. I don’t take it as an insult, but actually, yeah…I spent an entire half year reading and writing about De Trinitate. It was certainly a good effort, but Augustine himself admits in the book that none of his analogies are really that useful, and seems resigned to agree that the trinity is a matter of faith…if you believe it, it will be made clear, but it certainly isn’t clear on its own.

Catholic philosophy was a big part of my life…that’s mostly what I studied in college. I used to leave the trinity to mystery for myself, but I’m not comfortable with that anymore.

 

[pro_universal]

Christian theology understands that on the cross, God died.

That would be another in the list of contradictions we get from the trinity.

An immortal God (by definition, one who cannot die) dying.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Pro Universal,

First of all, greetings. (I don’t think our paths have crossed on the forums before).

This conversation has certainly become quite complex. . and I’d like to engage it and hopefully contribute in useful way. . .so to that end I thought I might address your original query first.

God is without limit by definition. Do we agree on that?

man is by definition limited. Do we agree on that?

If we agree with both of those propositions, then we get the result that Jesus, by virtue of being fully God (and thus fully unlimited) and fully man (thus, limited) would be a contradiction. You would state it this way:

Jesus is unlimited and infinite, and Jesus is limited and finite.

How would anyone here resolve that contradiction?

I would attempt to resolve that apparent contradiction by examining more closely your premises. Both statements (God is without limit; man is limited) posit something about the nature of God and the nature of man. So, in my mind, your statements are more accurately rendered:

The Divine nature is unlimited.
Human nature is limited.

This rendering would be relfected in your apparent contradiction as “Jesus is unlimited and infinite in His Divine Nature, and Jesus is limited and finite in His human nature.”

Or perhaps we can with more eloquence say that “Christ, in His Divine Nature is unlimited, and in His human nature is limited.”

Which, given the concept of “a nature” and the modifiers “Divine” and “human”, the above sentence can be refined to be:

“Christ has a Divine Nature and a human nature.”

I see no contradiction in this statement. The dogma that Christ, the one Person, posseses at the same time two distinct natures is mysterious, shocking, unprecedented, and unrepeated. . . but it does not seem to me logically incoherent, or something that our reason may not justifiably adhere to or assent to.

What do you think?
God bless you,
VC

 

[pro_universal]

VC,

Nice to meet you also, and I am happy to engage in this discussion with you.

I agree that we can express the teaching in the sentence:

“Christ has a Divine Nature and a Human Nature”

But I don’t see how that gets beyond the apparent contradiction. If you try to elaborate what the word “has” means in that sentence, you will run into the same set of problems in the original contradiction.

You said:

The dogma that Christ, the one Person, posseses at the same time two distinct natures is mysterious, shocking, unprecedented, and unrepeated

The problem is that these two natures are themselves contradictory, and still united in one person. Writing a sentence so that the natures appear separate only serves to lead us away from asking questions about what it means for both of those natures to be in “hypostatic union.”

 

[Verbum_Caro]

VC,

The problem is that these two natures are themselves contradictory, and still united in one person.

Pro,

I’m not sure what you mean that the two natures are themselves contradictory. I have a feeling that you may be objecting on cosmological grounds, i.e. that it is unfitting for such natures as these to be united, and not objecting strictly on logical grounds.

In other words is it possible that you may accept that, in the abstract, there is no logical contradiction with saying the One Person may have two distinct natures, but that on further examination you do not accept the possiblity that a Divine nature may be united with a human nature?

Perhaps if you ask yourself whether it would be logically impossible for a generic substance to have two generic natures we might be able to see if your objection stems from an apparent violation of the principle of non-contradiction or rather stems from “a sign of contradiction” to the gentiles?

Interested in your thoughts on this matter,
VC

 

[maurin]

pro_universal,

You don’t know how much I appreciate the tone with which you present your arguments. You make me desire to treat you with respect and charity due to all brothers and sisters, something that I am having a very difficult time maintaining (and fail miserably) on the other board from which this thread has originated. I thank you. On my own, I am a worm.

Reading through your responses, two issues are raised in my mind:

1. It seems to me that you are confused that Jesus’ Divine nature is an exact replica of the Father’s. The Son does everything the Father does, but from His own unique perspective. Unity in distinction. Otherwise the Scriptures would not distinguish between “Father” and “Son” and “Spirit,” but would speak only of God.
2. Original human nature before the fall, and human nature after the fall is not the same thing. Adam was made in the Image and Likeness of God, and lived in God’s presence. Does it seem to you that original human nature is at odds with the Divine, or is contradictory to the Divine, if before the fall, Adam, in his original nature, and God talked together in each other’s presence (Gen 3:8)?

After the expulsion from Paradise, God and humanity do not speak to one another in each other’s presence; the conversation between The Lord and Cain is not preceded by the same words as found in 3:8.

The Human nature that Jesus Christ possessed could not be the same nature we possess as a result of Adam’s sin, rather the nature we possessed “in the Image and Likeness of God” before the fall.

I ask you to please excuse the imprecision and immaturity of my vocabulary. I am not as well versed as you and the others in Theology.

 

[pro_universal]

Pro,

I’m not sure what you mean that the two natures are themselves contradictory. I have a feeling that you may be objecting on cosmological grounds, i.e. that it is unfitting for such natures as these to be united, and not objecting strictly on logical grounds.

Well, I do object on logical grounds in that, by definition, a divine nature is unlimited. A human nature is by definition, limited.

In other words is it possible that you may accept that, in the abstract, there is no logical contradiction with saying the One Person may have two distinct natures, but that on further examination you do not accept the possiblity that a Divine nature may be united with a human nature?

The fact that it’s two natures would never be a problem on its own, that’s certainly correct.

Perhaps if you ask yourself whether it would be logically impossible for a generic substance to have two generic natures we might be able to see if your objection stems from an apparent violation of the principle of non-contradiction or rather stems from “a sign of contradiction” to the gentiles?

Interested in your thoughts on this matter,
VC

Well, that’s not really the issue here. A soul is not the same as a body, yet they are united and there’s no problem.

The logical problem is in the content of the natures.

Try this: List some of what we know about the Divine, versus what we know about the definition of humanity.

The Divine is infinite, all powerful, and all knowing in the Judeo Christian tradition. It is not material, nor confined by any material limitation.

Human nature is defined almost entirely by its limitations…it has a body, it has quantifiable powers of reasoning and motion, etc etc.

That is why it is contradictory (not just unfitting) to unite the two natures into one person. We end up with the situation of saying, at the same time, that God is immaterial and infinite and God is material and finite.

Thanks for the reply, I’d like to see what you think.

 

[pro_universal]

pro_universal,

You don’t know how much I appreciate the tone with which you present your arguments. You make me desire to treat you with respect and charity due to all brothers and sisters, something that I am having a very difficult time maintaining (and fail miserably) on the other board from which this thread has originated. I thank you. On my own, I am a worm.

Reading through your responses, two issues are raised in my mind:

1. It seems to me that you are confused that Jesus’ Divine nature is an exact replica of the Father’s. The Son does everything the Father does, but from His own unique perspective. Unity in distinction. Otherwise the Scriptures would not distinguish between “Father” and “Son” and “Spirit,” but would speak only of God.
2. Original human nature before the fall, and human nature after the fall is not the same thing. Adam was made in the Image and Likeness of God, and lived in God’s presence. Does it seem to you that original human nature is at odds with the Divine, or is contradictory to the Divine, if before the fall, Adam, in his original nature, and God talked together in each other’s presence (Gen 3:8)?

After the expulsion from Paradise, God and humanity do not speak to one another in each other’s presence; the conversation between The Lord and Cain is not preceded by the same words as found in 3:8.

The Human nature that Jesus Christ possessed could not be the same nature we possess as a result of Adam’s sin, rather the nature we possessed “in the Image and Likeness of God” before the fall.

I ask you to please excuse the imprecision and immaturity of my vocabulary. I am not as well versed as you and the others in Theology.

Thanks for the kind words maurin, and I really think you’re doing a good job of explaining the teaching. You have a grasp and an interest I’d say goes right to the heart of what the trinity means.

I think the pre-fall human nature argument is a very good one, but it still faces the problem of limits. Maybe it is more fitting (to use VC’s term) to see the union of human and divine in this light, but I still don’t see how it solves the problem of humanity being limited (which Adam certainly was-he was capable of one big mistake!) versus the divine being unlimited.

 

[maurin]

Thanks for the kind words maurin, and I really think you’re doing a good job of explaining the teaching. You have a grasp and an interest I’d say goes right to the heart of what the trinity means.

I think the pre-fall human nature argument is a very good one, but it still faces the problem of limits. Maybe it is more fitting (to use VC’s term) to see the union of human and divine in this light, but I still don’t see how it solves the problem of humanity being limited (which Adam certainly was-he was capable of one big mistake!) versus the divine being unlimited.

Added 10 minutes after first posting the below: (Remember, I am a worm on my own, I apologize): Thank you for you kind words. I am interested in knowing your perspective, though. For example:

You do not address the fact that in his original nature, being made in the Image and Likeness of God, even with his limitations, that Genesis clearly gives the image of Adam and God in each other’s presence in the Garden

I can only conclude, because I do not yet know your response, that you see a contradiction inherent in the account rendered in Genesis.

Neither do you address the different perspectives of the Divine nature that I tried to illuminate.

Again, please excuse the imprecision and immaturity of my vocabulary.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Pro,

Thank you for your excellent response, I’m glad we can continue the discussion.

Well, I do object on logical grounds in that, by definition, a divine nature is unlimited. A human nature is by definition, limited.

(. . . )

The logical problem is in the content of the natures.

Thank you for this explanation of your position. I think I am beginning to understand what exactly is at issue here for you, and I feel justified in characterizing it as a cosmological problem (based on logic to be sure!) as opposed to a strictly logical problem.

And I think that most of the previous posts to you were approaching this discussion as if you were objecting, on the basis of self-evident princples, to the hypostatic union. This is understandable because the origin of this thread was an allegation that the Hypostatic Union as dogmatically formulated is a violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Limiting ourselves soley to that fundamental principle of logic, I think you and I would agree that there is no such violation.

That is why it is contradictory (not just unfitting) to unite the two natures into one person. We end up with the situation of saying, at the same time, that God is immaterial and infinite and God is material and finite.

Given my analysis above, I take it that your use of the term “contradictory” is not meant to invoke a violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction, but rather that there is some logical inconsistency in the formulation of the Hypostatic Union, based on what we know about God and man.

Am I characterizing you rightly?
This is an important distinction because the discussion regarding the Principle of Non-Contradiction is different from the discussion about the theology of the Hypostatic Union.

In conclusion, I just wanted to second Maurin’s comment about your dignified approach to this conversation.

Awaiting your thoughts,
VC

 

[pro_universal]

VC,

Thanks to you and Maurin both for engaging in this with me! This is certainly an environment that encourages open discussion.

For the points:

Am I characterizing you rightly?
This is an important distinction because the discussion regarding the Principle of Non-Contradiction is different from the discussion about the theology of the Hypostatic Union.

I wouldn’t say you are characterizing the issue rightly, because the issue of limited versus unlimited is not simply theorizing about the nature of God versus the nature of man. It is using language from the teaching itself, to show a strictly logical contradiction.

Whatever the affairs of the universe are out there (which would be relevant if I were making the cosmological point), it is logically inconsistent to elaborate a series of premises which contain:

Jesus is limited and:

Jesus is not limited.

The language itself is the source of the contradiction. If you think I have misconstrued the language of trinitarian dogma, please feel free to call me on it and I will correct myself here.

It is certainly possible to use sentences that do not appear to be contradictory to elaborate the teaching, but restricting ourselves to those sentences would mean not actually being faithful to what the teaching represents. That is what I meant to convey with my critique of the “Jesus has two natures” approach. The sentence itself is grammatically coherent, but if we are not allowed to substitute more detailed terms for “has” and “two natures” and “Jesus”, we can’t really say what the sentence means. And if we want to explain fully what the sentence means…then we get basic violations of the principle of non contradiction.

 

[pro_universal]

Added 10 minutes after first posting the below: (Remember, I am a worm on my own, I apologize): Thank you for you kind words. I am interested in knowing your perspective, though. For example:

You do not address the fact that in his original nature, being made in the Image and Likeness of God, even with his limitations, that Genesis clearly gives the image of Adam and God in each other’s presence in the Garden

I can only conclude, because I do not yet know your response, that you see a contradiction inherent in the account rendered in Genesis.

Neither do you address the different perspectives of the Divine nature that I tried to illuminate.

Again, please excuse the imprecision and immaturity of my vocabulary.

There is no excuse necessary, I read you loud and clear and you make a good point.

But to make myself more clear, I don’t see a contradiction in the genesis account. The particular properties of man aren’t really at issue for me. Whatever Adam was before the fall, and whatever an ideal man is, I think we can agree that he is limited in a way that God by nature is not.

 

[maurin]

Hello pro_universal,

I hope that I am not understood as trying to debate you, or discredit your views. My intention is to understand, in the light of the Genesis text, how the Hypostatic Union could be seen as a contradiction.

I agree that man, even in his most perfect state as before the fall, is limited in a way that God by nature is not. However, Adam, it is clear from the text, enjoyed life in God’s presence before eating the apple.

So the question begs to be answered: How is this a contradiction?, or is it only a contradiction in man’s limited abilities to understand logic? If it were logical for God, how could it not be logical for man?

 

[pro_universal]

Hello pro_universal,

I hope that I am not understood as trying to debate you, or discredit your views. My intention is to understand, in the light of the Genesis text, how the Hypostatic Union could be seen as a contradiction.

I agree that man, even in his most perfect state as before the fall, is limited in a way that God by nature is not. However, Adam, it is clear from the text, enjoyed life in God’s presence before eating the apple.

So the question begs to be answered: How is this a contradiction?, or is it only a contradiction in man’s limited abilities to understand logic? If it were logical for God, how could it not be logical for man?

It is a contradiction by virtue of the person of Jesus being “limited” and “unlimited” at the same time.

There are certainly some things we don’t understand, but this is an issue that’s pretty clear. “A and Not A” is a contradiction, and one that we can understand.

So the contradiction here is this: Jesus is Man and God.

Man=limited (from the definition of the nature of man that we agree on.)

God=not limited (from the definition of God that we also agree on.)

So what we are really saying when we say Jesus is Man and God, is Jesus is [limited] and [not limited]

It’s more than fair that you challenge my positions, I hope you will continue to help me to think the issue through!

 

[maurin]

pro_universal,

I am so happy to hear that I am not coming off as aggressive, as I am so apt to do. Thank you for your reassurance.

However, the question still is not answered. I once again return to the text of Genesis which clearly shows Adam and God in each other’s presence in Paradise before the fall, and never again does God share His presence on earth with a man after the fall (except with Moses, who was not allowed to see God’s face, Ex 33:20-23).

So, it seems to me, if I follow the logic which you present, and I consider the totality of the Scriptural evidence, I come to three (you and others may see more) conclusions:

1. Perfect human nature and the Divine nature are similar, and there is no contradiction
2. There is a contradiction in the Hypostatic Union, and also in the Genesis account.
3. God’s logic is way above our best attempts at logic, and what seems illogical to even our best minds, is not illogic but proof that our limitations will always prevent us from knowing the truth.

Obviously, I choose 1. I do so because Scriptures begin with the Holiness of human nature, and end with the re-sanctification of human nature, by virtue of our Lord Jesus Christ’s Redemption and Salvation of that nature. (Rev 22:20).

 

[mercygate]

OK. I checked out of this discussion quite far up the thread because it’s way over my head, and I am content to let it stay that way because this is EXHAUSTING! :whacky:

So ignore this comment if it distracts from the issue, but wouldn’t it be a good thought to work from the framework of the doctrine of the hypostatic union using the language of the Athanasian symbol? Or have you gone so far beyond that skeletal formulation that it’s too late?

pro: I’m trying to understand why it would be contradictory for two natures, even though unequal, to subsist in the divine personhood. Don’t even try to explain: I won’t understand anyway. Just keep hacking at the details. I’ll watch.

 

[maurin]

So ignore this comment if it distracts from the issue, but wouldn’t it be a good thought to work from the framework of the doctrine of the hypostatic union using the language of the Athanasian symbol? Or have you gone so far beyond that skeletal formulation that it’s too late?

.

May I ask you to post this, or provide a link? I too am in the deep end of the pool.

Thanks mercygate.

m

 

[pro_universal]

OK. I checked out of this discussion quite far up the thread because it’s way over my head, and I am content to let it stay that way because this is EXHAUSTING! :whacky:

So ignore this comment if it distracts from the issue, but wouldn’t it be a good thought to work from the framework of the doctrine of the hypostatic union using the language of the Athanasian symbol? Or have you gone so far beyond that skeletal formulation that it’s too late?

pro: I’m trying to understand why it would be contradictory for two natures, even though unequal, to subsist in the divine personhood. Don’t even try to explain: I won’t understand anyway. Just keep hacking at the details. I’ll watch.

Well, we could use the Athanasian creed, and that’s a more obvious form of contradiction, but I stick to the limited/unlimited issue because it is more clear and doesn’t involve as many premises.

Look at it this way…I’m going to provide a chain of statements, you tell me which of the statements you agree with:

1. Jesus is wholly God
2. Jesus is wholly Man
3. It is always true to say about God that God is unlimited.
4. It is always true to say about Man that man is limited.

So:

Jesus is wholly God [ie, wholly unlimited]

and Jesus is wholly Man [ie, wholly limited]

Does that by chance make the contradiction I’m seeing more clear? Belief in the two natures means that it would possible to say: “Jesus is wholly limited” and “Jesus is wholly not limited” at the same time, and be correct. That’s what a contradiction is: “A and Not A” in the same set of premises.

 

[mercygate]

May I ask you to post this, or provide a link? I too am in the deep end of the pool.

Thanks mercygate.

m

Happy to oblige. :tiphat: Just don’t expect me to think.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

 

[mercygate]

Well, we could use the Athanasian creed, and that’s a more obvious form of contradiction, but I stick to the limited/unlimited issue because it is more clear and doesn’t involve as many premises.

Look at it this way…I’m going to provide a chain of statements, you tell me which of the statements you agree with:

1. Jesus is wholly God
2. Jesus is wholly Man
3. It is always true to say about God that God is unlimited.
4. It is always true to say about Man that man is limited.

So:

Jesus is wholly God [ie, wholly unlimited]

and Jesus is wholly Man [ie, wholly limited]

Does that by chance make the contradiction I’m seeing more clear? Belief in the two natures means that it would possible to say: “Jesus is wholly limited” and “Jesus is wholly not limited” at the same time, and be correct. That’s what a contradiction is: “A and Not A” in the same set of premises.

I promised not to muddy the waters but is the limitation of (perfect) humanity such that it cannot co-exist with God, since our human nature (according to the usual Christian ontology) is destined to be united with God. The limitation of humanity is more to its beginning than to its end, isn’t it? – since we are destined for eternal life. This is where that “respect” issue comes back into play.

Again: ignore this if it’s off your line of thinking because I’m not up to playing on this court.