Hypostatic Union violates law of non-contradiction

[pro_universal]

I have a question about the hypostatic union, and I think these arguments about non-contradiction are pretty serious.

I realize there are two different natures in the union, but if you elaborate what those two natures mean, then you see contradictions.

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?

 

[Ghosty]

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

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

The problem here is that you are assuming that Christ is entirely man, rather than simply possessing the entirety of humanity. It isn’t necessary that Christ be absolutely limited in order to be man, only that His humanity have human limits (such as being material).

If you were to use this same reasoning you’d run into a problem even describing humans, who are body and soul. I have the entirety of a soul, and the entirety of a body, but I’m not entirely a body. If I were entirely a body you would be cutting my soul when you cut me with a knife, but that is impossible. The property of being divisible, cuttable, belongs to my body and ends with my body, not transfering to my soul. So I as a person am “cuttable”, but in my body and not my soul.

Likewise, the Son as a Person is “limited”, but in His humanity and not His Divinity. For the same reason we can say that the Son truly died on the Cross, even though the Divine Nature can’t die.

Peace and God bless!

 

[pro_universal]

The problem here is that you are assuming that Christ is entirely man, rather than simply possessing the entirety of humanity. It isn’t necessary that Christ be absolutely limited in order to be man, only that His humanity have human limits (such as being material).

But his humanity is united with his divinity, isn’t it? To me it’s different than a normal human, because our souls are limited also. They aren’t unlimited, infinite Gods.

If Jesus had limits as a human, but also possessed full divinity…well, did he know everything or did he not know everything? I still see a contradiction there between Christ being fully human and divine.

Likewise, the Son as a Person is “limited”, but in His humanity and not His Divinity. For the same reason we can say that the Son truly died on the Cross, even though the Divine Nature can’t die.

Peace and God bless!

Interesting idea, but this would imply that some things happened to Jesus which did not happen to God.

Would you agree that that is the case, and if so, is that really orthodox theology?

 

[PaulusRobertus]

One nature three person. No contraddiction.
There would be contraddiction if God had one and three natures.

 

[pro_universal]

One nature three person. No contraddiction.
There would be contraddiction if God had one and three natures.

But Jesus did have more than one nature. He had two.

Do you agree that Jesus is God?

 

[mercygate]

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

How would anyone here resolve that contradiction?

We’re lucky. Since all of this was worked out in the 5th Century, we need look no further than Chalcedonian definition in which the hypostatic union is described thus:

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.

 

[pro_universal]

We’re lucky. Since all of this was worked out in the 5th Century, we need look no further than Chalcedonian definition in which the hypostatic union is described thus:

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.

That’s a restatement of the trinity.

I don’t see how it resolves the problem…look at it through this example:

Did Jesus know everything? If not, then he was not fully God.

If yes, then he was not fully human (since part of being fully human is the experience of finite knowledge.)

So did Jesus know everything, or did he not know everything?

 

[Ghosty]

But his humanity is united with his divinity, isn’t it? To me it’s different than a normal human, because our souls are limited also. They aren’t unlimited, infinite Gods.

Our souls aren’t limited in the same way as the body, however, even though they have their own limits. This is why the soul can’t be cut up, which is a limitation of composite matter and not spirit.

If Jesus had limits as a human, but also possessed full divinity…well, did he know everything or did he not know everything? I still see a contradiction there between Christ being fully human and divine.

His human mind was only capable of knowing what a human mind can know, and what’s more only knew what it was Willed to know by the Divine. His Divinity obviously knows all things. Therefore we can say that Christ knows all things, but not by His humanity.

Interesting idea, but this would imply that some things happened to Jesus which did not happen to God.

No, it means that some things happened to the Person of the Son (who is God) that did not happen through the Divine Nature, just like things can happen to me that don’t happen to my soul specifically (my spiritual nature), such as being cut. I am a human by virtue of my human soul (which is immaterial in nature), even though certain things happen to my body (which is material in nature) that don’t happen to my soul in a strict sense, but only by virtue of my soul possessing a material body.

Same with the Son, as certain things happen to Him by virtue of His human nature which aren’t strictly applicable to the Divine Nature in Itself, such as dying, but happen to the Son by virtue of the Son possessing a human nature.

Peace and God bless!

 

[pro_universal]

Our souls aren’t limited in the same way as the body, however, even though they have their own limits. This is why the soul can’t be cut up, which is a limitation of composite matter and not spirit.

Sure, but it’s still a finite soul, and it goes with our finite capabilities. I don’t see any even apparent contradiction in this idea.

His human mind was only capable of knowing what a human mind can know, and what’s more only knew what it was Willed to know by the Divine. His Divinity obviously knows all things. Therefore we can say that Christ knows all things, but not by His humanity.

Okay, but the Divine is his mind also. So did Christ have two separate minds with two separate consciousnesses? And if he knew all things, how did he experience the human state of finite knowledge?

No, it means that some things happened to the Person of the Son (who is God) that did not happen through the Divine Nature, just like things can happen to me that don’t happen to my soul specifically (my spiritual nature), such as being cut. I am a human by virtue of my human soul (which is immaterial in nature), even though certain things happen to my body (which is material in nature) that don’t happen to my soul in a strict sense, but only by virtue of my soul possessing a material body.

In other words…some things happened to Jesus that didn’t happen to God?

Is that what you mean?

You’re talking about how things happen…but I’m talking about what they happen to. If Jesus died without God dying, then Jesus would have to be separable from God (otherwise, how could Jesus die without God dying too?)…and that would be an example of something that happened to Jesus, but did not happen to God. It would seem to violate the teaching that Jesus is fully God.

 

[Ghosty]

If yes, then he was not fully human (since part of being fully human is the experience of finite knowledge.)

Incorrect.

Humanity is limited in its capacity for knowledge, this is true, and in His humanity Christ shares that limitation. This limitation only extends to the bounds of humanity, however, and doesn’t “spill back” onto His Divinity, nor does it limit the whole of His Person since the Son is both human and Divine.

This is the difference between being entirely human, and having the entirety of human. Just like I am not entirely eye, nor entirely foot, but I have the entirety of eyes and the entirety of feet. If I were entirely foot I would not be able to see, and if entirely eye I couldn’t walk. I as a person have the entirety of both, however, so I can walk and see perfectly.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mercygate]

That’s a restatement of the trinity.

Look at the whole Athanasian symbol again. This paragraph follows upon the delineation of the relation of the persons in the Trinity and begins with:

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.

I don’t see how it resolves the problem…look at it through this example:

Did Jesus know everything? If not, then he was not fully God.

If yes, then he was not fully human (since part of being fully human is the experience of finite knowledge.)

So did Jesus know everything, or did he not know everything?

Jesus knew everything in his divine Person, but in his humanity needed to learn what humans learn: Joseph taught him carpentry. Try the *Catechism *on this. It’s pretty clear and should sort out the issues for you.

 

[pro_universal]

Incorrect.

Humanity is limited in its capacity for knowledge, this is true, and in His humanity Christ shares that limitation. This limitation only extends to the bounds of humanity, however, and doesn’t “spill back” onto His Divinity, nor does it limit the whole of His Person since the Son is both human and Divine.

But wait, isn’t Christ’s divinity united with his humanity? How can something influence one part of Christ and not another?

God is without division. But if something can happen to part of God (the human part) and not to another part of God (the God part), that would require a division.

This is the difference between being entirely human, and having the entirety of human. Just like I am not entirely eye, nor entirely foot, but I have the entirety of eyes and the entirety of feet. If I were entirely foot I would not be able to see, and if entirely eye I couldn’t walk. I as a person have the entirety of both, however, so I can walk and see perfectly.

Peace and God bless!

If we use this analogy, then Jesus was just a tool that God used to experience humanity, and not identical to God himself. I don’t think that’s what the trinity says, though.

 

[Ghosty]

You’re talking about how things happen…but I’m talking about what they happen to. If Jesus died without God dying, then Jesus would have to be separable from God (otherwise, how could Jesus die without God dying too?)…and that would be an example of something that happened to Jesus, but did not happen to God. It would seem to violate the teaching that Jesus is fully God.

You’re confusing “God” with “Divine Nature”.

Is Jesus God? Yes.

Is Jesus the Son? Yes.

Is the Father God? Yes.

Is the Father the Son? No.

You have to distinguish between the Divine Person, which HAS the Divine Nature, from the Divine Nature Itself, which is shared by three distinct Persons. Only the Person of the Son, who is God, had a human nature, so human things like death apply to God the Son, but not God the Father even though they share the Divine Nature.

So, did God die? Yes, as the Person of the Son.

Did the Divine Nature die? No, because that would mean the Father died as well, which is heresy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[pro_universal]

Look at the whole Athanasian symbol again. This paragraph follows upon the delineation of the relation of the persons in the Trinity and begins with:

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.

That would be precisely the source of the contradiction we’re exploring here.

Jesus knew everything in his divine Person, but in his humanity needed to learn what humans learn: Joseph taught him carpentry. Try the *Catechism *on this. It’s pretty clear and should sort out the issues for you.

Well, it’s certainly clear, but I think the problem is that the teaching leaves unavoidable contradictions. Clear doesn’t necessarily mean logically consistent.

Jesus humanity cannot be separated from his divinity. If you accept that, then it’s hard to see how it could possibly be that something happened to his humanity (namely, learning new information) that didn’t also happen to his divinity. If something could happen to one part of Jesus and not another, that would mean Jesus had divisions…and being that Jesus is God, that would mean we have a divisible God.

 

[pro_universal]

You’re confusing “God” with “Divine Nature”.

Could you please define clearly the “Divine Nature” as opposed to “God.” How is God different from the divine nature?

So, did God die? Yes, as the Person of the Son.

Did the Divine Nature die? No, because that would mean the Father died as well, which is heresy.

Peace and God bless!

But wait…if God is by nature triune, then for Jesus to be God, he would also have to be the Father and Holy Spirit. Otherwise, there would be a “God” who is somehow different from the triune persons, ie, a God who is not the Father and the Holy Spirit, but is Jesus.

I don’t see how this distinction between “Divine nature” and “God” can result in anything other than a multiple God theology, or in contradiction.

 

[Mickey]

I don’t see how this distinction between “Divine nature” and “God” can result in anything other than a multiple God theology, or in contradiction.

I’ll bet Arius used to present similar arguments.

A dangerous heresy indeed!

 

[pro_universal]

I’ll bet Arius used to present similar arguments.

A dangerous heresy indeed!

It certainly is in terms of orthodox. But it’s dangerous precisely because the doctrine certainly appears to be contradictory.

 

[mercygate]

Could you please define clearly the “Divine Nature” as opposed to “God.” How is God different from the divine nature?

But wait…if God is by nature triune, then for Jesus to be God, he would also have to be the Father and Holy Spirit. Otherwise, there would be a “God” who is somehow different from the triune persons, ie, a God who is not the Father and the Holy Spirit, but is Jesus.

I don’t see how this distinction between “Divine nature” and “God” can result in anything other than a multiple God theology, or in contradiction.

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]

That would be precisely the source of the contradiction we’re exploring here.

Well, it’s certainly clear, but I think the problem is that the teaching leaves unavoidable contradictions. Clear doesn’t necessarily mean logically consistent.

Jesus humanity cannot be separated from his divinity. If you accept that, then it’s hard to see how it could possibly be that something happened to his humanity (namely, learning new information) that didn’t also happen to his divinity. If something could happen to one part of Jesus and not another, that would mean Jesus had divisions…and being that Jesus is God, that would mean we have a divisible God.

Christian theology understands that on the cross, God died.

 

[Mickey]

because the doctrine certainly appears to be contradictory.

Perhaps to you (and Arius)–but not in terms of orthodoxy. Three cheers for homoousios!!!