Philosophy: Christ Wholly Divine and Wholly Human

[cpayne]

Mirdath and I were getting involved in a discussion on another thread regarding Christ being wholly divine and wholly human. (The thread got taken off the site which has happened on the two previous threads I have jumped in on yes I am getting a little paranoid was it something I wrote no I’m not kidding well maybe I am kidding a little but anyway back to the point.)

There, I feel better. Anyway, Mirdath was arguing that Christ being both wholly divine and wholly human was a contradiction in terms and violated the law of non-contradiction (A and not-A is always false). I was arguing that it was not a contradiction and did not violate the l. of non-c.

I thought that argument was worth resuscitating (out of the mess that thread was becoming). If anyone (including Mirdath) wants to jump back in on this, feel free.

 

[Dale_M]

I thought this was a basic Catholic belief, but one which defies philosophy. Rather, it is simply to be accepted as a mystery.

 

[cpayne]

I thought this was a basic Catholic belief, but one which defies philosophy. Rather, it is simply to be accepted as a mystery.

True, but. I think part of the argument Mirdath and I were having revolved around “mystery” (or “paradox,” as another poster over there put it). Mirdath thought that was more or less a Christian way of saying “illogical” but feeling okay about it, and I was arguing that, even though a mystery, it is not illogical (in the sense of violating logical inference laws).

Our basic argument, if I may put words in Mirdath’s mouth: He said “wholly divine and wholly human” was another way of saying “A and not-A” at the same time (which is illogical), and I was arguing that it wasn’t.

But I agree with you that the Incarnation is a profound mystery that goes beyond logic (but does not violate it).

 

[Truthstalker]

Christ is wholely divine and wholely human, but that does not mean He is completely either or only either. It’s as if someone is to insist that only one nature is allowed: 50% each might be ok but not 100% each. The mystery is that uncreated God took on created human attributes and took on the form of a man. This does not in any way diminish His Godhood. Nor does it diminish Christ’s human nature. Fully God, fully human, in hypostatic union. They argued about this for centuries. We still argue about it. It is a mystery. But the mystery is deeper that you think. Or I think, for that matter.

 

[Sonic]

Mirdath and I were getting involved in a discussion on another thread regarding Christ being wholly divine and wholly human.

Think about it this way… God is infinite and omnipotent. Now that’s really big in comparison to all things. God is so big that we are incapable of comprehending what God is capable of comprehending. Think about the immense power and knowledge that a being that enormous would be capable of.

Anything that big, can do what ever it wants… when ever it wants… however it wants. The fact that we are incapable of putting it into a logical sequence explaining how its done… is the reason why it’s mystery.

 

[cpayne]

Sorry, can’t agree. “Deeper than you think”–yes, definitely. So deep no one can fully comprehend it. Violates laws of logical inference–no. Definitely, no.

 

[Sonic]

So deep no one can fully comprehend it. Violates laws of logical inference–no. Definitely, no.

honks Cpayne’s nose

So, does that answer. chuckle

 

[cor]

The relationship between person (hypostasis) and nature is one of “bearing” So, the Second Person of the Trinity bears a human nature and also bears a divine nature. There is no logical contradiction here. The facts can be expressed in symbolic logic like so:

Bsd AND Bsh AND Dd AND ~Dh AND Ds

where Bxy is “the person x bears the nature y”
and Dx is “x is divine”
~ is the negation operator

No logical contradiction can be derived from the above sentence in first-order logic. If Midrath thinks one can, he should be able to derive one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_order_logic

But let’s look at the statement: The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is Divine and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is not Divine. This can be expressed in second-order symbolic logic as:

Ds AND for some P (D=/=P AND Ps)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_order_logic

No logical contradiction can be derived from this either. But let’s look at one final statement: “The Second Person of the Trinity is Divine and it’s not the case that the Second Person of the Trinity is Divine” In such an event, we would have:

Ds AND ~Ds

and it’s very easy to derive a logical contradiction from this and in such a case Midrath would be right

 

[cpayne]

Yes. I think according to Aquinas the Second Person of the Trinity is Christ’s Person, which is wholly subsistent and wholly exists with the substantial, embodied nature of Christ. But that particular part of the ST (III.2.1-2) is very dense when I read it. Anyway, I agree: No logical violation because Christians do NOT say (or imply) that Christ both has a divine nature and does not have a divine nature.

 

[cpayne]

honks Cpayne’s nose

So, does that answer. chuckle

Anyway, since Mirdath did not appear to follow the argument over here, I will honk your nose in return and vacate the premises. God bless, everybody.

 

[Mirdath]

The last post I wrote before that thread went the way of the dodo was to the effect that divinity implies non-humanity. The contradiction is not explicit, but implicit: to be divine, one must be more than human. In other words, take humanity as P; divinity is implicitly not-P as it entirely supersedes humanity. Or one could work the other way, taking divinity as P; as humanity is distinctly different and lesser, it is one of many possible not-Ps.

Taking cor’s first and second points, they simply do not work if one assumes that a being can have only one nature – as would appear to be common sense. A nature describes the possessor entirely; to have two differing natures is then nonsensical, although it does not necessarily constitute a contradiction. Either way it looks bad.

On a less serious note, where are people getting the spelling ‘Midrath’ from? The name comes from Hodgson’s Night Land, not Dragonlance (as Google informs me is one source of ‘Midrath’).

cpayne:

Anyway, since Mirdath did not appear to follow the argument over here, I will honk your nose in return and vacate the premises. God bless, everybody.

Hey, it took me a while but I’m here

 

[cpayne]

The last post I wrote before that thread went the way of the dodo was to the effect that divinity implies non-humanity. The contradiction is not explicit, but implicit: to be divine, one must be more than human. In other words, take humanity as P; divinity is implicitly not-P as it entirely supersedes humanity. Or one could work the other way, taking divinity as P; as humanity is distinctly different and lesser, it is one of many possible not-Ps.

Taking cor’s first and second points, they simply do not work if one assumes that a being can have only one nature – as would appear to be common sense. A nature describes the possessor entirely; to have two differing natures is then nonsensical, although it does not necessarily constitute a contradiction. Either way it looks bad.

On a less serious note, where are people getting the spelling ‘Midrath’ from? The name comes from Hodgson’s Night Land, not Dragonlance (as Google informs me is one source of ‘Midrath’).

Hey, it took me a while but I’m here

Hi again. I really do have to take off but I wanted to respond at least once.

The listing I gave from Aquinas, as I mentioned, is pretty dense, but he appears to distinguish between the Person of the Word (which is Christ and which is wholly divine) and the nature arising from the substantial embodied form of Jesus (which also is Christ and which is wholly human). Read it over and see what you think.

Midrath, I think, is an end-times allusion–the Mid-Rath Rapture. And you like Hodgson? I’ve never read “The Night Land,” but his collection of Carnacki stories is absolutely phenomenal. Do you happen to like M.R. James?

Wait, don’t delete this. I’m back on the OP now.

 

[cpayne]

Okay, one more thing: I do agree with the other posters. The Incarnation is not a logical conclusion to an argument; it is an absolutely mysterious miracle; in fact, it is THE miracle. What I was arguing was that it is not therefore IL-logical.

 

[Mirdath]

Hi again. I really do have to take off but I wanted to respond at least once.

The listing I gave from Aquinas, as I mentioned, is pretty dense, but he appears to distinguish between the Person of the Word (which is Christ and which is wholly divine) and the nature arising from the substantial embodied form of Jesus (which also is Christ and which is wholly human). Read it over and see what you think.

I agree with Aquinas insofar that Person and Nature are distinct qualities; however, I maintain that a single Person is only capable of possessing one Nature.

Article 4, not 2, would appear to be the more relevant – and thankfully far less dense! However, it is ultimately unsatisfying.

Aquinas goes to some length to describe the Person of the Christ as composite in its possession of two natures; yet such composition makes the second Person of the trinity less than divine, a being of parts. A composite does not fit the apostle John’s description: the Word was with God, and the Word was God. For if the Word is also human, it is less than divine, and so not God – yet Aquinas would have it that it is God simultaneously! This, then, would be the inherent contradiction.

Earlier, in Article 2, Aquinas mentions that Person and Nature are ‘not really distinct’ when it comes to the divine; this, again, would seem to be at odds with the godhead’s possession of a composite nature – and with Aquinas’ own distinction between Person and Nature in Article 1.

---

And just so everyone who may not have had the good fortune to read the earlier thread before its untimely demise is clear, I am not attacking the faith – in fact, in my first post to that thread I specifically said that this is the function of faith as far as I understand it so far: to allow people to get over their reason telling them something is contradictory or paradoxical and to believe in it anyway.

Midrath, I think, is an end-times allusion–the Mid-Rath Rapture. And you like Hodgson? I’ve never read “The Night Land,” but his collection of Carnacki stories is absolutely phenomenal. Do you happen to like M.R. James?

I’ve only read The Night Land, although I’d like to read more Hodgson. If you enjoy Lovecraftian ‘weird fiction’ or Vance/Wolfe style Dying Earth stories, you owe it to yourself to check it out – TNL inspired both genres, even though it’s all but forgotten now. And yes, I’m a huge fan of M R James

 

[cpayne]

I agree with Aquinas insofar that Person and Nature are distinct qualities; however, I maintain that a single Person is only capable of possessing one Nature.

Article 4, not 2, would appear to be the more relevant – and thankfully far less dense! However, it is ultimately unsatisfying.

Aquinas goes to some length to describe the Person of the Christ as composite in its possession of two natures; yet such composition makes the second Person of the trinity less than divine, a being of parts. A composite does not fit the apostle John’s description: the Word was with God, and the Word was God. For if the Word is also human, it is less than divine, and so not God – yet Aquinas would have it that it is God simultaneously! This, then, would be the inherent contradiction.

Earlier, in Article 2, Aquinas mentions that Person and Nature are ‘not really distinct’ when it comes to the divine; this, again, would seem to be at odds with the godhead’s possession of a composite nature – and with Aquinas’ own distinction between Person and Nature in Article 1.

---

And just so everyone who may not have had the good fortune to read the earlier thread before its untimely demise is clear, I am not attacking the faith – in fact, in my first post to that thread I specifically said that this is the function of faith as far as I understand it so far: to allow people to get over their reason telling them something is contradictory or paradoxical and to believe in it anyway.

Sorry it took a while to get back to here. Yes, in that particular genre, M.R. James is my favorite writer.

If I am following you, it seems to me that Aquinas actually has responded to your objections, but you’re just not buying his response. Okay, I can live with that. Let me clarify one point, however; Aquinas is very clear (ST I.3.7) that God is simple in nature and in no way composite. This also applies to the Person of the Word, which is also simple (III.2.4), but which can be described conceptually as composite by reason of Christ’s wholly divine and wholly human natures. However, as you pointed out (quoting Aquinas), Person and Nature are “not really distinct” when speaking of God. This again is due to God’s simplicity; every attribute or feature of God is in a sense identical to every other attribute or feature of God, including Personhood and Nature. Your central objection, it seems to me, is that in dealing with Jesus we are also dealing with a wholly human nature, which seems to be one too many.

Let me try an analogy. (Fellow Christians, if this analogy doesn’t work, please point out the problem; I don’t want to mess up on something so crucial.) Aquinas writes, “Composition of a person from natures is not so called on account of parts, but by reason of number, even as that in which two things concur may be said to be composed of them” (III.2.4).

So for example, let’s say the First Lady of the United States and Laura Bush are both the same. However, Laura Bush is in a sense subsumed in “First Lady of the United States,” and the reverse cannot be said to be true. Laura Bush comes into existence; she has a substantial form embodied to bring about Laura Bush; at some point Laura Bush will be no more, at least not in her current embodiment. She will be elsewhere.

However, NONE of those things is true of “First Lady.” The First Lady has no substantial embodied form, did not come into existence in an embodied form, will not pass away in an embodied form. But the First Lady and Laura Bush are united; in fact, they are the same, regarded in two ways. Nature is united to Person in a way that Person cannot be united to nature. When Laura Bush passes away, First Lady will not pass away.

The human nature of Jesus Christ is His by nativity; this nature is united with the Person of the Word without beginning or end. This Person of the Word without beginning or end is also Jesus Christ. The substantial embodied form of Christ’s wholly human nature is united with the Person of the Word, His wholly divine nature.

Again, is this an unusual occurrence? Is it, in fact, wholly miraculous? Does my feeble analogy not even come close? Yes, yes, and yes to all three questions. But is it illogical? I still don’t think so, at least not in the sense that it violates laws of inference.

You are arguing something like this:

1. Christ has a wholly divine nature.
2. Christ has a wholly human nature.
3. But anything can only have one nature.
4. Therefore, either 1 or 2 has to be false.

But what I am questioning is # 3. I don’t think it is illogical to dispute that premise.

 

[cpayne]

Correction: instead of stating premise 3 as “Anything can only have one nature,” I should have said, “Anything can have only one nature.”

 

[cpayne]

I----------

And just so everyone who may not have had the good fortune to read the earlier thread before its untimely demise is clear, I am not attacking the faith – in fact, in my first post to that thread I specifically said that this is the function of faith as far as I understand it so far: to allow people to get over their reason telling them something is contradictory or paradoxical and to believe in it anyway.

I appreciate your spirit and attitude. However (you knew a however was coming) I disagree here as well. I (and Aquinas) do not think it is possible to believe something you know cannot be true. If something violates the law of non-contradiction it cannot be true. The kind of faith you are describing seems like what Aquinas attacked (at book length) when he found it in Averrhoes: the idea of “two truths.”

 

[Mirdath]

If I am following you, it seems to me that Aquinas actually has responded to your objections, but you’re just not buying his response. Okay, I can live with that. Let me clarify one point, however; Aquinas is very clear (ST I.3.7) that God is simple in nature and in no way composite. This also applies to the Person of the Word, which is also simple (III.2.4), but which can be described conceptually as composite by reason of Christ’s wholly divine and wholly human natures. However, as you pointed out (quoting Aquinas), Person and Nature are “not really distinct” when speaking of God. This again is due to God’s simplicity; every attribute or feature of God is in a sense identical to every other attribute or feature of God, including Personhood and Nature. Your central objection, it seems to me, is that in dealing with Jesus we are also dealing with a wholly human nature, which seems to be one too many.

But III.2.4 maintains that the Christ’s nature is in fact composite, both human and divine, and the first objection rebutted is that it is not composite. So here Aquinas defies his earlier work in I.3.7 – if God is simple, and has a Nature, that Nature must be one unified thing and inherent to God. A human Nature is no such thing.

However, NONE of those things is true of “First Lady.” The First Lady has no substantial embodied form, did not come into existence in an embodied form, will not pass away in an embodied form. But the First Lady and Laura Bush are united; in fact, they are the same, regarded in two ways. Nature is united to Person in a way that Person cannot be united to nature. When Laura Bush passes away, First Lady will not pass away.

I’m with you there – a Nature can have many Persons drawing from it in the Aquinian sense, and is not dependent on any one Person; but I still maintain that a Person is only capable of holding one Nature.

The human nature of Jesus Christ is His by nativity; this nature is united with the Person of the Word without beginning or end. This Person of the Word without beginning or end is also Jesus Christ. The substantial embodied form of Christ’s wholly human nature is united with the Person of the Word, His wholly divine nature.

It is not united as a singular whole but composite, according to III.2.4.

You are arguing something like this:

1. Christ has a wholly divine nature.
2. Christ has a wholly human nature.
3. But anything can only have one nature.
4. Therefore, either 1 or 2 has to be false.

But what I am questioning is # 3. I don’t think it is illogical to dispute that premise.

Again I say, a divine nature is incompatible with a human. For a Person to be divine, it must be something far greater than human – and the reverse is also true: to be human, one cannot be divine. The contradiction itself does not lie in the number of natures one can possess (although I’d be quite interested if you can show that it is greater than one), as that’s arguable from here to eternity, but in the inherent incompatibility of divine and human natures.

I (and Aquinas) do not think it is possible to believe something you know cannot be true. If something violates the law of non-contradiction it cannot be true. The kind of faith you are describing seems like what Aquinas attacked (at book length) when he found it in Averrhoes: the idea of “two truths.”

My understanding of faith is, shall we say, imperfect It’s one of the reasons I post here, to try to figure it out.

But I would not say ‘two truths’; rather, one ‘truth’ that seems to defy itself. It is something that the human mind cannot comprehend as actual truth without the aid of faith.

 

[cpayne]

But III.2.4 maintains that the Christ’s nature is in fact composite, both human and divine, and the first objection rebutted is that it is not composite. So here Aquinas defies his earlier work in I.3.7 – if God is simple, and has a Nature, that Nature must be one unified thing and inherent to God. A human Nature is no such thing.

I’m with you there – a Nature can have many Persons drawing from it in the Aquinian sense, and is not dependent on any one Person; but I still maintain that a Person is only capable of holding one Nature.

It is not united as a singular whole but composite, according to III.2.4.

Again I say, a divine nature is incompatible with a human. For a Person to be divine, it must be something far greater than human – and the reverse is also true: to be human, one cannot be divine. The contradiction itself does not lie in the number of natures one can possess (although I’d be quite interested if you can show that it is greater than one), as that’s arguable from here to eternity, but in the inherent incompatibility of divine and human natures.

My understanding of faith is, shall we say, imperfect It’s one of the reasons I post here, to try to figure it out.

But I would not say ‘two truths’; rather, one ‘truth’ that seems to defy itself. It is something that the human mind cannot comprehend as actual truth without the aid of faith.

You know, I just noticed that I misspelled the title of this thread.

I think you are correct that this is arguable “from here to eternity,” so I don’t know how much further we can spell out our differences. I want to point out just two things: Aquinas does not really contradict his earlier argument on the simplicity of God. In III.2.4, the exact quote is, “In the Lord Jesus Christ we acknowledge two natures, but one hypostasis composed from both. I answer that, The Person or hypostasis of Christ may be viewed in two ways. First as it is in itself, and thus it is altogether simple, even as the Nature of the Word. Secondly, in the aspect of person or hypostasis to which it belongs to subsist in a nature; and thus the Person of Christ subsists in two natures. Hence though there is one subsisting being in Him, yet there are different aspects of subsistence, and hence He is said to be a composite person, insomuch as one being subsists in two.”

So the idea of “composition” in Christ’s Person is not real (“as it is in itself”), but conceptually can be viewed in the aspect “to which it belongs to subsist in a nature.” In other words, it can be taken apart for analysis, but cannot be separated ontologically.

The second thing is a more fundamental problem (even though the first is also pretty fundamental): You seem to view Person and nature in a different way than Aquinas does. He argues that there cannot be two Persons in Christ, but can be two natures; you seem to be saying that a nature can have many Persons. Aquinas would regard that as a heresy. (Not in a name-calling sense, of course.)

Mirdath, I think you would make a very good and thoughtful Christian once you decide to jump in. (Actually, your thoughtful presence on this site seems like several steps in that direction, don’t you think?) At any rate, I’ve enjoyed this debate very much. I might not respond too much more, but I’ll be reading. (I also will respond if I get fired up about something.)

 

[Mirdath]

The second thing is a more fundamental problem (even though the first is also pretty fundamental): You seem to view Person and nature in a different way than Aquinas does. He argues that there cannot be two Persons in Christ, but can be two natures; you seem to be saying that a nature can have many Persons. Aquinas would regard that as a heresy. (Not in a name-calling sense, of course.)

It’s not heresy at all! According to Catholic teaching, the divine Nature has three Persons partaking of it – and the human Nature roughly six and a half billion at present. That’s what I meant by a Nature possessing many Persons.

Mirdath, I think you would make a very good and thoughtful Christian once you decide to jump in. (Actually, your thoughtful presence on this site seems like several steps in that direction, don’t you think?) At any rate, I’ve enjoyed this debate very much. I might not respond too much more, but I’ll be reading. (I also will respond if I get fired up about something.)

Thanks I’ve tried that though, and it didn’t work so well. Not so much jumping in as across, and I seem to lack the faculty of faith which inspires that leap. Still a very kind compliment, thank you again (and may I say you’d make a wonderful agnostic? )