Philosophy: Christ Wholly Divine and Wholly Human

[cpayne]

Okay. What I meant was that Aquinas did not think Christ was two Persons: the Person of God and the person of man, in one. That was what he considered wrong or heretical (III.2.3 and especially 6, in the “I answer that” sections). But I agree with you that every human’s “act of being” participates in the human nature. What Aquinas (and Catholicism) argues is that the union of God and man does not take place in anything “incidental,” but also not in the “essential natures” involved. The union takes place in the “hypostasis”–and at this point I’m going to have to look up hypostasis again. I’m pretty sure it’s used in the N.T. Greek, so that would be handy to look at, too.

As far as my being an agnostic: Well, I am agnostic, about many things. Just not the ones we’re discussing. As far as “lacking the quality of faith”–well, all of us think of faith as a gift, for which we can’t take credit. And it wouldn’t hurt to ASK for a gift, right?

I mean, the worst that could happen would be that you’d get ignored.

 

[cor]

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.

You’re right on the first statement but whether you are right on the second depends on what you mean. Some of the language you will find in certain theologians may be confusing, but my understanding is that in the case of God, three persons bear not only qualitatively but also numerically the same nature – they bear one and the same thing. However, in the case of humans, while we may bear what is qualitatively in some sense, one nature, it is numerically billions of individualized natures. IOW, your nature and my nature may be qualitatively one, but they are not one and the same thing, numerically one.

 

[Mirdath]

You’re right on the first statement but whether you are right on the second depends on what you mean. Some of the language you will find in certain theologians may be confusing, but my understanding is that in the case of God, three persons bear not only qualitatively but also numerically the same nature – they bear one and the same thing. However, in the case of humans, while we may bear what is qualitatively in some sense, one nature, it is numerically billions of individualized natures. IOW, your nature and my nature may be qualitatively one, but they are not one and the same thing, numerically one.

I was speaking qualitatively. If everyone had absolutely identical natures the world would be a pretty boring place

 

[Greg27]

I would agree with earlier commentators who placed this in the realm of theology rather than Philosophy.

 

[cpayne]

I would agree with earlier commentators who placed this in the realm of theology rather than Philosophy.

You’re probably right; the main reason I listed it as philosophy was that the original question hinged on a logical dispute. Something like, “Does the doctrine of Christ’s dual natures violate the law of non-contradiction?” Of course, that quickly led into theology.

 

[Genesis315]

You can’t apply reason to everything. The First Vatican Council explains:

1. The perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.
2. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.
3. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.

---

1. Now reason, does indeed when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly, achieve by God’s gift some understanding, and that most profitable, of the mysteries, whether by analogy from what it knows naturally, or from the connection of these mysteries with one another and with the final end of humanity; but reason is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object.
   For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight [33].

---

1. If anyone says that in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema.

The truth that Christ is fully God and fully human is one of those mysteries revealed by God that we couldn’t know unless he revealed it.

 

[cpayne]

Genesis315, I agree with everything you posted; but here’s my question: Even if some doctrines go beyond reason, can they VIOLATE reason? That is, I think, what Mirdath has been arguing regarding Christ’s natures. That’s what I’ve been arguing against.

 

[Mirdath]

Genesis315, I agree with everything you posted; but here’s my question: Even if some doctrines go beyond reason, can they VIOLATE reason? That is, I think, what Mirdath has been arguing regarding Christ’s natures. That’s what I’ve been arguing against.

‘Going beyond’ is much the same thing as violating as far as we mere humans are concerned, is it not? Have you ever tried closing your eyes for a few seconds and imagining what eternity must really be like? Whenever I try my brain feels… well, ‘violated’ is a good way of putting it

That which transcends reason breaks it – it’s an exception to a rule so rigid it cannot stand exceptions. It makes no sense in the logical framework we perceive; in another, it may, but that other is totally incompatible with ours.

 

[cpayne]

‘Going beyond’ is much the same thing as violating as far as we mere humans are concerned, is it not? Have you ever tried closing your eyes for a few seconds and imagining what eternity must really be like? Whenever I try my brain feels… well, ‘violated’ is a good way of putting it

That which transcends reason breaks it – it’s an exception to a rule so rigid it cannot stand exceptions. It makes no sense in the logical framework we perceive; in another, it may, but that other is totally incompatible with ours.

Well, not necessarily. Let me offer a homely example: I would be able to infer a great deal about you from what I already know: for example, you are a mammal, you are human, you are rational in nature, and so on. But I wouldn’t be able to know whether or not you had children, or what color your eyes are, no matter how well I was able to infer. That knowledge goes beyond logical inference, but does not violate it.

Now I know that the example of Christ’s two natures is different from this example, in that it is miraculously unlike anything else we know of in human experience. However, is this miraculous dissimilarity of such a nature that logic rules it out? I know you have presented the case that it is. In my way, I have tried to disagree; I think Cor did a better job than I did. At any rate, that which transcends reason does not seem to me necessarily to violate reason.

 

[Genesis315]

Genesis315, I agree with everything you posted; but here’s my question: Even if some doctrines go beyond reason, can they VIOLATE reason? That is, I think, what Mirdath has been arguing regarding Christ’s natures. That’s what I’ve been arguing against.

Can something violate a principle that doesn’t apply to it? Reason is something belonging to the natural order and faith to the supernatural order. To me, applying reason to the mysteries of God is like applying our sense of sight to music. The mysterious revealed doctrines don’t violate reason because reason is not even applicable. To declare something to violate reason, it would have to be judgable by reason. This is why the Chuch says faith is above reason–it’s not contradictory to it, its just on a whole different level and order.

 

[Mirdath]

Well, not necessarily. Let me offer a homely example: I would be able to infer a great deal about you from what I already know: for example, you are a mammal, you are human, you are rational in nature, and so on. But I wouldn’t be able to know whether or not you had children, or what color your eyes are, no matter how well I was able to infer. That knowledge goes beyond logical inference, but does not violate it.

I’d draw a distinction between the transcendence we’re discussing and simple misuse of logic. You trying to tell what color my eyes are through my posts here is well within the bounds of reason – it’s just bad reason. Invalid, not transcendent.

 

[toaslan]

cpayne and cor–you guys are right: you’ve got my vote!

 

[john_doran]

‘Going beyond’ is much the same thing as violating as far as we mere humans are concerned, is it not?

not necessarily - radiation in the microwave band of the EM spectrum “goes beyond” my ability to see; but microwaves don’t therefore “violate” (my) human sight - they just have nothing to do with one another (just like middle-c doesn’t violate my sense of taste).

Mirdath:

That which transcends reason breaks it – it’s an exception to a rule so rigid it cannot stand exceptions. It makes no sense in the logical framework we perceive; in another, it may, but that other is totally incompatible with ours.

reason is a machine the purpose of which is to allow rational beings to maximize the number of true propositions that we believe by means of deduction, induction, and abduction.

but reason is by no means the only such mechanism with which we are endowed, since there are many true propositions that simply either cannot be known via rational means, or can ***also ***be known by other means; for example, propositions about subjective experiences (“I am now watching boston legal”; “I am thinking of the number 431”).

which means, of course, that just because the truth of some proposition cannot be demonstrated via reason, that belief in that proposition is somehow irrational.

what’s more, what we mean by “reason” here, is human reason - why should anyone believe that just because humans can’t figure out a rational route to the truth (or falsity) of some proposition, that belief in the existence of such a route, or in the truth of the destination, is irrational? that seems about as reasonable as a 6 year old saying that anything he can’t understand must be irrational.

we haven’t figured out how to unify general relativity and quantum field theory; does that mean that it is irrational to believe that there is such a unified theory?

 

[cpayne]

Hi again, John Doran. Good to hear from you. I was thinking after that “Argument of Complexity” debacle you might have bowed out (not that I would blame you).

 

[Greg27]

Personally I don’t think the two natures question can be adequately explained strictly on logical principles alone. Strictly speaking from the viewpoint of rigid logic, things like the incarnation or the Trinity don’t make sense. I think though the Cappadocian Fathers, in replying to the heresy of Eunomius who argued the incarnation was impossible because it made no logical sense, were right to emphasize the incarnation transcends logic, as does the divine nature itself. The Cappadocians were very well versed in Greek philosophy and logic, probably the most rigorous in the world at the time.

Logic and discursive reason are very useful, even in theology, for allowing the human mind to grasp the cosmos. If this were not so I doubt things such as science or mathematics or logic would exist. But logic also falls short where the transcendant is involved; it is not possible for the human mind to have a clear, ‘noetic’ vision of the Godhead (including that of Jesus) strictly by its own power alone. It has to be ‘deified’ to that level above that of its mere creaturely powers by grace; sadly some philosophers tend to overlook the way Descartes prayed for insight for example, and placed so much trust in the powers of the human mind things like the incarnation are ‘foolish’ because they violate the rules of logic. Yet before mysteries language and logic come to their limits, which is perhaps why Wittgenstein rightly said ‘Of what cannot be spoken of clearly (i.e. in his understanding ordinary philosophy) we must pass over in silence.’ The mystics and theologians of both Catholic and Orthodox Christianity understood this point fairly well.

 

[cpayne]

Dear Greg27: I think everyone on this thread, including Mirdath, agrees that the Incarnation is a mystery. But my question is: Does the Incarnation of two natures therefore VIOLATE logic, even if it goes beyond it? My answer would still be no.

 

[toaslan]

Allow me to rephrase this:
john doran:

…which means, of course, that just because the truth of some proposition cannot be demonstrated via reason, that belief in that proposition is somehow irrational.

How about?:

*Just because the truth of some proposition cannot be demonstrated via reason
does not mean
belief in that proposition is somehow irrational *
OK?

And ditto that.

that seems about as reasonable as a 6 year old saying that anything he can’t understand must be irrational.

good example.

 

[Mirdath]

not necessarily - radiation in the microwave band of the EM spectrum “goes beyond” my ability to see; but microwaves don’t therefore “violate” (my) human sight - they just have nothing to do with one another (just like middle-c doesn’t violate my sense of taste).

True enough. However, microwave radiation and ‘A != B; C == A && C == B’ are rather different beasts.

but reason is by no means the only such mechanism with which we are endowed, since there are many true propositions that simply either cannot be known via rational means, or can ***also ***be known by other means; for example, propositions about subjective experiences (“I am now watching boston legal”; “I am thinking of the number 431”).

And that would be little-f faith or trust. But again, the things we take on faith are those that don’t appear to violate reason. It’s not ‘I am now watching Boston Legal’, it’s ‘I am watching Boston Legal and Hong Kong Phooey at the same time on the same TV and the same channel’. We wouldn’t believe that because it goes against our knowledge of how TV viewing works.

we haven’t figured out how to unify general relativity and quantum field theory; does that mean that it is irrational to believe that there is such a unified theory?

Yes. I’d liken it to the belief in the Northwest Passage during the Age of Exploration. To say that it must exist is indeed irrational until one can prove that there is a connection; however, that does not preclude hoping or searching for it in the slightest.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Faith does not contradict reason.
Faith is the evidence of things unseen. He 11:1
So too is theoretical science the evidence of things unseen.

 

[john_doran]

And that would be little-f faith or trust. But again, the things we take on faith are those that don’t appear to violate reason. It’s not ‘I am now watching Boston Legal’, it’s ‘I am watching Boston Legal and Hong Kong Phooey at the same time on the same TV and the same channel’. We wouldn’t believe that because it goes against our knowledge of how TV viewing works.

i understand what you’re saying, but i am not addressing the question of whether the concept of the hypostatic union is self-contradictory - i’m addressing your claim that “anything ‘beyond’ reason is irrational”.

Mirdath:

Yes. I’d liken it to the belief in the Northwest Passage during the Age of Exploration. To say that it must exist is indeed irrational until one can prove that there is a connection; however, that does not preclude hoping or searching for it in the slightest.

this is completely unlike your examples of believing (A&~A) on the belief that it is “beyond” reason. unless, of course, you can demonstrate to me that the propostion “there is a theory that successfully explains both QED and gravity”, is self-contradictory.

furthermore, you will have to provide a formal proof that every proposition that is (currently, at least) immune from rational demonstration, is self-contradictory.