Son of God, Son of Man. Modes of Presence?

[Linusthe2nd]

Huh? That’s what I did say. Well, okay, it is close but no cigar either.

Christ did not, in the Incarnation, “assume a human nature”. His nature, his essence, his Being does not ever change. Here is what the original text of the 325 A.D. Nicene Creed has to say about that:

“But those who say: ‘There was a time when he [Christ] was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made’; and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or 'He is of another ‘substance’ or ‘essence,’ or 'The Son of God is ‘created’ or ‘changeable’ or ‘alterable’–they are condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Clear enough, I’d say.

Wrong again, and you weren’t even close. What the Nicene Creed is saying is that Jesus Christ was born in time as to his human nature. But that his Divine nature is eternally begotten. Christ’s human nature was indeed made, but his Divine nature was begotten. The assumption of a human nature, in time, by the Second Person of the Trinity did not constitute a change in his Divine Nature. The Council of Chalcedon and other documents ( the Catechisms ) make this crystal clear. Do you understand what I am saying? You used some of the documents yourself.

So the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, is unchangeable, uncreated, eternally begotten by the Father. But the human nature of the Second Person was created and is changeable like all composite or material substances. Jesus Christ, you see, was one Divine Person with two natures or substances, one corporeal and human and created and changeable and one Divine, simple, uncreated, unchangeable, eternally begotten.

Now it is the Divine Substance of the Son of God that enters in to the act of governing the universe, as I stated in my last post. Likewise, all the other points I made are valid. I am perfectly satisfied that I am correct on all counts. You need not accept my conclusion, but I suggest you think over what I have argued and consider it.

Thank you for the discussion, it helped clarify my own thoughts.

Linus2nd

 

[Thomas_White]

Wrong again, and you weren’t even close. What the Nicene Creed is saying is that Jesus Christ was born in time as to his human nature. But that his Divine nature is eternally begotten. Christ’s human nature was indeed made, but his Divine nature was begotten. The assumption of a human nature, in time, by the Second Person of the Trinity did not constitute a change in his Divine Nature. The Council of Chalcedon and other documents ( the Catechisms ) make this crystal clear. Do you understand what I am saying? You used some of the documents yourself.

So the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, is unchangeable, uncreated, eternally begotten by the Father. But the human nature of the Second Person was created and is changeable like all composite or material substances. Jesus Christ, you see, was one Divine Person with two natures or substances, one corporeal and human and created and changeable and one Divine, simple, uncreated, unchangeable, eternally begotten.

Now it is the Divine Substance of the Son of God that enters in to the act of governing the universe, as I stated in my last post. Likewise, all the other points I made are valid. I am perfectly satisfied that I am correct on all counts. You need not accept my conclusion, but I suggest you think over what I have argued and consider it.

Thank you for the discussion, it helped clarify my own thoughts.

Linus2nd

Christ is both transcendent and immanent. He is both outside the physical world (transcendent) and manifest in the world (immanant). These are his two natures. Where we differ is that you seem to define Christ’s immanence as strictly human by his incarnation as the historical Jesus. This is incorrect. Both of Christ’s natures–transcendent and immanent–are divine. Christ is “eternally begotten of the Father” and so necessarily are his two natures.

This is the point I have tried to convey.

 

[Thomas_White]

Christ is both transcendent and immanent. He is both outside the physical world (transcendent) and manifest in the world (immanant). These are his two natures. Where we differ is that you seem to define Christ’s immanence as strictly human by his incarnation as the historical Jesus. This is incorrect. Both of Christ’s natures–transcendent and immanent–are divine. Christ is “eternally begotten of the Father” and so necessarily are his two natures.

This is the point I have tried to convey.

EDIT: “Immanance” and “immanant” should appear with a final “a” and not an “e”. The spell checker thinks it knows what I want to say, it seems.

 

[Thomas_White]

Well, I erred. “Immanent” is indeed spelled with an “e”.

My persistence in this thread has been with good intention and in good faith. My intent was to try to clearly communicate my thinking about a very complex topic. While one might not agree with what I have said, I hope it is as least understood. It is what I believe is both correct and in accordance with the teachings of the Church. At the end of the day, I hope it proves helpful.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Since it seems that this argument has come to a close I would like to sumarise and add one important bit of information I came across. The viewer can read posts 1 and 21 to see the basic argument. A couple days ago I ran across some information in Ludwig Ott’s, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1960, paper back, English ed.

In the section devoted to explaining the nature and powers of Jesus Christ, I found a reference to some thoughts of St. Maximus the confessor on this very issue. St. Maximus, for those who don’t know him, was instrumental in helping the Church to define Jesus Christ as God, the Divine Second Person with two natures, one truly human, the other Divine. The human nature was assumed by the Divine nature in the One Divine Person, which we call Jesus Christ.

According to Maximus there are three kinds of activity can be distinguished in Christ:

1. Purely Divine activities, which the Logos, in union with the Father and the Holy Spirit, performs through the Divine nature and essence to cause creation, preserve it in existence, and guide it to its proper ends.

When we speak of the Logos, we have in mind the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word of God, either as Incarnated as Christ or as un-Incarnated, but not Jesus Christ,

Here Maximus is speaking of the Logos as separated from the Incarnated Christ. If not, he would not be making this distinction. Further, it does not seem reasonable that the human nature of Christ would be present in all the substances of creation. And it is the teaching of the Church that God is present in all the substances of creation, through creation, through his sustaining activity and through his guidance and providence…

This supports my contintention that the Second Person of the Trinity, the Logos, or the Word, is not tied to the Incarnate Christ. He can be engaged in creating, sustaining, and guiding all of creation and be present in the Christ at the same time, simultaneously. In other words, just as the Trinity was the cause of creation and of sustaining it and of guiding it for the 30 billion years, as the Spirit that God is, before the Incarnation, so now, the Trinity continues to sustain and guide creation, as the Spirit that God is.

1. The Logos engages also in purely human activities of the Christ, through the human nature of Christ. For example, the Logos or Word, sees, hears, eats, suffers, dies through Christ’s human nature.
2. The Logos engages in activities in which the Divine and human activities of Christ are mixed; for example, the working of miracles.

Linus2nd

 

[Thomas_White]

Very well said, Linus. I too enjoyed our discussion and learned from it. But I’m not sure how to understand the following:

When we speak of the Logos, we have in mind the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word of God, either as Incarnated as Christ or as un-Incarnated, but not Jesus Christ,

Here Maximus is speaking of the Logos as separated from the Incarnated Christ. If not, he would not be making this distinction.

Linus2nd

But isn’t Jesus Christ both True God and True Man? Could you clarify how Logos could be separated from him? I’ve long thought of the Annunciation as just that, as the revelation of the coming appearance of Logos in the world.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Very well said, Linus. I too enjoyed our discussion and learned from it. But I’m not sure how to understand the following:

But isn’t Jesus Christ both True God and True Man? Could you clarify how Logos could be separated from him? I’ve long thought of the Annunciation as just that, as the revelation of the coming appearance of Logos in the world.

Yes, he is both True God and True Man. How the Logos could be separated from Jesus. But this is not an either/or situation. It certainly lies within the power of the Logos to exist simultaneously with Christ and apart from him… Keep in mind that he was separated from him before Christ was Incarnated. So obviously it lies within his power to exist simultaneously in union with Christ and not in union with him. The latter situation is certainly the case in God’s governance of the universe, since it is just not credible that Christ, True God and True Man, should exist within the substances the Logos ( along with the Father and the Holy Spirit ) created, sustains, and governs. As I said before, there are only four instances defined by the Church, in which Christ acts.

Yes, the Logos came into the world at the Annunciation. That does not mean he ceased to exist in his non-Incarnational mode. As I cited above, St. Maximus is the only one I have found who supports this dual mode of existence. St. Maximus, you understand was one of those who argued most strenuously in support of the dual nature of Christ as True God and True Man. And for this he suffered a slow, torturous martyrdom.

The three types of activity of Christ were a side issue by which he explained how the two natures of Christ operated. And governance he described as the proper action of the Divine nature. Actions which Christ’s human nature did not participate, according to the thinking of St. Maximus. In other words, the Logos governs the universe in non-Incarted mode, while being united to Christ in Incarnated mode.

Of course, this is just speculation on my part. But it seems quite logical for the reasons I stated above. You see, as unworthy as I am, sinner that I am, I can believe the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son dwell within by being, but not the Son in his human nature.

Linus2nd