Does the hypostatic union of Christ (i.e. having two natures - God and human) violate the law of non-contradiction? Traditional orthodoxy describes the trinity as one in essence and 3 in persons partly to avoid violating the law of non-contradiction. However, in the case of Christ's dual nature it seems as if this violation is unaviodable. What are your thoughts concerning this seeming contradiction?

Thanks,

Brian

Where do you perceive the contradiction, specifically?

With the Trinity we are talking # "persons" versus # "gods". Two different categories (as you note).

100% man and 100% g(G)od doesn't seem contradictory any more than 100% dog and 100% collie, afaics.
You may yet have a very good question; I'm just attempting to get you to identify the problem as specifically as you are able.

Law of Non-Contradiction:
"It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context."

If this is an acceptable definition, I would be gald to throw my hat in to this discussion once you have commented on how "Christ's dual nature" violated this law. I simply don't see a contradiction here in terms of duality. Example:

"Water" is steam and ice and liquid. It never; however, it never has a chemical formulation of HO... it is always H2O.

Brian,

I think you are confusing an ontological argument with a statement about truth. We know for a amthmatical certainty that something can have a dual ontology. For example, light is at the same time wave and particle.

Pilgrim

Hello Captain!

Where do you perceive the contradiction, specifically?

The issue with the Trinity is resolved by saying that God is one ontological being, and 3 persons. He is not 3 beings in 1 being, or 3 persons in 1 person (excepting Van Til's characterization of the Trinity). However, when we speak of Christ's nature, he is considered to have a 100% God nature, and a 100% human nature, which according to the council of Chalcedon cannot be seperated, confused, changed, or divided. That means Christ's nature is at the same time human and God. This appears to violate the law of non-contradiction which states that no statement can be both true and false, i.e. A and ~A. In other words, Jesus has the nature of God (A), and at the same time has the nature of not-God (i.e. human nature), or ~A. Does that make the issue any clearer?

Brian

Brian:
Hello Captain!
<snip intro of Trinitarian bits>
However, when we speak of Christ's nature, he is considered to have a 100% God nature, and a 100% human nature, which according to the council of Chalcedon cannot be seperated, confused, changed, or divided. That means Christ's nature is at the same time human and God. This appears to violate the law of non-contradiction which states that no statement can be both true and false, i.e. A and ~A. In other words, Jesus has the nature of God (A), and at the same time has the nature of not-God (i.e. human nature), or ~A. Does that make the issue any clearer?

Brian

No, actually--but it's a start!
:)

In what specific way is a 100% nature of man incompatible with a 100% nature of God? I don't see the dog/collie analogy addressed. You don't appear to have set up the question in such a way that I shouldn't immediately think "uh, bifurcation fallacy?".

Hello Pilgrim!

Science has never, and can never "prove" that anything has "ontological duality". The nature of light "seems" to act as a particle at times (i.e. it is bent when near large gravitational fields), and as a wave as often is demonstrated in Quantum Mechanics. However, no scientist worth his salt would say that he "knows" light has a dual nature. The skeptic, David Hume, pretty well established that science cannot "know" in an absolute philosophical sense anything!

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. Calvanist, water does not violate LC because it is not ice, steam, and water in the same relationship atthe same time, whereas Christ seems to be both God and Man at the same time and in the same relationship.

Hello Everyone!

I am not saying that the dual nature of Christ is incompatible. Obviously it works just fine! What I am saying is that it "seems" to violate LC. The dog/collie anology does not fit. A dog/cat anology would be more accurate.

I am looking to see what ideas there are out there in how this is not a violation of LC.

Sincerely,

Brian

Brian:
Hello Everyone!

I am not saying that the dual nature of Christ is incompatible. Obviously it works just fine! What I am saying is that it &quot;seems&quot; to violate LC. The dog/collie anology does not fit. A dog/cat anology would be more accurate.

I am looking to see what ideas there are out there in how this is not a violation of LC.

Sincerely,

Brian

Brian,
Why does the dog/collie analogy not fit?
Why is the dog/cat analogy more accurate?

When you get down to the specifics of *why* you hold those statements as true, then the question will be phrased in such a way that I (or others more knowledgeable regarding the question--which includes many) may address it.

I seriously don't see where you perceive a contradiction. Can't be 100% man and 100% god--why not? Seems to me that you should be identifying an attribute of God that is incompatible with the nature of a man.
I'm not sure what this is, for myself; nor do I fancy that I know what *you* have in mind.

I'm not understanding the contradiction either. Jesus [the logos] taking upon himself flesh adds the addition of human qualities. Whereas the preincarnate 'logos' could not, say, 'hunger' prior to his taking on humanity, he now *can* as a result of doing so. I think a lot of people leave out the unity of God as a factor.

A dog is not a cat

A cat is not a dog

A man is not God

God is not a man

True, but..

Jesus, however, is unique in that He is both God and Man. You really can't draw an accurate analogy in order to present a contradiction. Christ truly is unique.

Hello Captain!

Sorry for not being very clear. Allow me try again. The law of non-contradiction (LC) says that something can't be one thing and another thing in the same relationship at the same time. That is, something cannot both be A and ~A in the same relationship and at the same time.

A dog can be a collie (as well as a lab, poodle, etc.), and a collie is always a dog. They all have the ontological being of "dog." However, a dog cannot be a siamese cat. If a collie were to be a "dog" and a "cat" at the same time and in the same relationship, i.e. in its being, then it would violate LC.

I am suggesting that Christ is both God and Man, and that the "being" of God is fundamentally different than the "being" of man. Some theologians say that God is "wholly other." This is akin to (actually more than) the difference between a dog and cat or a rope or a rock or a wave, etc..., and not the difference between Collie and dog. I don't think anyone would argue that a collie is "wholly other" from a dog. The Bible gives us 2 propositions...

{A}: Jesus is God, and {~A}: Jesus is not God (i.e. He is man).

The relationship between these two propositions is the same in ontology (relationship) and temporaly (i.e. at the same time). To me, this appears to violate LC. Does that make it a little clearer?

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. AVmetro, I just saw your post. To say that Jesus is a "hybrid", i.e. has a different nature than does God, or you and me, that would be heretical. I don't think that is what you are saying, but someone might construe Jesus' "uniqueness" in that way.

Dear Brian - [eek!! - sorry to butt in here guys] when you get a chance check out my Alpha and Omega thread here, I would be interested in your feedback on it.

P.S. AVmetro, I just saw your post. To say that Jesus is a "hybrid", i.e. has a different nature than does God, or you and me, that would be heretical. I don't think that is what you are saying, but someone might construe Jesus' "uniqueness" in that way.

Yeah, I think that may have come across a little differently than I intended. I'll try to reiterate it a little differently tonight.

God bless

Brian said:
P.S. Calvanist, water does not violate LC because it is not ice, steam, and water in the same relationship atthe same time, whereas Christ seems to be both God and Man at the same time and in the same relationship.

Water is the same substance no matter the form. This is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity claims: Father, Son, Holy Ghost are same in substance and power. Therefore, it does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

**7** say hey Brian--

P.S. AVmetro, I just saw your post. To say that Jesus is a "hybrid", i.e. has a different nature than does God, or you and me, that would be heretical.

**8** i think that AV was fundamentally correct in what he said. the affirmation of the hypostatic union isn't meant to result in a hybrid--rather, two natures subsisting in one person. therefore, it fails to violate the law of non-contradiction for the same reason that the distinction between ousia and hypostases does regarding the Trinity.
we'll take one of the divine properties as an example--Omnipotence. in the biblical sense, this means that anything that DOES and WILL happen is caused by God and finds its term in God. in the philosophical sense, this means that God can do anything logically possible.
now when we think of the Incarnation, i think that it seems plausible that Jesus can't be Omnipotent in the philosophical sense at the same time that he is man--this for the simple reason that he isn't, as man (and therefore, he isn't as hypostasis) everywhere at once.
however, if we take the Biblical sense into account, the contradiction seems to vanish (along with the contradiction in the philosophical sense). to be Omnipotent doesn't mean that you will do everything logically possible, only that you can do whatever you want to.
now, if a person has an infinite amount of money, they don't need to spend it all in order to prove the fulness of their resources. a person with an infinite amount of money has the same amount of money, whether he chooses to live in a castle with a Bentley and Mercedes, or whether he chooses to act like St. Teresa of Calcutta, living with and loving those trapped in the ghetto.
the choice of how to instantiate one's own properties is a matter of one's own freedom, and one is certainly infinitely free if their resources are infinite.
therefore, there is, i think, no contradiction in the Traditional articulation of the hypostatic union. the Son of God subsists essentially as divine. since he is divine, he is perfectly free. he chooses to unite himself to his creation in order to save it--this is certainly possible since he is also infinitely loving.
hence, at every moment when Jesus is walking in Galilee, or wherever, he is subsisting in and through a human nature. he chooses to limit the instancing of his properties. as opposed to capitilizing on his 'infinite potentials', he 'empties himself', and his divine nature is co-ordinated to the human.
hope that helped--if it didn't, i'll be back.
peace!