The Dual Nature of Christ and the Law of Non-Contradiction [Archive]

phantaz sunlyk

February 9th 2003, 08:10 PM

**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!

Brian

February 9th 2003, 09:48 PM

Hello phantaz sunlyk!

Thank you for your reply. I am not sure I understand you.

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.

As you have mentioned, the reason the Trinity does not violate LC, is because it makes a distinction between person and being, i.e. 1 in being, 3 in persons. If it did not make this distinction and instead said 1 in being and 3 in being, then it would violate LC. So, I don't see how this relates to the hypostatic union, i.e. Christ has a human nature, and Christ has a God nature. Two natures in one person seems to violate LC, especially when according to the council of Chalcedon you cannot seperate, confuse, change, or divided the two natures, i.e. I can't say right now Christ is acting in his nature as God, but over here He is acting in His nature as man. This is considered heretical by orthodox Christianity.

It is fine that you claim Christ's having two natures is not a contradiction, but if you are not allowed to divide them, or confuse them, or seperate them, etc..., then how can you say it is not a contradiction? If Christ is man, and Christ is God in the same relationship (i.e. nature) and at the same time (i.e., not allowed to be seperated, divided, etc...), doesn't this follow the definition for LC to the tee?

Thank you for your consideration.

Brian

Captain Ochre

February 9th 2003, 10:10 PM

(removed description of the law of non-contradiction; seems that everyone is suitably familiar with it)
Brian:
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.

The analogy doesn't help, unfortunately. We accept that a dog cannot also be a cat at the same time & in the same sense; but the important part remains unstated. There are certain criteria that constitute "dogness" and certain criteria that consitute "siamese catness". A more rigorous establishment of the contradiction (if such there be) is called for.

I am suggesting that Christ is both God and Man, and that the "being" of God is fundamentally different than the
"being" of man.

And I think that it would assist your presentation no end if you were to specify the fundamental irreconcilable difference(s).

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?

Your general point has been clear from the first. My point, from the first, has been that it would be useful for you to make your point as specific as you are able. Let's say that an identifying feature of dogs is the ability to shape-shift at will, and that one identifying feature of cats is that they maintain their cat-likeness perfectly at all times regardless--in fact it is the very nature of the cat *not* to shift shape.
Then, we would have an identifiable contradiction. Saying that a dog is not a cat gives us no elements for comparison.
Do with gods and men as I have done above with cats and dogs, and I expect the ball will roll from there.

[edit to add]
Phantaz' illustration using omnipotence is excellent, imo. Brian, you appear very concerned regarding the caution that the dual natures not be "confused" etcetera--should we focus on that aspect of things? Do you agree with Phantaz that the dual nature per se reveals no obvious contradiction?

Brian

February 9th 2003, 10:47 PM

Hello Captain!

I am sorry that I have not been able to make this any clearer. I appreciate your interest in defining it more clearly.

Do you agree with Phantaz that the dual nature per se reveals no obvious contradiction?

This is the problem. I find it obviously contradictory. How can Christ be both God and Man in the same relationship and at the same time? Concerning Chelcadon, if you are going to argue that Christ is not man and God in the same relationship and at the same time, then all I am saying is that we have committed a heresey.

I have no bone to pick here. I don't believe it is a contradiction, but I just can't answer why it isn't. Here is my concern, if I argue with an atheist that the Christian world-view is consistent, and his world-view is not, then I have a problem. If Christianity has something that is contradictory, then I can no longer claim that my view is consistent. At this point, I do not have an answer. It's kind of like the question, "What is the one question you are most afraid of being asked?"

For me the "fundamental irreconcilable differences" are man nature (A) vs. God nature (~A). I do not believe it is necessary to define the differences between the two natures. I assume we all agree that they are ontologically different, and if so doesn't this seem to violate LC? I don't have the answer, that is why I am asking.

Thanks,

Brian

flipper

February 9th 2003, 11:03 PM

The wave/particle duality of light is not a violation of the LoNC. It may seem like an apparent one, but not if you view light as having some of the attributes of a particle and some of the attributes of a wave. This would be contradictory at the macro level, but at a quantum level it need not be an either/or question, and so light does not violate the LoNC.

Ishmael

February 9th 2003, 11:18 PM

Brian:
I assume we all agree that they are ontologically different, and if so doesn't this seem to violate LC? I don't have the answer, that is why I am asking.

Thanks,

Brian

I realize this will be ignored but I will chime in a again.

I disagree that we would all agree that God's "persons" are ontologically different. Herein is your problem with the law of non-contradiction. Father, Son and Holy Spirit have been doctrinally defined as having the same being, ontologically. One God, mysteriously three persons.

Ontology being sort of my "thing" lately. I really do take a good deal of exception with the idea of breaking the Trinity up Ontologically. Because that means that the God-head is separated into different "beings..." easily then, into different God's, or two Gods and one man... etc.

Maybe I am just a country boy at heart... but I think you are hunting phantoms... unless you don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity as has been defined by the "church" and you really do see a separation of component "beings" in the Trinity.

Captain Ochre

February 9th 2003, 11:23 PM

Brian:
Hello Captain!

I am sorry that I have not been able to make this any clearer. I appreciate your interest in defining it more clearly.

This is the problem. I find it obviously contradictory. How can Christ be both God and Man in the same relationship and at the same time? Concerning Chelcadon, if you are going to argue that Christ is not man and God in the same relationship and at the same time, then all I am saying is that we have committed a heresey.

I have no bone to pick here. I don't believe it is a contradiction, but I just can't answer why it isn't.

Easy, now. I noted before I replied to you the first time that you identified yourself as a Christian interested in apologetics, so I know that you aren't trying to be antagonistic, nor have I found your posts antagonistic in tone. For my part, I have tried to avoid any tone of antagonism in my replies.
If you perceive an obvious contradiction and I do not, where does that leave our prospects for communication on this topic? Isn't the onus on the person perceiving the contradiction to make his case for why it is so?
If the reasons for the apparent contradiction are not expressed, how is the person who does not see the contradiction supposed to address it?

Here is my concern, if I argue with an atheist that the Christian world-view is consistent, and his world-view is not, then I have a problem. If Christianity has something that is contradictory, then I can no longer claim that my view is consistent. At this point, I do not have an answer. It's kind of like the question, "What is the one question you are most afraid of being asked?"

Agreed; but I still don't detect the contradiction that you speak of.

For me the "fundamental irreconcilable differences" are man nature (A) vs. God nature (~A). I do not believe it is necessary to define the differences between the two natures. I assume we all agree that they are ontologically different, and if so doesn't this seem to violate LC? I don't have the answer, that is why I am asking.

Thanks,

Brian

Your laying out of the problem above somewhat illustrates my problem with your perception of a contradiction. You designate man nature as "A" and God nature as "B", which is a translation, apparently of man nature (A) versus ~man nature (B). It isn't plain to me that God nature => ~man nature. Declaring them ontologically distinct (the natures, that is) does not clearly render the natures incompatible, afaics.

It has occurred to me that when "100% God" and "100% man" are referred to that perhaps you are taking that 100% as establishing a limit on the nature of Jesus of Nazareth. IOW, "100% man" to you means 0% anything ~man (for example).
I don't think that's what the formula is intended to express, but if that is, in fact, your view then I am perfectly willing to hear and consider that argument.
Here's hoping that we've taken another step away from talking past each other.
:)

AVmetro

February 9th 2003, 11:26 PM

This is the problem. I find it obviously contradictory. How can Christ be both God and Man in the same relationship and at the same time? Concerning Chelcadon, if you are going to argue that Christ is not man and God in the same relationship and at the same time, then all I am saying is that we have committed a heresey.

I think PS summed it up well. I think your question boils down to "how can Jesus have attributes which God has, and yet be 'man' who does not have these attributes". As Phantaz stated it is more a matter of divesting oneself of divine insignia. He *could*, but He put them aside in order to *experience* humanity. Take his temptation in the wilderness. He *could* have turned the stones into bread in order to satisfy His burning hunger. But He didn't. Would it have been a 'sin' had he done so? No. But it would have been using His own divine ability to sidestep the *human experience*.

If you've ever seen that one Superman movie with Christopher Reeves where he [likened unto Jesus] entered the Crystal chamber and lost his powers [likened unto Phil2:6] in order to be with Lois [likened unto mankind], you'll see a somewhat similar view to mine.

Of course that is not a direct analogy, as Jesus didn't *lose* His divine qualites, but merely chose not to use them.

Something like that. I've rarely discussed this, so I have the same problem as you in being pressed to *explain*, specifically, how it's *not* a contradiction.

God bless

Brian

February 9th 2003, 11:40 PM

Hello Everyone!

You guys are great, and don't worry about me. Captian, I am not upset in the least, and everyone has been very gracious. I am very orthodox in my view of the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ.

If I were to say to you that Christ being both God and man is contradictory, how would you argue that it is not? I will remind you, that if you say, that at times he acts only out of His human nature, and other times He acts out of His God nature you are commiting a heresy, which I think AVmetro's Superman example does. I am looking forward to your answers.

Sincerely,

Brian

Captain Ochre

February 9th 2003, 11:43 PM

Brian:
Hello Everyone!

You guys are great, and don't worry about me. Captian, I am not upset in the least, and everyone has been very gracious. I am very orthodox in my view of the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ.

If I were to say to you that Christ being both God and man is contradictory, how would you argue that it is not? I will remind you, that if you say, that at times he acts only out of His human nature, and other times He acts out of His God nature you are commiting a heresy, which I think AVmetro's Superman example does. I am looking forward to your answers.

:)
In truth, my first response if you were to say to me that Christ being both God and man is contradictory would be to ask you to present an argument supporting your assertion.
Not much different from what I've already done, I admit.
;)

[edit to add]
(fortunately we don't worship Superman--so no heresy!:cheers: )

AVmetro

February 9th 2003, 11:46 PM

I'd like to see you edit "Louis" so that it reads "Lois"--in the interest of presenting Superman accurately, of course.

What have I done!? :bawl:

Brian

February 9th 2003, 11:52 PM

Hello Captain,

I have done that. Are you saying that I have not? If something is A (God nature) and ~A (Human nature) in the same relationship and at the same time it is necessarily contradictory. That is my argument.

It isn't plain to me that God nature => ~man nature. If God nature is A, then strickly speaking not-God nature is ~A. However, not-God nature is by definition anything that does not have the nature of God, and I would say that human nature falls into this catagory. I would love to here your arguments that the human nature and the God nature are the same, if that is what you believe. However, if they are not the same, then the human nature necessarily becomes ~A. Again, I look forward to your answers.

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. I posted something concerning presuppositionalism, and I forgot where. How can I find it?

AVmetro

February 9th 2003, 11:54 PM

If I were to say to you that Christ being both God and man is contradictory, how would you argue that it is not? I will remind you, that if you say, that at times he acts only out of His human nature, and other times He acts out of His God nature you are commiting a heresy, which I think AVmetro's Superman example does. I am looking forward to your answers.

It *is* a 'heresy' from your view, or it would be 'seen as a heresy' from say, an anti-Trin view? I'm trying to see if you're presenting a hypothetical situation or if you yourself see what I presented as an actual 'heresy'. I'll tailor my response from there. I'll need to tweak it in a different way depending upon which.

God bless you!

Captain Ochre

February 9th 2003, 11:57 PM

Brian:
Hello Captain,

I have done that. Are you saying that I have not? If something is A (God nature) and ~A (Human nature) in the same relationship and at the same time it is necessarily contradictory. That is my argument.

No offense, Brian, but that's not an argument in the formal or even semi-formal sense. You've just taken the definition of contradiction and plugged two key elements from a would-be argument into some conveniently located parentheses.
More tomorrow. Cyas.

AVmetro

February 9th 2003, 11:57 PM

I think a good place to start would be to list what the differences between 'human nature' and 'divine nature' are to your knowledge and how they are incompatible. It's always good to remember that 'man' was originally created in the 'image of God', a sinless being. See Heb1:2 for example. Now there are most likely still differences but we need to lay them out to see if they are wholly incompatible.

God bless

Jaltus

February 10th 2003, 12:12 AM

AV,

That is exactly what I always tell people.

What is it about Godness that contradicts humanness? You must first define what man is and then dfine what God is before you can say there is a contrast.

Does mortality make man a man? No, since eventually we will all be immortal.

Does glory make God the God? No, because we know Jesus dropped His and the Father lessened His when showing Himself to Moses.

Does omniscience make God the God? Not necessarily.

Keep going through this list and you will see that it is your built in assumption about what God is versus what man is that makes you think there is a contradiction. When you list it all out, you will see that there are at most 3-4 rough spots.

AVmetro

February 10th 2003, 12:14 AM

btw, I'm really glad that Brian started this thread. I'm in just as much need in coming up with a 'formal" explanation of the hypostatic union.

AVmetro

February 10th 2003, 12:22 AM

Keep going through this list and you will see that it is your built in assumption about what God is versus what man is that makes you think there is a contradiction. When you list it all out, you will see that there are at most 3-4 rough spots.

And of course one of those being;

"Jesus died, God cannot die, therefore Jesus is not God".

Of course death is technically defined in the bible as the seperation of spirit and body. The physical from the unphysical.

In the case of the ATs it's the seperation of the 'Spirit of God' from body.

Nevertheless, if Jesus *is* "God" ie. 'Spirit' then...how do you cut Him out of the picture? John1:1-14..cf..Luke23:34

God could not "die" within the context of Habakkuk, because He lacked a physical human body from which to seperate, in my opinion. The most an AT could say at this point, IMHO, is that "unconsciousness is not involved". Of course coma patients are unconscious and they aren't "dead" :)......

AVmetro

February 10th 2003, 12:27 AM

Gavin

February 10th 2003, 01:20 AM

Hey Brian:

My two cents to this thread would be to point out that there is a distinction between two things between different and being opposite. It seems to me that A and ~A are by definition opposites, while God and man are just different. Thus I do not see how God and man can be likened to A and ~A.

Great thread, Brian. :thumb:

phantaz sunlyk

February 10th 2003, 01:24 AM

**7** hallo brian--

Two natures in one person seems to violate LC, especially when according to the council of Chalcedon you cannot seperate, confuse, change, or divided the two natures, i.e. I can't say right now Christ is acting in his nature as God, but over here He is acting in His nature as man.

**8** only if the two nature's are diametrically opposed do they necessarily contradict one another, but as my analogy tried to show, this isn't necessarily the case. it would be more like a person being both the CEO of a company and the janitor than like a person being both completely immaterial and material at the same time. this is why i see no contradiction, and this is why i liken the distinction to the distinction between ousia and hypostasis in the Trinity. in saying that the Trinity is three persons and one essence, we say that they aren't one and three in the same sense, and therefore there is no contradiction. likewise with the hypostatic union. in order for their to be a contradiction, we would have to assert that Jesus is God (your "A") and not God (your "~A"). this, however, is not what is asserted. for any substance (such as a person-we'll call it "P"), it is perfectly possible for that person to have multiple properties (such as 'having brown hair'-'b', 'being caucasian'-'c', etc., etc.).
let's define God. i choose to bypass the Traditional definitions of God (such as "any being such that that being is all knowing and almighty and all-good and eternal...is God") for a much simpler definition. any x such that x is a metaphysically necessary subsistence is God. by 'metaphysically necessary' i understand a person such that they, in virtue of their properties, necessarily exist in any actually possible world.
man, on the other hand, is not a metaphysically necessary being--he is a contingent being. he didn't have to exist, and it is actually possible for a world to exist without man existing in it.
now, man does exist. he does, at this moment, belong to the category of being.
let's give a definition of a human. any x such that x is an existing spatio-temporal conjuction of spirit and body, such that the material form of the person is genetically derived from the persons of Adam and Eve, and such that the spiritual form of the person is essentially oriented towards God as its existential term, is a human. (first go at a definition--willing to revise if i need to).
recalling the conjunction of properties and substance above, we could outline it thus. Jesus (J) is divine (d) and human (h). in asserting J(dh), we assert no more than that Jesus is a metaphysically necessary being such that he subsists as an existing spatio-temporal conjuction of spirit and body, such that the material form of the person is genetically derived from the persons of Adam and Eve, and such that the spiritual form of the person is essentially oriented towards God as its existential term.
do ya live near a seminary library? if ya do, i recommend the following books for ya--
for an analytic approach, try the relevant chapter in Swinburne's _The Christian God_.
for an existential approach, try the relevant chapter (which is veryyyyyyyy long) in Karl Rahner's _Foundations of Christian Faith_.
for an historical approach, try John Meyendorff's _Christ in Eastern Christian Thought_.
hope this helped--i'll be back until it does! peace in Christ.

AVmetro

February 10th 2003, 02:04 AM

hope this helped--i'll be back until it does! peace in Christ.

Gave me some more insight :D

AVmetro

February 10th 2003, 02:06 AM

do ya live near a seminary library?

I know I WISH I did! Then I wouldn't have to constantly ask "What does the BADG say! What does the BADG say! What does the BADG say!" ;}

dizzle

February 10th 2003, 07:15 AM

Hey Brian...

You asked where your post on presuppositional apologetics is located... it is here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=12746#post12746

If you note at the bottom of each of your posts (and everyone else's) is a "search" button, this feature allows you to find all of anyone's posts... including your own... I have frequently forgotten where I have posted stuff so I use this feature on myself quite often.

Captain Ochre

February 10th 2003, 09:03 AM

Howdy ya'll.

I had promised "more tomorrow" but imo the more theologically literate folks have made all the points that I would have tried to make and then some.
So, at least I checked in.

If I can throw a spanner in the works again later, just let me know!;)

Brian

February 10th 2003, 11:43 AM

Hello Gavin, phantaz sunlyk, and everyone for that matter!

I really appreciate all of the input up to this point. Gavin and phantaz sunlyk, I will try to respond to you today, but I may not be able to get back to you until tomorrow. It seems that you both might be making the same point. I will read the posts more carefully before commenting.

Thanks!

Brian

Captain Ochre

February 10th 2003, 12:01 PM

Brian said:
"I have done that. Are you saying that I have not? If something is A (God nature) and ~A (Human nature) in the same relationship and at the same time it is necessarily contradictory. That is my argument."

(to which I replied):

Captain Ochre:
No offense, Brian, but that's not an argument in the formal or even semi-formal sense. You've just taken the definition of contradiction and plugged two key elements from a would-be argument into some conveniently located parentheses.
More tomorrow. Cyas.

To expand on what I wrote, what is the first premise of the argument?
P1 Jesus has natures A and ~A (hypostatic union) at the same time and in the same sense
P2 Having natures A and ~A at the same time & in the same sense constitutes a contradiction
C Therefore, the hypostatic union is contradictory.

Premise one essentially begs the question, afaics.

Hope I got it wrong!

Brian also said:
"If God nature is A, then strickly speaking not-God nature is ~A. However, not-God nature is by definition anything that does not have the nature of God, and I would say that human nature falls into this catagory."

I'm going to change analogies on you. Suppose I've got a granite boulder into which a novella has been engraved. Is it a rock, or is it a story? Let the nature of a rock be A, and let the nature of a story be ~A. Is my rock novella a contradiction?

Brian

February 10th 2003, 01:56 PM

Hello Everyone!

There seems to be some confusion as to what a contradiction is and is not. Gavin wrote… It seems to me that A and ~A are by definition opposites, while God and man are just different. And Phantaz Sunlyk wrote……only if the two nature's are diametrically opposed do they necessarily contradict one another, but as my analogy tried to show, this isn't necessarily the case.

Let me explain. The law of non-contradiction (LC) roughly states that “something cannot be both A and ~A at the same time and in the same relationship.” For example, if we were to give the 2 following “true” statements…

(1a) 2+2=4
(2a) 2+2=/=4

This would be a contradiction. Here is what these statements look like from the perspective of formal logic…

{A}: 2+2=4
{~A}: 2+2=/=4

So if we affirm that A and ~A are true, we have a contradiction. Now lets look at another example,

(1a) 2+2=4
(2b) 2+2=5

In the (2b) example above, we have 2+2=5 instead of 2+2=/=4. But (2b) is functionally equivalent to (2a) from a truth standpoint. Therefore, (2b) can be considered ~A. If anyone has had any logic training, these definitions come right from the use of truth tables and logical equivalency. Therefore, if {A} is 2+2=4, then {~A} can take an infinite number of forms.

Examples of ~A
2+2= 5
2+2=6
2+2=7
2+2=8
2+2=-4
and so on.

Now notice the last example listed, 2+2=-4. Gavin used the word “opposite” and Phantaz Sunlyk used the phrase “diametrically opposed.” These terms are a little vague, but perhaps Gavin and Phantaz Sunlyk are thinking that 2+2=4 and 2+2=-4 are “opposites” or “diametrically opposed.” Fine. The statements 2+2=4 and 2+2=-4 are in fact contradictory, but they are not the only contradictory statements. Remember, 2+2=5 contradicts the statement 2+2=4 as much as any other statement could. So Gavin’s and Phantaz Sunlyk’s claim that statements must be “opposite” and “diametrically opposed” for them to be contradictory, from a formal logic standpoint is simply wrong.

For the sake of this discussion, I would like to narrow the discussion to the traditional orthodox view of God as stated in the Nicene and Chalcedony creeds. If we allow just any view of the Trinity or the hypostatic union, I do not think we will be able to make any headway. I hope everyone is agreeable.

{A}: Jesus is God. (When we use “is”, we are speaking in ontological terms, i.e. “being.”)
{~A}: Jesus is Man. (Again, the affirmation that Jesus is man is a logical equivalency to Jesus is not God.)

According to our creeds, these 2 statements are true. However, according to LC they are contradictory. The debate, as I see it, needs to center around the logical equivalency of the two {~A} statements. The problem with this is that when you begin to make these distinctions, then you violate the creeds (i.e. not divisible, confused, separated, etc…) and have moved into the realm of heresy. Of course, you could go back and challenge the Chalcedony definition of the hypostatic union if you want to.

In terms of presuppositional apologetics, I see this as a real sticking point. If Christianity is inherently consistent, then consistency needs to be demonstrated concerning the hypostatic union, or an unbeliever can shrug off their contradictions by stating that Christians have theirs as well. The most difficult question to deal with from an apologetic perspective is not the problem of evil, or various other arguments thrown at us by atheists. The most difficult question concerns the mystery of the Trinity and hypostatic union.

Sincerely,

Brian

Captain Ochre

February 10th 2003, 02:07 PM

Brian:

{A}: Jesus is God. (When we use “is”, we are speaking in ontological terms, i.e. “being.”)

Nothing more, nothing less?
I have long (okay, for over 24 hours, anyway!) suspected that your perception of contradiction rests in what 100% is referred to in the doctrinal formulations.

{~A}: Jesus is Man. (Again, the affirmation that Jesus is man is a logical equivalency to Jesus is not God.)

According to our creeds, these 2 statements are true. However, according to LC they are contradictory. The debate, as I see it, needs to center around the logical equivalency of the two {~A} statements. The problem with this is that when you begin to make these distinctions, then you violate the creeds (i.e. not divisible, confused, separated, etc…) and have moved into the realm of heresy. Of course, you could go back and challenge the Chalcedony definition of the hypostatic union if you want to.

Brian, you're still leaving it unclear as to where you detect the contadiction. Perhaps you take a particular understanding of the creeds for granted for purposes of this discussion. Does it divide, confuse or separate the respective natures to locate them in the one person, Jesus of Nazareth? How so? Do we automatically divide the natures by the mere fact that we can tell one from the other? Is that what the creed teaches?

Brian

February 10th 2003, 02:14 PM

Hello Captian!

All S is P.
All S is not P.

Is by definition a contradiction in Aristotilian logic for ANY S and P.

Therefore...

Jesus is God.
Jesus is man (i.e. not God).

Is by definition a contradiction. I am sorry, but I cannot make it any clearer. Once again, I see the debate raging over the logical equivalency of "Jesus is man" and "Jesus is not God."

Sincerely,

Brian

Captain Ochre

February 10th 2003, 02:31 PM

Brian:
Hello Captian!

All S is P.
All S is not P.

Is by definition a contradiction in Aristotilian logic for ANY S and P.

Therefore...

Jesus is God.
Jesus is man (i.e. not God).

Is by definition a contradiction. I am sorry, but I cannot make it any clearer. Once again, I see the debate raging over the logical equivalency of "Jesus is man" and "Jesus is not God."

Sincerely,

Brian

That's exactly where the debate *should* rage, afaics.
"Jesus is man (i.e. not God)" seems to beg the question, imh(umble)o.
You've been candid in stating that you see manness and godness as being incompatible. Logically speaking, I don't find that tenable as a premise. As a *conclusion*, maybe--but I keep expecting you to build a case for it while you seem to see that step as unnecessary.

What to do?:huh:

Brian

February 10th 2003, 02:57 PM

Hello Captain!

Let me try again. I will use traditional Aristotilian logic, and formulate my argument from there.

(1) All S is P.
(2) All S is ~P.

These two statements are by definition contradictory for any S and any P.

(1a) All Jesus is God. (This is declared true by the council of Nicea.)
(2a) All Jesus is Man. (This is declared true by the council of Chalcedon.)

Both of these statments are ontological, the terms have not changed, therefore there is no equivocation taking place. According to the rules of logic (2a) implies the truth value of...

(2b) All Jesus in not God.

Now we have a formal contradiction according to Aristotle's logic. Statement (1a) is of the form All S is P. Statement (2b) is of the form All S is ~P. By definition, this is a contradiction. If you take issue with (1a), you rtissue is with Nicea. If you take issue with (2a) your issue is with Chalcedon. That is why I said that the debate revolves around the logically equivalency of (2a) and (2b). If you deny this, then what is your logical basis? And does your reasoning violate the council of Chalcedon?

Captain, with all due respect, your point seems to be that unless you are convinced that it is a contradiction you feel no obligation to demonstrate that it is not. I find this "apologetic" method to not fall within the spirit of 1Peter 3:15. Can you give me a reasoned defense for why it is not a contradiction?

Sincerely,

Brian

Captain Ochre

February 10th 2003, 03:27 PM

Brian:
Hello Captain!

Let me try again.

Of course.
I removed the non-controversial bit.

(1a) All Jesus is God. (This is declared true by the council of Nicea.)
(2a) All Jesus is Man. (This is declared true by the council of Chalcedon.)

Both of these statments are ontological, the terms have not changed, therefore there is no equivocation taking place.

Is it not, rather, that
1) Jesus is fully God
2) Jesus is fully man
?
[edit to add]
(iow Jesus nature includes 100% the essential nature of God, and 100% the essential nature of man)

According to the rules of logic (2a) implies the truth value of...

(2b) All Jesus in not God.

Agreed, assuming that you have framed the issue correctly, about which I have some doubt.
Thank you for taking the time to do so.

Now we have a formal contradiction according to Aristotle's logic. Statement (1a) is of the form All S is P. Statement (2b) is of the form All S is ~P. By definition, this is a contradiction. If you take issue with (1a), you rtissue is with Nicea. If you take issue with (2a) your issue is with Chalcedon. That is why I said that the debate revolves around the logically equivalency of (2a) and (2b). If you deny this, then what is your logical basis? And does your reasoning violate the council of Chalcedon?

1) My reason for not accepting your proof would be that you have not satisfactorily established either premiss. If you expect me to agree with your conclusion, you need premisses which are agreed. You had resisted this step, imo.
2) Does my reasoning violate the council of Chalcedon? We'll have to wait and see. For now, I think the question is whether or not your distillation of the problem agrees with the respective councils.

Captain, with all due respect, your point seems to be that unless you are convinced that it is a contradiction you feel no obligation to demonstrate that it is not.

More to the point, I don't see that you have demonstrated why *you* think it is a contradiction. Rather, you curtly report that you find it so. Recall that I quickly identified the key issue as the interpretation of the opinions of the respective councils.
You continue to take it for granted that the councils intended to say what you say they meant. Perhaps you're correct, but my own investigation fails to confirm this.
No, I do not accept a conclusion where the premisses are not established.

I find this "apologetic" method to not fall within the spirit of 1Peter 3:15. Can you give me a reasoned defense for why it is not a contradiction?

:huh:
In what way has my approach failed to stay in keeping with 1 Peter 3:15? Am I telling you to forget about it, your observation doesn't make sense? Just keep the faith and don't worry about it, My Son?????
I would very much like for you to address this issue.

I don't know whether or not I can give you a reasoned defense for why it is not a contradiction pending verification of whether or not you have accurately framed the issue.

Brian

February 10th 2003, 05:45 PM

Hello Captain!

Thank you for staying with me on this.

Is it not, rather, that
1) Jesus is fully God
2) Jesus is fully man

Sure.

My reason for not accepting your proof would be that you have not satisfactorily established either premise.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you refering to the premises: Jesus is God, and Jesus is man? You mention that you do not know what the council of Nicea, and the council of Chalcedon say. Is your argument over this? If so, then I would be happy to phrase it this way: If the council of Nicea declares Christ to be fully God, and if the council of Chalcedon declares Christ to be fully man, then there is a seeming contradiction.

Or are you referring to the premises concerning the formal definitions of contradictions?

All S is P, implies All S is ~~P. Now can All S is P and All S is Q be true? Yes they can, as long as P and Q have a different ontology. For instance, to say that all dogs are canines is true. To say all dogs are mortal is true. This is not a contradiction because "mortal" and "canine" are ontologically different. However, if I say all dogs are horses, this is a contradiction because canine and horse have an ontological "sameness" and necessarily preclude one from being another. That is, when I say that All dogs are canines, I am in effect saying that all dogs are not cats, horses, men, gods, etc...

All Jesus is fully God, implies that All Jesus is not not fully God. But when you say that all Jesus is fully man, this implies that Jesus is something other than fully God, i.e. not not fully God. Herein lies the contradiction.

My accusation of you not defending yourself was based on the assumption that you understood and accepted the premises Jesus is fully God, and Jesus is fully man. If you don't accept these premises, then you have argued for your position. However, if you do accept these premises, you have an obligation to show why they are not contradictory.

I don't see that you have demonstrated why *you* think it is a contradiction.

You need to go back and carefully read my posts. You cannot say that I have not demonstrated my position. You might find my demonstration lacking or altogehter weak, but you have yet to tell me why! You have only told me that it is lacking. I want to know why you think why I have not demonstrated it. I want to hear from you what you think LC is, and how I have not properly utilized LC in my "dubious" demonstration. Some of the others have said why they think I have not correctly followed LC, but I have responded to their criticism and have yet to hear back from them. My beef with you is that you have yet to give an answer, but instead resort to "you have not accurately framed the issue." I wonder if the sinner standing before God could say, "You have not accurately framed the issue, so I decline to give an answer until you do so." I claim that I have accurately framed the issue. You, on the other hand, have not show me which parts of my argument are ambiguious or flawed.

Sincerely,

Brian

Captain Ochre

February 10th 2003, 06:33 PM

Brian:
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you refering to the premises: Jesus is God, and Jesus is man? You mention that you do not know what the council of Nicea, and the council of Chalcedon say.

Not quite: I don't know that the statement of the respective councils equate with your presentation of them.

Is your argument over this? If so, then I would be happy to phrase it this way: If the council of Nicea declares Christ to be fully God, and if the council of Chalcedon declares Christ to be fully man, then there is a seeming contradiction.

In answer to your question: More or less.
Back to my rock illustration, isn't the 'rock story' fully rock? Is it not fully story? I don't see why the language of the councils requires us to regard the god-nature (for example) to exclude all other natures (which should be the case if the issue is simply god vs man and not vested in the particulars).

Or are you referring to the premises concerning the formal definitions of contradictions?

It appears to me that when you parenthetically mention that possession of a man-nature *means* ~god nature that you have placed the contradiction which should be your conclusion as one of the premisses. If I am correct in this matter, then you have committed the fallacy of begging the question.

All S is P, implies All S is ~~P. Now can All S is P and All S is Q be true?

I'd prefer a standard deductive syllogism.
:)

Yes they can, as long as P and Q have a different ontology. For instance, to say that all dogs are canines is true. To say all dogs are mortal is true. This is not a contradiction because "mortal" and "canine" are ontologically different. However, if I say all dogs are horses, this is a contradiction because canine and horse have an ontological "sameness" and necessarily preclude one from being another. That is, when I say that All dogs are canines, I am in effect saying that all dogs are not cats, horses, men, gods, etc...

All Jesus is fully God, implies that All Jesus is not not fully God. But when you say that all Jesus is fully man, this implies that Jesus is something other than fully God, i.e. not not fully God. Herein lies the contradiction.

Your "contradiction" looks like a non-sequitur to me ("when you say that all Jesus is fully man, this implies that Jesus is something other than fully God, i.e. not not fully God").
Is it the ontological similarity between gods and men that creates the supposed contradiction, or is it the ontological dissimilarity?
Implication isn't strong enough to support deduction, unless you're using it in the strongest sense (which isn't apparent).

My accusation of you not defending yourself was based on the assumption that you understood and accepted the premises Jesus is fully God, and Jesus is fully man. If you don't accept these premises, then you have argued for your position. However, if you do accept these premises, you have an obligation to show why they are not contradictory.

Well, I believe that I *do* accept those premisses, albeit not the way you intend them (I was surprised at how readily you accepted my rewrite of your premisses as based on the councils). The implication of *that* is that at least one of us has a faulty understanding of what the councils were attempting to communicate. I have tried to induce you to provide a justification for your understanding of the issue, and that has not been forthcoming. If you could provide so much as a link to support your view in its particulars, I would appreciate it.

You need to go back and carefully read my posts. You cannot say that I have not demonstrated my position. You might find my demonstration lacking or altogehter weak, but you have yet to tell me why!

You have introduced your conclusion. You have not produced a deductive syllogism that is free from editorial spin which leads to the appearance of question-begging. IOW, your premisses appear to contain your conclusion. I'm pretty sure that I've mentioned that prior to this post.

You have only told me that it is lacking. I want to know why you think why I have not demonstrated it. I want to hear from you what you think LC is, and how I have not properly utilized LC in my "dubious" demonstration.

Law of non-Contradiction? LC?
I told you in my former reply, very flatly as I recall it, that my opinion of your proof is suspended pending the accuracy of the presentation of the respective councils. I could understand if you regard the BoP as too weighty if I were to expect you to engage in that proof in order to lay a foundation for your argument, hence I asked for a link above (since I have already conducted an inconclusive investigation).
I will not be pressed into rendering a verdict prior to assessing the truth of the premisses, and I have *already* granted that if the premisses are true, then the conclusion is sound.
I don't think that you can expect more of me than that (excepting that I shall continue to research the opinions of the councils).

Some of the others have said why they think I have not correctly followed LC, but I have responded to their criticism and have yet to hear back from them. My beef with you is that you have yet to give an answer, but instead resort to "you have not accurately framed the issue." I wonder if the sinner standing before God could say, "You have not accurately framed the issue, so I decline to give an answer until you do so." I claim that I have accurately framed the issue. You, on the other hand, have not show me which parts of my argument are ambiguious or flawed.

Ironically, you inaccurately framed the issue of whether or not you had accurated framed the issue.
I did not accuse you of framing it inaccurately. I said that I doubted the accuracy of that framing.
I don't believe that you are quoting me precisely, btw.

In sum:
The soundness of your argument depends on your accuracy in logically framing the intent of the respective councils. That isn't established, so far as I'm concerned. I have offered to share the BoP on that one.

phantaz sunlyk

February 10th 2003, 06:35 PM

**7** yo Brian--

Jesus is man (i.e. not God).
Is by definition a contradiction. I am sorry, but I cannot make it any clearer. Once again, I see the debate raging over the logical equivalency of "Jesus is man" and "Jesus is not God."

**8** first off, regarding your desire to stick to the "Traditional definitions". just to be clear, i've been eating the writings of the Church padres for the past several years, and i know, probably as well as the average seminarian seeking a masters in theology, what is and isn't coincident with the Traditional teaching of the Church when it comes to the Trinity and Christology. if my definition of either God or man was out of sync with the Traditional view, then i beg for proof. i defined the terms as i did so as to be able to interact with the particular discussion at hand.
now, you keep asserting, "if God, therefore not man.
the sense in which this is true is that God cannot essentially be man. however, my argument doesn't assert this. it asserts that the condition of subsisting as human is (a)a contingent mode of subsistence for the Logos which is (b)logically possible (logically possible as a contingent mode of existence).
if you want to get to the bottom of this issue, ya gotta interact with the specific points that have been brought up. as it stands, i feel as though your objection (viz. above) has been answered satisfactorily. if this isn't so, then the nature of the counter-claim ought to match the amount of rigour that the original claim had.

you violate the creeds (i.e. not divisible, confused, separated, etc…)

**7** how are the creeds violated? in asserting a hypostatic union the creeds mean to assert that two natures subsisted in a single person.
in hopes of clearing this issue up, i challenge you to bring forth one specific moment in the life of the Incarnate Son of God, and show exactly how during that moment the two natures cannot coincide in a single subject.
peace in Christ!

Gavin

February 10th 2003, 06:45 PM

Brian and others involved:

I agree with Brian that Captain is unjustified in his protest that Brian has not yet articulated where he perceives the contradiction to be. It seems to me that Brian has been pretty clear on what he perceives as contradictory. However, I am still uncertain that there really is a "contradiction" between humanity and deity.

Brian said:
Jesus is God.
Jesus is man (i.e. not God).
I do not see that to be man is the same as ("i.e.") to not be God. Again I do not see that there is any contradiction between being both man and God.

Brian, perhaps we could solve this before we move on. Because I am having no problem perceiving God becoming a man, and that being logical. I do not see that that nature of man is i.e., not God.

Sorry that I am not following you.:help:

Jaltus

February 10th 2003, 06:53 PM

Jesus is man
Jesus is Messiah (i.e. not man)

You are falling prey to the lexical fallacy. Just because God and man are different words does not mean they are contradictory, that is an assumption you are building into your case.

Where do God and man overlap but have different definitions?

AVmetro

February 10th 2003, 06:58 PM

Dito on what Jaltus said. Brian, did you see my request to lay out all differences of 'nature' that lie between God and man?

Captain Ochre

February 10th 2003, 07:03 PM

Gavin:
Brian and others involved:

I agree with Brian that Captain is unjustified in his protest that Brian has not yet articulated where he perceives the contradiction to be. It seems to me that Brian has been pretty clear on what he perceives as contradictory. However, I am still uncertain that there really is a "contradiction" between humanity and deity.

Brian said:

I do not see that to be man is the same as ("i.e.") to not be God. Again I do not see that there is any contradiction between being both man and God.

Brian, perhaps we could solve this before we move on. Because I am having no problem perceiving God becoming a man, and that being logical. I do not see that that nature of man is i.e., not God.

Sorry that I am not following you.:help:

Begging your pardon, Mister Moderator (Sir),
I have not claimed that Brian did not claim a particular contradiction. I stated that I didn't know where Brian *perceived* the contradiction, which is largely the same thing that you state in your final paragraph above.

Earlier in the discussion, I *did* claim that Brian had not produced an argument (valid argument, in context, since I don't count argument via assertion) in favor of his conclusion, and I stand by that statement (in that it was accurate at the time).

Brian

February 10th 2003, 07:49 PM

Hello Everyone!

The problem with people jumping in at various points is that they have missed points already made. Once again, the law of conradiction states that something cannot be A and ~A at the same time and in the same relationship. Given:

(1) All S is P.
(2) All S is ~P.

If both premises are true, then by definition you have a contradiction. Now, I claim that (1) is equivalent to

(3) All S is ~~P. What does this mean? For instance, 2+2=4 would be 2+2 cannot be anything but 4. That is to say, the equaton 2+2=5 is as contradictory as the equation 2+2=/=4.

Now, I can also say that 2+2 is "addition." This is not a contradiction with 2+2 is "4" because there is a fundamental difference between the concept of "addition" and "4." That is, there is no violation because the relationship is different. Therefore, the not-so-well-thought-out-argument (one which had already been addressed if people were following) ofJesus is man. Jesus is Messiah (i.e. not man)...You are falling prey to the lexical fallacy.
misses the point completely.

When we say that Jesus is man, and when we say Jesus is God we are speaking of the exact same relationship, i.e. an ontological relationship of nature. This is where I perceive the contradiction. Can a dog be a bird? Can a cow be a fish? Can red be green? Can a martian be Hillary Clinton? If saying that max is a dog and a cat at the same time and in the same relationship is contradictory, then why isn't saying that Jesus is God and man at the same time and in the same realtionship contadictory? My other point has been that if you argue that Jesus is not both God and Man at the same time and in the same relationship, then you are commiting heresy according to the council of Chelcedon.

Gavin said I do not see that to be man is the same as ("i.e.") to not be God.

This hits the nail on the head. This is where the debate should lie. My point above is that 2+2=/=4 is logically equivalent to 2+2=5, or 2+2=6, or 2+2=-4. So I am arguing that if I say 2+2=5, then I am contradicting 2+2=4. If I say that Max is a dog, that is logically equivalent to saying that Max is not a cat. If Gavin is human, that is logically equivalent to Gavin is not God. Can someone show me how this is incorrect? It is ok to disagree, but I want to know why you disagree.

Thank you all for an invigorating discussion.

Sincerely,

Brian

Brian

February 10th 2003, 08:08 PM

Hello phantaz sunlyk!

just to be clear, i've been eating the writings of the Church padres for the past several years, and i know, probably as well as the average seminarian seeking a masters in theology, what is and isn't coincident with the Traditional teaching of the Church when it comes to the Trinity and Christology

I will be sure to remember who it is I am talking to.

my argument doesn't assert this. it asserts that the condition of subsisting as human is (a)a contingent mode of subsistence for the Logos which is (b)logically possible (logically possible as a contingent mode of existence).

If we are not to divide, confuse, seperate, etc... the two natures of Christ, then how can you make a distinction such as " a contingent mode of subsistence"? Chalcedon claim that Christ is fully human now, and fully God now. There is no "contignecy" when it comes to the nature of Christ. I may be just too ignorant to get your point. Nevertheless, you seem to be violating the terms set forth by Chalcedon.

how are the creeds violated? in asserting a hypostatic union the creeds mean to assert that two natures subsisted in a single person.

You violate the creeds by reffering to Jesus' humanity as "a contingent mode of subsistance." Is Jesus' divinity a "contingent mode of subsistance"? Contingent upon what? Are you separating the 2 natures? Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

Thank you for your time.

Brian

Jaltus

February 10th 2003, 08:22 PM

When we say that Jesus is man, and when we say Jesus is God we are speaking of the exact same relationship, i.e. an ontological relationship of nature. This is where I perceive the contradiction. Can a dog be a bird? Can a cow be a fish? Can red be green? Can a martian be Hillary Clinton? If saying that max is a dog and a cat at the same time and in the same relationship is contradictory, then why isn't saying that Jesus is God and man at the same time and in the same realtionship contadictory? My other point has been that if you argue that Jesus is not both God and Man at the same time and in the same relationship, then you are commiting heresy according to the council of Chelcedon.Again, this is an assumption, not a proof nor evidence.

You cannot say they are not the same thing because they are two natures, you are already making an assumption to say this, namely you are assuming that nature = being, which is something Christians deny.

In the Greek, this is a difference between ousia (ontological being) and physis (nature). Nature describes a person, ousia defines them. Hupostasis (not hupostasis, but this is a personal thing) deals with who a person actually is. Two natures, one being, one person.

Brian

February 10th 2003, 08:33 PM

Hello Jaltus!

You bring up some very good points. The distinction of 2 natures and 1 being is interesting. So when we speak of Christ "being" fully man, what does that mean? And when we speak of Christ "being" fully God, what does that mean? If Christ is one in person, i.e. ontology, then how can we say Christ is "fully" human and "fully" God? I am looking forward to your answers.

Thanks!

Brian

Ishmael

February 10th 2003, 10:24 PM

Brian:
Hello Jaltus!

You bring up some very good points. The distinction of 2 natures and 1 being is interesting. So when we speak of Christ "being" fully man, what does that mean? And when we speak of Christ "being" fully God, what does that mean? If Christ is one in person, i.e. ontology, then how can we say Christ is "fully" human and "fully" God? I am looking forward to your answers.

Thanks!

Brian

:hrm: Yeah, cause no one had pointed that out before in this thread. :hrm:

Post# 12718

phantaz sunlyk

February 10th 2003, 10:52 PM

**7** say hey brian--

I will be sure to remember who it is I am talking to.

**8** nah dude, i didn't mean for it to come out like that. i thought you were claiming implicitly that my definitions of man and God were irreconcilable with the Traditional view. my bad :thumb:

If we are not to divide, confuse, seperate, etc... the two natures of Christ, then how can you make a distinction such as " a contingent mode of subsistence"?

**7** not to sound arrogant or anything, but do you know what contingent means? anything that is contingent is neither logically necessary nor logically impossible. hence in saying that Christ's becoming man was a contingent action on the part of Christ, i assert merely that there is nothing in the Son qua Son that is essentially human ...

Chalcedon claim that Christ is fully human now, and fully God now. There is no "contignecy" when it comes to the nature of Christ.

**8** if you'd failed to admit that the Son's adopting a human nature was contingent (as defined above), i guarantee you that you would have been anathematized at Chalcedon. the Word is God essentially (i.e., necessarily as a matter of identity) and he became man (i.e., he assumed a nature that wasn't his own as a matter of necessity as a matter of identity). ...

Contingent upon what?

**7** upon the Son's being sent by the Father and choosing to 'empty himself'.

Are you separating the 2 natures? Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

**8** ahhhhhhm, i think you're missing what the Creed wished to assert. in saying that the two natures couldn't be separated, Chalcedon wishes to deny Nestorianism, which is the belief that the divine nature was a divine person distinct from the human person. they did not wish to deny that the two natures were distinct, but that two natures entailed there being two persons.
in saying that the two natures aren't 'mixed or confused', they wish to deny Monophysitism, which basically taught that the Word replaced the faculty of the human soul (hence not 100% human, but a 'hybrid' being half God and half man).
in asserting that the person of the Son, for the sake of our salvation, assumed a human nature, and the resultant condition of his being was the simultaneous subsistence of the divine and human natures in a single subject, they meant to affirm what i have outlined in previous posts. speaking of which ...

So when we speak of Christ "being" fully man, what does that mean? And when we speak of Christ "being" fully God, what does that mean? If Christ is one in person, i.e. ontology, then how can we say Christ is "fully" human and "fully" God?

**7** why haven't you interacted with the formulations and analogies that i've given? are you egging us on?

I am looking forward to your answers.

**8** and i yours.
peace.

Brian

February 10th 2003, 11:00 PM

Hello Calvanist!

Being the country boy that your are, surely you can appreciate it when someone misses a point. Please forgive my oversight.

However, just because I said it was a good point and that I found it interesting, does not mean that I agree to the distinction being made. You can argue that the "greek" makes a distinction between being and nature. But when we speak of Christ's nature are we making the same distinction? In other words, when we say that Christ is fully human, what is it that we are saying? When we say that Christ is fully God what do we mean? Aren't we necessarily talking about His being? If your line of reasoning holds, you are saying that Christ was two natures, one being, and one person. What does that mean, and better yet, does scripture teach us that Christ is fully human, but only in nature and not in being?

How many would be willing to defend the idea that Christ's "being" is NOT human?

Thanks,

Brian

Brian

February 10th 2003, 11:17 PM

Hello phantaz sunlyk!

Thank you for your reply. I found it to be very gracious. I am not leading anyone on here. This is an issue for me, and I am trying to find answers. So please bare with me, and Give me the benrfit of the doubt. I am trying to be as genuine as possible.

With that said, I do not understand the anologies you put forth. What I am trying to figure out, is what is Christ's "being" at this moment? I am somewhat familiar with Nestorianism, as well as the heretical "theanthropic" nature of Christ. What I understand the creeds trying to say is that Christ is NOW fully God in being and nature, as well as fully Man in being and nature. Is this how you see it? Again, what does it mean for Christ to be fully man or God?

Thanks for your patience.

Brian

Jaltus

February 10th 2003, 11:18 PM

You bring up some very good points. The distinction of 2 natures and 1 being is interesting. So when we speak of Christ "being" fully man, what does that mean? And when we speak of Christ "being" fully God, what does that mean? If Christ is one in person, i.e. ontology, then how can we say Christ is "fully" human and "fully" God? I am looking forward to your answers.Christ is fully human and fully divine, for He has two natures. Two physis, only one ousia. Being is the actual essence of something. Thus, God is one essence (ousia) but three persons (prosopon, hupostasis, though the first deals with outward appearance and the second with inward personhood).

You see, Christ has a human nature and a divine nature. Christ the being is one simple ousia. He has one being.

Before the incarnation, He was one ousia with one physis. At conception, He was one being with two physis.

Make sense?

Brian

February 10th 2003, 11:42 PM

Hello Jaltus!

Yes, your explanation was very clear. Thank you. What I hear you saying is that Christ has one "being," but two "natures."

What is the distinction between nature and being?

(By the way, I am not sure this distinction aviods the violation of LC. How can something have 2 natures? You don't need to answer this. I am only asking it parenthetically.)

Thanks!

Brian

phantaz sunlyk

February 11th 2003, 12:55 AM

**7** say hey Brian--

So please bare with me, and Give me the benrfit of the doubt.

**8** aye, my apologies. however, for future reference, it'd help if you actually interacted with posts point by point. that way we can be more precise, and specific misunderstandings can be cleared up.

What I understand the creeds trying to say is that Christ is NOW fully God in being and nature, as well as fully Man in being and nature. Is this how you see it?

**7** yes, that's how i see it.

Again, what does it mean for Christ to be fully man or God?

**8** to put it in other words, that Christ is truly God and truly human. that is, if you give two definitions--one for what it is to be God, and one for what it is to be human--then you could say of Christ that both of these definitions are true of him from the Incarnation up til now and on into eternity. it isn't a case of 'A' and 'not A' being affirmed at the same time, for in this case the variables don't exclude one another nor are they opposites. it'd be like saying "God is almighty, let's call this A; God is omniscient, let's call this O; God is almighty and omniscient at the same time--this, however, is contradictory, since O is not A, and if A, then not not A. therefore God can't be both A and O at the same time."
your mistake is quite similar. you need to define, with precision, both human and divine nature. all natures/substances consist of properties. hence list the essential things it takes to be human. then the essential things it takes to be divine. after you do that, i think doors will begin to open. as it stands, your variables are far too ambiguous, and it seems as though you define them merely in reference to one another, thus loading the premises.
peace in Christ. by the way, what Church do you belong to?

Brian

February 11th 2003, 04:10 AM

Hello phantaz sunlyk!

however, for future reference, it'd help if you actually interacted with posts point by point.

I will try to do that more. The problem I run into is with so many people firing ideas at me, it is hard to take the time and respond to everyone's points...especially with the longer posts.

if you give two definitions--one for what it is to be God, and one for what it is to be human--then you could say of Christ that both of these definitions are true of him from the Incarnation up til now and on into eternity. it isn't a case of 'A' and 'not A' being affirmed at the same time, for in this case the variables don't exclude one another nor are they opposites.

As I have already pointed out, something does not have to be "opposite" or "diametrically opposed" to be contradictory. This is a common misconception. If you missed my argument concerning this, I will be happy to state it again. Just let me know.

When we speak of what it is to be God...what do we call it? Ontology? When we speak of what it means to be man....what do we call it? Ontology? Ontology is the study of being, whether it is God, man, a rock, or quarks. So concerning "ontology" Jesus is God (A), and Jesus is Man (~A) at the same time and in the same relationship.

it'd be like saying "God is almighty, let's call this A; God is omniscient, let's call this O; God is almighty and omniscient at the same time--this, however, is contradictory, since O is not A, and if A, then not not A. therefore God can't be both A and O at the same time.

This argument has been delt with already as well. But I will take the time to explain it here...

(1) 2+2 is "4"
(2) 2+2 is "5"
(3) 2+2 is "addition"

Statements 1 and 2 are contradictory. The sense of both the subject (2+2) and the predicate (4 and 5) are the same. Therefore, we have A and ~A. However, statement 1 and 3 are not contradictory, because the sense of the predicate has changed. That is, even though "4" is certainly not "addition" it is not different in the SAME sense. Remember, a contradiction is something that is A and ~A simultaniously and in the SAME sense. Omniscience and almighty are different senses, therefore you can predicate this to God and it is not a contradiction. When we begin to look at Christ's being, however, we are talking about the SAME sense (i.e. human being and divine being), and this allows for there to be a charge of contradiction.

you need to define, with precision, both human and divine nature. all natures/substances consist of properties. hence list the essential things it takes to be human. then the essential things it takes to be divine.

I disagree with you. All of this falls under the catagory of ontology, or if someone wants to make a further distinction, nature. I don't need to understand in great detail God's being and man's being to bring a charge of contradiction. I don't need to understand the being of a rock to make a distinction between it and me. The point is, if Christ's "being" is God, and Christ's "being" is Man, then he is two different "beings" in the same sense (i.e. ontologically) and at the same time. This allows for their to be a charge of contradiction...at least from a formal logic perspective.

If you want to make a distinction between being and nature, as some have suggested, just substitute "being" for the word "nature." The argument still holds.

by the way, what Church do you belong to?

I am the music director of Faith Community Church in Tucson, AZ. It is a non-denominational charismatic church. I would classify our doctrine as Reformed even though we are charismatic.

I hope I have done a better job at addressing each of your points. I am looking forward to your response!

Sincerely,

Brian

dizzle

February 11th 2003, 05:45 AM

This thread is rocking and really indepth... thank you Brian for bringing this up.... I am going to print this one out and absorb it.

Piebald

February 11th 2003, 09:17 AM

Hey Brian, those are great posts! Thanks for taking the time to write them out. By the way, are you BrianH from CARM?

Brian

February 11th 2003, 02:54 PM

Hello Dee Dee and Hamster!

Thank you for your encouraging words. I am flattered, and you have made me feel good. The funny thing is, I don't believe there can be anything contradictory in God, and I am trying to find the answer to this particular dillema. However, in doing so all I have been doing is establishing how the dual nature of Christ is contradictory. Kind of ironic, huh? I don't think there is a contradiction, but I just don't know why yet.

Brian
P.S. Hamster, no I am not BrianH from CARM. Just a measly music director from Tucson. ;)

Jaltus

February 11th 2003, 03:55 PM

Yes, your explanation was very clear. Thank you. What I hear you saying is that Christ has one "being," but two "natures."

What is the distinction between nature and being?

This is where it gets a little bit weird. Physis is that which conditions how one acts. It deals with thought process and internal make up. Ousia is the actual ontological reality. Neither of these is equal to mind. If someone had to pin me down on that, I'd say that mind is bound up in hupostasis (interior personhood).

Take a horse for example.

Ousia is the ontological existence of the horse. Physis is the "horseness" of the horse, that which makes it a horse.

Due to this, the only way existing as fully divine and fully human can be contradictory is if something in the divine nature directly cancels out something in the human nature.

(By the way, I am not sure this distinction aviods the violation of LC. How can something have 2 natures? You don't need to answer this. I am only asking it parenthetically.)
Actually, it is a good question and something I struggled with in dealing with this issue (I just took a course on how the ECFs built this doctrine in the first place, so this thread is a lot of fun for me).

What is a flying fish? Is it bird, fish, or both?

Well, according to classical classifications, it would be both. It is fully fish, in that it swims and breathes through gills, and it is fully bird in that it flies and is not an insect or reptile.

Thus, it has the nature of a bird and the nature of a fish. It just so happens that those natures are not contradictory (well, at least as I defined them, but this is just an example). How about people who have multiple personalities? They carry around in themselves two natures (not really physis, but this is for the sake of argument), but are in fact one being (ousia).

In the same way, Christ is both fully God and fully man with respect to His nature. There is only one predicate (only one "thing" which can be the subject of a sentence, the natures are not active beings, His human nature cannot do something and then have His divine nature do something else, they both fully participate in whatever He is doing).

I hope this makes sense. Most of this is off the top of my head, so I hope it is cogent.

phantaz sunlyk

February 11th 2003, 06:45 PM

**7** say hey Brian. music director eh? ya dig the Chemical Brothers?

However, statement 1 and 3 are not contradictory, because the sense of the predicate has changed. That is, even though "4" is certainly not "addition" it is not different in the SAME sense.

**8** the reason why 1 and 3 aren't contradictory is because the meaning of "is" is being used in a distinct sense, and not because the sense of the predicate has changed. both are statements of identity, yet they identify distinct aspects of the subject.
an old friend told me--
1)God is Love
2)Love is blind
3)Ray Charles is blind, therefore
4)Ray Charles is God.
in each of the cases, the predicate denotes a specific aspect of the properties of the subject as conditioned by the copula ("is"). however, the aspect in the subject which the copula modifies via the predicate is distinct in each case.
the point you keep missing is the function of the predicate--namely, that it denotes properties. hence...

I don't need to understand in great detail God's being and man's being to bring a charge of contradiction.

**7** yes, you do. this is like saying "I don't need to know a lot about second temple Jewish apocalyptic conceptual categories if i want to understand Revelation." and even if you don't think you need to, why don't you try it, just for me. i think this issue would be settled alot quicker.
in the following--
1)Jesus Christ is truly human,
2)Jesus Christ is truly God
--it doesn't matter that both statements are statements describing the essence(s) of the subject. the reason why is because when both predicates are reduced to properties, the properties do not mutually exclude eachother.
take another example--
1)Jim is the CEO of the company;
2)Jim is the janitor of the company.
in both cases the subject is the same, and the sense in which the predicate conditions the copula is the same. we are talking about the function of the subject, yet in both cases the predicates are completely distinct. if both could be true at the same time (and they can), the reason why would be because when we analyze what it means to be a CEO, and what it means to be a janitor, we would recognize that the two don't necessarily exclude eachother.

If you want to make a distinction between being and nature, as some have suggested, just substitute "being" for the word "nature." The argument still holds.

**7** nah--in the period in question (4th - 5th century), ousia and physis were, in theological circles, synonyms, hence i see no need to distinguish between them. my argument doesn't hinge on it.
gotta run--sorry if i left anything out!
peace in Christ.

Brian

February 11th 2003, 09:12 PM

Hello Jaltus and phantaz sunlyk!

I am going to leave the discussion between the distinctions of nature and being to the two of you. Jaltus seems to think there is a difference, and PS seems to think they are synonymous. I tend to agree with PS, but Jaltus brought up some interesting points in his last post. If you guys are so inclined, I will let you discuss that topic. If not, Jaltus, I will pick it back up tomorrow or Thursday.

the reason why 1 and 3 aren't contradictory is because the meaning of "is" is being used in a distinct sense, and not because the sense of the predicate has changed.

You and I may be saying the same thing here. However, it is the predicate that determines the sense, and NOT the copula "is". In other words, you cannot determine the sense of “is” apart from the predicate. That was my point, and I apologize if I was inaccurate.

yes, you do. this is like saying "I don't need to know a lot about second temple Jewish apocalyptic conceptual categories if i want to understand Revelation."

Do I need to have a complete understanding of the intricacies of the axioms of Peano’s mathematics to say there is a difference between natural numbers and integers? I do not. Do I need to have a complete understanding of the nature of God to say that He is ontologically different from angels? I do not. It is fine for me to say that (1) Jesus is God speaks of ontology, and (2) Jesus is Man speaks of ontology, and conclude A and ~A in the same sense (i.e. an ontological sense), and at the same time. I will grant that the “beingness” of God is different from the “beingness” of man because their “beingness” is different. But the sense of the word “being” as it describes essence is exactly the same for both God and man. If it is not, which it seems like you are trying to drive at, then how would you define the word “being” as it relates to God, and how would you define it as it relates to man. Does the word “being” change meaning when we are talking about dogs, cats, rocks, etc? If so, this will lead to other philosophical problems. But rather than attack a straw man I will wait for your response.

take another example--
1)Jim is the CEO of the company;
2)Jim is the janitor of the company.
in both cases the subject is the same, and the sense in which the predicate conditions the copula is the same. we are talking about the function of the subject, yet in both cases the predicates are completely distinct. if both could be true at the same time (and they can), the reason why would be because when we analyze what it means to be a CEO, and what it means to be a janitor, we would recognize that the two don't necessarily exclude each other.

This is an interesting point. Saying that Jim is CEO and janitor is not a contradiction. However, there is a vast difference between essence and role. Jesus is Lord, Son, servant, King, etc...is not a contradiction. Jesus is Lord and God is not a contradiction. But Jesus is God and Man is. We are speaking of being here and not role, and that makes all the difference. Is the following a contradiction? (Assume we are speaking of “being” at the same moment in time.)

1. Max is a dog.
2. Max is a cat.

If so, why? If not, why not?

Thanks,

Brian

Captain Ochre

February 11th 2003, 10:20 PM

Cutting to the sticking point:

Brian:
Is the following a contradiction? (Assume we are speaking of “being” at the same moment in time.)

1. Max is a dog.
2. Max is a cat.

If so, why? If not, why not?

Thanks,

Brian

The above is not a contradiction until specific content is brought to the terms "dog" and "cat". I can think of meanings for each word that clearly enable both prospective premisses to be true without contradiction.
Brian, predictably, will return to an apparently unified notion of "dogness" or "catness" which is not comprised of a variety of specifications.
I would remind Brian that his chosen example also reduces to categorization according to specific criteria (Linnaen).
Btw, Linnaeus didn't have to know *everything* about cats and dogs to classify them differently. By using the term "everything" in his response to Phantaz, Brian has (unwittingly, I trust) constructed a straw man.

phantaz sunlyk

February 12th 2003, 12:30 AM

**7** say hey brian--

I am going to leave the discussion between the distinctions of nature and being to the two of you. Jaltus seems to think there is a difference, and PS seems to think they are synonymous.

**8** nah, i have no problem with the distinction Jaltus brings forward. i simply don't need to use it for the particular argument i'm advancing. for the sake of clarity, however, i'll simply use "nature" to refer to the conjunction of properties of a type (i.e., human or divine) as opposed to "being".

it is the predicate that determines the sense, and NOT the copula "is". In other words, you cannot determine the sense of “is” apart from the predicate.

**7** i never stated that the copula acts independtly of either the subject or predicate. rather, i stated that the copula is conditioned by the subject and predicate, in light of which is determined the aspect of the subject to which the predicate applies.
therefore, your distinction still fails. in your list of premises--

(1) 2+2 is "4"
(2) 2+2 is "5"
(3) 2+2 is "addition"

**8** --the predicate in each is a property of identity. the first refers to the identity of the sum of the compound subject, the latter refers to the identity of the activity performed by adding the former part of the compound subject to the latter. as the subject and copula is identical in each, it therefore follows that if there is a distinction between the predicates, it must refer to an aspect of the identity of the subject--to the sense in which the subject is the predicate.

Do I need to have a complete understanding of the intricacies of the axioms of Peano’s mathematics to say there is a difference between natural numbers and integers?

**7** not sure--i'm into the aesthetical side of music rather than the mathematical--but given the way you've handled the present subject, i'm not willing to simply take your word for it.

Do I need to have a complete understanding of the nature of God to say that He is ontologically different from angels? I do not.

**8** you need to have understanding enough to know why there is a difference, and whence it emerges.
speaking of which, do the Angel of YHWH theophanies in the OT wherein the Logos (who is God) appeared (as an angel) fall victim to the law of non-contradiction as well? ;)

It is fine for me to say that (1) Jesus is God speaks of ontology, and (2) Jesus is Man speaks of ontology, and conclude A and ~A in the same sense (i.e. an ontological sense), and at the same time.

**7** no, it is not 'fine', for in the word 'ontology' you load your conclusion into what is supposed to be a premise because you leave the term 'ontology' sufficiently vague enough for you to be able to load a contradiction into it whenever it suits your fancy.
ontology denotes the distinction between different categories of being, and the reason why ontology can distinguish between these categories is because it takes the time to denote the specific properties of individual substances, placing those substances with similar properties with one another in the same ontological category on the basis of the similar properties which subsist in each.
you seem to have shown yourself completely and absolutely unwilling (unable?) to do this.

(Assume we are speaking of “being” at the same moment in time.)
1. Max is a dog.
2. Max is a cat.

**7** (cough). given the common literal usages of the words 'cat' and 'dog', as refering to physically existing animals, yes, and necessarily so...

If so, why? If not, why not?

**8** (sneeze).
the reason why is because both species are denoted by the instancing of physical properties in a spatio-temporal synthesis. thus set A of properties, instanced at T1 at point-x in Melbourne, excludes the possibility of set B of properties being instanced at T1 at point-x in Melbourne so long as both sets of properties are such that they essentially subsist spatio-temporally.
it is a completely different issue when it comes to the substance of God, for his essential properties aren't spatio-temporally determined--his essential properties are purely spiritual (intelligence, freedom, power, love, holiness, etc., or, according to my definition, 'metaphysical necessity').
hence a contradiction could be located only if, in affirming the hypostatic union, we affirmed the cessation of the Son's spiritual properties (='divine nature'). but this is precisely what we do not affirm. we affirm that these spiritual properties are instantiated via a human body.
and, just to be clear, you can't say "but spirit isn't body, therefore it is a contradiction!!!!!!!! why can't you say this? because we're not arguing for monophysitism--we don't claim that the spirit became the body, we claim that the spirit united itself to a body and subsists through it.
so, to bring this issue to a close, you need to define your distinct ontological categories via a listing of the properties which essentially belong to each category. i did this several pages back. if i was correct in my definitions, it thereby follows that the hypostatic union is possible and the Chalcedonian definition is coherent.
if i was incorrect in my definitions, then it needs to be shown why, and after you have shown this, we can then either assess the Creed anew, or redefine our terms.
as it stands, you have failed completely to rise to a level which is capable of even assessing the various claims, much less come to a conclusion with regards thereto. if this doesn't change, i can't believe in your sincerity, and i'll therefore drop out of this discussion.

bye brian! :yipee:

Brian

February 12th 2003, 12:26 PM

Hello phantaz sunlyk!

Good post!

Do I need to have a complete understanding of the intricacies of the axioms of Peano’s mathematics to say there is a difference between natural numbers and integers?

**7** not sure--i'm into the aesthetical side of music rather than the mathematical--but given the way you've handled the present subject, i'm not willing to simply take your word for it.

This hurt a little bit. :*( It's fine not to take my word for it, but to dismiss it because you think I have not handled this present subject well shows a lack of regard. My question is legitamate whether or not you feel my previous comments are legitamate.

Once again, I am sincere in this discussion. You have said that if I don't consider your arguments then I am not sincere. That does not logically follow, but nevertheless I certainly want to consider your arguments. Up to this point, I do not feel that you have considered mine. An argument in point that I do not fell you have considered is the argument concerning Paneo's mathematics. However, I do not consider you insincere because you simply dismissed it. The truth is, I assume that I am missing your point completely, and I feel that you are missing mine. My commitment to you is to continue until you feel understood. Can you do the same for me?

I will try to get back to you on the rest of the post sometime today. Thank you for the invigorating discussion.

Sincerely (really),

Brian

Jaltus

February 12th 2003, 05:42 PM

I think PS brings up a solid point, namely that "cat" and "dog" are actual physical classifications, whereas "man" and "God" are not.

Just so you know, I am using the correct orthodox delineations when I talk of the difference between "being" and "nature." You need to be careful of saying that Christ is "two beings," for that leads to there being four people in the Trinity, not three.

phantaz sunlyk

February 12th 2003, 07:38 PM

**7** say hey Jaltus--

Just so you know, I am using the correct orthodox delineations when I talk of the difference between "being" and "nature." You need to be careful of saying that Christ is "two beings," for that leads to there being four people in the Trinity, not three.

**8** aye, for some reason i thought you distinguished between 'physis' and 'ousia' within the context of this discussion (such that 'ousia' was meant to refer to the conjuction of the two natures in a single person)--my bad--yet i never doubted the orthodoxy of the idea you were getting across.
and if you could do me a favor, would you mind telling me whether or not my posts on this subject have made sense and presented the issue with sufficient clarity?
peace in Christ.

phantaz sunlyk

February 12th 2003, 07:49 PM

**7** say hey bri--

This hurt a little bit. It's fine not to take my word for it, but to dismiss it because you think I have not handled this present subject well shows a lack of regard.

**8** sorry about that. i've had some unhappy run-ins in discussion boards with JW's and Christadelphians (and some folk who don't like the Church i belong to), and i thought you may have been incognito, trying to put me on.
forgive me?

My question is legitamate whether or not you feel my previous comments are legitamate.

**7** and i feel that my answers have been such as to either answer your questions coherently, or place them within a context whereby a vantage point could be adopted such as to shed sufficient light on the actual issue at hand thus negating their force.

You have said that if I don't consider your arguments then I am not sincere.

**8** not quite--i meant to assert that if you didn't address the specific issues i brought up, you were essentially failing to rise to the level necessary in order to resolve the issue.

An argument in point that I do not fell you have considered is the argument concerning Paneo's mathematics.

**7** that's because, as i said, mathematics isn't my bag, and i don't know enough about it in order to speak about it. on the other hand, i addressed your parallel example. if the examples were analogous (which they appear to have been), then my response to your other example will suffice as an analogous answer to the mathemical point you raised.

The truth is, I assume that I am missing your point completely, and I feel that you are missing mine.

**8** nah, your point is too straightforward to miss. A is not non-A. i'm a philosophy major in college, hence i have no trouble following logic.
i'm still here if ya wanna talk. peace in Christ.

Brian

February 12th 2003, 08:54 PM

Hello phantaz sunlyk!

sorry about that. i've had some unhappy run-ins in discussion boards with JW's and Christadelphians (and some folk who don't like the Church i belong to), and i thought you may have been incognito, trying to put me on. forgive me?

Absolutely! :cheers: I do not believe there is a contradiction. I am an orthodox Christian who is trying to find out how I can demonstrate that there is no contradiction. At this point, I do not know how...but I will take you at your word that you have an answer, and I just need to hang in their a little longer.

and i feel that my answers have been such as to either answer your questions coherently, or place them within a context whereby a vantage point could be adopted such as to shed sufficient light on the actual issue at hand thus negating their force.

I believe you. However, I have not been able yet to see your point. Forgive me if you feel that it is painfully obvious, but for me it is not.

i meant to assert that if you didn't address the specific issues i brought up, you were essentially failing to rise to the level necessary in order to resolve the issue.

Fair enough.

nah, your point is too straightforward to miss. A is not non-A. i'm a philosophy major in college, hence i have no trouble following logic. i'm still here if ya wanna talk. peace in Christ.

Absolutely I want to talk. Even though I may express hurt feelings from time to time, I am very tenacious and am not easily discouraged. Do you agree with the statement: A is ~~A?

In my next post, I will go back and clarify points that you were trying to make that I am unsure about. I have never studied philosophy so you have to treat me like a complete novice.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Brian

Jaltus

February 12th 2003, 08:57 PM

aye, for some reason i thought you distinguished between 'physis' and 'ousia' within the context of this discussion (such that 'ousia' was meant to refer to the conjuction of the two natures in a single person)--my bad--yet i never doubted the orthodoxy of the idea you were getting across.
and if you could do me a favor, would you mind telling me whether or not my posts on this subject have made sense and presented the issue with sufficient clarity? I think you are doing ok, you just need to remember to not say Jesus had two beings, since that is a problematic view.

I refer you to The Christological Controversy edited and translated by Richard Norris.

phantaz sunlyk

February 12th 2003, 09:24 PM

**7** say hey Jaltus--

you just need to remember to not say Jesus had two beings, since that is a problematic view.

**8** aye, i never meant to assert that. i meant to assert one person (= being) subsisting 'in' two natures (= substances).

I refer you to The Christological Controversy edited and translated by Richard Norris.

**7** i have the work on the Trinitarian controversy from that series, but not the one on Christology. i like how they refer to selections from the primary sources.
i'm going on Quasten's _Patrology_ vol. 3 &4, the writings of the padres, Pelikan's vol. 1&2, Gerald O'Collins _Christology_, Swinburne's _The Christian God_, Rahner's _Foundations of Christian Faith, Kelly's _Early Chritian Creeds_ and _Early Christian Doctrines_, Kasper's _Jesus the Christ_, Grillmeirs _Christ in Christian Tradition_, and Studer's _Trinity and Incarnation_.
peace in Christ.

phantaz sunlyk

February 13th 2003, 01:13 AM

**7** say hey bri--

I am an orthodox Christian who is trying to find out how I can demonstrate that there is no contradiction.

**8** in that case, i'm all yours :thumb:

Do you agree with the statement: A is ~~A?

**7** of course.

I have never studied philosophy so you have to treat me like a complete novice.

**8** hmm, where'd ya pick up on Aristotle then?
and if this issue is really important to you, why don't you tell me how much you'd be willing to spend, and i'll arrange a bibliography for you that will answer the questions, and then some. after all, anything worth doing is worth doing well, especially as regards issues such as this.
peace in Christ.

Brian

February 21st 2003, 08:03 PM

Hello phantaz sunlyk!

I have been involved in a project that just finished. Now that it is finished, I thought we could revive this thread. In an effort to understand, I am going to in the broadest of terms try and represent your position. You can tell me then if I am on track or not.

Your position seems to be that until a contradiction can be declared it must be demonstrated that we are talking about the same thing, at the same time, in the same relationship. Also, when we say "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is man" we are talking about His nature. At this point, you say that even though these 2 sentences are talking about His nature (being both God and man), they are not talking about the same relationship. In other words, the sentence "Jesus is man" uses the idea of nature in a different sense than what is referred to in the sentence "Jesus is God." Therefore, since nature is being used in a different sense, then there is no contradiction.

Have I got this right?

Thanks,

Brian
P.S. The issue is important to me. Do you have any material that deals directly with this issue?

phantaz sunlyk

February 22nd 2003, 02:06 AM

**7** say hey bri-guy --

I have been involved in a project that just finished. Now that it is finished, I thought we could revive this thread.

**8** aye; i've just been called to a task that will require some time on my part, hence my participation will most likely be very limited. rum thing.

you say that even though these 2 sentences are talking about His nature (being both God and man), they are not talking about the same relationship. In other words, the sentence "Jesus is man" uses the idea of nature in a different sense than what is referred to in the sentence "Jesus is God."

**7** not quite. i say that 'nature' is used in a univocal sense, yet the different predications thereof refer to distinct aspects of a single person.
recall earlier that i said something to the effect that if you don't see a contradiction in the Trinity, you shouldn't have a problem with the Incarnation. the reason is this--the distinction between person and nature.
in saying 'Christ is divine', that doesn't mean that Christ is, simply, 'absolutely identical with the divine nature'. if that were true, then he'd have to be the Father and Spirit as well. hence Christ has the divine nature--it isn't simply identical with his person.
likewise in saying 'Christ is human'. human nature is something Christ assumed--something he has.
a contradiction could only be posited if we absolutely identified the person with the nature. in that case, if we said 'Christ is divine and Christ is human', we would necessarily be entailing the statement that 'human is divine', which is of course nonsense--as far as i can tell, this is where your difficulty lies.
however, since we recognize the distinction between Person and Nature (and if you have no problem with the Trinity, you necessarily do recognize the distinction), we are not guilty of proclaiming a contradiction. we don't claim that 'human is divine', we claim that both natures, being distinct, subsist in a single Person.
it is my claim that this fact immediately removes the charge of a purely logical contradiction. we don't claim that A is ~A.

P.S. The issue is important to me. Do you have any material that deals directly with this issue?

**7** yes. do you want me to give you a list of books with brief commentary so you can buy and research on your own? this would probably be best, as my time here will be, at best, limited.
peace.

Brian

February 22nd 2003, 08:13 PM

Hello phantaz sunlyk!

i say that 'nature' is used in a univocal sense Just so we are on the same page, when we speak of Jesus' nature being both God and man, nature is being used in the same sense in both places. Is that what you mean?...if you don't see a contradiction in the Trinity, you shouldn't have a problem with the Incarnation.Are you saying that "Jesus is the being of God, Jesus is a person" is similar to "Jesus is God, Jesus is man"? That's the only way I could draw the comparrison between the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ. in saying 'Christ is divine', that doesn't mean that Christ is, simply, 'absolutely identical with the divine nature'. if that were true, then he'd have to be the Father and Spirit as well. hence Christ has the divine nature--it isn't simply identical with his person.Would you say that the Father is absolutely identical with the divine nature? It seems you might be saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have the divine nature, but none are absolutely identical with it. What do you mean by "absolutely identical"? Are you equating nature with being?in that case, if we said 'Christ is divine and Christ is human', we would necessarily be entailing the statement that 'human is divine', which is of course nonsense--as far as i can tell, this is where your difficulty lies.Christ is divine.
Christ is human.
Therefore, divine is human.

That is not a valid syllogism. So it does not necessarily follow that "human is divine" from the premises. The conclusion is not the issue for me, it is the seeming contradiction between the premises. I see it as being the same as...

Max is a dog.
Max is a cat.

Are the terms "human" and "divine" used to describe nature?however, since we recognize the distinction between Person and Nature (and if you have no problem with the Trinity, you necessarily do recognize the distinction), we are not guilty of proclaiming a contradiction.Father, Son, Holy Spirit...3 Persons
Father, Son, Holy Spirit...1 Essence

I have no issue with this. If it said God is 3 persons and 1 person, or 3 beings and 1 being, then there would be an issue. Since there is a distinction between "essence" and "being" there is no problem. But where is the distinction between nature and nature (remember, this is a univocal term)?do you want me to give you a list of books with brief commentary so you can buy and research on your own? this would probably be best, as my time here will be, at best, limited.Yes please. Take you time on the answers. Thanks!

Brian

Jaltus

February 23rd 2003, 12:48 AM

Max is a cat.
Max is a dog.

Admittedly, that does not work. However, cat and dog are both physical descriptions, genetic tags as it were.

Divinity is not a genetic tag.

You are making a catagory error. Once again, in order for there to be a contradiction, you must necessarily state where the contradiction actually exists. What is it about being divine that negates being human? Unless you actually answer that question, you can go no further.

Again, what about being divine negates being human? Are they in the same catagory or not? What catagory if it is a yes?

Until you go through these questions, no progress will be made. Brian, I respect that you are searching, but if you seriously want to make headway in this discussion, you are going to have to deal with these issues. You cannot declare humanity and divinity as being contradictory unless you define what it means to be human or divine. You have not done so, and thus your contradiction is not valid.

You might as well being saying:

Max is a gdhlj
Max is a sdthr

This is a contradition.

Untill you define terms, all you have is nonsense.

Brian

February 23rd 2003, 10:50 AM

Hello Jaltus!

How easy it is for you to dismiss there being no contradiction by simply saying terms have not been defined. Why don't you spell it out for me how it is not a contradiction? Is this a contradiction?

Jesus is A.
Jesus is ~A.

Granted, I am assuming "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is Man" is predicating one thing, i.e. nature. When I say Max is a dog, Max is a cat, you claim that is a physical distinction, yes, but it is more than that. How about this?

Max has the nature of a cat.
Max has the nature of a dog.

Is that a contradiction? If so, then how about this?

Max has the nature of God.
Max has the nature of dog.

Jaltus, if you know the answer please give it. You keep asking me to define what it means to be divine and human. I cannot. However, the Bible teaches me that God is wholly other. If this is this case, then it seems reasonable to conclude that God and man are NOT the same, and from this as well as the fact we are talking about nature in a univolcal sense, I am concluding a contradiction.

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. Jaltus, if you know the distinction concerning the divine nature that would allow for a dual nature not to be contradictory, why don't you just tell me, and then we can be done with this. Frankly, I am not convinced you have any more answers to this than I do.

phantaz sunlyk

February 23rd 2003, 04:04 PM

**7** say hey bri, this'll probably be my last post on this thread, atleast for a long while.

Just so we are on the same page, when we speak of Jesus' nature being both God and man, nature is being used in the same sense in both places. Is that what you mean?

**8** pretty much, but i want to clarify this further. to say that i use the term in a univocal sense is to say that in both cases, 'nature' denotes a conjunction of properties through which a person subsists.

Are you saying that "Jesus is the being of God, Jesus is a person" is similar to "Jesus is God, Jesus is man"? That's the only way I could draw the comparrison between the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ.

**7** the Nicene Creed (of 381) states that the Son is 'one in being (= 'homoousia') with the Father'. in saying this, it means to affirm that they have the same nature. according to the Cappadocians (who, alongside Athanasius, were the main source for the theology of the Creed), 'ousia' (= 'being, substance, nature') simply denotes the general properties of a species. hence you and i are 'of the same substance' because we are both human--we both have 'human nature'.
hence your question seems to indicate that you've failed to grasp the point i was making. if both the Son and Father have the nature of God, and the Father and Son aren't eachother, it thereby follows necessarily that since the two can be distinguished from eachother, they therefore cannot be absolutely identical with their nature. likewise, both you and i have human nature, but we aren't simply human nature--if that were so, you and i would be eachother.
it is only by distinguishing between Person and Nature that we show there to be no contradiction in the Trinity. if a nature can subsist in three persons--and this due to the fact that a nature is not simply identical with a person (for if it were, then the persons would need to be identical with each other), then it likewise follows that one person can subsist in two natures.
unless the absolute identity of the person with the nature is asserted (i.e., if we said 'not only does Christ have human nature, but he absolutely is human nature', or some such)--and if you don't think the Trinity to be contradictory, then you necessarily don't do this (either that or your thinking on that subject is extremely muddled)--can we be charged with a logical contradiction.

Would you say that the Father is absolutely identical with the divine nature?

**8** no--he is relatively identical with it. if i claimed that the Father and Son were both absolutely identical with the Divine Nature, then it would necessarily follow that they were eachother. rather, the Father is the Divine Nature subsisting as fontalis and unbegotten; the Son as expression and begotten, and the Spirit as procession.

It seems you might be saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have the divine nature, but none are absolutely identical with it.

**7** pretty much, though it must be added that the divine nature subsists only in these distinct manners of subsistence (hence "if divine nature, then Father or Son or Spirit; if Father, then Son or Spirit ...")

What do you mean by "absolutely identical"?

**8** by that i mean that, if a and b and c are identical, anything that can be said of a can be said of b and c, anything of b of a and c, and anything of c of a and b.
the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten. if both were absolutely identical with the divine nature, then the divine nature would be both unbegotten and begotten and not begotten and not unbegotten, and to be begotten would be identical with to be unbegotten--the Father would be the Son, the Nature would be both and neither, therefore both would be eachother and not themselves. in other words, a contradiction.

Are you equating nature with being?

**7** physis and ousia were synonymous in the period in question in theological circles. the Chalcedonians proclaimed the Son to be homoousios (of the same being, nature) with God and homoousios (of the same being, nature) with us.

Christ is divine.
Christ is human.
Therefore, divine is human.
That is not a valid syllogism. So it does not necessarily follow that "human is divine" from the premises.

**8** note that i said "IF THAT WERE THE CASE...".
and if you identify the person as the nature, then that is indeed the case.
the only reason it isn't (necessarily) a valid syllogism is because we distinguish between hypostasis and ousia--between person and nature.

Are the terms "human" and "divine" used to describe nature?

**7** keeping in mind that nature denotes a circumscribed set of properties through which a person subsists, yes.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit...3 Persons
Father, Son, Holy Spirit...1 Essence
I have no issue with this.

**8** and the reason why is because you distinguish between person and 'essence'; were this not the case you'd be swallowing a contradiction ...

If it said God is 3 persons and 1 person, or 3 beings and 1 being, then there would be an issue.

**7** and Chalcedon says 1 person and 2 natures, not 1 person and 2 persons, nor 1 nature and 2 natures.
where is the problem?

Since there is a distinction between "essence" and "being" there is no problem.

**8** i'd rather have you say 'there is a distinction between essence and person'.

But where is the distinction between nature and nature (remember, this is a univocal term)?

**7** and, for present purposes, 'person' is also a univocal term. since you gladly accept a distinction between person and person, how can you complain of the possibility of accepting a distinction between one nature and another?

Yes please.

**8** okay, here we go. i recommend one from each section.
COHERENCE AND LOGIC
1)Richard Swinburne, _The Christian God_. this book has only two chapters that deal with this issue, but the other parts will equip you with the tools necessary to further develop your insights. make this your first choice.
2)Thomas Morris, _The Logic of God Incarnate_. haven't read it yet, but it comes highly recommended by many.
HISTORICAL
1)William Rusch, _The Christological Controversy_. haven't read this one either, but i have a work from the same series dealing with the Trinity. a good historical introduction, and selections from the padres--on both sides of the fence. it is important to have your thought grounded in Christian history.
2)Alloys Grillmeier, _Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 1_. far more technical and exhaustive--the premiere source on this issue. it covers from the apostolic age to the Council of Chalcedon.
SYSTEMATIC
1)Gerald O'Collins, _Christology_. make this your second choice. he covers philisophical, scriptural, historical, and theological ground. a solid all around book on the subject, easy to read.
2)Walter Kasper, _Jesus the Christ_. much more difficult to follow, but well worth it. This work especially gives excellent focus on the relationship between the divine and human in Christ. this is the best book on Christology i've yet read. after you've read through other works and begun to formulate an idea, come to this work last to drive your insights home.
the above will definitely give you the means to satisfy your questions. i pray that God draws you nearer to his heart as you seek to understand him better.
peace.

Brian

February 23rd 2003, 04:49 PM

Hello phantaz sunlyk!

Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. I will re-read it carefully (having already read it), and I will get the first book you recommended. Would it be ok if I emailed you privately if other questions concerning this come up?

With Much Appreciation,

Brian

phantaz sunlyk

February 23rd 2003, 05:08 PM

**7** one more afor the day is over--

Would it be ok if I emailed you privately if other questions concerning this come up?

**8** um, sure. the problem is this--i'm preparing to go to a monastery in April, and hopefully i'll become a monk/hermit. hence i need to devote more time to prayer and reading Scripture.
as praying, i'm working on three different articles right now, and a fourth just came up. each will be extremely long, and i'm not sure if i'll have time to complete them.
finally, i've just been asked to give a lecture on the Trinity for the confirmation canidates at my Church.
on top of all of this i have a full time job (which is, to me, a complete waste of time that could be better spent studying and praying), hence i'm pretty much buried right now. your prayers would be appreciated.
anywho, my email address is alleyocean@hotmail.com
i'll respond as quickly as i can.
as for this forum, however, i'm done.
peace.

Captain Ochre

February 23rd 2003, 10:20 PM

02-23-2003 @ 02:50 PM
Brian:

Hello Jaltus!

How easy it is for you to dismiss there being no contradiction by simply saying terms have not been defined.

You're right, it is easy. Just as easy, I suspect, as it is to say that god-nature=A and man-nature=~A.
If the contradiction isn't pinpointed, then the contradiction is protected from refutation via the fact that it has not been expressed.
In my humble opinion, you have been given some excellent counterexamples that ought to have you scurrying to the drawing-board to try to pin down that supposed contradiction with a step-by-step logical progression.
To expect a contradiction that has not been clearly expressed to be clearly refuted is unreasonable, afaics. The contradiction has been clearly refuted to what

Why don't you spell it out for me how it is not a contradiction? Is this a contradiction?

Jesus is A.
Jesus is ~A.
[/QUOTE]

Of course.

Granted, I am assuming "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is Man" is predicating one thing, i.e. nature.

That's the stumbling-block, as I see it. "Nature" isn't one thing, though an entity may be described with one word which subsumes all the essential aspects of that entity's nature but even the term "god" itself communicates the idea of beings who vary according to nature. Zeus is god by nature. Hera is not Zeus (hence Hera is not god by nature?).

When I say Max is a dog, Max is a cat, you claim that is a physical distinction, yes, but it is more than that. How about this?

Max has the nature of a cat.
Max has the nature of a dog.

Is that a contradiction? If so, then how about this?

Max has the nature of God.
Max has the nature of dog.

Jaltus, if you know the answer please give it. You keep asking me to define what it means to be divine and human.

There is not such thing as a unified "dog" nature any more than there is a unified "god" nature, afaics. If you can explain that there is, please do so. A dog is a quadruped mammal (mammal by itself carries a descriptive set of aspects which descrbe "mammal" nature). There are a great many beings described as gods; in fact many men were described as gods, denoting their ultimate authority within their society (also entitling them to worship, supposedly).
It is extremely reasonable expect you to define your terms and present the contradiction as you understand it as clearly as you are able. If you can't describe it to the point where it looks like a contradiction to the rest of us, then what do you expect us to do?
"Brian sez it's a contradiction, so I guess it must be a contradiction"?

I cannot. However, the Bible teaches me that God is wholly other. If this is this case, then it seems reasonable to conclude that God and man are NOT the same, and from this as well as the fact we are talking about nature in a univolcal sense, I am concluding a contradiction.

Floor wax and dessert topping are not the same thing categorically, yet we had "Nu-Shimmer" which fits both categories (allegedly).

Explain why the counterexamples don't apply, or consider that you might be engaged in a form of special pleading, made puzzling by the fact that you have no apparent motive to engage in the practice.
Explain why man is necessarily ~God and your argument will have appeared (to my personal relief!). Your attempt to do this thus far have all been easily refuted, and it's not our fault that it's easy to do, afaics.

Brian

February 23rd 2003, 11:30 PM

Hello Captain!

Explain why man is necessarily ~God and your argument will have appeared (to my personal relief!).Are you kidding me? Help me understand this. Are you really asking me to make a case for why God and man are different? Please clarify.Explain why the counterexamples don't apply...
You might have to refresh my memory. The only one I remember had to do with multiple personalities. Is that what you are referring to? If so, I would be happy to argue that when we speak of dual natures we are not speaking of split personalities. Again, please restate your counter examples. Perhaps you could explicity explain to me what nature is. According to phantaz sunlyk, when the councils framed the dual nature of Christ, they used nature as synonomous with being or essence.

It seems obvious to me that men are not cows, and cows are not rocks, and rocks are not plankton, and plankton is not God, and that man is not God, etc...However, you seem to think that I am wrong to think that man is not God. It seems to me that it should be you that defends this completely non-intuitive position and not me. Why don't you give me an argument supporting your position? I don't believe you can, and that is the only reason you will not defend against the charge of contradiction. It appears to me that you are operating according to this rule: If you don't have an answer just insist that the other guy has not made his case. Pretend for a moment that you are my father, and I ask you why is it not a contradiction? How would you answer me? "Nature" isn't one thing...What do you mean by this? And what is your basis for making this statement? Can I say that human nature is a whole? Can I say that divine nature is a whole? Please explain this to the best of your ability. A good answer here might clear things up.

Sincerely,

Brian

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 01:32 AM

02-24-2003 @ 03:30 AM
Brian:

Hello Captain!

Are you kidding me? Help me understand this. Are you really asking me to make a case for why God and man are different? Please clarify.

No, not different; mutually exclusive. That's what a contradiction is, and that's what a contradiction has been since before you started this thread.

You might have to refresh my memory.

No problem. I gave you a brand new counterexample in the post you just replied to (the one I'm replying to now).

Perhaps you could explicity explain to me what nature is. According to phantaz sunlyk, when the councils framed the dual nature of Christ, they used nature as synonomous with being or essence.

There's no need for me to explain to you what "nature" is. The counterexamples either exist or betray no obvious contradiction. If you don't have an idea of "nature" that both supports your supposed perception of contradiction and resists refutation by counterexample, then you don't really have a contradiction in mind beyond your imagination.

It seems obvious to me that men are not cows, and cows are not rocks, and rocks are not plankton, and plankton is not God, and that man is not God, etc...

Excellent. I suggest that you take any one of those which you perceive not to be something else and logically demonstrate why they cannot be both at the same time and in the same sense. I can imagine that it would be an excellent exercise for you to undertake.
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/logargs.htm
Perhaps you'll find the link helpful.

However, you seem to think that I am wrong to think that man is not God.

Depends on the man, imo.

It seems to me that it should be you that defends this completely non-intuitive position and not me. Why don't you give me an argument supporting your position?

Prove that no contradiction exists? That can only be done inductively (probabilistically), afaik. Show me the alleged contradictions and I'll refute each one. Oops, we're back at square one, right where we were before you suggested shifting the burden of proof.

I don't believe you can, and that is the only reason you will not defend against the charge of contradiction.

P1 There is no contradiction between being both man and god.
P2 A thing is logically possible if it is not contradictory.
C It is logically possible for Jesus to be both man and god.

Feel free to challenge premise one with a concrete example. You were refuted with counterexamples, now it's your turn to try.

It appears to me that you are operating according to this rule: If you don't have an answer just insist that the other guy has not made his case.

Close, but it's more like this: If the skeptic (I use this of you in the broader sense) doesn't allege a contradiction that endures refutation by counterexample, then he has not made his case.
Fair enough?

Pretend for a moment that you are my father, and I ask you why is it not a contradiction? How would you answer me?

I would ask him why he thinks it's a contradiction. If he doesn't know why, then there is nothing to explain. If he gives a reason for thinking that it is a contradiction, then I demonstrate his error (by using counterexample, or pointing out the fallacy). Of course, we've already been through that.

("Nature isn't one thing . . .")

What do you mean by this? And what is your basis for making this statement?

How many times has it been explained to you and illustrated by example?
It is a collection of particulars that consitutes the categories dog, cat, man, and god. You erase the particulars and assert without support that the there is a unified "dog" nature. God is spirit, personality, omniscience, holiness, etcetera.
The nature of man is spirit, body, personality, etcetera.

Until you hit on a particular for one that is not compatible with a particular for the other, you have no grounds for claiming a contradiction.

Can I say that human nature is a whole?

Sure, in the same sense that you can say your car is a whole. That doesn't mean that it isn't made up of particulars, iow.

Can I say that divine nature is a whole? Please explain this to the best of your ability. A good answer here might clear things up.

Okay. Suppose your car has leather seats. Leather seats are not mandatory for cars. Thus, the nature of your particular car includes "leather seats"--not part of "car" nature universal, but nonetheless your car is fully car (your car does run, doesn't it? :wink:).

George Blaisdell

February 24th 2003, 04:29 PM

[QUOTE]02-09-2003 @ 11:38 AM
Brian:

>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.<

An easy way to think of this is in terms of the inhumanity of demons - How hateful of man they are, and how they seek the destruction of our souls.

Then think in terms of Christ, the man-befriending Son of God incarnate, and ask yourself, "Was He human?"

And the answer is an overwhelming "Yes!"

He was perhaps the only FULLY human, and this because he was the only fully divine one...

So that we can say that, as our divinity increases through progressive repentance from the evils of our sinful souls and the infilling of God's grace, we thereby become more and more human, and in the reverse, we become more and more demonic and inhuman...

geo

Brian

February 25th 2003, 03:44 PM

Hello Captain Ochre!

2+2=4
2+2=6

We have agreed that this is a contradiction. The two mathematical statements are mutually exclusive, i.e. they both cannot be true at the same time and in the same relationship. However, note that 4 and 6 have many properties that are the same. They are both numbers. They are both even numbers. They are both natural numbers. They are both positive numbers. They are both real numbers. They both have the common factor of 2, etc... I could go on, but I think you get the point. There are many similarities between 4 and 6 yet you and I agree that they are the predicates of two statements that are contradictory.

Jesus is God.
Jesus is Man.

The nature of Man and God have many similarities as well. However, they are not the same, just like 4 and 6 are not the same but have many similar qualities. In Systematic theology, theologians make a distinction between the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God. The idea is that there are similarities (communicable attributes) and there are differences (incommunicable attributes). One incommunicable attribute is immutability. Others are ominpresence, omniscience, unity, etc. These are attributes that man does not have. This presents me with contradictions. For example, is Jesus omnipresent and not-omnipresent at the same time? Even Calvin and Luther debated this in terms of the Lord's Supper, and both of them claimed that the other was violating the creeds set for by Chalcedon within their respective positions.

Captain, is this what you were looking for? I await your answers.

Sincerely,

Brian

Captain Ochre

February 25th 2003, 10:39 PM

02-25-2003 @ 07:44 PM
Brian:

Hello Captain Ochre!

2+2=4
2+2=6

We have agreed that this is a contradiction. The two mathematical statements are mutually exclusive, i.e. they both cannot be true at the same time and in the same relationship. However, note that 4 and 6 have many properties that are the same. They are both numbers. They are both even numbers. They are both natural numbers. They are both positive numbers. They are both real numbers. They both have the common factor of 2, etc... I could go on, but I think you get the point. There are many similarities between 4 and 6 yet you and I agree that they are the predicates of two statements that are contradictory.

Merry-go-round.
Wheeeeee!

Jesus is God.
Jesus is Man.

The nature of Man and God have many similarities as well. However, they are not the same, just like 4 and 6 are not the same but have many similar qualities.

And hopefully you realize that nobody is claiming that "god" nature" and "man" nature are the same thing.

In Systematic theology, theologians make a distinction between the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God. The idea is that there are similarities (communicable attributes) and there are differences (incommunicable attributes). One incommunicable attribute is immutability. Others are ominpresence, omniscience, unity, etc. These are attributes that man does not have. This presents me with contradictions.

Dude, your own example above provides a counterexample to your perception of contradiction. The nature of even numbers and the nature of numbers divisible by three is different, yet 6 is 100% divisible by three and 100% even.
Phantaz went over this at length with you. You apparently agreed to go along with his reading of the church councils, which should have dissuaded you from the notion that the councils were saying that Jesus was nothing except for god-nature and nothing except for man-nature.

IMO, you either need to point to a contradictory element between god nature and man nature, or your perception of contradiction is imagined rather than factual.
You never seem to deal with any counterexample. You just return back to square one every time, afaics.
[Edit to add]
I'm pleased to see that you've taken a significant step toward proving me wrong on that point. Or maybe I'm already wrong. Either way.:thumb:

For example, is Jesus omnipresent and not-omnipresent at the same time?

Yes, but not in the same sense. As has already been pointed out to you (iirc), having a given attribute does not compel one to make use of it. Jesus had the ability to be omnipresent and limited himself to one locale; that is, the aspect of man-nature that you mentioned. If Jesus had availed himself of his godly attributes (except as through the Holy Spirit, just as man may), then his incarnation would not have been authentic with respect to qualifying him for sacrifice and the perfect high priesthood (theology experts step in if I'm wrong, but this is the orthodox view, from what I understand--i've been certified as having avoided seminary).

Even Calvin and Luther debated this in terms of the Lord's Supper, and both of them claimed that the other was violating the creeds set for by Chalcedon within their respective positions.

Captain, is this what you were looking for? I await your answers.

The specific example was exactly the sort of thing that I was looking for from you. Thanks for taking the time to settle on a point (feel free to go for more). I'm not familiar with the Calvin/Luther dispute that you refer to, so if it's relevant, please provide a link or reference.

:cheers:

Jaltus

February 25th 2003, 11:17 PM

Jaltus, if you know the answer please give it. You keep asking me to define what it means to be divine and human. I cannot. However, the Bible teaches me that God is wholly other. If this is this case, then it seems reasonable to conclude that God and man are NOT the same, and from this as well as the fact we are talking about nature in a univolcal sense, I am concluding a contradiction.

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. Jaltus, if you know the distinction concerning the divine nature that would allow for a dual nature not to be contradictory, why don't you just tell me, and then we can be done with this. Frankly, I am not convinced you have any more answers to this than I do.Actually, I have been struggling with this a bit myself.

As for omnipresent and not omnipresent, I think you are missing something. Jesus can be present at a specific spot physically (being a man) and can be spiritually everywhere (being God). Hence, Jesus sees Nathan by the tree even though He was not there (John 1:45-50).

You see, man is by PHYSICAL nature only monpresent, whereas God is by Spiritual nature omnipresent. Jesus has both, so there is no contradiction. Why? Look at whejn the Father displayed a body, such as the pillar of fire or when Moses saw Him on the Mountain.

The only truly problematic aspect of Godhood that contradicts humanty to me is God being necessary and humanity being contingent. However, that may just be a classification problem rather than an actual attribute problem.

Captain Ochre

February 26th 2003, 01:15 AM

02-26-2003 @ 03:17 AM
Jaltus:

The only truly problematic aspect of Godhood that contradicts humanty to me is God being necessary and humanity being contingent. However, that may just be a classification problem rather than an actual attribute problem.

The incarnation wasn't (logically) necessary.

That resolves this last issue, afaics. Let me know if you disagree.

[Edit to add]

Jaltus, I think your point about limited presence and omnipresence is a good one. I had considered mentioning something along those lines in my recent reply to Brian, but I decided to see if it was an issue with Brian before getting into it.

Brian

February 26th 2003, 12:43 PM

Hello Jaltus and Captain Ochre!

Actually, I have been struggling with this a bit myself.Theologian R.C. Sproul says that when you try and work out Christ’s dual-nature you should just pick your heresy. As for omnipresent and not omnipresent, I think you are missing something. Jesus can be present at a specific spot physically (being a man) and can be spiritually everywhere (being God). Hence, Jesus sees Nathan by the tree even though He was not there (John 1:45-50).There are 2 things here. #1.This does not necessarily follow, and #2 this is very similar to the debate between Luther and Calvin concerning the Lord’s Supper. As to #1, Jesus said to Nathaniel, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” How did Jesus see him? You assume that Jesus saw Nathaniel because Jesus was omnipresent. But does this necessarily follow? No, someone could easily argue that God the Father, or the Holy Spirit could had given Jesus a vision of Nathaniel under the tree. As to #2, Luther taught that the body and blood of Christ were added in, under, and through the elements of bread and wine. Calvin denied the physical presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper, but affirmed the real presence of Christ. Calvin claimed Jesus' human nature is localized in heaven; His divine nature is omnipresent. Luther charged Calvin with the heresy of separating the two natures. This is the issue that divided the reformation, and is arguably why we do not have a unified Protestant church.(Brian)For example, is Jesus omnipresent and not omnipresent at the same time?
(Captian)Yes, but not in the same sense. As has already been pointed out to you (iirc), having a given attribute does not compel one to make use of it. Jesus had the ability to be omnipresent and limited himself to one locale; that is, the aspect of man-nature that you mentioned.This will not work philosophically. Just because one does not use an attribute (even this idea of being able to turn an attribute on and off is dubious), does not mean that the attribute is not really there. Is Jesus omnipresent or is He not? When is He omnipresent, and when is He not? When you make these kinds of distinctions you commit heresy. If you say that Jesus is always omnipresent, but doesn’t use it, what does that mean? Philosophically speaking, omnipresent has a necessary quality.

Perhaps there is another way of looking at it. When we speak of God (i.e. religious language), we cannot know of what we speak in an absolute sense. When I say God is love, can my finite mind truly grasp what this means? I have an idea of what Love is, but when I attribute this to God surely it takes on much more meaning. When we speak of goodness, Jesus said only God is good. So, obviously we will never fully know God’s goodness, love, etc…because it is infinite, and we are not. So when we try to understand the dual nature of this infinite God, even though it appears to our finite minds to be contradictory, because we are predicating something to a being of infinite magnitude (something we cannot fully know), we can not conclude a contradiction because we cannot know all of the “facts”. This leaves us to say that it is a mystery, i.e. something we can’t explain, but nevertheless is not contradictory. What do you guys think?

Sincerely,

Brian

Captain Ochre

February 26th 2003, 02:59 PM

02-26-2003 @ 04:43 PM
Brian:

This will not work philosophically. Just because one does not use an attribute (even this idea of being able to turn an attribute on and off is dubious), does not mean that the attribute is not really there. Is Jesus omnipresent or is He not? When is He omnipresent, and when is He not?

Seems to me that you're insisting that omnipresent and Jesus local human presence must be understood to be in the same sense.
What is the rationale for doing this?

When you make these kinds of distinctions you commit heresy. If you say that Jesus is always omnipresent, but doesn’t use it, what does that mean? Philosophically speaking, omnipresent has a necessary quality.

Agreed; but what about localized presence? Is that a "necessary" quality as well? Thus, you would be saying that it is impossible for a being with an omnipresent nature to take on a localized presence in a different sense. I'd like to see the reasoning that justifies the claim.
FTM, is ~omnipresent an essential part of the nature of man?

Perhaps there is another way of looking at it. When we speak of God (i.e. religious language), we cannot know of what we speak in an absolute sense. When I say God is love, can my finite mind truly grasp what this means? I have an idea of what Love is, but when I attribute this to God surely it takes on much more meaning.

If it isn't the perfection that eludes us rather than the concepts themselves (perfect or not), then we might say the same about all language (slouching toward postmodernism). One of our theological presuppositions (as I'm sure you're aware, with your hints of Reformed background) is the comprehensibility of language.

When we speak of goodness, Jesus said only God is good. So, obviously we will never fully know God’s goodness, love, etc…because it is infinite, and we are not.

Infinitude is the key by implication, and I agree.

So when we try to understand the dual nature of this infinite God, even though it appears to our finite minds to be contradictory, because we are predicating something to a being of infinite magnitude (something we cannot fully know), we can not conclude a contradiction because we cannot know all of the “facts”. This leaves us to say that it is a mystery, i.e. something we can’t explain, but nevertheless is not contradictory. What do you guys think?

I happen to agree.
There! I said it. :smile:

Brian

February 26th 2003, 06:22 PM

Hello Guys!

Seems to me that you're insisting that omnipresent and Jesus local human presence must be understood to be in the same sense. What is the rationale for doing this? Because it is speaking of the same sense, i.e. spatial being. Once again, I am trying not to commit heresy, and thereby slip over into contradiction.Agreed; but what about localized presence? Is that a "necessary" quality as well? Thus, you would be saying that it is impossible for a being with an omnipresent nature to take on a localized presence in a different sense.By saying "different sense" you are changing the meaning of the word "presence". However, God being omni-present, and man being ~omni-present is speaking of "presence" in the same sense. Of course, because we are finite beings, we cannot know what God's omnipresence completely entails. That is what makes this question so difficult.

Thanks guys for your help on this one. I can't say that I understand, but I am further along.

Sincerely,

Brian

Jaltus

February 26th 2003, 06:47 PM

There are 2 things here. #1.This does not necessarily follow, and #2 this is very similar to the debate between Luther and Calvin concerning the Lord’s Supper. As to #1, Jesus said to Nathaniel, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” How did Jesus see him? You assume that Jesus saw Nathaniel because Jesus was omnipresent. But does this necessarily follow? No, someone could easily argue that God the Father, or the Holy Spirit could had given Jesus a vision of Nathaniel under the tree. As to #2, Luther taught that the body and blood of Christ were added in, under, and through the elements of bread and wine. Calvin denied the physical presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper, but affirmed the real presence of Christ. Calvin claimed Jesus' human nature is localized in heaven; His divine nature is omnipresent. Luther charged Calvin with the heresy of separating the two natures. This is the issue that divided the reformation, and is arguably why we do not have a unified Protestant church.Well, problem number 1 is easy to explain. Jesus did not say "I saw a vision of you," but said "I saw you." This verb, οραω, is a verb of actual site. It can only refer to visions when with a cognate noun.

As for Luther vs. Calvin, it really does not matter to me what they said. What matters is what scripture says.

Captain Ochre

February 26th 2003, 06:52 PM

02-26-2003 @ 10:22 PM
Brian:

Hello Guys!

Because it is speaking of the same sense, i.e. spatial being.

Oh? God has dimensions? Would a theophany contradict that, too?
The Bible speaks of the presence of God in the temple. Is that a redundancy? I'm not certain that you are correct to insist that presence is the same in both cases--I strongly suspect that it isn't the case, rather.

Once again, I am trying not to commit heresy, and thereby slip over into contradiction.By saying "different sense" you are changing the meaning of the word "presence".

Of course--either that or you've got a straw man version of "presence" at work. :smile:

However, God being omni-present, and man being ~omni-present is speaking of "presence" in the same sense.

For purposes of your argument, probably not. "Divisible by 3" and "divisible by 2" are speaking of divisibility in the same sense except for the 3 and the 2. You may be going from "divisible by 2" to "~divisible by 3" because you perceive that "divisible by 2" is not the same nature as "divisible by 3".
If omnipresent meant what you appear to claim it means, then wouldn't the incarnation be redundant?

Of course, because we are finite beings, we cannot know what God's omnipresence completely entails. That is what makes this question so difficult.

You said it! :smile:

Brian

February 26th 2003, 07:45 PM

Hello Jaltus!

Jesus did not say "I saw a vision of you," but said "I saw you." This verb, ïñáù, is a verb of actual site. It can only refer to visions when with a cognate noun.

The Textus Receptus, Byzantine, and Nestle-Aland 27 translations all have the Greek word “edion.” This exact verb (tense and all) can be found in Acts 11:5, 6, which is specifically a vision. Do you think you may be mistaken?

Sincerely,

Brian

Jaltus

February 26th 2003, 10:58 PM

Hence "cognate noun."

Note EKSTASIS in 11:5.

George Blaisdell

February 27th 2003, 01:31 AM

Brian:

The Textus Receptus, Byzantine, and Nestle-Aland 27 translations all have the Greek word “edion.” This exact verb (tense and all) can be found in Acts 11:5, 6, which is specifically a vision. Do you think you may be mistaken?

Sincerely,

Brian

Actually, it is eidon, and you are right, it is not merely an optic verb, although it does not exclude ocular vision, and usually includes it. "Beheld" is a good rendering for it. Related to, I believe, ide, meaning 'Behold!' It can mean behold in a vision, or in one's understanding, or with one's eyes. Eidon is a really big word...

Christ beheld him under that tree, and I think we can all rest assured that he beheld him fully! An interesting feature of this verb is its root - ID - as in identity, meaning self-same... It would seem that this kind of perception is from the inside, from a kind of identity of subject and object... Which would explain the response to His statement... But that is really just a speculative musing...

And there is something going on with the particular kind of tree he was under... It symbolizes something in the Jewish religion, I think, but I can't remember what it is...

geo

Brian

February 27th 2003, 01:00 PM

Hello George!

I think my misspelling was a typo. Thank you for clarifying though. I do not know Greek and really appreciate your insights.

Sincerely,

Brian

Jaltus

February 28th 2003, 01:17 AM

What I think is interesting is that it is a form of EIDW, which is actually the real present tense of OIDA (OIDA is actually the perfect tense, but used as present).

Athanasian

March 6th 2003, 05:26 AM

I've read this thread with considerable care - parts of it I have read twice - and I have to say I'm disturbed.

At present, I have to side with Brian. His argument has not been addressed. It has been avoided.

He has asserted that if Christ's ontology is completely God and completely man, there is a contradiction. I cannot find a way to invalidate this, so I have to agree.

But in response, I note that people have struggled to avoid the entire issue of ontology. Responses have:

1) Tried to assert that ontology is not the issue (ontology is definitely the issue here - check the Creeds).

2) Tried to assert that 'being God' simply means 'having the characteristics of God', or even just some of them (this is the heresy of the early Arians, and the later Unitarians).

3) Tried to assert that Christ is both God and man by virtue of performing two different roles (this is the heresy of the early Modalists, and the later Oneness Pentecostals).

4) Repeatedly committed the fallacy of equivocation.

Brian, you said:

Theologian R.C. Sproul says that when you try and work out Christ’s dual-nature you should just pick your heresy.

I have to agree. The doctrine of the trinity is confessedly baffling, and I have to fall back on the Creeds - principally the Athanasian - which insist it is too wonderful for human comprehension.

The problem is that Trinitarians today are not taught the Creeds. They are not taught the orthodox dogma. I see people comitting the Sabellian heresy all the time, the Monphysite heresy, the Monothelite heresy - all manner of heresies.

Furthermore, I believe that the problem has arisen by virtue of people attempting to hold to all the Trinitarian Creeds. This is not possible, because they do not agree. The dogma developed. The Athanasian Creed I take as the touchstone of dogma - after Chalcedon the Docetists had won, and mainstream Trinitarian teaching has been essentially Docetist ever since.

In this very discussion I find examples of people asserting that Jesus was not ontologically God. I find that incredible.

Jaltus even said that the analogy 'Max is a cat - Max is a dog' is not applicable, because 'Divinity is not a genetic tag'. I was shocked. Such a statment denies that the ousia is a matter of ontology.

No one mentioned genetics, but Brian's analogy demonstrated that the claim to be ontologically X whilst being ontologically not-X is a contradiction. Jaltus, you then tried to argue that the issue is not about ontology. You actually tried to argue that the Divinity of Jesus is not ontological. Why did you do this?

Ochre, you did the same thing, you said 'There is not such thing as a unified "dog" nature any more than there is a unified "god" nature'. In fact, you went even further by effectively asserting that the statement 'Max is a cat - Max is a dog' is not a contradiction.

Again, like Jaltus, you sought to reduce what constitutes 'dog' to a set of characteristics such as may be shared by anything which is not a dog. This makes no sense, and the logical extension of your argument is that Jesus was not God ontologically, but only insofar as he shared some of the characteristics of God. What is this I'm hearing?

Athanasian

March 6th 2003, 08:10 AM

02-09-2003 @ 09:15 PM
AVmetro:

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.

How do you understand the unity of the Godhead? Are you saying that the Father suffered what the son suffered?

Are you saying that the nature which Jesus bears is still mortal, fallible, and weak, as well as immortal, infallible, and omnipotent?

I'm not certain that you understand the ousia.

Athanasian

March 6th 2003, 08:15 AM

02-09-2003 @ 10:54 PM
Calvinist:

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.

This is a classic example of the poor reasoning which results from people not understanding the Trinity.

The same volume of water never exists in all three forms simultaneously. If you take a gallon of water, you cannot find conditions under which it will be a gallon of solid, a gallon of liquid, and a gallon of gas - and still only have a gallon of water.

But when you consider the Trinity, you have the same 'volume' (the ousia, in this case), which exists in three persons. The Godhead is 100% Father, 100% Son, and 100% Holy Spirit.

The Creeds make this utterly clear. Each one is 'very God', but there is only one God.

It's analogies like the one which you have drawn which get Trinitarians laughed at. Please, forget trying to draw analogies from the comprehensible to illustrate or 'prove' the incomprehensible. It cannot be done.

Athanasian

March 6th 2003, 08:19 AM

02-10-2003 @ 01:48 AM
Brian:
Two natures in one person seems to violate LC, especially when according to the council of Chalcedon you cannot seperate, confuse, change, or divided the two natures, i.e. I can't say right now Christ is acting in his nature as God, but over here He is acting in His nature as man.

This is considered heretical by orthodox Christianity.

Excellent, this makes perfect sense. As you have identified Brian, many Trinitarians these days fall into the trap of confusing the persons, or dividing the natures.

I am tired of hearing the old Sabellian arguments ('Christ did X in his mortal nature, and Y in his Divine nature'), especially when the Bible makes no distinction between the two - this is why even Chalcedon insisted on the union of the two natures.

Athanasian

March 6th 2003, 08:20 AM

02-10-2003 @ 04:22 AM
AVmetro:
Of course death is technically defined in the bible as the seperation of spirit and body. The physical from the unphysical.

The spirit of Jesus was never separated from his body. You cannot divide the natures.

Are you claiming that Jesus died? What do you believe? Are you a Creedal Trinitarian, or one of the modern lot?

Athanasian

March 6th 2003, 08:22 AM

02-10-2003 @ 04:12 AM
Jaltus:
What is it about Godness that contradicts humanness? You must first define what man is and then dfine what God is before you can say there is a contrast.

Does mortality make man a man? No, since eventually we will all be immortal.

Does glory make God the God? No, because we know Jesus dropped His and the Father lessened His when showing Himself to Moses.

Does omniscience make God the God? Not necessarily.

So you're telling me that everything which makes God 'God', is simply a collection of attributes and characteristics which men can have.

Are you a Mormon?

Athanasian

March 6th 2003, 08:28 AM

A few choice quotes from the Athanasian Creed are in order here:

(7) Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
(8) The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate.
(9) The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

That should put paid to some of the confusion, especially over the nature of the Godhead. It is ontological, not a matter of 'characteristics' which men share with God. And it is incomprehensible. Puny mortal analogies cannot describe it.

Next:

(24) So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
(25) And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another; none is greater, or less than another.
(26) But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.

That is an unqualified statement which secures the absolute unity of the Godhead. Separation of these is heresy.

Actually, the Anathemae of Constantinople are relevant here also. They helped to mitigate the Chalcedonian Docetism (although not sufficiently).

Athanasian

March 6th 2003, 08:29 AM

Jaltus, do you believe that the ontology of Jesus was 100% man, and 100% God? Are you a trinitarian? Do you follow the Creeds?

phantaz sunlyk

March 6th 2003, 06:43 PM

**7** ahhhhhm, say hey Athanasian. i like your love for the Trinity, and your desire to stick to traditional orthodox Christian doctrine :thumb:
yet ...

Are you saying that the nature which Jesus bears is still mortal, fallible, and weak, as well as immortal, infallible, and omnipotent?

**8** the "nature"? are you a monophysite?

Furthermore, I believe that the problem has arisen by virtue of people attempting to hold to all the Trinitarian Creeds.

**8** depending on what hermeneutic is applied, i'm such a one ...

This is not possible, because they do not agree.

**7** i'll challenge this claim all day long. what "creeds" do you have in mind (Apostles'; Nicene; Niceno-Constantinople; Athanasian??) , and are you certain you're not confusing a "creed" with a conciliar definition or patristic statement?

The Athanasian Creed I take as the touchstone of dogma - after Chalcedon the Docetists had won,

**8** well, the "Athanasian" "Creed" certainly was not recognized until after Chalcedon, furthermore--

and mainstream Trinitarian teaching has been essentially Docetist ever since.

**7** this comment is flat out false. first of all, the phrase "mainstream Trinitarian teaching" should read "mainstream Christological teaching"--even the fact that you confuse the two would seem to indicate that you yourself fail to realize that God became Man.
second, tell me, did Christ have two wills or one?
third, was it before or after Chalcedon that an ecumenical council dogmatically insisted that "one of the Godhead suffered in the flesh"? and how is that statement even near being compatible with docetism?
third, was Maximus Confessor a docetist, according to you?
fourth, tell me whether or not the human soul of Christ had any theological signifigance for Athanasius (whom you appear to be quite fond of) himself?
denying the human reality of the word made flesh was always a problem/temptation at the theoretical level, for the Church, but an actual denial never once won the day.

Brian's analogy demonstrated that the claim to be ontologically X whilst being ontologically not-X is a contradiction.

**7** and this indicates that you either aren't being careful in your analyses, or that you're not as familiar with Chalcedonian theology as you imply.
Chalcedon distinguished between 'person' and 'nature'; the two are NOT simply identical. the Son of God is NOT 'the divine nature' simpliciter. the divine nature is something that the PERSON of the Son HAS (in a way such that it can be asserted, "If Logos, then God"). Chalcedon stood or fell on the very basis of recognizing this distinction.
finally, we have some commentary on the Athanasian 'Creed'--

That should put paid to some of the confusion, especially over the nature of the Godhead. It is ontological, not a matter of 'characteristics' which men share with God.

**7** since when is 'ontology' unconnected to 'characteristics/properties'?

And it is incomprehensible.

**8** without any qualifications of this phrase on your part, it would seem to follow both that anything anyone asserted about the 'Godhead' cannot be certainly disproven (how can you say, "x is definitely not y" unless you definitely know x well enough to know that it isn't y?), and...

Puny mortal analogies cannot describe it.

**7** you wouldn't be able to say even that.
have you ever read any of the classic apophatic texts, such as Gregory of Nyssa's _Against Eunomius_ or _The Life of Moses_, or Pseudo-Dionysius' _The Divine Names_ or _The Mystical Theology_?
just curious.

That is an unqualified statement which secures the absolute unity of the Godhead. Separation of these is heresy.

**7** are you saying that you're a modalist? can you separate the Father from the Son? how so?
and, at last, the one that takes the cake--

They helped to mitigate the Chalcedonian Docetism (although not sufficiently).

**8** "Chalcedonian Docetism"???????????????? i'm beginning to suspect that you're Evangelion incognito. at any rate, feel free to expand.
three things in closing:
1)are you of the opinion that the conjunction of the Chalcedonian and the Athanasian creeds both is true and is logically incoherent? (you seem either to be saying this, or that we ought to be humble enough to recognize that our finite intelligence has met its match in this area; the former is absurd, the latter is, in the sense which you seem to understand it, extremely naive).
2)why didn't you interact with any of my earlier posts? i'd love to see you try and beat a contradiction out of them.
3)what denomination are you?
peace.

Athanasian

March 7th 2003, 03:22 AM

**8** the "nature"? are you a monophysite?

You wouldn't have asked that if you'd read my posts. No, I'm not a Monophysite. I was asking if the poster believed that Jesus is mortal whilst immortal, omnipotent whilst not-omnipotent, and fallible whilst infallible.

I note that my question wasn't answered - not by him, and not by you. It seems you're not happy with revealing what you believe (probably because you're a neo-Trinitarian). You sound like a post-modern rationalist to me.

**8** depending on what hermeneutic is applied, i'm such a one ...

This was a throw away statement which meant nothing. You either believe the Creeds or you do not. If you believe that they are subject to private interpretation, then you do not recognise their authority.

**7** i'll challenge this claim all day long. what "creeds" do you have in mind (Apostles'; Nicene; Niceno-Constantinople; Athanasian??) , and are you certain you're not confusing a "creed" with a conciliar definition or patristic statement?

The Athanasian Creed does not agree with the Council of Chalcedon. The Nicene Creed does not agree with either. The Anathemae of Constantinople tried unsuccessfully to plug the gaps.

If you think that Trinitarian dogma was uniform throughout the centuries, and was consistently articulated in the same way, then you haven't read anything on the matter. The dogma was a revelation which the Church recevied gradually (largely on the basis of oral tradition, I believe).

**8** well, the "Athanasian" "Creed" certainly was not recognized until after Chalcedon, furthermore--

Thanks, that was my point. Read my posts, please.

**7** this comment is flat out false. first of all, the phrase "mainstream Trinitarian teaching" should read "mainstream Christological teaching"--even the fact that you confuse the two would seem to indicate that you yourself fail to realize that God became Man.

Being a rationalist post-modern neo-Trinitarian, I realise that to you 'God became man' does not mean 'God became a man who was both God and man', because you do not recognise Divinity as ontology. You see 'Divinity' as a mere set of attributes which man can have (Mormon alert!), or which can be expressed by a tree or dog. I can be God, you can be God - that mushroom over there is God too!

I realize fully that God became Man. I have never denied it. I think your feathers have been ruffled and you're responding with a personal attack. You still haven't told me what you believe...

Furthermore, if you don't understand what I was getting at when I referred to 'mainstream Trinitarian teaching', then I'm not surprised I'm getting wacky answers from you.

second, tell me, did Christ have two wills or one?

Do you mean a will thelesis or a will boulesis? Do you understand the distinction?

In each of the two natures of Christ there was a perfect will and a perfect operation (see the Third Council of Constantinople).

Now let me ask you a question - was Mary theotokos?

third, was it before or after Chalcedon that an ecumenical council dogmatically insisted that "one of the Godhead suffered in the flesh"? and how is that statement even near being compatible with docetism?

What do you think that council was for? Don't you understand why it had to be held? What do you think Chalcedon achieved - in real terms?

That statment is not compatible with Docetism, but it does come far too close to confounding the natures as far as I'm concerned. It is ludicrous to suggest that the Divinity of God suffered - only the mortality of God suffered.

third, was Maximus Confessor a docetist, according to you?

I don't know. Who was he? What does this have to do with whether or not the Creeds are the touchstone of orthodoxy? Do you believe the Creeds? Do you believe that they are the definition of the Trinitarian dogma, or do you believe in private interpretation?

fourth, tell me whether or not the human soul of Christ had any theological signifigance for Athanasius (whom you appear to be quite fond of) himself?

I don't care if it did or not. Do you think that the Athanasian Creed was written by Athanasius? That's laughable!

denying the human reality of the word made flesh was always a problem/temptation at the theoretical level, for the Church, but an actual denial never once won the day.

You're fooling yourself. It was insisted that what happened in the incarnation was that an empty, souless vessel of flesh (compared with an empty jar), was inhabited temporarily by the spirit of the pre-incarnate Jesus, and that this spirit inhabited it as water inhabits a jar.

That is not the incarnation. That is Docetism.

You didn't address what I wrote.

Chalcedon distinguished between 'person' and 'nature'; the two are NOT simply identical. the Son of God is NOT 'the divine nature' simpliciter. the divine nature is something that the PERSON of the Son HAS (in a way such that it can be asserted, "If Logos, then God"). Chalcedon stood or fell on the very basis of recognizing this distinction.

You didn't read what I wrote. I was agreeing that Jesus had the Divine nature. I was disagreeing that the Divine nature was merely a matter of characteristics or a 'role', rather than being ontology. Please read what I actually write.

[**7** since when is 'ontology' unconnected to 'characteristics/properties'?

It isn't. I never said such a thing. Straw man. Read what I wrote.

**8** without any qualifications of this phrase on your part, it would seem to follow both that anything anyone asserted about the 'Godhead' cannot be certainly disproven (how can you say, "x is definitely not y" unless you definitely know x well enough to know that it isn't y?), and...

No, that's not true. Read the Creed.

**7** you wouldn't be able to say even that.

Yes I can. I can say that because it is true. No analogies from the natural can represent the supranatural.

have you ever read any of the classic apophatic texts, such as Gregory of Nyssa's _Against Eunomius_ or _The Life of Moses_, or Pseudo-Dionysius' _The Divine Names_ or _The Mystical Theology_? just curious.

No, why should I? I have the Creeds and the Councils, the entire counsel of the Church. Why would I allow the writings of an individual to overturn the entire counsel of the Church?

Do you believe that the Church has authority to teach or not?

**7** are you saying that you're a modalist? can you separate the Father from the Son? how so?

You aren't reading what I wrote, are you? I rejected emphatically the separation of the natures, I didn't say I was a Modalist. I distinguish between the person of the Father and the person of the Son. I said nothing about Modalism, and I affirmed the unity of the natures.

Yet you accuse me of Modalism! Either you don't know what Modalism is, or you didn't read my post. Read my post.

**8** "Chalcedonian Docetism"???????????????? i'm beginning to suspect that you're Evangelion incognito.

Who's he? I note you made no effort to object.

[qutoe]at any rate, feel free to expand.

three things in closing:

1)are you of the opinion that the conjunction of the Chalcedonian and the Athanasian creeds both is true and is logically incoherent?

What do you mean 'conjunction'?

(you seem either to be saying this, or that we ought to be humble enough to recognize that our finite intelligence has met its match in this area; the former is absurd, the latter is, in the sense which you seem to understand it, extremely naive).

I don't think you understood what I wrote. But I think you're trying to rationalize the Godhead in a manner which reduces and submits it to human reason. You're trying to build a mechanical model of the spiritual. You can't do that.

2)why didn't you interact with any of my earlier posts?

Because either:

1) I didn't disagree with them.

...or:

2) I didn't understand them. Most of them are filled with jargon you appear to have made up on the spot.

I am trying to find a way of witnessing the Trinity intelligibly to unbelievers, specifically atheists. Your gobbledegook won't cut it, it will just get me laughed at.

3)what denomination are you?

I'm non-denominational. What are you? Do you believe the Creeds?

Jaltus

March 7th 2003, 04:18 PM

Jaltus, do you believe that the ontology of Jesus was 100% man, and 100% God? Are you a trinitarian? Do you follow the Creeds? A Trinitarian who follows the creeds. The ontology of Jesus (I think) is not 100% man and 100% God, but He does have the two natures in Him.

phantaz sunlyk

March 7th 2003, 08:29 PM

**7** say hey "Athanasian", wussup chesta cheese?

You wouldn't have asked that if you'd read my posts.

**8** i did read your posts, they were very insulting towards my friends, and very lacking in force.

I was asking if the poster believed that Jesus is mortal whilst immortal, omnipotent whilst not-omnipotent, and fallible whilst infallible.
I note that my question wasn't answered - not by him, and not by you.

**7** it was a bogus question. as the New Adam, Christ qua human is not mortal. fallibility and non-omnipotence are contingent properties, hence it is not impossible for him qua human to excercise his divine properties through his humanity; much the same, Paul was 'infallible' when he was a conduit for the Holy Spirit while he wrote _Romans_.
was that impossible--Paul the fallible infallible author?

It seems you're not happy with revealing what you believe (probably because you're a neo-Trinitarian).

**7** my beliefs on the Trinity are a matter of public record--
http://tektonics.org/PS_NC.html (on Creedal Trinitarian doctrine, ya aughta love that).
http:www.tektonics.org/holtb01.html (critique of a JW author, more focussed on Scripture).
http:tektonics.org/PS_FS.html (critique of another JW, more theology oriented).
and i'll be waiting for you to prove my 'unorthodoxy' regarding the Trinity ................

You sound like a post-modern rationalist to me.

**7** you're probably just operating with an underdeveloped logical prowess and shout "post-modern" whenever something is over ya head.
which, judging by the quality of thought in your posts, isn't all too unfrequent an occurence for you.

This was a throw away statement which meant nothing. You either believe the Creeds or you do not.

**8** that was a clumsy statement--the monophysites and the nestorians both claimed the Nicene Creed as their authority; Christadelphians claim the Apostles' Creed for themselves; and you claim the Athanasian.
upgrade ya gray matter
cuz one day it may matter.

If you believe that they are subject to private interpretation, then you do not recognise their authority.

**7** more clumsiness; art thou a kjv-onlyist?
the words themselves are a matter of private interpretation; the true meaning is not.
i'm Catholic, hence i understand the Creeds as understood by the Church today.

Being a rationalist post-modern neo-Trinitarian, I realise that to you 'God became man' does not mean 'God became a man who was both God and man', because you do not recognise Divinity as ontology.

**8** being clumsy, you don't have grasp enough on the word 'ontology' to be able to use it properly.
to say 'God (='the person who is absolutely identical with the divine substance') became a man who was both God and man (='the person who is God is identical with the person who is man') is certainly a false statement. it hovers between nestorianism and monophysitism; a contradiction.

You see 'Divinity' as a mere set of attributes which man can have (Mormon alert!), or which can be expressed by a tree or dog.

**7** dee dum. i define divinity to the best of my ability, as in accord with the Church's tradition, by analysis. i don't see my definitions as abstractable from the reality which subsists in the persons.
and the problem with this is...?

I can be God, you can be God - that mushroom over there is God too!

**8** and 'God will be all in all' (1 Cor. 15).
you need to read up on the people who laid the groundwork for the creeds you claim to believe in.
theosis--"God became man that man might become God". it was Athanasius' soteriological argument for the defence of Christ's divinity.

Furthermore, if you don't understand what I was getting at when I referred to 'mainstream Trinitarian teaching',

**7** your clumsiness tells otherwise. i'm inclined to think that you're an Arian who is going incognito and trying to kick up dust.

Do you mean a will thelesis or a will boulesis? Do you understand the distinction?

**8** translate 'thelesis' and 'boulesis' into english, and then i'll answer your question.
i understand 'will' as being a function of nature, not person, when i ask the question.

In each of the two natures of Christ there was a perfect will and a perfect operation (see the Third Council of Constantinople).

**7** alas, a good answer.

Now let me ask you a question - was Mary theotokos?

**8** yup, and she still is.
see the Council of Ephesus, 431.

What do you think that council was for?

**7** 2 Constantinople, 553, was an attempt to clear up the ongoing dialogue between Orthodoxy, Monophysitism, and Nestorianism.

Don't you understand why it had to be held? What do you think Chalcedon achieved - in real terms?

**8** in real terms it achieved about as much as the council of Nicea, 325, did.
it faithfully expressed the Orthodox faith, yet wasn't precise enough to answer all of the questions which later years would give rise to.
hence your two following statements ...

That statment is not compatible with Docetism, but it does come far too close to confounding the natures as far as I'm concerned.

**8** because you're a crypto-monophysite and you can't make the mental distinction between a person and a nature.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the Divinity of God suffered - only the mortality of God suffered.

**7** because you're a crypto-nestorian and you can't make the mental distinction between a person and a nature.
you don't need the Creeds, you need a logic textbook.

I don't know. Who was he? What does this have to do with whether or not the Creeds are the touchstone of orthodoxy?

**8** St. Maximus Confessor was an Eastern monk who was to the third Council of Constantinople what Athanasius was to the first Council of Constantinople.

Do you believe the Creeds? Do you believe that they are the definition of the Trinitarian dogma, or do you believe in private interpretation?

**7** the Creeds as understood by the Catholic Church, therefore i don't have recourse to the private interpretation thereof, unlike yourself--a hypocritical non-denominationalist.

I don't care if it did or not.

**8** it didn't--does it thereby follow that Athanasius was either a monophysite or a heretic?

Do you think that the Athanasian Creed was written by Athanasius? That's laughable!

**7** given the fact that, in my previous post to you, i dated the Athanasian Creed after the council of Chalcedon, alongside my placement of both "Athanasian" and "Creed" in inverted commas, the joke is on you.
and fyi, the Niceno-Constantinople Creed has more authority than does the Athanasian.

You're fooling yourself. It was insisted that what happened in the incarnation was that an empty, souless vessel of flesh (compared with an empty jar), was inhabited temporarily by the spirit of the pre-incarnate Jesus, and that this spirit inhabited it as water inhabits a jar.

**8** nonsense; cite a source. that was the route taken by monophysites as distinct from the Orthodox.

That is not the incarnation. That is Docetism.

**7** more nonsense. it is not docetism, it is the logos-sarx christology of the school of Alexandria. ultimately unorthodox, but by no means docetism.

Please read what I actually write.

**8** please speak with clarity--if, as you admit, analysis of properties is not excluded within the science of ontology, then how does it follow that if i deal with properties i thereby exclude ontology?

No, that's not true. Read the Creed.

**7** yes, it is true. think about what you write.
your private interpretation of the Creed is about as valuable as a junior-high monophysite's claiming the Nicene Creed for support.

Yes I can.

**8** no you can't.

I can say that because it is true.

**7** and you know this because?

No analogies from the natural can represent the supranatural.

**8** more clumsiness. as thou wouldst sayeth, "Read the Creed", the Nicene. "...light from light...".
and if analogies are so powerless, whence, o neo-Eunomiomania, your knowing anything at all regarding the divine nature?

No, why should I?

**7** to place your thought within context and to bring the clumsy tendencies which your brain is prone to to a halt.

Why would I allow the writings of an individual to overturn the entire counsel of the Church?

**8** (cough). Gregory of Nyssa was the leading theologian at the first Council of Constantinople--quite a telling remark on your part.
you allow the writings of individuals to elucidate your understanding of Creeds and theological beliefs, not to overthrow them.
as it stands, you use the Creeds as a drunk uses a lamp-post: for support rather than illumination.

You aren't reading what I wrote, are you? I rejected emphatically the separation of the natures, I didn't say I was a Modalist. I distinguish between the person of the Father and the person of the Son.

**7** ...whilst simultaneously affirming the 'indivisibility' of the divine nature. it was a comment aimed at the brilliance you have hitherto expressed on this board, the implication being that an indivisible nature can't allow for it to be divided into three persons.
based on what i've seen from you so far, there is no reason why i would be suprised if you made such an objection.

Who's he?

**8** a Christadelphian who isn't very bright.
are you him?

I note you made no effort to object.

**7** the dozen-plus question marks attatched to the end of the sentence didn't tip you off?

1)are you of the opinion that the conjunction of the Chalcedonian and the Athanasian creeds both is true and is logically incoherent?[/quote]
What do you mean 'conjunction'?

**8** i mean affirming both as true.
answer the question please.

But I think you're trying to rationalize the Godhead in a manner which reduces and submits it to human reason. You're trying to build a mechanical model of the spiritual. You can't do that.

**7** you need to get a book on apophatic theology. very badly.

I didn't understand them.

**8** maybe you should take the time to try.

Most of them are filled with jargon you appear to have made up on the spot.

**7** you're complaining about an 'on the spot' response on a discussion board?

I am trying to find a way of witnessing the Trinity intelligibly to unbelievers, specifically atheists.

**8** (choke). i imagine this fits in well with your belief that we can't use analogies to speak about something that we have no empirical experience of.

Your gobbledegook won't cut it, it will just get me laughed at.

**7** and Christ crucified is folly to the Greeks, and from what i've seen from you, i imagine that they're probably laughing at you anyways.
if the atheists you're arguing with are faithful to logic, i guarantee i could do a much better job than you.
peace outttttttttttttt chesta cheese!

ItalianGold

March 7th 2003, 09:16 PM

As a fomer atheist I can assure you that I might have spared myself decades of anguish if I had been around more people like Athanasian. One of the things which was always a stumbling block for me in the Christian faith was that I felt they portrayed God as a sort of Superman. That God was too small, too limited and too easily "explained" to be what I knew in my heart was truly Divine. This simple sentence:

No analogies from the natural can represent the supranatural.

is more profound than I can express.

Athanasian

March 24th 2003, 11:58 PM

Thank you. I agree entirely. Ultimately the Trinity is a contradiction. I don't have a problem with that.

But I have a problem with people trying to rationalise it away, and bring it down to the level of something base and earthy, just so they can pretend to understand it better than other people.

phantaz sunlyk

March 25th 2003, 06:32 PM

**7** yo, pseudo-Athanasian --

Ultimately the Trinity is a contradiction.

**8** (cough). and you're looking for a "way" to explain this to Atheists???????????
whence, pray thee, the contradiction? ...

But I have a problem with people trying to rationalise it away,

**7** praytell, explain for us your methodology with the (alleged) Atheists you're warring with on discussion boards.
i think you aren't a Trinitarian--i think you're faking it and trying to kick up dust; putting your own (clumsy) arguments in the mouths of Atheists who do not, in fact, exist (in a dialogical relationship with you).
you haven't treated one of your (supposed) brothers in Christ with sympathy, or even kindness.

Brian

March 25th 2003, 11:31 PM

Hello PS!

praytell, explain for us your methodology with the (alleged) Atheists you're warring with on discussion boards.

How would you answer an atheist? No one has given an answer as of yet. You claim it is not a contradiction. Fine. But why is not?
Is there an equivocation? If so, where and how? Fankly, I don't think any of you have an answer.

i think you aren't a Trinitarian--i think you're faking it and trying to kick up dust; putting your own (clumsy) arguments in the mouths of Atheists who do not, in fact, exist (in a dialogical relationship with you).

Am I not a Trinitarian as well? Am I in league with atheists? Is this how you deal with the issue? My bet is that you won't respond, and if you do it will not be an answer that deals with the issue at hand, namely, why doesn't the dual nature of Christ violate the law of non-contradiction? It will probably be some personal attack. There seems to be a lot of that around here.

Sincerely,

Brian

phantaz sunlyk

March 26th 2003, 01:16 AM

**7** say hey brian, have you got your hands on Swinburne yet?

How would you answer an atheist?

**8** granting that the argument would somehow get to a theological point such as this (and this isn't usually the case--i have several top notch atheist works, and they are more concerned to demonstrate that the One God doesn't exist--the issue of the three-as-one not being on their plate, still less the two-natures-in-one-person), i would answer them the same way i answered you.

No one has given an answer as of yet.

**7** plenty answer has been given. most people here seem to have followed it quite well. when you say "no one has given an answer", what you seem to mean is that "i don't follow the answers that have been given", though you imply that "no one has given a coherent answer that actually answers my question".
supposing that it is possible for there to have been given a coherent answer, and that you simply didn't get it, what more can be done for you?

Am I not a Trinitarian as well? Am I in league with atheists?

**7** i don't know. and i never accused anyone of being "in league" with the atheists (and as a matter of fact, i have high respect for a number of atheists, such as Nietzsche, Camus, and Kyle Gerkin)--Athanasian claimed that a number of arguments he brought to this forum were things atheists had challenged him on (he, mind you, who assures us of his thoroughgoing Trinitarian faith); and what a surprise!, he himself finds that the Christadelphians deal with the issue in a much more satisfactory way {hmmm, i wonder why atheists would complain that the Trinity isn't Biblical, rather than that it is logically incoherent?}, and lo!, he offers nothing by way of positive approches to formulating the Trinity, but yea!, he is rather consistent in the doing the opposite.

Is this how you deal with the issue?

**8** i distinguish between the issue and the person, and deal with both.

My bet is that you won't respond,

**7** you lose.
my bet is that you haven't ordered Swinburne's book yet. am i wrong?

and if you do it will not be an answer that deals with the issue at hand, namely, why doesn't the dual nature of Christ violate the law of non-contradiction?

**8** this was dealt with thoroughly in the preceding pages of this thread. should we call in 10 different people on this forum and ask for their opinions--you pick 5, i pick 5?
my other bet is this--you will fail to demonstrate that there is a contradiction, and if you do, your attempt will fail to address the answers that i've already given in this thread, utterly bypassing them and merely reasserting (without logically demonstrating) that one person cannot subsist in two natures, ad infinitum.

It will probably be some personal attack. There seems to be a lot of that around here.

**7** i apologize if i have hurt anyone here who is sincere. that said, why don't you look at your post to me, and honestly ask yourself whether or not a personal attack towards me is implicit throughout.
by the by, pseudo-Athanasian says that the Trinity is a contradiction (which you claim is false). would you be interested in trying to correct him for me, and other Trinitarians? show us how its done.

Brian

March 26th 2003, 11:06 AM

Hello PS!

say hey brian, have you got your hands on Swinburne yet?

No, I have not as of yet. My bad.

i have several top notch atheist works, and they are more concerned to demonstrate that the One God doesn't exist...

The issue concerns Christianity's claim to being consistent and not contradictory. If an Atheist asked me why the dual nature of Christ is not contradictory I would not be able to give a suitable answer.

supposing that it is possible for there to have been given a coherent answer, and that you simply didn't get it, what more can be done for you?

It may not be possible to give a coherent answer. If that is the case, then say so. However, would that be a satisfactory answer to an Atheist?

my bet is that you haven't ordered Swinburne's book yet. am i wrong?

I lose. ;-)

this was dealt with thoroughly in the preceding pages of this thread.

You can claim this all you want, but it has not been delt with, and that is why we are still discussing it. Maybe I didn't lose. No answer has come forth...probably because there is not an answer. That has been the problem with this whole thread. If you think you have a cogent answer, then why don't you break it down for me? Maybe you could take it one step at a time so I can look at each step and ask questions and clarification before moving on? Would you be willing to do this?

that said, why don't you look at your post to me, and honestly ask yourself whether or not a personal attack towards me is implicit throughout.

I have not personally attacked you. However, it has been my personal observation that you do engage in a lot of that. You certainly do not give people the benefit of the doubt, and if I rememeber correctly you even questioned my sincerety. If you feel that this is unfair, I will be happy to quote the places where you do personally attack people. We can compare that to my posts if you would like.

The bottom line is this, if the dual nature of Christ is not a violation of L.C., then is it possible to demonstrate that it is not? To say that I have not demonstrated a violation is to avoid the issue.

Sincerely,

Brian

George Blaisdell

March 26th 2003, 11:51 AM

Brian writes:

> " The issue concerns Christianity's claim to being consistent and not contradictory. If an Atheist asked me why the dual nature of Christ is not contradictory I would not be able to give a suitable answer."

It is no more contradictory [or inconsistent, if you prefer], than the existence of intellect in matter for the athiest... Read Arthur Koestler's "The Ghost in the Machine" for some indication of the magnitude of this problem for Athiests [Koestler was one...] Or the inconsistence between knowing and object known, for they are not one, but two, yes?

And the answer given by Christians is Christ, from whom came only the humane, for He was fully God, and hence fully human, thence purely humane, and in such a way as to draw others unto Himself in a relationship on union, now known as the communion of His Holy Body, the Church...

You will not reduce the faith of Christ, and the truths therein, to the standards of fallen human logical consistencies - It is so vast and powerful that such little logical containment systems have no chance at all... And you are not going to logically convince your way into any athiest's heart and mind with Christian truth. That path is only open to power, and that power is not yours to wield, but God's...

geo

Brian

March 26th 2003, 01:37 PM

Hello George!

Thank you for your post. I have been as of late studying presuppositional apologetics. You might be familiar with this, so forgive me if I am just sharing what is common knowledge. Presuppositionalism uses what they call the "Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God." The idea is that no world-view apart from Christianity can account for the world around them, i.e. the uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, and ethics. The procedure is to demonstrate that the world-view of the other can not be consistently lived, i.e. there world-view is built on a foundation of sand. Then, you are to demonstrate how Christianity can account for the laws of logic, ethics, the uniformity of nature, and that it is consistent. At least, that is the idea. The rub comes when the atheist says, true, you have demonstrated to me that my world-view is inconsistent, but so is yours. This is my concern when it comes to the dual nature of Christ.

Sincererly,

Brian

George Blaisdell

March 26th 2003, 04:54 PM

Brian writes: Presuppositionalism uses what they call the "Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God."

Brian - This 'presuppositionalism' is but intellective and vanitous nonsense - Paul writes that the spiritual life lived in the mystery of the faith held in a purified conscience is FOOLISHNESS TO THE WORLD... And Christ tells us that in the world we will find tribulation [such that if we are not finding tribulation, we are doing something wrong....], yet in Him the peace that surpasses all understanding... If you are not moving in the power of the Spirit, there is no intellectual proof that is reducible to perceptual non-contradiction in worldly logic. The spiritual is not discernable by the non-spiritual, not even by logic - And I should say especially not by logic...

You are wasting your time clinging to this focus of "persuading athiests" with rational argument - You might as well try to convince the Taliban... Christianity is not about proving to the fallen and sickened intellect of the human mind lost in Adamic thinking that the Trinity is consistent - It is consistent, but never in such a way as to persuade rationally the faithless into faith - That takes the power of the Holy Spirit, and not YOUR persuasion of fallen, self-persuaded, and self-justified intellects who are posing as knowledgable, [eg 'reasonable'] persons...

geo

phantaz sunlyk

March 26th 2003, 06:58 PM

**7** say hey brian--

The issue concerns Christianity's claim to being consistent and not contradictory. If an Atheist asked me why the dual nature of Christ is not contradictory I would not be able to give a suitable answer.

**8** first, can you name an atheist who has actually put this question to you (and furthermore--as hinted at by Geo Blaze--do you honestly think that that issue was what held him back from conversion?)?
second, i repeat my rec for Swinburne. he holds the chair in the Philosophy or Religion department of Oxford (formerly Philosophy of Science), and you (probably) won't find a more consistently rational human being on the face of the planet. logic and the claims of Christianity meet head on in the work alluded to above.
finally, if the atheist (or you) doesn't "get" it still, this says more about his (or your) ability to make rational inferences/deductions than about the claim being investigated.

It may not be possible to give a coherent answer. If that is the case, then say so.

**8** if that were the case, then i would say so. and i would append to that confession other possible reasons why this or that claim should be accepted (think of Pascal's "reasons of the heart", for example--it works for some).
however, in this instance, such is not the case, and your "not getting it" does not equal "therefore incoherent", by any means.
again, i refer you to the list of books i recommended a few pages back.
of course it will be granted that this issue isn't, prima facie, "crystal clear". yet let us not forget the good example of those who have went before us in Christ, such as Origen, the Cappadocians, Augustine, Anselm, Gregory Palamas, Newman, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, etc. the question is faced and dealt with--faith in search of understanding. we will not settle for a contradiction.
and let it not be imagined that i therefore imply that God is "totally comprehensible"; rather, my aim is to clear away the false notions so that the actual mystery itself might be perceived (who can truly worship what they believe to be nonsense? who can love that which the mind indicates cannot even reach the level of being?), and in this perception, we realize the awe and the wonder and the majesty.
the mystery is living, and therefore mysterious. but there is no mystery in a contradiction--a contradiction is crystal clear.

If you think you have a cogent answer, then why don't you break it down for me? Maybe you could take it one step at a time so I can look at each step and ask questions and clarification before moving on? Would you be willing to do this?

**7** we've already been there. if i and three friends all point to the sun in broad daylight, and then we say to a passer-by, "look at the sun", and he looks and replies, "there is no sun there", what more can be done than to point at the same place over and over again?

However, it has been my personal observation that you do engage in a lot of that.

**7** true, and i have since apologized. its in my nature--fight what seems to be a spark with a blow torch.
yet when people advance unproven dogmatic claims ("this obviously is a contradiction!"), i don't apologize for imagining those persons to be deliberate.

To say that I have not demonstrated a violation is to avoid the issue.

**8** to say that you have is to avoid the substance of the answers already given, alongside being presumptuous.
you have been answered cogently several times over. the sun is there and is pointed at; now it is a matter of your ability to perceive.
by the way, what ya say regarding trying to convince Athanasian (presumably a Trinitarian) that the Trinity is (as you say) not a contradiction?
honestly, i have real doubts about the sincerity of both of you--please forgive me if i'm wrong. when i sense deliberateness, it is almost instinctual for me to lash out--the wisest thing in this case would be to simply back off.
however, to see Athanasian and you joined in a sustained and sincere dialogue would go a long ways in removing my suspicions. only if you both agree to this will i continue to talk to either of you (a friend sorta rec'd that i adopt a stance somewhat along these lines).
may the peace of Christ be with you.

phantaz sunlyk

March 26th 2003, 07:05 PM

**7** say hey Geo, peace in Christ.
i was wondering if you could tell me something about the O's understanding of the state of the person (soul, spirit) during death? (regarding your bringing up mind-body dualism).
peace in Christ.

Brian

March 26th 2003, 09:17 PM

Hello PS!

honestly, i have real doubts about the sincerity of both of you--please forgive me if i'm wrong.

You are forgiven.

however, to see Athanasian and you joined in a sustained and sincere dialogue would go a long ways in removing my suspicions. only if you both agree to this will i continue to talk to either of you...

Have I not already demonstrated my sincerity? What more can I do? I will get the book you suggested, but beyond that I don't know what to say. I have tried not to be reactive in my posts, and certainly have not personally attacked anyone. I know this does not necessarily say anything about my sincerity, but maybe it does say something. Frankly, I would think that giving the benefit of the doubt would be the rule and not the exception.

You mentioned that this issue is not crystal clear. What are the parts that might be seemingly vague, and how would you walk someone through them?

Sincerely,

Brian

phantaz sunlyk

March 26th 2003, 10:33 PM

**7** brian--

Have I not already demonstrated my sincerity? What more can I do?

**8** that's two times you have ignored this request; this conversation is over.
i hope the book does you well, and i pray that the love of God will fill your heart with song.
peace.

George Blaisdell

March 26th 2003, 11:03 PM

phantaz sunlyk:

**7** say hey Geo,

Hey, Taz...

> peace in Christ.

And to you, my friend...

> i was wondering if you could tell me something about the O's understanding of the state of the person (soul, spirit) during death?

You mean before baptism into the Church? It sucks!

> (regarding your bringing up mind-body dualism).

Good grief! Did I bring THAT up??? If so, I apologize, and promise to slither back under lowish rock and into the primordial ooze from whence I first emerged...

Are you SURE I brought up mind-body dualism? Us new-borns are to be instructed in virtue, and not queried for wisdom!

"During death"??? (':huh:')

Look, Taz, I am still struggling greatly just how to get my bearings during life!
(':hrm:')

Did you mean AFTER death???

Or the process of separation of soul and spirit from the body???

I am really dumb on all these areas...

geo

George Blaisdell

March 26th 2003, 11:30 PM

Brian replies to Taz's:
“however, to see Athanasian and you joined in a sustained and sincere dialogue would go a long ways...”

> Have I not already demonstrated my sincerity? What more can I do?

Sigh...

geo

Athanasian

March 27th 2003, 03:07 AM

Yesterday @ 10:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45620#post45620)
phantaz sunlyk:
by the way, what ya say regarding trying to convince Athanasian (presumably a Trinitarian) that the Trinity is (as you say) not a contradiction?

You misunderstand Brian. He is prepared to take it on faith that the Trinity is not a contradiction - that there is a way of explaining the Trinity in an orthodox way which does not violate the Law of Contradiction - but he also insists that the conventional explanation (within orthodoxy), of the Trinity does indeed violate the Law of Contradiction.

Why not read what Brian has written? I did:

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 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.

...

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}: 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?

...

Two natures in one person seems to violate LC, especially when according to the council of Chalcedon you cannot seperate, confuse, change, or divided the two natures, i.e. I can't say right now Christ is acting in his nature as God, but over here He is acting in His nature as man. This is considered heretical by orthodox Christianity.

It is fine that you claim Christ's having two natures is not a contradiction, but if you are not allowed to divide them, or confuse them, or seperate them, etc..., then how can you say it is not a contradiction? If Christ is man, and Christ is God in the same relationship (i.e. nature) and at the same time (i.e., not allowed to be seperated, divided, etc...), doesn't this follow the definition for LC to the tee?

...

I find it obviously contradictory.

...

For me the "fundamental irreconcilable differences" are man nature (A) vs. God nature (~A). I do not believe it is necessary to define the differences between the two natures. I assume we all agree that they are ontologically different, and if so doesn't this seem to violate LC? I don't have the answer, that is why I am asking.

If I were to say to you that Christ being both God and man is contradictory, how would you argue that it is not?

...

{A}: Jesus is God. (When we use “is”, we are speaking in ontological terms, i.e. “being.”)
{~A}: Jesus is Man. (Again, the affirmation that Jesus is man is a logical equivalency to Jesus is not God.)

According to our creeds, these 2 statements are true. However, according to LC they are contradictory.

...

If Christianity is inherently consistent, then consistency needs to be demonstrated concerning the hypostatic union, or an unbeliever can shrug off their contradictions by stating that Christians have theirs as well. The most difficult question to deal with from an apologetic perspective is not the problem of evil, or various other arguments thrown at us by atheists.

...

All S is P.
All S is not P.

Is by definition a contradiction in Aristotilian logic for ANY S and P.

Therefore...

Jesus is God.
Jesus is man (i.e. not God).

Is by definition a contradiction. I am sorry, but I cannot make it any clearer. Once again, I see the debate raging over the logical equivalency of "Jesus is man" and "Jesus is not God."

...

Let me try again. I will use traditional Aristotilian logic, and formulate my argument from there.

(1) All S is P.
(2) All S is ~P.

These two statements are by definition contradictory for any S and any P.

(1a) All Jesus is God. (This is declared true by the council of Nicea.)
(2a) All Jesus is Man. (This is declared true by the council of Chalcedon.)

Both of these statments are ontological, the terms have not changed, therefore there is no equivocation taking place. According to the rules of logic (2a) implies the truth value of...

(2b) All Jesus in not God.

Now we have a formal contradiction according to Aristotle's logic. Statement (1a) is of the form All S is P. Statement (2b) is of the form All S is ~P. By definition, this is a contradiction. If you take issue with (1a), you rtissue is with Nicea. If you take issue with (2a) your issue is with Chalcedon. That is why I said that the debate revolves around the logically equivalency of (2a) and (2b). If you deny this, then what is your logical basis? And does your reasoning violate the council of Chalcedon?

...

Captain, with all due respect, your point seems to be that unless you are convinced that it is a contradiction you feel no obligation to demonstrate that it is not. I find this "apologetic" method to not fall within the spirit of 1Peter 3:15. Can you give me a reasoned defense for why it is not a contradiction?

...

All Jesus is fully God, implies that All Jesus is not not fully God. But when you say that all Jesus is fully man, this implies that Jesus is something other than fully God, i.e. not not fully God. Herein lies the contradiction.

...

However, in doing so all I have been doing is establishing how the dual nature of Christ is contradictory.

And that wasn't all he wrote! What does this look like to you?

Athanasian

March 27th 2003, 09:11 AM

Yesterday @ 03:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45089#post45089)
Brian:
How would you answer an atheist? No one has given an answer as of yet. You claim it is not a contradiction. Fine. But why is not?
Is there an equivocation? If so, where and how? Fankly, I don't think any of you have an answer.

Well said Brian. I have tried asking for advice on how to explain this to atheists myself. I received the same abuse you did - and the same dodge. A simple gracious answer would have sufficed, even if it had to be 'I don't know'.

My bet is that you won't respond, and if you do it will not be an answer that deals with the issue at hand, namely, why doesn't the dual nature of Christ violate the law of non-contradiction? It will probably be some personal attack. There seems to be a lot of that around here.

And you just got it again. I am disappointed. Like I said, I don't htink this is a place for Trinitarians to discuss and learn about the Trinity and how to preach it. I think it's a place for angry Trinitarians to swap arguments to use on anti-Trinitarians, and to abuse people who don't have the same knowledge as they do (and to demean them by deliberately using terms we don't know, and rubbing it in when they do so, and implying that if we don't know the same depth of knowledge they know, we're incapable of worshipping God properly).

Athanasian

March 27th 2003, 09:13 AM

Yesterday @ 10:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45620#post45620)
phantaz sunlyk:
however, to see Athanasian and you joined in a sustained and sincere dialogue would go a long ways in removing my suspicions. only if you both agree to this will i continue to talk to either of you (a friend sorta rec'd that i adopt a stance somewhat along these lines).

A dialogue with each other? But we agree together. We're both asking questions whihc we want other people to answer. What is so difficult about this?

Athanasian

March 27th 2003, 09:21 AM

03-25-2003 @ 10:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44846#post44846)
phantaz sunlyk:
**7** praytell, explain for us your methodology with the (alleged) Atheists you're warring with on discussion boards.

I think it's the usual methodology - Jesus is described as God, the Fahter is described as God, the Holy Spirit is described as God, but there is only one God. So that one God comprises three persons. Nothing complicated, just the usual.

But you don't appear to understand how non-Trinitarians think. That's where you seem to be out of touch. You and others here seem to think that everyone will automatically agree with this reasoning, and automatically find no problems with the Trinity. But they do. You need to get out there and find this out for yourself. A preaching ministry wouold help you more than monasticism (if that's what you're into).

It goes something like this:

Trinitarian: I want to tell you about God.

Atheist: Do you believe in the Trinity?

T: Yes. Why do you bring this up? I'd rather wait until we've discussed God and who He is before we go into the Trinity.

A: Because I'm not listening to someone who (a) can't count, (b) believes in a hopeless confusion of logical contradictions.

T: The Trinity is not a contradiction, and it is not a confusion. There is one God, comprising three persons. There is the person of the Father - He is God. There is the person of Jesus - He is God. There is the person of the Holy Spirit - He is God. Yet there is only one God.

A: So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

T: Yes.

A: Count with me - the Father is God (that's one), the Son is God (that's two), and the Holy Spirit is God (that's three). Yes?

T: Three persons, not three Gods.

A: I see three Gods. Can't you count?

T: That's not how the Trinity works.

A: It's a clear logical contradiction. Can't you see that?

Once the conversation has reached this stage, then the options remaining are:

1) 'You need the Spirit to reveal it to you. It is a sacred mystery which can only be Divinely revealed'.

2) God is so far above human logic, He can do anything.

3) Your puny finite mind cannot comprehend the way the Trinity works. But it is not a contradiction.

I have seen all three of these answers used repeatedly. You may be surprised to find that atheists aren't interested in them. And arguing from the Bible is useless - arguing from the Creeds is even worse.

So, what do you do? Or do you confine yourself to arguing with other Triniatarians over mystic models of the Godhead, and abtruse jots and tittles of the Creeds? Don't you ever try to preach that which you apparently believe in?

Athanasian

March 27th 2003, 09:25 AM

Here's an exmaple of how badly the Trinity is being taught to non-Trinitarians by today's Evangelicals.

A friend of mine in Englad attended an 'Alpha Course'. For those unfamiliar with them, they are all over the place - in England, in the US, in Australia. Standard Evangelical doctrine, a regular Bible Study course.

So he was listening to the presenter introdcuce the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a direct quote of what she said:

"So what is the Trinity?"

"Well it is rather difficult to get to grips with. I mean we have Jesus on the cross saying My God my God why have you forsaken me? and yet we know that Jesus and God are the same.

So he's talking to himself. I think it's one of those things where we just keep it in mind as we're looking through the Bible and then we will see passages that help understand it."

I don't find that helpful. I don't think that's even orthodoox. To say that Jesus was talking to himself is what Oneness people say.

This to me is clear evidence that people should be concerned about how the Trinity is taught, and what it actually means. So a few answres would be appreciated. Hey, perhaps I'll find them on Evangelion's board - he qutoes a lot of Trinitarians. :rofl:

George Blaisdell

March 27th 2003, 11:49 AM

Athanasian writes:

> "But when you say that all Jesus is fully man, this implies that Jesus is something other than fully God, i.e. not not fully God. Herein lies the contradiction.
However, in doing so all I have been doing is establishing how the dual nature of Christ is contradictory.

Perhaps it might help, dear deathless one, to remember the inhumanity of those who reject Jesus and life in Him...

Indeed God became man, that might be gathered in His loving and outstretched arms upon the Cross the outcast nature of our fallen human race... The God-man Jesus Christ, one person [hypostasis], two natures [physes], divine and human, the human living in obedience to the divine, and the incarnate divine in obedience to the Father - That is the right way, indeed the only way, to be fully human - in fleshly obedience to God... Upon the cross it is the flesh that is crucified in obedience, and this we are called to do... This is what Christ did...

So that your hieuristic of setting God in one pile, and man in another pile, and saying they are two entirely different things, and that the one is not the other and the other is not the one, flies in the face of the evidence that is the Person of Christ, in Whom we find our salvation...

As an athiest, one can say nothing about which pile in which to place a non-existent... And for an athiest, God is a non-existent... So that the mystery of the faith simply is invisible to them in plain sight - Or as the Bible says, we are "hidden in Christ"...

Nor will it help for an athiest to say "OK - I will posit belief!" The Creator of all things, the very things [objects] upon which Aristotelian logic rests as a methodology of materialistic thinking, is not subject to the creation which He created out of nothing... That He took on flesh is a condescension, not a subjugation...

He came to show us the way in Him that He established for us to live holy lives unto God... You really and truely live in a vanity of thinking that you can reduce this the Creator of all things, including the human mind and its properties, to the ontology of human intellection... The explanations will not be grasped by carnal [objectivist] thinking...

They are grasped by repentance and prayer and fasting and vigil and the movement of God upon the waters of the humbled and obedient soul, and not in the vanity of a soulish and worldly Aristotelian intellect, proving and disproving all things to its own satisfaction... Until it thinks of something else!

I don't think there are any answers for you, O deathless one... You are seeking to prove your way to God to your own intellectual satisfaction, and you will only remain in that methodology within your own intellect... You will be a ghost in a machine that dies and putrifies, as all flesh does...

Except Christ's flesh did not...

geo

Brian

March 27th 2003, 04:47 PM

Hello George!

Perhaps it might help, dear deathless one, to remember the inhumanity of those who reject Jesus and life in Him...

What do you mean by referring to Athansian as "deathless one"? Is it some reference to his being a Christian and therefore an inheritor of eternal life? Or, is it meant to be an insult?

What do you mean by inhumanity of those who reject Jesus? Are you saying they are not human or are you saying that they are acting in a cold and impersonal way? And what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? George, what you are trying to say is not very clear to me.

Indeed God became man, that might be gathered in His loving and outstretched arms upon the Cross the outcast nature of our fallen human race...

What? You are difficult to follow.

That is the right way, indeed the only way, to be fully human - in fleshly obedience to God...

Let me see if I got this right. You are saying that to be fully human, we must be in fleshly obedience to God? Wouldn't that mean that none of mankind is fully human? And if we are not fully human, then what are we? If we are only partially human, what does that mean? George, I am having a real hard time understanding you.

So that your hieuristic of setting God in one pile, and man in another pile, and saying they are two entirely different things, and that the one is not the other and the other is not the one, flies in the face of the evidence that is the Person of Christ, in Whom we find our salvation...

First off, you say this as if it follows from what you previously said. How does this follow? You start off by speaking of the inhumaness of those who reject Christ, and seemingly (?) expound upon that idea from there, and conclude that to be fully (truly?) human we must be obedient to God. Are you saying that by rejecting Christ we are not obedient and therefore are inhuman? Hmmmm. How does that imply what I just quoted? Help me here.

Secondly, you are mispresresening the argument. It is not that God and man are entirely two different things. For terms to be contradictory they need not be entirely different. 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are not entirely different, but they certainly are contradictory.

The Creator of all things, the very things [objects] upon which Aristotelian logic rests as a methodology of materialistic thinking, is not subject to the creation which He created out of nothing...

If a contradiction is contrary to God's thinking, then wouldn't He be subject to it? Also, logic transcends materialistic thinking. Logic is how God thinks. Therefore, you cannot conclude that God is not subject to logic. Are you really implying that God does not have to function according to the law of non contradiction? If not, then what are you saying?

The explanations will not be grasped by carnal [objectivist] thinking...

I agree that mankind may not be able to figure out how the hypostatic union is not contradictory. Our thinking is certainly limited and finite. We draw the wrong conclusions all of the time. But to suggest that the laws of logic originate with man, and God is not subject to them is going too far. This ultimately would lead to us not being able to predicate anything concerning God!

You really and truely live in a vanity of thinking that you can reduce this the Creator of all things, including the human mind and its properties, to the ontology of human intellection...

No one is speaking of reducing God to that which we can comprehend! God is incomprehensible, but yet there are things we can know about God. Therefore, there are things we can predicate of God. As a matter of fact, Romans 1 teaches us that all man knows something about God. Certainly this knowing is not complete in any sense of the word, but it is a knowing. God holds us accountable for this knowing. He even excpets us to draw inferences on this knowing. Romans 1 teaches us that because we have this knowing we should know to honor God as God! God expected us to deduce that it is proper for us to worship Him and honor Him as creator. Because we did not, then we came under God's wrath. The point is, we can know things of God and based on this information draw inferences. It does not mean that we conmpletely know God.

I don't think there are any answers for you, O deathless one... You are seeking to prove your way to God to your own intellectual satisfaction, and you will only remain in that methodology within your own intellect... You will be a ghost in a machine that dies and putrifies, as all flesh does...

This is just bizarre. Goerge, have you paid any attention at all to what is being discussed? No one is trying to "prove their way to God." All we are trying to do is understand Him better. Your anti-intellectualism comes through loud and clear, both in the content and thought process.

Sincerely,

Brian

Gavin

March 27th 2003, 04:52 PM

Hey Brian - did you and Captain Ochre ever make any progress? I tried reading through the thread but got lost.

Hope you are doing well my friend,
Gavin

George Blaisdell

March 28th 2003, 12:14 AM

Brian: writes:

> Hello George!

Hey, Brian...

> What do you mean by referring to Athansian as "deathless one"? Is it some reference to his being a Christian and therefore an inheritor of eternal life? Or, is it meant to be an insult?

Neither... Were he using the moniker Phos, I would have called him the Lighted One... But A-Thanatos is a-privative plus death - Hence, "O deathless one!"

> What do you mean by inhumanity of those who reject Jesus? Are you saying they are not human or are you saying that they are acting in a cold and impersonal way? And what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? George, what you are trying to say is not very clear to me.

My effort is to try to get you derailed from your tube of ratiocination in such a way as to break out of the logical boxes you have arrayed in the sand...

It is a commonplace that walking up to a child and kicking it in the face is understood as un-Christian, and un-Christlike, and inhuman... They all qualify for the same pile... Man's inhumanity to man is not Christ-like, wouldn't you agree?

Now Christ never did anything that could even remotely be called the committing of inhumanity upon humans, yes? And the question I would ask you is why... And the answer is that He is fully God, and THEREFORE fully human, and thereby not at all inhuman...

Starting to make a little sense? And we as Christians are called to be like Him, indeed to enter into a relationship with Him of union, of oneness, in the communion of His Body and His Blood, and insofar as we do so, we will become more human, and less inhuman, and more divinized in the radiance of His energies. [energeias in the Greek of the New Testament.] This is a teaching of the ancient Church for a way long time...

> What? You are difficult to follow.

I know - I am trying to break the approach to the issue you have taken, for the approach itself, proceeding from A is A, and not non-A etc, is not the way to understand or be persuaded of the Trinity.

The Beatitude states: Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God... The ancient Church teaches that if you want to know first hand the Trinity, you must purify your heart, and this in repentance and a life lived in Christ and in obedience to His commandments...

THAT is the way to know - The rest is but idle chatter of vainglory and hieuristical one-upmanship that will never get you where you need to be in order to know what you seek to know by the topic of this querie... The issue is one of descriptive theology, not logical incision of unrefuted deduction...

> Let me see if I got this right. You are saying that to be fully human, we must be in fleshly obedience to God?

That would seem to argue for gluttony! So No...

We need to be IN the flesh, and in obedience to Christ - The process of becoming fully human is the process of becoming more unified in oneness with Christ, which is a function of repentance and God's grace... The more Christlike our souls become, the more human we become...

> Wouldn't that mean that none of mankind is fully human?

That's a big 10-4... Only Christ, and only us in the degree of our participation in Him... One of the really cool things about the saints is their humanity...

> And if we are not fully human, then what are we?

Somewhere between demonic and inhuman, and sainthood...

> If we are only partially human, what does that mean?

It means you better get off your butt in these inane paradigmatic prattlings about convincing athiests of the unfettered presence of the law of non-contradiction in Trinitarian conceptualization, and get right with Christ...

> George, I am having a real hard time understanding you.

I am pretty obscure sometimes...

> First off, you say this as if it follows from what you previously said.

Are any lights coming on?

> How does this follow?

See above -

> You start off by speaking of the inhumaness of those who reject Christ, and seemingly (?) expound upon that idea from there, and conclude that to be fully (truly?) human we must be obedient to God. Are you saying that by rejecting Christ we are not obedient and therefore are inhuman? Hmmmm. How does that imply what I just quoted? Help me here.

All better now?? Sorry for being so obscure, but it really seemed like a good idea at the time!

> Secondly, you are mispresresening the argument. It is not that God and man are entirely two different things. For terms to be contradictory they need not be entirely different. 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are not entirely different, but they certainly are contradictory.

That was how it was presented. God=not-man, & man=not/God... Yet Christ is God-man, which kills the logical inferences that were drawn... Yet this only moves the mystery around some, and the logic of it all, while consistent, is going to be foolishness to the world...

> If a contradiction is contrary to God's thinking, then wouldn't He be subject to it?

A contradiction in YOUR mind? Or are you speaking for God's mind? God is not subject to your mind's contradictions, and you are not privy to God's mind...

> Also, logic transcends materialistic thinking.

In your dreams!

> Logic is how God thinks.

"Your ways are not My ways; Your thoughts are not My thoughts." [God speaking through one of the OT prophets]

> Therefore, you cannot conclude that God is not subject to logic.

He is most assurredly NOT subject to YOUR logic - Nor to mine either, for that matter... Whose logic are you suggesting that He is subject to?

> Are you really implying that God does not have to function according to the law of non contradiction? If not, then what are you saying?

That your thoughts about God are not determinative of God...

> I agree that mankind may not be able to figure out how the hypostatic union is not contradictory. Our thinking is certainly limited and finite. We draw the wrong conclusions all of the time. But to suggest that the laws of logic originate with man, and God is not subject to them is going too far.

I do not place any limitations upon God whatsoever, and I certainly do not attempt to enclose Him within MY conceptual abilities. We can know what God does, but we cannot know His essence at all... As Paul wrote, there are things of which it is not lawful to speak, remember? How logical is THAT??

> This ultimately would lead to us not being able to predicate anything concerning God!

We know well enough what He does, according to His will for us to experience what He does and know it...

> No one is speaking of reducing God to that which we can comprehend!

Of course not! You just want to explain Him according to your understanding of Aristotelian logic. Yet the epistemology of man's knowing God is repentance, not Aristotle, and repentance is the epistemology of faith...

> God is incomprehensible, but yet there are things we can know about God. Therefore, there are things we can predicate of God. As a matter of fact, Romans 1 teaches us that all man knows something about God. Certainly this knowing is not complete in any sense of the word, but it is a knowing. God holds us accountable for this knowing. He even excpets us to draw inferences on this knowing. Romans 1 teaches us that because we have this knowing we should know to honor God as God! God expected us to deduce that it is proper for us to worship Him and honor Him as creator. Because we did not, then we came under God's wrath. The point is, we can know things of God and based on this information draw inferences. It does not mean that we conmpletely know God.

We can know ABOUT God by what people tell us, yes? So who are you going to listen to? I will listen to His Church and His saints... I won't head for the bar and sort it all out over a few brews... Nor will I go outside His Church to find knowledge...

> This is just bizarre. Goerge, have you paid any attention at all to what is being discussed?

Sure... It is a whacko approach to the Trinity...

> No one is trying to "prove their way to God." All we are trying to do is understand Him better.

And my efforts are to suggest that you are going about it in an utterly misguided way...

> Your anti-intellectualism comes through loud and clear, both in the content and thought process.

Well, I hope I have been a little more clear this round - You will not intellectualize your way to heaven... And your understanding will only bear fruit on the other side of the gates of repentance...

geo

Athanasian

March 28th 2003, 04:02 AM

Yesterday @ 03:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46123#post46123)
George Blaisdell:
You will be a ghost in a machine that dies and putrifies, as all flesh does...

It's ok George, I have that covered:

Job 19:
25For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

26And though afterb my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

27Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

:thumb:

George Blaisdell

March 28th 2003, 11:31 AM

Athanasian:[/i]

It's ok George, I have that covered:

Job 19:
25&#65279;For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

26&#65279;And though after&#65279;b my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

27&#65279;Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another&#65279;; though my reins be consumed within me.

:thumb: [/QUOTE]

Thanks, A -

But you know, it should be really obvious. Christ came in the flesh, and ascended in it, and we are to follow him, and the only time we can do so where it counts is while we are in the flesh, and yet it is not this corruptible flesh that will inherit the kingdom, so to speak... What we DO in the flesh matters... It matters enough to God to have put us in the flesh, complete with out skins, after the death of Adam in the Garden...

This whole idea that Christianity is a head trip of belief[s] perpetrated on the human race preselectively by God is nuts. Without our good conduct, we will not be saved, and with it, just barely, and not because the good conduct in any way earns it...

And having tons of airings out of scriptural argumnent won't save either, so that if we think we can get it all said and believed right and with enough conviction [faith?] won't save us either. God saves us, and it takes all we've got to do our part, and its that simple. The percentages of God's portion in our salvation and of ours is 100% and 100% respectively...

We simply cannot discount the role of the obedience our body has in right relationship to our spirit that is in obedience to God... If we lose that battle, we lose...

geo

Athanasian

March 30th 2003, 04:38 AM

I agree with everything you said George. Thanks. :smile:

phantaz sunlyk

March 30th 2003, 02:22 PM

**7** yo "Athanasian", here's some quotes from ya boy "Brian" taken from this thread. feel free to admit that you were wrong anytime.
also, since you disagree with these claims (made by ya boy "Brian"), show us that love for the truth you have, and prove him wrong.
tick, tock; tick, tock...
needless to say, i, as of right now, don't believe either of you to be sincere, and until the two of you work this out, i withdraw from talking to either of you.

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).

As you have mentioned, the reason the Trinity does not violate LC, is because it makes a distinction between person and being, i.e. 1 in being, 3 in persons.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit...3 Persons
Father, Son, Holy Spirit...1 Essence
I have no issue with this. If it said God is 3 persons and 1 person, or 3 beings and 1 being, then there would be an issue. Since there is a distinction between "essence" and "being" there is no problem.

y'all have fun with each other.

Brian

March 30th 2003, 02:32 PM

Hello PS!

needless to say, i, as of right now, don't believe either of you to be sincere, and until the two of you work this out, i withdraw from talking to either of you.

You have threatened this several times PS, however you keep talking. Either keep your word, or don't make such statements. This leaves us wondering whether or not it is you who is not sincere.

Sincerely,

Brian

AVmetro

March 30th 2003, 05:06 PM

Today @ 06:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48583#post48583)
Brian:

Hello PS!

You have threatened this several times PS, however you keep talking. Either keep your word, or don't make such statements. This leaves us wondering whether or not it is you who is not sincere.

Sincerely,

Brian

I'm in precisely the same situation as Phantaz. I'd like to end the discussion on the basis that it is stale and unfruitful, but the old Christian duty to enfore the truth and stamp out the heresy tends to burn out from within......and here I come again back for more. ;)

God bless

phantaz sunlyk

March 30th 2003, 06:06 PM

**7** yo AV--

I'm in precisely the same situation as Phantaz.

**8** aye. and i wouldn't be in this position had Athanasian not lied and said that "Brian" believes that the Trinity is a contradiction on the "x-delphians and Jn. 1:1" thread.
ain't it strange how "Brian" has no desire to show "Athanasian" that this doctrine isn't a contradiction? golly, to think that--after his (supposed) desire to seek the truth regarding the God-Man--could simply let Athanasian remain under the influence of wrong theological notions! i would have guessed that he's all for finding truth!
perhaps this is, however, secondary to keeping the flock of birds-of-a-feather together.
prediction--the next post by either of them will completely evade the challenge.
peace in Christ.

Brian

March 30th 2003, 07:54 PM

Hello PS!

Just can't seem to to stay out of the discussion, can you? I understand, but you shouldn't say that you are not going to continue the discussion with me, and then turn right around and do so. Frankly, I would prefer you to stay involved, so please feel free to respond.

ain't it strange how "Brian" has no desire to show "Athanasian" that this doctrine isn't a contradiction?

My purpose in this thread was to discuss the hypostatic union as it relates to the law on non-contradiction. I will not allow myself to get involved in your little feud with Athanasian. The issue is not the Trinity, but the hypostatic union. However, you could argue that there are implications for the Trinity being that the second of the God head has this dual nature. That in itself would be a fascinating discussion and worthy of it's own thread. However, it is not germaine to the discussion at hand.

golly, to think that--after his (supposed) desire to seek the truth regarding the God-Man--could simply let Athanasian remain under the influence of wrong theological notions!

Whatever your implication is, it is falicious.

perhaps this is, however, secondary to keeping the flock of birds-of-a-feather together.

In terms of this discussion, whatever the implcations are concerning the Trinity are besides the point. I want to discuss the formulation of the hypostatic union, not the Trinity. I will not be side tracked.

prediction--the next post by either of them will completely evade the challenge.

What challenge? For me to debate Athanasian? Once again, I will not be drawn into your dispute with him. The purpose of this thread concerns the hypostatic union and not the Trinity. I grant there is a close relationship to both, but in an effort to keep the thread on track I will not go there. PS, if you want to open a thread concerning the implications of the hyposytatic union to the Trinty, then by all means do so. However, I am not going to do it here.

PS, you claim to have answered my questions. Please spell it out for me once again? Why is the hypostatic union not a contradiction. Again, I take it on faith that it is not, but I do not see how the formulations of this union can aviod the contradiction. You say they do, but how? I cannot find an answer in your previous posts even though you say they are there. Maybe you could just reference the explicit answers you have already given? I would think you would jump at the opportunity to point it out to me in black and white. However, I am afraid that the reason you refuse to do so, is not because you already have done so and doubt my sincerety, but because you realize you don't have the answer either but for whatever reason don't want to admit it.

Why would such a great theologian as R.C. Sproul speak of our not being able to understand the hypostatic union. He said that once you try to figure it out you might as well pick your heresy. Why would he say that? The council of Chalcedon set up the limits of orthodoxy concerning the hypostatic union by saying what you could not do, but it sure did not tell us how the two natures exist so that there is no contradiction. How can Jesus be both A (God) and ~A (man) at the same time and in the same relationship (ontological), and this not be a violation of the law of non-contradiction? I am sorry if this question offends your orthodoxy, but as of yet you have not given an answer.

Sincerely,

Brian

George Blaisdell

March 30th 2003, 10:17 PM

Bryan escriveth:

> "The council of Chalcedon set up the limits of orthodoxy concerning the hypostatic union by saying what you could not do, but it sure did not tell us how the two natures exist so that there is no contradiction. How can Jesus be both A (God) and ~A (man) at the same time and in the same relationship (ontological), and this not be a violation of the law of non-contradiction?

The problem is in your statement of the problem - It is an object-logic problem... The major premises are utterly flawed.

1st major [false] premise: God is a nature, or two natures, or three... The Greek for nature is physis, and God in not a nature, nor is he a composition of natures. The council of Chalcedon affirmed that we do not and cannot know the essence, the being [h ousia in gthe Greek] of God. It further affirmed that the ousia of God, the unknowable ousia of God, is the Creator of physis, is the Creator of nature.

So that your LC dillemma is predicated upon the false presumption that the Creator of existence/nature is SUBJECT TO that which He creates - You are putting a Model A Ford in charge of Henry Ford, saying that Henry must have spark plugs and tires and a carburetor and a fuel supply for his nature, because that is the nature of the nature, the Model A Ford, that he created.

That dog don't hunt!

The formulaic that God is three persons [hypostases] of one essence/being [ousia] is a condescension to our created and fallen human natures, and in no way is a positive affirmation of God, who is utterly beyond both essence and person, yet makes Himself known to us as these by His activity [energia]...

Your demand that God, the creator of Aristotle, be subject to the laws of Aristotelian Logic, is flawed on its face, because the God Who created everything from nothing is NOT subject to what He created...

geo

Brian

March 30th 2003, 11:46 PM

Hello George!

Bryan escriveth

??? I am not sure what this is.

1st major [false] premise: God is a nature, or two natures, or three...

You misunderstand the issue. I do not need to be able to completely comprehend God to say that God is a being, i.e. there is an ontological aspect to God. To say Jesus is God is a valid proposition.

It further affirmed that the ousia of God, the unknowable ousia of God, is the Creator of physis, is the Creator of nature.

Are you equivocating on nature? Would you agree that God has a nature? Would you agree that God has always existed? If so, then wouln't it follow that God's nature has always existed and is not created?

So that your LC dillemma is predicated upon the false presumption that the Creator of existence/nature is SUBJECT TO that which He creates...

As already explained, God's being and all it entails is not created. However, the attributes of God certainly restrict what He can and cannot do. For instance, God cannot lie. God cannot let sin go unpunished. God cannot call good evil and evil good. That is, God cannot call A, ~A, and ~A, A. God cannot violate the law of non-contradiction. There are many restrictions that are put on God because of who He is.

You are putting a Model A Ford in charge of Henry Ford, saying that Henry must have spark plugs and tires and a carburetor and a fuel supply for his nature, because that is the nature of the nature, the Model A Ford, that he created.

???? Please explain to me how I am doing this? I can seem to make your analogy fit.

The formulaic that God is three persons [hypostases] of one essence/being [ousia] is a condescension to our created and fallen human natures, and in no way is a positive affirmation of God, who is utterly beyond both essence and person, yet makes Himself known to us as these by His activity [energia]...

I partially agree with this. Our formulation of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union certainly is inadequate. No one pretends that it completely describes God. However, the Trinity is a positive affirmation by definition. That is, it positively asserts that God is one in essence and 3 in persons. Once again, God cannot be above His own essence. God always has existed so He could not have created Himself. I really have no clue what you are trying to say concerning God creating essence.

Your demand that God, the creator of Aristotle, be subject to the laws of Aristotelian Logic, is flawed on its face, because the God Who created everything from nothing is NOT subject to what He created...

First off, I try to base my idea of God on the scriptures. I'll grant that I might have some subsurface Aristotilean presupposition concerning God, but the idea that God cannot violate the law of non-contradiction is Biblical, not Aristotilean. I claim that LC was not created, but is a reflection of God's thinking. As already stated, God cannot call Good evil. If God could violate LC, then God could be evil and sin! Of course that is absurd, as is your idea that God is not subject to His own attributes.

God's being is who God is. God's being is subject to God's attributes. One of God's attributes is that He is not contradictory. George, would you like to take issue with these last three statements? I am not about to embrace any of your anti-intellectual philosophy. Christianity is supremely concerned with the mind. A large part of what makes up faith has to do with the "noticia", i.e. the information of what we believe. You and I just can't believe in anything and be saved. There is certain theological doctrine that we must have correct. As much as you would like to divorce the intellect from faith, it cannot be done.

Sincerely,

Brian

George Blaisdell

March 31st 2003, 01:11 AM

Hello George!

“Bryan escriveth”

> ??? I am not sure what this is.

It meaneth that Mr. B. Ryan escratcheth uponeth thine parchementumus avec l'escrivatore!

“1st major [false] premise: God is a nature, or two natures, or three...”

> You misunderstand the issue.

Check your premises...

> I do not need to be able to completely comprehend God to say that God is a being, i.e. there is an ontological aspect to God. To say Jesus is God is a valid proposition.

So what? So is the proposition that Bob is blue... We can say that God is a being, and then proceed to describe His characteristics - Kinda like we do with a van de Graaf generator, and then perform some experiments with it to prove our ideas... But all that is within creation. God is not contained within creation...

“It further affirmed that the ousia of God, the unknowable ousia of God, is the Creator of physis, is the Creator of nature.”

> Are you equivocating on nature?

One voice! Nature [physis] is created by God.

> Would you agree that God has a nature?

Not at all... Whatever it is that God is, He is radically other than His creation, except for man, whom He created in His image... "My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are not your thoughts..." Remember??

> Would you agree that God has always existed? If so, then wouln't it follow that God's nature has always existed and is not created?

I am saying that you are speculating in the ideas of your created intellect... That you do not have God's "nature" at your disposal to examine and make conclusions...

“So that your LC dillemma is predicated upon the false presumption that the Creator of existence/nature is SUBJECT TO that which He creates...”

> As already explained, God's being and all it entails is not created. However, the attributes of God certainly restrict what He can and cannot do. For instance, God cannot lie. God cannot let sin go unpunished. God cannot call good evil and evil good. That is, God cannot call A, ~A, and ~A, A. God cannot violate the law of non-contradiction. There are many restrictions that are put on God because of who He is.

Yes, you can, in the vanity of your own mind, place lots of restrictions on God... And you can tell God what He can and what He cannot do, and doubtless you can prove all this to Him to the logical satisfaction of your own mind... For myself, I will pass on that whole line of approach, and side with those who tell us that we can only know God by his actions, and not by his essence, being, or 'nature'...

“You are putting a Model A Ford in charge of Henry Ford, saying that Henry must have spark plugs and tires and a carburetor and a fuel supply for his nature, because that is the nature of the nature, the Model A Ford, that he created.”

> ???? Please explain to me how I am doing this? I can seem to make your analogy fit.

You are the Model T. God is Henry Ford. Get it now?? The Model T [you] is talking with an Edsel [another of Ford's creations], and is explaining to the Edsel how that Henry must have a leaking oil seal in his tranny... How it is that Henry cannot have an oil seal and not have oil in the same respect and at the same time...

“The formulaic that God is three persons [hypostases] of one essence/being [ousia] is a condescension to our created and fallen human natures, and in no way is a positive affirmation of God, who is utterly beyond both essence and person, yet makes Himself known to us as these by His activity [energia]...”

> I partially agree with this. Our formulation of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union certainly is inadequate. No one pretends that it completely describes God. However, the Trinity is a positive affirmation by definition. That is, it positively asserts that God is one in essence and 3 in persons. Once again, God cannot be above His own essence. God always has existed so He could not have created Himself.

Thus spakest the Model T...

> I really have no clue what you are trying to say concerning God creating essence.

Could you provide a quote? Do you have an essence? Did God create it?

“Your demand that God, the creator of Aristotle, be subject to the laws of Aristotelian Logic, is flawed on its face, because the God Who created everything from nothing is NOT subject to what He created...”

> First off, I try to base my idea of God on the scriptures. I'll grant that I might have some subsurface Aristotilean presupposition concerning God, but the idea that God cannot violate the law of non-contradiction is Biblical, not Aristotilean. I claim that LC was not created, but is a reflection of God's thinking. As already stated, God cannot call Good evil. If God could violate LC, then God could be evil and sin! Of course that is absurd, as is your idea that God is not subject to His own attributes.

We say that God acts in certain ways... Even that God IS Love, for this is all we know from the experience and writings of those who know him... Juggling propositions that have you telling God what He can and can't do are absurd on their face. You do not know what God can do...

> God's being is who God is. God's being is subject to God's attributes. One of God's attributes is that He is not contradictory. George, would you like to take issue with these last three statements?

All of them. You have no basis for describing God in terms of His being a subject with attributes. He is the creator of both subjects and their attributes. The apophatic 'understanding' of God is the only one we can affirm, yet we know God in His energies, in what He does... Grace is the energy of God, not His essence...

> I am not about to embrace any of your anti-intellectual philosophy.

Your intellectual philosophy will not know God...

> Christianity is supremely concerned with the mind.

Indeed so... Yet even more, it is concerned with sin and union with God, and this is not a function of intellect...

> A large part of what makes up faith has to do with the "noticia", i.e. the information of what we believe. You and I just can't believe in anything and be saved. There is certain theological doctrine that we must have correct. As much as you would like to divorce the intellect from faith, it cannot be done.

The intellect has a vital role in the faith, as does the dogmatics of the boundary markers of what is salvifically permissible for the intellect to affirm... You cannot affirm with your intellect that God is a demon, for instance. That is not dogmatically permitted within the communion of the faith...

geo

Athanasian

March 31st 2003, 09:37 AM

Yesterday @ 11:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48814#post48814)
Brian:
Why would such a great theologian as R.C. Sproul speak of our not being able to understand the hypostatic union. He said that once you try to figure it out you might as well pick your heresy. Why would he say that?

The council of Chalcedon set up the limits of orthodoxy concerning the hypostatic union by saying what you could not do, but it sure did not tell us how the two natures exist so that there is no contradiction. How can Jesus be both A (God) and ~A (man) at the same time and in the same relationship (ontological), and this not be a violation of the law of non-contradiction? I am sorry if this question offends your orthodoxy, but as of yet you have not given an answer.

Good questions. No answers stil...

Athanasian

March 31st 2003, 09:38 AM

Phataz, I don't think you read my post at all. I already dealt with this. You haven't responded to my post. To use your words, you haven't 'engaged my argument'.

I said very clearly that I understand Brian to take it as a matter of faith that the law of non-contradiction is not breached, but that the orthodox description of the Trinity (specifically in the descriptoin of the hypostatic union), contradicts the law of contradiction.

You gave me one little quote from Brian which did not represent him properly. You ignored the following:

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}: 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?

...

Two natures in one person seems to violate LC, especially when according to the council of Chalcedon you cannot seperate, confuse, change, or divided the two natures, i.e. I can't say right now Christ is acting in his nature as God, but over here He is acting in His nature as man. This is considered heretical by orthodox Christianity.

It is fine that you claim Christ's having two natures is not a contradiction, but if you are not allowed to divide them, or confuse them, or seperate them, etc..., then how can you say it is not a contradiction? If Christ is man, and Christ is God in the same relationship (i.e. nature) and at the same time (i.e., not allowed to be seperated, divided, etc...), doesn't this follow the definition for LC to the tee?

...

Let me try again. I will use traditional Aristotilian logic, and formulate my argument from there.

(1) All S is P.
(2) All S is ~P.

These two statements are by definition contradictory for any S and any P.

(1a) All Jesus is God. (This is declared true by the council of Nicea.)
(2a) All Jesus is Man. (This is declared true by the council of Chalcedon.)

Both of these statments are ontological, the terms have not changed, therefore there is no equivocation taking place. According to the rules of logic (2a) implies the truth value of...

(2b) All Jesus in not God.

Now we have a formal contradiction according to Aristotle's logic. Statement (1a) is of the form All S is P. Statement (2b) is of the form All S is ~P. By definition, this is a contradiction. If you take issue with (1a), you rtissue is with Nicea. If you take issue with (2a) your issue is with Chalcedon. That is why I said that the debate revolves around the logically equivalency of (2a) and (2b). If you deny this, then what is your logical basis? And does your reasoning violate the council of Chalcedon?

...

The council of Chalcedon set up the limits of orthodoxy concerning the hypostatic union by saying what you could not do, but it sure did not tell us how the two natures exist so that there is no contradiction. How can Jesus be both A (God) and ~A (man) at the same time and in the same relationship (ontological), and this not be a violation of the law of non-contradiction? I am sorry if this question offends your orthodoxy, but as of yet you have not given an answer.

That last paragraph he addressed specifically to you. I'd like to see it answered please. Especially the parts in bold.

I note that you have fallen silent on your other claim. I suppose that's your way of saying sorry. You're forgiven - I don't hold grudges, and I realise how difficult it is for you to admit you have been wrong. It's hard for a lot of people who spend hours in heated argument with peopel they think are heretics. AVMetro, 'JP Holding', and Evaneglion are others in the same boat, from what I can see. You all go to the 'win at all costs' school of theology.

Brian

March 31st 2003, 12:29 PM

Hello Athanasian!

I cartainly am happy that you are participating in this thread. I believe you have represented me accurately, and I appreciate you forcing the issue with the rest.

Sincerely,

Brian

Brian

March 31st 2003, 12:58 PM

Hello George!

It meaneth that Mr. B. Ryan escratcheth uponeth thine parchementumus avec l'escrivatore!

You are much more clever than I am! I can't believe I missed that. :lol:

God is not contained within creation...

I do not claim that God is. However, scripture clearly teaches us that creation has revealed His invisible attributes. You can find this in Romans 1. The implication is that we can know some things about who God is by this general revelation. The Bible itself is special revelation that reveals who God is more clearly. It is God's own words telling us what He wants us to know about Him. That is the basis to be able to predicate things about God. God himself tells us that He cannot lie. That He cannot call good evil, and evil good. All of this implies that God Himself cannot violate the law of LC. Your beef is not with me, but with authority of scripture.

(Brian) Would you agree that God has a nature? (George) Not at all... Whatever it is that God is, He is radically other than His creation, except for man, whom He created in His image.

Are you saying God has no nature? It seems as if you are tying the word nature to that which is created. My Webster's dictionary has several definition for nature, one of which is the essential character or substance of something. It does seem that God has a nature, at least in this sense, which was the sense I was using it in. This is the charge of equivocation that I was making.

Yes, you can, in the vanity of your own mind, place lots of restrictions on God...

Scripture, God's own word, has placed this limitation on Him, not me. Your beef is with God's word, not me.

You are the Model T. God is Henry Ford. Get it now?? The Model T [you] is talking with an Edsel [another of Ford's creations], and is explaining to the Edsel how that Henry must have a leaking oil seal in his tranny... How it is that Henry cannot have an oil seal and not have oil in the same respect and at the same time...

Hmmmm. No, I think a more accurate anology would be me saying that Henry Ford must have hands and feet. This is because the drivers manual (i.e. the Bible) refers to these appendages when describing the gear shift, the gas and break pedals, and the steering wheel. Although this anology, which is more accurate than yours, still is not good. Once again, your beef is with God's own words...theonustas -God breathed, expired.

We say that God acts in certain ways... Even that God IS Love, for this is all we know from the experience and writings of those who know him... Juggling propositions that have you telling God what He can and can't do are absurd on their face. You do not know what God can do...

There are things that I can know about God. I can even describe some aspects of what it means to love. That is, because God Himself has told us through the scriptures. Your position that God is completely unknowable shows a lack of respect for the Bible. It does violence to the scriptures themselves.

Your intellectual philosophy will not know God...

But the scriptures can teach me about God.

You cannot affirm with your intellect that God is a demon, for instance.

Hmmm. Did you just predicate something about God? Maybe you are coming around.

...That is not dogmatically permitted within the communion of the faith...

This concerns me a little. I would say that you cannot say that God is a demon because Scripture teaches us this. If all of the "communion of faith" were to agree that God is a demon, that would not be a good basis on which to accept it as truth. Scripture alone, not councils, creeds, or communions of faith, can speak authoritativley of God. Your beef is with scripture, not me.

Sincerely,

Brian

George Blaisdell

March 31st 2003, 02:37 PM

Brian: heralds!

> Hello George!

Hey, Mr. Ryan! May I call you 'B'??? [just kidding!]

> You are much more clever than I am! I can't believe I missed that. :lol:

I normally find myself missing humor when I am taking the value of my words too seriously... When I am taking mySELF too seriously - Which, btw, is most of the time...

> > [geo] God is not contained by His creation.

> I do not claim that God is.

I know you do not intend to, but by claiming to be human and to hold God to some restrictions based on your understanding of Him is to claim YOUR containment of Him... Whether based on scripture or anything else...

> However, scripture clearly teaches us that creation has revealed His invisible attributes.

Scripture reveals His energies, His deeds, His actions... And only some of these [see the last words of John, regarding only those of Christ... There would not be enough books in all the world to contain a full accounting of all that He did...]

> You can find this in Romans 1.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written: "The just shall live by faith." ... ...19 because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them.

"THAT WHICH MAY BE KNOWN OF GOD"

And what is this??? It is that which is made manifest in the just who live by faith...

"Made manifest"??? Therein is knowledge of God, is knowing God, and that in His energies in which the just partake, having the mind of Christ, and not lost in the delusion of the self opinion of fallen human vanitous mental restrictions on God's power...

"Who LIVE by faith..." What we DO matters....

Clearly, we can know SOME things OF God - And equally clearly, we are NOT told we can know God's essence...

> The implication is that we can know some things about who God is by this general revelation. The Bible itself is special revelation that reveals who God is more clearly. It is God's own words telling us what He wants us to know about Him. That is the basis to be able to predicate things about God. God himself tells us that He cannot lie. That He cannot call good evil, and evil good. All of this implies that God Himself cannot violate the law of LC. Your beef is not with me, but with authority of scripture.

To say that God tells the truth, indeed IS the truth, is but to bear witness to truth, and this in human terms. Yet to thereby sit down with a few revealed truths you have read in the Bible and come up with a tidy little picture in your own mind of what it is that God can do and what he can't do, so as to enclose Him within your understanding that is created BY Him is but vanity and hubris, my friend.

> Are you saying God has no nature?

I am saying He does not have a CREATED nature, and that you are casting your mental limitations upon Him by created standards [Aristotelian logic] and by a created person [this Model T named Brian.]

> My Webster's dictionary has several definition for nature, one of which is the essential character or substance of something.

So you are arguing that God is a THING... A someTHING... And I am arguing that He is NOT such a thing... That He is a WHO... And even that is but a condescension to our fallen and human understanding...

> It does seem that God has a nature, at least in this sense, which was the sense I was using it in.

You are free to regard God as a THING if you wish...

But I will have no part with that...

> Scripture, God's own word, has placed this limitation on Him, not me. Your beef is with God's word, not me.

Scripture teaches that we are now seeing but as in a glass darkly... That humblemindedness is great virtue...

> Henry Ford must have hands and feet.

Well, YOU do not have GOD's hands or feet, and the Model T does not have such hands or feet as Henry did either. They are different orders of creation, the person that is Henry, and the car that is the Model T... How much GREATER the difference between God and man!

> There are things that I can know about God. I can even describe some aspects of what it means to love. That is, because God Himself has told us through the scriptures.

You can know about God by reading and listening to others.

And... You can know God by participating in His energies.

As to God's essential, inner nature, you have no clue whatsoever, because you cannot do what He does - This was the lie of the serpent, that by knowing good and evil, we would become like God... The way back is through Christ, not through elevating your intellect to the imposition of restrictions upon God according to your understanding of what other people tell you, or write down and you read about it... [Biblical exegesis]

> Your position that God is completely unknowable

I have no such position at all... We are talking past one another...

> But the scriptures can teach me about God.

Indeed they do and should! ':thumb:'

> Hmmm. Did you just predicate something about God? Maybe you are coming around.

We can say a great deal about God, but not with the demonic illusion of limiting Him or knowing His "essence"...

> This concerns me a little.

It should concern you a LOT!

> I would say that you cannot say that God is a demon because Scripture teaches us this.

God teaches us about demons. Their discernment is His gift, to be sought... And much of this is written about in scripture, which teaches us that the "the righteousness of God [is] revealed from faith to faith."

Not from exegesis to exegesis...

> If all of the "communion of faith" were to agree that God is a demon, that would not be a good basis on which to accept it as truth.

And that is only ONE reason that the Apostolic Church does NOT agree that God is a demon. Your "IF" is utterly moot...

> Scripture alone, not councils, creeds, or communions of faith, can speak authoritativley of God.

Scripture alone says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truths...

> Your beef is with scripture, not me.

Every time I point a finger at someone I find that I am looking at three fingers pointing right back at me... Ever notice that? ':eek:'

geo

Athanasian

March 31st 2003, 04:06 PM

Today @ 04:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49440#post49440)
Brian:
I cartainly am happy that you are participating in this thread. I believe you have represented me accurately, and I appreciate you forcing the issue with the rest.

Thanks Brian, I'm glad you're here too. Now if we could just get a couple of things through to PHantaz, and if he would just 'engage our posts'... :huh:

Brian

March 31st 2003, 05:58 PM

Hello George!

I know you do not intend to, but by claiming to be human and to hold God to some restrictions based on your understanding of Him is to claim YOUR containment of Him...

For me to say that God cannot lie because of His attribute of righteousness certainly makes a restriction upon God. It is in no way a claim to contain Him.

Clearly, we can know SOME things OF God - And equally clearly, we are NOT told we can know God's essence...

It is interesting to note that you did not include verse 20, and as a consequence you completely miss the point of Paul's passage in Romans 1. Allow me to explain.

Romans 1:16 "...for it (the gospel) is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..."

Notice that the power of God to save is the gospel. And how is this salvation appropriated? To everyone who believes. This leaves us the question, "Saved from what?" The gospel is the "good news." In order for us to understand what the good news is we must understand the bad news.

Romans 1:17 "For in it (the gospel) the righteousenss of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written the righteous man shall live by faith."

This "righteousness of God" is not God's personal righteousness, but is the righteousness that God imputes to those who believe, i.e. those who are of faith.

In these two verses Paul has just given us the complete gospel, i.e. the "good news." It is the thesis statement of the book of Romans. But to appreciate the thesis, you must understand the anti-thesis, i.e. the bad news. Paul begins to give us the bad news in verse 18 by beginning to tell us who we are saved from, and why we need to be saved. In the most fundamental sense, we are saved from the wrath of God! That is, we are saved from God, by God, to God! To do this, Paul makes a case that all mankind, both Jew and Gentile are under the wrath of God. This explantion takes us all the way into chapter 3 concluding that every man is wicked and is under wrath. Once he has made his case for the "bad news", only then does Paul explain the gospel more fully beginning in 3:21 and going through to 5:1 concluding now that we have been justified by faith we now have peace with God, i.e. we have been saved from His wrath.

So why is God so angry with all of mankind? Because man has surpressed the truth about God! That is, because vs. 19 that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. How did God make this evident to them? verse 20. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, HAVING BEEN CLEARLY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD THROUGH WHAT HAS BEEN MADE... As I have already said, it is interesting that you left this verse out.

However, you claim that...And what is this??? It is that which is made manifest in the just who live by faith...

You are saying that those who live by faith have this manifestation made to them. WRONG! Paul's point is that God has made this eveident to ALL men, and because they surpressed it and did not honor Him as God, they are all under wrath! This is bad news, because everyone is in this boat. Paul say in Romans 3 that there is no one who does good, there is no one who is righteous. Your understanding of Romans is incorrect at best.

Therein is knowledge of God, is knowing God, and that in His energies in which the just partake, having the mind of Christ, and not lost in the delusion of the self opinion of fallen human vanitous mental restrictions on God's power...

What does scripture explicitly say we know about God? His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature! He says this of evil men who supress this truth! God judges them, because they are held accountable for this knowledge and held accountable for not honoring God as God based on this knowledge. That is, God expects them to understand some things about His attributes and nature. However, you have insisted that we cannot. Hmmmm, scripture does not support your position.

Yet to thereby sit down with a few revealed truths you have read in the Bible and come up with a tidy little picture in your own mind of what it is that God can do and what he can't do, so as to enclose Him within your understanding that is created BY Him is but vanity and hubris, my friend.

Are you saying that I cannot take scripture that says God never lies, and insist that God is unable to lie? What about Paul when argues syllogistically that no one is justified by the law before God? Paul uses the premises that the "Law is not of faith" and that "the righteous man shall live by faith" to draw his conclusion. You can find this in Gal. 3:11-14. Because Paul uses Aristotlian logic on truth statements in the Bible and concludes that God will not justify anybody by the Law, that it is "vanity and hubris?" Give me a break. Your anti-intellectualism is just not Biblical.

(Brian) Are you saying God has no nature? (George) I am saying He does not have a CREATED nature

That is not what you said earlier. As a matter of fact it was I who explicitly said this, and you took issue! Here is what I said a couple of posts back that you took issue with...(Brian) As already explained, God's being and all it entails is not created. Are you back traking? Or are you formulating your ideas as we go along? I do the same thing at times. I don't pretend to have it figured out. I just wanted to point out that you either badly misread me, or you have changed positions.

So you are arguing that God is a THING... A someTHING... And I am arguing that He is NOT such a thing... That He is a WHO... And even that is but a condescension to our fallen and human understanding...

Symantics. Your argumentation is becoming desperate. It is interesting to note that you did not deal with the point I was making. You chose to divert the issue. I accused you of equivocating and then demonstrated how you did so. Here is your response...

(Brian) It does seem that God has a nature, at least in this sense, which was the sense I was using it in. (George) You are free to regard God as a THING if you wish...

A total non-answer. You failed to deal with the charge of equivocation. You just divert the issue. That is what I am getting from everyone on this thread.

Scripture teaches that we are now seeing but as in a glass darkly... That humblemindedness is great virtue...

Once again you completely avoid the issue that scripture teaches us about God's nature and attributes, and that it does put limitations on His being.

As to God's essential, inner nature, you have no clue whatsoever, because you cannot do what He does

What??!!?? Since when do I have to be able to do what God does to "have a clue about God's essential, inner nature?" Romans teaches us that we do have a clue, and because we surpress this "clue" we are all under God's wrath. You certainly have not learned your philosophy about God from the Bible. Where did you get it from?

We can say a great deal about God, but not with the demonic illusion of limiting Him or knowing His "essence"...

When I say that God cannot lie, that certianly limits God. Is this demonic?

God teaches us about demons. Their discernment is His gift, to be sought... And much of this is written about in scripture, which teaches us that the "the righteousness of God [is] revealed from faith to faith."

As has already been pointed out, your understanding of Romans is flawed. Romans teaches us that those who are not of faith understand God's invisible attributes and nature, but they surpress this truth. Your understnading of "the righouseness of God" in Romans 1:17 is wrong. It is not speaking of God's personal righteousness, but the righteousness He imputes to those who are of faith. Your philosophy of God is not found in the Bible.

George, you obviously have presuppositions that are extra biblical (me too). The Bible explicitly teaches us that ALL men know something about God's invisible attributes, and His nature. It also holds us accountable to draw implcations from this truth, but becasue we do not and instead surpress the truth then we are all under wrath.

Your argument seems to be, that even if the councils appear to speak of the hypostatic union in a contradictory manner, we cannot conclude anything about it because God is not subject to our logic, and therefore is not subject to the law of non-contradiction. Scripture does not support this, and up to this point you have been less than convincing.

Sincerely,

Brian

George Blaisdell

March 31st 2003, 11:54 PM

“(Brian) Are you saying God has no nature?
(George) I am saying He does not have a CREATED nature”

> That is not what you said earlier.

It is the whole basis for our disagreement.

You are saying that God is subject to Aristotle and logic and your mental grasp of the applications of these... That as humans who are created by God we can determine in our minds based on scripture some rules which God has to follow - God can do this, and He cannot do that, and we can thereby treat of God in the same way that we treat of any other created thing.

I am saying that because God is the Creator, and is not created, we cannot subject Him to the [Aristotelian, for instance] laws of created matter, but do so only in a figure... That God in His essence, as He is known to Himself, is unknowable to us, and is utterly beyond essence and being and existence as it is known in creation. That God is known to us in His actions and energies, and not his essence.

So then you say: "It is interesting to note that you did not include verse 20, and as a consequence you completely miss the point of Paul's passage in Romans 1."

1:20 "For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."

Clearly we all know the invisible things of God through the visible, yes? We know the Creator by His creation, and NOT by His essence or his nature [ousia or physis].

1:21 "For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful,"

These are the proper responses to knowing God, yes? To glorify Him and give thanks unto Him...

But instead, you want to tell Him what he can and cannot do according to your mental imaginings via Aristotelian logical paradigms... eg Philosophical Wisdom.

" but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

I could not have said it better!

1:22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Amen, amen, and amen!

You see, just because God condescends to make Himself known to us in a way that our created nature can understand darkly and in part only, this does not give us sudden license to start telling God what he is able and not able to do or not do... Does not give us warrant to tell Him what He can do and cannot do... Should we do this, we will have become vain in our imaginings...

You are free to do so by His grace ...

And I thank God that I am free to give thanks unto Him and glorify His Holy Name...

And with that, I really wish to sign off from this discussion... We are but talking past one another, I think, and are not producing much fruit - None that I can see anyway...

Thanks for the romp!

geo