Evidence for God from Science

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features ... _oct05.asp

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features ... _oct05.asp

I've read this article and I am confused.

(a) According to this article Jesus is not a human person?

(b) According to this article Jesus is not a human being?

I have to be misreading it.

Thanks.

Catholic theology is sometimes almost always difficult to understand.
But as far as I can see, the article's explanation of who Christ is, is a good explanation. It's just not written in words that are easy to understand.

Perhaps Byblos or Jac could translate into layman's terms.

RickD wrote:Catholic theology is sometimes almost always difficult to understand.
But as far as I can see, the article's explanation of who Christ is, is a good explanation. It's just not written in words that are easy to understand.

Perhaps Byblos or Jac could translate into layman's terms.

I was hoping Jac would respond and I know my friend Byblos is a Roman Catholic and I was hoping he would reply as well.

Christian2 wrote:

RickD wrote:Catholic theology is sometimes almost always difficult to understand.
But as far as I can see, the article's explanation of who Christ is, is a good explanation. It's just not written in words that are easy to understand.

Perhaps Byblos or Jac could translate into layman's terms.

I was hoping Jac would respond and I know my friend Byblos is a Roman Catholic and I was hoping he would reply as well.

Jac can explain the philosophical terms much more clearly than I can. What I will say is this, the whole article (and in general, the whole idea of defending the hypostatic union) is to preserve, not only the divinity of Christ, but also to refute such heretic ideas as nestorianism or dualism. What the article is basically saying is that Christ cannot be called a human person or a human being because that would imply Christ is 2 persons, one divine, and another human. This we reject simply because if the union of God and man as exemplified by Christ is not a complete union into one person, then our union with God (in salvific terms) is also impossible. Christ is 100% divine and 100% man, in one person. Therefore, he cannot be called a human person (for that would dualize his personhood), and he cannot be called a human being for that would imply a wholly created being (which would again deny the union with his divine nature).

And Rick, that's not Catholic theology, it is sound Christian theology.

Byblos wrote:
And Rick, that's not Catholic theology, it is sound Christian theology.

Oh I agree. I guess I miswrote. When I said Catholic theology, I just meant the way it's written on catholic websites. You've given me a few links to questions I've had in the past, and they were very difficult to understand. That's all I meant.

And thanks for dumbing it down for me, Byblos. I figured it would make sense once you explained it.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
And Rick, that's not Catholic theology, it is sound Christian theology.

Oh I agree. I guess I miswrote. When I said Catholic theology, I just meant the way it's written on catholic websites. You've given me a few links to questions I've had in the past, and they were very difficult to understand. That's all I meant.

And thanks for dumbing it down for me, Byblos. I figured it would make sense once you explained it.

Good, then if you agree with the conclusions, then it shouldn't be a far leap to agree with Mary's title as Mother of God.

(okay, okay, I'll cut it out ).

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
And Rick, that's not Catholic theology, it is sound Christian theology.

Oh I agree. I guess I miswrote. When I said Catholic theology, I just meant the way it's written on catholic websites. You've given me a few links to questions I've had in the past, and they were very difficult to understand. That's all I meant.

And thanks for dumbing it down for me, Byblos. I figured it would make sense once you explained it.

Good, then if you agree with the conclusions, then it shouldn't be a far leap to agree with Mary's title as Mother of God.

(okay, okay, I'll cut it out ).

And it was going so well up until now. You just couldn't leave well enough alone...

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
And Rick, that's not Catholic theology, it is sound Christian theology.

Oh I agree. I guess I miswrote. When I said Catholic theology, I just meant the way it's written on catholic websites. You've given me a few links to questions I've had in the past, and they were very difficult to understand. That's all I meant.

And thanks for dumbing it down for me, Byblos. I figured it would make sense once you explained it.

Good, then if you agree with the conclusions, then it shouldn't be a far leap to agree with Mary's title as Mother of God.

(okay, okay, I'll cut it out ).

And it was going so well up until now. You just couldn't leave well enough alone...

Well how can I separate the two when the very point of the Marian title (indeed the entire doctrine) is precisely the divinity and single-personhood of Christ. But I digress (I guess).

Byblos wrote:
But I digress (I guess).

I agree completely!

Byblos wrote:

Christian2 wrote:

RickD wrote:Catholic theology is sometimes almost always difficult to understand.
But as far as I can see, the article's explanation of who Christ is, is a good explanation. It's just not written in words that are easy to understand.

Perhaps Byblos or Jac could translate into layman's terms.

I was hoping Jac would respond and I know my friend Byblos is a Roman Catholic and I was hoping he would reply as well.

Jac can explain the philosophical terms much more clearly than I can. What I will say is this, the whole article (and in general, the whole idea of defending the hypostatic union) is to preserve, not only the divinity of Christ, but also to refute such heretic ideas as nestorianism or dualism. What the article is basically saying is that Christ cannot be called a human person or a human being because that would imply Christ is 2 persons, one divine, and another human. This we reject simply because if the union of God and man as exemplified by Christ is not a complete union into one person, then our union with God (in salvific terms) is also impossible. Christ is 100% divine and 100% man, in one person. Therefore, he cannot be called a human person (for that would dualize his personhood), and he cannot be called a human being for that would imply a wholly created being (which would again deny the union with his divine nature).

And Rick, that's not Catholic theology, it is sound Christian theology.

Thanks, Byblos.

I'll wait until Jac shows up and discusses the article further.

The language does get a bit technical, but I think there are a few lines that make things pretty clear. From this first article:

• Jesus does not have a . . . human "person" in common with us. . . . Church councils have defined that Jesus Christ is a divine Person.

In other words, Jesus is not a human person. He is a divine Person. To argue He is both a human and a divine person is either to say that Christ is actually two persons, one human and one divine, or else that His nature is actually a blending of the human and divine and us thus neither truly human nor truly divine. What Jesus shares in common with us is not the human person, but the human nature.

From the second article:

• [Christ's full human nature] does not include created being or a created hypostasis (person). . . . While the Son of God assumes the essence or nature of created man (i.e., humanity), He does not assume the being of created man. The Son of God, therefore, does not assume human or created being. So, Jesus Christ is not a human being except in a qualified sense. Rather, He is a divine Being.

In other words, Jesus is not a human being. He is a divine Being. To argue He is both a human and a divine being is either to say that Christ is actually two beings, one human and one divine, or else that His nature is actually a blending of the human and divine and us thus neither truly human nor truly divine. Again, what Jesus shares in common with us is not the human being, but the human nature.

So the proper doctrine is that the Eternal, Uncreated Person called the Son of God assumed a human nature, and that nature in addition to His own. In Christ, there is both a human nature and a divine nature. There is, however, only one Person (who is Uncreated Deity, and thus not human) and only one Being (again, Uncreated Deity, and thus not human).

Helpful or no?

Jac wrote:
So the proper doctrine is that the Eternal, Uncreated Person called the Son of God assumed a human nature, and that nature in addition to His own. In Christ, there is both a human nature and a divine nature. There is, however, only one Person (who is Uncreated Deity, and thus not human) and only one Being (again, Uncreated Deity, and thus not human).

So, Christ is not fully God and fully human?

He is fully human in virtue of the fact that He took on a human nature. The point of the articles was to not confuse nature with person or nature with being. What makes us human is our nature. We are, however, human persons--we are not divine persons. Only that which is God is a divine person. Jesus, then, is a divine person, not a human person. To put it differently, just because Jesus had a human nature that does not make him a human person. It means only that a divine person took on a fully human nature in addition to His own divine nature. The same general argument can be said about his being, too,

Jac3510 wrote:He is fully human in virtue of the fact that He took on a human nature. The point of the articles was to not confuse nature with person or nature with being. What makes us human is our nature. We are, however, human persons--we are not divine persons. Only that which is God is a divine person. Jesus, then, is a divine person, not a human person. To put it differently, just because Jesus had a human nature that does not make him a human person. It means only that a divine person took on a fully human nature in addition to His own divine nature. The same general argument can be said about his being, too,

And exactly why did the Son of God take on a fully human nature in addition to His own divine nature. What purpose did that serve?

He took on a fully human nature to make Him fully human--to make Him a man.

There is, of course, the more general question, "Why did God choose to become a man?" We can offer some hints at reasons for that. God became man so that He might die for our sins. He became a man so that He might undo what Adam did. He became a man so that He could rule directly over creation. He became a man to fulfill mankind's purpose of being the image of God. We could go on and on. But I would quickly add that none of that is a matter of necessity.

I think that last line is especially important. In my experience, Christians--especially evangelicals--tend to try to answer questions about why God did this rather than that in terms of necessity. So we say, "God had to become a man because of this reason," or "God had to die on the cross for that reason," or what have you. I actually don't think that's a very good argument, though. I don't think God does anything out of necessity. He is perfectly free. We do much better to argue in terms of fittingness. It was fitting for God to become a man for all the reasons above (and then many more), but just because something is fitting it does not follow that it must have been the case. One great and obvious example is creation itself.

Why did God create? God certainly did not need to. He lacked nothing without creation, and creation gives Him nothing He did not already have. It adds in no way to Him, so He gained nothing in making all of this. So why do it? We must say that there was no necessary reason for God to have created. He was free to do so or free not to do so. It was, however, fitting for Him to create, for it is fitting for a perfect God of love to want to bring other things into existence that can share for their own benefit in His perfect love. I emphasize here that just because it was fitting for God to create it does not follow that He was bound to do so by His nature. What this means is that, strictly speaking, we cannot know the answer to the question, "Why did God create?" It really may be nothing more than, "Because He chose to."

The same is true with your question. Why become man? Well, it was fitting in a profound way that I'm sure you can explain yourself--God becoming man . . . especially becoming the man He did, born to a poor Jewish girl, raised as a carpenter, despised and rejected by His own people, etc. There is a beauty in the foolishness of it all, which Paul so clearly recognized. But was God bound to become man? I don't think so. I think that God is sovereign enough that He could have just chose to save some of us for no reason at all. It was, after all, His choice to make death the wages of sin. And such is fitting! But not necessary.

I think ultimately we have to come to the place where we are okay being able to rest in saying, "Because that's what God decided to do." All we can do is read Scripture, see what God has declared that He has done, try our best to understand what He has done (which sometimes requires some very difficult and rigorous thinking!), and finally, after all that work, say, "And why that? Because that's what He decided to do."

Again, I hope this is helpful. If it's not, ignore it, but I find it both intellectually and spiritually satisfying. Jesus is a divine Person, both fully man and fully God. Why did our God become fully man? Because it was fitting He do so and, being fitting, it was His divine, free choice to do so. Let's just not say that Jesus is a human being (for then He would be two beings, one human and one divine) or a human person (for then He would be two persons, one human and one divine); and let's not say that He became a man out of any necessity. God is free, and I think we should respect that.