The Hypostatic Union

[cksalmon]

(1) And since the Greeks made it up ((2) and it's not true) and (3) then the Christians aped it to justify their position, (4) I'm pretty satisfied we can conclude that it is untrue.

mak--

It doesn't seem that you're really interested in interacting with explanations, at least based on your circular dismissal here. Your argument hardly needs (1) or (3); I've taken the liberty of striking them.

(1) The Greeks made it up

(2) It's not true

(3) Christians aped it

Therefore,

(4) It's not true

ridiculous philosophical mumbo-jumbo

...

Mumbo-jumbo. It's really not necessary to believe this stuff anymore since we don't have a Greek society breathing down our necks demanding we make our gospel sexy.

...

I believe this is a cop-out

...

I'm looking for an explanation that's not garbage. I'm wondering if anyone here actually knows what it means or if they just accept it without understanding like they've been told to do since it was first borrowed from the Greeks.

...

I find that a little ridiculous, and so did everyone else on the planet whose very lives were not dependent upon its legitimacy.

...

the Christians aped it to justify their position

Seems like you're just trying to pick a fight here, mak. You're arguing that it's not true based on your belief that it's not true (see your argument above).

I'm done speaking with you Johnny. It's utterly worthless.

I'm curious to know the answer to this question of Johnny's: "What part is mumbo-jumbo ... do you believe Jesus is fully divine ... do you believe Jesus is fully man?"

Best.

CKS

[huckelberry]

Perhaps the thought of a bit of harmony could help this discussion. I have no inside knowledge of the inner working of Jesus as he walked the earth. We have been given but glimpses. I think an analogy would be one way of considering how the pieces could work together. I was thnking of the hypostatic union in terms of what happens when I am listening to mozart. In that situation I remain as completely human and myself as ever. At the same time the mozart remains as transcendent as ever even though being heard by a person with the musical limitations that I have. My musical clumsiness does not impare the Mozart. However between the two there is an active relationship in which the trasformation of harmony in the music is communicated to my human experience. I may in some way be more in hearing the music but it could also be said I was 100 percent human before during and after the trasforming experience.

[maklelan]

mak--

It doesn't seem that you're really interested in interacting with explanations, at least based on your circular dismissal here. Your argument hardly needs (1) or (3); I've taken the liberty of striking them.

(1) The Greeks made it up

(2) It's not true

(3) Christians aped it

Therefore,

(4) It's not true

You know that wasn't the meat of my argument. I've shared what you asked for and explained exactly what the implications are, but you've failed as yet to interact with a single one of those sources or arguments. Here's another one, though:

1) The Hypostatic Union succeeds if and only if divine beings are able to be fully divine and at the same time fully human.

2) The core argument that sustains this assertion is that divine beings are probably not restricted by the same metaphysical and rational strictures as finite beings, although we have absolutely no way of knowing one way or another because it transcends our finite minds.

3) Since this axiom can not be proven or disproven, it is inadmissible.

4) The Hypostatic Union thus fails.

Seems like you're just trying to pick a fight here, mak. You're arguing that it's not true based on your belief that it's not true (see your argument above).

As I stated above, I've shared my argument and you've decided not to respond to a word of it. Their argument is based entirely on the assumption that infinite beings (whatever their nature) are not confined to the same rules of logic, therefore whatever exceptions they need to make are justified. You've yet to explain how that side of their argument even merits a response from me.

I'm curious to know the answer to this question of Johnny's: "What part is mumbo-jumbo ... do you believe Jesus is fully divine ... do you believe Jesus is fully man?"

And herein lies another fallacy. Nowhere in scripture or in logic is Christ required to be "fully" divine or "fully" human. I don't believe either, because I believe Christ had a human mother and a divine father. That he is required to be both is an artificial requirement. Catholicism was battling pagan philosophy and a 2,000 year old ontological premise which isn't really a concern of anyone anymore. Catholicism also separates humanity from the divine in a manner that required some kind of philosophical slight of hand to explain how a human mother could give birth to God, but we feel divinity and humanity are not so far separated that the two natures are irreconcilable within one human being. I don't follow Johnny's Christology because I think it's bunk. Trying to pin me down to developing my case within the context of his Church's axioms is not going to work. His entire case depends on 2,000 year old ontological axioms. If you want me to prove my case within that context I refuse, because it's junk. If you want me to prove my case within a modern and logical system that is not beholden to antiquated paradigms then my case has been made and the sources are available to you for your consideration.

Perhaps the thought of a bit of harmony could help this discussion. I have no inside knowledge of the inner working of Jesus as he walked the earth. We have been given but glimpses. I think an analogy would be one way of considering how the pieces could work together. I was thnking of the hypostatic union in terms of what happens when I am listening to mozart. In that situation I remain as completely human and myself as ever. At the same time the mozart remains as transcendent as ever even though being heard by a person with the musical limitations that I have. My musical clumsiness does not impare the Mozart. However between the two there is an active relationship in which the trasformation of harmony in the music is communicated to my human experience. I may in some way be more in hearing the music but it could also be said I was 100 percent human before during and after the trasforming experience.

But the Hypostatic Union would require that, while you are simultaneously 100% human, you be 100% Mozart. Am I alone in thinking this is ridiculous?

[huckelberry]

My Mozart analagy was meant merely to bring up dimensions of interrelationship. It is not an exact parallel to the hypostatic union. Maklelan, I understand the fallowing proposal you made to be important and true. "The hypostatic union succeeds if, and only if. divine beings are able to be fully divine and at the same time fully human". You have also observed that the quality of infinite for divine beings is to vague to show this relationship to be possible. I see you have a good point there. However God is not understood to be any old ifinite being but one with a very direct relationship to human. God is the source of all that is human so all qualities that are human would have some dimension of existence in God. Further humans are understood to be created in the image of God. Our true nature is to be in a close interrelationship with God not to be foreign. In a sense humans were created to be in all respects a catagory of being appropriate for this union.

I think the close relationship between human and divine is the specific Christian view which was intended to be protected by the statement at Chalcedon.

[David Waltz]

Hi maklelan,

You posted:

>>You know that wasn't the meat of my argument. I've shared what you asked for and explained exactly what the implications are, but you've failed as yet to interact with a single one of those sources or arguments. Here's another one, though:

1) The Hypostatic Union succeeds if and only if divine beings are able to be fully divine and at the same time fully human.

2) The core argument that sustains this assertion is that divine beings are probably not restricted by the same metaphysical and rational strictures as finite beings, although we have absolutely no way of knowing one way or another because it transcends our finite minds.

3) Since this axiom can not be proven or disproven, it is inadmissible.

4) The Hypostatic Union thus fails.>>

Me: The Scriptures (and I shall invoke the LDS Quad if needed), clearly state that Jesus Christ was â??fully divineâ? before His incarnation (i.e. condescension); I shall call His â??fully divineâ? status before His incarnation â??nature 1â??. Now when â??the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among usâ?, He did not divest Himself of â??nature 1â??, but rather, added a second nature to â??nature 1â??; this second nature I shall call â??nature 2â??. But â??nature 2â?? was not a second â??hypoostasisâ?? (i.e. person); rather, â??nature 2â?? was added to â??nature 1â??, and â??nature 1â?? was/is the pre-existent nature of the â??hypoostasisâ?? (i.e. person) will call Jesus Christ. This is the essence of the â??hypostatic unionâ?. And to be brutally honest, it is difficult for me to understand how one who accepts the Scriptures can fail to see is â??doctrineâ? within them.

Grace and peace,

David

[cksalmon]

And herein lies another fallacy. Nowhere in scripture or in logic is Christ required to be "fully" divine or "fully" human. I don't believe either...

Hi mak--

It's not so much that I refuse to engage your argument; I'm just really not sure what it is. I understand that you reject the hypostatic union. But then...what? I was attempting to think that question through from an LDS perspective last night prior to turning in. As you know, my initial thought was that LDS theological claims preclude a "two natures" Christology. (Your rejection of the hypostatic union tends to confirm my analysis.) But, I kept running into the same wall: what sort of being was Jesus, then?

I have some idea how you would answer that question (though, until now, you've provided only negative opinions: the hypostatic union is ridiculous, mumbo-jumbo, antiquated, silly). Per your statement I've quoted directly above, you believe Christ is (or was) neither fully human nor fully divine. Or, at least, he cannot be spoken of as if he were, owing to conceptual impossibility. This approach, in my opinion, shipwrecks any chance for a metaphysically-meaningful understanding of Incarnation.

It seems you may be allowing the adjectival shortcuts to throw you: "100%" and "fully" (with reference to Christ's humanity and divinity) are not the pagan bogeys you seem to think they are. Though I've used it myself (probably in this very thread), I'd be happy to drop the lazy designator "100%." I'm certainly not dealing with percentages. I don't think it possible for Christ to be, say, 87% divine and 13% human.

"Fully" is less problematic. To designate Christ as "fully" human is merely to state that he is not less than human. Ditto for "fully" divine. You categorically reject both designations. Thus:

(1) Christ was not fully human

(2) Christ was not fully divine

At this point, you should accuse me of a category mistake. If you do, however, I'm curious to know just what sort of being you think Christ was at Incarnation. Your position, to my mind, leads one down a slippery slope to ridiculousness wherein one will soon be discussing the ratio of humanity to divinity in the person of the incarnated Christ. Was he 50% human and 50% divine? 60%/40%? Something other?

Is he (or was he at Incarnation) partially human and partially divine?

Would you allow that he was both human and divine at Incarnation, but reject the designation "fully" for both? On what grounds? Was he less than human? Less than divine? More than human, but less than divine?

As you believe the doctrine of the hypostatic union is so foolish, how would you describe the nature (singular) of Jesus with reference to humanity and divinity?

Best.

CKS

[cksalmon]

Me: The Scriptures (and I shall invoke the LDS Quad if needed), clearly state that Jesus Christ was â??fully divineâ? before His incarnation (i.e. condescension); I shall call His â??fully divineâ? status before His incarnation â??nature 1â??. Now when â??the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among usâ?, He did not divest Himself of â??nature 1â??, but rather, added a second nature to â??nature 1â??; this second nature I shall call â??nature 2â??. But â??nature 2â?? was not a second â??hypoostasisâ?? (i.e. person); rather, â??nature 2â?? was added to â??nature 1â??, and â??nature 1â?? was/is the pre-existent nature of the â??hypoostasisâ?? (i.e. person) will call Jesus Christ. This is the essence of the â??hypostatic unionâ?. And to be brutally honest, it is difficult for me to understand how one who accepts the Scriptures can fail to see is â??doctrineâ? within them.

Grace and peace,

David

Hi David--

Of course, I quite agree with your summary above. My surmise is that mak is thinking of humans and gods existing at opposites ends of a single spectrum. If that is universally true, then it would be silly to think of Christ occupying space simultaneously at both (and opposite) ends. (Is that close to what you're thinking, mak?)

Traditional Christians, as you know, hold that humans are, by nature, not in the (singular) class of being labeled "God." To say, then, that Jesus is God and that he took on a human nature is manifestly not to suggest that he devolved to the point of mere humanity while somehow retaining his divinity. We mean very much what you've stated above.

Bracketing for a moment the notion of Eternal Progression and Christ's personal evolution to Godhood, it seems that some version of the hypostatic union defeats a (personal) criticism of LDS Christology: viz., that the LDS conception of Jesus does not permit true humanity and true divinity simultaneously. As I wrote to mak in an earlier post, I can't fathom how Christ's mediatorial role could have been realized if he failed to "be" either of the participants.

mak--

With what would you replace the hypostatic union? What sort of being was Christ at Incarnation?

Best to you both.

CKS

[maklelan]

Me: The Scriptures (and I shall invoke the LDS Quad if needed), clearly state that Jesus Christ was â??fully divineâ? before His incarnation (i.e. condescension); I shall call His â??fully divineâ? status before His incarnation â??nature 1â??. Now when â??the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among usâ?, He did not divest Himself of â??nature 1â??, but rather, added a second nature to â??nature 1â??; this second nature I shall call â??nature 2â??. But â??nature 2â?? was not a second â??hypoostasisâ?? (i.e. person); rather, â??nature 2â?? was added to â??nature 1â??, and â??nature 1â?? was/is the pre-existent nature of the â??hypoostasisâ?? (i.e. person) will call Jesus Christ. This is the essence of the â??hypostatic unionâ?. And to be brutally honest, it is difficult for me to understand how one who accepts the Scriptures can fail to see is â??doctrineâ? within them.

That explanation does better to separate itself from Plotinus' Trinity, and it makes much more sense, but in LDS theology we all lived as perfect and eternally preexistent souls in the presence of God, so we two are dual in nature, which disagrees with the Catholic idea that humans have one composite nature while Christ has two.

From Vajda's thesis:

"Only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit possessâ??can possessâ??the divine nature essentially because only they are eternal and uncreated persons. By definition, any created reality can share in the divine nature only through God's divine energies."

In our theology the human being, being eternal itself, has the capacity to become like God because it has the same dual nature. It is not a pseudo-god by association.

Our argument is not that Christ did not have two natures that were consolidated in his person, but the idea that he was 100% one and 100% another due to some esoteric metaphysical union that we can figure out on our own without even comprehending I find a stretch. That Greek philosophy happens to teach the same thing around the same time makes it more suspicious to me. That our theology works without that construct makes it seem unnecessarily mysterious to me. That most people have to say, "We just can't understand it, but it's there," and different theologians have defined it differently throughout its history makes it seem like it means whatever anyone needs it to mean for their purposes. These things combine to convince me it's unnecessary today.

[maklelan]

Hi David--

Of course, I quite agree with your summary above. My surmise is that mak is thinking of humans and gods existing at opposites ends of a single spectrum. If that is universally true, then it would be silly to think of Christ occupying space simultaneously at both (and opposite) ends. (Is that close to what you're thinking, mak?)

I would say this is pretty accurate. We don't make humanity and divinity irreconcilable. I will respond to everything else later, but I've got to run right now.

P.S. I have been pretty harsh and dismissive up to this point, and I apologize. I think I was irritated by Johnny.

[SlackTime]

The Hypostatic Onion? Is that like ogres? Like it has layers... kinda like parfait, or cake...

Oops, there I go, making an *** of myself again

-SlackTime

[David Waltz]

Hi mak,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>>From Vajda's thesis:

"Only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit possessâ??can possessâ??the divine nature essentially because only they are eternal and uncreated persons. By definition, any created reality can share in the divine nature only through God's divine energies.">>

Me: The above is the Eastern Orthodox view; Catholic theologians, and the early Church Fathers, do not make a distinction between divinity as such (essence) and Godâ??s projected activity (divine energies). Ultimately, this difference is a very important one.

>>In our theology the human being, being eternal itself, has the capacity to become like God because it has the same dual nature. It is not a pseudo-god by association.>>

Me: Putting aside the â??eternalâ? when discussing the pre-existence of humans, one very important fact remains, Jesus was fully divine/God before becoming man, and none of the rest of the sons of Adam can make this claim. I would argue that in a real sense, Christ in LDS theology has a tri-part nature: divinity, spirit and bodyâ??the rest of mankind a bi-part nature: spirit and body; via exaltation, some of redeemed mankind will add divinity (through the grace of God and Christâ??s atonement) and become tri-part.

>>Our argument is not that Christ did not have two natures that were consolidated in his person, but the idea that he was 100% one and 100% another due to some esoteric metaphysical union that we can figure out on our own without even comprehending I find a stretch. That Greek philosophy happens to teach the same thing around the same time makes it more suspicious to me.>>

Me: Need to think about the above. The greatest of the Greek philosophers advocated the possibility of a real union with God (i.e. the Good) via contemplation in this life and a certain metaphysical union in the next. The divinization of the Greek philosophers has some common ground with Eastern Orthodox thought, but not nearly so with Catholic thought.

>>That our theology works without that construct makes it seem unnecessarily mysterious to me. That most people have to say, "We just can't understand it, but it's there," and different theologians have defined it differently throughout its history makes it seem like it means whatever anyone needs it to mean for their purposes. These things combine to convince me it's unnecessary today.>>

Me: I would argue that you have a missing component (at least as I have read your thought) to your theology: what makes God GOD? (For some musings on this issue see: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=13862 -- and -- http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=13798 .)

Grace and peace,

David

[William the Conqueror]

Much to the contrary, the Incarnation is a stumbling block to the unbeliever precisely because it is such an uncompromising challenge to the assumptions we make about the world.

'...a rock of stumbling and a stone of offense...'

'...on whomever this stone falls will be crushed...'

'...for the Jews seek a sign, and the Greeks seek wisdom...'

[David Waltz]

To all,

I just want to express my feelings about this thread before it relegated to the ever-expanding archivesâ?¦

It seems to me that very important common elements between LDS theology and what I shall term â??historicâ? Christianity are ignored in so many dialogues; and currently, in the present discussion concerning the doctrine of the â??hypostatic unionâ?.

I have pointed to some important common elements in this thread, and in the threads I linked to; I would love to dialogue with any and all who would like to discuss these common features.

Grace and peace,

David

[Thinking]

http://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html

The hypostatic union is the term used to describe how God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the incarnation Jesus took on human flesh - He became a human being (John 1:14). The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man. This is the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man.

Jesus' two natures, human and divine, are inseparable. Jesus will forever be the God-man, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one Person. Jesus' humanity and divinity are not mixed, but are united without loss of separate identity. Jesus sometimes operated with the limitations of humanity (John 4:6; 19:28) and other times in the power of His deity (John 11:43; Matthew 14:18-21). In both, Jesus' actions were from His one Person. Jesus had two natures, but only one person or personality.

The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine that we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works. We, as finite human beings, should not expect to be able to comprehend an infinite God. Jesus is Godâ??s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus always has existed (John 8:58; 10:30). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (John 1:1,14).

Jesus is both God and man. Jesus has always been God, but He did not become a human being until He was conceived in Mary. Jesus became a human being so that He could identify with us in our struggles (Hebrews 2:17) and, more importantly, so that He could die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins (Philippians 2:5-11). In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person, forever.

I think we are all hypostatic in some respects. For example, I am a fan of the Dodgers. I also enjoy watching suspense movies. These two natures are distinct and exist independent of each other but are united to make me who I am.

Obviously this is a very simple example, but hopefully it helps.

[Calm]

LDS cannot but believe that he had only one....For LDS, as I understand the theology, Christ had only one nature. He was neither fully human nor fully divine. Or, he was fully divine, but not fully human. At any rate, he had a single nature. I'd like to see a cogent LDS argument as to how Christ can fully represent humanity (as completely and simply human) and represent the Godhead (as fully and simply divine).

As I see it, LDS see God to be fully human plus has some attributes that make him God. Thus Christ was fully human and also had the attributes of Godhood.

We just may have a different sense of what "nature" entails. I have a hard time understanding what is meant here, I believe because I was raised LDS and lack the overall connotation of what these terms mean to nonLDS Christians. I need to go read Ostler again to improve my ability to discuss in the same terms as are being used here and probably some other stuff as well.

But I think I can conclude (and please correct me if I am wrong) that LDS define such terms differently and this allows us to avoid the problems arising from those definitions...at least it appears so to me. Of course, if one were to assume we mean the same thing by "nature" or "person" etc. with all the same connotations underlying the defintions, the likely outcome would be seeing our argument as ineffective as any other because the assumptions behind the definitions are what--to me--are causing a good deal of the problems for nonLDS Christians.

Christ was not fully divine in the sense of possessing each and every attribute of God the Father at the time of his pre-mortality or his mortality. But I don't think that is how LDS define "divinity"--that which is "God the Father" ("nature"?) as opposed to "that which enables God to be the Father" ("attributes"). So LDS can claim Christ was fully divine and fully human because we are generally talking about a set of attributes that are available to a distinct species, availability depending not only on some essential (and I think I'm using this in the correct philosophical sense) attributes (those qualities of our eternal natures we have and will always possess or what we call "intelligence") but also on developing qualities (the idea expressed in the phrase "eternal progression.")

Perhaps what need to be defined in this conversation for greater understanding on both sides (at least on my side, lol) are the attributes that make one "fully human" plus the attributes of "fully divine" for both LDS and others here and then to compare to see if the arguments can be 'translated' into each others' language.

I would define "human" as possessing those attributes required to be human (both essential/inherent and developed--if there are any of this last, have to think about this) and then go on and list what attributes I believe those are (but at this time of night will leave it here). I would define "divine" as those attributes that allow God to fulfill his role as the Father. I would say that LDS doctrine allows for there to be additional attributes added unto the attributes of "human" and "God the Father" thus allowing for eternal progression. Some of these divine attributes may have been (were imo) inherent in God the Father and imo, were also inherent in the Son--which is why he is the Son--and the Spirit, but can also be developed in the rest of us through God sharing this part of his nature with us.

This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, but is attempting to address the concerns expressed by the nonLDS over the lacks in the LDS solution of the problem that resulting in the formation of the Hypostatic Union concept.

[GRW]

Foolish of me to wade into waters too deep for my ability, but isn't it fair to say that from an LDS perspective, to be fully human is to be divine? In the sense that a caterpillar isn't a butterfly, but only because it hasn't progressed to that point?

If that is the case, isn't it then true that for LDS there is no need for two natures, but simply a more fully developed version of our human nature?

And, as a bit of a side remark, while I agree with Mak that, "it is just so" is not a great argument, isn't any belief in the supernatural burdened ultimately with that argument? If not, then what is the need for faith?

[maklelan]

Me: The above is the Eastern Orthodox view; Catholic theologians, and the early Church Fathers, do not make a distinction between divinity as such (essence) and Godâ??s projected activity (divine energies). Ultimately, this difference is a very important one.

Would you agree that divinization in Catholicism is merely a passive participation in the "divine nature," or is it different?

Me: Putting aside the â??eternalâ? when discussing the pre-existence of humans, one very important fact remains, Jesus was fully divine/God before becoming man, and none of the rest of the sons of Adam can make this claim. I would argue that in a real sense, Christ in LDS theology has a tri-part nature: divinity, spirit and bodyâ??the rest of mankind a bi-part nature: spirit and body; via exaltation, some of redeemed mankind will add divinity (through the grace of God and Christâ??s atonement) and become tri-part.

I can see how that impression can be cultivated, but we believe that we all ame originally from divinity, and that the Fall is a temporary separation. This is why we call Christ our older brother. He is not so far removed from us that we are in a different family, but he didn't require the refining processes that we do, so he's far superior to us. The very simple way to put it is that we are "gods in embryo."

Me: Need to think about the above. The greatest of the Greek philosophers advocated the possibility of a real union with God (i.e. the Good) via contemplation in this life and a certain metaphysical union in the next. The divinization of the Greek philosophers has some common ground with Eastern Orthodox thought, but not nearly so with Catholic thought.

I wrote a paper arguing that LDS need to stop thinking those theologians came so close to LDS theology, because it's much more closely tied to Greek philosophy.

Me: I would argue that you have a missing component (at least as I have read your thought) to your theology: what makes God GOD?

Simple answer from our scriptures: He has no end, he is above all, and he has all power (D&C 132:20). We hope to achieve the same some day.

Long answer: I think that ultimately any attempt by a human to isolate the qualities that separate God from humanity will fail. Science has a hard time describing what makes humans unique. With God we're talking about qualities that we project onto him, unless we speak directly from scripture. The Nicene Creed, for example, mentions a few scriptural qualities, but for the most part it is waxing philosophical about what it imagines God's nature requires, but in doing so I believe it puts that philosophy above the scriptures. John 17:3 says that life eternal is to come to know God, but we're told in the creeds that he is incomprehensible. Nowhere do I find in the scriptures that God is incomprehensible. I read that his ways are above mine, but not that I cannot even fathom him. I find that early Christian theology tried to push God as far away from humanity as possible, and I believe they did it as a reaction to pagan criticism of Christianity and a polemic against pagan gods. I think the results robbed humanity of its connection with God. Now we're in an argument where I am trying to convince you that we're not so far from God and you're trying to convince me that by our natures we are irreconcilably different. I don't believe that that idea is at all inappropriate or blasphemous, but traditional Christianity does, and I find the root in the strict and uncompromising adherence to an artificial notion of monotheism forced upon Christianity by Xenophanes. I believe that, if it weren't for Greek philosophy, we would have no need for a Trinitarian construct.

[maklelan]

Foolish of me to wade into waters too deep for my ability, but isn't it fair to say that from an LDS perspective, to be fully human is to be divine? In the sense that a caterpillar isn't a butterfly, but only because it hasn't progressed to that point?

If that is the case, isn't it then true that for LDS there is no need for two natures, but simply a more fully developed version of our human nature?

I agree with this assessment.

And, as a bit of a side remark, while I agree with Mak that, "it is just so" is not a great argument, isn't any belief in the supernatural burdened ultimately with that argument? If not, then what is the need for faith?

I think most arguments inevitably lead to this, but not all. But I also think that with faith it doesn't matter how good your argument is, it's not going to save anyone.

[soren]

Maklelan,

You make a lot of points for me to answer, and if I just answered every one, the conversation would go all over the place pretty quickly, so I will limit my response to the points that seem to me most fundamental, leaving others for later.

But those "assumptions" have never been questioned and still hold true universally. No, but nor do you have any knowledge at all that substantiates your guess that the union works just because. I believe this is a cop-out.

Let me define my position a little more. It is an article of the Catholic faith that no positive justification for the doctrine of the hypostatic union can ever be adduced from reason but only on the sole basis of revelation. I will discuss revelation later, but for now I will stick to one point: the standard to which you are holding Catholic doctrine is a standard that actually presupposes that Catholicism is false. This is because the Incarnation is known to man only on the basis of revelation. To assert a positive philosophical argument would deny manâ??s sole reliance on revelation to know this doctrine and would actually constitute a heresy.

Philosophically, I cannot prove that the hypostatic union is true. I cannot prove that it is possible. I cannot even prove that it cannot be disproved. I can only define the concept and answer particular objections as they are given to show that it has not been disproved yet. Everything beyond that is a faith proposition only.

This is not true of all Catholic teaching, much of which is defensible from reason, but it is true of all doctrines classified as mysteries.

No. Those two words are synonyms. What substantial distinction do you make between these two words?

Comprehension implies total knowledge, and it comes from a Latin root that means "to enclose" or "to grasp around." Understanding carries no such implication. For example, I comprehend the Pythagorean theorem because I know how to prove it from self-evident principles. I could teach a young person what the theorem is, instruct him in how to apply it, and even illustrate it from examples of different right triangles, but until he learned to see how the theorem proceeds from prior principles, his knowledge would not be real comprehension. Such a student would understand the proposition, but not comprehend it, whereas I both understand and comphrehend.

The infinite, by nature is understandable to a rational mind, but it is not comprehensible by anything except the infinite itself.

They are challenged by this idea only because they needed them to be in order for their doctrine to be accepted, but they never, of course, explain in any way, shape, or form how the challenge is justified, only that it exists.

Who are â??theyâ? and which of them have you studied? If you think they never explain it, then I suggest you have not been looking in the right places. I have already pointed out Aquinas, and I could add others, like Augustine and Athanasius. I do mean this question seriously. I can tell you have studied, but I wonder what sources.

And by what control or precedence (besides the need for a solution to the current problem) do you decide that it does not apply to infinite beings?

I didnâ??t decide that ever. It was revealed to me. But if you desire reasoning from flesh and blood, I offer the following observation:

Finite objects are individuated from one another on the basis of matter. Thus two apples, having the same nature, are individuated from each other because that nature exists in two different pieces of matter. The infinite, however, is not composed of matter and form (since division implies limitation), and so it is not individuated on the basis of matter, but must exist as an individual by means of some other mode of distinction. Since, then, the infinite is individuated by another principle than the finite, that principle must be defined before we can assume that the rules of individuation as they are seen in finite examples are equally applicable to infinity.

1) Does he ever use the "infinite beings might not be restricted by the same laws as us" argument?

He consistently reasons from premises that presuppose the distinction between infinite and finite nature; the explanation of individuation that I give above is based on St. Thomas. I don't know if St. Thomas makes that precise statement, but he probably does. In any case, it definitely describes his line of reasoning.

2) Do you really think that his arguments are flawless and that he left nothing out? Because modern scholarship disagrees with you if you do.

As far as the hypostatic union is concerned, his arguments are probably flawless. I would willingly compromise that opinion though. St. Thomas does make errors in the Summa, especially when he draws analogies from outdated natural science, but this usually causes no essential problem, as the examples are mostly just illustrative. More seriously, he sometimes mishandles verses of scripture by presuming too much on the translation of the Latin Vulgate. Bear in mind, I did not bring up St. Thomas to argue from his authority, but to counter your representation of Catholic authorities having no answers and running for cover when questioned, since the sole example of St. Thomas is sufficient to bury that charicature.

I do not claim he covers all objections exhaustively, only that you will find more and better objections in St. Thomas than any other single source.

As for scholars, it is not just the modern ones who have found fault with St. Thomas. He has always been controversial, and I could even direct you to medieval scholars like John Duns Scotus who disagreed with him on major points. That is to say nothing of modern philosophy since Descartes, especially existentialism. What matters now and what mattered then is not what scholars think, but whether they really justify what they think, same as everybody else.

Just because God says, "My ways are above yours," does not mean whatever doctrine you make up that cannot be explained is true. I can just as easily say that our Church's ideas are true because you don't know what infinite beings are capable of and you cannot explain the soul.

I donâ??t know how a Latter-day Saint could make any big claims on grounds of infinity, because LDS theology sees no absolute difference between the finite and the infinite. In Catholicism, the difference it indispensible. In fact, the first 60 pages or so of Sheedâ??s book deal entirely with infinity in reality and in thought, and he doesnâ??t even get to the Trinity or creation or anything until he has covered that topic at length. That's the right way to go. If you have not studied and thought deeply about the notion of infinity in Catholic thought, I am not surprised that you see it as a shallow cop-out, as a placeholder to be tossed in whenever there isnâ??t a good answer. Nothing in Catholicism ever can make sense unless one has deeply scrutinized this first premise.

I have often thought that the central difference between LDS and Catholic theology, above and beyond anything else, is infinity. In fact, I think the whole monotheism vs. plurality of gods issue is a relative footnote, almost a red herring.

[maklelan]

Maklelan,

You make a lot of points for me to answer, and if I just answered them al, the conversation would go all I will limit mover the place pretty quickly, so I will limit my response to the points that seem to me most fundamental, leaving others for later.

Excellent.

Let me define my position a little more. It is an article of the Catholic faith that no positive justification for the doctrine of the hypostatic union can ever be adduced from reason but only on the sole basis of revelation. I will discuss revelation later, but for now I will stick to one point: the standard to which you are holding Catholic doctrine is a standard that actually presupposes that Catholicism is false. This is because the Incarnation is known to man only on the basis of revelation. To assert a positive philosophical argument would deny manâ??s sole reliance on revelation to know this doctrine and would actually constitute a heresy.

But how does revelation figure in to hundreds of years of wars and factions and the ebb and flow of power? History tells us that the Hypostatic Union won because the army and the leaders that espoused that doctrine won. Do you call this evidence of divine approbation of the doctrine?

Philosophically, I cannot prove that the hypostatic union is true. I cannot prove that it is possible. I cannot even prove that it cannot be disproved. I can only define the concept and answer particular objections as they are given to show that it has not been disproved yet. Everything beyond that is a faith proposition only.

I think you're absolutely right, but many of your constituents speak in much more absolute terms, and I think history does the same.

This is not true of all Catholic teaching, much of which is defensible from reason, but it is true of all doctrines classified as mysteries.

And I'm a little skeptical when it comes to enforcing mysteries that have their roots in theological speculation. That's just my point of view.

Comprehension implies total knowledge, and it comes from a Latin root that means "to enclose" or "to grasp around." Understanding carries no such implication. For example, I comprehend the Pythagorean theorem because I know how to prove it from self-evident principles. I could teach a young person what the theorem is, instruct him in how to apply it, and even illustrate it from examples of different right triangles, but until he learned to see how the theorem proceeds from prior principles, his knowledge would not be real comprehension. Such a student would understand the proposition, but not comprehend it, whereas I both understand and comphrehend.

I have to completely disagree with the bold section above.

Understand is listed in my etymological dictionary as a synonym of comprehend. Understand comes from the Old English understandan, which means to "comprehend, grasp the idea of." Ironically enough, hypostatic is a compound word in Greek (hypo-stasis) that literally means under-stand. Here's an interesting idea about the concept of "understand":

"For this concept, most I.E. languages use fig. extensions of compounds that lit. mean 'put together,' or 'separate,' or 'take, grasp.'"

If we look at "comprehend," it comes from the Latin comprehendere, which is literally "completely catch hold of." It is an Indo-European compound identified above that is exactly the same, conceptually, as understand. Etymologically they are identical. If you want to define them distinctly then you do it subjectively, and I'm afraid I cannot agree with your distinction.

The infinite, by nature is understandable to a rational mind, but it is not comprehensible by anything except the infinite itself.

Y'see, I don't agree with this distinction.

Who are â??theyâ? and which of them have you studied? If you think they never explain it, then I suggest you have not been looking in the right places. I have already pointed out Aquinas, and I could add others, like Augustine and Athanasius.

"They" are whoever thinks the Hypostatic Union legitimately challenges assumptions about metaphysics. I think its only challenge is just saying that it's different for infinite beings, but it doesn't say how or why, it just finds the area that conflicts with the doctrine and says, "In this area infinite beings are an exception." Why? BEcause it won't work otherwise. I've already shared several sources that show Augustine was in the back-pocket of the Neoplatonics. Aquinas did the best job of all of them, but even he had issues. Here are a couple of good sources about that:

Michael Gorman, "The Hypostatic Union According to Thomas Aquinas," (PhD. Diss., Boston College, 1997); A.N. Williams, "Mystical Theology Redux: The Pattern of Aquinasâ?? Summa Theologiae," Modern Theology (January 1997): 53â??74.

I didnâ??t decide that ever. It was revealed to me. But if you desire reasoning from flesh and blood, I offer the following observation:

Finite objects are individuated from one another on the basis of matter. Thus two apples, having the same nature, are individuated from each other because that nature exists in two different pieces of matter.

Fair enough.

The infinite, however, since it is not composed of matter and form (since division implies limitation)

Time out. I totally disagree. An infinite being is not precluded from limitations. God, for example, cannot sin, or fail. Those are limits. An individual can leave the presence of God, which means God has spatial limits. These are scriptural facts, but I find in the above idea a heavy shellacking of Greek philosophy. This is Patristic thinking, which was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. It sounds specifically like Tertullian or Aquinas.

is not individuated on the basis of matter, but must exist as an individual by means of some other mode of distinction. Since, then, the infinite is individuated by some other principle than the finite, that principle must be defined before we can assume that the rules of individuation as they are seen in finite examples are equally applicable to infinity.

He consistently reasons from premises that presuppose the distinction between infinite and finite nature; the explanation of individuation that I give above is based on St. Thomas. I don't know if St. Thomas makes that precise statement, but he probably does. In any case, it definitely describes his line of reasoning.

And I disagree entirely.

As far as the hypostatic union is concerned, his arguments are probably flawless.

Also entirely disagree. The dissertation I mentioned above, for example, points out dozens of problems in his theology that are never really solved.

I would willingly compromise that opinion though. St. Thomas does make errors in the Summa, especially when he draws analogies from outdated natural science, but this usually causes no essential problem, as the examples are mostly just illustrative. More seriously, he sometimes mishandles verses of scripture by presuming too much on the translation of the Latin Vulgate. Bear in mind, I did not bring up St. Thomas to argue from his authority, but to counter your representation of Catholic authorities having no answers to anything, since the sole example of St. Thomas is sufficient in itself to demolish that idea.

Fair enough. I will concede that I was overzealous in saying they had no explanation, but I don't think Aquinas' arguments are considered THE explanation of the Hypostatic Union. As far as I know, it is still kinda up in the air.

I do not claim he covers all objections exhaustively, only that you will find more and better objections in St. Thomas than any other single source.

I agree.

As for scholars, it is not just the modern ones who have found fault with St. Thomas. He has always been controversial, and I could even direct you to medieval scholars like John Duns Scotus who disagreed with him on major points. That is to say nothing of modern philosophy, especially existentialism. What matters is not what scholars think, but how well the justify what they think, just like everybody else.

Agreed.

+I donâ??t know how a Latter-day Saint could make any big claims on grounds of infinity, because LDS theology sees no absolute difference between the finite and the infinite.

You are correct, and as far as I know, the only reason that leaves a bad taste in anyone's mouth is because Greek philosophy infused everyone with the idea that the spiritual is pure and the physical is inferior. We disagree entirely with that.

In Catholicism, the difference it indispensible. In fact, the first 60 pages or so of Sheedâ??s book deal entirely with the concept of infinity and the thought of infinity, and he doesnâ??t even get to the Trinity or creation or anything until he has covered that topic at length. If you have not studied and thought deeply about the notion of infinity in Catholic thought, I am not surprised that you see it as a shallow cop-out, or a placeholder to be tossed in whenever there isnâ??t an answer. I have often thought that the real central difference between LDS and Catholic theology, above and beyond anything else, is infinity. In fact, I think the whole monotheism vs. plurality of gods issue is a relative footnote, almost a red herring.

Then perhaps therein lies our primary division. A paper of mine will be shortly published that argues along somewhat similar lines, although I do not fully flesh out its implications. Perhaps I should get to work on another paper about that specifically.

[David Waltz]

Hello makelan,

I am finally getting to some of your recent questions and comments; you posted:

>> Would you agree that divinization in Catholicism is merely a passive participation in the "divine nature," or is it different?>>

Me: Whether â??passiveâ? or something more, the important difference between Catholic and EO thought is that for the Catholic it is participation in the very essence of God, while the EO maintain it is only participation in the â??energiesâ?? of God.

>> I can see how that impression can be cultivated, but we believe that we all ame originally from divinity, and that the Fall is a temporary separation. This is why we call Christ our older brother. He is not so far removed from us that we are in a different family, but he didn't require the refining processes that we do, so he's far superior to us. The very simple way to put it is that we are "gods in embryo.">>

Me: Because man is created in the â??imageâ? and â??likenessâ? of God, in a very real sense I have no problem with us being "gods in embryo." Yet, I still maintain that a very important distinction exists between Jesus Christ (and the Holy Ghost) and the other spirits created by God the Father: the LDS scriptures are clear, and unequivocal, in the teaching that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are/is truly â??one Godâ? with the Father.

>>The Nicene Creed, for example, mentions a few scriptural qualities, but for the most part it is waxing philosophical about what it imagines God's nature requires, but in doing so I believe it puts that philosophy above the scriptures.>>

Me: I would being very interested in what exactly you have found in the Nicene Creed which constitutes, â??waxing philosophical about what it imagines God's natureâ?, for I have believe the Nicene Creed quite in line with the LDS Quad. (See: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=13798 .)

Grace and peace,

David

[maklelan]

Me: Whether â??passiveâ? or something more, the important difference between Catholic and EO thought is that for the Catholic it is participation in the very essence of God, while the EO maintain it is only participation in the â??energiesâ?? of God.

Interesting distinction, but they both differ greatly from our perspective on theosis.

Me: Because man is created in the â??imageâ? and â??likenessâ? of God, in a very real sense I have no problem with us being "gods in embryo." Yet, I still maintain that a very important distinction exists between Jesus Christ (and the Holy Ghost) and the other spirits created by God the Father: the LDS scriptures are clear, and unequivocal, in the teaching that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are/is truly â??one Godâ? with the Father.

VEry true, and none of us are trying to infiltrate the godhead, but in John 17 Christ prays that we all may be one in the same way that he and the Father are one. This is the only instance in the entire Bible where the nature of Christ's "oneness" with God is made clear, We see this as a pretty clear indication that their union is not in substance, but in perfection and will. While we are their spiritual children, we can (we are even commanded to) become one with them in perfection and will.

Me: I would being very interested in what exactly you have found in the Nicene Creed which constitutes, â??waxing philosophical about what it imagines God's natureâ?, for I have believe the Nicene Creed quite in line with the LDS Quad.

Well, for one thing, "begotten not made." What is this? Is this the neoplatonic concept of emanation? They were confined to defining Christ's "creation" without intimating that he had a beginning. To add that he was "not made" is apologetic. It's attempting to answer the concerns of critics. We don;t really agree with this.

[David Waltz]

Hi mak,

Thanks for responding; you posted:

>>Well, for one thing, "begotten not made." What is this? Is this the neoplatonic concept of emanation?>>

Me: One must understand the historic background of the 1st council at Nicea: Arianism. Arius and his followers were teaching a theological novem, something one could not find in any extant Christian writings prior to Arius, namely, that the Logos/preexistent Christ was created ex nihilo (i.e. out of nothing). The phrase â??begotten not madeâ? (Gr,: gennEthenta ou poiEthenta) was meant to exclude the Arian heresy.

>>They were confined to defining Christ's "creation" without intimating that he had a beginning. To add that he was "not made" is apologetic. It's attempting to answer the concerns of critics. We don;t really agree with this.>>

Me: OK, I must admit that I am a bit confused; exactly what donâ??t you agree with? I know Latter-day Saints reject Arianism and affirm that the preexistent Christ was begotten by the Father (not created ex nihilo). I also know that they affirm the eternal nature of Christ, so, what am I missing?

Grace and peace,

David

[maklelan]

Me: One must understand the historic background of the 1st council at Nicea: Arianism. Arius and his followers were teaching a theological novem, something one could not find in any extant Christian writings prior to Arius, namely, that the Logos/preexistent Christ was created ex nihilo (i.e. out of nothing). The phrase â??begotten not madeâ? (Gr,: gennEthenta ou poiEthenta) was meant to exclude the Arian heresy.

The doctrine of the Trinity that was developed at Nicea was also a novelty. Would you mind explaining to me exactly what is meant by the term "begotten," and whence it comes?

Me: OK, I must admit that I am a bit confused; exactly what donâ??t you agree with? I know Latter-day Saints reject Arianism and affirm that the preexistent Christ was begotten by the Father (not created ex nihilo). I also know that they affirm the eternal nature of Christ, so, what am I missing?

We happen to disagree with the idea that Christ shares the same substance and nature with God, meaning this idea of "begotten not made" is unnecessary as one of the reasons for the distinction is to maintain their consubstantial union.

[Phillistine]

Wow! I can't believe this topic has attracted so many great minds. I'm not sure how understanding this helps us be better Christians. More importantly, all I can see is a good deal of conjecture.

So I may as well "conject". I'm going to posit an example of a Hypostatic Union: each and every one of us.

The difference is in degree. We each posess all of the attributes of being human. At the same time, we posess all the attributes of a god. And thus, we "hang beneath the heavens and we hover over hell" as Dan Fogelberg so eloquently put it. Haven't we all experienced the duality of our nature? The fact that Christ's body was engendered by a method we don't comprehend, doesnt' necessarily make him non-human. I think there are several examples of this duality in the stories proffered by the New Testament.

The Savior ate food. The Savior slept when he was tired. The Savior bled and died. He also performed miracles, taught higher law, overcame the promptings of the physical body, and willingly sacrificed himself. If he somehow had a special "leg up", he wouldn't have "decended beneath" it all. I'm guessing that his plight was not unlike our own in this life.

I know, I know. This has no relation to the Catholic doctrine. I'm just saying ...