Agreed? Creed of Chalcedon's "Rational Soul" assumed by the 2nd Person of the Trinity (including a mind & will) is NOT "Conscious" in and of itself.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
✝️ This is regarding the Hypostatic Union and the Creed of Chalcedon (and also a potential difficulty within the Athanasian Creed).

Question # 1 ==> Mustn't the Person and Nature distinction be upheld?

It seems to me the Creed of Chalcedon defines a "Human Being" as Person + Nature. In other words, it makes a strong distinction between the Person and the Human Nature applicable to all human beings, and not just the Incarnate Christ.

The Human Nature is defined as Body + Soul. The Soul is defined as "Rational". A "Rational Soul" includes a mind and a will.

It was necessary for God the Son (the 2nd Person of the Trinity) to become con-substantial with the complete human nature (body & soul including the mind and will) to save His people from their sins, and now "Ever Lives" con-substantial forevermore.

The 2nd Person of the Trinity entered into His own creation within created time and became a "Human Being". This is to say that the Incarnate Christ is 2 beings (a human being and the being of God).

The Human Nature and the Divine Nature are united in the 1 Divine Person, and He is therefore 2 beings (not 2 persons).

In opposition to the "2 person Heresy" called Nestorianism, Chalcedon stresses that the Human Nature (body & soul) is NOT personal in and of itself. It teaches that the 2nd Person of the Trinity took upon Himself an "Impersonal" human nature.

If it is accurate to say that in the Incarnation the "Person" of the Son came from God and the Human Nature from the virgin Mary, then this must be true of the birth of every human being with the whole nature born and the "person" coming into being by an act of God.

In my theological research the past few years I have encountered countless Reformed who seem to think the "Rational Soul" is conscious in and of itself.

But if the "Rational Soul" was conscious in and of itself then this would mean Christ took upon Himself a self-consciousness independent from His own self-consciousness yielding "2 Self-Consciousnesses" in the Incarnation.

Question # 2 ==> Isn't treating the "Rational Soul" as conscious in and of itself the same as attributing a "Personal Subsistence" to it resulting in a Nestorian construct of the Incarnation?

✝️ Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that it is the "person" who says "I", and it is the "person" who is the moral subject, and it is the "person" who possesses a "legal account" with God receiving forensic imputations.

None of the aforementioned can be applied to a nature.

The impersonal rational soul is of the human nature.

The person is the "who" and the nature is the "what".

The person and nature distinction must be upheld.

Finally, IF 2 "Selves" existed in Jesus Christ then this would be 2 Self-Conciousnesses that would yield 2 Personal Subsistences resulting in a Nestorian "2 Person" construction.

Question # 3 ==> Because the true, full, complete human being the 2nd Person of the Trinity became is "Person + impersonal Human Nature", then isn't the Man Jesus a true man because He is "Person + an impersonal Human Nature"?

Question # 4 ==> Isn't the Athanasian Creed incorrect to identify the "Impersonal Human Nature" as "man" independent from, and apart from, the "Personal Subsistence"?


✝️
 
Last edited:
Dear Admin @Jeri Tanner - Would you kindly please correct the spelling in the Title of this post? Would you please change concious to conscious? It won't allow me to edit it.
 
Question # 2 ==> Isn't treating the "Rational Soul" as conscious in and of itself the same as attributing a "Personal Subsistence" to it resulting in a Nestorian construct of the Incarnation?

Not necessarily. Rationality can function as an attribute modifying soul, which is how it has been defined throughout history. Even as a human, I my soul has rational powers but it isn't the acting agent.
 
*
This is quoting the PRCA's Rev. Herman Veldman from an article published in the 1940's about Nestorianism.

He teaches that there is but 1 "Self-Consciousness" in the Hypostatic Union.

The 2nd Person of the Trinity is the "Self-Consciousness" of the Incarnation.

He teaches that the Person and Nature distinction must be upheld.
*

Nestorianism by Herman Veldman SELF CONCIOUS PERSONALITY.png
 
*
This is quoting the PRCA's Rev. Herman Veldman from an article published in the 1940's about Nestorianism.

He teaches that there is but 1 "Self-Consciousness" in the Hypostatic Union.

The 2nd Person of the Trinity is the "Self-Consciousness" of the Incarnation.

He teaches that the Person and Nature distinction must be upheld.
*

View attachment 8276

Self-consciousness language is ambiguous, which is why the church has historically not used it. And when the great theologians like Shedd did use it, they used it of the whole Trinity, not the divine person. The problem is that self-consciousness requires a reflection of moment to moment, which doesn't apply to the divine nature.
 
Good Morning @BayouHuguenot,

Prior to responding to your previous comments, may I please know if you agree with the following simple foundational definition that I've found repeated in so many different theological writings?

Those theologians say ==>

The "2 person" Heresy of Nestorianism is the belief that the 2nd Person of the Trinity took upon Himself a "Personal human nature". Whilst the true doctrine is the 2nd Person of the Trinity took upon Himself an "Impersonal human nature".

Do you agree with their simple explanation behind the teachings of Chalcedon?

If you do agree, then would you please kindly explain what you understand their distinction between the terms "personal human nature" versus "impersonal human nature" to be? (and if possible to please do so in a a way that most "lay people" learning about the Hypostatic Union & the Creed of Chalcedon could understand)

Thank you.

In Christ, Mair
 
Good Morning @BayouHuguenot,

Prior to responding to your previous comments, may I please know if you agree with the following simple foundational definition that I've found repeated in so many different theological writings?

Those theologians say ==>

The "2 person" Heresy of Nestorianism is the belief that the 2nd Person of the Trinity took upon Himself a "Personal human nature". Whilst the true doctrine is the 2nd Person of the Trinity took upon Himself an "Impersonal human nature".

Do you agree with their simple explanation behind the teachings of Chalcedon?

If you do agree, then would you please kindly explain what you understand their distinction between the terms "personal human nature" versus "impersonal human nature" to be? (and if possible to please do so in a a way that most "lay people" learning about the Hypostatic Union & the Creed of Chalcedon could understand)

Thank you.

In Christ, Mair

I've already established my conciliar credentials in other threads.
 
I've already established my conciliar credentials in other threads.
???
I disagree with your self-assessment.

Would you please kindly explain what you understand most theologians distinctions to be regarding "personal human nature" versus "impersonal human nature"?

And, if possible, would you please do so in a way that most "Lay People" learning about the Hypostatic Union & the Creed of Chalcedon could understand.

This would be profoundly beneficial for many "Lay People", including myself, in furthering the understanding of the MIRACULOUS Incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinty when He became con-substantial with the humanity of His elect to save His people from their sins (Mathew 1:21).

:pray2:
 
???
I disagree with your self-assessment.

Would you please kindly explain what you understand most theologians distinctions to be regarding "personal human nature" versus "impersonal human nature"?

And, if possible, would you please do so in a a way that most "Lay People" learning about the Hypostatic Union & the Creed of Chalcedon could understand.

This would be profoundly beneficial for many "Lay People", including myself, in furthering the understanding of the MIRACULOUS Incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinty when He became con-substantial with the humanity of His elect to save His people from their sins (Mathew 1:21).

:pray2:

No. I've already documented what I believe in other threads.
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-in-his-incarnation-book.106085/#post-1279178
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-in-his-incarnation-book.106085/#post-1279271
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-in-his-incarnation-book.106085/#post-1279308
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-incarnation-book.106085/page-2#post-1279344
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-incarnation-book.106085/page-2#post-1279346
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-incarnation-book.106085/page-2#post-1279445
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-incarnation-book.106085/page-3#post-1279449
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-incarnation-book.106085/page-3#post-1279704
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top