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"?
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: