by Troy Salinger [SOURCE]
The orthodox creeds of Christianity, which have been handed down to us from the ecumenical councils of long ago, have dictated to believers of all time what must be believed about Christ in order for one to be considered orthodox, indeed in order to be saved. What these councils of the past have prescribed regarding what one must believe about Christ is that he is truly God and truly man, i.e. he possesses both a divine nature and a human nature. This has been expressed in various ways, such as “fully God and fully man” or “100% God and 100% man” or “perfect God and perfect man”. These statements are usually presented in such a way that makes them appear reasonable and logical, but as we shall see, this is only a facade.
This article will be somewhat different from what I usually do. Whereas I typically deal with biblical exegesis, in this article I will try my hand at analytic theology.
The Creeds
Let’s look at what these creeds have stated. I will only include the parts of the creeds that are pertinent, with the most relevant parts underlined. We will start with the Nicene creed (original in A.D. 325 with additions in A.D. 381):
We believe in one God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
Here is the Chalcedoian creed (A.D. 451)
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in deity, the Self-same Perfect in humanity; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the deity, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the humanity; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin as to the humanity; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ . . .
Here is the Athanasian creed (early 6th cen.):
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his deity, and inferior to the Father as touching his humanity. Who although he is God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Deity into flesh, but by assumption of the humanity into God. One altogether, not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ.
As we look at these statements we see a progression from simpler to more complex. In the first it states that the son of God, as regards his deity, is true God and of the same essence as the Father, but regarding his humanity, it says only that he became incarnate and was made human. The later council of Chalcedon must have found that this language left to much open and so defined things more precisely – Christ was perfect in his Deity and perfect in his humanity, co-essential with the Father according to his deity and co-essential with humans according to his humanity. Please note how the statements regarding his humanity are meant to match the statements regarding his deity. One would assume from the language that whatever “perfect” means in relation to his deity, it must mean the same in relation to his humanity. Likewise, whatever “truly” means in relation to his deity, it must mean the same thing in relation to his humanity. Finally, whatever “co-essential” with the Father means in relation to his deity, it must have the same meaning in connection with humans in relation to his humanity.
Also, from the Athanasian creed, whatever it means that Christ is “of the substance of” the Father regarding his deity, must be the same thing that is meant by “of the substance of” his mother regarding his humanity. It would be deceptive if the words perfect, truly, co-essential and of the substance of were meant to mean one thing as regards his deity but to mean something else as regards his humanity. Because the phrases are matched in this way we must assume the authors of the creeds wanted everyone to think of them as corresponding to each other.
I will now attempt to show how these descriptors cannot mean the same when applied to both his deity and his humanity, and therefore the statements of the creeds do not hold together logically, and that they are, in fact, absurd. I will do this by applying the concepts of essentiality and non-essentiality to both the deity and humanity of Christ. My argument is this – within the orthodox conception of Christ, his deity is essential, while his humanity is non-essential.
Defining Terms
Let’s define our terms.
Essential – fundamental or central to the nature of something or someone;
intrinsic. Absolutely necessary; indispensable.
Perfect – having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or
characteristics; absolute; complete. Conforming absolutely to the
description or definition of an ideal type.
Truly – to the fullest degree; genuinely or properly.
Fully – completely or entirely; to the furthest extent.
Coessential – possessing the same essence or nature.
Now, having established the definitions, before I delve into my main points, I want to take a look at how it is said that the son of God became human. We note that the Nicene creed simply states that “he came down from heaven; he became incarnate . . . and was made human.” The Chalcedonian creed says only that he was “born of Mary the virgin as to the humanity.” But when we come the the Athanasian creed we see something more specific: “of the substance of his Mother, born in the world . . . not by conversion of the deity into flesh; but by assumption of the humanity into God.“ From the time of the Chalcedonian creed, so much controversy and confusion and speculation had arisen over the concept of the incarnation, that something more needed to be said, and so we have the fuller statement of the Athanasian creed. It is important to understand exactly what is being said here. To be ‘orthodox’ one must not think that the divine person of the son changed or turned into a human person, but rather, while remaining fully divine, he took or added to himself a human nature. So, in the being known as Jesus Christ we have a divine person, complete with a divine nature, who added to himself a human nature. From the orthodox viewpoint then, Jesus is not even a human person. He is rather a divine person, the eternal Son of God, with an impersonal human nature added to him. This is the first problem.
If this assertion about Christ is true, what it would mean is that the human nature of Christ is non-essential to his being. In the orthodox view Christ is essentially divine and therefore cannot be essentially human. If deity is essential to his being, i.e. without his divine nature he would not exist as a personal being, then the same thing could not be said of his humanity, for how can one being be both essentially divine and essentially human at the same time. That Christ is indeed essentially divine but not essentially human in orthodoxy is obvious by the fact that the person of Christ existed prior to taking a human nature to himself. From this we can see that his humanity is not essential to his personal being, as his divinity is. He can exist as a personal being with or without the addition of this impersonal human nature. That Christ is essentially divine must be included in what it means that Christ is “truly” and “fully” and “perfect” deity. Furthermore, that he is said to be co-essential with the Father means that he shares the same nature as the Father and that he is co-essential with man means that he shares the same nature as man. But he shares the same nature as the Father essentially, while he shares the nature of man non-essentially. And if, as I have pointed out, this language must be applied with the same meaning to Christ’s humanity as to his deity, then we can see that we have a problem. How can a divine person who has a non-essential human nature count as “truly” or “fully” or “perfectly” human? I think I can safely say, putting Christ on the side, that every truly, fully and perfectly human being who has ever existed since the beginning has possessed an essential human nature and was a human person. Therefore, the orthodox Christ appears to lack two qualities that would seem to be fundamental to what a truly, fully, and perfect human specimen would require – human personhood and essential humanity.
So then, the orthodox Christ, as propounded in the orthodox creeds, amounts to a logical absurdity. The only way around this is to special plead that while it is true that every other human being that has ever existed has possessed both human personhood and an essential human nature, Christ is the one instance in which the lack of these two aspects of humanity does not detract from him being truly, fully and perfectly human. But why should anyone accept this absurd implausibility, especially since such a thing cannot be derived from scripture either. In fact, scripture is quite explicit in saying that the Messiah had to be “made like his brothers in every respect.”