Relating the trinity and incarnation

[MorleyMcMorson]

Jmac wrote:

The tricky part is the "if Jesus was fully human" part. Jesus is the name of a person, which Craig (if I am interpreting him correctly) would identify as a center of self-consciousness. And Craig would further point out that a center of self-consciousness is not equivalent to a soul (on his view). The significance of this being, "Jesus was fully human" doesn't seem to be an identity statement. So the reasoning that humans are identical with souls, Jesus is human, therefore Jesus is a soul, wouldn't follow given Craig's assumptions.

I'm not sure about all this.  I want to say that Craig says conflicting things on this count, although I have no quotes handy right now.  I would be interested to know, however, how Craig (if he thinks what you describe) differentiates a "center of self-consciousness" from a soul.  What more does a soul provide, basically.

I have wondered the same thing. It's hard to see how "soul" is anything more than just a word on his model. However, one possibility is that, by "center of self-consciousness" Craig does not mean to refer to a substance but the set of cognitive faculties (volition, intellect, etc.) that any person has, and that the soul is the actual mental/immaterial substance in which those faculties consist. Or, again, it is possible that each divine person has/is it's own soul, necessarily united, and Craig simply refers to the united whole as a single soul. But this would bring his view closer to that of Swinburne's and Yandell's.

Oddly enough, viewing mind and soul as separate entities might challenge God's aseity in the sense that God's three centers of consciousness would be made of a substance which isn't strictly identical with the persons themselves.  This would be a great thing to talk about with Craig in person.

[Jmac]

MorleyMcMorson wrote:

Oddly enough, viewing mind and soul as separate entities might challenge God's aseity in the sense that God's three centers of consciousness would be made of a substance which isn't strictly identical with the persons themselves.  This would be a great thing to talk about with Craig in person.

Yeah, there are a lot of things that I would like to talk to him about if I ever have the opportunity.

[pdstor]

Old post, but IMO worth chiming in. I haven't had the chance to read Philosophical Foundations yet, so I'm assuming what you're saying is an accurate representation and I'd invite any answers Dr. Craig has already made to my challenges that follow.

The doctrine that man is made in the image of God does not mean that we have a bipedal mostly symmetrical tangible body; rather, like God, we are personal.

Since Craig correctly assumes Christ is the Person of the Logos, and not a human person, then it follows that the humanity of Christ isn't in the image of God like is ours. Christ, then, is unlike us in our humanity and is thus insufficient for our salvation; it follows that this is formally a heretical modeling even in His subsisting reality.

Since the divine Logos is already a person when he came down and took on flesh (read Philippians Chapter 2:5-11) he brought to it all that was necessary for a complete human nature. The divine Logos wasn't "fully human" before the incarnation but rather possessed all the attributes, minus corporeality, essential to being human; of course he was much more than what is necessary to be human.

The last point is not relevant to what is needed in the Incarnation. What is needed is that in the Reality of Christ is One who is fully God and fully human. If we have {Divine}U{Human Body} then that is simply all you have. Effectively, God wasn't birthed into the world fully human, but merely animated a stillbirth. Yet this Christ still is *functionally* all human and all divine and that's supposed to be fine and dandy for our salvation. This is why I just *can't* accept Nominalism as a Christian.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure how Christ was even functionally fully human. If part of the Divine is also human and the Divine gives this piece to Christ's body to grant full humanity then Christ is not fully Divine. On the other hand, if the Divine supplied the missing piece in the sense of a human subset of the Divine that the Divinity shares with the Humanity, say, then Christ is *not* human in any independent sense. He's Frankenstein's Monster!

In response to 2: Jesus isn't part of the Trinity in that he is 1/3 of the Trinity. In trying to respond I am re-reading parts of Ch. 30 of Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Dr. Craig & Moreland). In it they state on pg. 608 that the Son--divine Logos--IS the soul of Jesus.

What do they mean by soul? Are they taking it to be the animating principle? This would mean everything Christ did, and that everything Christ willed, was fully and completely divine even if it looked human. Again, Christ has no real human presence, but is merely a hunk of meat puppeteered by what is consubstantial to humanity in the Logos.

When Christ willed the Father to pass the Cup from him at Gethsemane, did the Divine Son no longer want the job? What happens when He says "not My will, but Thy will be done"? Since He said that much earlier in His career as well (as recorded in John), does that mean He was there against His will the whole time and griping about it ("Hey you ingrates, it's not like I really wanna be here, Dad is making Me do this!") and only finally submits at the end of the prayer in Gethsemane?

[jayceeii]

jm: 1. According to Craig's model of the incarnation, the Logos possessed all the essential properties of the human nature except for a physical body until he took on a body at the incarnation, thereby becoming fully human.

jc: Not sure where Craig came up with these wacky ideas, but it is not possible for the Creator to take on the nature of a creature. All that is possible is some vague mimicking. You can say this more precisely, that the Logos possessed all the essential properties for an embodying God except for a physical body, until He took on a body at the Incarnation, thereby becoming God in a body. But the properties of Jesus are not like the creatures. This can be seen in the different forms of speech the Lord used, honored in Christian liturgy as “The Word of the Lord.” In Jesus’ Presence, many other clues may be seen.

jm: But when humans die, our souls separate from our bodies without ceasing to be human, which suggests that having a body is not essential to the human nature.

jc: Exactly, and more cylinders seem to be firing for Jmac here, than were firing in Craig’s mind. The Creator embodied can be observed to be missing the created soul. Actually the teaching here is more advanced than Christian doctrine, where ideas of soul and body are intermingled indiscriminately. Christians have no clear teaching of a soul.

jm: But if this is so, then two problems result. First, the Son would have been fully human even before he was incarnated.

jc: Jesus was in a fully human body, but He was not a created soul in a human body. The point here is that various spirits can take on human bodies, the Lord, humans… or angels. The reasoning is pointed in a wrong direction, where “…which suggests that having a body is not essential to the human nature,” should be interpreted as the human nature belonging to the soul of the human in question, not needed by spirits entering this body.

jm: And second, both the Father and the Spirit would be just as fully human as the Son even though they didn’t take on bodies (for they possess the same properties of personhood that the Son does). How can this problem be resolved?

jc: You’ve almost said it right but not quite. Human nature is peculiar to human souls. As these souls enter or leave a body (with the Holy Spirit’s aid), they remain human. The Lord can enter this body too, and it’s a testament to the wonderful properties of this body that He can experience high states of bliss therein (but also damning to humans as they admit themselves to be miserable in that same body). Human souls are “underpowered.”

jm: 2. It seems that one of the essential properties of the human nature is having (or being) a soul.

jc: The logic is tangled here, pointed in a wrong direction. Think about the soul first, not the soul dependent on the body for its nature. The sentence also is not accurate. One of the essential properties of the human nature is having a human soul. Other souls embody.

jm: But according to Craig's model of the trinity, the Son is not a soul; he is only part of a soul.

jc: It is not right to say that God has a soul, or even a Soul. The Maker is not like the creatures. It should be said that God has no soul, that God is soulless. If you want to say God is a region of spirit I might accept it, but it’s a region extending out past the Oort cloud. Created souls are tiny, with properties required for them to operate on their plane.

jm: There is one single soul that is God, and it supports three persons (the Father, Son, and Spirit).

jc: For the moment I’ll ignore the offensive use of the word “soul” to describe God here. Yes, the Trinity represents divisions in God’s Spirit. The Son, smallest of all, is the Face.

jm: So either Jesus did not have a complete soul, or all of God (i.e. the one tri-personal divine soul) was united with Jesus’ body.

jc: The former is the case of course. The Son is less than a trillionth part of God, but in many ways the most important part, as God carries His Personality into His creation.

jm: But both of these are problematic. If Jesus did not have a complete soul like other humans, then he was not fully human.

jc: Indeed, but you shouldn’t say “incomplete soul.” The Lord has no soul. His embodiment is accomplished by specialized spiritual organs, the Creator maintains.

jm: But, on the other hand, if the complete divine soul united with the body of Jesus, then how can we avoid the conclusion that all three persons were incarnated?

jc: The Invisible God or “Father” and the Holy Spirit do not Incarnate, but the Incarnation is a living extension bearing God’s literal consciousness. To Jesus the actions of the Holy Spirit appear to be the actions of a separate God, but this is only an illusion. Jesus made it a profitable illusion, saying “Father,” but eventually has to reveal the three secret words He said to Thomas, “I am God,” and the corollary, “There is no other God for Earth.”

[MCK]

Might I suggest that a way to avoid and eliminate your dilemma completely would be at least consider an explanation of the nature of God other than a Trinitarian one?

I am, by the way, some 74 years old and have studied theology and taught the scriptures for most of those years - as well as serving in church leadership positions of various descriptions over a great many decades.   I am thoroughly evangelical and believe fully in the authority and dependable nature of the scriptures as the only source of truth we can depend on.

Before anyone "starts up on me here" - I must say that there was a time when I too would have gone to the mat without hesitation with anyone who even questioned the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. 

But, since believing on the Lord at 12 years old, I have always been willing to learn more and adjust my theology along the way when the Spirit of God leads me.

I have come (almost reluctantly) to understand that there are ways of revisiting Trinitarianism without becoming heretical.  There is a way of seeing the distinct possibility of the so called "oneness" position being correct without  embracing either clearly heretical "modalism"  or resorting to a Nestorian Christology.

I only suggest that you at least consider it as I have and perhaps even end up embracing a non-Trinitarian view of God when things finally shake out.

[jayceeii]

I am thoroughly evangelical and believe fully in the authority and dependable nature of the scriptures as the only source of truth we can depend on.

But, since believing on the Lord at 12 years old, I have always been willing to learn more and adjust my theology along the way when the Spirit of God leads me.

I only suggest that you at least consider it as I have and perhaps even end up embracing a non-Trinitarian view of God when things finally shake out.

As you state the Spirit of God is leading you, would you feel offended if someone told you that they could watch the Holy Spirit moving in your mind? Why or why not? I’d have expected it to be cause for celebration, you state you have the Holy Spirit in you, and others say, “We can see it.” And what would you say about a person who stated the Holy Spirit does not move in his mind? Is that inevitably a lost soul?

Then, has it ever bothered you that your religion is so vague about the Trinity? I mean, if God spoke to His world, why would you say there is not a clear teaching? You say the scriptures are dependable, but they are strangely blank about this subject. Do you think God was hiding things from you? Do you think He decided you could not “handle the truth”? Did He know humanity would only respond to a vagueness that failed to specify the exact nature of sin, and its remediation?

[Alter2Ego]

Might I suggest that a way to avoid and eliminate your dilemma completely would be at least consider an explanation of the nature of God other than a Trinitarian one?

I am, by the way, some 74 years old and have studied theology and taught the scriptures for most of those years - as well as serving in church leadership positions of various descriptions over a great many decades.   I am thoroughly evangelical and believe fully in the authority and dependable nature of the scriptures as the only source of truth we can depend on.

Before anyone "starts up on me here" - I must say that there was a time when I too would have gone to the mat without hesitation with anyone who even questioned the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. 

But, since believing on the Lord at 12 years old, I have always been willing to learn more and adjust my theology along the way when the Spirit of God leads me.

I have come (almost reluctantly) to understand that there are ways of revisiting Trinitarianism without becoming heretical.  There is a way of seeing the distinct possibility of the so called "oneness" position being correct without  embracing either clearly heretical "modalism"  or resorting to a Nestorian Christology.

I only suggest that you at least consider it as I have and perhaps even end up embracing a non-Trinitarian view of God when things finally shake out.

MCK:
It appears that the author of this thread is long gone, so I am curious as to whom your above response is directed to, since you did not quote anyone when responding.  That said, I will address a few of your comments by first quoting the portions that I am responding directly to.

Might I suggest that a way to avoid and eliminate your dilemma completely would be at least consider an explanation of the nature of God other than a Trinitarian one?

In my experience, people who believe in the Trinity doctrine are usually not willing to consider any explanation about the nature of the Almighty, except the Trinitarian view.  You might try to reason with them using scripture, but that often does not work as Trinitarians tend to ignore scriptural context, which is how such ones end up with the wrong interpretation of scripture in the first place.

Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

[jayceeii]

I have a couple of questions for those who are familiar Craig's model of the incarnation and his model of the trinity. I suspect that I have misunderstood some element of the models, and I am seeking clarification. My questions are about whether to the two models can successfully be brought together.

1. According to Craig's model of the incarnation, the Logos possessed all the essential properties of the human nature except for a physical body until he took on a body at the incarnation, thereby becoming fully human. But when humans die, our souls separate from our bodies without ceasing to be human, which suggests that having a body is not essential to the human nature. But if this is so, then two problems result. First, the Son would have been fully human even before he was incarnated. And second, both the Father and the Spirit would be just as fully human as the Son even though they didn’t take on bodies (for they possess the same properties of personhood that the Son does). How can this problem be resolved?

2. It seems that one of the essential properties of the human nature is having (or being) a soul. But according to Craig's model of the trinity, the Son is not a soul; he is only part of a soul. There is one single soul that is God, and it supports three persons (the Father, Son, and Spirit). So either Jesus did not have a complete soul, or all of God (i.e. the one tri-personal divine soul) was united with Jesus’ body. But both of these are problematic. If Jesus did not have a complete soul like other humans, then he was not fully human. But, on the other hand, if the complete divine soul united with the body of Jesus, then how can we avoid the conclusion that all three persons were incarnated?

Any help with this would be appreciated.

jm: 1. According to Craig's model of the incarnation, the Logos possessed all the essential properties of the human nature except for a physical body until he took on a body at the incarnation, thereby becoming fully human.

jc: The proper way to say this is that the Logos possessed all the essential properties to animate a human body in the way a God can do, except for a physical body until he took on a body at the Incarnation, thereby becoming God in a body. Christianity has been human-centric, not really allowing for other types of entities, such as the Lord or angels. The reason for this is that it is very difficult for actual humans to think of what is Above.

jm: But when humans die, our souls separate from our bodies without ceasing to be human, which suggests that having a body is not essential to the human nature.

jc: It’s curious you admit the soul separates from the body, when I’m involved in a debate elsewhere on the forum with Christians insisting the Bible preaches annihilation. It is probably best to say that God has an “embodyable portion,” somewhat analogous to the appendix in a human, which is to say a tiny part of Himself not involved in central functions. Perhaps not just the Lord, but also angels are able to dwell in the human frame.

jm: But if this is so, then two problems result. First, the Son would have been fully human even before he was incarnated.

jc: The question is whether the human frame is robust enough to support different types of spiritual entities, the humans the lowest. For instance the Lord and angels would likely possess enough bliss that to experience it would kill a human from sheer nervous shock.

jm: And second, both the Father and the Spirit would be just as fully human as the Son even though they didn’t take on bodies (for they possess the same properties of personhood that the Son does). How can this problem be resolved?

jc: If it isn’t necessary to become human to dwell in a human body, the problem is resolved. Yet the Father and the Spirit cannot take on a body, only the Son can do so.

jm: 2. It seems that one of the essential properties of the human nature is having (or being) a soul. But according to Craig's model of the trinity, the Son is not a soul; he is only part of a soul.

jc: Indeed, the Lord has no soul, and this I believe is how He was recognized by the disciples. Any soul who knows himself or herself, can recognize the Lord has none. As Craig comes close to saying, the Lord is driven externally, but souls are driven internally.

jm: There is one single soul that is God, and it supports three persons (the Father, Son, and Spirit).

jc: The wise would never say that God has a soul. The one who can create souls, is not like a soul! The Maker’s spirit is of a different order, never mingling with the creatures.

jm: So either Jesus did not have a complete soul, or all of God (i.e. the one tri-personal divine soul) was united with Jesus’ body.

jc: The latter is ludicrous, and yet these are the proofs Christians expect, for instance that the Lord would know all languages or their entire dreary past histories of selfish exploits. The sentence is a false dilemma, the third and overlooked possibility that God does not embody via a soul, but by an embodyable portion, consciousness literally springing from Him. Jesus is complete, for a True God in a body, the intent to express God’s Personality.

jm: But both of these are problematic. If Jesus did not have a complete soul like other humans, then he was not fully human.

jc: If other types of spiritual beings can inhabit human bodies, none of them are human. The humans might be called impure spirit rising, and the angels pure spirit descending.

jm: But, on the other hand, if the complete divine soul united with the body of Jesus, then how can we avoid the conclusion that all three persons were incarnated?

jc: The Lord’s Mind can only contain a billionth, trillionth, or even smaller part of God’s Being. Furthermore it is subjected to all the limitations inherent to embodiment, for instance growing tired and requiring rest. The body limits all, no matter the spiritual power. Yet the thoughts of the Lord are seen by the angels, as emerging from the Maker.