Sin and the Human Nature of Christ

[makesends]

John Bauer said:
However, that framing raises a serious theological concern for me. The Holy Spirit as necessary for the Son’s deity? Christ’s divine nature is not caused by the Spirit the way human nature is caused by parents. In fact, that is an inversion of classical trinitarian order. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son, if you accept the filioque).

The framing certainly could at least cause theological confusion. Christ's divine nature is not caused by the Spirit in the same way as our nature is caused by our parents. It is not caused at all.

John Bauer said:
The difficulty I see is that, if we press that model, it seems to entail one of three things: (a) that the Son’s divinity is contingent, (b) that the Spirit is ontologically prior to the Son, or (c) that the Spirit mediates the Son’s being. None of these would sit comfortably for a Christian—especially you, I am sure, as perspicacious as you are. The pre-incarnate Son was already fully divine, a divinity that didn’t change one iota with the incarnation.

Unbalanced and poor theological understanding of God and pressing the model beyond sound theology might. I can see that and I can see a lot of people doing that, unfortunately, though those who would, probably wouldn't give it enough thought to get that far. I agree that the Holy Spirit did not make Jesus divine, but the fact that the Spirit is in the place of a natural father announces his divine nature. Having had the above pointed out, I would agree that to simply word it as Jesus gets his divine nature from the Father and his human nature from his mother, probably shouldn't be left there without expounding. It leaves it too much in horizontal terms.

So, is Mary as is mother for the sake of a human nature? Or only for the sake of the throne of David? Does his human nature come from Mary? Or is it about covenant promises being made and fulfilled?

John Bauer said:
What the Holy Spirit did, I would argue, is conceive the human nature of Christ in the womb of Mary, which the Son assumed into union with himself, his person. The Spirit is the agent of the Son’s incarnation, not the source of his deity.
John Bauer said:
The right way to say it, then, is not that Christ gets one nature from the Holy Spirit and another from Mary, but that the divine Son assumes a human nature by the Spirit from Mary, two natures that remain distinct and unmixed.

I agree. Well said for someone who started out by saying he didn't have a ready answer because he had never thought about that particular question.

He wasn't discarding my notion---he was thinking through it, is the way I see it. He wasn't implying that I believe or was saying that the Spirit is the source of his deity either, or I never took it that way. In fact, he said the ideas he presented that could be formed from by wording (framing) would be untenable to me. I absorb it as a reminder to self to be more precise about how I say things. One day hopefully, I will. I love thinking but consider the typing a bit of drudgery (like paperwork, details, details, details) and skip over finding all the necessary clarifying words. A bit selfish in a way since I know what I mean, how come "you" don't know what I mean?" I know exactly what I mean, I can see it like a picture, and my mind goes---"How do I say all that?" and "Why do I have to." like a spoiled child.

I can identify with that. Hence, (and among other reasons), my considerable admiration for those old timers, who even without a word processor could write page-long sentences of cogent thought.

 

[John Bauer]

I don't see any of those problems you point out.

Okay.

I see no problem with the Spirit of God, who is God, being the means by which God the Son became man. … One might indeed suppose that the Spirit was the father of his humanity, but not of his deity.

Which is exactly what I said: “What the Holy Spirit did, I would argue, is conceive the human nature of Christ in the womb of Mary.”

I don't think what Arial said implies that the Spirit is the source of his deity.

Then what, to you, does the bold text imply?

“Is the Holy Spirit as his Father necessary for his deity?”

 

[makesends]

Okay.



Which is exactly what I said: “What the Holy Spirit did, I would argue, is conceive the human nature of Christ in the womb of Mary.”



Then what, to you, does the bold text imply?

“Is the Holy Spirit as his Father necessary for his deity?”

To me, at least, that doesn't imply contingent upon the Holy Spirit for the Son to be Deity. It would be wordplay to go further by saying that the Spirit was necessary for the Son's Deity to be "installed(?)" into Jesus, (whoa!, that picture is wrong, too!) But I don't have a problem with the Spirit being instrumental in the Human, Jesus, to BE the Son of God.

Also, while I admit to the hierarchical sequence of Father to Son to Spirit, in authority and a submission of some sort, they are also, in my opinion, 'interdependent' persons, as one God. The Father is not without the Spirit, as far as I can tell, nor is the Son. Admittedly, too, "interdependent" isn't the word I'm looking for, but I don't have another better at the moment.

 

[John Bauer]

To me, at least, that doesn't imply contingent upon the Holy Spirit for the Son to be deity.

You just told me what you don’t think it implies, but I asked what you do think it implies. I understand what you’re denying, but I’m still unclear on what you’re affirming.

I don't have a problem with the Spirit being instrumental in the human, Jesus, to BE the Son of God.

Whoa. This introduces a new red flag—while still leaving my question unanswered.

How would the Holy Spirit be instrumental in the incarnate Son being the Son?

While you have shifted the topic slightly, from the Holy Spirit being necessary for his deity to being instrumental for his sonship, you’re still trading on a similar ambiguity with a similar trinitarian inversion (given the filioque), not to mention the equivocation in replacing necessary with instrumental without explanation.

Also, while I admit to the hierarchical sequence of Father to Son to Spirit (in authority and a submission of some sort), they are also, in my opinion, 'interdependent' persons as one God.

The economic Trinity, sure. But you’re talking about eternal intratrinitarian relations, when my question (and the OP) was about the historical incarnation and the role of the Holy Spirit therein. (See note at the end.)

In summary, you have told me what you don’t mean, informed me about a different thing you’re comfortable with, and introduced a vague intratrinitarian relational idea. None of that answered my question. I wanted to know what you thought the word “necessary” implied in @Arial’s question (“Is the Holy Spirit as his Father necessary for his deity?”).

My response to her (which she graciously received as intended) made it clear what I thought it implied, and you essentially said to me, “I don’t think it means that.” Fair enough. What, then, do you happen to think it means? “Not that,” you answered. Yes, well, that was already stated. My question remains unanswered.

Here is why I think it’s important: In classical theology, if something is necessary for deity or sonship, that impacts the ontological Trinity. If you don’t know or cannot articulate what you think necessity implies, then I don’t know how to evaluate your response to me—which certainly keeps it immune from evaluation.

---

Side note: Great care should be practiced here, too, as “interdependent” conflicts with the asymmetrical relations of the Trinity, where the Father is unbegotten while the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son, in Western orthodoxy). In the Trinity, there is perichoretic communion without interdependence.

I suspect that by “interdependent” you mean the persons of the Godhead are inseparable, mutually indwelling, and always act together as the one God. And I would totally agree. But that’s different from dependence. Classical theology speaks of perichoresis, not interdependence, and for good reason.

 

[Arial]

In the Trinity, there is perichoretic communion without interdependence.

Classical theology speaks of perichoresis, not interdependence, and for good reason.

I did not know the meaning of that word, so I looked it up. I discovered it is rooted in early Christian theology to describe the mutual indwelling and interpenetration of the three persons within the divine essence. And it is important in keeping things like this OP discussion. It is a help in keeping trinitarian doctrine on track and worded correctly.

When we look at the etymology of the word, it gets even more powerful. Two Greek components:

• "peri" meaning "around" or surrounding"
• “chōreō” meaning "to make room," "to move," or "to contain."

 

[makesends]

I did not know the meaning of that word, so I looked it up. I discovered it is rooted in early Christian theology to describe the mutual indwelling and interpenetration of the three persons within the divine essence. And it is important in keeping things like this OP discussion. It is a help in keeping trinitarian doctrine on track and worded correctly.

When we look at the etymology of the word, it gets even more powerful. Two Greek components:

• "peri" meaning "around" or surrounding"
• “chōreō” meaning "to make room," "to move," or "to contain."

I don't think there is a human (temporal) way to put it that does the job. Certainly the one person does not exist without the others, but they are not like simple attributes of each other, either. "Dependence" is the wrong word, but I don't know what is really the right one, that makes the case of what really IS going on there.

When I said, elsewhere, "interdependence", I only meant that the one was "Part of"(?) the others, or at least, not without the others. One God. Not in three parts, but in three persons. I have yet to hear a description that satisfies me. I have to leave it alone.