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.

 

[Arial]

I don't think there is a human (temporal) way to put it that does the job.

Not completely no. But the concept can be held together by careful choice of words. We have nothing in our experience to compare a triune being with, therefore there are no words that fully "describe" a self-existent eternal being who manifests triune existence. For that matter, we have no words that convey the full idea of self-existent and eternal, as that too is outside the experience of the finite. Yet we know what it means. And we never find ourselves in theology discussions forgetting that and saying things that could be taken as though God had a beginning. Or interpreting any scripture as though he did.

Certainly the one person does not exist without the others, but they are not like simple attributes of each other, either.

Of course, not. The three persons of the Trinity are all of the attributes. When we (Christians) say "God". and whenever the Bible speaks of "God" (which of course is God speaking), it is not one person of the Trinity that is being spoken of but God as triune. God as he is. When the Son incarnate calls God Father, he is not separating himself from his deity, he is speaking from the human relationship between God and his children. He is also teaching us that in him (Christ) those who are united to him through faith, have that Father child covenant relationship. In Christ we are adopted into the household of God.

"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.

That is why I found "perichoresis" in its etymology so helpful. Mutal indwelling and interpenetration rather than "dependance". "Me in you and you in me" (John 17). "I and my Father are one."

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.

Well, it is confusing to say in one sentence that one was "part of" the others and in the next to say "Not in three parts, but in three persons." One thing I have learned at least, is to never ever use the expression of "part of" when speaking of the Trinity. Ever since ages ago on a forum in a discussion with a non-Christian but who claimed to be one while denying the cross completely, from substitution on, and when I carelessly said "part of" he jumped on it. "Oh, God has parts?"

I think the Chalcedon Creed does a pretty good job, but you have to go slowly and consider the antiquated language in it, interpreting accordingly.

I have to leave it alone.

Fair enough.

 

[makesends]

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?”).

Not necessary for him to become deity. Necessary to establish that he is deity.

 

[makesends]

Not completely no. But the concept can be held together by careful choice of words. We have nothing in our experience to compare a triune being with, therefore there are no words that fully "describe" a self-existent eternal being who manifests triune existence. For that matter, we have no words that convey the full idea of self-existent and eternal, as that too is outside the experience of the finite. Yet we know what it means. And we never find ourselves in theology discussions forgetting that and saying things that could be taken as though God had a beginning. Or interpreting any scripture as though he did.

We know something of what 'self-existent' means, and the words, 'infinite', 'eternal', and such, carry several logically certain implications. 'Trinity' is a little more obscure, I think. But yes, I agree, neither can be understood in full by temporal minds.

Of course, not. The three persons of the Trinity are all of the attributes. When we (Christians) say "God". and whenever the Bible speaks of "God" (which of course is God speaking), it is not one person of the Trinity that is being spoken of but God as triune. God as he is. When the Son incarnate calls God Father, he is not separating himself from his deity, he is speaking from the human relationship between God and his children. He is also teaching us that in him (Christ) those who are united to him through faith, have that Father child covenant relationship. In Christ we are adopted into the household of God.

Reading through the Gospel of John, today, it struck me how bold Jesus' claims are, of his unity with the Father, sounding almost as though proven by his absolute dependence (as a human) upon the Father. He even went so far as to say that he CAN DO NOTHING on his own! (John 5:30) (But, ok, a little side-track, there, seeing it is a temporal situation.)

That is why I found "perichoresis" in its etymology so helpful. Mutal indwelling and interpenetration rather than "dependance". "Me in you and you in me" (John 17). "I and my Father are one."

I don't find "perichoresis" objectionable, except in its weakness of explanation. It doesn't really say much to help understand, but that's ok. It does, at least, by positive statement, deny much that is false.

Well, it is confusing to say in one sentence that one was "part of" the others and in the next to say "Not in three parts, but in three persons." One thing I have learned at least, is to never ever use the expression of "part of" when speaking of the Trinity. Ever since ages ago on a forum in a discussion with a non-Christian but who claimed to be one while denying the cross completely, from substitution on, and when I carelessly said "part of" he jumped on it. "Oh, God has parts?"

I think the Chalcedon Creed does a pretty good job, but you have to go slowly and consider the antiquated language in it, interpreting accordingly.

"Part of" one-another is of a different use than to say that any of them are in parts. If I say that my wife is part of me, it doesn't mean that I am made of parts. It just means that we are necessarily one. However, even that, I doubted as an accurate (nevermind sufficient) way to describe the trinity, so I put the (?) next to it. But, it is a good warning you give there, and it makes sense to avoid that terminology.

 

[John Bauer]

Not necessary for him to become deity. Necessary to establish that he is deity.

Fair enough. That answers my question. Thank you.

However, this explains how differently you and I read the same claim. When Arial asked about the Holy Spirit being “necessary for his deity,” I read that in an ontological sense—“deity” refers to what Christ is, “necessary for x” refers to a condition required for x to obtain. I just don’t see an epistemic category in the grammar, nor how you could read that sense from it.

Wondering if my reading was strange or unreasonable, I asked ChatGPT to evaluate her question:

Smith asked, "Is the Holy Spirit as his father necessary for Christ’s deity?"

Regarding his question and its structure and grammar only: Is that an
ontological category or an epistemic one?

Short answer​

It’s an ontological question, not an epistemic one.

Here’s why:

• Subject matter — It asks whether the Holy Spirit’s role as “father” is necessary for Christ’s deity.
  • This concerns the being of Christ (deity), not our knowledge of his deity.
• Grammar and structure — “Is … necessary for … deity” points to a condition required for the existence of a divine nature in Christ, not for how we recognize or believe in it.

Quick clarity: Ontological vs. epistemic​

Ontological questions ask about what is the case—what something is, what constitutes it, what is necessary for its being.

Epistemic questions ask about how we know—what grounds our knowledge, recognition, or justification for believing something.

Applying that to Smith’s question​

“Is the Holy Spirit as his father necessary for Christ’s deity?”

That’s asking whether the Holy Spirit’s role is constitutive of Christ’s divine nature—i.e., whether Christ would be divine only if the Spirit were his father. That’s squarely about what makes Christ divine, not how we come to know he is divine.

So the category is ontological:

• It’s about what is necessary for his being deity, not what is necessary for our knowing he is deity.
• It concerns what grounds Christ’s deity, not what reveals or confirms it to us.

Bottom line​

Smith’s question is clearly ontological. It’s about what is necessary for Christ to be God, not about how we know that he is.

 

[makesends]

Fair enough. That answers my question. Thank you.

However, this explains how differently you and I read the same claim. When Arial asked about the Holy Spirit being “necessary for his deity,” I read that in an ontological sense—“deity” refers to what Christ is, “necessary for x” refers to a condition required for x to obtain. I just don’t see an epistemic category in the grammar, nor how you could read that sense from it.

I'm trying to justify this arrangement —ontological vs epistemic— as sufficiently representative of the two different takes, but I'm not quick enough to say why, so I'll go with it until the light bulb comes on in my head. (LOL, I love the statement I've heard, "And THAT was when a light bulb went off in my head!"

Wondering if my reading was strange or unreasonable, I asked ChatGPT to evaluate her question: Smith asked, "Is the Holy Spirit as his father necessary for Christ’s deity?"


Regarding his question and its structure and grammar only: Is that an
ontological category or an epistemic one?

Short answer​

It’s an ontological question, not an epistemic one.

Here’s why:

• Subject matter — It asks whether the Holy Spirit’s role as “father” is necessaryfor Christ’s deity.
  • This concerns the being of Christ (deity), not our knowledge of his deity.
• Grammar and structure — “Is … necessary for … deity” points to a condition required for the existence of a divine nature in Christ, not for how we recognize or believe in it.

Quick clarity: Ontological vs. epistemic​

Ontological questions ask about what is the case—what something is, what constitutes it, what is necessary for its being.

Epistemic questions ask about how we know—what grounds our knowledge, recognition, or justification for believing something.

Applying that to Smith’s question​

That’s asking whether the Holy Spirit’s role is constitutive of Christ’s divine nature—i.e., whether Christ would be divine only if the Spirit were his father. That’s squarely about what makes Christ divine, not how we come to know he is divine.

So the category is ontological:

• It’s about what is necessary for his being deity, not what is necessary for our knowing he is deity.
• It concerns what grounds Christ’s deity, not what reveals or confirms it to us.

Bottom line​

Smith’s question is clearly ontological. It’s about what is necessary for Christ to be God, not about how we know that he is.

Fair enough. But, (well, at the moment), I'd say that Smith's question could be taken to suggest ontology, at most.

Lol, it to me was obvious @Arial did not mean that Christ became God through that act of the Spirit —though admittedly, not because of how her statement was worded. To me, then, her statement was only imprecise. AI doesn't know Smith very well.

Possibly, though, Miss (Mrs?) Smith worded it as she did, as a rhetorical method, to bring out those who would claim something along ontological lines, such as, "Yes, Jesus was made into God the Son, by the Holy Spirit's act in fathering him."

Also, I note, that since you posed the question how you did, ChatGPT went with it, instead of suggesting a different characterization. It always does that, I've noticed, when I ask it something. (It 'likes' me too much, lol, trying to be kind and affirming. I liked what you did awhile back, something like telling AI to be analytical only, as opposed to affirming.)

I asked DuckDuckGo's AI, GPT-4o mini, "Do the Reformed and Calvinists generally consider Pentecost the beginning point for the indwelling of the Spirit of God?" to which it replied with an extensive, "yes". Yet not one hour earlier, in a different tab of the same browser, I asked it whether the Reformed and Calvinists believe the Old Testament Saints were indwelled and regenerated by the Spirit of God, and it replied also with its usual extensive, "yes".

 

[John Bauer]

To me, it was obvious that Arial did not mean that Christ became God through that act of the Spirit—though admittedly, not because of how her statement was worded. To me, then, her statement was only imprecise.

That was obvious to me, too, and it's why I responded as I did: I wanted to expose the ramifications of that imprecision. And maybe that's why she responded so positively to the classic term perichoresis, suggesting that such words help to keep "trinitarian doctrine on track and worded correctly" (i.e., better precision).

I asked DuckDuckGo's AI, GPT-4o mini, "Do the Reformed and Calvinists generally consider Pentecost the beginning point for the indwelling of the Spirit of God?" to which it replied with an extensive, "yes". Yet not one hour earlier, in a different tab of the same browser, I asked it whether the Reformed and Calvinists believe the Old Testament Saints were indwelled and regenerated by the Spirit of God, and it replied also with its usual extensive, "yes".

Exactly, which is why people who uncritically rely on AI models get into trouble.

 

[JesusFan]

We know something of what 'self-existent' means, and the words, 'infinite', 'eternal', and such, carry several logically certain implications. 'Trinity' is a little more obscure, I think. But yes, I agree, neither can be understood in full by temporal minds.

Reading through the Gospel of John, today, it struck me how bold Jesus' claims are, of his unity with the Father, sounding almost as though proven by his absolute dependence (as a human) upon the Father. He even went so far as to say that he CAN DO NOTHING on his own! (John 5:30) (But, ok, a little side-track, there, seeing it is a temporal situation.)

I don't find "perichoresis" objectionable, except in its weakness of explanation. It doesn't really say much to help understand, but that's ok. It does, at least, by positive statement, deny much that is false.

"Part of" one-another is of a different use than to say that any of them are in parts. If I say that my wife is part of me, it doesn't mean that I am made of parts. It just means that we are necessarily one. However, even that, I doubted as an accurate (nevermind sufficient) way to describe the trinity, so I put the (?) next to it. But, it is a good warning you give there, and it makes sense to avoid that terminology.

God states that hHe is God, and also that we, as in all 3 persons of Trinity, are God at same time

 

[makesends]

God states that hHe is God, and also that we, as in all 3 persons of Trinity, are God at same time

Are you arguing in favor of theosis?

 

[JesusFan]

Are you arguing in favor of theosis?

Had to look that term up
Theosis, or deification, is a core concept in Eastern Orthodox Christianity referring to the transformative process of becoming more like God by sharing in His divine life through grace, starting in this life and continuing after death, aiming for union with God. It means humans don't become God in essence but become "gods by grace," participating in the divine nature and exhibiting divine qualities, a journey facilitated by Christ's Incarnation and the Holy Spirit, leading to spiritual perfection and eternal life with God.
And my answer would be a hard no