logic of god incarnate

[unlearnedlearner]

hi,

i am interacting with a person that denies the incarnation - maybe a chirstadelphian or something close to that - and wondering how to explain the incarnation. he thinks it contradictory for Jesus to be fully god and fully man. it is contradictory to be infinite and finite.

thoughts.

thanks.

j

 

[tewilder]

There is nothing conceptually hard about this, unless people want it to be.

Start with simple mathematics. What is the area of a space between two lines in the same plane? It is infinite, because it is unbounded in one dimention (the length of the boundaries lines), even though in another dimention the area is fiinite (the distance between the two lines. The plane, on the other hand is infinite in two dimentions.

So we can see that for something to be finite and infinite at the same time is not only possible, but a clear and simple idea.

Now consider the theological problem. Here we are not claiming that one and the same nature is both infintie and finite (although the mathematical example show that even that statement is not inherently contractory, one would have to add in a lot of specific information about natures to know whether they could be or not). Rather we are talking about two natures and predicating different things about the two natures.

What causes the problem is that thinking about two natures, typicallly with almost no definition of what they are, and simultaneously thinking about other distinctions such as the infinite and finite, when done at the same time produces a brain cramp. The brain cramp is then taken for logical impossiblilty.

So, what you need to do is try some metaphysical stretching exercies before you go on a theological jog.

 

[BobVigneault]

See if you can nail down his basic principle for justifying knowledge. Find out if he is Biblical first and logical second. Being biblical does not preclude logic, it justifies and defines logic. 'There is a God and He has revealed himself in His word, the Bible.' If he can't begin with this basic (and unprovable) assumption (axiom) then he will never arrive at the truth of the incarnation. The scriptures declare the incarnation, logic accepts the authority of scripture. After that, the metaphysical mechanics and philosophy of the incarnation are mental gymnastics.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Vytautas]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
See if you can nail down his basic principle for justifying knowledge. Find out if he is Biblical first and logical second. Being biblical does not preclude logic, it justifies and defines logic. 'There is a God and He has revealed himself in His word, the Bible.' If he can't begin with this basic (and unprovable) assumption (axiom) then he will never arrive at the truth of the incarnation. The scriptures declare the incarnation, logic accepts the authority of scripture. After that, the metaphysical mechanics and philosophy of the incarnation are mental gymnastics.

When discussing the Incarnation, why do we have to go back all the way to justifying a particular epistemology, especially when the Incarnation logically follows from other doctrines? Must we do the same for Sacraments and Sociology by defining how we reach truth?

 

[BobVigneault]

Originally posted by Vytautas

Originally posted by BobVigneault
See if you can nail down his basic principle for justifying knowledge. Find out if he is Biblical first and logical second. Being biblical does not preclude logic, it justifies and defines logic. 'There is a God and He has revealed himself in His word, the Bible.' If he can't begin with this basic (and unprovable) assumption (axiom) then he will never arrive at the truth of the incarnation. The scriptures declare the incarnation, logic accepts the authority of scripture. After that, the metaphysical mechanics and philosophy of the incarnation are mental gymnastics.

When discussing the Incarnation, why do we have to go back all the way to justifying a particular epistemology, especially when the Incarnation logically follows from other doctrines? Must we do the same for Sacraments and Sociology by defining how we reach truth?

Certainly not in every case Richard but in the case of this fellow we don't know what his background is or what doctrines he already accepts. A christodelphian or something close? Which doctrine will you start with. I would want to know if he accepts the authority of scripture or not. If not, then what other authority will you appeal to. Good question though Richard.

 

[Vytautas]

Originally posted by BobVigneault

Originally posted by Vytautas

Originally posted by BobVigneault
See if you can nail down his basic principle for justifying knowledge. Find out if he is Biblical first and logical second. Being biblical does not preclude logic, it justifies and defines logic. 'There is a God and He has revealed himself in His word, the Bible.' If he can't begin with this basic (and unprovable) assumption (axiom) then he will never arrive at the truth of the incarnation. The scriptures declare the incarnation, logic accepts the authority of scripture. After that, the metaphysical mechanics and philosophy of the incarnation are mental gymnastics.

When discussing the Incarnation, why do we have to go back all the way to justifying a particular epistemology, especially when the Incarnation logically follows from other doctrines? Must we do the same for Sacraments and Sociology by defining how we reach truth?

Certainly not in every case Richard but in the case of this fellow we don't know what his background is or what doctrines he already accepts. A christodelphian or something close? Which doctrine will you start with. I would want to know if he accepts the authority of scripture or not. If not, then what other authority will you appeal to. Good question though Richard.

Once you accept the proposition that all theology flows from the doctrine of God, you tend to look at other doctrines as something that logically comes after this doctrine. The Incarnation could be argued for from other teachings. Here might be an outline:

1. God created man and has fallen from righteousness into sin.
2. Only one who is God and man can bring about salvation of humanity and would want to because of his love.
3. So the Incantation is a necessary doctrine.

This is a threadbare argument, but could be expanded upon.

 

[BobVigneault]

I agree Richard, furthermore, only a man can be a substitute for men and only God could survive the naked wrath of God's punishment, therefore a God-man was necessary. I was only pointing out that these are not doctrines that are self-evident but require an acceptance of the Bible as God's Word.

Your three step argument is good but it presupposes that scripture is Truth. I would first want to make sure that this 'christodephian' agrees with that presupposition. Blessings.

 

[knight4christ8]

There are some long posts here ??? Seems to be making this unnecessarily complex. I guess presuppositionalism tends to do that sometimes.

The infinite is infinite and can include the finite, otherwise it wouldn't be infinite. The finite cannot take on the infinite, or then it wouldn't be finite any more. The infinite doesn't

Christ, who was infinite, took on a finite soul and a finite body. Fully God: infinite, eternal, and unchangeable - same as he's always been . . . fully human: finite human body and finite human soul

Nothing confusing or illogical about that.

 

[BobVigneault]

Originally posted by knight4christ8
There are some long posts here ??? Seems to be making this unnecessarily complex. I guess presuppositionalism tends to do that sometimes.

Long posts???? Are you referring to this thread?