tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5961788884011727594..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Commonality of nature and the IncarnationAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-73371000919402869662007-12-28T01:20:00.000-06:002007-12-28T01:20:00.000-06:00Bride:Actually I really appreciated your comment, ...Bride:<BR/><BR/>Actually I really appreciated your comment, because you pointed out a problem with at least my choice of wording, and perhaps with the whole idea.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-83418392026713409412007-12-27T23:31:00.000-06:002007-12-27T23:31:00.000-06:00Well, just to be clear - I am well aware of my sta...Well, just to be clear - I am well aware of my status as a less than perspicacious undergraduate student, and thus I am not at all deluded enough to think myself capable of proving you wrong. Rather, my questions are an attempt to understand and learn from your arguments.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for letting me do this, and I'm sorry if I've come across as a bit belligerent!Dionysioshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00922969786481979607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-2082068806952422312007-12-27T19:59:00.000-06:002007-12-27T19:59:00.000-06:00By the way, you can always take it for granted tha...By the way, you can always take it for granted that I won't <EM>intentionally</EM> contradict what the Councils say. And if I am shown to contradict what the Councils say, I will withdraw my statement and be grateful to be shown the truth.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-14468555707464711522007-12-27T15:55:00.000-06:002007-12-27T15:55:00.000-06:00Christ has all of the human nature--that is what t...Christ has all of the human nature--that is what the Councils teach. So every human personal attribute that derives from human nature is an attribute that he has. However, one might call "having one's entire personhood derive from one's humanity" a "personal attribute" that we have. And if so, then this is a personal attribute Christ doesn't have.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-67342290167984472462007-12-27T13:02:00.000-06:002007-12-27T13:02:00.000-06:00I'm sorry - I really should make sure I've said ev...I'm sorry - I really should make sure I've said everything I want to say before hitting the "Publish Your Comment" button.<BR/><BR/>You say, "Christ . . . is a human person in the sense of being a person, being a human, and having some personal attributes deriving from being a human."<BR/><BR/>He has "some personal attributes deriving from being a human", but not all? The thing that tips me off to this statement is the whole of the Definition of Chalcedon, which goes to great lengths to make sure it is understood that Christ is both fully God and fully Man, lacking nothing of what it means to be either. Do you feel your statement is reconcilable with Chalcedonian Christology?Dionysioshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00922969786481979607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-85205628726535698732007-12-27T12:54:00.000-06:002007-12-27T12:54:00.000-06:00Do you think, then, that certain personal capaciti...Do you think, then, that certain personal capacities of God the Son replace the ones that would have been present in a non-divine human being?<BR/><BR/>My concern is that you are suggesting that personhood is part of nature, perhaps as a set of "personal attributes", rather than a thing united to, but distinct from, person.Dionysioshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00922969786481979607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-28690664562119470942007-12-27T12:12:00.000-06:002007-12-27T12:12:00.000-06:00MG:That's a really interesting question. The Trad...MG:<BR/><BR/>That's a really interesting question. The Tradition has generally stayed away from calling Christ a "human person". His personhood is eternal, and "human person" makes it sound like he has personhood in the way we have it, e.g., as deriving from the human nature. <BR/><BR/>If this is right (and it might not be; there is no Ecumenical Council teaching this, for instance), then commonality of nature is even more crucial, because personhood is shared only analogically.<BR/><BR/>One argument for this position is the one you suggest--his personhood, being divine, cannot change. Another argument could an inference to best explanation from the fact that Christ cannot sin even though he is fully human (the beatific vision, however, is an alternate explanation, and at least in the West is the generally accepted one).<BR/><BR/>But I am not completely sure this is right. There may be a way of finessing the position. Christ is not a human person in the sense of having a personhood deriving from humanity, but he is a human person in the sense of being a person, being a human, and having some personal attributes deriving from being a human.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-35559203750137502172007-12-25T18:13:00.000-06:002007-12-25T18:13:00.000-06:00Alex--You wrote:"If we see what is significant abo...Alex--<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"If we see what is significant about us as just personhood, then Athanasius' account of why the Incarnation was needed loses some of its force."<BR/><BR/>I am sorry but your subsequent discussion of this did not clarify for me why it follows from "just personhood is significant" that "Athanasius' account of why the Incarnation was needed loses some of its force".<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Admittedly that personhood was not precisely like ours--if St. Thomas is right, we can term the Logos and ourselves "persons" only by analogy. But nonetheless there is an analogy there, and the fleshly nature of the Incarnation becomes less clearly needed."<BR/><BR/>If the Logos is a person only in an analogical sense, and the person of the Logos does not change at all in the Incarnation, then isn't it true that Christ is a human person only in an analogical sense?<BR/><BR/>Merry ChristmasMGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11961603927935499412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-91600184774422042052007-12-24T19:27:00.000-06:002007-12-24T19:27:00.000-06:00Good questions.I am not sure Athanasius would allo...Good questions.<BR/><BR/>I am not sure Athanasius would allow that simply sharing enfleshment would be sufficient. If Christ was a member of our species, then he and we would have the same nature, and this commonality of nature is important to Athanasius. To share just in enfleshment and not in species membership would be to have a nature somewhat like ours, and this would probably not satisfy Athanasius, just as it would not satisfy him to suppose Christ's nature was merely like God's. In both cases, he thinks sameness is needed. He could, of course, be wrong.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, if this view of redemption is right, then if non-human enfleshed persons need to be saved by an incarnation, this would have to be another incarnation, as a member of their species.<BR/><BR/>Having the human nature entails having personhood. But Christ's personhood does not derive from his human nature--he is a person independently of being human.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-1669324831029444042007-12-24T13:35:00.000-06:002007-12-24T13:35:00.000-06:00Christ, having reconciled us human beings with God...<I>Christ, having reconciled us human beings with God will also re-integrate our nature, bringing the animal and the personal together, when he transforms us in the resurrection, completing his new creation in us.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm a bit confused here. Do you mean to say that personhood is part of nature?<BR/><BR/>If so, how does that work in the Incarnation?<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Dionysioshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00922969786481979607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-26322989345773281932007-12-24T13:33:00.000-06:002007-12-24T13:33:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dionysioshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00922969786481979607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-46233832416588346332007-12-24T10:55:00.000-06:002007-12-24T10:55:00.000-06:00It is very plausible to say that we are not just p...It is very plausible to say that we are not just persons, we are also animals. And so our redemption seems to require that Christ share in both the divine nature and the human nature. But perhaps we should distinguish between:<BR/><BR/>1. To redeem finite persons, Christ must share in their enfleshment<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>2. To redeem finite persons, Christ must share in their humanity.<BR/><BR/>Presumably, a person can be enfleshed without being human (without being incarnated in human flesh, where 'human' is cashed out biologically-anthropologically.) Think of an extraterrestrial finite person whose flesh (physical embodiment) is different from ours. Are they not also candidates for redemption?<BR/><BR/>Merry Christmas!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com