A certain Gabriel Darwin Lopez who claims to be an online Catholic Faith Defender and has interest in discussing about religions and church doctrines had answered the article that I had posted on my Facebook account: THE TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION: TRUTH OR FALLACY? He claims that his personal goal is to be able to share his knowledge about the Catholic Church to Catholics and non-Catholics especially those who misunderstood the Catholicism. Written below is a part of his answer:
Joe is really good in labelling the doctrines of the Catholic Church with fancy descriptions. Joe has huge guts in saying that there are no biblical verses that prove the Catholic Doctrines defined in the Church Councils instead of bringing up how Catholic Church explained their doctrine and refute it. Is it really unbiblical or Joe just refused to bring up verses that prove the hypostatic union for his deception? The Hypostatic Union is the mystery of the union of the divine nature of Christ with His human nature. Christ has two minds and two wills, united in the Divine Word.
In response to his criticism, I am posting an article that will expose the fallacy of the so-called doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. This doctrine is a humanly devised hypothesis, and a defective hypothesis cannot be saved by dubbing it as a divine mystery.
INTRODUCTION
The belief that Jesus Christ is God-Incarnate, although unbiblical, gains a large following even today. Proponents of this concept subscribe to a doctrine technically called the Hypostatic Union, meaning that there are two natures – both human and divine, subsisting in one person, the Lord Jesus Christ. For those who accept this formula, Jesus of Nazareth is one and the same person as God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. This concept was defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. The creed reads:
The belief that Jesus Christ is God-Incarnate, although unbiblical, gains a large following even today. Proponents of this concept subscribe to a doctrine technically called the Hypostatic Union, meaning that there are two natures – both human and divine, subsisting in one person, the Lord Jesus Christ. For those who accept this formula, Jesus of Nazareth is one and the same person as God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. This concept was defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. The creed reads:
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all with one voice teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the Same perfect in Godhead, the Same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the Same [consisting] of a rational soul and body; homoousios with the Father as to his Godhead, and the Same homoousios with us as to his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of the Father before ages as to His Godhead, and in the last days, the Same, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to his manhood; One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, made known in two natures [which exist] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken away by reason of the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved, and [both] concurring into one Person (prosopon) and one hypostasis – not parted or divided into two persons (prosopa), but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, the divine Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from of old [have spoken] concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers has delivered to us (Grillmeier 1975:544).
WHY THE CREED WAS FORMULATED
Hick reported that the growing and developing church had to explain its beliefs to the Greek-speaking culture of the Mediterranean world, and at the same time to itself, in acceptable philosophical terms; and after Constantine’s conversion to Christianity the peace of the empire required a unitary body of Christian belief. Accordingly in 325 Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea for the purpose of restoring concord to church and empire; and it was here that the church first officially adopted from Greek culture the non-biblical concept of ousia, declaring that Jesus, as God the Son incarnate, was homoousios toi patroi – of the same substance as the Father. The political significance of this was that the Christian emperor now had the status of God’s viceroy on earth. Thus the contemporary historian Eusebius, writing about Constantine’s victory over his rival Licinius, says that Constantine and his son, under the protection of God, the universal King, with the Son of God, Saviour of all, as their leader and ally, drew up their forces on all sides against the enemies of the Deity and won an easy victory (Hick 1993:44-45).
The Nicene formulation was expanded, using the same philosophical conceptuality, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, affirming that Christ was homoousios with the Father as to his Godhead, and at the same time homoousios with us as to his manhood . . . made known in two natures [which exist] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation . . . And it is this Chalcedonian formulation that has ever since constituted the official Christian language about Christ (Hick 1993:45).
Questions regarding the nature of God’s incarnation in Jesus also proved troublesome. The theologians of Alexandria, Egypt, tended to emphasize the divinity of Jesus at the expense of his humanity, and their frequent opponents, those of the school of Antioch, Syria, emphasized Jesus' humanity at the expense of his divinity. On the Alexandrian side, Apollinarians argued that in the human Jesus the Logos had replaced his mind or spirit. This view amounted to a denial of the full humanity of Christ. Apollinarianism was condemned at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. From the Antiochene school emerged the 5th-century heresy of Nestorianism. Nestorians held that two separate persons were united in the incarnate Christ, and they rejected the Alexandrian title of Theotokos (God-bearer) for Mary. For Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople (present-day İstanbul), and his followers, Mary had been the mother of the human Jesus but not of the divine-human Son. In response to the challenge of Nestorianism, the councils of Ephesus, in 431, and Chalcedon, in 451, affirmed the title Theotokos. At Chalcedon, the incarnation was defined as being of “two natures, one person”- a formula that has remained standard Christian orthodoxy.
The Chalcedonian definition itself, however, led to further disagreement; an extremist faction within the Alexandrian school argued that the incarnate Son had but a single, divine nature (Monophysitism), and in this view, again, Jesus’ humanity was compromised. By the end of the 2nd century in Alexandria, the major city of Hellenistic Egypt, the Christian catechetical school headed by Clement of Alexandria had already acquired great fame. Origen, the founder of Greek Christian theology and biblical science, followed Clement as head of the school. In the 4th and 5th centuries, two bishops of Alexandria defended Christian orthodoxy – Athanasius, against Arianism, and Cyril, against Nestorianism.
Some Egyptian Christians, however, refused to follow the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon (451), which defined the person of Jesus Christ as being “one in two natures.” The doctrine of “two natures” appeared to them to imply the existence of two Christs, divine and human, and was therefore tainted with Nestorianism. They upheld the terminology of Cyril, who had spoken of “one incarnate nature of God the Word.” Those Egyptian Christians who rejected the Council of Chalcedon—a council accepted both in Constantinople and in Rome – faced charges of Monophysitism, the belief that Christ has only one nature rather than two. Only a few Alexandrians remained faithful to Chalcedonian orthodoxy (Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003).
THE PROBLEM OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION
The problem with the Chalcedonian concept of Christ is in the fact that the Council in effect merely asserted that Jesus was “truly God and truly man” without attempting to say how such a paradox is possible. Merely to assert that two different natures coexisted in Jesus without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, is to utter a form of words which as yet has no specified meaning. The formula sets before us a “mystery” rather than a “clear and distinct idea.” Further, this is not a divine mystery but one that was created by human beings meeting at Chalcedon in present-day Turkey in the mid-fifth century (Hick 1993:48).
IT IS A CONCEPT THAT IS AGAINST THE BIBLE
If Christ was one individual who was truly God and truly man, then the properties and activities of either the human or the divine nature might with equal truth be attributed to him. If God truly became man, while remaining God, one might say of him that God was born of the Virgin Mary, grew as a child, became an adult, and interestingly, God died on the cross. For some, they were able to accept this impossibility that God died. A Catholic Catechism reports:
“Because Jesus is one Person who lives in two distinct natures, one can truthfully say of the Son of God whatever is true of Him in either of His natures. He suffered and died in His human nature, and He is God, and so we may say that God suffered and died. This is literally true . . .” (Lawler 1976:100).
Catholic and Protestant apologists would go to the distance in trying to defend a false doctrine by accepting without any hesitation that the God of the universe died! This position greatly contradicts or truly violates one of the innate attributes of God which is immortality. The Bible says in 1 Timothy 1:17:
Now to the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
The Bible clearly defines the attributes of God. He is immutable or unchanging (Malachi 3:6). The doctrine of Incarnation which means that God took a human form: that is, from being a pure spirit, he became flesh and blood; violates the doctrine of God’s immutability. The biblical proof that even when Christ was here on earth, God did not change his form and his true nature is clear from the teaching of Christ that God is a spirit (John 4:24), a being without flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Apostle Paul clarified that the eternal God is invisible (1 Timothy 1:17). If it is true that Christ took a human form, the change from being a spirit to a human being entailed an enormous change and clearly demonstrates that the so-called Incarnation of God is going against the biblical teaching concerning the true nature of God.
Secondly, the Bible teaches that the true God is omniscient or all-knowing (1st John 3:20). If Christ was a God-Man on earth, there should not be any limit to his knowledge since supporters of this doctrine contend that Jesus remained God even though he became a man. If the concept is true, proponents would have to accept that Jesus had two minds, one human and one divine. A perplexing question which becomes a big dilemma for them would be to explain which mind was in control during Christ’s earthly life. Was the human mind conscious that Jesus was God the Son incarnate? Where is the dividing line between the divine mind and human mind? And what does it mean to be divine? Part of the biblical answer is that being divine consists in being the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and self-existent creator of everything that exists. Was the divine mind in full operation or it took a back seat while the human mind was operating?
If the answer would be “both minds were operating simultaneously” then why would Jesus, as God the Son, being omniscient, deny any knowledge of his second coming? (Matthew 24:36 NIV). It would appear then that an all-knowing God lied in front of his disciples while doing a lecture on his second coming. That would make him a pretender and a pathological liar of the highest caliber!
The Bible emphasizes that God is omnipresent or ubiquitous (Psalm 139:8-10). This poses a problem to those who support the idea that Jesus, as a God on earth, exists in heaven as the Second Person of the Trinity due to his being an omnipresent God. How could one reconcile this idea with the biblical teaching that Christ has to ascend to heaven and be seated at the right hand of God if he was there previously? The idea of ascension suggests that he was not there yet prior to his ascension. Another intriguing situation that remains unsolved is the idea that if Jesus had a preexistence before his incarnation and dwelt on earth as both human and divine, how can the one undivided self be at once unlimited (in heaven) and limited (on earth)?
When proponents of the Chalcedonian creed are shown of biblical records that manifest the apparent contradictions of a being who is God and yet lacks the attributes of God, all that they can do is to offer analogies which fail to reach the key issue, and then appeal to mystery. As one Catholic author states:
“The Incarnation, for example, is not understood by any mortal intelligence. The Incarnation means that God became man. How this was accomplished we do not know . . . we believe it . . . not because we understand this mystery . . .” (Scott 1927:10).
Thus even if one were to grant the possibility of God becoming incarnate as a physically human being who is (always or sometimes) conscious of being divine, and thus eternal, omnipotent and omniscient, still this would not be the Jesus of the Bible. If Jesus was a God-Man on earth, how would one reconcile the statements of Christ recorded in the Scriptures that prove his glaring differences with the Father? He emphatically taught that “the Father is greater than I!” (John 14:28). Was he an inferior God compared to the Father when he was here on earth? What becomes of the Catholic doctrine that the Father and the Son are equal if one is greater than the other?
How would one reconcile the divinity of Christ with his prayer in which he didactically emphasize to his disciples that they should recognize his Father in heaven as the only true God (John 17:1-3)? Would a God on earth be praying to another God other than himself? If that was the case, one God would be here on earth and another God was in heaven – the One whom the God-Man was praying to. The truth is, Jesus prayed to God and was conscious that he was doing the will of the Father (Matthew 26:39).
If it is true that God became a man and he retained his divine nature while he was on earth, then why is there a need for him to be “anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and power?” Why would the Scriptures say that “God was with him” if it is true that he was a God on earth? (Acts 10:38).
The Bible does not mention of a divine nature within Christ which comprises the other half of his person. Instead, it emphatically asserts that “God was in Christ” (2nd Corinthians 5:19). Jesus Himself said so on numerous occasions (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21). Apostle Peter echoed the same point when said that “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him” (Acts 10:38). God, who is a separate entity from Christ, is with him by means of the Holy Spirit.
This fact was also clarified by Peter in his sermon during the day of Pentecost, in which he stressed that “Listen to these words, fellow Israelites! Jesus of Nazareth was a man whose divine authority was clearly proven to you by all the miracles and wonders which God performed through him” (Acts 2:22 TEV). Again, it is not the divine nature of Christ that performed the miracles but God himself, an omnipotent being who is distinct from Christ. It was Him who proved the divine authority of Jesus by the miracles that He performed through him.
If the assertion that the Son is one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, then Christ would not have said, “the Father did not leave me alone” (John 8:29). His statement affirms the biblical fact that He and the Father are not of one substance (cf. Luke 24:39). This was reinforced by His admittance that “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Would an intelligent mind accept the concept of hypostatic union and disregards these unequivocal statements of Jesus concerning the true God?
Thus, Chalcedonian Christology is a humanly devised hypothesis, and a defective hypothesis cannot be saved by dubbing it as a divine mystery.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references were taken from the New King James Version.
REFERENCES
Grillmeier Aloys, S.J., Christ in Christian Tradition, Volume 1, Second Revised Edition, translated by John Bowden, John Knox Press, Atlanta (1975)
Hick, John, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Christology in a Pluralistic Age, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky (1993)
Lawler, Ronald, ed., The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, Indiana (1976)
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Scott, Martin J., S.J., Things Catholics Are Asked About, P.J. Kennedy & Sons, New York (1927)
