MorleyMcMorson

  • ***
  • 2603 Posts
    • View Profile
Relating the trinity and incarnation
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2012, 01:09:55 pm »
Jmac wrote:
Quote from: MorleyMcMorson
The tricky part is the "if Jesus was fully human" part. Jesus is the name of a person, which Craig (if I am interpreting him correctly) would identify as a center of self-consciousness. And Craig would further point out that a center of self-consciousness is not equivalent to a soul (on his view). The significance of this being, "Jesus was fully human" doesn't seem to be an identity statement. So the reasoning that humans are identical with souls, Jesus is human, therefore Jesus is a soul, wouldn't follow given Craig's assumptions.

I'm not sure about all this.  I want to say that Craig says conflicting things on this count, although I have no quotes handy right now.  I would be interested to know, however, how Craig (if he thinks what you describe) differentiates a "center of self-consciousness" from a soul.  What more does a soul provide, basically.

I have wondered the same thing. It's hard to see how "soul" is anything more than just a word on his model. However, one possibility is that, by "center of self-consciousness" Craig does not mean to refer to a substance but the set of cognitive faculties (volition, intellect, etc.) that any person has, and that the soul is the actual mental/immaterial substance in which those faculties consist. Or, again, it is possible that each divine person has/is it's own soul, necessarily united, and Craig simply refers to the united whole as a single soul. But this would bring his view closer to that of Swinburne's and Yandell's.

Oddly enough, viewing mind and soul as separate entities might challenge God's aseity in the sense that God's three centers of consciousness would be made of a substance which isn't strictly identical with the persons themselves.  This would be a great thing to talk about with Craig in person.
"We have no past, we won't reach back..."
-Ardent A-theorist Cyndi Lauper in her song "All Through the Night", singing about the impossibility of time travel on her presentist metaphysic.

1

Jmac

  • **
  • 50 Posts
    • View Profile
Relating the trinity and incarnation
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2012, 04:33:48 pm »
MorleyMcMorson wrote:
Oddly enough, viewing mind and soul as separate entities might challenge God's aseity in the sense that God's three centers of consciousness would be made of a substance which isn't strictly identical with the persons themselves.  This would be a great thing to talk about with Craig in person.

Yeah, there are a lot of things that I would like to talk to him about if I ever have the opportunity.

2

pdstor

  • *
  • 1 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Relating the trinity and incarnation
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2012, 09:38:18 pm »
Old post, but IMO worth chiming in. I haven't had the chance to read Philosophical Foundations yet, so I'm assuming what you're saying is an accurate representation and I'd invite any answers Dr. Craig has already made to my challenges that follow.


The doctrine that man is made in the image of God does not mean that we have a bipedal mostly symmetrical tangible body; rather, like God, we are personal.


Since Craig correctly assumes Christ is the Person of the Logos, and not a human person, then it follows that the humanity of Christ isn't in the image of God like is ours. Christ, then, is unlike us in our humanity and is thus insufficient for our salvation; it follows that this is formally a heretical modeling even in His subsisting reality.

Quote
Since the divine Logos is already a person when he came down and took on flesh (read Philippians Chapter 2:5-11) he brought to it all that was necessary for a complete human nature. The divine Logos wasn't "fully human" before the incarnation but rather possessed all the attributes, minus corporeality, essential to being human; of course he was much more than what is necessary to be human.

The last point is not relevant to what is needed in the Incarnation. What is needed is that in the Reality of Christ is One who is fully God and fully human. If we have {Divine}U{Human Body} then that is simply all you have. Effectively, God wasn't birthed into the world fully human, but merely animated a stillbirth. Yet this Christ still is *functionally* all human and all divine and that's supposed to be fine and dandy for our salvation. This is why I just *can't* accept Nominalism as a Christian.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure how Christ was even functionally fully human. If part of the Divine is also human and the Divine gives this piece to Christ's body to grant full humanity then Christ is not fully Divine. On the other hand, if the Divine supplied the missing piece in the sense of a human subset of the Divine that the Divinity shares with the Humanity, say, then Christ is *not* human in any independent sense. He's Frankenstein's Monster!

Quote
In response to 2: Jesus isn't part of the Trinity in that he is 1/3 of the Trinity. In trying to respond I am re-reading parts of Ch. 30 of Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Dr. Craig & Moreland). In it they state on pg. 608 that the Son--divine Logos--IS the soul of Jesus.

What do they mean by soul? Are they taking it to be the animating principle? This would mean everything Christ did, and that everything Christ willed, was fully and completely divine even if it looked human. Again, Christ has no real human presence, but is merely a hunk of meat puppeteered by what is consubstantial to humanity in the Logos.

When Christ willed the Father to pass the Cup from him at Gethsemane, did the Divine Son no longer want the job? What happens when He says "not My will, but Thy will be done"? Since He said that much earlier in His career as well (as recorded in John), does that mean He was there against His will the whole time and griping about it ("Hey you ingrates, it's not like I really wanna be here, Dad is making Me do this!") and only finally submits at the end of the prayer in Gethsemane?