{"id":7544,"date":"2014-12-02T11:54:00","date_gmt":"2014-12-02T11:54:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/12\/02\/are-there-possible-worlds-in-which-the-human-nature-of-christ-exists-unassumed\/"},"modified":"2014-12-02T11:54:00","modified_gmt":"2014-12-02T11:54:00","slug":"are-there-possible-worlds-in-which-the-human-nature-of-christ-exists-unassumed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/12\/02\/are-there-possible-worlds-in-which-the-human-nature-of-christ-exists-unassumed\/","title":{"rendered":"Are There Possible Worlds in which the Human Nature of Christ Exists Unassumed?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This entry continues the conversation with Tim Pawl about Chalcedonian Christology.<\/span><\/p>\n

I set forth<\/a> the following antilogism:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

3. The individual human nature of the Logos is a substance.<\/span>
4. Every substance is metaphysically  capable of independent existence.<\/span>
5. The individual human nature of the Logos is not metaphysically capable of independent existence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I expected Tim to question (4), but he instead questioned (5).  That turned the dialectic away from the general-ontological Aristotelian framework, which I was claiming does not allow the coherent conceivability of the Chalcedonian formulation, toward the exact sense of the Chalcedonian theological doctrine of the Incarnation. <\/span><\/p>\n

As I see it, we are now discussing the following question.  Is it metaphysically possible that the individual human being who is the Son of God — and is thus identical to the Second Person of the Trinity — exist as an individual human being but without being the Son of God?   I thought I was being orthodox in returning a negative answer.  As I understand it, the individual human being who is the Son of God  in the actual world, our world, is the Son of God in every possible world in which he exists.  This is equivalent to saying that Jesus of Nazareth is essentially (as opposed to accidentally) the Son of God.  (X is essentially F =df x is F in every possible world in which x exists.) 
<\/span><\/p>\n

If I understand what Tim Pawl is saying, his view is that there are possible worlds in which Jesus of Nazareth exists but is not the Son of God.  So the issue between us is as follows:
<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

BV: Every metaphysically possible world in which Jesus exists is a world in which he is identical to the Son (the Logos, the Word, the Second Person).<\/span><\/p>\n

TP: Some metaphysically possible worlds in which Jesus exists are worlds in which he is not identical to the Son (the Logos, the Word, the Second Person).
<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In his latest comment<\/a>, Tim writes,<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

I do think that there is a merely possible world in which CHN [Christ's human nature] exists as unassumed. In such a world, it fulfills the conditions for being a supposit. And so it fulfills the conditions for being a supposit with a rational nature. So it is a person in that world, [call it W] even though it is not a person in this world [call it A].<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I am afraid I find this incoherent. If Jesus is (identical to) the Son of God, then Jesus is (identically) the Son of God in every world in which he exists.  To spell out the argument:<\/span><\/p>\n

1. 'Jesus' and 'Son' are Kripkean rigid designators: they designate the same item in every possible world in which that item exists.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Necessity of Identity.  For any x, y, if x = y, then necessarily x = y.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Jesus = Son.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore,<\/span><\/p>\n

4. Necessarily, Jesus = Son. (from 2, 3 by Universal Instantiation and Modus Ponens)<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore,<\/span><\/p>\n

5. It is not possible that Jesus not be identical to the Son. (from 4 by the standard modal principle that Nec p<\/em> is logically equivalent to ~Poss~p<\/em>.)<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Substance, Supposit, Incarnation, Trinity, and the Heresy of Nestorius<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>More on One Person-Two Natures: Response to Timothy Pawl<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Is it Coherently Conceivable that One Person Have Two Natures?<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This entry continues the conversation with Tim Pawl about Chalcedonian Christology. I set forth the following antilogism: 3. The individual human nature of the Logos is a substance.4. Every substance is metaphysically  capable of independent existence.5. The individual human nature of the Logos is not metaphysically capable of independent existence. I expected Tim to question … Continue reading “Are There Possible Worlds in which the Human Nature of Christ Exists Unassumed?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[58,288],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-christian-doctrine","category-trinity-and-incarnation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7544","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7544\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}