{"id":7589,"date":"2014-11-11T12:42:43","date_gmt":"2014-11-11T12:42:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/11\/11\/is-it-coherently-conceivable-that-one-substance-have-two-natures\/"},"modified":"2014-11-11T12:42:43","modified_gmt":"2014-11-11T12:42:43","slug":"is-it-coherently-conceivable-that-one-substance-have-two-natures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/11\/11\/is-it-coherently-conceivable-that-one-substance-have-two-natures\/","title":{"rendered":"Is it Coherently Conceivable that One Person Have Two Natures?"},"content":{"rendered":"

For Shaun Deegan, who 'inspired' a sloppy prototype of the following argument hashed out over Sunday breakfast at a Mesa, Arizona hash house.<\/span><\/p>\n

…………….<\/span><\/p>\n

The Question<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

More precisely:  is it coherently conceivable that one person, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word of God, the Logos, have both an individual divine nature and an individual human nature?  (A person, as per Boethius, is an individual substance of a rational nature.)<\/span><\/p>\n

This is not the same as the question: Is the Incarnation coherently conceivable?  For my concern is whether the Incarnation is coherently conceivable within a broadly Aristotelian ontological framework<\/em>.  My answer:  I don't think so.  My answer leaves open the question whether the Incarnation is coherently conceivable within some other ontological framework.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Argument<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

1. If N is a nature of substance s, then s cannot exist without having N.  Natures are essential to the things that have them.  In possible worlds jargon: If N is a nature of s, then in every possible world in which s exists, s has N.  (The modality in play here is broadly logical or metaphysical.)<\/span><\/p>\n

2. The Logos L is a necessary being:  L exists in every possible world.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. The Logos has the individual divine nature DN.<\/span><\/p>\n

4. The Logos has the individual divine nature in every possible world. (from 1, 2, 3)<\/span><\/p>\n

5. The Logos has the individual human nature HN.<\/span><\/p>\n

6. The Logos has the individual human nature HN in every possible world. (from 1, 2, 5)<\/span><\/p>\n

7. The individual human nature HN exists in every possible world. (from 6)<\/span><\/p>\n

8. No individual human nature exists in every possible world.<\/span><\/p>\n

9. (7) and (8) are logical contradictories.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum<\/em>,
<\/span><\/p>\n

10.  One of the premises is false.<\/span><\/p>\n

But which one?  Let's examine the premises.  No classical Trinitarian theist could reject (2) or (3).  And no believer in the Incarnation could reject (5).  No classical theist could reject (8) given that God might have refrained from creating a natural universe with human beings.  So it seems that someone who adheres to each of these theological commitments must reject (1), which is a plank in the Aristotelian platform.<\/span><\/p>\n

Or, if you adhere to Aristotelian principles, it seems you must abandon the orthodox Chalcedonian line on the Incarnation.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Substance, Supposit, Incarnation, Trinity, and the Heresy of Nestorius<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For Shaun Deegan, who 'inspired' a sloppy prototype of the following argument hashed out over Sunday breakfast at a Mesa, Arizona hash house. ……………. The Question More precisely:  is it coherently conceivable that one person, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word of God, the Logos, have both an individual divine nature and an … Continue reading “Is it Coherently Conceivable that One Person Have Two Natures?”<\/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":[22,58,288],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aristotle","category-christian-doctrine","category-trinity-and-incarnation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7589","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=7589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}