"It is now time to identify the fatal flaw in the Chalcedonian Symbol, or, more broadly, to face the very real difficulties in formulating a theory of the Incarnation that is both Biblical and intelligible. The great defect in the Creed is the absence of definitions. Its bishop-authors did not explain, and probably did not themselves know the meanings of 'rational soul,' 'consubstantial,' 'nature,' 'subsistence,' and above all 'person.' This was said a few pages ago, but it needs constant emphasis.
. . .
Now, the trouble with the Creed is not that it contains an ambiguous word. The trouble is that there are so many of them. If psuches logikes causes minimum difficulty, how shall we translate omoousion, phuseon, the Latin theatrical mask persona, and especially prosopon? Nor is translation the main difficulty. If upostasis or persona means person, we still must form a definition of person. Can one person have two wills and two intellects? Christ is commonly said to have had two wills, though his human will does not make him a person. What in addition to will and intellect is necessary to make a human body a human person? The human 'nature' of Christ is supposed to have lacked an essential characteristic of a person. What was it that he did not have? How can he be true man without being a human person? Merriam Webster defines person as a character in a stage play, a specific kind of individual character, a being characterized by rational apprehension, rationality, and a moral sense, an individual human being. Was Jesus any of these, or none? Is it not plausible that the Church Fathers did not understand what they were saying? Is it not desirable therefore to give some serious attention to the Incarnation? And while not all persons are men, all men are persons." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 15-17
No comments:
Post a Comment