Wednesday, June 28, 2023

Blake Ostler on Thomas Morris's Defense of Chalcedonian Christology

Thomas Morris has suggested two distinctions which he thinks may allow us to maintain Chalcedon’s two-nature Christology. A review of Morris’s arguments may be instructive because his defense of the traditional two-nature Christology is the most informed and sophisticated in recent scholarship in my opinion. He first points out that there is a difference between a common property of a kind K to be a property that all members of that kind K just happen to accidentally have. We usually think of essential properties of humans as those properties possessed by all humans. Morris suggests, however, that the fact that all humans possess a property does not make it an essential human property. For example, all humans have the common property of having spent some time on the earth; however, it is just possible that a human could be born on a space station and be there until death. This human would not possess the common property “having spent some time on earth” that all other humans possessed up to the point in time it ceased to be a common property. For example, until 1969 all humans possessed the common property of having never set foot on the moon; but all that changed when Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon. Yet Armstrong was still a human, even though he possessed a unique property that no other human had ever possessed—the property of “having walked on the moon.”

 

Morris argues that there is no reason to count as essential human properties any properties common to all humans which are incompatible with divine properties, including omniscience, omnipotence and incorporeality. Morris admits that “if contingency, coming into existence, and possibly ceasing to exist were essential human properties, the doctrine of Incarnation would express a metaphysical, or broadly logical, impossibility.” (The Logic of God Incarnate, 69) Morris argues in particular that there is no reason to think that “being created,” or more accurately “being ontologically contingent,” is an essential property of humans:

 

Only a few contemporary theologians who have written on the topic [of Christology] seem to have recognized that we can understand human nature in such a way that it can be coexemplified with divinity in one and same subject. Herbert McCabe, for one, has said: “A human person just is a person with a human nature, and it makes absolutely no difference to the logical of this whether the same person does or does not exist from eternity as divine.” (Ibid., 65)

 

This admission that humans may be uncreated without violation of the logic of what it means to be human is a remarkable concession for a traditional Christian theologian, for the ontological contingency of human existence is necessarily true (in a sense of the necessity of the consequent) given the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing. But if Christ did not share out ontological status and shared with us only those properties which are not incompatible with the properties possessed by God, it seems that Christ shares precious little in common with us—and Morris doesn’t identify a single essential human property which is compossible with divinity and which Christ shared with us in his entire book! Certainly, if Morris claims that there are such properties, he ought to identify at least some properties corresponding to the set of common properties which he has in mind—but he doesn’t.

 

Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2001), 430-31

Blog Archive