107. Logical Fallacies in Understanding the Incarnation

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Sophistical Argument on the Incarnation #

• Premise 1: God became man
• Premise 2: The Holy Spirit is God
• False Conclusion: Therefore, the Holy Spirit became man
• The argument appears valid but leads to theological absurdity

The Fallacy of Accident #

• Not equivocation: The word “God” has the same meaning in both premises (signifying the divine nature)
• The actual fallacy: Confusing what is accidental to the union with what is essential to it
• The divine nature is accidental to the hypostatic union; the person is essential
• If the union were in the shared divine nature, all three persons would be incarnate
• The union occurs in what distinguishes persons (sonship, procession), not in what they share (the divine nature)

Word Meaning vs. Standing For #

• Crucial distinction: What a word means versus what it stands for in a speaker’s utterance
• When we say “God became man,” the word “God” stands for the Son of God
• But “God” does not mean “the Son of God” in its proper signification
• Example: “I am the son of a man” - here “man” stands for one’s particular father, though “man” means a rational animal
• This is distinct from figurative speech but shares the feature that speaker’s meaning and word meaning diverge

Relation to Figurative Speech #

• Irony: “What a fine example of an Assumption College student” (said of a drunk) - speaker means opposite of words
• Metaphor: “You are a pig” - word means four-footed animal, speaker means glutton
• Metonymy: “That place is bad” - word denotes place, speaker means people conducting business there are bad
• All involve divergence between word meaning and speaker’s meaning, but standing for is more subtle and more closely tied to literal truth

The Hypostatic Union #

• Union occurs in the person (hypostasis), not in the nature
• Both the divine and human natures remain distinct and unconfused
• The distinction of persons lies in their relations (paternity, filiation, procession)
• These relations are not shared: only the Son is incarnate because only the Son assumes a human nature
• If union were in the nature, the Father and Holy Spirit would also be incarnate

The Understanding of “God” in Different Contexts #

• The word “God” is taken from the divine nature
• “God” signifies “that which has the divine nature”
• All three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) possess the divine nature
• But when Scripture says the Word became man, it refers to the assumption of humanity by one divine person
• This is why we can say truly that “God became man” without implying that “the Holy Spirit became man”

Key Arguments #

Why The Hypostatic Union Is in the Person, Not Nature #

1. If the union were in the nature itself, then all three persons possessing that nature would be united to it
2. But the Father and Holy Spirit are not incarnate
3. Therefore, the union must be in what distinguishes the persons (their personal properties or relations)
4. The person of the Son, through his personal distinction, assumes a human nature

Why Saying “God Became Man” Is Not Heretical #

1. The divine nature itself did not become human
2. But the divine person (the Son) united himself to human nature in his person
3. Because this person is God (possesses the divine nature), it is appropriate to say “God became man”
4. This does not mean the Holy Spirit or Father became man, since they did not assume a human nature

Important Definitions #

Hypostatic Union (ἡ ὑποστατικὴ ἕνωσις) #

• The union of the divine nature with human nature in the one person of Christ
• The union is not a mingling or transformation of natures
• The union is specifically in the hypostasis (the individual subsisting being), not in the essence or nature
• This preserves both the divinity and humanity as complete and unconfused

Standing For (Suppositio) #

• A word stands for (supponit pro) something when it functions to refer to that thing in a particular utterance
• What a word stands for in a speaker’s meaning may differ from what the word properly signifies
• Example: “I am the son of a man” - “man” stands for Reno Victor Berquist (a particular individual), though “man” signifies the rational animal nature
• This is not the same as figurative speech, though both involve a divergence between speaker’s meaning and word meaning

Fallacy of Accident (Fallacia Accidentis) #

• Aristotle identifies this as the first fallacy outside of speech in his logic
• It occurs when one confuses what is accidental (not essential) to something with what is essential
• In the Incarnation argument: the divine nature is accidental to the hypostatic union (not essential to it); the person is essential
• Because the union is in the person alone, one cannot transfer properties of the shared nature to all sharers of that nature

Examples & Illustrations #

The Sophistical Square Argument #

• “A square is an equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral” (definition)
• “An equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral is a definition of a square” (true)
• “Therefore, a square is a definition of a square” (false)
• Error: Confusing “man as known distinctly” with “man simply”
• This is the fallacy of simply and in some respect (simpliciter et secundum quid)

The Man/Animal Definition Argument #

• “Man is an animal that has reason” (definition)
• “An animal that has reason is the definition of man” (true)
• “Therefore, man is the definition of man” (false confusion)
• The definition is man as known distinctly in science, not man simply

Personal Relationships and Standing For #

• “I am the son of a man” - “man” stands for one’s biological father
• “I am the father of a man” - “man” stands for one’s son
• In both cases, “man” stands for a particular person, though “man” means the human species
• This parallels how “God” stands for the Son of God when we say “God became man,” though “God” means the divine nature

Notable Quotes #

“God became man so that man might become God.” - Augustine

(Berquist notes the subtlety: Christ truly became God, and through His becoming God, we partake of the divine. This is more subtle than initially understood.)

“Son is not the one of whom he is a Son, right? So if he’s the Son of God, then he’s not God, right? The Jews are right. So here we’re denying the Trinity.” - Berquist (illustrating the sophistical argument)

Questions Addressed #

Why doesn’t the Incarnation of the Son entail the Incarnation of the Father and Holy Spirit? #

• Because the union occurs in the person, not in the nature
• All three share the divine nature, but they do not share their personal distinctions
• Only the Son, through His personal distinction, assumes human nature
• The Father and Holy Spirit remain unincarnate because they do not undergo this personal assumption

How can we say “God became man” if God is immutable and cannot suffer? #

• The word “God” stands for the Son in this context
• The Son, as a divine person, assumed a human nature capable of suffering
• God did not become man in His divine nature (which remains immutable)
• But the divine person underwent the Incarnation in His humanity
• Suffering occurred in the assumed human nature, not in the divine nature

What is the difference between equivocation and this type of argument? #

• Equivocation: The same word has different meanings in different premises (e.g., “bank” meaning riverbank vs. financial institution)
• This argument: The word “God” has the same meaning in both premises but stands for different persons in each
• The error is the fallacy of accident, not equivocation
• The word meaning remains stable while what it stands for shifts

Why is understanding the distinction between meaning and standing-for important? #

• It prevents the sophist from forcing one into false conclusions
• It clarifies how we can speak truly about the Incarnation without contradiction
• It shows that the meaning of a word and what it stands for in a speaker’s utterance need not be identical
• This subtle distinction applies throughout theology, particularly with the Son of God, the Spirit of God, etc.

Methodological Notes #

Why This Matters for Theology #

• Berquist emphasizes that understanding these logical distinctions is not pedantic
• “If you don’t know the kinds of mistakes there are, you know…that’s what I’m kind of struck with modern philosophy never really seem to be aware of the mistakes you know very much kinds of mistakes”
• Avoiding heretical conclusions about the Trinity and Incarnation requires grasping these distinctions
• Theology requires logical rigor to defend the faith against both heretics and those using sophistical arguments

The Role of Philosophy in Theology #

• Even the good thinker must know bad arguments to avoid them
• Augustine apparently held that the main value of logic is in understanding mistakes and errors
• “The bad must be known to be avoided”
• Understanding sophistical arguments is essential preparation for understanding the Passion of Christ