Can Classical Theism Make Sense of the Hypostatic Union?

Parker's Pensées Podcast ep. 201 w/ Dr. Steven Duby

In this episode of the podcast, I’m joined by Dr. Steven Duby of Phoenix Seminary to discuss his new book, Jesus and the God of Classical Theism: Biblical Christology in Light of the Doctrine of God. Give it a listen:

We start the episode with a bit about Dr. Duby’s journey into and through academic theology then get into the role of philosophy in theology. Duby claims that the use of philosophy in theology is twofold, 1. theology uses philosophical concepts common to all people in our ‘natural human knowledge of reality’, including such things as the law of non-contradiction (sorry Jc Beall) and 2. theology utilizes specific philosophical concepts for systematizing and clarifying God’s revelation. For instance, philosophical discussions of personhood are beneficial for fleshing out the doctrine of the Trinity (3 persons, 1 essence?), the hypostatic union (1 person, two natures?), and the imago dei (how do human persons image God?). Theologians throughout the years have not just appropriated these types of philosophical concepts, but have themselves been active members in the discussions. It’d be cool to see philosopher-theologians enter back into these philosophical discussions in greater numbers.

Dr. Duby and I also spend some time discussing the nature and role of mystery in theology. We both agree that theologians ought not punt to mystery too soon but that ultimately, when talking about God, we’re going to bump into mystery at many, if not all points. Many of my philosopher friends, especially those of the neoclassical persuasion, are uncomfortable with the mystery card and anything approaching analogical predication. Others downright hate the notions. I think they need to chill a bit on their disdain for mystery. The doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God is a well established Christian doctrine which teaches that God is truly knowable but not fully comprehendible to anyone other than Himself, i.e., creatures can’t fully comprehend the Creator. For an excellent treatment of the Creator-creature distinction, incomprehensibility, and warranted belief in the apparent contradictions which follow, grab James Anderson’s Paradox in Christian Theology from this affiliate link to support my pod.

We continue on to discuss divine aseity, that God is of Himself and dependent on nothing outside of himself and divine simplicity, that God is not composed of any parts. There’s an ongoing debate as to whether or not simplicity is compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Upon first glance, it seems like if God has no composition in His being, then there’s no way to account for the distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, if God is simple, how can it be that only the Son takes on a human nature and not the Father and Spirit as well? These are live questions for me still. I know classical theologians will argue that simplicity bolsters the doctrine of the Trinity and staves off modalism but I really feel the force of neoclassical critiques. Furthermore, I really just think that being a person needs to have a unique center of consciousness contra the classical idea that the persons of the Trinity are internal relations. Though I appreciate Christian confessions, I’m not confessional myself, which is a benefit when considering the doctrine of simplicity because I’m not beholden to believe one way or the other. As of right now, I’m not sure whether or not simplicity is a boon or a bust for Christian theology

Dr. Duby and I finish with a discussion of Jesus Christ’s ability to perform miracles. Did Christ act out of his divine nature to perform his miracles? Did he rely solely on the power of the Holy Spirit to perform them? Some mixture of the HS and his own divine nature? Does the question even make sense on a classical theistic account where the external operations of the Trinity are unified?

Check out the episode for Duby’s answers to these questions and more.

I’m still not sure where I’m at on the Classical Theism debate. The historical theologian in me wants to affirm what I can of CT for the sake of historical orthodoxy. The philosopher in me wants to poke holes in divine simplicity and put pressure on the mystery card played by the classical folks. I’m hoping that the classical and neoclassical folks can come together for better conversations in the future; I see a lot of arrogance on both sides if I’m honest and not a whole ton of seeking to understand the opposition’s motives for holding their positions. Steven Duby is a breath of fresh air in this conversation, even if he does trigger the neoclassical folks here.

If you listen to my podcast, then you’ll know, I pretty much think the authorial analogy for the God-world relation solves everything. I think it can definitely help here too. But more on that at another time.

Thanks for reading, please check out the episode for more and if you like what I’m doing, then consider becoming a Patreon patron here: Parker's Pensées Patreon