THE FALLACY & INEPTITUDE
OF THE DOCTRINE OF
THE DUAL NATURE OF CHRIST
PART 1 OF 3:
What follows are extracts from the writings of mostly 19th century ONE-GOD believers; which adequately point out the erroneous conclusions of
the so-called doctrine of the dual nature of Christ
or the Hypostatic Union.
We begin with Frederick A. Farley taken from his book,
The Scripture Doctrine of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, 1873.
- FREDERICK A FARLEY :-
I FIND myself unexpectedly, and before entering on the main theme of my present Lecture, obliged [1] to turn aside for a moment, and consider another. It is one on which I had deemed it scarcely necessary to spend breath, namely, the Doctrine, as it is theologically called, of the Double Nature of Christ, or the Hypostatic Union.
The argument from Scripture is very limited. ... in the Epistle to the Romans. In the first chapter [2] St. Paul has these words: "His Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God, with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." In the ninth chapter: [3] "I could wish myself accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsman according to the flesh. . . . Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." ....
Now remember, that the allegation of our Trinitarian brethren is, that Christ had two distinct and complete natures, Divine and Human; in the one he was God, in the other, Man.
The question before us now, therefore, is, whether these passages sustain the allegation? It is made a question, bear in mind, as to nature; and because St. Paul, in the first, uses both the expressions, "according to the flesh," and "according to the spirit of holiness," with reference to our Lord—the one as being "of the seed of David," the other as being "the Son of God with power"—here is proof, it is said, of his possessing two natures.
But turn to the second passage. There you find the Apostle using the same phrase, "according to the flesh," in regard to himself, in its obvious sense, without the least reference to any peculiarity of nature, which, of course, in his case, will not be pretended; but simply to the matter of descent from the common stock of all Israelites, by virtue of which he shared with them "the promises." Why not, then, to Jesus, who, by universal consent, was "of the seed of David," and therefore of "the fathers," the patriarchs and founders of the nation; "of whom, as concerning" (the phrase in the Greek is the same, according to) "the flesh," i.e. by natural descent, he "came," and in correspondence with prophecy, must have come?
There is no reasonable pretence for understanding the phrase rendered "according to the flesh," and which is of frequent and invariable use elsewhere by St. Paul in his Epistles, [4] with reference to natural descent, in any other sense in either passage. It cannot be interpreted with reference to his human, in contradistinction from his divine nature, except to make out a case to support this mere hypothesis.
Paul declares, that he "had been called to his Apostleship, to preach the Gospel of God, concerning his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, (how carefully he distinguishes them!) who, he says, by natural or lineal descent, was of the house of David; but by the Holy Spirit was demonstrated to be the Son of God, with power, by his Resurrection from the dead." [5] Thus I paraphrase the first passage, to show its true meaning.
The other argument is drawn from the alleged necessity of the case. Christ is sometimes called God, and sometimes Man. This must be explained. Here is a mystery, and it must be solved From this supposed necessity springs the hypothesis of the Double Nature of Christ. "This," says Wardlaw, [6] "is the key which fits all the wards of this intricate lock, turning among them with hardly a touch of interruption, catching its bolts, and laying open to us, in the easiest and completes! manner the treasures of Divine Truth."
To this I simply answer, that we do not find the lock, and therefore we do not want the key; or the mystery, and therefore we do not want the key; or the mystery, and therefore we do not want the solution.
To us no such necessity, as is alleged, exists. The hypothesis is entirely uncalled for. Nothing is plainer than that there is not the remotest hint of any such thing, as a twofold nature in Christ, in all his recorded words, or in the writing of his Apostles; though it is hardly possible that they should have been silent on so grave a point, had there been in it any reality. Regarding it then as the merest hypothesis, for that is all it is, we object, aside of its superfluity, that its admission makes difficulty where there is none; renders vague or obscure the plainest and most explicit language of Scripture. It demands on its face the surrender of reason, and involves positive absurdity.
Divine and human qualities, as the essence of being, cannot co-exist in the same person. God is infinite, man is finite, and no being can be at once and essentially finite and infinite. [7] It stops inquiry by its plea of mystery; and drives us, would we believe it, to the old position of Tertullian: Credo quia impossibile est, (I believe because it is impossible.)
It destroys Christ's unity, and makes him two distinct and opposite beings. That Christ is both God and man, is a proposition plain enough in its statement; but the two predicates are incompatible. But a graver objection is, that in effect it charges our Lord with duplicity.
When he declared on one occasion: "Of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father"[8]—what more precise and significant words could he have used, to show that he laid no claim to omniscience, that attribute essential to Deity, without which no being could be God? If there was any one thing of which our Lord was ignorant, he could not be God. And how should we have understood him, had we been present—how did the Apostles, how did the multitude who were present, understand him at the time? They must have understood him as we do, to have made a positive, express declaration, that "of that day and hour" he had no knowledge;[9] and therefore to suppose that he made a mental reservation, as to his divine knowledge, while he declared only his human want of it, is to charge him with duplicity, with double-dealing, with deceit.
Hence we object, again, that it lessens the force of his example. Surely the least imputation to Christ, if there be reason for it, of any such quality as deceit, must have that effect. But on this hypothesis, what mean all his declarations of dependence on God?
"Of mine own self I can do nothing; as I hear I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me;" just as he had before said: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do."[10]—What mean his expressions of trust in God? To Pilate's haughty menace he replied, "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above;" and in that most solemn hour when he was drawing his last breath upon the cross, he said: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit!"[11] To whom were these words addressed? To whom was he accustomed to pray? To one part of his nature—to himself—to a part of himself? What mockery all this seems!
Finally, this hypothesis conflicts with all just principles of interpretation. "It is reasonable to expect, that those doctrines which form the leading articles of any system," says Dr. Wardlaw,[12] "should be plainly stated in the book which professes to make that system known." Apply this test to the doctrine—for sheer hypothesis as it is, it is alleged to be not only one but a "leading article" of Christianity—to the doctrine, then, of the two natures in Christ; and who will pretend that it is "plainly stated" in Scripture? But, for the obvious principle that Scripture is to be interpreted like any other book, we have the high orthodox authority of Prof. Stuart, and of other orthodox critics of equal eminence with him.
"If there be," he says, "any book on earth that is addressed to the reason and common sense of mankind, the Bible is preeminently that book. ..... If the Bible is not a Book which is intelligible in the same way as other books are, then it is difficult to see how it is a revelation ..... the Bible is addressed to our reason and understanding and moral feelings; and consequently we are to interpret it in such a way as we do any other book that is addressed to these same faculties."[13]
These principles and the rule they involve, are inevitably violated by this hypothesis. By its admission, the Bible cannot be interpreted like other books. Plain language in other books is taken in its plain significance; but here the plainest becomes a riddle.
When our Lord says, "My Father is greater than I," he meant only that his divine nature was greater than his human nature! But who can prove that he so meant? Neither he nor his disciples, give the slightest reason to suppose that he or they meant any thing but what their words obviously mean. Besides, we cannot tell when to apply the hypothesis. We are all in the dark; and the Scripture may be made to mean by it the most contradictory things. Whatever Christ said or did may thus be done away, and the entire New Testament become a mass of enigma.
- FOOTNOTES:
[1] By a respectful letter of inquiry received after delivery of the last Lecture.
[2] verses 3, 4.
[3] verses 3, 5.
[4] E.g. 1 Cor 10:18.
[5] With St. Paul, the Resurrection of Christ was the final, crowning proof of his Sonship and Messiahship. Acts 13:34-37, 17.31; Rom. 6.4, 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:15, etc.
Paul is always careful to attribute it to the "power" of God, to the act of God himself, and not to any independent power in our Lord.
[6] Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, p 44, American edition.
[7] "As before, of the doctrine of the Trinity, so now of the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, as it is called, I ask for a single hint throughout the New Testament of the inconceivable fact that, in the body of Jesus, resided the mind of God and the mind of man—two natures, the one finite, the other infinite, yet making but one person—a difficulty you will perceive the very opposite of that of the Trinity, for whereas that teaches three persons in one nature, this teaches two natures in one person "—Rev J H ThoM, Liv. Lect. 7th Unitarian Lee p. 72.
[8] Matt 13:32.
[9] The force of our position cannot however be evaded in this case by the hypothesis in question, for our Lord's words are too comprehensive. "No man," as I have already elsewhere observed, excludes his own "human nature," "neither the Son," his divine nature: for "the Son" is alleged to denote God the Son, or specifically the divine nature of Chnst, in virtue of whIch he is God.
[10] John 5:19,30.
[11] John 19:11, Luke 23:46.
[12] Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, p. 223.
[13] Biblical Repository, vol 2. pp. 129, 130.
