2

In normal logic we can say "All odd numbers are numbers." But we cannot say "All numbers are odd numbers." The reason is explained here.

However, we can say "Zero is none" or "None is zero".

According to trinitarian theology, "the second person of the triune god- God the Son" is fully God. The Chalcedonian Creed says:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this says "God the Son" is 100% God.

According to the Chalcedonian Creed, is God fully "God the Son"?

  • 2
    The Son is “consubstantial” with the Father. The Greek word for consubstantial is homoousios: homo means “same,” “identical,” and ousios means “essence of the substance” or “element.” This means that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three persons, but instead of having three identical essences, They have the same one essence. – pehkay Oct 12 '16 at 12:57
  • @anonymouswho It's correct to say that Jesus is 100% God, but not 100% of God, or that God is 100% Jesus. "Is" does not mean "equivalent" in these sentences. But a longer explanation will have to wait for the question to be reopened. – curiousdannii Oct 12 '16 at 13:03
  • @curiousdannii I'll wait for a full answer. Thanks for fixing my question. – Cannabijoy Oct 12 '16 at 15:25
  • @penkay What is the difference between "person" and "essence (the intrinsic nature) of the substance (a thing)"? Also what is the difference between "God" and "Person"? Also, what is the difference between "God" and "essence of the substance"? – Cannabijoy Oct 13 '16 at 17:29
  • @anonymouswho As for person, essence, nature, substance, and all that: it depends who you ask. If you ask an Aristotelian (like me), essence, nature, and substance are all synonyms, and they all mean primarily individual, concrete beings with a separate existence. (They can mean secondarily, the kind of thing: the genus or species of something.) If you ask a Platonist, he will likely reverse that priority. “Person,” however, always refers to an individual substance (in this case, one capable of true intellectual knowledge, like men and angels). – AthanasiusOfAlex Oct 15 '16 at 17:47
1

The short answer is that, yes, Jesus, the Divine Son, is 100% God (and also 100% man), provided we understand that God does not have “parts” and so could percentages could never be properly attributed to Him.

As the O.P. correctly intuits, the root of the answer lies in the distinction between person and nature.

First of all, it is important to state from the beginning that when we speak about God theologically, we need to be extremely careful not to extrapolate notions that only apply to creatures.

For example, God is utterly simple; He does not have “parts.” (At least, that is the consensus of practically all the Church Fathers, and I think it can be convincingly demonstrated philosophically; such an answer would belong to a different question, however). It is a mistake, therefore, to attribute “percentages” to Him, as if He could be some way be “distributed;” He cannot.

As I mentioned in my answer to the O.P.’s question about the distinction between nature and person, “nature” (or “substance” or “essence”) answers the question, “What is it?” whereas “person” always answers the question “Who?” A person, moreover, is always the subject from which actions originate.

(For example, it is not my arm that pitches the baseball; it is I who pitch the baseball with my arm. It is not my intellect that knows; it is I who know through my intellect. Similarly, the subject of God’s actions are always the Persons.)

Let us analyze the Chalcedonian affirmation “Jesus is fully God and fully man” (in more technical terms: Jesus has the complete Divine Nature and a complete human nature).

In this affirmation, the subject Jesus answers the question Who?—hence it refers to the Person of Jesus. The predicates “God” and “man” answer the question “What?”—in other words, they tell us what are the two natures (or substances, in the universal sense) of Christ.

Now, the Person of Jesus is precisely the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, as was affirmed by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553:

there is but one hypostasis [i.e., person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity (Denzinger-Hünnermann, 424).

As I also mentioned in my other answer, each Person of the Holy Trinity is perfectly identical to the Divine Nature (indeed, to the very same Divine Nature, which is undivided and indivisible).

In this sense, it is fairly evident that Jesus (the Divine Son) must be fully God.

So, yes, God the Son is—if you will—100% God. (And so is God the Father, and so is God the Holy Spirit).

This is precisely the meaning of the key affirmation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which affirms that the Son is “consubstantial with the Father” (homoousios tou Patros).*


* The definition mentioned by the O.P. is actually referring to the Incarnation: Jesus, the Son, also assumed a complete human nature at the Incarnation—which makes him fully man. (The union of two natures in a single, undivided Person—also called Hypostasis—we call the Hypostatic Union.)

It should be, however, is that Jesus’ Divine Nature is identical to his human nature. They could not possibly be identical, since the Divine Nature is utterly unique, and cannot be mixed with created natures.

(That is precisely the sense of the famous phrase, quoted by the O.P., that Christ has two natures that are united “inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably” in one Person.)

  • Thank you for the answer. I'm not sure this answers the question. I'm not asking if God is 100% human. I'm asking if God is 100% "the second person of the triune god". Do you mind if I edit my question to reflect this, or would it be better to post a separate question? – Cannabijoy Oct 16 '16 at 15:31
  • @anonymouswho Yes, go head and edit the question, if that is what you originally meant. However, I did answer that question too: each Person (the Son included) is perfectly identical with the Divine Substance—or, if you like, the Son is 100% God and vice versa. (And, naturally, the same holds true for all three Persons.) What threw me off is that you quoted from the definition of Chalcedon, which deals primarily with the Christological issue of the relationship of the Person of the Son with Jesus’ human nature. – AthanasiusOfAlex Oct 17 '16 at 18:50
  • @anonymouswho I will edit my answer once you have edited your question. – AthanasiusOfAlex Oct 17 '16 at 18:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.