~ from email ~

When we construct the formulation of a biblical doctrine, we are not attempting to “make it work.” The doctrine works no matter what we do. It works because it comes from God and because it describes God. It works because it is true. It is what it is, and it is true regardless of whether we can come up with a proper formulation for it. The purpose of theological formulation is to find a way to communicate the doctrine. At no point is the Scripture itself at risk, because its truth does not depend on our formulation. Of course, a heretical formulation endangers its adherents, but the Scripture itself can never suffer damage.

Person

Christ is one “person.” He is never said or implied to be a “they,” and he is never portrayed as one person communicating with another person. There is no instance in which Christ the man prays to God the Son, or anything like this. Based on the way that he is referred to, the way that he refers to himself, and the way that he behaves, there is no reason to think that he is not one person.

We add to this “one person” premise the idea that Christ must have two natures, one human and one divine, and then the idea that each nature must include a “mind” that accords with such a nature, one human mind and one divine mind. But on top of all this, if we add the idea that a mind or center of consciousness is necessarily a “person” in itself, we would end up with two persons. However, there is a formulation that retains the view that Christ is one person, with two centers of consciousness. As indicated, the need to arrive at this formulation is not arbitrary, but necessitated by the biblical data.

This formulation begins with the definition that a “person” is a “system” of consciousness, not a “center” of consciousness. Each system can either contain only one center of consciousness or multiple centers of consciousness. At the incarnation, God the Son took up a human mind in such a manner that the human mind is contained by the divine mind, but not mingled or confused with it. The divine mind would have access to and control over the human mind, but not vice versa. Since there is nothing inherently impossible about this, and if it accommodates the biblical data, this would make it a good formulation.

Analogy

Let us consider an analogy. We caution that the analogy is limited, appropriate only for a narrow purpose, and grossly misleading when taken out of context, because it refers to a condition that is a mental dysfunction in humans, and there is no dysfunction in Christ. That said, consider the case of multiple personality disorder in a human person. There are indeed multiple centers of consciousness, but it is still one person. The analogy is especially fitting if there is in fact an overarching or prime personality.

My mind “contains” memories of my childhood, among other things, but only one center of consciousness. My mind can “contain” a whole other center of consciousness, with its own memories, and in man this would be a mental dysfunction. The original center of consciousness is the prime figure. What is “contained” is dependent on what contains it, not vice versa.

Christ has a human mind that is contained by the divine mind, the Logos. There is no dysfunction, because the analogy breaks down at this point to such an extent that the two cases become categorically divergent. The prime personality in Christ is the divine mind, and unlike the prime personality in man, this prime personality is God – perfect in power and intelligence. God the Son, the divine mind, in full control and with full awareness – there is no dysfunction – took up a human center of consciousness, without mixing or confusing with it, but containing it in a way that Christ in his incarnate form can say “I” and fully refer to either or both.

This formulation enables us to affirm that Christ has a human mind and a divine mind, two centers of consciousness, that the two minds are neither mingled nor confused, and that he remains one person.

System

We can return to the case of a man with multiple personalities to illustrate why it makes sense to define a person as a mental system. He has more than one center of consciousness, but he is still one person, because the multiple centers of consciousness come under one overarching one. (We are speaking relatively, because the only reason that counts is that God regards him as one person, and saves or damns him as one person.) The personalities do not exist independently, and they could be destroyed without killing the man and without erasing the prime personality, and so his personalities should be taken as a whole — thus a “system.”

The Trinity is not this way, since the members of the Trinity could be and must be distinguished in a different way than multiple personalities within one human person. The three are presumably not dependent on one another in the way that the secondary personalities of a person with multiple personalities would depend on the original personality.

There are three systems working in unison, each possessing the fullness of deity. Each of these systems presumably has only one personality. God the Son took up a human center of consciousness, but without it confusing or mingling with the divine consciousness. So in the Trinity as such, there remains only three centers of consciousness, since the human nature of Christ was never deified.

In this way, the definition of a person as a system at the same time accommodates the nature of the Trinity and the nature of Christ — one essence, three persons, even though the person of the Son has both a divine nature and a human nature.