Skip to content

F4 reasoning: One person, God and man

Reasoning steps: One person, God and man

Verdicts: F4 · One person, God and man. Shared notes and post-750 development: christology.

F04.1 (was christology/X1): One person, truly God and truly man

Step F04.1.1: Scripture

John 1:14 (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο); Phil 2:6–7 (in the form of God, took the form of a servant); Col 2:9 (all the fullness of deity bodily); Heb 2:17 and 4:15 (made like his brothers in every respect, without sin). One subject is both God and man throughout.

Step F04.1.2: Patristic evidence

Ignatius (T1): ‘God existing in flesh … both of Mary and of God’. Gregory: ’that which He has not assumed He has not healed’. Ephesus: Emmanuel ‘very God’, Mary Θεοτόκος. Chalcedon: ‘in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably’. Severus (T4): ‘one nature of God the Word incarnate’, from Cyril, and he rejects Leo’s Tome as ‘impious’. Sources: ignatius-chr-s1 · gregory-nazianzen-chr-s1 · ephesus-chr-s1 · chalcedon-chr-s1 · severus-of-antioch-chr-s1.

Step F04.1.3: Weighing decision

On the substance (one subject, full deity, full humanity, no mixture) the witness is unanimous from T1. On the formula it splits after 451: Chalcedon’s ‘in two natures’ vs the Cyrilline ‘one incarnate nature’ kept by Severus. Both sides confess full deity and full humanity, so both are scored as close on substance; a Christ whose flesh is not taken from Mary falls outside both (Chalcedon rejects ‘heavenly or some substance other than that which was taken of us’).

  • Confidence: High (substance); medium (which formula).

Step F04.1.4: Source-proximity weighing

  • Scripture (benchmark): One subject is truly God (John 1:1; Col 2:9) and truly man, like us in every respect except sin (Heb 2:17; 4:15). Scripture does not settle the later nature-terminology. (Scripture confidence: high)
  • Assessment: T1 Ignatius and Scripture fix the substance. The terminology dispute is T3–T4 and has no biblical decision. Menno Simons’s ‘celestial flesh’ (Christ generated ‘in Mary’, not of her substance) lacks early and biblical support, though Menno affirms true humanity.

F04.2: Is Mary rightly called Mother of God (Θεοτόκος)?

Step F04.2.1: Scripture

Luke 1:43 (’the mother of my Lord’); Gal 4:4 (‘born of woman’); John 1:14. The one born of Mary is the eternal Son, so what is born is not a mere man.

Step F04.2.2: Patristic evidence

Ephesus (431), Cyril’s second letter: the fathers ‘ventured to call the Holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word … had its beginning from the Holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born’. Sources: ephesus-f04x-s1.

Step F04.2.3: Weighing decision

The title protects the unity of Christ’s person (F04.1). Received by all Chalcedonian and Oriental churches. Verdict: consensus from Era III.

  • Confidence: High.

Step F04.2.4: Source-proximity weighing

  • Scripture (benchmark): Elizabeth calls Mary ’the mother of my Lord’ (Luke 1:43); the one born is the Word made flesh. (Scripture confidence: medium-high)
  • Assessment: Era III wording with clear biblical basis. Traditions that do not use the title but confess the one person are scored 3 (not rejected, not confessed).

F04.2 by tradition

  • Catholic (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): Ephesus received.
  • Orthodox (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): Theotokos in the liturgy.
  • Oriental Orthodox (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): Ephesus received; Theotokos central.
  • Lutheran (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): FC Epitome VIII: Mary ‘rightly called and truly is the mother of God’ (verified).
  • Anglican (fathers 3/4; Scripture 3/4): Not used in the Articles, Homilies or 1662 BCP (the 1544 Litany’s ‘mother of God’ was removed in 1549; ARCIC-II archive survey, secondary); Art. II confesses one person.
  • Presbyterian (fathers 3/4; Scripture 3/4): Not used in WCF; one person confessed (WCF VIII.2, verified).
  • Reformed Baptist (fathers 3/4; Scripture 3/4): Not used; 1689 8.2.
  • General Baptist (fathers 3/4; Scripture 3/4): Not used; creeds received.
  • Anabaptist (fathers 2/4; Scripture 3/4): Not used; Menno’s ‘in Mary, not of Mary’ sits uneasily with the title.

F04.3: Are both natures’ properties predicated of the one Christ (communicatio idiomatum)?

Step F04.3.1: Scripture

John 1:14 (the Word became flesh — divine subject of human becoming); 1 Cor 2:8 (they crucified the Lord of glory); Acts 20:28 (the church of God which he obtained with his own blood); Luke 1:43 (mother of my Lord). Scripture predicates human acts and sufferings of the divine Son, and divine lordship of the one born of Mary.

Step F04.3.2: Patristic evidence

Leo’s Tome 5: because of the unity of person in both natures, ‘we read of the Son of Man also descending from heaven’ and ’the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried’; the creed confesses that the Only-begotten was crucified, after 1 Cor 2:8. Chalcedon: the peculiar property of each nature is preserved and united in one Person. Sources: leo-the-great-f04-s1 · chalcedon-f04-s1. Distinct from F04.1 (one person / formula) and F04.2 (Θεοτόκος as one instance) by stating the general rule of predication.

Step F04.3.3: Weighing decision

Reading A: keep the natures so separate that divine titles may not be said of the man Jesus, nor human sufferings of the Son of God. Reading B: because there is one person, both natures’ properties are predicated of him (communicatio idiomatum). B is chosen. Scripture already does this; Leo and Chalcedon fix the rule. Miaphysite churches that receive Cyril and Ephesus share the substance even when they reject Chalcedon’s ‘in two natures’ wording (see S16).

  • Confidence: High.

Step F04.3.4: Source-proximity weighing

  • Scripture (benchmark): John 1:14; 1 Cor 2:8; Acts 20:28; Luke 1:43. (Scripture confidence: high)
  • Key sources by tier: Leo (T3, w 0.6); Chalcedon (T3/T4 boundary, w 0.6). Proximity factor: 0.60.
  • Assessment: Scripture carries the pattern; Era III states the rule. All nine confess the one person of whom both sets of properties are said; Mennonite celestial flesh qualifies the humanity’s origin.

F04.3 by tradition

  • Catholic (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): Leo’s Tome received; Chalcedon; communicatio in the one person.
  • Orthodox (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): Chalcedon / liturgy: one Christ; attributes of both natures.
  • Oriental Orthodox (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): Cyril / Ephesus: common predications of the one incarnate Word.
  • Lutheran (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): FC VIII: communication of attributes.
  • Anglican (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): Art. II: two natures in one Person; creeds predicate both of Christ.
  • Presbyterian (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): WCF VIII.2: distinct natures inseparably joined in one person.
  • Reformed Baptist (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): 1689 8.2.
  • General Baptist (fathers 4/4; Scripture 4/4): Orthodox Creed 6: two natures in one Christ without change or mixture (verified).
  • Anabaptist (fathers 3/4; Scripture 3/4): Menno: true God and true man (verified); celestial flesh qualifies the humanity.

F04.4: Is Christ’s human body everywhere, or is it in heaven while the Word is everywhere?

Step F04.4.1: Scripture

After the ascension, Peter says Christ is the one ‘whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things’ (Acts 3:21). Jesus says, ‘I am leaving the world again and going to the Father’ (John 16:28) and ‘you do not always have Me’ (Matt 26:11). Yet he also promises, ‘I am with you always, even to the end of the age’ (Matt 28:20), and Paul says the one who ascended went ‘far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things’ (Eph 4:10). As God the Son, ‘in Him all things hold together’ (Col 1:17), and ‘in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily’ (Col 2:9). No text says in so many words whether Christ’s human body shares God’s presence everywhere. One set of texts speaks of a body that has gone to heaven; the other speaks of Christ’s continuing presence and filling of all things.

Step F04.4.2: Patristic evidence

Era III–IV: Athanasius (On the Incarnation 17) says the Word ‘was not, as might be imagined, circumscribed in the body, nor, while present in the body, was He absent elsewhere’; he ‘was outside the whole’ and ‘was not bound to His body’. Augustine (Tractates on John 50.13) says ‘in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, Me ye will not have always’, and (50.4) ‘He has carried His body into heaven, but His majesty He has never withdrawn from the world’. In Letter 137.12 he calls the Word ’nowhere confined, nowhere divided’. Leo (Tome 4) says the Son came down ‘yet not quitting His Father’s glory’. Cyril (Anathema 11) holds that ’the flesh of the Lord gives life’ because it belongs to the Word as his own. John of Damascus (Exposition III.17) says ’the flesh of the Lord received the riches of the divine energies through the purest union with the Word’, but adds that the flesh, ‘when deified’, was not ‘changed in its own nature or in its natural properties’. In III.7 he says that as body Christ ‘is diminished and contracted into narrow limits, but inasmuch as He is God He is uncircumscribed, His flesh not being coextensive with His uncircumscribed divinity’; in III.4 he says we do not ‘predicate of His flesh or of His humanity the properties of divinity’. Sources: athanasius-f04x-s1 · augustine-f04x-s1 · augustine-f04x-s2 · leo-the-great-f04x-s1 · cyril-of-alexandria-f04x-s1 · john-of-damascus-f04x-s1 · john-of-damascus-f04x-s2 · john-of-damascus-f04x-s3.

Step F04.4.3: Weighing decision

Reading A: the Word is present everywhere and is not shut up in the body, while the body itself keeps its human limits and is now in heaven (Athanasius, Augustine, Leo, John of Damascus III.4 and III.7). Reading B: the human nature itself shares the divine presence everywhere. Both readings agree that the flesh is life-giving because it is the Word’s own flesh (Cyril; John of Damascus III.17). Reading A, with medium-high confidence. No father before 750 teaches reading B; John of Damascus rules it out in so many words. Verdict, in plain terms: Christ as God is everywhere and was never confined to his body; his body is a real human body, filled with divine power, and it is now in heaven.

  • Confidence: Medium-high. The Greek and Latin witnesses agree; most are Era III–IV.

Step F04.4.4: Source-proximity weighing

  • Scripture (benchmark): Acts 3:21; John 16:28; Matt 26:11 (the body has gone to heaven); Matt 28:20; Eph 4:10 (Christ is present and fills all things); Col 1:17 (the Son holds all things together). No text settles whether the body is everywhere, so each side goes a step beyond the texts. (Scripture confidence: low-medium)
  • Assessment: The fathers here are Era III–IV, so the weight is moderate. Scripture is the primary measure but does not settle the question directly: each side presses one set of texts and reads the other set in its light. Scripture scores are therefore level at 3 for the traditions assessed. The fathers’ scores carry the difference.

F04.4 by tradition

  • Catholic (fathers 4/4; Scripture 3/4): Trent XIII ch. 1: Christ ‘always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing’, and is ‘in many other places, sacramentally present’. Matches the fathers: the body is in heaven by its natural mode. The added account of sacramental presence is scored in S04.
  • Orthodox (fathers 4/4; Scripture 3/4): Dositheus, Decree 17: the Eucharist is ’not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descends upon the Altars’, for ‘it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many’. Keeps the body in heaven, as the fathers do; the eucharistic presence is scored in S04.
  • Oriental Orthodox (fathers n/a/4; Scripture n/a/4): Not assessed: no classic Oriental Orthodox text on this question located.
  • Lutheran (fathers 2/4; Scripture 3/4): Formula of Concord, Epitome VIII, rejects the claim ‘That because of the property of the human nature it is impossible for Christ to be able to be at the same time in more than one place, much less everywhere, with His body’, and (rejected proposition 13) presence ‘only according to His divinity’. It also rejects a flesh ’everywhere present in the same manner as the divine nature’. Keeps the fathers’ life-giving flesh (Cyril; John of Damascus III.17) but goes against John of Damascus III.4 and III.7 and Augustine, Tractate 50.
  • Anglican (fathers 3/4; Scripture 3/4): Art. IV: Christ took his body ‘wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return’. The 1662 Black Rubric: ’the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one’. Follows Augustine’s Tractate 50 but rests on a rule about bodies that the fathers did not state.
  • Presbyterian (fathers 3/4; Scripture 3/4): WCF VIII.4: Christ ‘ascended into heaven, and there sitteth’; VIII.7: ’that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature’; XXIX.7 denies a presence ‘corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread’. Matches the fathers on the body and the Word; describes the human nature’s gifts as being ‘anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure’ (VIII.3) rather than as receiving the divine energies (John of Damascus III.17).
  • Reformed Baptist (fathers 3/4; Scripture 3/4): 1689 8.7 uses the same words as WCF VIII.7; 30.7 follows WCF XXIX.7. Same assessment as Presbyterian.
  • General Baptist (fathers n/a/4; Scripture n/a/4): Not assessed: the Standard Confession and Orthodox Creed do not address the question.
  • Anabaptist (fathers n/a/4; Scripture n/a/4): Not assessed: Schleitheim and Dordrecht do not address the question; Menno’s view of Christ’s flesh is scored in F04.3.