So what is the difference between two propositions that merely
seem to be contradictory, and two that really are? Is there any way to tell them apart?
- Jesus is fully God
- Jesus is fully man
- A human cannot be God
- God cannot be human
- To the extent that something is human, it cannot be God
- To the extent that something is God, it cannot be human
Obviously 1 & 2 form a contradiction if we hold to 3-6. Yet if we reject 3-6 then there is no contradiction between 1 and 2. All the same, there is no basic contradiction between 1 and 2. There is only an indirect contradiction for those people who hold to some of the propositions found in 3-6.
Now let's look at Lutheran soteriology:
- Salvation is 100% God
- Damnation is 100% man
The idea here is apparently that God acts upon man to save him, and those men who are damned act contrary to God's grace in such a way that they are fully culpable for their own damnation. Of course the problem is that if man is able to actively damn himself then he must be able to passively save himself. That is, if he has the ability to effect his own damnation, then he must also have the ability to not-effect his own damnation and allow God to save him. This presents us with a basic contradiction in a way that Jesus' divinity does not. It's not clear what third principle we could reject to avoid the contradiction. The best candidate is, "If man is able to act to achieve some end, then he is also able to not-act to avoid achieving that end." But how can that principle be coherently denied?
Well, first of all, thank you for drilling down - they're good questions!
I can't agree with this Christology, for a number of reasons. One of the more foundational aspects to this is that we hold that the doctrine of the Trinity surpasses all wisdom and human reason. It's a holy mystery. This is why when someone attempts to reason with it, it ultimately amounts to heresy.
Now, in light of the above, Scripture is clear on that in the man Jesus Christ dwells the fullness of God bodily. He is God in flesh. This, logically speaking (according to human reasoning), is a seeming contradiction if you run through what the implications are. We can observe this from early heresies that fall on either side, such as Arianism and Docetism. A later example - Zwingli, a radical rationalist reformer, taught that what is finite cannot contain what is infinite. That's logical enough according to reason, but Lutherans (and I believe, the Roman Catholic Church) disagree, because this is exactly what Scriptures teaches regarding Christ.
About soteriology - Again, I have to disagree, because the thought process exercised here is more in line with the philosophical Problem of Evil than it is with Scripture. The problem is that they're really two entirely different and incompatible frameworks, and we cannot and should not impose this philosophical concept upon God's Word, which is governed by a different framework.
We believe that in the Scriptural framework, there is such a thing as holy mystery, which should not be confused with contradiction. That is, if there are two explicit truths divinely revealed by God, we uphold both as true, by virtue of God's own Word. If they are not divinely revealed, then we can safely surmise that they are either inconsistent or misunderstood. Again, take the example of the Trinity: God is one, yet He is three Persons. We can formulate a dogmatic expression of this, but no one can fully comprehend what this actually looks like. It breaks all reason. Now, add to this flesh and bones, and it becomes another level of incomprehensible. We understand this as a holy mystery, apprehended through faith.
This is a very complex subject with a lot of nuances, to be honest. But, a bit shallowly, I think perhaps the root of the issue is that the Lutheran Church, along with the Eastern Orthodox, gladly embrace the paradoxes presented us in Scripture, whereas other Church bodies believe that Scripture is governed by reason. There's, of course, a place for reason in the Lutheran system, but the key difference is that we believe that reason is governed by Scripture, not that Scripture is governed by reason. So, it's really a question of authority in dogmatics, and really, in Church.
In a nutshell: The Lutheran Church recognise that our faith has holy mysteries, and we comfortably embrace them. Just because we cannot scientifically explain something, doesn't mean it's false. It's a matter of trust. We trust in the person and works of our Lord, even if we cannot fully grasp it. We confess that we cannot know God and His design in its fullness, but only in part as far as He has revealed it to us through His prophets, apostles and His Son. As St Paul says:
"Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."