Dear Dr. Craig,
My question regards your model of the incarnation, in particular its Appollinarianism. The three planks of your position are: 1) Christ had a distinct divine and human nature; 2) That the soul of Jesus is the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity; 3) That during His earthly life, Christ had an ordinary human consciousness. The problem I see with this model is that by claiming that some component of Jesus' human nature was the Logos, you actually undermine the claim He is truly human.
One facet of being human is that we are able to experience God directly. We can engage with the Trinity as an object of perception, where God presents Himself to our self-consciousness to impart grace and revelation. We are given a gift, whereby we can participate in the relationships and love of the Godhead, where God, an agent external to us, reaches down to us. Being distinct from God, as is mandatory of the creation, is a significant aspect of human nature, and thus shapes the nature of human relationships and experiences with God.
The primary challenge your model faces is that it means Jesus is unable to perceive the Creative Word of God as an object, which is fundamental to human nature. Being the Logos, He can only engage with the Son of God as a subject. This dissolves His humanity to nothing, for to be human one must be able to relate to God as an external object, as we are part of a created and distinct order. And yet Jesus did seem to experience God as an object, through prayer and faith. The consequence of your theory is that if Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity's mind was in a human body having a human experience, Jesus is not truly human, as He cannot distinguish Himself from the divine reality, and subsequently can only experience God as a subject.
Moreover, if Christ's human nature relies upon the divine mind working at a limited human capacity, what happens after His days of flesh on earth? If the divine mind can only function at either divine capacity or human capacity, but not both simultaneously, then it must follow that the distinctive human nature of Christ was dispensed of at the ascension so as to affirm the priority of Christ's divine nature as He dwells at the right hand of the Father. Yet this leaves no room for the traditional catholic doctrine of the permanence of Jesus' humanity. If Jesus was truly God and man, then the assumption of humanity by the Logos could not be merely temporal, as part of human nature is to be resurrected like Christ. Thus, your theory leaves us with the radical conclusion that the Son of God discarded His human nature after His earthly life, which is contrary to traditional doctrine that Christ continues to have a divine and human nature.
So my question, Dr. Craig, is how would you respond to the challenges presented against your model of the Incarnation?
Read Dr. Craig's answer HERE