Welcome to Theologia et Vita: Where Doctrine and Discipleship Meet

The Folly of "Must Have" Argumentation: A Critique of the Salmanticenses' Theological Excess in Christology

J. Neil Daniels

In the intricate tapestry of Christian theology, few threads prove as speculative and contentious as the principle articulated by the theologians of the University of Salamanca, known as the Salmanticenses, in their Cursus Theologicus. Within their treatise on the Incarnation (Tractatus XXI, "De Incarnatione," Disputatio 22, Dubium 2, n. 29), they assert a maxim without explicit biblical grounding: "One cannot deny to Christ any perfection that it was possible for him to have had." This principle, carried to its extreme, leads to the audacious claim that Jesus, as a human, must have been the greatest dialectician, philosopher, mathematician, doctor, politician, musician, orator, painter, farmer, sailor, soldier, and more. While rooted in a desire to honor Christ's divine-human unity, this "must have" argumentation exemplifies theological folly marked by speculative excess, departure from Scriptural fidelity, and projection of human ideals onto Christ. This blog critiques the Salmanticenses' approach, highlighting the dangers of such reasoning and advocating for a Christology grounded in revelation rather than conjecture.

The Context of the Salmanticenses' Claim

The Salmanticenses, Discalced Carmelite theologians of the 17th-century University of Salamanca, inherited the scholastic tradition of Thomas Aquinas. Their Cursus Theologicus, a 20-volume commentary on Aquinss' Summa Theologiae, stands as a monument of late scholasticism, characterized by rigorous disputation and speculative inquiry. In their discussion of the Incarnation, they reconcile Christ's divine omnipotence with His human limitations. The principle that Christ must possess every possible perfection reflects a theological impulse to maximize His attributes, ensuring no conceivable excellence is withheld from the God-man. This produces the extraordinary assertion that Jesus excelled in every human discipline, from intellectual pursuits to practical trades, embodying an idealized vision of human potential.

This claim appears to exalt Christ, affirming the hypostatic union (the unity of divine and human natures in one person). Yet this principle lacks biblical foundation, emerging instead from theological speculation. The Salmanticenses' method, steeped in posing dubia (doubts or questions) and resolving them through reason, ventures into territory where logic overshadows and eventually eclipses revelation. Not coincidentally, their list of professions mirrors the cultural and intellectual priorities of 17th-century Europe, revealing more about their context than about Christ Himself. Here lies the folly of their "must have" argumentation: it prioritizes speculative completeness over fidelity to biblical witness, leading to conclusions both extravagant and unnecessary.

The Theological Folly of "Must Have" Reasoning

The Salmanticenses' principle exemplifies a broader theological error: assuming divine perfection requires maximal expression of every human capacity. This "must have" logic operates on a flawed premise—that any limitation in Christ's human nature would diminish His divine glory. Scripture paints a different picture. The Gospels portray Jesus as fully human, subject to growth (Luke 2:52), hunger (Matt 4:2), fatigue (John 4:6), and even ignorance of certain things (Mark 13:32). These limitations don't detract from His deity but underscore the reality of the Incarnation, where the eternal Word assumes the fullness of human experience, including its constraints.

By insisting Jesus must have been the greatest in every human endeavor, the Salmanticenses risk distorting this balance. Their claim implies Christ's humanity must be superhuman, excelling beyond the ordinary to encompass every skill and profession. Such a view lacks biblical support and undermines the theological significance of Christ's kenosis—His self-emptying (Phil 2:7). The Incarnation concerns not Christ displaying universal mastery but his redemptive solidarity with humanity, particularly in weakness and suffering, being "born in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3–4). The Salmanticenses' speculative excess diverts attention from the cross to an idealized, almost mythological figure dominating every sphere of human activity.

Moreover, the "must have" principle reveals a methodological flaw in unchecked scholastic theology. The Salmanticenses' approach, rooted in deductive reasoning, assumes theological truths can be derived by extending logical principles to their furthest conclusions. If Christ is perfect, they argue, He must possess every conceivable perfection. Yet this logic leads to absurdities: must Jesus have been a skilled painter to fulfill his divine mission? A masterful sailor? A peerless mathematician? These claims, while imaginative, bear no relevance to the biblical narrative or the Incarnation's purpose. They illustrate how "must have" argumentation, detached from revelation, can spiral into speculative folly, producing assertions neither necessary nor edifying. In actuality, they can often be dangerous.

The Cultural Projection of Human Ideals

Another dimension of the Salmanticenses' error lies in projecting 17th-century cultural ideals onto Christ. The professions they enumerate—philosopher, musician, soldier, farmer—reflect the values of their time, where intellectual, artistic, and practical skills were celebrated as markers of human excellence. By attributing these to Jesus, the Salmanticenses craft a Christ mirroring their era's aspirations rather than the historical and biblical Jesus. This anachronistic projection reveals a deeper problem with "must have" reasoning: it risks reshaping Christ in the image of human ambition rather than allowing Scripture to shape our understanding of him.

This tendency isn't unique to the Salmanticenses. Throughout history, theologians and artists have imagined Jesus reflecting their cultural contexts, whether as medieval king, Renaissance scholar, or modern activist. The Salmanticenses' claim, however, takes this to an extreme, universalizing Christ's excellence across all domains in a way that feels more like theological thought experiment than faithful exposition of the Gospels. Their Christ becomes a superhuman polymath embodying every societal ideal rather than the humble carpenter from Nazareth who confounded worldly expectations.

The Danger of Speculative Excess in Theology

The Salmanticenses' folly serves as a cautionary tale for theologians today. While speculative inquiry can enrich theological reflection, it must be tethered to Scripture and tradition to avoid becoming unmoored. The "must have" principle illustrates how unchecked speculation can lead to conclusions that, while logically coherent within their own framework, diverge from the Christian message's heart. The Bible doesn't present Jesus as the greatest in every human skill but as the one fulfilling God's redemptive plan through his life, death, and resurrection. To focus on his hypothetical mastery of dialectic or painting misses the forest for the trees, elevating peripheral questions above central truths of faith.

This critique doesn't diminish the Salmanticenses' contributions to theology. Their Cursus Theologicus remains a remarkable achievement, offering profound insights into the Incarnation and other doctrines. Yet their overreach highlights the need for humility in theological inquiry. As noted, the principle they champion is not found in Scripture, a reminder that theology must bow to the authority of God's revealed Word. When "must have" argumentation takes precedence over biblical fidelity, it invariably producing theology more speculative than salvific, more academic than apostolic.

Toward a Humbler Christology

A more faithful Christology begins with Scripture, which presents Jesus as both fully divine and fully human, without needing to inflate His human capacities to superhuman proportions. The Gospels emphasize His wisdom, compassion, and divine authority, but also embrace His limitations as part of his redemptive mission. Rather than speculating about Christ's hypothetical skills, Christians should focus on His revealed identity as the Savior entering human history to redeem it, not to dominate every profession.

The Salmanticenses' error invites reflection on our approach to theological questions today. Are we tempted to impose our own ideals—intellectual brilliance, cultural relevance, professional success—onto Christ? Do we engage in our own forms of "must have" reasoning, assuming Christ must align with our priorities or expectations? Their folly challenges us to return to the Incarnation's humility, where Christ's greatness lies not in universal mastery but in self-giving sacrificial love.

Conclusion

The Salmanticenses' claim that Jesus must have been the greatest in every human discipline represents a theological misstep born of speculative excess. By prioritizing logical extrapolation over scriptural fidelity, they craft a Christ reflecting 17th-century ideals rather than biblical narrative. This folly underscores the dangers of "must have" argumentation, which can lead to conclusions that are extravagant, anachronistic, and disconnected from the Incarnation's redemptive heart. As theologians and believers (recalling the oft-repeated maxim by Charles Ryrie, R. C. Sproul, and others that we are all theologias by default), we are called to a humbler approach, anchoring our understanding of Christ in Scripture's witness and the reality of His self-emptying love. Only then can we avoid speculative overreach and proclaim a Christ who is truly "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), rather than a projection of our own ambitions.