If someone knows how to develop this argument please do so,
Homilies on First Timothy (Chrysostom) > Homily 7
Ver. 5. “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men.”
He had before said, “to come to the knowledge of the truth,” implying that the world is not in the truth. Now he says, “that there is one God,” that is, not as some say, many, and that He has sent His Son as Mediator, thus giving proof that He will have all men to be saved. But is not the Son God? Most truly He is; why then does he say, “One God”? In contradistinction to the idols; not to the Son. For he is discoursing about truth and error. Now a mediator ought to have communion with both parties, between whom he is to mediate. For this is the property of a mediator, to be in close communion with each of those whose mediator he is. For he would be no longer a mediator, if he were connected with one but separated from the other. If therefore He partakes not of the nature of the Father, He is not a Mediator, but is separated. For as He is partaker of the nature of men, because He came to men, so is He partaker of the nature of God, because He came from God. Because He was to mediate between two natures, He must approximate to the two natures; for as the place situated between two others is joined to each place, so must that between natures be joined to either nature. As therefore He became Man, so was He also God. A man could not have become a mediator, because he must also plead with God. God could not have been mediator, since those could not receive Him, toward whom He should have mediated. And as elsewhere he says, “There is one God the Father,…and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. viii. 6.); so also here “One” God, and “One” Mediator; he does not say two; for he would not have that number wrested to Polytheism, of which he was speaking. So he wrote “One” and “One.” You see how accurate are the expressions of Scripture! For though one and one are two, we are not to say this, though reason suggests it. And here you say not one and one are two, and yet you say what reason does not suggest. “If He begat He also suffered.” “For there is one God,” he says, “and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”
"Peculiar to Christ’s sacrifice are the infinite value of Victim, which give the sacrifice an infinite value of expiation and as merit. "
"Reply to Objection 3. The dignity of Christ’s flesh is not to be estimated solely from the nature of flesh, but also from the Person assuming it–namely, inasmuch as it was God’s flesh, the result of which was that it was of infinite worth. "
The above are limited readings into what I am thinking about.
The argument I want to develop is Christ as an angel or mere creature will be an incomplete, finite atonement. Such a sacrafice would be inadequate to cover all man’s sins for all time.
That an adequate atonement requires Christ to be fully man to represent mankind, but also fully God to have infinite value.
How would you go about developing this arguement?