|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Did Christ's own human nature need to be redeemed?
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which puzzles me as to why you disagreed with my earlier statement that the Incarnation includes the Passion ... you vehemently disagreed with that.
It could be that you got the wrong end of the stick, of course, or that I didn't explain myself clearly enough.
'Both/and' not 'either/or'.
That's why I've been hassling you a bit on this one, Mudfrog.
Anyone, it's a bit of a tangent to the OP which is whether Christ's human nature had to be redeemed ...
I would suggest that the purpose of the Incarnation included the passion; the Son of God could still have been incarnate and for the crucifixion not to have taken place.
If the passion was an automatic component part of the incarnation, there wasn't much point in the temptations or in Gethsemene was there?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I thought it was ONLY Roman Catholics who believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Protestants don't...
Well, that is not entirely true. I’m Lutheran, and I believe in it. And while it has never achieved the status as doctrine, it’s (very likely) a part of the Lutheran ‘doctrinal’ heritage. We (probably) find it references in the Book of Concord, the founding documents of the Lutheran faith. It is said, in the Smalcald Articles I.IV: “[We hold that] the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary.” (Emphasis added)
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature.
Isn't it?
If he was without sin, he wasn't like us.
Is sin part of our nature?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Jesus was/is FULLY human because he lived up to his nature as made in God's image. We sinful ones mar that image and become LESS THAN fully human.
I am so happy that you said this. In that sense no one is truly human except God.
I like this better than the artificial dichotomy of human/divine.
I don't think it's artificial. God is uncreated. Human beings are created. That's a pretty big difference.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Jesus was/is FULLY human because he lived up to his nature as made in God's image. We sinful ones mar that image and become LESS THAN fully human.
I am so happy that you said this. In that sense no one is truly human except God.
I like this better than the artificial dichotomy of human/divine.
I don't think it's artificial. God is uncreated. Human beings are created. That's a pretty big difference.
Yes, no question that there is a big difference between us and God.
My point is about what "human" refers to. It doesn't necessarily mean the created as opposed to the Creator. It can also mean the reality that we are the image and likeness of.
[ 06. July 2012, 00:42: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm not sure I follow. We are the image and likeness of God, not the image and likeness of human. We don't need to be the image and likeness of human because we ARE human.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure I follow. We are the image and likeness of God, not the image and likeness of human. We don't need to be the image and likeness of human because we ARE human.
Yes, I understand that human and divine are usually seen as the distinction between us and God. I'm saying that this isn't the only way to understand "human."
I think that Leo's post suggests that "human" is a good thing, and that the better we are the more human we are.
In that sense God is the only one who is truly human because He is the only one who is good.
Another way to say this is that all of creation replicates the human form, because the human form is God's form - and people most of all.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature.
Isn't it?
If he was without sin, he wasn't like us.
That's true, but irrelevant to Josephine's point. Sin isn't part of the human nature. It is perfectly possible to be in full possession of the human nature and not to sin. The difference between a person who has sinned and a person who has not sinned is not that one is human and the other is not: it is that one has fallen to temptation while the other has resisted temptation.
I'm not aware of anyone who is without sin besides Jesus. Are you?
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature.
Isn't it?
If he was without sin, he wasn't like us.
Is sin part of our nature?
Well I can't speak for you for only God knows your heart but it's certainly part of mine.
So this whole Christ redeemed human nature bit seems like empty bullshit to me. Doesn't make any sense.
Show me the money I say. Show me the person who is without sin (besides Jesus).
[ 06. July 2012, 04:20: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Is sin part of our nature?
Well I can't speak for you for only God knows your heart but it's certainly part of mine.
Really? So if you were ever totally cleansed from sin you'd be -- what? Some other person? You'd pass out of existence altogether?
[ 06. July 2012, 04:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Really? So if you were ever totally cleansed from sin you'd be -- what? Some other person?
Yes.
Can you imagine what this world would look like if human beings really were redeemed from sin? Completely different I would say.
[ 06. July 2012, 04:43: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
And if sin does not change human nature, why the fuck does human nature need to be redeemed in the first place?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I must confess that this thread pushes me to the limit, so I apologise in advance for any theological naivete.
As I see it human beings are the product of an evolutionary development and their “nature” is not the product of a fall from a state of grace. That being the case, “sinfulness” is a part of our nature, an essential part of being human. If Jesus was fully human but without sin do we not have to agree with Evensong that “he wasn’t like us”?
Perhaps we need to revisit the concept of being “born again” not in terms of redemption etc., but in terms of being a “new creation”, acquiring a nature different from our biological inheritance. “As in Adam all die” can be seen as a simple statement of fact about our evolutionary nature, and as “in Christ shall all live” as an essential feature of a born-again nature unrelated to a fall.
The problem is where Christ’s nature fits into such a model, though his humanity might be considered in terms of his being the first of a “new creation”.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature.
Isn't it?
If he was without sin, he wasn't like us.
That's true, but irrelevant to Josephine's point. Sin isn't part of the human nature. It is perfectly possible to be in full possession of the human nature and not to sin. The difference between a person who has sinned and a person who has not sinned is not that one is human and the other is not: it is that one has fallen to temptation while the other has resisted temptation.
I'm not aware of anyone who is without sin besides Jesus. Are you?
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature.
Isn't it?
If he was without sin, he wasn't like us.
Is sin part of our nature?
Well I can't speak for you for only God knows your heart but it's certainly part of mine.
So this whole Christ redeemed human nature bit seems like empty bullshit to me. Doesn't make any sense.
Show me the money I say. Show me the person who is without sin (besides Jesus).
Well, there are those who believe that the Mother of God and St John the Baptist were without personal sin - about these and others, I do not know, but I'm going to take a step beyond this question because I think it is sidetracking us from the possibility that we may be talking about two different things here.
What do you think the human nature is?
[ 06. July 2012, 06:22: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Mudfrog - thanks for the clarification. I can see the distinction you are making. I'm not sure that I am suggesting that these things are 'automatic' - Jesus during his Incarnation wasn't a robot or simply some kind of Divine sock-puppet.
It all makes the whole thing immensely rich and awe-inspiring, of course - and much else besides ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
@ Evensong, Kwesi.
I think we have to draw a distinction between redemption and transformation.
Redemption is, essentially, the "buying back" of a slave. Now a slave is fully human, in the sense that he or she shares every essential part of human nature with a free person. But he or she is not the same as a free person. Their essential humanity is constrained by the institution of slavery. So it is with fallen humanity. We are like Jesus in that we share His humanity, but it is constrained, limited, if you like, by our slavery to sin.
Another way of looking at this is a medical model. A person with an illness is no less human than anyone else, but they are, nevertheless, constrained by the limitations imposed on them by their disease. They are in need of healing.
Now once they are healed, they may need physio to recover all their abilities, just as those who are redeemed need to grow fully into what God intends for them, what the Orthies call deification, being conformed to the full humanity of Jesus. This is transformation, which is the work of a lifetime.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Kwesi is not the only one to find this question pushing us to the limit.
I wonder if all this talk about human nature being essentially sinful bedevils the issue. The doctrine of original sin once again rearing its ugly head.
I go with Kwesi in that, as the climax of an evolutionary process, there was no "fall" from perfection. Whatever fall there was implies a failure to become. From that point of view Jesus represents what all humankind are meant to be. As Luther sang He is the Proper Man.
Sinfulness does not belong to our nature per se but to the choices we make which feed into and determine the kind of person we are.. And to be perfect is not defined as sinless ( which is a thoroughly negative concept) but to be wholly loving. This state is not reached by any DIY effort but in response to the gift of God.
So I wonder if this whole discussion is vitiated by a view of sinfulness ( and therefore redemption as the answer) which may be wide of the mark. ( Ironically 'wide of the mark is an OT definition of sin!!)
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Sorry to double post. Too late for edit button.
I wanted to add that "redemption" does not only have reference to slavery. That is Paul's use of the word. In the OT the word is "goel" and it means to fulfil a kinsmans responsibility. As Boaz did with Ruth.
So Jesus as our kinsman effects our redemption by becoming one of us and one with us. The incarnation is a redemptive act.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I wanted to add that "redemption" does not only have reference to slavery. That is Paul's use of the word. In the OT the word is "goel" and it means to fulfil a kinsmans responsibility. As Boaz did with Ruth.
So Jesus as our kinsman effects our redemption by becoming one of us and one with us. The incarnation is a redemptive act.
It also means to fulfil an oath and rescue by force:
quote:
Deuteronomy 7:8 but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Rescuing seems like a fitting act for our Savior.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
We need a good Greek philosopher here. (takes out lantern, looks around}
Anyway.
The nature of something is what it's meant to be, what it's created to be, what it WILL be if not prevented by various opposing forces such as accident (in the modern sense), malice, ill fortune, etc. So an acorn is of the nature "oak" and will become a beautiful mature oak unless Things Go Wrong, in which case it may become an ugly crappy looking oak, or simply die altogether. But no matter what the outcome, it is still of the nature "oak."
A human being is in the same situation regarding human nature. We are human, not fish, not angels, not axolotls (pl?). Barring accident or malice, we ought to end up as perfect human specimens. But there HAS been both malice and stupidity, and that at a key point in the species' history, resulting in the form of damage we call the Fall. The result is that every individual specimen we run across now is deeply flawed in one way or another. Still human, but deeply damaged.
Into this situation God sent Jesus, the only undamaged (in that sense, anyway) specimen of human nature that exists. He is what we should have been, what we ought to be, what we WILL be after he gets done "fixing" us.
So sin (the damage) is not a part of human nature at all; it is an "accident" that happens TO human nature, and that can be removed from human nature, given the right Worker with the right tools. Saith she while looking at the crappy painted-over-wallpaper-of-ten-layers that falleth off mine house walls! There's a job I'm not looking forward to.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
This is a fascinating thread which throws up many questions for me.
Firstly - blood and sperm.
I seem to remember reading that an unfertilised egg cannot produce blood. Only when sperm is united with an egg that it can do so and the sperm denotes the type of blood the embryo will develop (apologies if this is incorrect - I'm not an expert).
It would follow then, that the blood Jesus Christ had was unique as Mary's egg was fertilised by the Holy Spirit rather than man made sperm.
I think this is what makes communion particularly significant as Jesus Christ himself draws attention to both his flesh and blood at the last supper. It is his blood that "washes away sin".
Secondly - flesh vs sinful nature
The NIV translation of the bible is very frustrating as it translates flesh to sinful nature (particularly naughty in Romans ch 7!). This has significant theological implications as Paul writes at length on the flesh and how it can drive us to sin.
Jesus Christ was made flesh, so if the NIV translation is followed to it's logical conclusion Jesus Christ also had a sinful nature. Thankfully other translations do not make the same error.
I've often asked Christians whether they believe we have a sinful nature and it surprised me that there was roughly a 50/50 split in responses.
Many say of course we do, that's why we're tempted to sin.
Some say no, we are born again and have a holy nature without sin.
I've often thought this question is incredibly important to answer, as it gives us a better understanding of the process of salvation, but also a better understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ, the significance of communion and the interplay between Jesus Christ's life and death and our own.
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hot DAYYUM indeed mousethief !
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
What do you think the human nature is?
Your nature, my nature and the man next door's nature.
Why?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
@ Evensong, Kwesi.
I think we have to draw a distinction between redemption and transformation.
This is true. But lets stick with redemption first.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Redemption is, essentially, the "buying back" of a slave. Now a slave is fully human, in the sense that he or she shares every essential part of human nature with a free person. But he or she is not the same as a free person. Their essential humanity is constrained by the institution of slavery. So it is with fallen humanity. We are like Jesus in that we share His humanity, but it is constrained, limited, if you like, by our slavery to sin.
Well see here the problem arises of righteous people in the Old Testament that God was well pleased with that were not slaves to sin. They were "fallen humanity". Yet they were righteous before God. They were not slaves to sin.
Therein lies the other crack in this kind of theory.
The second more obvious crack is that we are still sinful.
So that buying back was a waste of money.
The only way you could possibly justify such a theory is to say that AFTER Christ, we are less sinful and more transformed (theosis) than those that came before Christ or than those that are not "in" Christ at all.
I don't think 2,000 years of Christian history can prove such a thing.
Human nature is STILL bound to sin.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We need a good Greek philosopher here. (takes out lantern, looks around}
Dafyyd must be on holiday.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
A human being is in the same situation regarding human nature. We are human, not fish, not angels, not axolotls (pl?). Barring accident or malice, we ought to end up as perfect human specimens. But there HAS been both malice and stupidity, and that at a key point in the species' history, resulting in the form of damage we call the Fall. The result is that every individual specimen we run across now is deeply flawed in one way or another. Still human, but deeply damaged.
How were they damaged?
According to God, they made a mistake. God did not want them to be like him and the other gods. God punished them by making life harder for them.
Anways, God recreated the species in Noah. Noah was righteous - the only righteous one left on the planet. So he started again.
So we all come from righteous seed - not like Adam and Eve that made the mistake of wanting to be wise like their father.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Into this situation God sent Jesus, the only undamaged (in that sense, anyway) specimen of human nature that exists. He is what we should have been, what we ought to be, what we WILL be after he gets done "fixing" us.
Done fixing us hey?
Well then - we're not redeemed YET are we?
So Christ did not redeem human nature in his life, death and resurrection.
[ 06. July 2012, 13:58: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
What do you think the human nature is?
Your nature, my nature and the man next door's nature.
Why?
Your responses so far suggest that you're using "human nature" in a distinctive way that might perhaps be different from the theological sense of the term, and that this could be why there is apparent disagreement. However, I can't be sure, which is why I asked you to clarify how you were using the term.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Into this situation God sent Jesus, the only undamaged (in that sense, anyway) specimen of human nature that exists. He is what we should have been, what we ought to be, what we WILL be after he gets done "fixing" us.
Done fixing us hey?
Well then - we're not redeemed YET are we?
So Christ did not redeem human nature in his life, death and resurrection.
We are redeemed because, to continue the medical metaphor, because we have been "healed" of the "disease". We still have to do the physio to undo the damage inflicted by the disease.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So Noah did physio did he?
? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So Noah did physio did he?
?
Well. You responded to what I said to lamb Chopped in stead of what I said to you so I thought I'd ask about Noah in terms of your theory of redemption.
Did Noah, who was righteous before the lord, require redemption and transformation? (Healing from disease and physio)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Evensong, you do recognise that I'm using metaphor here, right?
Not sure what Noah has to do with all this but, yes, he had been redeemed, (since he was righteous) and I'm sure that, like the rest of us, he was a work in progress, and thus was subject to transformation.
I'm sure you are driving at something here, but I really don't know what it is, so I'm finding it difficult to respond in any way that would seem to be meaningful to you.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Those two statements are completely unconnected.
His human nature was 100% human.
He was JUST like us in that.
He didn't sin.
Unlike us.
With the exception of Adam and Eve until they did.
It is NOT a prerequisite of human nature to sin.
Human nature does not HAVE to sin.
Except in the absence of a divine nature.
Human nature left to its own devices will sin.
As Lamb Chopped said, He was MORE human than we. We are less than His Platonic form.
The mystery deepens as He became, assumed all sin without sinning.
He experienced full alienation from God, just like us, as the result, as if He had sinned, as if He were guilty.
That's how He died. As alone as us.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Well, there are those who believe that the Mother of God and St John the Baptist were without personal sin
I am not aware of any who thinks John Baptist was sinless.
I have no particular belief on the matter and my personal feeling is that the sinlessness or otherwise of St John isn't any of my business but it is a theologumenon that isn't too difficult to encounter. Just google the question whether St John the Baptist/Forerunner was sinless and you'll see what I mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was using it in the real world sense.
What do you believe the theological sense is?
Well, what it isn't is the casual use of the term, such as when people say "Oh, well it's just human nature isn't it?" when a usually stiff-upper-lip person breaks down in public after a bereavement, for example.
The nature or essence, or substance, (or ousia, as the Greek has it), of a thing can, I think, be simply but fairly defined as "that about a thing which makes it what it is".
So there can be said to be such a thing as the feline nature. You can look at an animal, hear the animal, spend some time with the animal, and identify it as a cat because you recognise in it the things that make a cat a cat, (even if you cannot readily list and describe all of the elements of this "catness"). An individual being with a nature is an hypostasis. Each hypostasis may have particular marks unique to that individual hypostasis or which may be shared among some but not all hypostases that have the same nature. So my cat, and indeed a number of, or even most cats may love playing in the snow, may have calico markings, and so forth. But these in themselves are not part of the feline nature - they are not what makes a cat a cat because it is perfectly possible to be a cat - to be an hypostasis with the feline nature - and not have those characteristics.
Moving on, then...
The human nature is what it is that makes a human being a human being. Similarly, the divine nature is what makes a divine being a divine being: what makes God God. This is the sense in which those terms are understood and used in Christian theology. When we say in the Creed that the Son is "of one essence/nature" with the Father, that is how we are using the term, and when we say that He was made man, that is what we mean: that He took upon Himself the human nature - the whole package of what it is to be human. We are not saying that he picked up some traits that are common among many human beings, as the term is used in everyday, non-theological parlance.
It is possession of the divine essence that makes the Father God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God. They are three hypostases - three Persons - with the same divine essence/nature/ousia. The fathers of the First Ecumenical Council decreed that the Son is of the same essence (homousious) with the Father, in order to quash the heresy of the Arians, who taught otherwise. Our understanding of the divine nature is that we cannot understand or grasp in any way the divine nature, so we refer to it in the negative - in what it is not. In his essence, God is immortal, inconceivable, indescribable, eternal (i.e. without space and time), and so forth. These are some of the characteristics of the Three Divine Persons.
Having tried to establish that, then, and to finally come to the point, the question raised by your point of whether sinfulness is part of the human nature appears to be a question of whether sinfulness makes a human being a human being. Is sin actually part of the human nature so that to be sinful is an essential part of what a human being is, and somebody who has not sinned is not truly human?
I have to answer in the negative. I know that I am a frequent sinner but this is not what makes me a human being, and, should I ever be granted to be free from sin in this earthly life, I would not cease to be a human being because of it. Similarly, there is no requirement for Christ to have sinned in order for us to confess that He became human.
Now, if we were to phrase the question as to whether temptation to sin is part of the human nature, then I could say yes. We are given free will to grow into the energies of God or apart from the energies of God, and we make that choice. The Gospel tells us that Christ Himself was tempted in the wilderness.
I'm beginning to ramble so I'll shut up now, but to summarise, the common, everyday use of "human nature" is not what is under discussion in the theological claims about Christ and the effects of his work of salvation on us.
[ 06. July 2012, 17:59: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Evensong, you do recognise that I'm using metaphor here, right?
Yes. And it's a fairly good one as far as Christus Victor goes.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Not sure what Noah has to do with all this but, yes, he had been redeemed, (since he was righteous) and I'm sure that, like the rest of us, he was a work in progress, and thus was subject to transformation.
My point was that he was not redeemed by Christ. He was righteous before Christ. He walked with God just as Adam and Eve did in the garden.
He was not enslaved by sin.
And I thought your definition of redemption was freedom from that enslavement.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
The human nature is what it is that makes a human being a human being. Similarly, the divine nature is what makes a divine being a divine being: what makes God God.
Agreed
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Having tried to establish that, then, and to finally come to the point, the question raised by your point of whether sinfulness is part of the human nature appears to be a question of whether sinfulness makes a human being a human being. Is sin actually part of the human nature so that to be sinful is an essential part of what a human being is, and somebody who has not sinned is not truly human?
I have to answer in the negative. I know that I am a frequent sinner but this is not what makes me a human being, and, should I ever be granted to be free from sin in this earthly life, I would not cease to be a human being because of it.
Why does human nature need redeeming then?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
@ Evensong
Noah was redeemed because the cosmic effect of the atonement is outside time, even though it toolk place within time. "The Lamb slain from before the beginning of the world."
But I think you are actually talking more about forgiveness? Of course God's forgiveness does not depend upon redemption. He has mercy on whom he will have mercy. The atonement is to do with undoing the effects of sin. Without the atonement, we would be forgiven, but we could not inherit eternal life.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Having tried to establish that, then, and to finally come to the point, the question raised by your point of whether sinfulness is part of the human nature appears to be a question of whether sinfulness makes a human being a human being. Is sin actually part of the human nature so that to be sinful is an essential part of what a human being is, and somebody who has not sinned is not truly human?
I have to answer in the negative. I know that I am a frequent sinner but this is not what makes me a human being, and, should I ever be granted to be free from sin in this earthly life, I would not cease to be a human being because of it.
Why does human nature need redeeming then?
So that we may grow into the likeness of God, and share in the energies and divine life of the Trinity - something that we could not do without the redeeming work of Christ, which was not necessitated by sin but rather out of the simple fact of our inability, on our own, to approach the wondrous and unimaginable "otherness" of God.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He has had mercy on ALL, atoned for ALL, forgiven ALL, He is reconciled to ALL.
In Christ.
Some have been able to respond.
Some may never.
Most yet will.
Sodom, Gomorrah, Bethsaida, Chorazin.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Human nature does not need redemption at all .... the sentence "human nature needs redeeming" makes no sense. It is as incoherent as saying "fish need an oil change every 2000 miles."
My nature (as has been said above) is what identifies me as human ... a psychomatic unity of genome, genome expression, nurture and maturation.
Sin (arising from the corruption of death, a limiting effect of the Fall) is parasitic to human personhood compromising the power and divine inclination of the WILL, but it can in no way compromise our nature which is impervious to everything except evolution.
We really do need to be precise in our use of theological terms and be careful about their common usage.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay, precision. Human-nature-as-it-is-currently-expressed-in-individual-human-beings needs redemption. And how.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Father Gregory quote:
Sin (arising from the corruption of death, a limiting effect of the Fall) is parasitic to human personhood compromising the power and divine inclination of the WILL, but it can in no way compromise our nature which is impervious to everything except evolution.
Father Gregory, I would find it helpful if you could clarify what the paragraph quoted above means, because I’m confused about the relationship between “sin (arising from the corruption of death, a limiting effect of the Fall)” and “our nature which is impervious to everything except evolution”. Prima facie , there would see to be a conflict between the concept of a nature compromised by a “fall” from a state of grace and an evolutionary nature as generally understood.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
@ Evensong
Noah was redeemed because the cosmic effect of the atonement is outside time, even though it toolk place within time. "The Lamb slain from before the beginning of the world."
Ah. I didn't realise you ascribed to that kind of theology. I thought it was usually reserved for fundie Evangelicals that could not explain righteousness before God before the time of Christ so they had to invent some kind of weird non human time thing that essentially denounced the biblical story of salvation history. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
In my opinion, that kind of theology degrades the Christ event. It says there was no new or old covenant. It says the Christ event brought nothing new that was coherent in real human terms of linear time and history.
But on reading your previous posts I respect your ideas so perhaps when I get back from three weeks shore leave you could explain your understanding of this to me? Or we can take it up again some other time.
Cheers.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
So that we may grow into the likeness of God, and share in the energies and divine life of the Trinity - something that we could not do without the redeeming work of Christ, which was not necessitated by sin but rather out of the simple fact of our inability, on our own, to approach the wondrous and unimaginable "otherness" of God.
Fraid theosis doesn't work for me Michael. But I appreciate your responses to my questions considering I'm a hopeless protestant.
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Human nature does not need redemption at all .... the sentence "human nature needs redeeming" makes no sense. It is as incoherent as saying "fish need an oil change every 2000 miles."
Amen!
Thou hast partially redeemed thyself in mine eyes.
Got the same question as Kwesi tho.
Going away for some weeks so wont be able to respond but would like to hear respones when I get back.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Agreed Kwesi. The rhetoric breaks down there. The Fall was by sin and death was the consequence, not the cause.
Human nature was and therefore is good. When it is expressed in thought, word, deed through its inseperable person, the result will always go bad in the absence of a divine nature.
Angelic nature is more intriguing in that it doesn't always go to the bad.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
If you don't acknowledge the possibility of a nonlinear time effect, than how do you account for phrases like "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"? The viewpoint that Christ's work spreads both forward and backward in time in human history is a very mainstream one. Not fundy at all.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Neither does it require for eternity to be preserved in aspic.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
I admit to not being very knowledgeable about the history of theology, so this idea might have been proposed and dismissed in the early centuries of Church history.
Was it perhaps the case that Jesus’s human nature was an act of special creation at the instant of the incarnation, and not derived from Mary his mother as assumed in the OP? It would have been created of the same essence (homoousious) with the rest of the human species but without the spiritually fallen element (original sin) which makes the rest of us enslaved to sin, and therefore in need of redemption. I agree with the OP that Christ never sinned, so never needed to be redeemed, and my proposition allows for this, while removing any need for the doctrine of immaculate conception, which seems a good thing to me. (Well, it would be a form of immaculate conception, but not the traditional one requiring his mother to be sinless at the time.)
Can any shipmates produce biblical or church teaching which supports the idea that Jesus did derive his human nature from his mother, rather than just being born of her? I’m open to being convinced either way.
[And particular thanks to Josephine and Michael Astley for their posts above which have clarified and provoked my thinking on this mind-stretching subject. I think the proverb ‘To err is human’ needs revision, and should read: ‘To be tempted is human, to err is sinful human’.]
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Can any shipmates produce biblical or church teaching which supports the idea that Jesus did derive his human nature from his mother, rather than just being born of her? I’m open to being convinced either way.
Would Swedenborgian teaching be good enough?
quote:
Emanuel Swedenborg, Arcana Coelestia n. 1414:
Let it be said simply that He was like any other human being, except that He was conceived from Jehovah, yet born of a woman who was a virgin, and that by birth from that virgin He took on all the weaknesses that are common to all.
There are two heredities that are born together in a human being, one from the father, the other from the mother. The Lord's heredity from the father was Divine, but that from the mother was human and weak.
This weak humanity that a person derives by heredity from the mother is something bodily which is dispelled when he is being regenerated, whereas that which he takes on from the father remains for ever.
But the Lord's heredity from Jehovah was Divine, as has been stated.
A further arcanum is that the Lord's Human also became Divine. In Him alone there was a correspondence of all things of the body with the Divine.
This was a most perfect, or infinitely perfect, correspondence, and from it there resulted a union of bodily things with Divine celestial things, and of sensory things with Divine spiritual things.
Thus He became the Perfect Man, and the Only Man.
This states that Christ's human nature was from Mary, and over the course of His lifetime this human nature was changed into a divinely human nature, so that He was both human and divine.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Can any shipmates produce biblical or church teaching which supports the idea that Jesus did derive his human nature from his mother, rather than just being born of her? I’m open to being convinced either way.
What other potential sources are there? If one believes he had no father "after the flesh," then where else could his humanity have come from if not his mother?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Can any shipmates produce biblical or church teaching which supports the idea that Jesus did derive his human nature from his mother, rather than just being born of her?
What are you looking for? That's absolutely standard Orthodox teaching about the Incarnation (and I thought standard for the rest of Christendom as well, but I'll let others speak for themselves).
From a "what we believe" page on a parish website:
quote:
INCARNATION refers to Jesus Christ coming "in the flesh." The eternal Son of God the Father assumed to Himself a complete human nature from the Virgin Mary. He was (and is) one divine Person, fully possessing from God the Father the entirety of the divine nature, and in His coming in the flesh fully possessing a human nature from Mary. By His Incarnation, the Son forever possesses two natures in His one Person.
From OrthodoxWiki:
quote:
The final definitions of the Incarnation and the nature of Jesus were made by the early Church at the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon. These councils declared that Jesus was both fully God, begotten from the Father; and fully man, taking His flesh and human nature from the Theotokos. These two natures, human and divine, were hypostatically united into the one personhood of Jesus Christ.
I could dig around and find more, but this is a point that hasn't been controversial among us for many, many centuries. Jesus was without a father on the side of his mother, and without a mother on the side of his father. He took his flesh from Mary. That is and has been the teaching of the Orthodox Church.
quote:
[And particular thanks to Josephine...]
You're quite welcome!
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
