|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Did Christ's own human nature need to be redeemed?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I assume the answer to this question is no, and I am curious why, especially if one believes in Original Sin or at least in the fallen nature of all humanity (after the Fall) that needs redemption. I know many denominations do not believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but take it as an example. The doctrine, for those who believe it, states that through God's intervention (and through the future redeeming work of her Son) she was preserved from Original Sin at the moment of her conception. So even believers of that doctrine agree that the Blessed Virgin Mary had her human nature redeemed by Christ.
Christ was also free from all sin, including Original Sin (or, in other words, did not have a fallen nature), from the very instant of His incarnation. But was that because He, as the Savior of all humankind, redeemed his own humanity? I think the answer is no - that in order to be both human and God, Christ could never have needed to be redeemed. I once heard someone suggest that belief in the Immaculate Conception implies that the humanity of Christ (which came from His mother) was already free from Original Sin but that explanation seems too tied to a very specific concept of Original Sin and strikes me as not getting to the core of the issue (one could still ask whether, by redeeming His mother's humanity, Christ also redeemed His own). But I hope that someone here can give or suggest a good explanation of all this, because I find it confusing. It all boils down to what made Christ's humanity different from our humanity - and whether Christ's humanity is included when one says Christ is the Savior of all humankind.
As an aside, I also heard it said that Adam and Eve, even if there had never been a Fall, would still have needed God's grace in order to avoid sinning. Was Christ's humanity like that of Adam and Eve before the Fall, or was His humanity even more perfect?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Maybe this might help...
Jesus' human nature was perfect human nature--which is just another way of saying that he was human in all its fullness, 100% exactly what God intended human beings to be. He is the original of which we are all marred copies. He is the real thing, we are the lousy drivers' license photos. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
So no, he did not need redeeming because redeeming is something you do to set right a thing that has been messed up. Not getting into the Mary stuff here, that's a whole nother controversy--just saying that there's no reason I can think of why God couldn't bring a perfect fruit from a seriously screwed up tree, if he put his mind to it--and I suspect the virgin birth thingy was meant as a sort of heads-up--you know, "Lookee here! See, I am doing a new thing, are you paying attention?"
We tend to think of Jesus as the odd one, but he's really the only "normal" human alive. The rest of us are the abnormal ones. If we hadn't gone wrong, we would be like him (at least according to his human nature!) and we wouldn't need redeeming either.
There are some Christian traditions that speculate that humanity would still have received some gift or another from God--you mentioned an idea about needing grace, I know others think God would have become incarnate just for glory and splendor or something. Forgive my incoherence. In any case, it doesn't really matter what WOULD have happened, because it didn't--but what did happen is ultimately even better.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Yes, Christ's human nature did need to be redeemed.
That's what He is talking about when He says things like:
quote:
John 16:33 "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
He overcame the world by allowing His human nature to die so that it could be reborn. This is what accomplished redemption, both for Him and for all people.
--------------------
"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
Is "human nature" something we each have one of, like a left buttock or a 19th chromosome?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
No need to be redeemed because no sin in Him.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There are some Christian traditions that speculate that humanity would still have received some gift or another from God--you mentioned an idea about needing grace, I know others think God would have become incarnate just for glory and splendor or something. Forgive my incoherence. In any case, it doesn't really matter what WOULD have happened, because it didn't--but what did happen is ultimately even better.
What did happen?
He became incarnate to redeem human nature?
Well....that doesn't really matter because it didn't happen either did it?
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I have no idea what you're on about.
Sorry. Explained myself badly perhaps.
Just curious as to how you believe Jesus redeems our humanity.
I've always been confused by that bit (let alone the question of his humanity being redeemed)
[ 04. July 2012, 02:38: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm certain that I hold some heretical ideas, or at least non-orthodox, and probably incoherent at least in part on this. But I've not heard more than comforting and comfortable words on this question.
It has always seemed to me that the point of Jesus' life is to speak to the sorry lives of all of us as individuals first, which is part of our humanity, but also breaks us from the community of others. His own humanity is thus the point or focus of our humanity. The connection between Jesus and us. Redemption being conventionally said to be from sin, but in essence being from flawed humanity.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
To redeem is to "buy back", as in, to pay the purchase price of slave. Strictly, the atonement redeems us from the power of sin, it's ability to enslave us to that which is less than God intends. Jesus' birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension was God's rescue mission, liberating us from this slavery.
Whatever one's belief about original sin, Jesus was clearly not enslaved by it. He did not, therefore, need to be redeemed from it. Rather, He does for us what we could never do for ourselves.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Interesting topic and one that I will read even if I don't feel up to contributing. However I couldn't resist asking y'all whether I was the only one who read
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Not getting into the Mary stuff here, that's a whole nother controversy
as
quote:
Not getting into the Mary stuff here, that's a whole mother controversy
...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Sorry to be so gauche as to quote a creed, but the Definition of Chalcedon states: "as regards his manhood, like us in all respects, apart from sin".
You appear to be skationg on the same thin ice as did Edward Irving (1792-1834)in his questionably titled The Orthodox And Catholic Doctrine Of Our Lord's Human Nature.
[ 04. July 2012, 08:00: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Stonespring, I thought it was ONLY Roman Catholics who believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Protestants don't, nor do the Orthodox - although they do believe she was preserved from sin.
It's only an issue if you take a particularly Augustinian/Thomist and Scholastic view of original or 'ancestral' sin and stretch it to the nth degree ...
On the Edward Irvine thing, Kaplan ... interesting. A number of Pentecostals and charismatics have tried to argue that Irvine wasn't as off-the-wall on this one as he's generally been portrayed - but then, some of them they like to emphasise that Jesus was like us in order to convince themselves (among other things) that we can do the same sort of things that he did.
It all gets very complicated ...
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A number of Pentecostals and charismatics have tried to argue that Irvine wasn't as off-the-wall on this one as he's generally been portrayed - but then, some of them they like to emphasise that Jesus was like us in order to convince themselves (among other things) that we can do the same sort of things that he did.
Irving certainly pushed this line.
There is a quite nuanced, careful and not entirely unsympathetic examination of his Christology from a Reformed point of view in Arnold Dallimore's (Banner of Truth!) biography of him.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
To redeem is to "buy back", as in, to pay the purchase price of slave. Strictly, the atonement redeems us from the power of sin, it's ability to enslave us to that which is less than God intends. Jesus' birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension was God's rescue mission, liberating us from this slavery.
Whatever one's belief about original sin, Jesus was clearly not enslaved by it. He did not, therefore, need to be redeemed from it. Rather, He does for us what we could never do for ourselves.
I always thought the "redemption" of humanity came via the incarnation - not the atonement. That was something else entirely.
No?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I have no idea what you're on about.
Sorry. Explained myself badly perhaps.
Just curious as to how you believe Jesus redeems our humanity.
I've always been confused by that bit (let alone the question of his humanity being redeemed)
I shuffle back and forth with various theories of the atonement, using whichever one is most useful at the moment. As Lewis said, the fact of the atonement is far more important than the explanations of the atonement.
I do think more than merely the incarnation was and is needed for our salvation. Although I never want to discount that. And it's what made the atonement possible.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
@ Evensong
Which is why I posted the follow-up sentence:
quote:
Jesus' birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension was God's rescue mission, liberating us from this slavery.
The Atonement doesn't concern just the cross, the whole "Christ event" is involved.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
But it says that he came to give his life a ransom for many, not live his life a ransom for many.
The redemption was obtained by paying the redemption price not just by walking into the shop.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That which is not assumed is not redeemed.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've read bits of the Dallimore biography, many, many moons ago. I was struck that Banner of Truth was cutting Irving some slack ...
But then again, he came from a Reformed background initially so that would cover a multitude of sins from their perspective. If he'd started out as a Methodist, say, rather than a Presbyterian I suspect they'd have taken a very different line ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Incarnation includes the Passion, Mudfrog. It's not either/or but both/and ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've read bits of the Dallimore biography, many, many moons ago. I was struck that Banner of Truth was cutting Irving some slack ...
But then again, he came from a Reformed background initially so that would cover a multitude of sins from their perspective. If he'd started out as a Methodist, say, rather than a Presbyterian I suspect they'd have taken a very different line ...
I don't think they've ever put out a Finney Biog ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Dallimore certianly seems a responsible historian.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosina
Shipmate
# 15589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, Christ's human nature did need to be redeemed.
That's what He is talking about when He says things like:
quote:
John 16:33 "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
He overcame the world by allowing His human nature to die so that it could be reborn. This is what accomplished redemption, both for Him and for all people.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Also "I lay down my life - no-one takes it from me"
Aren't we too to be "born again" to "take up our cross" and "overcome the world in exactly the same way Jesus of Nazareth did.?
To lay down the old life of fallen man and receive from God new life "all things being new and from God"?
I struggle with the opening post because the word "Christ" means God's anointed - I think you mean Jesus of Nazareth needing to be redeemed. ISTM Jesus became the Son of God by the anointing of God thus becoming the Christ of God.
The word 'Jesus' in my understanding is an English translation of Y'shua, or Yeshua, Ye- Shua, "God," and "Saves" or "Saviour." Christ Jesus - God's anointed saviour.
The Hebrew word "Y'shua." means "Messiah." This Messiah is of and from God and is Spirit.
--------------------
"Imagine." If you can imagine, you can dream, and if you can dream, you can hope and if you have hope, you may seek and if you seek; you will find.
Posts: 75 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, as you'll undoubtedly be aware Rosina, the traditional Creedal position is that Jesus the Christ is also the Incarnate Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father ...
So he didn't just happen to put on a 'God-suit' at his baptism as it were - he was/is fully God and fully Man.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Stonespring, I thought it was ONLY Roman Catholics who believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Protestants don't, nor do the Orthodox - although they do believe she was preserved from sin.
I am an Anglican and i believe in the immaculate conception.
Protestants do not, on the whole, believe that Our Lady was preserved from sin.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freddy:
[qb] The Hebrew word "Y'shua." means "Messiah." This Messiah is of and from God and is Spirit.
No it doesn't - Y'shua means one who saves.
The Heb. for messiah is mashiach. Ane he is not 'from' God in the trinitarian sense. he is anointed, as a human, BY God.
[ 04. July 2012, 20:32: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freddy:
[qb] The Hebrew word "Y'shua." means "Messiah." This Messiah is of and from God and is Spirit.
No it doesn't - Y'shua means one who saves.
The Heb. for messiah is mashiach. Ane he is not 'from' God in the trinitarian sense. he is anointed, as a human, BY God.
Yes, that's right. Rosina said it, not me.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Rosina
Shipmate
# 15589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, as you'll undoubtedly be aware Rosina, the traditional Creedal position is that Jesus the Christ is also the Incarnate Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father ...
So he didn't just happen to put on a 'God-suit' at his baptism as it were - he was/is fully God and fully Man.
I believe the creed(s) were written by man Gamaliel and are not thee Word of God.
The way it was given to me is yes, Jesus is a man, the man kind who is created by God called mankind. God's creation.
Leo I'm sure you are correct - however, the two words, Jesus and Christ certainly signify different matters. Christ refers to the anointed of God, Jesus refers to the Saviour of God. Though usually a person becomes both, sometimes not - after all Soloman was anointed by God but did not remain united with God. He used what he learned from God to do evil. He was damned and condemned by God and therefore, not saved. My understanding is that Solomon chose to refuse the transformation by God into "Jesus" though he was Christ, or more accurately in the way of Christ.
--------------------
"Imagine." If you can imagine, you can dream, and if you can dream, you can hope and if you have hope, you may seek and if you seek; you will find.
Posts: 75 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosina
Shipmate
# 15589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
<snip>
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but take it as an example. The doctrine, for those who believe it, states that through God's intervention (and through the future redeeming work of her Son) she was preserved from Original Sin at the moment of her conception.
Do you see "her conception" as a physical thing or a spiritual event stonespring?
<snip>
Was Christ's humanity like that of Adam and Eve before the Fall, or was His humanity even more perfect?
I see in Jesus the same Holy Spirit from God which came to Adam, thereby becoming the man who returned to where Adam had fallen from, becoming the "second Adam". The second man (Adam) created by God in His image and likeness.
The flesh of Jesus, his physical body, did not differ from the flesh of any of mankind.
As is written flesh and blood of the physical body cannot receive nor enter into the Kingdom of God which this man did.
--------------------
"Imagine." If you can imagine, you can dream, and if you can dream, you can hope and if you have hope, you may seek and if you seek; you will find.
Posts: 75 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
To answer the OP, no.
As Lamb Chopped said, in Jesus human nature IS perfect, He IS the first free, not adapted, child since Adam and He IS fully divine as well as fully human. Unlike Adam.
Prince trumps toad.
The hypostatic union is truly the greatest mystery of all.
His divine princely nature (and nobody knows what that means, as a nature without a person is meaningless) constantly redeemed His human toady nature, saved it, kept it up.
So in answer to the OP, yes, constantly.
How the immaculate conception of Mary illuminates the mystery for some, I don't know and it isn't transferable.
And the oecumenical creeds, Rosina, are all perfectly orthodox corollaries of God's word to Christians. Not to Jews or Muslims. Yet.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
'The way it was given to me is ...'
Ah, there we have it. Personal revelation trumps the teaching of the Church/es ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Of course the Creeds were written by men. So was the Bible, come to that ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I'm not suggesting that the Creeds are on a par with the Bible but they are meant to be consonant with it, of course.
Call me old-fashioned ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Did Christ need to be redeemed? You could ask the same question about did he need to be baptised? However sinless, he chose to be baptised and was baptised.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosina
Shipmate
# 15589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
<snip>
And the oecumenical creeds, Rosina, are all perfectly orthodox corollaries of God's word to Christians. Not to Jews or Muslims. Yet.
Orthodoxy means right belief or right thinking doesnt it? but who decides and why is it that so often 'right thinking' turns into 'think as I do'
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"Imagine." If you can imagine, you can dream, and if you can dream, you can hope and if you have hope, you may seek and if you seek; you will find.
Posts: 75 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosina
Shipmate
# 15589
|
Posted
Gamaliel "you're old fashioned" ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"Imagine." If you can imagine, you can dream, and if you can dream, you can hope and if you have hope, you may seek and if you seek; you will find.
Posts: 75 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Stonespring, I thought it was ONLY Roman Catholics who believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Protestants don't, nor do the Orthodox - although they do believe she was preserved from sin.
Not officially. John Chrysostom, for instance, did not.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But it says that he came to give his life a ransom for many, not live his life a ransom for many.
Is "die" the only meaning of "give [one's] life"? You can say someone "gave his life in the service of humanity" and it doesn't have to mean they died to serve humanity. Can anybody in the know tell us about the underlying Greek of this passage?
Your "just by walking into the shop" quip is unworthy of you. At least one person here has said the atonement involves our Lord's life and death.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
To answer the OP, no.
As Lamb Chopped said, in Jesus human nature IS perfect, He IS the first free, not adapted, child since Adam and He IS fully divine as well as fully human. Unlike Adam.
Prince trumps toad.
The hypostatic union is truly the greatest mystery of all.
His divine princely nature (and nobody knows what that means, as a nature without a person is meaningless) constantly redeemed His human toady nature, saved it, kept it up.
So in answer to the OP, yes, constantly.
How the immaculate conception of Mary illuminates the mystery for some, I don't know and it isn't transferable.
And the oecumenical creeds, Rosina, are all perfectly orthodox corollaries of God's word to Christians. Not to Jews or Muslims. Yet.
Dayyum. 100% agreement.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, Rosina ... but I've been vatic enough and charismatic enough in the past to be wary of putative personal revelations and so on ...
Ok, I know that 'history is written by the victors' and that there was all manner of politicking and so on going on with the great Ecumenical Creeds, but I find them a useful framework ... (but hopefully not a strait-jacket)
Here I stand, I can do no other ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But it says that he came to give his life a ransom for many, not live his life a ransom for many.
Is "die" the only meaning of "give [one's] life"? You can say someone "gave his life in the service of humanity" and it doesn't have to mean they died to serve humanity. Can anybody in the know tell us about the underlying Greek of this passage?
I don't think the underlying Greek is substantially different than the English idiom of giving one's life.
But the "ransom" thing and what is implied by the giving of Christ's life can be understood in different ways.
In my understanding He gave His life the way a soldier does, as an act of bravery in battle that secures the victory. The victory is won not because the soldier died but because of what he did that led to his death.
All that goes away if we understand Christ's death as a kind of "payment" to God. It's not the death that is important but the victory.
In my understanding the victory is a triumph that is analagous to the one that any person makes when an old habit dies and a new one established, or when a self-destructive behavior is overcome and the person is released from its grasp. He is then a "new" person.
The whole point of being "born again" or being "regenerated" is to put aside the self-centered and worldly desires that we are born with, and develop the love of God and of the neighbor that Christ teaches. The old self dies hard, and the new self does not come easily.
Christ's death and resurrection are all about this paradigm, representing it as an actual physical death and resurrection. The result was victory over "the power of darkness" because, since Christ was God, all of the hells joined forces in the hope of defeating Him.
This is why Christ's human nature had to be redeemed just as ours does, even though He was sinless, because the very process of regeneration is how He defeated the power of darkness.
The meaning of "redemption" here is the one used to describe the way that Israel was delivered from the Egyptians:
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.
He didn't "redeem" by paying a price, He redeemed by "a mighty hand." He rescued us by His mighty power.
What He rescued us from was the power of darkness:
quote:
Luke 22:53 When I was with you daily in the temple, you did not try to seize Me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”
Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Colossians 1:13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
He delivered us by the power of His word, by the power of the light, and this judges and casts out the "ruler of this world":
quote:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
John 16:8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Christ's physical death was part of the process of acheiving this victory, and He accomplished it in the same way that people seem to themselves to accomplish "victories" over their self-centered and materialistic desires. Not that we can accomplish anything, it is all from God.
The point is that this is what Christ's struggle was about and why His human nature needed to be "redeemed" in order to accomplish His victory.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Freddy, I appreciate that you are anxious to draw a line against substitutionary atonement theories here, but you make a case in favour of Jesus redeeming, which no-one here disputes, but not in favour of Him being redeemed, which is the question at issue.
Even if you reject substitution, it is hardly controversial to suggest that He paid a price in acting in redemption. To whom or what we think that price is paid, we are likely to disagree, since I believe in objective atonement, something of which you, IIRC, are wary. But I'm sure that you would not say Christ's mission was cost-less.
--------------------
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
Having said all that, I rather like Martin's idea of the ideal humanity being constantly redeemed by God's Spirit. This strikes me as the way in which we all should aspire to live.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Incarnation includes the Passion, Mudfrog. It's not either/or but both/and ...
I disagree. There could have been an incarnation without the passion - that's the whole point of the temptations and then Gethsemane.
Had Jesus given into the tempter, he would have been unable to redeem humanity on the cross.
Had he given in to his fears he would have refused to redeem humanity on the cross.
It is true that there could be no passion without the incarnation, but incarnation did not automatically mean atonement.
And it is the resurrection that ratifies the atonement, vindicates the crucified Christ and gives completion to the reason for the Incarnation.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Your "just by walking into the shop" quip is unworthy of you. At least one person here has said the atonement involves our Lord's life and death.
And that is my point: that the atonement was not just in the incarnation, the lived life of Jesus. It has to include his death.
Jesus is the redeemer, not the redeemed.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I don't know how much more specific you want people to be. The incarnation, the "Christ-event" (I know, I hate the term as well) includes the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. That's what "both/and" means. No-one is denying that the passion is a redemptive act, only denying that it stands alone and separate from the rest of the incarnation. Dis Jesus suffer in the flesh? If the answer is "yes", then it's part of the incarnation, 'cause that's what the word means! Blood and guts! Christianity is an incarnational, not a gnostic, faith.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Freddy, I appreciate that you are anxious to draw a line against substitutionary atonement theories here, but you make a case in favour of Jesus redeeming, which no-one here disputes, but not in favour of Him being redeemed, which is the question at issue.
Even if you reject substitution, it is hardly controversial to suggest that He paid a price in acting in redemption. To whom or what we think that price is paid, we are likely to disagree, since I believe in objective atonement, something of which you, IIRC, are wary. But I'm sure that you would not say Christ's mission was cost-less.
I don't disagree with you. Christ is certainly the redeemer not the redeemed. The question, though, is whether He needed to be redeemed as to His human nature.
This depends on what we think "redemption" is, and how we think that His human nature is connected with His divine nature.
I would say that He had a human nature that He inherited from Mary, with its attendant weaknesses. Then through His life's struggles, culminating with the crucifixion, He glorified (or redeemed) that human nature so that it could be joined with His divine nature from His Father.
--------------------
"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 Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Incarnation includes the Passion, Mudfrog. It's not either/or but both/and ...
I disagree. There could have been an incarnation without the passion
BUT THERE WASN'T. It's Jesus' ACTUAL incarnation, not some hypothetical one, that saves us.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Absolutely, Jolly Jape and Mousethief have put it better than I did.
To listen to some evangelicals you'd think that the 'Christ event' (yes, I know ... as Jolly Jape has said ... ) fast-forwards from the Nativity to Calvary with nothing in between.
I know you want to protect the idea of Christ's atoning and sacrificial death, but I can't see why you can't do that AND take on board what some of us here are suggesting ... in fact, I suspect you probably do already but are just being polemical because there are Swedenborgians about ... and whatever it is that Rosina happens to be ...
I suspect you imagine that by suggesting that it's all down to the Incarnation (which includes the Passion) we are somehow diminishing the sacrificial and atonement aspects. I don't see how that follows. And yes, the resurrection does ratify the whole thing, as it were, but it does a lot more than that too ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Incarnation includes the Passion, Mudfrog. It's not either/or but both/and ...
I disagree. There could have been an incarnation without the passion
BUT THERE WASN'T. It's Jesus' ACTUAL incarnation, not some hypothetical one, that saves us.
Maybe there have been more than one incarnations.
But an incarnation without the Passion would have involved the people, including the leadership, accepting Jesus' message and identity - and worshiping Him.
On the other hand, if they had been ready to do that the incarnation would not have been necessary. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I don't disagree with you. Christ is certainly the redeemer not the redeemed. The question, though, is whether He needed to be redeemed as to His human nature.
Maybe I'm still half asleep, after fireworks kept me up three quarters of the night, and I'm still inadequately caffeinated. But I cannot, in my present sense, make the question make sense at all.
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature. Talking about his human nature as distinct from ours is like talking about his divine nature as distinct from the Father's.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature. Talking about his human nature as distinct from ours is like talking about his divine nature as distinct from the Father's.
That's right.
The only difference is that Jesus did not have a human father.
--------------------
"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 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.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
