Thread: Did Christ's own human nature need to be redeemed? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023287
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Is "human nature" something we each have one of, like a left buttock or a 19th chromosome?
Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on
:
No need to be redeemed because no sin in Him.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I have no idea what you're on about.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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 ]
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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
...
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, Irving ...
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
@ 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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
That which is not assumed is not redeemed.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The Incarnation includes the Passion, Mudfrog. It's not either/or but both/and ...
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
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.
Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on
:
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.
Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'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 ...
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on
:
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)
Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on
:
Gamaliel "you're old fashioned" ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
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.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
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.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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)
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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.
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
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.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
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.
But he didn't join his human and divine natures at his death or at his resurrection. As soon as he was conceived in Mary's womb, the human and the divine were joined in him.
And while that had no effect on his divine nature, which is immutable, it changed human nature. Our nature was taken up by God, and so in that moment, in that act, that which had been made by God in the beginning was now sanctified.
It wasn't that "his" human nature had to be redeemed. It's that, in assuming our human nature, In sharing our nature, he made it holy. That is why the Fathers are at such pains to tell us that, when we mistreat other people, we are mistreating Christ himself. That's not a figure of speech. That is a simple and terrifying truth. The human nature of the person we abuse is Christ's human nature.
We're all in it together. We all share a common humanity. That humanity has been sanctified and is sitting at the right hand of the Father. Now all that's left is for the rest of us to learn to act like what we are.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But he didn't join his human and divine natures at his death or at his resurrection. As soon as he was conceived in Mary's womb, the human and the divine were joined in him.
I understand, but that isn't how I see it.
There is an analagous dual nature in every person. Our natural instincts urge us to value self and the world above all things, or to follow our natural desires. But our socialized, moral, or spiritual self counteracts these impulses with radically different motivations.
Over time one self gradually wins and the other loses. If the latter wins, the person is reborn.
The same was true of Christ, and only the latter could be joined with His divine nature.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I always thought the "redemption" of humanity came via the incarnation - not the atonement. That was something else entirely.
No?
It was this assertion that I was commenting on: that the atonement is not what provides redemption, only the incarnation.
I am perfectly aware and entirely faithful to the belief that Christ was truly and properly man and truly and properly God; and that the incarnation was necessary in order for Christ to die as one of us, for us, on behalf of us and in representation of us.
I am uncomfortable with the idea that Jesus being God incarnate was 'enough' to redeem humanity and that the passion was somehow 'something else entirely'.
Jesus being flesh is not the same as redeeming the flesh - that needs the cross and resurrection as well, in addition.
I have never met any one, evangelical or not, who believes we can go from the nativity to the cross.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
[QBSin 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. [/QB]
Precisely. Though I would rather put it thus: 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.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I didn't say that evangelicals 'believe' that you can go straight from the nativity to the cross, but in practice that's the impression that many of them give ... to the detriment of the evangelical tradition ...
I well remember a sermon in a Baptist chapel in South Wales where the minister mentioned the Nativity story in about one and a half sentences and then went, 'But let's leave that to one side, come with me 33 years later, to a hill outside Jerusalem ...'
I suspect that Evensong is making an equal and opposite error in that the atonement seems to play a lesser role in her theology - a second fiddle, if you like, to the Incarnation.
What I'm trying to say, and I think Mousethief is too, is that you can't separate out the individual 'elements' of the Christ Event - to put it in those terms - but that they all belong together as a seamless whole.
Does that make any sense?
Both Evensong and yourself, in equal and opposite ways, seem to be isolating various aspects, it seems to me, rather than regarding them as part of a single continuum ...
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I well remember a sermon in a Baptist chapel in South Wales where the minister mentioned the Nativity story in about one and a half sentences and then went, 'But let's leave that to one side, come with me 33 years later, to a hill outside Jerusalem ...'
...ah well, Baptists you know...
What I'm trying to say, and I think Mousethief is too, is that you can't separate out the individual 'elements' of the Christ Event - to put it in those terms - but that they all belong together as a seamless whole.
Does that make any sense?[/QUOTE]
Of course it does; I haven't said anything different.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In which case, we're on the same or similar pages ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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?
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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)
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
And if sin does not change human nature, why the fuck does human nature need to be redeemed in the first place?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
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”.
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@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 ...
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
@ 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.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
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!!)
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
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.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Lev (# 50) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Hot DAYYUM indeed mousethief !
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I was using it in the real world sense.
What do you believe the theological sense is?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
So Noah did physio did he?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So Noah did physio did he?
? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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)
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
@ 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.
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Okay, precision. Human-nature-as-it-is-currently-expressed-in-individual-human-beings needs redemption. And how.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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.
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Neither does it require for eternity to be preserved in aspic.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
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
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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?
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
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!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0