|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Did Christ's own human nature need to be redeemed?
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature.
Isn't it?
If he was without sin, he wasn't like us.
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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:
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which puzzles me as to why you disagreed with my earlier statement that the Incarnation includes the Passion ... you vehemently disagreed with that.
It could be that you got the wrong end of the stick, of course, or that I didn't explain myself clearly enough.
'Both/and' not 'either/or'.
That's why I've been hassling you a bit on this one, Mudfrog.
Anyone, it's a bit of a tangent to the OP which is whether Christ's human nature had to be redeemed ...
I would suggest that the purpose of the Incarnation included the passion; the Son of God could still have been incarnate and for the crucifixion not to have taken place.
If the passion was an automatic component part of the incarnation, there wasn't much point in the temptations or in Gethsemene was there?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I thought it was ONLY Roman Catholics who believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Protestants don't...
Well, that is not entirely true. I’m Lutheran, and I believe in it. And while it has never achieved the status as doctrine, it’s (very likely) a part of the Lutheran ‘doctrinal’ heritage. We (probably) find it references in the Book of Concord, the founding documents of the Lutheran faith. It is said, in the Smalcald Articles I.IV: “[We hold that] the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary.” (Emphasis added)
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature.
Isn't it?
If he was without sin, he wasn't like us.
Is sin part of our nature?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Jesus was/is FULLY human because he lived up to his nature as made in God's image. We sinful ones mar that image and become LESS THAN fully human.
I am so happy that you said this. In that sense no one is truly human except God.
I like this better than the artificial dichotomy of human/divine.
I don't think it's artificial. God is uncreated. Human beings are created. That's a pretty big difference.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Jesus was/is FULLY human because he lived up to his nature as made in God's image. We sinful ones mar that image and become LESS THAN fully human.
I am so happy that you said this. In that sense no one is truly human except God.
I like this better than the artificial dichotomy of human/divine.
I don't think it's artificial. God is uncreated. Human beings are created. That's a pretty big difference.
Yes, no question that there is a big difference between us and God.
My point is about what "human" refers to. It doesn't necessarily mean the created as opposed to the Creator. It can also mean the reality that we are the image and likeness of.
[ 06. July 2012, 00:42: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm not sure I follow. We are the image and likeness of God, not the image and likeness of human. We don't need to be the image and likeness of human because we ARE human.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure I follow. We are the image and likeness of God, not the image and likeness of human. We don't need to be the image and likeness of human because we ARE human.
Yes, I understand that human and divine are usually seen as the distinction between us and God. I'm saying that this isn't the only way to understand "human."
I think that Leo's post suggests that "human" is a good thing, and that the better we are the more human we are.
In that sense God is the only one who is truly human because He is the only one who is good.
Another way to say this is that all of creation replicates the human form, because the human form is God's form - and people most of all.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature.
Isn't it?
If he was without sin, he wasn't like us.
That's true, but irrelevant to Josephine's point. Sin isn't part of the human nature. It is perfectly possible to be in full possession of the human nature and not to sin. The difference between a person who has sinned and a person who has not sinned is not that one is human and the other is not: it is that one has fallen to temptation while the other has resisted temptation.
I'm not aware of anyone who is without sin besides Jesus. Are you?
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature.
Isn't it?
If he was without sin, he wasn't like us.
Is sin part of our nature?
Well I can't speak for you for only God knows your heart but it's certainly part of mine.
So this whole Christ redeemed human nature bit seems like empty bullshit to me. Doesn't make any sense.
Show me the money I say. Show me the person who is without sin (besides Jesus).
[ 06. July 2012, 04:20: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Is sin part of our nature?
Well I can't speak for you for only God knows your heart but it's certainly part of mine.
Really? So if you were ever totally cleansed from sin you'd be -- what? Some other person? You'd pass out of existence altogether?
[ 06. July 2012, 04:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Really? So if you were ever totally cleansed from sin you'd be -- what? Some other person?
Yes.
Can you imagine what this world would look like if human beings really were redeemed from sin? Completely different I would say.
[ 06. July 2012, 04:43: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
And if sin does not change human nature, why the fuck does human nature need to be redeemed in the first place?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I must confess that this thread pushes me to the limit, so I apologise in advance for any theological naivete.
As I see it human beings are the product of an evolutionary development and their “nature” is not the product of a fall from a state of grace. That being the case, “sinfulness” is a part of our nature, an essential part of being human. If Jesus was fully human but without sin do we not have to agree with Evensong that “he wasn’t like us”?
Perhaps we need to revisit the concept of being “born again” not in terms of redemption etc., but in terms of being a “new creation”, acquiring a nature different from our biological inheritance. “As in Adam all die” can be seen as a simple statement of fact about our evolutionary nature, and as “in Christ shall all live” as an essential feature of a born-again nature unrelated to a fall.
The problem is where Christ’s nature fits into such a model, though his humanity might be considered in terms of his being the first of a “new creation”.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature.
Isn't it?
If he was without sin, he wasn't like us.
That's true, but irrelevant to Josephine's point. Sin isn't part of the human nature. It is perfectly possible to be in full possession of the human nature and not to sin. The difference between a person who has sinned and a person who has not sinned is not that one is human and the other is not: it is that one has fallen to temptation while the other has resisted temptation.
I'm not aware of anyone who is without sin besides Jesus. Are you?
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's not that Christ has one human nature, and we have a different human nature.
Isn't it?
If he was without sin, he wasn't like us.
Is sin part of our nature?
Well I can't speak for you for only God knows your heart but it's certainly part of mine.
So this whole Christ redeemed human nature bit seems like empty bullshit to me. Doesn't make any sense.
Show me the money I say. Show me the person who is without sin (besides Jesus).
Well, there are those who believe that the Mother of God and St John the Baptist were without personal sin - about these and others, I do not know, but I'm going to take a step beyond this question because I think it is sidetracking us from the possibility that we may be talking about two different things here.
What do you think the human nature is?
[ 06. July 2012, 06:22: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Mudfrog - thanks for the clarification. I can see the distinction you are making. I'm not sure that I am suggesting that these things are 'automatic' - Jesus during his Incarnation wasn't a robot or simply some kind of Divine sock-puppet.
It all makes the whole thing immensely rich and awe-inspiring, of course - and much else besides ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
@ Evensong, Kwesi.
I think we have to draw a distinction between redemption and transformation.
Redemption is, essentially, the "buying back" of a slave. Now a slave is fully human, in the sense that he or she shares every essential part of human nature with a free person. But he or she is not the same as a free person. Their essential humanity is constrained by the institution of slavery. So it is with fallen humanity. We are like Jesus in that we share His humanity, but it is constrained, limited, if you like, by our slavery to sin.
Another way of looking at this is a medical model. A person with an illness is no less human than anyone else, but they are, nevertheless, constrained by the limitations imposed on them by their disease. They are in need of healing.
Now once they are healed, they may need physio to recover all their abilities, just as those who are redeemed need to grow fully into what God intends for them, what the Orthies call deification, being conformed to the full humanity of Jesus. This is transformation, which is the work of a lifetime.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Kwesi is not the only one to find this question pushing us to the limit.
I wonder if all this talk about human nature being essentially sinful bedevils the issue. The doctrine of original sin once again rearing its ugly head.
I go with Kwesi in that, as the climax of an evolutionary process, there was no "fall" from perfection. Whatever fall there was implies a failure to become. From that point of view Jesus represents what all humankind are meant to be. As Luther sang He is the Proper Man.
Sinfulness does not belong to our nature per se but to the choices we make which feed into and determine the kind of person we are.. And to be perfect is not defined as sinless ( which is a thoroughly negative concept) but to be wholly loving. This state is not reached by any DIY effort but in response to the gift of God.
So I wonder if this whole discussion is vitiated by a view of sinfulness ( and therefore redemption as the answer) which may be wide of the mark. ( Ironically 'wide of the mark is an OT definition of sin!!)
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Sorry to double post. Too late for edit button.
I wanted to add that "redemption" does not only have reference to slavery. That is Paul's use of the word. In the OT the word is "goel" and it means to fulfil a kinsmans responsibility. As Boaz did with Ruth.
So Jesus as our kinsman effects our redemption by becoming one of us and one with us. The incarnation is a redemptive act.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I wanted to add that "redemption" does not only have reference to slavery. That is Paul's use of the word. In the OT the word is "goel" and it means to fulfil a kinsmans responsibility. As Boaz did with Ruth.
So Jesus as our kinsman effects our redemption by becoming one of us and one with us. The incarnation is a redemptive act.
It also means to fulfil an oath and rescue by force:
quote:
Deuteronomy 7:8 but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Rescuing seems like a fitting act for our Savior.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
We need a good Greek philosopher here. (takes out lantern, looks around}
Anyway.
The nature of something is what it's meant to be, what it's created to be, what it WILL be if not prevented by various opposing forces such as accident (in the modern sense), malice, ill fortune, etc. So an acorn is of the nature "oak" and will become a beautiful mature oak unless Things Go Wrong, in which case it may become an ugly crappy looking oak, or simply die altogether. But no matter what the outcome, it is still of the nature "oak."
A human being is in the same situation regarding human nature. We are human, not fish, not angels, not axolotls (pl?). Barring accident or malice, we ought to end up as perfect human specimens. But there HAS been both malice and stupidity, and that at a key point in the species' history, resulting in the form of damage we call the Fall. The result is that every individual specimen we run across now is deeply flawed in one way or another. Still human, but deeply damaged.
Into this situation God sent Jesus, the only undamaged (in that sense, anyway) specimen of human nature that exists. He is what we should have been, what we ought to be, what we WILL be after he gets done "fixing" us.
So sin (the damage) is not a part of human nature at all; it is an "accident" that happens TO human nature, and that can be removed from human nature, given the right Worker with the right tools. Saith she while looking at the crappy painted-over-wallpaper-of-ten-layers that falleth off mine house walls! There's a job I'm not looking forward to.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lev
Shipmate
# 50
|
Posted
This is a fascinating thread which throws up many questions for me.
Firstly - blood and sperm.
I seem to remember reading that an unfertilised egg cannot produce blood. Only when sperm is united with an egg that it can do so and the sperm denotes the type of blood the embryo will develop (apologies if this is incorrect - I'm not an expert).
It would follow then, that the blood Jesus Christ had was unique as Mary's egg was fertilised by the Holy Spirit rather than man made sperm.
I think this is what makes communion particularly significant as Jesus Christ himself draws attention to both his flesh and blood at the last supper. It is his blood that "washes away sin".
Secondly - flesh vs sinful nature
The NIV translation of the bible is very frustrating as it translates flesh to sinful nature (particularly naughty in Romans ch 7!). This has significant theological implications as Paul writes at length on the flesh and how it can drive us to sin.
Jesus Christ was made flesh, so if the NIV translation is followed to it's logical conclusion Jesus Christ also had a sinful nature. Thankfully other translations do not make the same error.
I've often asked Christians whether they believe we have a sinful nature and it surprised me that there was roughly a 50/50 split in responses.
Many say of course we do, that's why we're tempted to sin.
Some say no, we are born again and have a holy nature without sin.
I've often thought this question is incredibly important to answer, as it gives us a better understanding of the process of salvation, but also a better understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ, the significance of communion and the interplay between Jesus Christ's life and death and our own.
Posts: 304 | From: Brighton, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hot DAYYUM indeed mousethief !
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
What do you think the human nature is?
Your nature, my nature and the man next door's nature.
Why?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
@ Evensong, Kwesi.
I think we have to draw a distinction between redemption and transformation.
This is true. But lets stick with redemption first.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Redemption is, essentially, the "buying back" of a slave. Now a slave is fully human, in the sense that he or she shares every essential part of human nature with a free person. But he or she is not the same as a free person. Their essential humanity is constrained by the institution of slavery. So it is with fallen humanity. We are like Jesus in that we share His humanity, but it is constrained, limited, if you like, by our slavery to sin.
Well see here the problem arises of righteous people in the Old Testament that God was well pleased with that were not slaves to sin. They were "fallen humanity". Yet they were righteous before God. They were not slaves to sin.
Therein lies the other crack in this kind of theory.
The second more obvious crack is that we are still sinful.
So that buying back was a waste of money.
The only way you could possibly justify such a theory is to say that AFTER Christ, we are less sinful and more transformed (theosis) than those that came before Christ or than those that are not "in" Christ at all.
I don't think 2,000 years of Christian history can prove such a thing.
Human nature is STILL bound to sin.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We need a good Greek philosopher here. (takes out lantern, looks around}
Dafyyd must be on holiday.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
A human being is in the same situation regarding human nature. We are human, not fish, not angels, not axolotls (pl?). Barring accident or malice, we ought to end up as perfect human specimens. But there HAS been both malice and stupidity, and that at a key point in the species' history, resulting in the form of damage we call the Fall. The result is that every individual specimen we run across now is deeply flawed in one way or another. Still human, but deeply damaged.
How were they damaged?
According to God, they made a mistake. God did not want them to be like him and the other gods. God punished them by making life harder for them.
Anways, God recreated the species in Noah. Noah was righteous - the only righteous one left on the planet. So he started again.
So we all come from righteous seed - not like Adam and Eve that made the mistake of wanting to be wise like their father.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Into this situation God sent Jesus, the only undamaged (in that sense, anyway) specimen of human nature that exists. He is what we should have been, what we ought to be, what we WILL be after he gets done "fixing" us.
Done fixing us hey?
Well then - we're not redeemed YET are we?
So Christ did not redeem human nature in his life, death and resurrection.
[ 06. July 2012, 13:58: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
What do you think the human nature is?
Your nature, my nature and the man next door's nature.
Why?
Your responses so far suggest that you're using "human nature" in a distinctive way that might perhaps be different from the theological sense of the term, and that this could be why there is apparent disagreement. However, I can't be sure, which is why I asked you to clarify how you were using the term.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Into this situation God sent Jesus, the only undamaged (in that sense, anyway) specimen of human nature that exists. He is what we should have been, what we ought to be, what we WILL be after he gets done "fixing" us.
Done fixing us hey?
Well then - we're not redeemed YET are we?
So Christ did not redeem human nature in his life, death and resurrection.
We are redeemed because, to continue the medical metaphor, because we have been "healed" of the "disease". We still have to do the physio to undo the damage inflicted by the disease.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So Noah did physio did he?
? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So Noah did physio did he?
?
Well. You responded to what I said to lamb Chopped in stead of what I said to you so I thought I'd ask about Noah in terms of your theory of redemption.
Did Noah, who was righteous before the lord, require redemption and transformation? (Healing from disease and physio)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Evensong, you do recognise that I'm using metaphor here, right?
Not sure what Noah has to do with all this but, yes, he had been redeemed, (since he was righteous) and I'm sure that, like the rest of us, he was a work in progress, and thus was subject to transformation.
I'm sure you are driving at something here, but I really don't know what it is, so I'm finding it difficult to respond in any way that would seem to be meaningful to you.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Those two statements are completely unconnected.
His human nature was 100% human.
He was JUST like us in that.
He didn't sin.
Unlike us.
With the exception of Adam and Eve until they did.
It is NOT a prerequisite of human nature to sin.
Human nature does not HAVE to sin.
Except in the absence of a divine nature.
Human nature left to its own devices will sin.
As Lamb Chopped said, He was MORE human than we. We are less than His Platonic form.
The mystery deepens as He became, assumed all sin without sinning.
He experienced full alienation from God, just like us, as the result, as if He had sinned, as if He were guilty.
That's how He died. As alone as us.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Well, there are those who believe that the Mother of God and St John the Baptist were without personal sin
I am not aware of any who thinks John Baptist was sinless.
I have no particular belief on the matter and my personal feeling is that the sinlessness or otherwise of St John isn't any of my business but it is a theologumenon that isn't too difficult to encounter. Just google the question whether St John the Baptist/Forerunner was sinless and you'll see what I mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was using it in the real world sense.
What do you believe the theological sense is?
Well, what it isn't is the casual use of the term, such as when people say "Oh, well it's just human nature isn't it?" when a usually stiff-upper-lip person breaks down in public after a bereavement, for example.
The nature or essence, or substance, (or ousia, as the Greek has it), of a thing can, I think, be simply but fairly defined as "that about a thing which makes it what it is".
So there can be said to be such a thing as the feline nature. You can look at an animal, hear the animal, spend some time with the animal, and identify it as a cat because you recognise in it the things that make a cat a cat, (even if you cannot readily list and describe all of the elements of this "catness"). An individual being with a nature is an hypostasis. Each hypostasis may have particular marks unique to that individual hypostasis or which may be shared among some but not all hypostases that have the same nature. So my cat, and indeed a number of, or even most cats may love playing in the snow, may have calico markings, and so forth. But these in themselves are not part of the feline nature - they are not what makes a cat a cat because it is perfectly possible to be a cat - to be an hypostasis with the feline nature - and not have those characteristics.
Moving on, then...
The human nature is what it is that makes a human being a human being. Similarly, the divine nature is what makes a divine being a divine being: what makes God God. This is the sense in which those terms are understood and used in Christian theology. When we say in the Creed that the Son is "of one essence/nature" with the Father, that is how we are using the term, and when we say that He was made man, that is what we mean: that He took upon Himself the human nature - the whole package of what it is to be human. We are not saying that he picked up some traits that are common among many human beings, as the term is used in everyday, non-theological parlance.
It is possession of the divine essence that makes the Father God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God. They are three hypostases - three Persons - with the same divine essence/nature/ousia. The fathers of the First Ecumenical Council decreed that the Son is of the same essence (homousious) with the Father, in order to quash the heresy of the Arians, who taught otherwise. Our understanding of the divine nature is that we cannot understand or grasp in any way the divine nature, so we refer to it in the negative - in what it is not. In his essence, God is immortal, inconceivable, indescribable, eternal (i.e. without space and time), and so forth. These are some of the characteristics of the Three Divine Persons.
Having tried to establish that, then, and to finally come to the point, the question raised by your point of whether sinfulness is part of the human nature appears to be a question of whether sinfulness makes a human being a human being. Is sin actually part of the human nature so that to be sinful is an essential part of what a human being is, and somebody who has not sinned is not truly human?
I have to answer in the negative. I know that I am a frequent sinner but this is not what makes me a human being, and, should I ever be granted to be free from sin in this earthly life, I would not cease to be a human being because of it. Similarly, there is no requirement for Christ to have sinned in order for us to confess that He became human.
Now, if we were to phrase the question as to whether temptation to sin is part of the human nature, then I could say yes. We are given free will to grow into the energies of God or apart from the energies of God, and we make that choice. The Gospel tells us that Christ Himself was tempted in the wilderness.
I'm beginning to ramble so I'll shut up now, but to summarise, the common, everyday use of "human nature" is not what is under discussion in the theological claims about Christ and the effects of his work of salvation on us.
[ 06. July 2012, 17:59: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Evensong, you do recognise that I'm using metaphor here, right?
Yes. And it's a fairly good one as far as Christus Victor goes.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Not sure what Noah has to do with all this but, yes, he had been redeemed, (since he was righteous) and I'm sure that, like the rest of us, he was a work in progress, and thus was subject to transformation.
My point was that he was not redeemed by Christ. He was righteous before Christ. He walked with God just as Adam and Eve did in the garden.
He was not enslaved by sin.
And I thought your definition of redemption was freedom from that enslavement.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
The human nature is what it is that makes a human being a human being. Similarly, the divine nature is what makes a divine being a divine being: what makes God God.
Agreed
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Having tried to establish that, then, and to finally come to the point, the question raised by your point of whether sinfulness is part of the human nature appears to be a question of whether sinfulness makes a human being a human being. Is sin actually part of the human nature so that to be sinful is an essential part of what a human being is, and somebody who has not sinned is not truly human?
I have to answer in the negative. I know that I am a frequent sinner but this is not what makes me a human being, and, should I ever be granted to be free from sin in this earthly life, I would not cease to be a human being because of it.
Why does human nature need redeeming then?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
@ Evensong
Noah was redeemed because the cosmic effect of the atonement is outside time, even though it toolk place within time. "The Lamb slain from before the beginning of the world."
But I think you are actually talking more about forgiveness? Of course God's forgiveness does not depend upon redemption. He has mercy on whom he will have mercy. The atonement is to do with undoing the effects of sin. Without the atonement, we would be forgiven, but we could not inherit eternal life.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Having tried to establish that, then, and to finally come to the point, the question raised by your point of whether sinfulness is part of the human nature appears to be a question of whether sinfulness makes a human being a human being. Is sin actually part of the human nature so that to be sinful is an essential part of what a human being is, and somebody who has not sinned is not truly human?
I have to answer in the negative. I know that I am a frequent sinner but this is not what makes me a human being, and, should I ever be granted to be free from sin in this earthly life, I would not cease to be a human being because of it.
Why does human nature need redeeming then?
So that we may grow into the likeness of God, and share in the energies and divine life of the Trinity - something that we could not do without the redeeming work of Christ, which was not necessitated by sin but rather out of the simple fact of our inability, on our own, to approach the wondrous and unimaginable "otherness" of God.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He has had mercy on ALL, atoned for ALL, forgiven ALL, He is reconciled to ALL.
In Christ.
Some have been able to respond.
Some may never.
Most yet will.
Sodom, Gomorrah, Bethsaida, Chorazin.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Human nature does not need redemption at all .... the sentence "human nature needs redeeming" makes no sense. It is as incoherent as saying "fish need an oil change every 2000 miles."
My nature (as has been said above) is what identifies me as human ... a psychomatic unity of genome, genome expression, nurture and maturation.
Sin (arising from the corruption of death, a limiting effect of the Fall) is parasitic to human personhood compromising the power and divine inclination of the WILL, but it can in no way compromise our nature which is impervious to everything except evolution.
We really do need to be precise in our use of theological terms and be careful about their common usage.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay, precision. Human-nature-as-it-is-currently-expressed-in-individual-human-beings needs redemption. And how.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
