My last post I referenced Arjen’s post on the fallen humanity of Christ; well I am going to do so again. In lieu of the great comments provided by the last post, I thought I would continue to engage this topic a little further; at least by providing further explication of what T. F. Torrance thought about this issue (and why). In fact, this post is going to highlight one of the reasons why Torrance held that Christ did indeed assume a “fallen humanity” (whatever that is supposed to mean, pace the comments in the last thread); this touches on Arjen’s point (in his post), on Torrance’s aversion to the idea of ‘external relations’ (as we all know Torrance operated from his onto-relational mode of thought which, at its base, will disallow any kind of being-in-constitution that is not oriented by being-in-relation as constitutional to what it means to be a ‘person’). In this vein, let me quote from Elmer Colyer, as he develops Torrance’s thought, a bit, on these lines:
The Latin heresy: A “gospel” of external relations. Torrance sees a growing tendency in Latin theology from the fifth century to reject the idea that Christ assumed our sinful, alienated and fallen humanity, and to embrace the notion that Christ assumed a neutral or an original and perfect human nature from the Virgin Mary. This understanding of the incarnation, however, conflicts with the soteriological principle of the Nicene theologians that the unassumed is the unhealed, for in the Latin view the Son of God has not assumed our actual fallen humanity, but a perfect and sinless humanity different from our own.
Yet if in incarnation the Son of God did not assume our fallen and sinful human nature, Torrance argues that Christ’s atoning sacrifice can only be understood in terms of external (forensic, for example) relations between Christ and humanity’s sins. The incarnation thus becomes instrumental in relation to the atonement. It is the means of providing the sinless human being capable of living a life in perfect obedience to God’s law, and of taking our place on the cross and enduring the judgment and wrath of God which we deserve because of our sin. In Christ’s suffering and death there is an external judicial transaction in the transference of the penalty for sin and of the judgement and wrath of God from us to Jesus Christ who dies an agonizing death fulfilling the just and inexorable penalty against those who transgress God’s laws.
In this theory of the atonement we are freed from the penalty for sin, Torrance contends, but the actual root of our alienation and sin in the ontological depths of our corrupt and fallen humanity is left untouched by Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Christ’s death on the cross deals only with our actual sins, but not original sin. In conservative Protestant circles this can lead to a reductionist soteriology of forgiveness now and heaven in the hereafter. [Elmer M. Colyer, How To Read T. F. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian & Scientific Theology, 86-7]
Really, all this quote does is elaborate further what Arjen alluded to in his post on Torrance, and Torrance’s thinking on ‘external relations’ and how that impacts Torrance’s theory on the Logos’ assumption of a fallen humanity in the incarnation. It is obvious that for Torrance his concern is strictly theological-soteriological in orientation. In regards to Arjen’s modal logic interrogation of Torrance I think it probably better to go the route that Matt suggested in one of his comments on the last thread. That being human should not be a predicate of the 1st Adam, but that predication for being human finds its arche or antecedent in the imago Christi (or the image of Christ). In other words, to be human, for Torrance is shaped eschatologically in Christ. Thus, given the state of things (the ‘Fall’ and thus redemption), it was fitting (thanks, Darren π )—given the eschatological shape of humanity in Christ—that Christ would enter into the ontological fabric of our lives to actualise the ultimate purpose for all humanity (cf. Col. 1.15-20).
PS. I think it is good to remember that Torrance follows the Scotist Thesis: i.e. that Christ was going to incarnate with or without the ‘Fall’ of humanity.
The problem seems to me to be wanting to seperate the ‘disease’ i.e. ‘sin’ from the nature of man. The problem with that is that the disease has directly affected the nature so that the ‘will’ which is part of it is now a ‘self will’ bent in on itself, and so what it means to be human now, and therefor share in the one human nature, is to share in that corrupted self will, therefor you cannot say that Christ could have assumed an ‘unfallen’ humanity, because that humanity which He recieved from Mary is that humanity that has been affected and infected by sin.
How can this nature be ‘unfallen’ when the nature, which here I would mean what it means to be human, in which He assumed was that same nature that was affected?
Once again you wouldn’t want to say in one sence that sin is apart of the nature in that it wasn’t created that way, but since it has been corrupted by it, now it can only be what it is, and that is fallen.
Also how would this nature that Christ assumed be one untainted by sin when He recieved from Mary who was a decendant of Adam?
One other thing Matt said. He argued that Christ didn’t need to assume the ‘disease’ because the disease did not need to be redeemed. Well of course it didn’t, but it did need to be ‘healed’ and that is the reason it needed to be assumed. By assuming it Christ healed it. That is completely patristic.
Cody,
I think for TFT the logic of grace and his concept of onto-relations require that we work this through in a way that thus recognizes that sin has penetrated all of man, and thus salvation in Christ is all of grace. But as Darren noted over at Arjen’s blog, I think we can and should make a distinction between being fallen and sinful; and that the category of “fittingness” is the best way to move forward with this discussion.
There are lots of things that are completely patristic; like Sabellianism π . Just sayin’ . . .
@Cody, and kind of a continuation: If I follow TFT in exactly his logic I have to say that Christ assumes the humanity we have — so if sin ontologically changes our created nature it must be the changed nature that is assumed. If, of course, we also follow Gregory Nazianzen.
But if we keep Gregory and the same logic of salvation — which as Bobby’s quote today shows is a reactionary move against Anselmian atonement — but we decline to make sin an ontological corruption, we must say something else. Arjen’s modal logic gets us closer to this; I simply take a different tack.
Must the physician have the plague to cure it?
(And Darren has put the whole situation very solidly, as may be expected of him!)
@Bobby, all well-said, but I’m not quite where you place me. I get the Johannine move that Barth also engages in, of making archetypal humanity Christic. But that can’t be a primary theologoumenon if we are dealing in basically Nicene/Chalcedonian questions. We are new creation, restored into the imago Christi, but that is a perfect recapitulation of the humanum that we were first created in the imago Dei. (Which combines very peculiarly with this discussion!) Hence my lean toward an arche of first creation, of God’s action constituting the humanum, even though our reconstitution as new creation is merely recapitulation, a setting-right of our essential being. I don’t exclude the new creation in Christ, but I do stress the adjective and its historic relevance.
And all that may just have muddied the water — so it’s important to say that I don’t think the effect is different, whether we say imago Dei or imago Christi. And so with Torrance I will gladly say that humanity is eschatologically shaped in Christ, and with you that it is teleologically actualised in Christ — the closing bracket of an exitus-reditus of sorts. We return by God’s action to what we have been made by God’s action.
Matt,
Sorry to over-state or mis-state your position. I see what you’re saying, and I think it’s right. The way I stated it almost creates an abstract notion of humanity that has no concrete existence as realized in Adam 1 and then re-realized (and for the better) in Adam 2. I would just want to emphasize that Adam 2 has always been greater than Adam 1, insofar as Christ has always been the point (telos and imago) of all creation.
I don’t really know why you said that Bobby, but when I say patristic I mean those father’s of the Church who have kept the faith once delivered to the saints.
The early church knew that if we were going to be saved it could only be through God really becoming man, and not some different kind of man, but flesh of ‘our’ flesh. It had to be our humanity that He has taken up. Only in the dualistic Arian type of views, where a moral relationship was key do you have these other sort of concepts.
Bobby you said, “I think we can and should make a distinction between being fallen and sinful”, Well we can, yet you can use ‘sinful’ in different ways. When Torrance says ‘sinful flesh’ he means the same thing as ‘fallen flesh’ it’s the flesh corrupted by sin. One could also say sinful meaning, that person sins a lot. That obviously wouldn’t refer to Christ.
One of TFT’s points as you know is to try and cut out all the dualistic thinking about Christ, God, Atonement, etc. So the way he lines it out, and once again he gets this from the fathers, is a way in which Christ in His Person is Reconciliation, Healing, Redemption, etc. By becoming man, He assumes our humanity into Hypostatic relationship with Divinity forever uniting God to man. Not as something done outside of His Person like a transaction, which would be to follow an Arian Christology, but in His Person. He is the Way, the Truth, the Life.
If you don’t believe that something happened, ontologically to man, what exactly do you think happened? If sin did not actually corrupt what it means to be human, then how do you explain what has happened? And if you then agree that sin has corrupted humanity in it’s depths, then how is it even an issue wether or not Christ assumed a ‘fallen’ or ‘unfallen’ humanity? The kind of humanity that we partake of, is the kind that is corrupted by sin. So then if Christ assumed a humanity that wasn’t, then wouldn’t that be a different humanity? If so then His incarnation and atonement can only be thought of in external terms, in external relations, and transactions, and still leaves us utterly separated from God, because He did not come all the way to us.
Cody,
1) Lighten up, bro.! My little thing on the patristic point was in fun; you apparently didn’t see the little emoticon. Although to say that it is completely patristic means almost nothing w/o some sort of qualification. Something being patristic doesn’t make it orthodox, automatically; this is the serious edge to the point I was trying to have a little fun with you on.
2) As far as the rest of what you said, I don’t really understand your point; since I am not disagreeing with TFT or the ontological theory of the atonement. I haven’t said anything that should make you think otherwise. You are a bit too jumpy in your conclusions; or presumptuous, Cody. Not that I’m not at points too.
Also Matt, by you saying, “Must the physician have the plague to cure it?”
You are separating the Person of Christ from His work, and that is exactly what Torrance is critical of because he sees that as an Arian position.
Bobby I know you don’t disagree with Torrance on the ontological problem, but I know how you like to play devil’s advocate, and so I was sort of just throwing some stuff out there, and anticipating you doing that a little π
and I knew you having fun, I was just making it clear what I meant
Cody,
I don’t see where I was playing devil’s advocate though in my comments or post; where did you see that happening?
When you say patristics I should read ecumenical councils, eh?
Really enjoyed these posts on this issue and the links to relevant blogs by others. Very helpful. Thanks.
Thanks for the feedback, Jon!
@Cody: better late than never, right? There is no separation of work from person in my question. Only a separation of sin from the ontology of human being. The humanum is not the problem — we are not delivered from it. It is delivered. We are restored to right humanity.
The person of Christ is the divine-human person. The person of Christ does the work of God in healing, saving, justifying, reconciling, and redeeming. This is because the person of Christ is both fully human and fully divine. Coequal and consubstantial with the Father, and also fully human. Would you like to clarify where that position lines up with the Arian controversy?
Your problem seems to be that (I’ll say it again) you insist that sin is part of the ontology of human being. It makes you answer other questions in ways I refuse to. But every question can be answered, either way, without either of us becoming in any way anti-Trinitarian heretics. Please target your critiques more precisely. Thanks!
@Matt, I do see a seperation between the person and work of Christ in your question, as actually Torrance points out in his writings.
When you say, “Must the physician have the plague to cure it?β, how you are seperating the person from the work, is that you are making His work outside of His person. The work is external to the person of Christ in your position. Torrance’s, Irenaeus’, Athanasius’, etc, position, is that Christ is Atonement in His person. He heals our humanity by assuming it, this is how His person is the work, it is not seperate from His person. He is the mediator because He unites God and man in His person, not because He stands externally in between them, He is the Way, because He has stood in our place, not because He shows us the way. Nicene theology does not seperate the Person of Christ from His work. He is atonement because He takes up our humanity, and redeems it by being who He is, The Son, in our flesh, not by making some form of external transaction, which would be Arian, now let me explain why.
Arius wanted the Logos to be created. Then there would be no ontological conection between He and the Father. Therefor the atonement would have been external to His person. The Christians fought back in a lot of areas and ultimately the homoousion, saying that the Son is one in essence, with the Father, and it was our flesh, that He assumed from Mary, later saying we are homoousios with Him in His flesh, and that is how they worked out the atonement, read Cyril on this. The Christological debates were partly about nailing down the real humanity of Christ. This was integral for the way in which they worked out our salvation, it’s crucial that it is our humanity. It seems to me that it’s only later when people couldn’t believe that God could not come into our fallen humanity that they started making this distinction.
@ Bobby, I don’t know really, I was just saying some stuff in regards to all the comments, and I used your name instead of each person, because I’m lazy and in a hurry π
Yeah the ecumenical councils
@Cody, you insist that “the person of Christ” be itself the cure. This is not what the concept means. To separate the person from the work is to insist that the doer is not the deed. It is not, as I have done, to insist that the doer does not partake of the fault of the object of the deed. Christ is not the one in need of cure, in need of salvation, in need of redemption. For we do orthodoxly say that Christ is without sin and yet fully human.
It is the person who does the work; it is the person who accomplishes the work by total self-giving. And yet it is the person who only suffers the effects of sin upon himself, and not sin within his human being. It is his existence to do this thing — but it is not his existence to be corrupted by sin. Christ is the savior — which I have nowhere contradicted, nowhere separated his human and divine natures, which neutralizes your claim of that particular heresy. He is the divine-human one in full obedience is the unity of his person and action. The question is, how the deed is accomplished. Which is all that is at stake, in doctrine of God terms, in this question over human nature.
And as to Arius, he believed that the son of God was created eternally subordinate — as all creatures are. That the Son is not God co-equal with the Father, but that only the Father is truly God. And it is certainly crucial that Christ assume our humanity. I have not argued otherwise. I have simply followed Augustine wisely in asserting what the nature of sin is. That it nowhere approaches the strength of divine act. That it is has no ontology, but is merely a confusion, a disordering of our created nature. That it is not an ontologically effective corruption. And yet that, as a corruption of our will (not our being!), it prevents us from willing what God would have us do. That we are, in fact, incapable of so willing except as God helps us. But in such case Christ is God coequal with the Father, and yet also human coequal with us. We do not, as Arius tried to, resolve the balance in one direction or the other. We permit both to stand because both are absolutely necessary. But for exactly that reason we do not allow that the humanity of Christ, and therefore our human created nature that he assumes, is ontologically corrupted. Our humanity is volitionally corrupted, yes — a flaw that Christ does not share as whole and healthy creature. Our human being remains ontologically that of God’s good creation, even though diseased in our will. For Christ to act as Christ does, it is obvious that he does not share this diseased will.
@Matt, first you said, “you insist that βthe person of Christβ be itself the cure. This is not what the concept means.” The Person of Christ is the cure, and the Way, and the Life, in Himself, it’s not something outside of Christ as your making it.
Then you turned around and said this,”To separate the person from the work is to insist that the doer is not the deed.” Exactly, and that is what you are doing, let me show you.
you said,”It is the person who does the work” by saying this are you not implying that the work is other that the Person of Christ? Wouldn’t it then be better to say, if you want to be consistant with your earlier comment that the doer and the deed are the same, that He not only does the work, but is Himself the work?
you also said,”The question is, how the deed is accomplished.” This is your question, I don’t seperate the ‘doer’ from the ‘deed’. How do you not see that you are doing this? You are making the deed other than the doer. The doer is the deed as you agreed, yet you want to say that the deed is what the doer does externally, and that is what I called an Arian position.
Then you said, “I have simply followed Augustine wisely in asserting what the nature of sin is. That it nowhere approaches the strength of divine act. That it is has no ontology, but is merely a confusion, a disordering of our created nature. That it is not an ontologically effective corruption. And yet that, as a corruption of our will (not our being!), it prevents us from willing what God would have us do.” Now, here you agree that our ‘will’ has been corrupted. Did you know that our ‘will’ is part of our human nature?
you said,”Our humanity is volitionally corrupted, yes” Really? So you had a choice to be born with this corrupted will that you agreed needs help in order to be in union with God? And if you didn’t, then how in the world is any of this ‘volitional’? Humanity is jacked, you don’t have to look far to see that, and we are born into it, see scripture. That in itself implies an ontological shift to me. There is something wrong with humanity. Yes we are still human, but no, we are ‘not’ what we were created to be, hence the whole saviour and recreation thing that needed to happen.
Lastly, “For Christ to act as Christ does, it is obvious that he does not share this diseased will.” One thing you seem to keep forgetting is the fact that Christ heals this corrupted will by assuming it. He lives out His Sonship inside of it. He is not corrupted by it, He bends the will back into submission, by assuming it. This is how The Doer and the Deed are one and the same. It’s not an external work. If Christ does not assume our will broken and marred by sin, then He must assume another, which would be some form of Apollinarianism, which would ultimately leave us seperated from Christ, and from God. How does Christ stand in our place if He does not assume our will? And how does Christ die, if He does not assume a flesh capable of death, which according to church tradition and scripture could only be the flesh after the fall, since death is a consequece of the fall?
Since the ‘will’ is apart of our humanity, and our ‘will’ has been corrupted by the fall. Then in our ‘ontological’ depths, something is wrong with us, and I would say it’s more than our ‘will’, but never the less, our ‘will’ has been ‘messed up’. Now since there is only ‘one’ humanity that was created by God, and it is that humanity that fell, and whose ‘will’ became corrupted. Then for Christ to assume a ‘will’ that was not fallen would mean that He assumed another one that is different from ours, and therefor not ours. It would be a different kind of humanity, one that we are not apart of, and therefor He would not really take our place. We would still be separate from Him. For the one human will to be infected means that to assume the one human will, would be to assume the infected one, since that is the one that it is. To assume one that is un-infected would be to assume one that is not ours, since by the fall, the will that we partake of has been corrupted by sin.