Posts tagged Christology
Deviant Monk has recently posted an incredibly cogent discussion of the relationship of divine and human wills, connecting the conclusions to considerations of the meaningfulness of human will in light of the Incarnation. In this post, DM deconstructs the all-too-familiar strawman argument of Reformed thinking in relation to the "inability" of the human will.
This post confirms, in my mind, the assertion that the best way to overcome the Calvinistic argument is not to bother with arguments about Scripture (which, in Tertullian's words, will only lead to "headaches and stomachaches"). Rather, as Calvinism and its interpretation of Scripture are built upon some pretty absurd philosophical categories, the best way to kill Calvinism is to call the categories themselves into question, showing them to be entirely vacuous and untenable in the face of meaningful and consistent philosophical dialogue.
Also, it pisses off the Calvinists pretty good, which counts for at least 15 bonus points.Share this:
- Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
- Click to print (Opens in new window)
In the incarnation, the Son of God became one with human beings–with Adam. But only at this moment, when he accomplishes the supreme act of love by descending into the night of death, does he bring the journey of the incarnation to its completion. By his death he now clasps the hand of Adam, of every man and woman who awaits him, and brings them to the light. — Benedict XVI, Easter Vigil 2007
Is the not the resurrection–as the completion and pinnacle of Incarnation–what Easter is all about? In Christ, the uncreated God has become created that the beloved creation might be rescued from its shackles of sinfulness and self-destruction. Though we had, in our lust for violence and false-power, distorted and sought to destroy any remnants of the deity within us, the Creator did not forget us, nor did the love of God leave us to spiral into oblivion and non-being. Rather, in the supreme act of the immance of love, God has come to dwell with us that we–though poor, wretched and full of violence and hate–might be restored in the image of divinity. In the immortal words of the blessed St. Athanasius, the reality of Incarnation is that More >
In my previous post, I argued that locating the sinlessness of Christ within the circumstances of Christ's biological origin is a major and glaring theological mistake. To this effect, I forcefully suggested that such an approach is effectively a denial of the reality of the Incarnation. As such a perspective ultimately makes Christ "other than" humanity in that Christ needs a special means of biological genesis in order to evade human sinfulness, it is difficult to see how 1.) one can affirm the orthodox belief that Christ is truly, fully and completely human and 2.) that Christ, as fully human, is the savior of humanity. In this sense, if sinfulness is a biologically heritable entity, Christ cannot be savior for Christ cannot assume that which Christ is thought to redeem (the full ontology of the human person) while remaining sinless.
If the biological nature of the transmission of sin is to be rejected, how is one to positively speak of Christ's sinlessness?
The first step is to properly define sin. In the previous discussion, I pointed out a few (not all, by any means!) of the conceptual problems which accompany understanding sin to be a biological entity that can be–and More >
Recently, I have been participating in a debate with a hard-core Calvinist at http://www.christianforums.com. However it happened, we got onto the issue of Christ's sinlessness. As the discussion progressed, we delved into an exploration of the nature of Christ's sinlessness.
Indefatigably, my detractor maintained that Christ was sinless because of the nature of his birth. In other words, this individual claimed that because Christ is born "from above" and not of the seed of "Adam," Christ avoids inheriting the sinfulness which demarcates the whole of humanity. In no soft words, I blasted this view, noting that it leads to the following consequences:
1. It denies the Incarnation. If Christ's sinlessness is based upon his genetic makeup, Christ is not actually human. Another way, if Christ has to somehow avoid inheriting certain portions of human biology, how can Christ be considered truly human? Obviously, he cannot. The major implication of this, of course, is that such a "Messiah" cannot really save anyone, for as the Fathers maintained, "That which is not assumed [by Christ] is not redeemed."
2. Not only does it associate sinfulness with human biology, but more specifically it locates it within the male biology. This is a necessary More >