 |
| John Calvin |
[I]t is unreasonable for some theologians to argue for Christ’s unfallen humanity in the context of the doctrine of original sin because Christ himself overcame the power of sin and death in his fallen humanity. In the case of Calvin’s understanding of Christ’s humanity, we see that there is a tension between the nature and the state of Christ’s person. Calvin believes that Christ assumed our true humanity, lived a perfect life, and was sinless according to the Chalcedonian Definition. Thus, Calvin denies the fallenness of Christ’s humanity in order to preserve the doctrine of Christ’s perfect innocence. However, unlike others who are in favour of Christ’s unfallen humanity, Calvin forcefully affirms the vicarious humanity of Christ in our corrupted state. Calvin affirms that Christ had to suffer from our existential problems according to the narratives of the Gospels. Moreover, the mortal human nature which Christ assumed shows solidarity with sinners and the vicarious humanity of Christ pro nobis. If Calvin were to accept the idea of the fallen nature of Christ, his thoughts on Christ’s humanity for us would be more persuasive. Yet it is noted that Calvin’s theological logic is ‘anti-speculative’ in that he focuses on what Christ has done for us in his true humanity.
Nevertheless, Calvin argues that the body of Christ himself is the temple of God through which we can come to the throne of God’s grace. Although Christ assumed our mortal body controlled by the power of sin and death after the Fall, Christ sanctified the body in his own person as the Mediator between God and all the fallen humanity and decaying creation. Furthermore, the reconciliation with God is not just attributed to the crucifixion of Christ in an external and forensic way but to the perfectly holy life of Christ who assumed our mortal body as a saviour in an internal and ontological perspective. Calvin’ s biblical views on the mortal body and its sanctification through the whole life fully describes the paradoxical character of Christ’s mystical incarnation in which Christ became a true human being like one of us without becoming a fallen sinner. I conclude that, according to Calvin, the vicarious humanity of Christ means that for the sake of our salvation Christ assumed a mortal body like ours and lived a perfect life in our miserable state. Therefore, Christ’s fallen humanity for us is the guarantee of reconciliation. [Ho-Jin AhnSJT 65(2): 145–158 (2012) C Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2012 doi:10.1017/S0036930612000026, Ahn's bio/contact: Korean Central Presbyterian Church of Queens, Bayside, NY 11364, USA ho-jin.ahn@alum.ptsem.edu]
I concur with Ahn, and appreciate his insightful analysis on Calvin's view of the vicarious humanity of Christ. Ahn would make a great Evangelical Calvinist; since the vicarious humanity of Christ is one of the touchstones of what it means to work within the mood of Evangelical Calvinism. It is this kind of Christ conditioned view of salvation that gets us into the trinitarian depth dimension of salvation that the classic forensic-juridical view of salvation simply cannot provide. Calvin is front and center for us, and shines brightest right here; that is when he emphasises the center of salvation in Christ.
The reality is, as Ahn develops in his essay, as Gregory of Nazianzus is oft quoted 'the unredeemed is the unhealed'; and if Christ did not vicariously (participatorily-representatively) enter our fallen human state, then we are of all men most to be pitied. Alas, we remain in our sins, and we have no real hope or answer to our sin problem; which is a depraved heart toward God (who is salvation in his very life!). If Christ does not participate with us (fully), then we cannot participate with him fully in the divine plenitude of his shared life with the Father and Holy Spirit; in other words, we are not saved. This is why understanding and meditating on the vicarious humanity of Christ is so fundamental to the Christian's life and spirituality; because it represents the very heart and deep caverns of the Gospel itself.
PS. This is the doctrine, The Vicarious Humanity of Christ, I am slowly researching towards my PhD. If you would like to help provide funding for me towards the PhD, please contact me via email (growba@gmail.com). Blessings.
Good post Bobby. I am writing the same sort of article as a chapter in my book but using TFT directly and taking aim at Crisp's arguments too. I think there is more to be said.
ReplyDeleteMyk,
DeleteThank you, this post would not have been possible w/o you ;-) (thanks for forwarding Ahn's essay). I look forward, of course, to reading what you come up with; I agree, there is much more to be said!
Thanks for this post. I didn't read Ahn's article, but I surely will, as soon as I can. However, interesting as your quotation of Ahn sounds, it is not completely convincing to me. It sounds as if he understands Calvin better, then Calvin understood himself. That's quite a claim in the case of someone with Calvin's stature.
ReplyDeleteThe question that keeps puzzling me is whether, and if so: how, Calvin saw a way of combining the doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Christ (Ahn is certainly right about that), while maintaining he assumed an unfallen human nature. TFT thought it necessary to affirm Christ's assumption of a fallen nature, but Calvin, pace Ahn, didn't. Why not?
Just an afterthought. This link to a post of september 2011 on my blog might be of some interest: http://qualitativetheology.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/did-christ-assume-a-fallen-human-nature/
ReplyDeleteArjen,
DeleteThanks for the link (I remember reading this one in the past, a good provocative post).
As far as answering your question about how Ahn pulls this off; you will have to read his essay at some point and see for yourself. I would imagine that part of the reason that Calvin "didn't" was because of the period he was situated, and the set of categories and assumptions that were available to him at that moment. So, as usual, as Ahn nicely draws out, there is a tension left in Calvin's thought on this; and of course this is most apparent when Calvin's "Institute" is juxtaposed with his Commentaries, which is exactly the juxtaposition that Ahn intentionally works through. I think, with TFT, that it is necessary to, tout court, go all the way and just christologically assert that the fallen human nature is necessary for a full atonement to inhere.
Hi Bobby,
DeleteYou are probably right about the reasons for Calvin's hesitations. And Calvin's commentaries (and sermons) are very important to understand him properly. TFT was one of the first to acknowledge that (see his 'Calvin's doctrine of man').
I, however, keep wondering whether it's necessary to claim a fallen nature in Christ for a full atonement.
Arjen,
DeleteI've seen TFT's doctrine of man, indeed. Why do you hesitate on this?
Yeah I think it's crucial for Christ to have taken on our fallen humanity in order to redeem us since that is the humanity that we are apart of. It seems to me that to take up some sort of pre fallen humanity would mean that it was a different humanity since the one that God origionally created in the Garden fell, and it is that one that we are. TFT really opened my eyes to the significance of that truth and what it means for our salvation. The fact of the matter is that most people who want to deny this end up talking out of both sides of the mouth, they want to speak of Christ feeling temptaions as we do, and suffering of the cross, and being able to die, i.e. having a sort of humanity that can die, yet they want it to be this sort of pre-fallen perfect humanity that has no consequences of the fall. I read Cyril of Alenxandria and St. Maximus the Confessor on this very issue, and they both seem to agree that the humanity Christ recieved from Mary was the same fallen humanity that she was apart of, though they had different ways of working it out, they also both seemed to say that Christ when He assumed it at that moment perfected it, which still may have some problems, I don't know, but I do know that we all agree that Christ never personally sinned. He lived out His Sonship in our flesh. Maybe the problem really lies in the whole idea of 'imputation' and a very legal understanding of salvation. If all fallen humanity is is having the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to you making you deserving of hell, then it would seem that Christ would end up needing a savior if that were the case, on the other hand if what we inherit is a human nature that has been corrupted, and with that a will that is bent in on ourselves whereby we are slaves to it and ultimately sin and follow sin to Hell, and Christ being God was able to come into that same fallen corrupt humanity and straighten it out by taking it up, as he healed lepars just by touching them, then that should definitley be acceptible.
ReplyDeleteHey Cody,
DeleteThanks for sharing.
I think the answer is to say as TFT does, that Christ immediately sanctifies by the Spirit his fallen humanity.
I think you're definitely right about the problem of framing the atonement in juridical terms; as TFT develops we should follow an ontological framing of the atonement, so that the depths of our being are transformed in the recreated/resurrected humanity of Christ.
PS. I'm praying for little Micah.
That sounds about right Bobby, I still have a lot of studying to do. And thank you very much for your prayers, I know his family appreciates them very much.
Delete@Cody,
DeleteI have lots of studying to do too ;-)! Definitely praying for that little guy!!!
Bobby,
ReplyDeleteWhat makes me hesitate? I hesitate most, because this move seems to make sin too ontologically, too essential. Sin isn't original. It was added to our existence, to human being. Our nature is perverted by sin. But it seems that the healing of such a nature benefits more from the union with a perfect nature, instead of a fallen nature.
Besides, the idea of 'ontological healing' seems to be marred with conceptual difficulties. If Christ healed our nature (ontologically) in the event of the Incarnation, why keep people sinning? Or why don't they all believe in Christ?
I love TFT talking about ontological healing. But what I'm missing, the moment I start thinking about it, is a kind of analytical precision. But maybe, I'm looking for too much.
Arjen,
DeleteI see.
But what you're communicating presupposes that Jesus came, primarily because of our sin. I follow the Scotist thesis that says he was going to come anyway; that creation was always already intended to be recreated and brought into the intensity of relationship with God in and through Jesus Christ (the point and telos of Creation Col. 1:15). Sin intensified or amplified the need for him to come, but he was going to come anyway :-)!
Yes, analytical precision, sometimes just can't handle Christian Dogma ;-).
Hi Bobby,
DeleteWell, we can shake hands: I share your belief that Christ was going to come anyway (see the Ph.D.-thesis of Edwin Chr. van Driel, Incarnation Anyway). So I don't think that my remarks presuppose that Christ came primarely of our sin. At least they should'nt...
But anyway, do you know whether TFT was devoted to the Scotist thesis? I haven't been able to detect it so far. But you are more acquainted with his works than I am. So, if you know, I'd love to hear it...
@ Arjen,
DeleteIt doesn't just have to be following the Scotist thesis as if Duns Scotus was the first to put forward the view that the Logos would be incarnate even if there had been no sin. There are a lot of Eastern fathers who have said exactly that. Even going so far as to say that actually human beings were only created so that the Logos could have a body, and that is what the true meaning of created in God's image means. Now I'm not saying that I agree to that extent, but Scotus was by no means the first, and so I don't see the real necessity for Torrance to be devoted to such.
I wonder though, that when you say 'too ontological' because you believe it was 'added' ,as if sin were some sort of substance that was added to human nature, and therefor doesn't need to be there in order to be human, if you would look at it in a more ontological way like sin isn't some substance but it's effects have caused a deformed human nature. Since there is only one human nature and that is the one that is defected, then to assume one without such a defect would be to assume a different one no? Obviously sin has ontological consequences, we all agree on that otherwise this tendency to sin wouldn't be passed on. It's like say if you were to use a hand that had been burned in a fire and is now deformed as say an example of 'human nature' that has been deformed. It's not something else, it's still a hand but it is not as it was created to be. If that condition were to be passed on so that no one could ever be born without a diformed hand because that asspect of what it means to be human had been changed, then if someone were born who didn't have one people would immediately assume it was something else. Now I agree that Christ by the Spirit heals this nature when He assumes it so that He straightens out this deformity, but that does not take away from the fact that a debt was still owed for sin, and that debt had to be paid. The atonement is more diverse than just the uniting of the Logos to the human nature, but had to include all the other aspects as well, namely the new creation through death and resurrection and the continued Incarnation on our behalf as mediator. Your question for why don't all people believe or stop sinning doesn't really make sense to me, I mean that I don't see the connection, I know the question was not directed at me and that I am kind of butting in so please forgive me, I am just trying to think through this as well.
@Arjen (and Cody, thank you for your comment ... I think you're onto something):
DeleteBut my point is that your point about the ontological necessity for sin takes on a different frame if we start with a different assumption about the purpose of humanity in Christ as the archetypical humanity (or man). The ontological necessity, in Christ, eschatologically, is that our humanity (whether fallen or not) is derivative and ecstatically given from the humanity of Christ for us. The fact that he enters into our humanity and radically recreates it in his to its consummate eschatological form only suggests, to me, that, in personalist/relationist terms, sin intensifies what Jesus did in the Incarnation/Atonement matrix; but it also notices the provisional and protological nature of original creation---that is to say that original creation remaining in its original state or fallen was always only provisional relative to its consummate form in and through its eschatological purpose and shape in the humanity of Jesus Christ for us.
In other words: I am unaware of another kind of humanity available for Jesus to enter into other than a fallen humanity. I don't see this giving falleness an ontological necessity; instead I see it as incidental to the sovereign purposes of God in Christ for us to be transformed from glory to glory.
Myk Habets has written an essay on the Scotist Thesis/Hypothesis and applied it to TFT, Barth, etc. I don't think he'd mind me sending that to you as long as you keep it copyright of course. What's your email? Just email me growba@gmail.com
Bobby,
DeleteThis is stimulating to think about. I lack the time to answer your (and Cody's) comment properly. But the hinge, I guess, is our definition of '(human) nature' or 'humanity'. What is the ontological status of this 'humanity'. Is this humanity a kind of ontological entity (like Plato's ideas or Aristotle's forms)? Or do we have to think about it a logical term, incidating the general properties that different human beings share? In the first instance, it seems that if Christ sanctified that sort of nature, it would be applied to all instances of that nature (humanity). In the second case, the question is how we can make sense of the notion of sanctification in relation to that kind of (logical) nature? How are we to imagine that?
I guess, you won't agree with both proposals, but insist that Christ's humanity is 'archetypical'. I take that to be an indication that His humanity is the model, as ideal and as origin of our humanity. But why then did He need to assume a fallen humanity, that is our humanity. That's the other way around, making His humanity dependend on our humanity (which is fallen, sinful, etc.).
Well, that's at least part of my doubts by the talk about Christ's fallen humanity and His ontological healing of our nature.
Arjen,
DeleteThank you, I find this stimulating too!
I don't think I would want to say that he needed to assume a fallen human (like of necessity); but that he freely chose to in election because that's who he is in his antecedent life (in se) of gracious love (which is why he/God created). So the ground from which he enters into our reprobate human state was freely self-determined from his triune life of love for the other; not by sin and creation.
I don't take 'falleness' to be a positive property of humanness; in fact I see it as the privation or absence of what it means to be human, which I take to be gracious participation in and through God's life in Christ---or in the imago Christi, in the image of Christ who is the image of God. It took his recreation of humanity, by the Spirit, in his own life (enhypostatic) to reconcile humanity to the original intention for humanity (creation); that is to be 'in Christ'. That might be a bit ambiguous yet (analytically speaking ;-), but that's how I see this, at the moment, theo-logically or christo-logically.
Thanks, Arjen!
@ Arjen
Deleteand Bobby,
I thought these were some relevant quotes to add to this discussion, I was just mulling them over and decided to share them even though this is kind of an old post now.
St. Cyril of Alexandria ca. 376-444
We became sinners through the disobedience of Adam in this way: he was created in immortality and in life; and in the paradise of pleasure his manner was always and entirely absorbed in the vision of God, his body in tranquility and quiet, without any shameful pleasure; for there was in him no uproar of untoward movements. But when he fell into sin and became subject to corruption, then impure pleasures crept in upon the nature of the flesh, and the law of the violent was brought forth in our members. Our nature, therefore, contracted the illness of sin “through the disobedience of the one,” that is, of Adam; and thus “the many were made sinners,” not as if they had sinned along with Adam, for they did not yet exist, but having his nature, which fell under the law of sin. (Commentary on Romans, 5:18. Pusey, p. 186)
St. Athanasius the Great ca. 293-373
Now certain of the Greeks, having erred from the right way, and not having known Christ, have ascribed to evil a substantive and independent existence. In this they make a double mistake: either in denying the Creator to be maker of all things, if evil had an independent subsistence and being of its own; or again, if they mean that He is maker of all things, they will of necessity admit Him to be maker of evil also. For evil, according to them, is included among existing things. But this must appear paradoxical and impossible. For evil does not come from good, nor is it in, or the result of, good, since in that case it would not be good, being mixed in its nature or a cause of evil. But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning the Faith 1 Timothy 1:19, they also wrongly think that evil has a substantive existence. (Against the Heathen, Part 1.6)
I think these two quotes are pointing toward a problem that can come from viewing sin as having a substance, kind of like the way it seems to me that Arjen may be viewing it. If it does have a substance and can just be removed from the human nature the way a parasite is removed from the host then it must also be a created thing and therefor must have been created by the One Creator. That would be another great reason to view sin as a non thing, or something, kind of like dark is the absence of light, it's not anything in and of istelf but it is the absence of good, and causes corruption which has lasting effects, damage, which evidently makes us prone to continue on the road to death. I think Cyril says it perfectly, that we now have the tendency to sin, and will, but that we are not guilty of Adam's sin in some legal sense, like the doctrine of inherited guilt, which from my understanding came about from a mistranslation of Rom 5:12 from Greek to Latin, and so it was misunderstood because at that time there was such a divide culturally between east and west already that they did not understand correctly what that ment, and began to put forward a legalistic understanding. That's all coming from second hand sources though because I don't know Latin or Greek, but it would seem to make sense. What do ya'll think?