Listening to: David Ford: I Sincerely Apologise for All the Trouble I've Caused
Just about the worst thing I ever have read from Karl Barth:
Unquestionably, the resurrection narratives are contradictory. A coherent history cannot be evolved from them [...] The witnesses attended an event that went over their heads, and each told a bit of it. But these scraps are sufficient to bear witness to us of the magnitude of the event and its historicity. Every one of the witnesses declares God's free grace which surpasses all human understanding. God alone can prove the truth of that history since he himself is the subject. Fortunately, God has never ceased to work in men's hearts and send the faith needed to see those things.
(p. 92, The Faith of the Church: A commentary on the Apostles' Creed)
But its a quote worth thinking about some more, so I'm posting it for my future reference. There are a lot of interesting and important things to think about both in what he says that is correct and what he says that is wrong. What was wrong with his thinking that allowed him to get to the point of making an argument like that, and think it made sense?
Probably it's his christology at fault. He says Christ assumes sinful flesh (because God's Word has to meet us where we are in all our sinfulness) - but is nonetheless the perfect and divine Word of God. (Bit Nestorian if you ask me - but that's the trouble with Barth, he's Calvinist).
ReplyDeleteBut the same problem is replicated with the bible - they are potentially fallible words which nonetheless communicate through the Spirit's power the Dei loquentis persona (God speaking in Person).
He basically says that we need a worldly Word to meet us where we are or revelation can't happen. That's true. But he equates worldly with fallen/fallible.
Fascinating. You're good at educating me Glen.
ReplyDeleteSo you don't think the problem is in the statements: "The witnesses attended an event that went over their heads... Every one of the witnesses declares God's free grace which surpasses all human understanding."?
i.e. that because something is beyond comprehension, as creatures we can't say anything perfectly true about God.
Didn't Barth once say that Christianity is a religion like any other religion, and can't be said to be the 'true religion' in and of itself? I only understood that a tiny bit when I heard it.
... struggling here, obviously.
Glen, your understanding of Barth is utterly appalling and bears no resemblance to the actual Barth.
ReplyDeleteBarth is anti-Nestorian. His closest patristic forebear is Cyril of Alexandria or Maximus the Confessor. His christology is a radical single-subject christology. See pretty much all of the work of Bruce McCormack on this point.
His doctrine of Scripture is not a problem, but precisely part of his brilliance. The Word of God is not identical with the human words of the prophets and apostles. There is only an indirect identity actualized by the Holy Spirit here and now. Of course the human witnesses are fallible - they are human! God doesn't dictate through them. They are true witnesses to an event, and while their witness is normative, it isn't divine. God doesn't have to nullify their humanity in order to make use of these texts as an authoritative witness.
I don't know what you are talking about with this "worldly Word" business. What word isn't worldly? Jesus is worldly. The Bible is worldly. The preacher is worldly. Is there some otherworldly word that you have access to?
Finally, this quote is a very good quote. I don't see the problem. The biblical witness to the resurrection undermines any hope of trying to reconstruct a history of the 40 days. The witnesses only confirm that the resurrection is not an historical event the way Caesar crossing the rubicon was an historical event. The resurrection is a divine occurrence which appears only to faith. That is why the risen Jesus is seen only by those whose eyes have been opened.
Hi David C,
ReplyDeleteI can only imagine that when you see the word Nestorian in proximity to Barth it makes you see red.
Because I wonder if you even read the rest of my comment?
If you get the chance, you'll notice that I agreed with the fact that "we need a worldly Word". You'll notice it because I follow the sentence with the words "That's true."
And if you feel that I grudgingly admit the fact then that's entirely eisegesis on your part. I am grateful for the worldliness of the Word and I'm grateful for Barth's teaching on the issue.
And, again, if you get the chance to read my comment, you'll notice that I'm aware that he teaches the Spirit's power to communicate through Scripture the very Dei loquentis persona.
My disagreement is simply over the equation of worldly with fallible. It's a disagreement that I hazard to suggest Cyril may have shared. What do you think?
(btw 'miaphysite' is probably the closest descriptor of my own christology).
I think the equation of worldly and fallible is an unnecessary and unhelpful move regarding Christ and regarding the bible. Clearly you disagree. But it doesn't make my understanding of Barth 'appalling'.
But I agree with you on the point about the resurrection appearances. Your point is much more on target for this particular quotation.
I agree with Barth when he draws attention to 2 Cor 5:16. (cf I/1, p168) The apostles once knew Christ 'according to the flesh' - but we must do so no longer. Christ did not rise “according to history” but “according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3,4). Those to whom He appeared were not impartial observers but prepared witnesses - those who believed. (Acts 10:41; 13:30).
If we want to reconfigure the way in which revelation has come to us - by Scripture through the Spirit - in order to reconstruct a *history* in which we hope Christ to be revealed, we've shown our true colours. Van Til bemoaned the fact that for Barth "history as such is never revelational of God." But for Barth (and I agree) that's a good thing - Christ is known by the Spirit, which means in Scripture and to the eyes of faith. We know him according to the flesh no more.
I'm a Barth fan. Promise. Just not convinced on the fallible/fallen stuff.
I don't understand your problem with fallibility. To be infallible is true only of God. Erog, to be a creature is to be fallible. I don't see any other alternative.
ReplyDeleteAgain, to be a creature is to be fallen. There's no other creature this side of the eschaton that could possibly be "unfallen." At least, that's what Reformed theology is all about - the rejection of a Catholic understanding of grace whereby we become participants of God's perfect being here and now. I'll grant there are many who would like to think we become righteous in ourselves within the present world, but here I side entirely with Barth. I think such notions are simply nonsensical. The sheer ugliness of sin all around us, especially among so-called "Christians," is enough to shoot such ideas to the ground.
I think Barth was right when he criticized Luther's simul iustus et peccator. The "iustus" part applies only to Christ; in us, we are only and always "peccator."
That should be "ergo," not "erog." :)
ReplyDeleteI'm tempted to say 'To "erog" is human' - but then I'd be granting your point :)
ReplyDeleteI disagree that 'to be a creature is to be fallen'. I disagree that this is anything like a staple of 'Reformed theology'. And I disagree that this is the only way of staving off Catholic conceptions of grace.
Collapsing creation and fall into one another is, at the very least, a bold innovation within reformed theology, wouldn't you say?
And Luther also knew that we are *semper* iustus et peccator. And he was equally clear that the iustus was *utterly* alien.
No one is talking about a simple collapsing of creation and fall. But there is no creation that is not fallen. The question is whether you accept a supralapsarian picture of creation or not. Barth does, and so do I. You apparently are infralapsarian, and thus want to make the fall a surprise to God that requires an emergency reaction (Jesus Christ). I think Barth was right to reject this in favor of his modified christological supralapsarianism.
ReplyDelete'Modified christological supralapsarian' describes me pretty well. But createdness is not the same as fallenness. 'Fall' is not the same as 'push'. And God's alien work in law/judgement is not the same as His proper work in redemption.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe in a historic fall?
No, of course not. I don't think Gen. 1-3 is history like we understand history. That's a category/genre mistake.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between creation and fall is a theological, not empirical or ontological, distinction. It attests to the fact that God doesn't create sin. But as a christological supralapsarian would say: God certainly willed it, but God willed sin for the sake of redemption. God creates (and thus creates a world that is intrinsically in bondage to sin and death) so that God can then redeem and reconcile. Jesus Christ is the first and last word.
The origin of sin is a mystery, and so it must remain. The Genesis narrative answers nothing; it only raises more problems. If we attempt to blame human freedom, we face the problem of why God would create creatures who could will to sin. If we attempt to blame the serpent, we have to ask why there was a serpent in the garden in the first place. However we look at it, we come back to God. We can't let God off the hook. Instead, we have to see the mystery of sin in the light of redemption.
Well, I think there are tricky questions for 'supra's of all shades to answer, but I think you're embracing a problem too many by saying God "creates a world that is intrinsically in bondage to sin and death."
ReplyDeleteI won't pursue that for now.
But, imagine if I were so naive as to think there really was a created state upon which God's verdict of 'very good' held true. (Not 'perfect', mind. There's still a redemption to be worked out - the Son needs to stand on the earth as second Adam, to be perfected through suffering and bring many sons to glory.) But still, imagine that there really was empirically and ontologically a created state which God could call 'very good.' Wouldn't I then have every right to question the equation of 'worldly' with 'fallen'?
For christological supralapsarianism, Jesus Christ is not the "second Adam" but really the first, true Adam. That is, Jesus Christ does not come to fix a problem caused by Adam. Rather, Adam is grounded in and points toward Christ. Just want to make that theological issue clear. In a real sense, redemption is the ground and basis for creation.
ReplyDeleteNow, as for the Genesis issue, in what sense is the world "very good"? As I have already shown, the fall narrative in Gen. 3 does not make sense according to a systematic understanding of sin and guilt. No matter how you look at it, the narrative implies that creation is already inherently ordered toward the fall - and the responsibility for this ordering toward the fall eventually falls on God (no pun intended).
So in what sense is the world "very good"? I would say that what is good is the simple fact that God now has a covenant partner. The creature is created to be God's partner in the covenant of grace, and this fellowship is what is good. There is nothing intrinsic to creation that is very good. Rather, the goodness is intrinsic to God alone, and to the relationship established by God with creation.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteYou might be surprised at how many of the same drums I also beat. Yes to Christ being the true Adam. Yes to redemption as the ground and basis for creation.
But no to Genesis teaching a creation that "is already inherently ordered towards the fall." Instead: 'Cursed is the ground because of you (Adam).' (Gen 3:17)
You claim that the origin of sin is a mystery. I'd agree. But it seems the one thing you're sure of is that its origins coincide with creation itself. As far as I can see, there's nothing in supralapsarianism per se that would make you say that, and a lot in Scripture that would tell you not to.
Supra does not necessitate the denial of an historical fall. Which means worldly does not necessitate fallen.
While it's true that the original proponents of supralapsarianism would not have dispensed with a historical fall, such a move would be in accordance with their theology. They were prevented from making this move only because they lived before modern biblical criticism. Had they lived on this side of modernity, I'm fairly confident they would have embraced the association of creation with the fall.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Well, look at what supralapsarianism teaches? It says that the decree of election comes before the decree of creation/fall. While this doesn't necessarily mean that God decrees the fall, it does mean that the fall couldn't not have happened.
We can agree to disagree about this issue, and I don't think too much rests on it. But let me ask you this? Why are you so insistent on making this sharp separation? I've already clarified that I am not saying that God created sin and evil, nor am I making a blanket identification of createdness with fallenness. I am simply recognizing that to be created means to have a dialectical existence: on the one hand, we are elected in Christ and thus our true being is in fellowship with God; and on the other hand, by virtue of being created, we are estranged from God. Participation in God is not attainable this side of the eschaton. We live instead as creatures who must recognize our alienation from God and the fact that our only righteousness is outside of ourselves in Christ.
So again I ask you: what is it that you want that I am not able to affirm? Do you simply want a historical fall? And if so, why? And if it's something else, what is it?
Finally, Barth was by no means the first to make creation and fallenness coincide. Maximus the Confessor already said substantially the same thing. For him, the moment the first human took a breath, he fell into sin. He also dispenses with a literal Eden.
Well, yes, we can agree to disagree. You see me 'insisting' on a 'sharp separation' I see you collapsing one into t'other.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is at stake are things like a convincing theodicy and the need to frame our alienation from God in *moral* terms. I'm not comfortable with saying 'by virtue of being created, we are estranged from God' - anti-gnostic sirens go off.
But what has occasioned this whole dialogue is the issue of christology. I don't believe the worldliness of Christ necessitates the fallenness of His humanity (nor does the worldliness of the bible necessitate its fallibility).
And as for 'modern biblical criticism' - I wonder what a Barthian should do with attempts to read Scripture according to a Darwinian (or indeed any) history??
I believe from reading your blog that you've taken the exact opposite theological journey from me - I went from evolution to 6-day creation. Perhaps some of this is informing our disagreement?
I'm off to bed over here in the UK.
God bless,
Glen
6-day creation? Are you serious? If so, then yes, completely opposite!
ReplyDeleteA "convincing theodicy"? That's a contradiction in terms. Seriously, Christians need to give up the pursuit of theodicy. The only "convincing theodicy" is the active display of Christian love in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel of salvation. Anything other than that is, I would claim, moving into the realm of blasphemy. I'm really serious about that.
As for the fallenness of Christ's humanity, the question really ought to be: how can you justify your position? Did Christ redeem sinful humanity? Then his humanity had better be the same humanity that we possess. The question for you is this: is the righteousness of Christ an essential righteousness or an acquired righteousness? Calvin goes with the latter, while the Catholic and Orthodox tradition goes with the former. And I think Calvin is absolutely right on this matter.
This is also where Barth parts company with Cyril and sides with Maximus. Cyril has an essential righteousness, whereas Maximus has an acquired righteousness. This makes all the difference in the world. You can't really call yourself Protestant, in my opinion, and hold on to an essential righteousness. In fact, I don't think you can find any support for it in the Bible apart from John's gospel. The proclamation of Christ crucified is the proclamation of a righteousness that he acquired through his life of faithful obedience, not a righteousness that he brings with him from the Logos.
I don't really care about Darwinian readings of the Bible. I don't think Darwin, as a scientist, and the Bible are speaking about the same topic. The origin of life is not the same thing as the creation of the cosmos. Creation is an eternal event; creation is past, present, and future. The origin is a datable, historical reality. God's work of creation is not datable; it is new in every moment.
This discussion is a bit above me, and I don't have the time to get involved. Educating though it is.
ReplyDeleteDavid, thanks for dropping by this little corner of the blogosphere. I'm sorry to join in but I can't let the statement "Then his humanity had better be the same humanity that we possess" be taken to imply that Jesus must share our fallen humanity.
On a slightly silly note you could argue by the same logic that in order to save women he must become a woman, or more seriously you could say that to save people who sin he must become a person who has sinned. However, you are right that he has to fully identify with condemned humanity... but what is it that makes condemned humanity, condemned humanity?
We are condemned by God's relationship to us. Jesus shared in that when he was forsaken by the Father on the cross.
We are human by our being made in the image of God. Our fallenness is not essential to our humanity. That is the real crux here I think. 6-day creation or not, the story of the Bible starting with Genesis is surely telling us that this sin and condemnation is not eternal and necessary. There was a time when it wasn't, and there will be such a time again.
Creation is past/present/future, and it is eternal. But it is a developing changing act of God. There is a story of creation->new-creation.
Similarly there is a story to humanity - thankfully. Just because we are fallen now does not mean we are fallen, period. Similarly to be a creature is not always to be fallible. Christ is The Truth, as Glen likes to remind us, but we can be truthful in him by his Spirit who brings the future hope of being perfectly truthful into our present experience in part.
I often think that Barth could do with a bit of narrative adding in. Even the Gospel 'event' is a story (incarnation-crucifixion-resurrection-ascension).
Way out of my depth I know. But out of the mouth of babes... perhaps.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteFirst, the analogy with women is a nice try, but it doesn't make any sense. Sure, the statements are formally the same, but materially, the analogy is meaningless. Nothing about Jesus' sex has any relationship with redemption, so it is irrelevant whether he is a man or a woman. Jesus only has to identify with the humanity of all people. And that humanity is a sinful, fallen humanity. Without this identification, there is no redemption.
Now, your entire argument rests on the fact that Jesus stands under the same divine condemnation. You don't seem to recognize the fact that this statement only logically supports my argument! If, as I hope you agree, Jesus does not commit any actual sin, how could he possibly share in this divine condemnation? How could he possibly be condemned? The only possible answer is if his humanity is condemned humanity. If he doesn't share in our fallenness, then his death on the cross is simply a tragic event and has no saving significance whatsoever.
But isn't being condemned humanity in the first instance about God's relationship toward us? That is what Jesus shares in - God turning his face away.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be smuggling in our relationship toward God into your understanding of condemned humanity. But Christ's relationship toward God was perfect, he didn't participate in our fallen way of relating to God.
Sorry, those are hasty thoughts. I have to leave.
To clarify what I mean by "You seem to be smuggling in our relationship toward God into your understanding of condemned humanity"
ReplyDeleteOf course our relationship toward God is part of our condemned humanity. I'm not denying that. What I'm denying is that is essential to what it means. Hence the relevance of the analogy with women.
So to apply the matter again to what it means to be a biblical writer who is part of condemned humanity, that does not mean that they have to cease being either condemned or human for their writings to be infallible.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteYou've just changed the topic. We were talking about Christ's humanity, not the humanity of the biblical authors. Have you conceded my point then on christology?
As for the biblical writers, I don't think you understand what you are saying. Fallibility is an essential aspect of humanity this side of the eschaton. To be a creature is to be fallible, because to be a creature is to have limitations, which is precisely the essence of fallibility. God alone is infallible, and that infallibility does not become a property of any creaturely reality — not until God becomes all in all in the eschaton.
I think christology is a more interesting topic, but if you want to talk about bibliology, I am more than willing. I've got something like 50 pages of material I've written that I can throw at you destroying the doctrine of inerrancy. I've also written about it a lot on my blog. See here and especially here.
As for our condemned relationship before God, again, I don't think you realize what you're saying. Of course our condemnation is not essential to who we are. No one is saying that. What I am saying is that if Christ is going to redeem humanity as it currently is, then it is essential for him to take on our condemned humanity. In other words, condemnation is not essential to humanity as such; but condemnation is a prerequisite for redemption. Jesus can be human without taking on fallen humanity, but he can't redeem humanity without taking on condemned humanity.
ReplyDeleteDidn't we start with the bible? It's probably my fault for getting us off topic - I made the link (which Barth also makes) between bibliology and christology. I think Barth gets both wrong. David, You think Barth gets both right. Therefore you said my understanding of Barth was appalling and off we went. But be fair to Dave - it's his blog, his post and it's definitely on the bible.
ReplyDeleteYou make a fair point about 'theodicy' - I agree that proclaiming the gospel in the context of loving community is our theodicy. But we're arguing about the nature of that gospel. I presume you wouldn't be happy to proclaim "God does a whole heap of evil and then redeems it, that's His glory."
You also seem reticent to say 'God creates evil'. So clearly you draw a line. And I presume that you think the gospel itself would be violated if we got that line wrong? And therefore 'theodicy' (or, in other words, gospel proclamation) would suffer.
The Muslim calls Allah 'The Deceiver'. I take it that no-one (not even us) would call our gospel good news if we attributed that kind of evil to the Father - even if we put it in the context of some overall redemption of that evil. So then the justice question is valid - and very important.
I'm certainly with Calvin on the acquired righteousness point. He was born 'under law' (Gal 4:4) - but not 'under sin'. Calvin would agree with me (he's a strange ally for you to choose on this one!)
So when did Christ become sin? On the cross of course.
Now, any discussion of Christ and fallenness will recapitulate what we've said about creation and fallenness - but here we're talking about the real deal. Of course Jesus enters into our predicament - but He enters freely and from without.
And I really think my position can uphold the freeness of the divine act better than yours David - there's nothing inherent in nature that makes it fallen. It is very good and then, at another point in time, God curses it. Ditto with Christ. There's nothing inherent in His humanity that makes Him cursable. But then, at another point in time, He freely takes that curse on the cross.
The curse He wears like the crown of thorns is as alien to Him as the righteousness He wins is alien to we who are clothed in it. But He really was cursed and we really are blessed in Him.
You want to maintain the alien nature of our righteousness - good. But you also want to hold onto some intrinsic sinfulness to Christ's humanity. The two are parallel in the Scriptures - but not in your scheme.
And my big beef with the whole paradigm is this: If Christ's nature is fallen then He *should* die under God's curse. He is a bad tree. I doesn't matter if He never sprouted bad fruit. He *is* wicked if He shares our nature, and would therefore be rightly condemned. But if we want to say 'No, Jesus' righteousness consists in His not *doing* bad things' then we have reversed an irreversible gospel logic - being leads to act, not act to being. Trees make fruit. Fruit doesn't make the tree.
Apply this to the whole McCormackian paradigm and that's the problem. Of course God has His being towards His act - trees bear fruit. But the fruit doesn't make the tree and God's act does not *constitute* God's being.
Sorry - massive scattershot there...
You've made some good points there, Glen. Let me see if I can locate a point of agreement within the larger disagreement.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Christ becomes sin on the cross, but if we take Paul seriously, Christ's entire life is cruciform. This is the point that Maximus, Calvin, Barth, Torrance, and others all make: the entirety of Christ's life is the accomplishment of our redemption. There isn't a single moment at Golgotha that redeems us, but it is his faithful obedience in the totality of his life-history.
I'm not trying to say that there is "some intrinsic sinfulness to Christ's humanity." I'm not even sure what that would mean. The doctrine of the incarnation says that Christ's humanity is our humanity, full stop. So there is nothing purely intrinsic about his humanity; it is entirely defined by the mass of sinful humanity with which he has fully identified.
Now it seems to me you have a problem. You apparently want to say that Christ was condemned for no reason. By this I take it you mean that Christ was not condemned for anything he himself did. But that, of course, is what I am saying, that Christ did not sin in himself so as to deserve his own condemnation. However – and this is key – by becoming sin for our sakes, as Paul says, Jesus is indeed rightly condemned by God. By taking on our sinful humanity, by so completely identifying with the world, he takes their place and receives the wrath which justly belongs to us. Which is to say, he is worthy of condemnation – not for what he himself did, but because he has identified himself with a world worthy of condemnation.
So I can agree with you: Christ's curse and our righteousness are both alien. We receive righteousness from the righteousness acquired for us by Christ. But Christ acquires this righteousness by conquering sin and death that he received through his incarnational identification with humanity.
I must get back to a talk I'm writing - but would this mean that in 2 Cor 5:21, the part of Christ's career to which 'He who knew no sin' refers is His pre-incarnate state? This verse speaks of a real 'becoming' :) - but if what comes before the 'becoming' is the 'no sin' bit and the 'becoming' is the incarnation then Christ has an essential rather than acquired righteousness. Unless you just say that the righteousness and the sin is held in dialectical tension throughout His incarnate life.
ReplyDeleteBut then you're not taking the 'becoming' seriously. I'm sure you Princeton boys have heard that one before ;-)
I'm not sure I follow you. The "he knew no sin" refers to the fact that he didn't commit any sin. That seems fairly straightforward. But he "became sin" in that he stood in our place, taking upon himself the divine wrath against sin. This is only possible if his humanity is our humanity. There is no essential righteousness, only an acquired one. What part of this logic doesn't make sense?
ReplyDeletegotta run, but obviously we both agree that Christ stood in my place to take my condemnation. He wore that alien curse on the cross. All His life was heading to this point, but the point at which He takes the curse is when He is lifted up on the tree (Gal 3:13).
ReplyDeleteHe was made like us in every way yet was without sin.
That qualification is essential. But if you're going to qualify it by saying 'that just refers to the commission of sin' - why draw the line there?
Why not, as Dave said, speak of Christ having a 'sinning humanity' - one that actually commits sins? After all that is the humanity we have. And if the logic that is driving your position says 'He must become what we are' - why draw the line at sinful *nature*?
I think the logic of my position works better.
He knew no sin before He was lifted up. On the cross He became sin. I'd imagine that Pauline scholars on 2 Cor 5:21 would be pretty clear that Paul was referring to the cross in particular here?
won't be able to reply for a while...
I still contend that your position doesn't make any sense. Let's forget whether or not Paul views Christ's life as cruciform – though many scholars, including Michael Gorman in particular – have shown that this is indeed the case.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, you are forced to say that Christ became sin on the cross. So at least at that point, his humanity is identified with our sinful humanity. The issue then seems to be whether or not Christ's life is salvific, or if only the cross is. But that's a different discussion. The undisputable point remains that if Jesus is going to redeem humanity, there must be a point at which his humanity is the same as our humanity. You want to claim that this happens on the cross - fine. I am simply applying the event of the cross to the entirety of his life, as I think all the gospels attest.
The distinction between a fallen humanity and a sinning humanity is night and day, and I don't understand your inability to understand this distinction. The active agent in the life of Christ is the Logos, as the church confesses. The humanity assumed in the incarnation is not an active agent in itself (anhypostasis) apart from the Logos. It is the humanity of all people which is assumed for the sake of this humanity's redemption. So the humanity may be fallen without Jesus being a sinner, because the active agent is the divine Logos.
(This is admittedly a rather traditional way of speaking that needs to be subjected to refinement. But for our purposes, it will suffice.)
For the sake of argument, I will use your distinction between being and act. What is being redeemed is not the act of sinning but the being which produces sin. Therefore what God assumes in the incarnation is not the act of sinning but the fallen humanity which produces our sin. Jesus was made like us in every way — including our fallen humanity — without sin. Why is this difficult to understand? More importantly, why do you resist this? What are you trying to protect? The only logical explanation is that either you do not want a Jesus who really identifies with us or you want an essential righteousness. There is simply no other option.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteBeen thinking. Probably not very profoundly though.
You say I don't understand the distinction between a fallen humanity and a sinning humanity. I'm pretty sure I understand the distinction. But to me (and I think to the bible) a fallen humanity *is* what constitutes someone to be a sinner (the sinful acts are the fruit of the bad tree - the bad tree is the problem). I don't believe that the One born of a virgin, set apart from sinners, is born into this condition (the same way I don't believe creation was 'born' sinful). As I currently understand things, I believe your doctrine would make Christ a sinner. Again, to say 'No, no, you have to sin to be a sinner' is to use Aristotle's and not Christ's own logic. We're not far here from why I am not a McCormackian - I just can't accept that acts constitute being - seems to me that's pelagian.
Now, at this point you may say to me that the difference between us is merely the point at which Christ becomes sin. For you He becomes sin at Christmas (though Easter crowns His sin-bearing work). For me He becomes sin at Easter (though Christmas begins His cruciform life).
In my set-up Christ works an acquired righteousness throughout His incarnate life. But I don't have to invoke a 'traditional christology' (which I'd say is susceptible to my original Nestorian charge... I can see why you'd want to 'qualify' it!) whereby the essentially righteous Logos is the Subject of a fallen en-hypostasized humanity. Instead the Man baptized by John is declared to be the Son with Whom the Father is well pleased - before any ministry is done. The humanity of Christ is in no sense at odds with the essential righteousness of the Logos - in fact I wouldn't even think to compare Christ's divine and human natures. Even the question of their being at odds on the 'fallenness' issue just does not arise for me.
None of this is to say that Christ simply parades around an essential righteousness. Not at all. He is made perfect through His suffering obedience, He is born under the law and fills it full, working the righteous requirement of it in our place, on our behalf, He recapitulates Adam etc, etc. And then Christ has an acquired righteousness before the cross at which point He becomes sin (though certainly His whole life is cruciform, and the acquired righteousness is crowned by crucifixion). But, if you like, He is a lamb without blemish before the high priest lays his hands on him, transfers the guilt and sacrifices him.
In your set-up, Christ has an essential righteousness before He becomes sin (in mine He has an acquired righteousness before He becomes sin - I think that's an advantage). He then works out His acquired righteousness from within this fallen humanity, all of which culminates on the cross.
If I've misunderstood your position then let me know. And if I've failed your challenge to maintain both an acquired righteousness and Christ's identification with us, let me know. But according to the bible neither creation nor Christ was born fallen. So I reckon my version of events is preferable by far.
Every blessing in the Beloved,
Glen
Glen,
ReplyDeleteYou seem like a good guy, and if we're ever in the same place, let's get a beer and talk. But you don't seem to have understood my comments in the slightest. So I'll try to explain it one more time and then I'll just have to wash my hands of it.
To be as clear as possible, I'm going to respond line by line. I hope it's not too tedious.
1. "a fallen humanity *is* what constitutes someone to be a sinner": Unfortunately, you don't have to be a McCormackian to disagree with this. In fact, I would say the majority of the church tradition is against this position. The tradition has always made a distinction between having a fallen humanity and being an active sinner. The former is our inherited guilt, whereas the latter is our personal guilt. To put it differently, the former is what produces the latter. We are sinners because we are first fallen. (And we don't have to construe this with some mythological talk about male semen passing along Adam's sin, as Augustine would have it. We can, if we wish, speak of fallenness as being born into a system of social sin. But that's neither here nor there.)
So I agree: the bad tree is the problem. Jesus assumes the badness of this tree, just like every single person who comes into the world is also a bad tree by nature.
I am starting to think that you believe we aren't fallen until we commit a sin. That would make complete sense of your position. That would explain why Jesus could not have a fallen human nature, precisely because he never sins. It would also explain your repeated statement that creation is not "born sinful." Such a statement only makes sense if you are talking about the original pre-fallen creation, because as the church has consistently taught, ever since then, every creature is indeed born into the state of fallenness.
Ironically, the position that we are not fallen until we sin is the most McCormackian position of all: that act constitutes being. (In the interest of full disclosure, I happen to buy into McCormack's actualistic ontology, but we can discuss that at another time.)
As it stands, your position is self-contradictory. You can't make the protest against being "born sinful" while stressing the fact that fallenness and sinfulness coincide and still claim that your position is opposed to McCormack. Either you believe that Jesus, like all human beings, must sin in order to be fallen, or you believe that creatures are born fallen but then must sin to acquire their own personal guilt. You can go ahead and claim that our fallenness necessarily leads to sin, but that doesn't cause any problems for christology, because it is the activity of the Logos and the power of the Holy Spirit which enable Jesus to remain sinless even under the conditions of fallen humanity. That is precisely what makes him unique.
(cont'd)
(cont'd)
ReplyDelete2. "at this point you may say to me that the difference between us is merely the point at which Christ becomes sin": Again, a misunderstanding. First, I am not interested in locating any one "point" where Jesus becomes something. The incarnation doesn't happen at a particular point, e.g., conception. Incarnation refers to the entirety of his life history. It is the totality of his actions from birth until death. The incarnation is no single point, and therefore the moment of our redemption ("becoming sin for our sakes") is no single point. The cross has a decisive significance, yes, but the Gospels attest to the fact that his entire life is a cruciform life of "obedience unto death." In other words, your attempt to pinpoint where Jesus becomes sin is theologically misguided and biblically problematic. If I'm forced to locate the point where everything "happens," then I will say it is in the cry of abandonment.
Now I get the sense that you think of the atonement as some kind of cosmic transaction whereby, at the cross, the Father attributes the sin of humanity to Jesus, puts Jesus to death as a blood offering, and later raises him to new life as a confirmation of what was accomplished on the cross. Is that about right?
I could say quite a bit in response, but this should suffice: while this position (which I assume is yours) doesn't necessitate an essential righteousness, it also does not necessitate an acquired righteousness. There is nothing about the life of Jesus that is necessary for the accomplishment of redemption. You can assert that Jesus acquired our righteousness through his life, but with this doctrine of the crucifixion, everything happens in this cosmic transaction on the cross and nothing from the life is necessary. I view that as a dreadful doctrine of the atonement, and while it may not require an essential righteousness, you have no good reason for rejecting it.
3. "In my set-up Christ works an acquired righteousness throughout His incarnate life": No, actually he doesn't. In order to have an acquired righteousness, then the obedience of Jesus throughout his life has to be constitutive of redemption. But that's precisely what you cannot allow.
4. "...whereby the essentially righteous Logos is the Subject of a fallen en-hypostasized humanity": From this statement onward in the comment, I don't know if you understand what you are saying. This particular quote you say is a "traditional christology." But it's not traditional at all! The essential righteousness of the Logos is traditional, yes, but not the fallen humanity. The whole point of an essential righteousness is that the righteousness of the Logos deifies the humanity upon contact, such that there could not be any possibly union of the Logos with a fallen humanity. You can have an essential righteousness OR a fallen humanity, but not both.
(cont'd)
(cont'd)
ReplyDelete5. "...before any ministry is done": Do you really think that the Father's declaration entails that his humanity is a pre-Adamic, unfallen humanity? That's a really bizarre claim. Can't it simply mean what the church has always taught, namely, that this man is the Son of God? That doesn't entail any particular judgment on the fallenness of his humanity; it is simply a statement about his identity in relationship with YHWH.
6. "The humanity of Christ is in no sense at odds with the essential righteousness of the Logos": Of course not! No one could possibly confess the incarnation and make such a claim!
7. "And then Christ has an acquired righteousness before the cross at which point He becomes sin": This is a perfect example of the kind of statement that I am rejecting. The acquired righteousness position that I am advocating necessitates that his humanity be fallen. His life of obedience only acquires our righteousness if it is victorious over our fallenness. He is obedient in the midst of our fallen human condition. If his humanity isn't fallen, then his life of obedience isn't really obedience at all, because he couldn't have acted any differently. If there isn't the possibility of sinning - if his temptation is simply an illusion - then his obedience to the Father has no salvific, victorious consequences.
8. "He is a lamb without blemish before the high priest lays his hands on him, transfers the guilt and sacrifices him": I'll continue to ignore the mythic conception of a cosmic transaction and focus on the issue at hand. If "without blemish" you mean that he is sinless, then I agree. But if "without blemish" means that he doesn't share in our fallen condition, then I disagree.
9. "In your set-up, Christ has an essential righteousness before He becomes sin (in mine He has an acquired righteousness before He becomes sin - I think that's an advantage). He then works out His acquired righteousness from within this fallen humanity, all of which culminates on the cross": What?!? I don't know what you're talking about here. How is there any essential righteousness in my position? If you mean that the Logos is righteousness apart from the incarnation, then sure, but that's not saying anything, because everyone says that God is essentially righteous. Honestly, I can't comment on this sentence; the entire statement is incomprehensible. It doesn't seem like you've understood what I've been saying all along.
10. "But according to the bible neither creation nor Christ was born fallen": To say it again, yes, creation was not created fallen. But the church confesses that ever since the fall (however we want to understand that, whether eternally or historically or socially, whatever), every creature is born fallen, born into sin. That is simply part of our essential nature as beings who live between Eden and the New Jerusalem. Now, if you think that we only become fallen once we sin, then everything makes sense. Your position, as I see it, is incoherent unless you are willing to make this statement.
Sorry to be so cranky, but I guess I've reached the end of my patience on this topic. I really do think you're a good guy, and I hope you continue to read and think about Barth.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteWe’re not going to agree. But just to set the record straight – my whole position is the precise opposite of how you frame it here:
“I am starting to think that you believe we aren't fallen until we commit a sin.”
No, in Adam we are fallen by nature and this is our problem. The problem is not our acts, the problem is our being. And it is our personal problem apart from any personal acts we may perform.
As Augustine said, “we all were in that one man (Adam) when we all were that one man.” We all sinned in him (Rom 5:12). That is our personal guilt.
And while you may find Augustine’s discussion of sin passed on through male semen ‘mythological’, the biblical notion of the sins of the *fathers* is not. Christ had no human father. He was not born into that inherited guilt. He came as Doctor not Patient.
We are born through Adam’s seed to participate in his fallenness. (Christ was the Seed of the *woman*). We must be born again through Christ’s Spirit to participate in His righteousness. Christ took a full humanity from Mary but did not inherit Adamic guilt.
Christ’s ‘act of righteousness’ (Rom 5:18) which answered Adam’s act of disobedience was the cross. The cross was the fruit of a whole life of obedience lived to God – his sinless nature culminating in the righteous act. But it was this act that answered Adam’s act. And it is the acts of these men that have determined the being of those who are in them. Adamic being is countered by Christ's *act*. And no – I’m not declaring my conversion to McCormack – the act of Christ is the fruit of His (unfallen) being. All this shows how in the bible the fallen members are not redeemed by another fallen member, but by the true and better Head. And He reverses fallen being but not from within fallen being.
Is there an ontological aspect to the atonement? Of course. As I keep maintaining, our real problem is ontological. To solve this, Christ’s ‘act of righteousness’ does indeed mean clothing Himself in Adam’s guilt. But this guilt is as alien to Him as His righteousness is alien to us. On Good Friday He became sin in order to face its just punishment (you might call this mythological – but perhaps this is where we really differ?). This was His act of righteousness that has constituted the many righteous.
I’m not asking you to agree with me. I just want to set the record straight – I’m certainly not saying that we must sin to be fallen, I am saying our fallen nature *is* our problem. And I contend that this problem is not solved by Christ’s assuming that nature in incarnation and working out a righteousness from within it. At times it sounds like you think that this is the only model of atonement that a theologian could possibly countenance. But on my view, we are redeemed through the act of Christ (as the culmination of His sinless being). In all this, I’m wanting to affirm an acquired righteousness and I’m wanting to deny the fallenness of Christ’s humanity. I don’t think my position is incoherent on its own terms. You may not like it. But that's a totally different thing.
Btw I’m a peccabilist – the acquired righteousness of Jesus is not divine pageantry. He was really tempted (as Adam was – who also did not begin with a fallen humanity) and He truly *achieved* sinlessness through His gospel work – all crowned by His ‘act of righteousness’.
I don’t think I’ve misunderstood your position. I just think we’re immovably opposed on the central issue – you say that ‘acquired righteousness’ “necessitates that his humanity is fallen.” Calvin didn’t think so and neither do I.
I was wondering whether to post again and in the end just thought I'd lay out my thoughts. I've enjoyed thinking these things through some more. Thanks for the
stimulation.
Glen
"And while you may find Augustine’s discussion of sin passed on through male semen ‘mythological’, the biblical notion of the sins of the *fathers* is not. Christ had no human father. He was not born into that inherited guilt. He came as Doctor not Patient.
ReplyDeleteWe are born through Adam’s seed to participate in his fallenness. (Christ was the Seed of the *woman*). We must be born again through Christ’s Spirit to participate in His righteousness. Christ took a full humanity from Mary but did not inherit Adamic guilt."
Wow. I simply cannot believe that rational Christians still hold on to this view. I find it completely incomprehensible. It's not in Scripture — as you must know, Augustine was led astray by a completely wrong Latin version of Romans — and it's not theologically sound.
Sorry, Glen, but your position is a medieval one. It's time to enter modernity.
'entering modernity' eh? :)
ReplyDeleteI reckon I'll stay in the strange new world of the bible - in which this certainly is taught (as is an historic fall and a penal substitutionary model of atonement).
My faith - shaped by this revelation and no other - seeks understanding. In this sense (a very Barthian sense!) I want to be rational. But not modern. And not medieval. I want to be much more ancient and much more modern because I'm inhabiting this strange and new world.
That's my goal anyway.
Good luck with modernity, can't see a future in it myself.
Jesus bless,
Glen