Subject: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we
have David, regarding your thesis, "Jesus had the same
sinful flesh that we have":
I am new to this forum, so am not sure where or how
the discussion began, or how or whether it ended. From what I gather, it
has been a while since anyone has weighed in on the issue. I am impressed with
your patience. This is a difficult teaching for most Christians; not only are
they not willing to accept it, in my experience, they are not even willing to
entertain its possibility. In my humble opinion, this is not so much
because it is an unbiblical teaching -- it is not; rather it is due to the fact
that we have primarily lost the historical context for teaching it. This is not
a new teaching; indeed the early Church was quite comfortable with it.
It was only late in the formative centuries of
the Church that it came under attack. You seem to have a real good grasp of the
Scriptures in this area. I am writing to assure you that history is on your side
as well.
A great resource for this discussion is T. F.
Torrance. Are you familiar with him? In case you are not, he is a Scottish
theologian, who taught for many years at the University of Edinburgh. He is
currently 91 years old. Torrance has researched this topic more than anyone in
recent times. In his great little book The Mediation of Christ, he
introduces his handling of the Incarnation with these words: "Perhaps the
most fundamental truth we need to learn in the Christian Church, or rather
relearn since we have suppressed it, is that the Incarnation was the coming of
God to save us in the heart of our fallen and depraved
humanity, where humanity is at its wickedest in its enmity and violence against
the reconciling love of God. That is to say, the Incarnation is to be understood
as the coming of God to take upon himself our fallen human nature, our actual
human existence laden with sin and guilt, our humanity diseased in mind and soul
in its estrangement or alienation from the Creator. This is a doctrine found
everywhere in the early Church in the first five centuries, expressed again and
again in the terms that the whole man had to be assumed by Christ if the whole
man was to be saved, that the unassumed is unhealed, or that what God has not
taken up in Christ is not saved" (39).
After establishing the historicity of these beliefs
and attaching their origin to the writings of the Apostles, he then goes on to
state, "before long in the fourth century there began a revolt against the idea
that Christ took our fallen humanity including our depraved mind upon himself in
order to redeem it from within. Thus there developed especially in Latin
theology from the fifth century a steadily growing rejection of the fact that it
was our alienated, fallen, and sinful humanity that the Holy Son of God assumed,
and there was taught instead the idea that it was humanity in its perfect
original state that Jesus took over from the Virgin Mary, which of course forced
Roman Catholic theology into the strange notion of immaculate conception, . . .
Strange as it may now seem, Christian theology in the West, not least in
so-called 'Protestant Orthodoxy,' has largely followed the line of the Roman
Catholic Church, although without taking over its notion of immaculate
conception" (40).
The truth is, as much as we want to be
objective in our study, like it or not, we all bring something to the text. It
is important, I believe, when entering into this discussion to set it in its
proper historical context (as you attempted to do when you told Judy that her
beliefs were rooted in Roman Catholicism). Much has happened throughout the
centuries to shape and mold the way we go to the Scriptures. If we do not know
what earlier Christians believed and do not know the events which took place to
challenge and change those beliefs, then we are prone to assume that what we
believe today is what Christians have always believed. This topic is a great
case in point: what the early Church considered orthodoxy is now treated as
appalling to the sensitivities of most 'orthodox' Christians. My guess is that
most of these Christians are unaware of what their early brothers and sisters
believed. They assume that the immaculate view is also the historic view. They
deserve to know that it is not.
It seems to me that Christians should be able and
willing to ask the question, What has happened to influence my thinking in
this area? Why did early Christians accept this teaching, when I am unable even
to consider it? What stands in the gap between the beliefs of these early
Christians and those that I hold? If nothing else, David, if Christians will
take seriously the early history of the Church, when they say No to you,
they will know that you have been relegated to some pretty good
company.
Another resource, if you are interested, is Thomas
Weinandy. His book, In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh, is very
relevant to your thesis. Interestingly, he is Roman Catholic. At the end
of the book he attempts to defend the doctrine of Mary's immaculate
condition; this even though for all the same reasons as the early fathers, he
insists upon the necessity of Christ having had to have had a human nature
subject to the fall. In fairness to Weinandy, he makes a decent argument, which
is no small feat, considering the precarious position in which he finds
himself.
Well, I hope this was helpful. Until next
time,
Bill Taylor
|
- RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh... David Miller
- RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful f... Kevin Deegan
- RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sin... David Miller
- RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same... Kevin Deegan
- RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same... Kevin Deegan
- RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same... David Miller
- [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have jandgtaylor1
- [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have jandgtaylor1
- [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have jandgtaylor1
- [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have jandgtaylor1
- Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have Wm. Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we... Terry Clifton
- Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh tha... Wm. Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh... Terry Clifton
- Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful f... Wm. Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sin... Terry Clifton
- Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same... Wm. Taylor
- RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful f... David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sin... Terry Clifton
- RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same... David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same... Terry Clifton