Catholic Bishops Criticize Vietnamese Theologian

The US Catholic bishops released a statement today critical of Fr. Peter Phan; he’s a priest of the Dallas diocese who teaches at Georgetown. CNS, John Allen.

On the uniqueness of Jesus, he has said, for example,

[O]ne may question the usefulness of words such as unique, absolute, and even universal to describe the role of Jesus as savior today. … [These terms] have outlived their usefulness and should be jettisoned and replaced by other, theologically more adequate equivalents.

On other religions:

Religious pluralism . . . is not just a matter of fact but also a matter of principle. That is, non-Christian religions may be seen as part of the plan of divine providence and endowed with a particular role in the history of salvation. They are not merely a “preparation” for, “stepping stones” toward, or “seeds” of Christianity and destined to be “fulfilled” by it. Rather, they have their own autonomy and their proper roles as ways of salvation, at least for their adherents.

Rice’s “Open Theism”

Richard Rice, a professor of theology at Loma Linda University, has made a big impact in evangelical circles through his “open theism” concept. Friday night he gave a presentation on the matter; Dave Larson reports. I had several graduate courses from Rice when I was at Loma Linda, four years after he published his book, The Openness of God.

Larson says Rice started his discussion with Calvin. To a church historian, that seems a strange place to start–that’s 1500 years into the Christian discussion of the nature of God. Adventists, like most Evangelical Protestants, are comfortable in the world of Reformed Protestant theology, but aren’t very familiar with classical Lutheranism, medieval theology, Eastern Christianity, or patristics.

Wikipedia article has some discussion, and links to the debate within Evangelicalism over the idea.

Rice holds that God doesn’t have absolute knowledge of the future; that if he did, human freedom would be an illusion–we would not be able to choose other than as God has foreknown.

Larson refers to Rice’s statement that there are various translations of Romans 8:28. But no interpretation of this verse can ignore the verses which follow. I quote from the NIV, whose translation of v. 28 Rice finds most open to his interpretation:

28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

This is not the only Bible verse that supports God’s absolute foreknowledge and providence, by any means.

I don’t have time right now to write a detailed post on the subject, but let me just throw out a couple observations. I think Rick’s argument is rooted in philosophical presuppositions, not Scriptural exegesis. I think the historical perspective needs to be widened.

I think it ironic that at QOD one person on the “liberal” side was accusing the other of having a reduced Christology–if anything, I think it could be said it is the liberals who are reducing Christ. They appear to want a Christ who, in his glory, does not know everything, and is not all powerful, while at the same time wanting a Christ who, in his humility, does not fully share in our infirmities and weaknesses. I think orthodox Christology pushes the limits on both ends–he is fully God, sharing in the full omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence of the Father and the Spirit, and he is fully man, having been made like his brothers in every respect, having emptied himself for our salvation. That’s the glory of Christ–pantocrator and man of sorrows.

A question–Can a movement rooted in a conviction that Biblical prophecy is reliable accept a teaching that ultimately forces one to say that prophecy is not reliable–that it is merely God’s “hunch” of how things might come to be?

Further reading, to expand the discussion beyond Reformed and Evangelical sources: Augustine, City of God; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica; Luther, Bondage of the Will; Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration) on free will and election.

Edward Irving on the Incarnation: Rediscovering the Fathers

As mentioned in the previous post, Edward Irving is one of those cited by Karl Barth has holding to the teaching that Christ assumed our fallen nature. I was first introduced to Irving’s thoughts on this in a lecture by Colin Gunton at Gettysburg Lutheran Seminary back around 1985.

I recently read a very good introduction to Irving’s thought–David W. Dorries, Edward Irving’s Incarnational Christology (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2002). Dorries teaches at Oral Roberts University; his Ph.D. is in church history from the University of Aberdeen (1987).

Here are a couple of other intriguing leads for seeing what other Catholic and Protestant theologians have affirmed the fallenness of Christ’s humanity:

• Thomas G. Weinandy, O.F.M.Cap., In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ. Weinandy is currently Executive Director of the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
• Kelly M Kapic, “The Son’s Assumption of a Human Nature: A Call for Clarity.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 3 (2001): 154–166.

Edward Irving assumes the truthfulness of the Symbol of Chalcedon:

So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

Let’s pick out a couple of elements from this:

• consubstantial with us as regards his humanity
• like us in all respects except for sin
• in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation
• at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being

The second point affirms the teaching of Hebrews chapters 2 and 4–we don’t start with the differences, but assume that the human nature of Christ is like us in everything “except for sin.” All the essential properties of human nature as we have it are retained by Christ in the incarnation.

Irving also affirmed the teaching of Gregory of Nazianzus, “that which he has not assumed he has not healed.”

Said Irving (Dorries, p. 84):

“He voluntarily brought Himself into peril by taking to Himself our nature; by being incarnate He became the champion of our salvation, by enduring the incarnation and overcoming all the creature’s fallen condition, He accomplished our salvation; …”(C.W., IV, p. 341)

“This is the spirit of His incarnation, one great end and meaning of His manifestation in sinful flesh, to teach humanity how there resideth with the Spirit of God a power to fortify humanity, and make it victorious over all trials and temptations,–a power to reconstruct the fallen ruins of humanity into a temple of holiness, …” (C.W., II, p. 98)

Starting with the Son’s kenosis, or self-emptying, he describes Christ as maturing in all areas, and struggling as we do (Dorries, pp. 90ff)

“I consider Him waxing from youth to manhood, according to the growth of human nature, struggling with its infirmities, tried with its trials, living in the same twilight of divine knowledge, and needing the same aids of a written Word, of prayer, and of communion, which man doth need. And, therefore, when He ascended out of the water, He waited in expectation of grace to be given to Him from on high; and He besought it with the humility of a suppliant.” (C.W. II, p. 101)

“He became flesh, and grew by the natural growth of the body and mind of man; …” (C.W. II, p. 195)

“… that power which He resigned, He, not in appearance but in truth, resigned. So that He was a child, and grew in the grace and faculties of His nature like another child into mature manhood, struggling with the temptations, and spoiling the tempters of each stage of life,…” (C.W. II, p. 194)

“…what anxieties and fears must have pressed Him at its outset, when, from being a private man, He undertook so high a task! Think not I take from His dignity thus to behold Him accessible to those troubles of the spirit. It doth but prove the more the tenderness of his humanity, and encourage that fellow-feeling with Him which is the most genuine mark of His disciples.” (C.W. II, p. 222)

“I believe that in the minds of many the edge of this mighty trial is taken off by a certain vague apprehension that He was helped to bear it by the new power which He had received from heaven: but this is a notion against which we protest, as totally unsupported by Scripture, and defeating one chief end of His coming in the flesh, which was to conquer every form of wickedness and trial that could come against Him from the cradle to the grave, and to set us an example that we might follow His steps. If His humanity bore not His human encounter, but needed the aid of His superior faculties, then how serveth it as an encouragement or an example to us who are mere men, and have no such divinity to bear us up? His humanity sustained Him against all earthly encounters; and whatever His divinity served Him, it served not to lighten the load which lay heavy upon His shoulders.” (C.W. II, p. 220)

“For He had come into humanity’s accursed region; and His flesh

Dorries emphasizes the Trinitarian dimension of his Christology–the Son in his incarnate state was united to the Father through the Spirit. This pneumatological dimension was lacking in contemporary Christology, he felt; it appeared at the annunciation, the baptism, and the resurrection. Irving’s Trinitarian emphasis gave renewed understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit throughout the incarnation, and in the lives of believers (Dorries, pp. 102-105).

His humanity was “fallen yet sinless” (Dorries, p. 121):

“For I believe, and will ever affirm, according to the language of all the psalms, that the body of Christ, which was without spot and blemish, had yet inherent in it, and resting upon it, every form of infirmity, and was liable to every description of sin; was led into all temptation; yet was not prevailed against, … All sins, infirmities, and diseases had free access to Him by the way of His humanity: they nestled in it, but could not pollute it; they begirt it on every side, but could not dismay it; they straitened, tortured, and slew it, but could not bring it under the dominion of sin for one instant; and did but slay themselves, in slaying that body into which they had entered to make war upon…” (C.W. V, p. 320)

“that first and greatest act of God the Father, whereby from all eternity He did offer up unto death, in a body of fallen yet sinless manhood, His own co-eternal consubstantial Son.” (C.W. II, p. 310; C.W. V, pp. 23, 331)

Dorries gives similar quotes from successive periods in Irving’s writing and ministry. Rather than follow these in detail, I want to turn to some of the patristic writers that Dorries quotes to show that Irving’s Christology was orthodox. I’ll put Dorries’ page numbers in square brackets, and link to the patristic source where I can find it on-line.

Irenaeus of Lyons (affirming, against the Gnostics, that Christ truly took genuine flesh and blood from Mary):

“So the Word was made flesh, that through that very flesh which sin had ruled and dominated, it should lose its force and be no longer in us.” Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 31. [151]

“If, then, any one allege that in this respect the flesh of the Lord was different from ours, because it indeed did not commit sin, neither was deceit found in His soul, while we, on the other hand, are sinners, he says what is the fact. But if he pretends that the, Lord possessed another substance of flesh, the sayings respecting reconciliation will not agree with that man. For that thing is reconciled which had formerly been in enmity. Now, if the Lord had taken flesh from another substance, He would not, by so doing, have reconciled that one to God which had become inimical through transgression. But now, by means of communion with Himself, the Lord has reconciled man to God the Father, in reconciling us to Himself by the body of His own flesh, and redeeming us by His own blood…” Against Heresies, V.14.3. [151]

“if He was not made what we were, He did no great thing in what He suffered and endured.” Against Heresies, III.22.1 [152]

“For as He became man in order to undergo temptation, so also was He the Word that He might be glorified; the Word remaining quiescent, that He might be capable of being tempted, dishonoured, crucified, and of suffering death, but the human nature being swallowed up in it (the divine), when it conquered, and endured [without yielding], and performed acts of kindness, and rose again, and was received up [into heaven].” Against Heresies, III.19.3 [153]

Athanasius:

“…we could not have been redeemed from sin and the curse, unless the flesh and nature, which the Word took upon Him had been truly ours (for we should have had no interest by his assumption of any foreign nature).” Against the Arians, II, 70 [165]

“an impassible and perfect being … really and positively assumed our passive, imperfect, and feeble nature.” Against the Arians, III, 55 [166]

“Our Saviour humbled Himself exceedingly when He tooko upon Him our frail unworthy nature. He assumed the form of a servant in making that flesh, which was enslaved to sin, a part of Himself.” Against the Arians, I, 43 [166]

“the corruption which had set in was not external to the body, but had become attached to it ….” On the Incarnation of the Word, 44 [166]

“And again, had not the Son of God admitted the imperfections of our nature to a place in His person, it had been impossible for our nature to be entirely delivered from them.” Against the Arians, III, 33 [167]

Gregory of Nazianzus:

“But if it was that He might destroy the condemnation by sanctifying like by like, then as He needed flesh for the sake of the flesh which had incurred condemnation, and soul for the sake of our soul, so, too, He needed mind for the sake of mind, which not only fell in Adam, but was the first to be affected, as the doctors say of illnesses. For that which received the command was that which failed to keep the command, and that which failed to keep it was that also which dared to transgress; and that which transgressed was that which stood most in need of salvation; and that which needed salvation was that which also He took upon Him. Therefore, Mind was taken upon Him.” Letter CI [183]

Gregory of Nyssa:

“In what could the recovery of our nature have consisted if, while this earthly creature was diseased and needed this recovery, something else, amongst the heavenly beings, had experienced the Divine sojourning? It is impossible for the sick man to be healed, unless his suffering member receives the healing. If, therefore, while this sick part was on earth, omnipotence had touched it not, but had regarded only its own dignity, this its pre-occupation with matters with which we had nothing in common would have been of no benefit to man.” Great Catechism, 27 [183]

There are more items that could be selected, from both Irving and from the fathers (and later authors), but that suffices to demonstrate the point. For the fathers, and for Irving, it was real human flesh–as we have it–that Christ assumed. It was only by assuming what is sick that he could heal it, and this applies to both our mind and our body.

Food for thought.

Karl Barth on the Incarnation

Updated: I’ve just changed the timestamp on this post from September for the benefit of those who’ve only recently discovered the blog, as it is relevant to discussions at the recent QOD conference.

Karl Barth has some interesting observations on the humanity of Christ in Church Dogmatics (I/2, pp. 153ff).

…[T]here must be no weakening or obscuring of the saving truth that the nature which God assumed in Christ is identical with our nature as we see it in the light of the Fall. If it were otherwise, how could Christ really be like us? … God’s Son not only assumed our nature but He entered the concrete form of our nature, under which we stand before God as men damned and lost….

He notes that the majority of theologians shied away from considering the full implications of this in both the Middle Ages and the Reformation. Reacting against Arianism, they tended toward a semi-Apollinarianism. Contrary to this, the Patristic affirmation, grounded in Scripture and echoed by Barth is “What Christ has not assumed He has not healed.”

He quotes a number of other theologians who share his concern.

Gottfried Menken:

“… the Son of God when He came into the world did not then assume a human nature such as this nature was when it came forth from God’s hand before the Fall, before it had in Adam … become sinful and mortal. On the contrary, it was a human nature such as was in Adam after the Fall and is in all his successors.”

He refers to Edward Irving, about whom I’ll say more in another post.

J. C. K. von Hofmann said that Christ assumed “human nature as limited and conditioned by sin”; “… He belonged to humanity as it was in consequence of sin, but without being a sinner.”

H. F. Kolbrügge: He was “flesh as we are flesh”; “in this whole nature of ours, with all human affections, appetitions and needs.”

Edward Bohl: “The Logos entered our condition thus alienated from God….”

H. Bezzel: “the form of a manhood dishonoured and devalued by sin.”

A reminder of the Scriptural background:

Hebrews 2:14ff–Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Hebrews 4:15–For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Romans 8:3–For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

Is. 53:2b-3–He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

Herbert Douglass, writing under a pseudonym, has a very good discussion of Barth’s theology here.

When the Incarnation Is Denied

The Book of Hebrews is clear that Jesus shared our full humanity, flesh and blood, in all its weakness (2:14ff). It’s an uncomfortable thought for some. The Docetists denied it completely and said he only appeared to be like us, when he really wasn’t. Others, including the Catholic Church, have done all they could to make his humanity as antiseptically pure as possible. Catholicism preserves his mother from original sin and even the ordinary pain of childbirth–suggesting that Jesus wasn’t really born of the virgin Mary, but that he transported out of her womb (like going through the locked door after his resurrection), without contracting the uterus or stretching the cervix and vagina. Catholicism further argues that his temptations were mere playacting, that it was metaphysically impossible for him to have given in.

Evangelicals have not been immune from this fear of Jesus’ real humanity. Consider the sermons by M. R. DeHaan (d. 1965) of the “Radio Bible Class” on the “Chemistry of the Blood,” in which he declared,

Jesus is called the Seed of the woman, because He was born of a woman without one drop of human blood in His veins, and thereby could avoid the sin of Adam which is only transmitted through the blood which the male contributes to his offspring. Jesus could have a human body, but one drop of Adam’s blood would have made Him a sinner just as you and I.

He was a prominent voice in Evangelicalism, but I can’t find any instances of Evangelical leaders calling him on the carpet for this bizarrely heretical statement.