Either I'm gearing up for another school year, or I have completely lost my mind. Either way, I opened St. Athanasius' book On the Incarnation the other night and read it cover to cover. In it, Athanasius makes the case for the divinity and humanity of Christ, the need for the incarnation and what it means.
Now, I'm an incarnation guy. Some people are baptism people, some focus on the cross, still others on the resurrection. Realizing that they all, of course, go hand in hand, the incarnation is the most important thing Jesus ever did in my opinion.
Like any good doctrine of incarnation, and therefore salvation, one must begin with the NEED of salvation. Why do we need saving? So, a question came to my mind reading Athanasius' account of original sin that lead to the incarnation and the salvation of all.
How does one form a sound doctrine of original sin while denying the act of the original sin itself? In other words, what's original sin without believing in Adam and Eve? And, maybe more important, does it matter?
I pose the question to the blogosphere...
Thanks, B
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I like my apples with a little peanut butter. Yum!
looks as if you are moving away from some of the more tradition "liberal" stances...those who would outright deny the divinity of Christ altogether...perhaps you would say you are "post-liberal" now ehh? I like this thinking.
i have never been anywhere close to denying the divinity of christ, my friend. No one's actually answering my question! Unless I can take Andy's response in the "doesn't really matter" column.
Even if Adam and Eve are not literal people, ancient Israel still saw a brokenness in themselves and their world and used the story to describe what they saw and felt and how it related to God. Even as I ponder original sin, there is no doubt that I see sin within me and in the world around me. Knowing that God confronted that brokenness by overcoming it from the inside out gives me a lot of hope.
Great post.
Dennis H.
Very interesting. Adam, as a "traditional liberal," I firmly believe in the full divinity of Christ. Where did that come from? Brad, you go from incarnation to salvation rather quickly. What is the connection? Jesus could not have died and been raised had he not become human. Original sin? We all possess a human propensity for selfishness, greed, pride, and are in need of grace and forgiveness. The fact that God became flesh gives us the reality of a new way of life, the reality of God's redeeming love. Keep at it. Dad
The jump from incarnation to salvation is not a very big one. Jesus could not have saved us all by dying on the cross had he not been real flesh and blood. I realize I am no theologian, but does my thinking make sense to those of you who are? Good to read your thoughts, Beej. And to know that you have already read one of your texts! So when do classes start, anyway? Mom
With all do respect Rev. Bryan...senior/junior/dude who married me, I would site Schleimacher and his versions of Jesus "God Consciousness" as a classic liberal theological position on the incarnation and the divinity of Christ. In no way am I referring to social liberal stances but simply staying in the theological realm. Through modern science Schleimacher denied the miracles of the bible which meant that the incarnation was to be reinterpreted at a whole other level. Thus the immenence of God was pushed by liberal theologians to incorporate the God spark in all of us.
Barth, growing up and going to school with such professors eventually rejected their views and heavily pushed the transcendent view of God reinstating the miraculous and holding to a much more orthodox view.
So, that's where that came from.
Addendum:
After reading the above post a day later I feel I must apologize for the somewhat harsh tone. Sorry about that...I would also like to clarify that I think Barth went too far with the transcendent nature of God almost pushing God outside of the realm of this world. To compensate for the liberal and conservative positions I think we need to hold fast to the orthodox position of the incarnation in that God is both immanent and transcendent all at the same time. Does that make sense?
Schleimacher's "God Consciousness" position removed the divinity of Christ whereas Barth's transcendent position removed the humanity of Christ...both committed errors in thinking...at least that's how I have come to understand their positions.
As far as the belief in a literal Adam and Eve...I'm going to chalk that up to I don't know. It seems clear to me that God must act in real space and real time, i.e., Jesus birth, life and resurrection, for the redemption of mankind. I suppose that it would follow that original sin took place in real space and real time as well. That's my assumption anyway...does that make sense.
I would however agree with Dennis that all of the stories in the OT may or may not be actual events that took place in history such as the entire book of Job. I think the issue becomes very difficult when determining which events "must" have happened in history. (such as the Exodus, conquering of Canaan, Exile etc.) We at least know that the stories of these events have shaped the people of God and the church of God and they must continue to do so today. As to their historicity, I thinks it's up for debate.
Brad...very nice wedding cards...excellent idea...should this be directed towards Lindsey?
Sorry for the long post...laters.
I think apples are actually better with carmel...
what do you mean by "believe in Adam and Eve"? Are they santa and Mrs. Claus now?
I don't believe that God literally made the first two humans that roamed the earth and called the Adam and Eve...but I do think that since the beginning of time we people have been in need of communion with God. We need to see God in those around us and in ourselves and in all that we come in contact with. So then original sin would be ignoring that inherent divine relationships that are all around us and part of us....or maybe not..I don't know.
jz
How about the incarnation was the plan all along? A fellow named Baxter Kruger writes that Jesus incarnate was not Plan B after Adam (figuratively or literally) messed it all up; rather, Jesus incarnate was the Plan A from the beginning. Incarnation and Ascension were needed to draw us up into the Trinitarian Life.
Post a Comment