Quoting from an essay by Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson ("You
Wonder where
the Body Went", CTNS Bulletin, Winter 1991):
"Such a move would redefine heaven christologically: heaven
would exist
only in that the Incarnation occurs, only in that God incarnationally occupies
space in his creation. It would become conceptually impossible to describe the
Creator's presence to his creatures without reference to the God-man. Someone
who made this move would be committed to one side of an old theological divide:
utrum Christus venisset, si homo non peccaverit? He/she would be committed to
assigning foundational status within metaphysics to the existence of
the God-man,
in the general line of Athanasius, the Franciscans, the supralapsarian
Calvinists, and Karl Barth."
I cite this not to focus on Jenson's own claims in the first
2 senetnces
(which in any case require reading the whole essay) but 1st for the answer to
Bob's original question that the last sentence suggests. Jenson's reference to
"the general line of ..." should be noted. I don't know of anyplace where
Luther, or for that matter Athanasius, says in so many words "Christ would have
come if humanity had not sinned." OTOH this is fairly clear for Barth.
Mention of "the supralapsarian Calvinists" reminds us that we shouldn't
answer "Yes" in a naive
way. I.e., God didn't say "I think that the Word should become
incarnate. Hmm,
I wonder if the species in which the Word is incarnated will have
sinned. If so,
I guess atonement will be necessary."
My own answer is "Yes" for several reasons.
1) This seems to be what Eph.1:10 is pointing toward.
2) If creation is fundamentally dynamic and evolving (N.B.
creation, not
God) then the perfect expression of what God intends humanity to be will not
appear at the very beginning but in "the fullness of time" - i.e., in
Christ, not
Adam. Of course this is in Barth but also in Irenaeus.
3) This view can be read as a "theanthropic principle" in
parallel with
scientific anthropic principles, thus giving the latter greater theological
significance than just jazzed-up arguments from design.
4) Such a view need not downplay Atonement. The fact that
Fox & others
do so in no way means that that is a "logical extension" of a cosmic
christology
- cf. Col.1:20 & Rev.13:8.
Michael may object that this is too speculative. I would
reply (a) that
Eph.1:10 isn't speculation & (b) while theology must be based on scripture, a
theology that eschews creative thought entirely cannot be well-suited
to address
people in the present, let alone the future. If it did, our
preaching would have
to consist exclusively of biblical quotations.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology-Interface"
Robert Schneider wrote:
> Hi, Michael,
>
> Sorry, but I shudder to imagine having some member of your royal family
> as a governor of each of our states. Given the scandals of the present
> generations of royals and their spouses (or ex-es), we could be awash in sex
> and paparazzi. "Clinton" again and again? Horrors!
>
> As for the doctrine of the Incarnation, I thank you for your historical
> comment. But I have always thought it a weakness of so much Protestant
> theology that the Atonement has been given such precedence over the
> Incarnation that the latter is hardly considered, at least popularly, as I
> found with so many of my conservative and fundamentalist students, some of
> whom seemed to have not heard of it (when I asked anyone in a class of
> twenty two to explain it, there was dead silence). I think the early Church
> Fathers, who devoted so much energy and effort to developing this doctrine,
> gave it much greater due than some of their Protestant descendents, and to
> the degree that contemporary Anglican theology seeks to recover that I'm all
> for it (that's aside from any judgment about the "vacuousness" of any
> theological use or expression of it). And, I would add, how are we to think
> about the Incarnation in an evolving universe? the Logos has a whole
> universe to relate to, not just intelligent, self-reflective life on our
> planet, and we need to put our anthropocentrism in perspective, whether our
> focus is on sin or not. Airy-fairy and speculative it may be, but I have no
> trouble imagining the Logos incarnating on many other planets, even with
> creatures who have evolved without a fall, even (Catholic bishops and other
> patriarchials, take notice!) in what would be the equivalent of the female
> of the species.
>
> Blessings to you, and a Happy Fourth to my fellow country men and women,
> Bob Schneider
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>; "Glenn
> Morton" <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 8:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Was the Incarnation necessary?
>
> > For Glenn
> >
> > I should hope we don't celebrate 4/7 (and get that the right way round!) .
> > We did have something to celebrate last month if you remember and you got
> > two days off. Just think how much better life would be if some rebels had
> > not got the upper hand. You could have a member of the royal family as
> > governor of each state!
> >
> > Last 3rd July I went to an Independence Day rodeo at Spearfish SD that
> was
> > an education for me - and the Wheaton students! On a geological field trip
> > to Mt Rushmore I found another face - to the left of George Washington.
> >
> > For Bob
> >
> >
> > I cannot think of any examples in prot theology where the incarnation is
> > not necissitated by sin. One could argue (entirely me here ) that had
> there
> > been no sin then incarnation of the word would be spuerfluous as God was
> in
> > total harmony and relationship with his Creation.
> >
> > As a good non-liberal and non-catholic Anglican I feel a weakness of much
> > anglican incarnational theology is that it plays downs and weakens much
> > understanding of redemption atonement and thus of sin. This is based on a
> > wide familiarity of Anglican theology over the last 200 years so it is not
> > the knee-jerk reaction of a semi-fundamentalist Anglican.
> >
> > This is a result of moving the centre of gravity of faith from atonement
> to
> > incarnation. As it has worked out in some anglican theology we have ended
> up
> > with a vacuous theology with nno redemption whatsoever and comes out
> clearly
> > in ultra-liberal anglican theology. It is seen clearly in many recent
> > communion services in the Church of England and in the recent Common
> worship
> > rites (2000) several prayers of consecration play down the atonemnt to a
> > great extent - and I will not use them.
> >
> > I am afraid I find Zach Hayes summary of the Scotian view so speculative
> and
> > airy-fairy that it does nothing for me at all. It is a bit like trying to
> > specualte life based on silicon.
> >
> > As I am totally non-speculative in my theology I cant see much point in
> > considering what might have been the case if things were different, so I
> > consider incarnation without sin as pointless as discussing whether God
> > created in an instant (he could have done) or over a few billion years.
> > A logical extension of an extreme incarnation is in my view the theology
> of
> > Matthew Fox.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--------------3596A497EFD96B0ABA0691C4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Quoting from an essay by Lutheran theologian Robert
Jenson ("You Wonder where the Body Went", CTNS Bulletin, Winter 1991):
<p> "Such a move would redefine
heaven christologically: heaven would exist only in that the Incarnation
occurs, only in that God incarnationally occupies space in his creation.
It would become conceptually impossible to describe the Creator's presence
to his creatures without reference to the God-man. Someone who made
this move would be committed to one side of an old theological divide:
<i>utrum Christus venisset, si homo non peccaverit?</i> He/she would
be committed to assigning foundational status within metaphysics to the
existence of the God-<i>man</i>, in the general line of Athanasius, the
Franciscans, the supralapsarian Calvinists, and Karl Barth."
<p> I cite this not to focus
on Jenson's own claims in the first 2 senetnces (which in any case require
reading the whole essay) but 1st for the answer to Bob's original question
that the last sentence suggests. Jenson's reference to "the general
line of ..." should be noted. I don't know of anyplace where Luther,
or for that matter Athanasius, says in so many words "Christ would have
come if humanity had not sinned." OTOH this is fairly clear for Barth.
<br> Mention of "the supralapsarian
Calvinists" reminds us that we shouldn't answer "Yes" in a naive
<br>way. I.e., God didn't say "I think that the Word should become
incarnate. Hmm, I wonder if the species in which the Word is incarnated
will have sinned. If so, I guess atonement will be necessary."
<br> My own answer is "Yes" for
several reasons.
<br> 1) This seems to be
what Eph.1:10 is pointing toward.
<br> 2) If creation is
fundamentally dynamic and evolving (N.B. creation, not God) then the perfect
expression of what God intends humanity to be will not appear at the very
beginning but in "the fullness of time" - i.e., in Christ, not Adam.
Of course this is in Barth but also in Irenaeus.
<br> 3) This view can be
read as a "theanthropic principle" in parallel with scientific anthropic
principles, thus giving the latter greater theological significance than
just jazzed-up arguments from design.
<br> 4) Such a view need
not downplay Atonement. The fact that Fox & others do so in no
way means that that is a "logical extension" of a cosmic christology -
cf. Col.1:20 & Rev.13:8.
<br> Michael may object that
this is too speculative. I would reply (a) that Eph.1:10 isn't
speculation
& (b) while theology must be based on scripture, a theology that eschews
creative thought entirely cannot be well-suited to address people in the
present, let alone the future. If it did, our preaching would have
to consist exclusively of biblical quotations.
<br>
Shalom,
<br>
George
<p>George L. Murphy
<br><A HREF="http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/">http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
<br>"The Science-Theology-Interface"
<br>
<br>
<p>Robert Schneider wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Hi, Michael,
<p> Sorry, but I shudder to imagine having some
member of your royal family
<br>as a governor of each of our states. Given the scandals of the
present
<br>generations of royals and their spouses (or ex-es), we could be awash
in sex
<br>and paparazzi. "Clinton" again and again? Horrors!
<p> As for the doctrine of the Incarnation, I thank
you for your historical
<br>comment. But I have always thought it a weakness of so much
Protestant
<br>theology that the Atonement has been given such precedence over the
<br>Incarnation that the latter is hardly considered, at least popularly,
as I
<br>found with so many of my conservative and fundamentalist students,
some of
<br>whom seemed to have not heard of it (when I asked anyone in a class
of
<br>twenty two to explain it, there was dead silence). I think the
early Church
<br>Fathers, who devoted so much energy and effort to developing this doctrine,
<br>gave it much greater due than some of their Protestant descendents,
and to
<br>the degree that contemporary Anglican theology seeks to recover that
I'm all
<br>for it (that's aside from any judgment about the "vacuousness" of any
<br>theological use or expression of it). And, I would add, how are
we to think
<br>about the Incarnation in an evolving universe? the Logos has a whole
<br>universe to relate to, not just intelligent, self-reflective life on
our
<br>planet, and we need to put our anthropocentrism in perspective, whether
our
<br>focus is on sin or not. Airy-fairy and speculative it may be,
but I have no
<br>trouble imagining the Logos incarnating on many other planets, even
with
<br>creatures who have evolved without a fall, even (Catholic bishops and
other
<br>patriarchials, take notice!) in what would be the equivalent of the
female
<br>of the species.
<p>Blessings to you, and a Happy Fourth to my fellow country men and women,
<br>Bob Schneider
<p>----- Original Message -----
<br>From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
<br>To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>;
"Glenn
<br>Morton" <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
<br>Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 8:33 AM
<br>Subject: Re: Was the Incarnation necessary?
<p>> For Glenn
<br>>
<br>> I should hope we don't celebrate 4/7 (and get that the right
way round!) .
<br>> We did have something to celebrate last month if you remember
and you got
<br>> two days off. Just think how much better life would be if some
rebels had
<br>> not got the upper hand. You could have a member of the royal
family as
<br>> governor of each state!
<br>>
<br>> Last 3rd July I went to an Independence Day rodeo at Spearfish
SD that
<br>was
<br>> an education for me - and the Wheaton students! On a geological
field trip
<br>> to Mt Rushmore I found another face - to the left of George
Washington.
<br>>
<br>> For Bob
<br>>
<br>>
<br>> I cannot think of any examples in prot theology where
the incarnation is
<br>> not necissitated by sin. One could argue (entirely me here
) that had
<br>there
<br>> been no sin then incarnation of the word would be spuerfluous
as God was
<br>in
<br>> total harmony and relationship with his Creation.
<br>>
<br>> As a good non-liberal and non-catholic Anglican I feel a weakness
of much
<br>> anglican incarnational theology is that it plays downs and
weakens much
<br>> understanding of redemption atonement and thus of sin. This
is based on a
<br>> wide familiarity of Anglican theology over the last 200 years
so it is not
<br>> the knee-jerk reaction of a semi-fundamentalist Anglican.
<br>>
<br>> This is a result of moving the centre of gravity of faith from
atonement
<br>to
<br>> incarnation. As it has worked out in some anglican theology
we have ended
<br>up
<br>> with a vacuous theology with nno redemption whatsoever and
comes out
<br>clearly
<br>> in ultra-liberal anglican theology. It is seen clearly in many
recent
<br>> communion services in the Church of England and in the recent
Common
<br>worship
<br>> rites (2000) several prayers of consecration play down the
atonemnt to a
<br>> great extent - and I will not use them.
<br>>
<br>> I am afraid I find Zach Hayes summary of the Scotian view so
speculative
<br>and
<br>> airy-fairy that it does nothing for me at all. It is a bit
like trying to
<br>> specualte life based on silicon.
<br>>
<br>> As I am totally non-speculative in my theology I cant see much
point in
<br>> considering what might have been the case if things were different,
so I
<br>> consider incarnation without sin as pointless as discussing
whether God
<br>> created in an instant (he could have done) or over a few billion
years.
<br>> A logical extension of an extreme incarnation is in my view
the theology
<br>of
<br>> Matthew Fox.
<br>>
<br>> Michael
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>
<br>></blockquote>
</html>
--------------3596A497EFD96B0ABA0691C4--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 04 2002 - 16:59:58 EDT