Atonement and the Image of God

This entry was posted in Theology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Atonement and the Image of God

  1. Tom says:

    His (7) seems mistaken to me, for it is not the divine ‘nature’ that participates in the human nature and thus enters into privation and death; rather, the ‘person’ of the Son (not his divine nature which remains impassible) who experiences death by means of his human nature.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Tom says:

    For the ‘one human nature’ view he advocates to work as a mechanism by which the effects of Christ’s act are universally mediated to all, that one human nature has to be indivisible. I don’t know such a thing to be false, but my question to Ben would be this:

    How is it the case that the effects of Christ’s act are not immediately and universally realized? If the one indivisible nature is saved and perfected by Christ, why are there any sinners at all? By what ‘mechanism’ do individual human beings reject those effects? Just saying that rejection isn’t ‘real’ because it’s ‘privation’ skirts the question without answering it. By what mechanism do the unsaved (a) participate in the one human nature (what other nature do we instantiate?) without (b) being actually saved in their experience of, and participation in, that one (now perfected, glorified) human nature?

    So the ‘one human nature’ mechanism (the human anthropology part) needs further work, for it needs to account for both a unity that serves as the means of mediating the universal effectiveness of Christ’s act (which Ben describes) but also for the principle of individuation into separable, individual instances of that nature, individuals who are (by ‘nature’, mind you) able to reject the effectiveness of Christ’s act. How so? What is that nature which is both indivisibility in its unity AND separably individual? By what mechanism – definitive of the ‘one nature’ – are the effects to all made contingent in their realization upon individual choice?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Tom says:

      Last question there: which is both ‘indivisible’ [not ‘indivisibility’] in its unity…lol!

      Like

    • Tom says:

      I don’t mind the ‘one human nature’ view, by the way. I incline to it (or to some such created principle of unity). I wonder if Ben would call this one human nature the ‘World Soul’.

      Like

  3. Iain Lovejoy says:

    It seems to me that the philosophical naturalism whereby there is an abstract thing called “human nature” separate from human beings themselves which is directly effected by and directly effects each individual is the least necessary assumption in the theory. It could equally well work by substituting a viral or infestation model for how one man’s death effects all, rather as Jesus himself talked of a how single tiny wild mustard seed grows to completely take over the entire garden. The death of Jesus transforms the entire of mankind gradually through spreading person to person via example and exhortation and the spreading of the word and the administration of the sacraments and also within a person by occupying and transforming more and more of his individual nature, rather than instantaneously transforming everyone through direct operation on an abstract central “human nature”.

    Like

Comments are closed.