Post by gregory on Oct 10, 2022 7:52:10 GMT -8
So, continuing to do some soul searching, and looking more into the formal theological framework protestantism has, I realized there is a few major issues with the theology most of my friends hold to, namely the reformed tradition. Attached to the kernel I outlined in part 1, to continue the software analogy, are some concerning subroutines running in the background.
So, for those that don't know, The reformed tradition is a common tradition in protestant theology, but it falls short in a few key ways. I will show how the lack of a proper Christ centered theology as a starting point, leads to faulty understandings of the Trinity and builds theological categories with improper foundations, leading to the recreating of conclusions from the related Nestorian and Arian theological systems, but are also affected by Manichaen, Pelagian, and Docetic theories.
Firstly, the reformed tradition fails to make the nature energy distinction, that is, that God's operations are separate from his qualities.
In the reformed tradition, and the western tradition at large, God is only defined in terms of his essence, and whatever is not of his essence does not belong to God, but is a created thing of God's making, the result of the divine essence. Following from this, God's operations(energies) are either identified in his essence through an active quality, actus purus, or as an external manifestation as a result of the divine cause. This complicates the idea of grace, which being an action given, must necessarily not be a part of God, but a created effect, which makes participation in the divine life(an operation) impossible through grace. This is obviously both incoherent and incorrect, and relies on the idea that a created reality can bridge the gap between the uncreated God and his creation, which is a form of Arianism.
This Arian problem, arising from the lack of a nature/energy distinction, is best seen in the proposition of Christ's righteousness being imputed upon humanity as the form of salvation. This righteousness, which as stated above, must be an external manifestation as a result of the divine cause, and thus a created state. It is commonly formulated as being created as a legal state by the person Jesus, not the godhead as a whole, fulfilling the covenant of works, which is then imputed upon the elect. This means that, as the father and the Holy Spirit are not the source of this righteousness, it is not the righteousness of Jesus' divine nature, but Jesus' human nature that creates the legal state. This righteousness, being made by a human nature, is necessarily temporal and created, rather than eternal and of divine product, making it a created reality. This also means that Jesus' works are not the sole result of his divine person.
Commonly described, this is a human subject, as the new Adam, keeping the divine law in full, which the first Adam failed at (which created the fallen and legally damned state), the fulfillment of which created a legally righteous state. This meritting perfect righteousness from the father by the son is technically Nestorian as it implies as a precondition that there is a division in the Trinity, that the state of a person of the Trinity can change, and there is an ability of one member of the Trinity to change another member. The ramification of this process is that ultimately, a created thing, a created legal state, is what saves the elect. As eternal life, the glory of God, is what we gain in salvation, the glory of God, being an operation of God not a created thing, salvation is not, nor can it occur through, a created legal state; to believe otherwise is Pelagianism by proxy.
The reformed tradition posits the origin of the damned legal state as follows: mankind was placed in a covenant of works when in the garden of Eden, where he could potentially merit his salvation for his seed. When man sinned, he created a change in his nature, transforming it into having the quality of complete and perpetually inherent moral corruption, with all the motions of his heart and actions being in some form evil. Evil thus becomes a necessary aspect of man's nature, and as such the image of God must have been lost. This change in nature necessitates the creation of an individual debt from sin, which provokes the hatred of God toward the human race individually as our natural state.
The reformed tradition adds a determinate continuation of the fallen nature through natural conception. God actively upholds the passing on of an evil existence, which is by definition in opposition to his nature, and thus he completely hates. Adding another complication, as God upholds its being with his hand, and as God does not create anything that is evil, the claimed active continuation of evil by God is problematic, and is technically Manichaen.
This complicates the ability for the human nature of the elect to be redeemed and saved, as Jesus has to be consubstantial with mankind for this to occur. Because human nature is posited as being inherently evil, evil is given substantial existence, and created human nature is thus alienated from and set in dialectical opposition to God, and thus matter cannot image the Divine person's or convey real divine grace. Therefore, if the nature of mankind has complete evil as an inherent attribute then the ability for a complete and full union of Jesus' divine nature to his human nature is compromised due to the inherent diametric opposition of their qualities. If he lacks a fully human will, the elect's wills are not healed. If he lacks a human soul, the elect's souls are not healed. Jesus must be fully human in order to redeem humanity, and it was precisely to communicate to that humanity his glory and eternal life that he assumed humanity's fallen state.
As a quick caveat, occasionally, it is claimed that Jesus possessed an unfallen human nature, but not only is this Docetism, if this is true, then the question of why Jesus needed to suffer and die is created, as the redemption of human flesh should have occurred during the incarnation not the crucifixion. Hebrews says Jesus was tempted in every way we are, yet is without sin, and as temptations are the result of the fall, we are left without the Docetic answer as an option.
However, the reformed tradition states that in order for salvation to occur for the elect, there needs to be an exchange of this created righteous legal state for this damned legal state. This exchange is made between the elect and the human nature of Jesus' personhood, as Jesus' human nature was the originator, which then takes upon himself the damnation and destruction as a ramification of the fathers wrath, which is then directed at the person of Jesus. As such, this requires a division in the godhead whereas the father's will is put in separation from Jesus' will: the former too damn the latter after an exchange of legal states, and the divine nature of the latter to save a third party from the former via taking the righteous legal state from his human nature and give it to said third party and to take the damned legal state from the third party and give it to his human nature. Following this, as Jesus shares the same nature as the father, his divine nature shares the same will, and as the will of the father is to utter damnation and wrath upon Jesus' human nature, causing utter and complete torment, Jesus's divine nature likewise must also participate in the wrath giving toward his own human nature. This division is required as the divine nature of Jesus can not be damned, being the same as the father; the damnation can only fall upon the human nature of Jesus. This division, both in the wills of the Trinity, and the natures of Jesus, is explicitly Nestorian in addition to relying upon the Arian problem mentioned above.
In total, this is a system where a human subject keeps the covenant of works to facilitate the creation and exchange of a legal state is a moral conjunction theory of both the incarnation and our salvation, which is explicitly Nestorian as stated by Cyril of Alexandria.
How is it that there are clear heretical chunks floating around in our heads, without us recognizing them for what they are?
Is it simply that people are conforming to the norm, are people falling for eloquent speech rather than sound doctrine, do people only believe these because they have no idea how to conceptualize an alternative way of thinking? I know, as do many of you, that there are many more issues with this schema outside the formal logical reasoning, namely that a lot of these problems have ramifications on the nature do Jesus' character. And from those alone, this should have been righted, but alas, for many christology is not the starting point, but instead the self, and the death anxiety that makes one ask first and foremost "what must I do to be saved" rather than taking up the new life itself by walking alongside Jesus into the Kingdom.
So, for those that don't know, The reformed tradition is a common tradition in protestant theology, but it falls short in a few key ways. I will show how the lack of a proper Christ centered theology as a starting point, leads to faulty understandings of the Trinity and builds theological categories with improper foundations, leading to the recreating of conclusions from the related Nestorian and Arian theological systems, but are also affected by Manichaen, Pelagian, and Docetic theories.
Firstly, the reformed tradition fails to make the nature energy distinction, that is, that God's operations are separate from his qualities.
In the reformed tradition, and the western tradition at large, God is only defined in terms of his essence, and whatever is not of his essence does not belong to God, but is a created thing of God's making, the result of the divine essence. Following from this, God's operations(energies) are either identified in his essence through an active quality, actus purus, or as an external manifestation as a result of the divine cause. This complicates the idea of grace, which being an action given, must necessarily not be a part of God, but a created effect, which makes participation in the divine life(an operation) impossible through grace. This is obviously both incoherent and incorrect, and relies on the idea that a created reality can bridge the gap between the uncreated God and his creation, which is a form of Arianism.
This Arian problem, arising from the lack of a nature/energy distinction, is best seen in the proposition of Christ's righteousness being imputed upon humanity as the form of salvation. This righteousness, which as stated above, must be an external manifestation as a result of the divine cause, and thus a created state. It is commonly formulated as being created as a legal state by the person Jesus, not the godhead as a whole, fulfilling the covenant of works, which is then imputed upon the elect. This means that, as the father and the Holy Spirit are not the source of this righteousness, it is not the righteousness of Jesus' divine nature, but Jesus' human nature that creates the legal state. This righteousness, being made by a human nature, is necessarily temporal and created, rather than eternal and of divine product, making it a created reality. This also means that Jesus' works are not the sole result of his divine person.
Commonly described, this is a human subject, as the new Adam, keeping the divine law in full, which the first Adam failed at (which created the fallen and legally damned state), the fulfillment of which created a legally righteous state. This meritting perfect righteousness from the father by the son is technically Nestorian as it implies as a precondition that there is a division in the Trinity, that the state of a person of the Trinity can change, and there is an ability of one member of the Trinity to change another member. The ramification of this process is that ultimately, a created thing, a created legal state, is what saves the elect. As eternal life, the glory of God, is what we gain in salvation, the glory of God, being an operation of God not a created thing, salvation is not, nor can it occur through, a created legal state; to believe otherwise is Pelagianism by proxy.
The reformed tradition posits the origin of the damned legal state as follows: mankind was placed in a covenant of works when in the garden of Eden, where he could potentially merit his salvation for his seed. When man sinned, he created a change in his nature, transforming it into having the quality of complete and perpetually inherent moral corruption, with all the motions of his heart and actions being in some form evil. Evil thus becomes a necessary aspect of man's nature, and as such the image of God must have been lost. This change in nature necessitates the creation of an individual debt from sin, which provokes the hatred of God toward the human race individually as our natural state.
The reformed tradition adds a determinate continuation of the fallen nature through natural conception. God actively upholds the passing on of an evil existence, which is by definition in opposition to his nature, and thus he completely hates. Adding another complication, as God upholds its being with his hand, and as God does not create anything that is evil, the claimed active continuation of evil by God is problematic, and is technically Manichaen.
This complicates the ability for the human nature of the elect to be redeemed and saved, as Jesus has to be consubstantial with mankind for this to occur. Because human nature is posited as being inherently evil, evil is given substantial existence, and created human nature is thus alienated from and set in dialectical opposition to God, and thus matter cannot image the Divine person's or convey real divine grace. Therefore, if the nature of mankind has complete evil as an inherent attribute then the ability for a complete and full union of Jesus' divine nature to his human nature is compromised due to the inherent diametric opposition of their qualities. If he lacks a fully human will, the elect's wills are not healed. If he lacks a human soul, the elect's souls are not healed. Jesus must be fully human in order to redeem humanity, and it was precisely to communicate to that humanity his glory and eternal life that he assumed humanity's fallen state.
As a quick caveat, occasionally, it is claimed that Jesus possessed an unfallen human nature, but not only is this Docetism, if this is true, then the question of why Jesus needed to suffer and die is created, as the redemption of human flesh should have occurred during the incarnation not the crucifixion. Hebrews says Jesus was tempted in every way we are, yet is without sin, and as temptations are the result of the fall, we are left without the Docetic answer as an option.
However, the reformed tradition states that in order for salvation to occur for the elect, there needs to be an exchange of this created righteous legal state for this damned legal state. This exchange is made between the elect and the human nature of Jesus' personhood, as Jesus' human nature was the originator, which then takes upon himself the damnation and destruction as a ramification of the fathers wrath, which is then directed at the person of Jesus. As such, this requires a division in the godhead whereas the father's will is put in separation from Jesus' will: the former too damn the latter after an exchange of legal states, and the divine nature of the latter to save a third party from the former via taking the righteous legal state from his human nature and give it to said third party and to take the damned legal state from the third party and give it to his human nature. Following this, as Jesus shares the same nature as the father, his divine nature shares the same will, and as the will of the father is to utter damnation and wrath upon Jesus' human nature, causing utter and complete torment, Jesus's divine nature likewise must also participate in the wrath giving toward his own human nature. This division is required as the divine nature of Jesus can not be damned, being the same as the father; the damnation can only fall upon the human nature of Jesus. This division, both in the wills of the Trinity, and the natures of Jesus, is explicitly Nestorian in addition to relying upon the Arian problem mentioned above.
In total, this is a system where a human subject keeps the covenant of works to facilitate the creation and exchange of a legal state is a moral conjunction theory of both the incarnation and our salvation, which is explicitly Nestorian as stated by Cyril of Alexandria.
How is it that there are clear heretical chunks floating around in our heads, without us recognizing them for what they are?
Is it simply that people are conforming to the norm, are people falling for eloquent speech rather than sound doctrine, do people only believe these because they have no idea how to conceptualize an alternative way of thinking? I know, as do many of you, that there are many more issues with this schema outside the formal logical reasoning, namely that a lot of these problems have ramifications on the nature do Jesus' character. And from those alone, this should have been righted, but alas, for many christology is not the starting point, but instead the self, and the death anxiety that makes one ask first and foremost "what must I do to be saved" rather than taking up the new life itself by walking alongside Jesus into the Kingdom.