diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | sum-chap-16.tex | 21 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | sum-chap-9.tex | 129 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | summary.tex | 13 |
3 files changed, 146 insertions, 17 deletions
diff --git a/sum-chap-16.tex b/sum-chap-16.tex index fdfe8d6..68544cb 100644 --- a/sum-chap-16.tex +++ b/sum-chap-16.tex @@ -2,9 +2,9 @@ \section{Theology in the patristic era} Christianity is culturally rooted in both Judaism and Greco-Romanism: since Jesus was a Jew, many patterns from the Hebrew Bible are taken over by the -evangelists, and since early Christian theologians were in constant dialogue -with the Greek intellectual tradition, that is available around the -Mediterranean Sea thanks to Hellenisation. +evangelists. Also, early Christian theologians were in constant dialogue with +the Greek intellectual tradition, that is available around the Mediterranean +Sea thanks to Hellenisation. The \index{Apostolic fathers}apostolic fathers are those theologians that were active in the late first to mid-second century. They are mainly concerned with @@ -87,13 +87,14 @@ divine persons (hypostaseis or personae) who share one essence or substance (ousia or substantia). On Christ, the question was how He can be both divine and human. The -Alexandrian school (notably \index{Apollinarius}Apollinarius) emphasised his -divinity and the unity of his person: the Logos overshadowed Jesus' humanity; -the Antiochene school (Theodore of Mopsuestia) his humanity and his two -natures: how could a non-human ever redeem humanity? The Alexiandrans proposed -the term \index{Theotokos}\emph{Theotokos}, `God-bearer', intensifying the -debate. This idea was confirmed at \index{Chalcedon}Chalcedon in 451, where it -was also said that Christ is \emph{one} person with \emph{two} natures. +\index{Alexandria!School of}Alexandrian school (notably +\index{Apollinarius}Apollinarius) emphasised his divinity and the unity of his +person: the Logos overshadowed Jesus' humanity; the \index{Antioch!School +of}Antiochene school (Theodore of Mopsuestia) his humanity and his two natures: +how could a non-human ever redeem humanity? The Alexiandrans proposed the term +\index{Theotokos}\emph{Theotokos}, `God-bearer', intensifying the debate. This +idea was confirmed at \index{Chalcedon}Chalcedon in 451, where it was also said +that Christ is \emph{one} person with \emph{two} natures. \medskip The \index{Cappadocians}Cappadocians extended the logic of Nicea (if Jesus diff --git a/sum-chap-9.tex b/sum-chap-9.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..db8b93a --- /dev/null +++ b/sum-chap-9.tex @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +\setcounter{section}{8} +\section{The identity and person of Jesus Christ} + +In the OT, political struggles are seen as conflicts between God. The exile +posed the difficult question whether the Babylonian gods were stronger than +Yahweh. This allowed for the introduction of \index{Messiah}messianic and +apocalyptic ideas: Yahweh \emph{is} the strongest and \emph{will} return. There +were various different messianic expectation around the time of Jesus' birth. + +\begin{description} + \item[Old Testament] Four messianic ideas: (1) Davidic king + (2~Sam.~7:11--14,~16); God's representative and adopted son (Pss.~2; + 45:1--9; Is.~9:6--7); associated with righteousness, justice and later on + also warrior qualities. (2) Priestly messiah, mediating between Yahweh and + Israel (Leviticus 4; Daniel 9). (3) Prophetic messiah (Dt.~18:18). (4) Son + of Man, a transcendent heavenly figure that would bring salvation and + judgement (Dn.~7:13--14). + + \item[New Testament] Jesus fulfils these expectations in surprising ways: (1) + as a non-violent and lowly king; (2) as the sacrifice of reconciliation + himself; (3) prophesying righteousness for sinners; (4) as a Son of Man + after whom the world did \emph{not} end. +\end{description} + +In the NT, the humanity of Christ is not at issue. There are three ways to also +argue for his deity: + +\begin{description} + \item[Titles] \emph{Messiah} does not imply deity\index{Christ!Titles of}, + but \emph{Son of Man} may (Mk.~14:61--64). It is more clear for \emph{Son + of God}, and \emph{Lord} (the LXX translation of Yahweh). + + \item[Divine functions] Several texts emphasise Christ's role in creation + (Col.~1:16, Jn.~1:1), sustenance (Col.~1:17), fulfilment (Eph.~1:9--10) and + re-creation (2~Cor.~5:17) of the world. Jesus also appears as Judge + (Mt.~25:31--46) and \index{Christ!Saviour} Saviour (the one who forgives + sins; Mk.~2:1--12). + + \item[Worship] We find several prayers to Christ in the NT (Acts~7:59--60; + 1~Cor.~16:22; 2~Cor.~12:8), that would have been idolatrous if Christ + weren't divine. +\end{description} + +The \index{Ebionism}Ebionites, wanting to preserve Judaism and therefore strict +monotheism, thought that the Messiah was not fully divine, but entered a +special relationship with God at his baptism. \index{Samosata!Paul of}Paul of +Samosata continues this line of thought, suggesting that the divine attributes +dwell in Jesus by means of \index{Adoptionism}adoption. The council of +\index{Nicea} (325) condemned these views, establishing +\index{Homoousios}homoousios of Christ and the Father. + +\index{Docetism}Docetists and \index{Gnosticism}Gnostics on the other hand +stressed Christ's deity to the neglect of his humanity. They thought that +Christ only seemed or appeared as human. \index{Apollinarius} taught that the +Logos took the place of the human rational soul of Jesus. At +\index{Constantinople} (381), Christ was declared fully human in body and soul, +condemning all docetic strains. + +The \index{Alexandria!School of}Alexandrian school, building forth on Plato, +attempts to discern higher truths in Scripture, taking an allegorical approach +to exegesis. They promoted a Word-flesh model, wherein the Logos assumes human +flesh. This model has difficulties allowing for Jesus' full humanity. + +The \index{Antioch!School of}Antiochene school on the other hand, building +forth on Aristotle, was more content with a literal, historical interpretation +of Scripture. They promoted a Word-man model, wherein the Logos conjoins +himself to a whole human person, both body and soul. This model cannot answer +the question of Christ's personal unity. + +\index{Nestorius}Nestorius, representing the Antiochene school, advocated two +persons in Christ, united by a moral union of wills. He dismissed the idea of +the \index{Theotokos}Theotokos. This position was ruled out of bounds in +\index{Ephesus}Ephesus (431). That council affirmed one +\index{Hypostasis}hypostasis or person as well as the Theotokos. + +After this, \index{Eutyches}Eutyches took the Alexandrian tendency even +further. He taught that Christ had one nature, neither human nor divine, but a +third sort of thing. This was unacceptable to the Antiochenes, because it +didn't leave room for Jesus' humanity. + +In \index{Chalcedon}Chalcedon (451), pope Leo decided: Christ is +\emph{consubstantial} (homoousios) with the Father, \emph{one person} (contra +Nestorius) with \emph{two natures} (contra Eutyches: divine, contra Ebionism, +and human, contra docetism). + +\medskip +In modern times we can discern three interpretations of Christ: +\index{Adoptionism}adoptionism (the human Jesus achieves a level of divinity +through a relationship with the Father); \index{Functionalism}functionalism +(Jesus receives his divine status through work that God does through him); +\index{Exemplarism}exemplarism (Jesus is simply a exemplary teacher or moral +leader). + +\medskip +There are two incarnational models possible after Chalcedon. + +\begin{description} + \item[Two-natures] \index{Two-natures model}Jesus and the Logos are + identical. He has both a human and a divine nature, that are united in + hypostatic union. Four questions arise with this model: + + \begin{itemize} + \item Is it coherent? Can one person share two natures? + \item Can Jesus' humanity be taken seriously if He is divine as well? Is + this model not actually docetic? + \item A solution two the last problem would be to assume both human + consciousness and a divine mind --- but then how should we see the + unity of Christ's person? + \item What is the scriptural basis for this model? + \end{itemize} + + \item[Kenotic model] As in Phil.~2:6--7, \index{Kenosis}Jesus, the + pre-existant Son of God, \emph{emptied} himself of divine attributes to + become fully human. The central issue of this model is Christ's true deity. + We can offer three reinforcing strategies for the kenotic model based on + the forms of unity from Chapter 5. + + \begin{itemize} + \item All members of the Trinity share a common nature and their + attributes. At the kenosis, the Son lost all divine attributes except + one, \emph{eternality}, which lets him keep his divine status. + \item The members of the Trinity share a familial bond. This bond is not + lost at the kenosis, because Jesus is still the Son of God the Father. + \item The members of the Trinity are one because they share the + volitional ties of life and love. These ties were not affected by the + kenosis, because Jesus never sinned or severed fellowship with the + Father and Spirit (though this was not easy, recall Gethsemane). + \end{itemize} +\end{description} diff --git a/summary.tex b/summary.tex index 3f558da..f3f57b1 100644 --- a/summary.tex +++ b/summary.tex @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -\documentclass[landscape,twocolumn,9pt,a4paper]{article} +\documentclass[9pt,a4paper]{article} \title{An Introduction to Christian Theology\\\normalsize{Summary of the book by Plantinga, Thompson and Lundberg}} \author{Camil Staps} @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ \usepackage{dogmatics} \showquestionsfalse% -\usepackage[top=2cm, bottom=3cm, inner=4cm, outer=4cm, heightrounded, -marginparwidth=3cm, marginparsep=0.6cm]{geometry} +\usepackage[top=2cm, bottom=3cm, left=3cm, right=5cm, heightrounded, +marginparwidth=3.8cm, marginparsep=0.4cm]{geometry} \usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage{multicol} @@ -17,8 +17,7 @@ marginparwidth=3cm, marginparsep=0.6cm]{geometry} \makeatletter % Align marginpars to inside; doesn't work yet \let\oldmarginpar\marginpar% -\renewcommand*{\marginpar}[1]{\oldmarginpar{\color{black}\if@firstcolumn\raggedleft\fi#1}} -%\renewcommand*{\marginpar}[1]{\oldmarginpar{\color{black}\raggedright#1}} +\renewcommand*{\marginpar}[1]{\oldmarginpar{\color{black}#1}} % Smaller font in marginpars \long\def\@ympar#1{% \@savemarbox\@marbox{\scriptsize #1}% @@ -86,12 +85,12 @@ marginparwidth=3cm, marginparsep=0.6cm]{geometry} \input{sum-chap-3.tex} \input{sum-chap-4.tex} \input{sum-chap-6.tex} +\input{sum-chap-9.tex} \input{sum-chap-16.tex} -\vfill\eject% +\clearpage\onecolumn% \begin{multicols}{3} \printindex \end{multicols} \end{document} - |