Well, as I said to Karl in the comments to my previous post replying to Darren, although it wasn't my intent to start a diablog, I could be tempted. As you can see, I've succumbed to the temptation. So, Darren has offered his most recent reply, Salvation and Christ's Human Will. (And Kevin has chimed in as well.)
At issue between us is the reality and role of human free will in salvation. I have argued that to properly understand this issue, we must look not to postlapsarian man but to the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, that in Christ is the true picture of humanity. Thus, if Christ, who had two natures and two wills (human and divine) in his one Person, the human will had to be operative and thus freely exercised so that it would be united with his divine will. I have contended that any understanding of Christ that diminishes his human will or prohibits its exercise is either outright monothelitism (an ancient Christological heresy) or a form of monothelitism and still heretical.
Darren has, for the most part, accepted this. But what he denies is that the human will of Jesus was like our human will. As I understand his contention, our human nature and will is fallen and therefore "sinfully depraved," and although Jesus was like us in all ways, he was not like us in sin, and therefore he could both want and will to do God's will, while we cannot. As Darren writes:
Christ has a perfect human nature, nature as originally intended and created by God for us. Jesus does not possess a sinful nature, and so is not totally depraved, and so his human will is not incompetent and is not in opposition to the divine will. Jesus is not precisely what we are, but rather is what we are to be.
One rightly asks where Jesus got that unfallen human nature, that nature as it was intended. For Mary was his mother, and I know that Darren believes Mary was fallen. But if Jesus took his humanity from Mary, then the humanity he took was a fallen one. Or does Darren posit that Mary, too, was unfallen? But then where did she get her unfallen nature?
In any case, he goes on to say in his conclusion:
I fully agree with the point that Clifton is trying to make here: Christ is not only our full revelation of who God is, but our full revelation of who man is! It is an amazing truth about the Incarnation, that Christ showed us ourselves as much as he showed us God.It is a mistake, however, to argue from this truth that either 1) he was as we are; or 2) we are as he is. No, but as he is, we are to one day be. This is the great why of reconciliation.
Christology is formative of an eschatalogically aware anthropology. Christology is not synonymous with anthrology any more than there are no differances between Christ and the serial murderer.
So there are two questions, in terms of the discussion here is: How human was Jesus? Or what does it mean to say that Jesus was both fully God and fully man? For if Darren is right, then even if I am correct that Jesus is the archetype of humanity, it is immaterial in terms of the freedom of the will. He had it, but we don't. But if I'm right, if Jesus' human nature was a fallen human nature, save sin, then the exercise of his human will freely is not a reality limited only to the Incarnation, but is true of all humans as well. That is to say, if my argument holds, this gives one major support to the teaching of synergism in soteriology.
The other question is: What does it mean to be a person? Or are persons determined by their nature? For whether or not Jesus had an unfallen nature, then any discussion of his human willing is determined by his human nature (and also his divine willing by his divine nature). But if Jesus was determined by his natures, then he is not, proprely speaking, a Person, but an essence. So we are brought here to the Trinitarian understandings of personhood. (I should note here that though Kevin has offered a reply, I will not respond separately as my comments here will address the substance of his contention: that we will according to our nature.)
These topics are obviously too large to deal with exhaustively in a single post, so I can only offer what is hopefully a substantial outline, but an outline nonetheless.
One thing to which Darren takes objection is that I have asserted that Christ, in assuming our humanity, assumed fallen human nature, save without sin. But he finds this nonsensical.
I do not see any valuable definition of the term "fallen" apart from humankind's sinfulness, so I reject the suggestion that Jesus took on a fallen human nature or that he possessed a fallen human will. For what is it to be "fallen" but to be sinful and separated from God? Jesus Christ was neither. He took on a human nature and possessed a human will that are perfect, idealized to God's creative intent.
Kevin wants to assert that no actual change took place after Adams' sin.
The question of whether Jesus takes on a human nature as created or a human nature as fallen is moot because no change occurs in human nature as such after Adam sins. Original sin, which we all have as a result of Adam's sin, is a matter of forensic declaration due to union with our Federal Head. Period.
But what does Scripture say? (All emphases below added.)
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed to all men, because all sinned--(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the offense of one man many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many. And the gift is not as by one having sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the offense of the one man death reigned through the one man, much more those receiving the abundance of the grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For through the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners, so also through the obedience of the One many shall be constituted righteous. (Romans 5:12-19)
For since by a man death came, also by a Man comes the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. . . .. . . The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. Thus also it is written, "The first man Adam became a living soul;" the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, that which is spiritual is not first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The first man was from earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. Like the man made of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the man made of dust, let us also bear the image of the heavenly Man. Now this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor can corruption inherit incorruption. (1Co 15:21-22, 42-50)
So clearly a change took place in human nature as a result of Adam's sin. And that change resulted in death and corruption. Indeed, the consistent patristic witness on these texts is that the fallenness of human nature was precisely mortality and corruption, or what we might think of as death and a disposition to sin. That it to say, humans are born mortal and with an inherent tendency to sin. But they are not born guilty. Being human, even a fallen human, is not sinful. Human guilt, on the other hand, results exactly from each person's individual sinful acts. That is to say, what sins, in a human, is not his nature, but his person. In none of these texts is guilt attributed to humans on the basis of Adam's sin. The condemnation humanity received in Adam was death. The constitution they receive from Adam is not moral guilt, but mortal nature and an inborn tendency to sin.
This is illustrated in the patristic witness regarding the Virgin Mary. Mary, the Church teaches, was born mortal, but through synergistic grace, did not herself commit personal sin. Mary, however, still needed salvation, for she was born in mortality. Her human nature, which she gave to Jesus, was mortal. It is this mortal nature which died on the Cross and was raised by the divine nature in the Resurrection. And it is Christ's saving work which saved Mary from death and corruption.
The only way fallen human nature can be sinful is if one takes an Augustinian interpretation of these passages. But this, of course, begs the question as to the validity of the Augustinian interpretation. If this interpretation is incorrect, then the assertion that Jesus could not assume a fallen human nature cannot itself be substantiated.
In a moment I will return to the implications of Jesus assuming an unfallen human nature and what that means in terms of salvation. But to show how this patristic interpretation of Adam's original sin and human fallenness as mortality and not inherited guilt is consistent with the rest of Scripture, we need to revisit some Scriptures which speak of Jesus' sharing of our human nature. (All emphases below added.)
For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers (Hebrews 2:11)
Therefore since the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same things, in order that through death He might destroy the one having the power of death, that is, the devil, and that He might set free these, as many as by fear of death through all of their lives, were subject to bondage. For indeed He does not take hold of angels, but He does take hold of the seed of Abraham. Therefore He was obligated to become like His brothers in all respects, in order that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, in order that He might make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that which He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to help those who are tempted. (Hebrews 2:14-18)
Note especially this passage. Christ shared in the same things as humans, that he might destroy death by death, he was obligated to become like us in all respects, that he might make propritiation.
For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but having been tempted in all respects in quite the same way as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
Christ has been tempted in all ways like us. It is right to ask, if his human nature was unfallen, what temptations could he have faced that would have been like