(1) Can an anthropology, such as is found in the Lutheran notion than man, on account of the condition of human nature, cannot, even with the aid of grace, actively participate in his own justification coexist with a Christology in which Christ's engraced human nature is the efficient cause of justification?
(2) If the former anthropological principle is combined with the notion that Christ as man is the author of justification, will the result not be some weakening of the Chalcedonian definition of the union of natures by an elicit supplementing of the human nature by an inordinate emphasis on the divinity?
(3) If the notion of fallenness is used to justify, on the one hand, total depravity with respect to humanity, in spite of sanctifying grace, and, on the other hand, Chalcedonian orthodoxy, with respect to the immaculate character of Christ's sanctified human nature, is this not an inconsistent use of the concept of infused grace? In other words, is the sufficiency of infused grace in Christ not contradicted by a denial of the sufficiency of infused grace in the sinner?
2 comments:
AH,
I think you are right about Luther and Reformed anthropology. The fundamental problem (and I am sure "some" would like to trace this back to Augustine) it seems to me is that the Incarnation is the ultimate testament to created, specifically human, agency. God essentially acted as a man to save men. Can one maintain such a high anthropology - as it is anthropology - and at the same time have such a poor anthropology - even within the context of the doctrine of grace - as exists in the Reformed Churches? In other words, what does God’s humanity say about our humanity if they are formally identical?
I am not sure of the exact nature of your question regarding Chalcedonian Christology and the Eucharist and children. Are you referring to pedo-communion?
AH,
To be honest, I have not given a great deal of thought to the issue of pedo-communion, since as a Roman Catholic it is not an option for my family. However, I understand that the practice is ancient and possibly apostolic. It also illustrates the sacramental principle (enshrined in a scholastic manner in the formula ‘Ex opere operato’) of grace. Just as in infant baptism, the effect of sacramental grace does not depend upon the understanding or the intention of the child. However, that has to be balanced by the personal character of grace which - as we have observed in the earlier discussion - does not enslave the will but rather renews it. Even in the Church’s administration of the Sacrament of Baptism the intentions of the Church herself and the child’s guardians are vital to the fruitfulness of this grace.
Post a Comment