So, it's been a while, hasn't it? There
are a few reasons I haven't blogged in a while, most of those having
something to do with the fact that my health has not been the
greatest of late. I've been spurred to blog again by this article,
written by Islamic apologist Ijaz Ahmad, responding to remarks by
Protestant apologist, James White. The article deals with one of the
most important topics imaginable, the death of Christ.
For those unfamiliar with some of the relevant theology the Catholic belief, shared by Protestants and most of the Eastern Churches, is that Christ is one person but with two natures, these natures being the divine and the human. A less formal way of saying this, might be that in Jesus, there are two what's (God and human) but one who (the God-man Jesus Christ). It's important to understand that these natures were not, somehow mixed together, the divine nature remains eternally divine and the human nature is fully human, but these natures are united in a single person.
This is very wide of the mark. “The Son” is not a name of the divine nature but of the whole person. The Bible affirms in numerous places that the man, Christ is the Son of God (Mark 15:39 being a good example). Further, the human nature is not merely flesh (that would be a variant of the ancient heresy of Apollinarianism) but a fully human soul as well.
For those unfamiliar with some of the relevant theology the Catholic belief, shared by Protestants and most of the Eastern Churches, is that Christ is one person but with two natures, these natures being the divine and the human. A less formal way of saying this, might be that in Jesus, there are two what's (God and human) but one who (the God-man Jesus Christ). It's important to understand that these natures were not, somehow mixed together, the divine nature remains eternally divine and the human nature is fully human, but these natures are united in a single person.
It is also important to understand
that, according to Catholic belief (and again this Catholic belief is
shared by protestants and others) the death of Christ was a death
that affected the human nature, that is to say that His human soul
was separated from His body. However, and this is absolutely crucial,
while the death effected His human nature, it is not a nature which
dies but a person. In this case, the person who died was God.
Therefore, while the divine nature was not directly effected by the
death, it is theologically accurate to say that, when Jesus died on
the cross, God died.
It has to be said, Ahmad does a poor
job of understanding this basic Christian teaching.
Ahmad quotes from The Catholic
Encyclopedia, as distinguishing three, position, the Catholic,
Nestorian and Monophysite views on the incarnation. I found it
annoying that he did not tell us which article in said encyclopaedia
(or even which edition) he was citing; doing so would have made it
easier to check the context of his citation. He then tells us that in
this context “Catholic” means “Trinitarian Christian.” This
is quite wrong, both Nestorians and Monophysite's were Trinitarians
as well; their heresies don't touch on the question of the Trinity.
Ahmad continues to write: “Christ has
two natures, his divine nature known as the Son and his human nature
known as the flesh and blood of the Christ. If he died a physical
death and this what is being claimed, then the flesh and blood of
Christ died, that is the human nature died.”
This is very wide of the mark. “The Son” is not a name of the divine nature but of the whole person. The Bible affirms in numerous places that the man, Christ is the Son of God (Mark 15:39 being a good example). Further, the human nature is not merely flesh (that would be a variant of the ancient heresy of Apollinarianism) but a fully human soul as well.
Once this misunderstanding is made
clear, much of Ahmad's argument can be seen to be off-base. For
example, his claim that, since only the human nature died, John 3:16
is disproven, since the Son, he thinks, does not die, is shown to be
a radical misunderstanding.
Also, Ahmad's claim that death would
mean the breakup of the union between God and man are shown to be
based on a misunderstanding. At death, the human soul separated from
the human body but this involved no separation between the divine and
human natures and only Ahmad's failure to grasp actual Catholic
teaching obscures this.
Love it! :) Chalcedon strikes again! ;)
ReplyDelete