How do we think of nature and person in relation to man?

[erickinho1bra]

I know we use the language of essence/nature and person with God in relation to the Trinity and the hypostatic union but how can we use that language in relation to man? Is there any area of anthropology where these two distinctions become helpful?

Would ignorance or knowledge in this area in relation to the study of man harm or benefit the Christian in any way?

 

[RamistThomist]

If you hold to a Thomist metaphysics, you would say "God is being; whereas, we only have being."

Or with Boethius: We are a particular instance of a rational nature.

Or with Maximus the Confessor: we are a nature with hypostatic idiomata.

 

[erickinho1bra]

If you hold to a Thomist metaphysics, you would say "God is being; whereas, we only have being."

Or with Boethius: We are a particular instance of a rational nature.

Or with Maximus the Confessor: we are a nature with hypostatic idiomata.

How do those different views affect they way we think of ourselves?

And do they relate to how the Bible refers to our old nature and new nature? Does our human nature change?

 

[Ed Walsh]

Does our human nature change?

No! It is fit only for the dunghill.

 

[RamistThomist]

How do those different views affect they way we think of ourselves?

That's an excellent question that requires a really detailed answer.

No! It is fit only for the dunghill.

Even after we have been redeemed, adopted, and anointed as priest-kings?

 

[Northern Crofter]

And do they relate to how the Bible refers to our old nature and new nature? Does our human nature change?

I think of it as: My soul is justified (has been made new), my nature is being sanctified (is being renewed), my body will one day be glorified (will be made new). I believe the putting off/putting on of the old/new nature is not instantaneous - it is the process of sanctification. We are both made new (2 Corinthians 5:17) and still putting on the new man (Ephesians 4:24).

I can't escape the idea of what being made in God's image means - it always seems to me that we, too, as humans, must be in some sense 3-in-1. People say that makes me a trichotomist, which I see as perhaps unusual in Reformed circles but not unorthodox, despite it being held by various sects who attach unorthodox views to it. There are verses like 1 Thessalonians 5:23 which seem to allow for it.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

It can be hard to express (for me anyway) re our nature and its change. "If any man be in Christ" we are new creatures KJV, creations NKJV ESV (2 Cor 5:17).

So I am a new creation, with a new nature, but the old nature (aka the old man, the "flesh") is still with me, albeit crucified and dead in Christ, and I am to reckon it so. Yet it still is part of my experience.

When Jesus took on human nature at His incarnation this changed sinful Adamic human nature, as there was now a man with an absolutely pure human nature. And we have been joined to Him (1 Cor 6:17) united with His Spirit; also "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones" (Eph 5:30 KJV). We are fit to be citizens of Heaven (Phil 3:20), seated in heavenly places in Him (Eph 2:5-6).

So my nature has been transformed, yet I am still in this decaying, sinful body, and the full revelation of my new nature will not be manifest until the resurrection.

As for the particulars of my new nature, tri-partite, or bi-partite, I used to hold to tri, influenced by Watchman Nee and others, as that was a distinctive of the Keswick Movement of the mid-20th century. His book, The Spiritual Man went deeply into this.

But I have changed my understanding. I now see that I have a soul, and a body. The soul — or the heart — of me encompasses various attributes or faculties, intellect, volition, emotion, spirit. I reckon these part of my heart, or soul.

When I was tri-partite minded, after Nee, he had a section specifically on the spirit of man, which was divided into 3 qualities, intuition, communion, conscience. Trying to "read" the "monitions" of the intuition sort of became like a navel-gazing. Even now seeking to apprehend the leading / guiding of the Spirit is not easy for me, as I have been deceived in this area at times.

I prefer — for the sake of simplicity — to open my heart to the Lord, and trust this: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil 2:13 KJV). The "you" He does this in is my heart. And I ask Him to override my thick-headedness and obtuseness, and guide me aright by His wisdom and power. And He does, though I am slow to catch on sometimes.

I like simplicity. I think it was Einstein who said, "If you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough." Jesus spoke simply, yet the depth and the profundity of His words are beyond our ken, yet we can understand what He said.

 

[erickinho1bra]

No! It is fit only for the dunghill.

Even after we have been redeemed, adopted, and anointed as priest-kings?

@Ed Walsh care to elaborate?

I think of it as: My soul is justified (has been made new), my nature is being sanctified (is being renewed), my body will one day be glorified (will be made new). I believe the putting off/putting on of the old/new nature is not instantaneous - it is the process of sanctification. We are both made new (2 Corinthians 5:17) and still putting on the new man (Ephesians 4:24).

I can't escape the idea of what being made in God's image means - it always seems to me that we, too, as humans, must be in some sense 3-in-1. People say that makes me a trichotomist, which I see as perhaps unusual in Reformed circles but not unorthodox, despite it being held by various sects who attach unorthodox views to it. There are verses like 1 Thessalonians 5:23 which seem to allow for it.

How do you think the new nature we have now in part and will have fully in glory relate to Christ's current glorified human state? Surely his glorified human nature is different than it was before his death and resurrection, right?

 

[erickinho1bra]

It can be hard to express (for me anyway) re our nature and its change. "If any man be in Christ" we are new creatures KJV, creations NKJV ESV (2 Cor 5:17).

So I am a new creation, with a new nature, but the old nature (aka the old man, the "flesh") is still with me, albeit crucified and dead in Christ, and I am to reckon it so. Yet it still is part of my experience.

...

I prefer — for the sake of simplicity — to open my heart to the Lord, and trust this: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil 2:13 KJV). The "you" He does this in is my heart. And I ask Him to override my thick-headedness and obtuseness, and guide me aright by His wisdom and power. And He does, though I am slow to catch on sometimes.

I like simplicity. I think it was Einstein who said, "If you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough." Jesus spoke simply, yet the depth and the profundity of His words are beyond our ken, yet we can understand what He said.

I agree. I love simplicity regarding the mysteries of God since I am a simple-minded man.
There are many aspects of theology that are very deep and complicated like the Trinity. In my opinions, the church has come to a satisfactory explanation of the Trinity many centuries ago. Do you think the church has come to a satisfactory explanation regarding what happens at regeneration? If so, do you know what creed, confession, or other piece of literature covers this?

 

[Northern Crofter]

@Ed Walsh care to elaborate?


How do you think the new nature we have now in part and will have fully in glory relate to Christ's current glorified human state? Surely his glorified human nature is different than it was before his death and resurrection, right?

I believe Christ's nature has always been without sin (perfect) so it does not relate to ours in some ways. Perhaps there is a parallel to Adam's innocence vs his (unattained) perfection - Christ was born innocent and, unlike Adam, upon perfectly carrying out His Father's will was raised in perfection. Until we are raised with Christ, we can never be perfect, and even our good works cannot be done perfectly. See WCF 8.2,4-5 vs 9.4-5.

 

[erickinho1bra]

I believe Christ's nature has always been without sin (perfect) so it does not relate to ours in some ways. Perhaps there is a parallel to Adam's innocence vs his (unattained) perfection - Christ was born innocent and, unlike Adam, upon perfectly carrying out His Father's will was raised in perfection. Until we are raised with Christ, we can never be perfect, and even our good works cannot be done perfectly. See WCF 8.2,4-5 vs 9.4-5.

Do you think when Christ's innocent human nature was raised in perfection it underwent a transformation? Do you think it relates to 2 Peter 1:4 in any way ("... have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world... ")?

I'm not trying to promote the EO idea of theosis but maybe that discussion comes into play.

 

[Ed Walsh]

@Ed Walsh care to elaborate?

Let's start slowly.
Q. Why are you going to die?

 

[Knight]

I couldn't resist commenting on this thread at least once.

Firstly, to answer @Ed Walsh's question, we do not die because of our human nature per se. We die because sin is imputed to us in virtue of our being born in Adam (as well as any personal sins we thereafter commit). Jesus, the eternal Son, assumed human nature yet was not born in Adam; He was the second Adam. Jesus was not subject to death as we are - He died voluntarily. So as you can tell, I think one area in which this topic will find relevance regards original sin.

Now, per Ephesians 2:3, it does seem that we can talk about a mode in which human nature is concretized: we were by nature born children of wrath. Again, though, was Christ? If not, do we thus conclude he wasn't born human? Of course not.

Secondly, "person" must be broader than "nature." As mentioned in a recent thread on Chalcedonian Christology, Christ enhypostatized human nature. Christ didn't thereby assume a new person. He was one person before and after the incarnation. The difference is one vs. two natures.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Do you think when Christ's innocent human nature was raised in perfection it underwent a transformation

Hello Eric,

It was at the "miraculous conception" that Christ's "human nature was raised in perfection [and] underwent a transformation".

The human nature of Mary, defiled with Adamic corruption, was dealt with by the Holy Spirit, who, at the moment He conceived the Christ-child in her, gave that newly-conceived zygote a sinless human nature.

It is written so, "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35-36 KJV). [emphasis added]

That was the moment of Christ's "transformation".

 

[Northern Crofter]

Do you think when Christ's innocent human nature was raised in perfection it underwent a transformation? Do you think it relates to 2 Peter 1:4 in any way ("... have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world... ")?

I'm not trying to promote the EO idea of theosis but maybe that discussion comes into play.

No, I don't believe His nature changed (or changes). I take Peter's reference to the divine nature to mean not the substance of the Godhead, but the partaking of the qualities whereby the image of God is restored in us.

Folks like @Knight are much more knowledgeable about this topic - I am glad he joined the discussion!

 

[RamistThomist]

Essence qua essence doesn't change. And we need to be very clear that man's nature doesn't take on the positive properties of sin. In other words, sin isn't a thing, otherwise Manicheanism obtains. As Muller said, sin is a "macula," or a stain.

 

[Knight]

We can also ask what it means for Christ to have assumed humanity:

WLC Q. 37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?

A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her, yet without sin.

Steve Hays once wrote:

"If we view human nature as an abstract universal, then to be human is to be a concrete particular. By "concrete," I mean existing in space and/or time. Angels exist in time, but not in space. Humans naturally exist in both, although humans can exist in time but not in space (the intermediate state)."

I'm still thinking through whether human nature is an "abstract" universal, but I agree with Steve that we have concrete souls and bodies.

I once asked a miaphysite:

"...if body and soul are really separable - separated at death, for example - does that not imply enumerability is really and not merely theoretically possible within the composition of "man"?)."

His reply was:

"Regarding your question of body and soul, we say the [particular] human nature is the composite one out of two [particular] natures: body and soul. Before the union [your conception], they are insubsistent and do not exist temporally before your conception. At the moment of union, the particular human is out of these two insubsistent hypostases which only logically and not temporally precede the whole. Death is the unnatural separation of body and soul, [though they would not be considered really separable, because the final cause of soul and body of men is of their union], and in it, the numerical unity of the whole is severed, and the formerly insubsistent hypostases of body and soul still retain subsistence by the fact of their union, but as wholes in themselves [hypostases] and not parts of a whole human nature. The soul hypostasis is the seat of the person [prosopon], and therefore continues to exercise the intellective and volitive powers available to it, while the body hypostasis is without person. At the resurrection, when the body is united to the soul, the soul hypostasis is united to its body, and communicates its numerical subsistence and personhood to the whole human nature, and therefore no longer subsists in itself, but as part of the whole human hypostasis.

To sum, you that you can say two hypostases/natures of body and soul before the union en theoria [because the hypostases of body and soul precede the union only logically and not temporally] , one [particular] human nature after the union out of them both, two post mortem by virtue of their unnatural separation due to their subsistence, and one after the resurrection by virtue of the soul communicating its personhood and numerical subsistence to the whole, and subsisting not in itself, but as part of the whole."

The composition of body-soul miaphysites affirm seems to break down when the subject of death is raised. Here is the Christological dilemma as I see it:

1. If the miaphysite affirms that it is Christ's body that was placed in the tomb, he has just affirmed two hypostases with respect to Christ - that's Nestorianism (and his "final cause deflection is weak).

2. If he denies (as he seems to) that it is Christ's body that was placed in the tomb, he has rejected Scripture (e.g. John 19:38-42).

That is, that Jesus' body and reasonable soul were separated from each other does not entail one or the other was separated from the hypostasis of Jesus... unless the means by which one disaffirms two natures is a composition which is undone at death (miaphysitism).

Given Jesus' unique status as the second Adam, I'm not sure if this commits one to affirming the same of everyone other human (given the person-nature distinction I outlined earlier, it could be possible). I don't see any problem either way.