Assumption, Union and Sanctification: Some Clarifying Distinctions
In this article I engage with the notion that Christ ought to be understood to have a fallen human nature because Christ sanctifies human nature, and it is fallen humanity that needs sanctifying. In opposition to this line of thought, I argue that the Son of God assumed an unfallen nature, but with...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2017]
|
| In: |
International journal of systematic theology
Year: 2017, Volume: 19, Issue: 1, Pages: 53-72 |
| IxTheo Classification: | NBE Anthropology NBF Christology NBK Soteriology |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | In this article I engage with the notion that Christ ought to be understood to have a fallen human nature because Christ sanctifies human nature, and it is fallen humanity that needs sanctifying. In opposition to this line of thought, I argue that the Son of God assumed an unfallen nature, but with the powers of fallenness operative within it, and that this notion is consistent with a distinct account of sanctification. In support of these claims, I develop distinctions between a conjoining union and a transferring union, and between the Chalcedonian union at the incarnation and the extension of that union on the cross. At the assumption a conjoining union occurred, not a transferring union. Christ sanctified his own nature, prior to a transferring union. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1468-2400 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: International journal of systematic theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/ijst.12192 |