Christmas is About the Cross

“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”-1 Timothy 1:15

“This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”-1 John 4:9-10

“She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”-Matthew 1:21

Thus begins the explanation of the meaning of the Incarnation to the world, Christ has come to save sinners. And what good news indeed—the God of the universe, though offended by the injustice of the world (see “Christmas is about Ferguson”) and the wickedness of our hearts, has decided to bring salvation in his incarnate son Jesus.

Within this article, I want us to see with the eyes of the Reformed confessions, that the birth of Christ is not an end in and of itself,¹ but is part of a Trinitarian mission to reconcile a broken world to God. I hope that this Christmas season our imaginations can be shaped and stretched to see the Christ child as the very man who would eventually die as a ransom for many, saving us from the wrath of God.² Christmas and Good Friday, though separated by four months on our calendars and thirty or so years in the life of Jesus, are in fact intimately connected in the will of God for the salvation of the world.³ The following will survey of three Reformed confessional documents, the Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Larger Catechism, and the Westminster Confession.

The Heidelberg Catechism, honored by a number of Reformed denominations worldwide, contains a series of questions and answers, ordered under the headings of Misery, Deliverance, and Gratitude.⁴ The Catechism sees a direct connection between the birth of Christ and his death, putting them side by side in questions 36 and 37. I quote them below:

Q & A 36
Q. How does the holy conception and birth of Christ benefit you?
A. He is our mediator and, in God’s sight, he covers with his innocence and perfect holiness my sinfulness in which I was conceived.⁵

Q & A 37
Q. What do you understand by the word “suffered”?
A. That during his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race. This he did in order that, by his suffering as the only atoning sacrifice, he might deliver us, body and soul, from eternal condemnation, and gain for us God’s grace, righteousness, and eternal life.⁶

In the Heidelberg we see a God who was conceived and born with the intent and purpose to die, to rid humanity of their condemnation before a just God, gaining “for us grace, righteousness, and eternal life.” The Westminster Larger Catechism echoes this connection, emphasizing the humility of Christ in his conception, birth, life, and death.⁷

Q. 47. How did Christ humble himself in his conception and birth?
A. Christ humbled himself in his conception and birth, in that, being from all eternity the Son of God, in the bosom of the Father, he was pleased in the fullness of time to become the son of man, made of a woman of low estate, and to be born of her; with divers circumstances of more than ordinary abasement.⁸

Q. 48. How did Christ humble himself in his life?
A. Christ humbled himself in his life, by subjecting himself to the law, which he perfectly fulfilled; and by conflicting with the indignities of the world, temptations of Satan, and infirmities in his flesh, whether common to the nature of man, or particularly accompanying that his low condition.⁹

Q. 49. How did Christ humble himself in his death?
A. Christ humbled himself in his death, in that having been betrayed by Judas, forsaken by his disciples, scorned and rejected by the world, condemned by Pilate, and tormented by his persecutors; having also conflicted with the terrors of death, and the powers of darkness, felt and borne the weight of God’s wrath, he laid down his life an offering for sin, enduring the painful, shameful, and cursed death of the cross.¹⁰

Christ’s birth, life, and death are all connected by humility for the Westminster Larger Catechism. In birth, Jesus is born of a poor peasant woman within “divers circumstances of more than ordinary abasement” (I love this, who writes like this anymore?). In life, God becomes a Jew within an oppressive Roman world, confronts temptations that each of us go through daily, and fulfills the law. In death, the God of the universe enters into the great terror of this broken world, “laying down his life” for the very humanity who crucified him.

Like the Heidelberg and the Westminster Larger Catechism, the Westminster Confession, specifically within Chapter VIII, “Of Christ the Mediator,” connects the birth and death of Christ.¹¹

II. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.¹²

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.¹³

The coming of Christ, the Reformed understand, is one part in the eternal plan of God to reconcile his chosen people to himself. God from eternity past decided to create the world, knowing that it would fall into sin, to then bind himself to people in the form of covenants, to then enter into this sinful world as a human being, thus fulfilling the promises he had made to his people, and then to ultimately die for these people, thus purchasing their salvation by his blood. The Incarnation, rather than being a stand-alone celebration, proceeds from an eternal will that precedes it, and results in a death that reconciles. The celebration of the coming of Christ is far grander (though certainly not less) than a recognition of God-made flesh, pointing toward a humble life, shameful death, and purchasing of an inheritance for God’s chosen people. May we this Advent season place ourselves in the waiting anticipation of the Jews, awaiting a Messiah who will come to save us from our sins.¹⁴

[wpex more=”View Sources” less=”Hide Sources”]

1. One can read this article as a Reformed addition and supplementation to the discussion in this month’s Round Table. The writer appreciates the many insights of the Anglican, Methodist, Orthodox, and Catholic writers within that space. One could also read this article as a response to some comments within the Round Table against the Reformed understanding of the Incarnation. Ben Cabe’s argues that the Orthodox view, in contrast to the Protestant view, of the Incarnation is “not viewed as a reaction to man’s fall but rather a plan in accordance with the eternal will of the Father.” This article sees this comment as presenting a false dichotomy. The eternal will of the Father has always been to redeem broken humanity out of sheer grace through the person and work of Jesus Christ, applied through the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Further, one may read this article as a response to Drew McIntyre’s comment that the Methodist view of the Incarnation, in contrast to Calvinism, “is thus not good news for an elect few, but for all humanity and indeed the whole of creation.” This article also sees this comment as presenting a false dichotomy, for the salvation of God’s elect is good news for humanity and the whole of creation. That God would choose to save (much less resurrect within a redeemed New Heavens and New Earth) any is truly good news.

2. Mark 10:45 and Romans 5:9

3. Though the Incarnation of Christ is bound up in the death of Christ, I do not want the reader (as many evangelicals are wont to do) to neglect the life of Christ and the Kingdom he came to establish. There may be a serious danger in doing what the Reformed confessions do, and what I do within this article, if one sees the mission of Christ as merely coming to earth to die. No. The good news of the gospel is grander, though most certainly not less, than atonement. Part of the reason why I wrote “Christmas is about Ferguson” is to recognize the bigness of the Incarnation in reconciling the entire world to God. See Footnote 14 for more of this bigness.

4. “Heidelberg Catechism.” Christian Reformed Church. N.p., 04 June 2012. Web. 20 Dec. 2014.

5. 1 Tim. 2:5-6; Heb. 9:13-15, Rom. 8:3-4; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 4:4-5; 1 Pet. 1:18-19

6. Isa. 53; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18, Rom. 3:25; Heb. 10:14; 1 John 2:2; 4:10, Rom. 8:1-4; Gal. 3:13, John 3:16; Rom. 3:24-26

7. “Westminster Larger Catechism.” Orthodox Presbyterian Church. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2014. .

8. John 1:14,18

9. Gal. 4:4, Matt. 5:17, Ps. 22:6, Isa. 53:2-3, Heb. 12:2-3, Matt. 4:1-11, Luke 4:13, Heb 2:17-18, Heb. 4:15, Isa. 52:13-14

10. Matt. 27:4, Matt. 26:56, Isa. 53:2-3, Matt. 27:26-50, John 19:34, Luke 22:44, Matt. 27:46, Isa. 53:10, Matt. 20:28, Phil. 2:8, Heb. 12:2, Gal. 3:13

11. “Westminster Confession of Faith.” Reformed.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2014.

12. John 1:1, 1 John 5:20, Phil. 2:6, Gal. 4:4, Heb. 2:14, Heb. 4:15, Luke 1:27,31,35, Gal. 4:4, Luke 1:35, Col 2:9, Rom 9:5, 1 Pet. 3:18, 1 Tim. 3:16, Rom. 1:3,4, 1 Tim. 2:5

13. Rom. 5:19, Heb. 9:14, 16, Heb. 10:14, Eph. 5:2, Rom. 3:25,26, Dan. 9:24,26, Col. 1:19,20, Eph. 1:11, John 17:2, Heb. 9:12,15

14. Please also read Derek Rishmawy’s “Christmas is About the Eschaton”. A great Reformed read on the eternity of Christ’s Incarnation–truly God is in communion with his people for eternity.[/wpex]

15 responses to “Christmas is About the Cross”

Ben Cabe

December 22, 2014

George, thank you for contributing this piece about the Reformed worldview / understanding of the Incarnation and the cross. In the stead of a long comment, I will write a response in the form of an article. Look for that this week, sometime before Christmas. Thanks again.

George Aldhizer

December 22, 2014

Very much so looking forward to it. I don’t want the article to read as aimed against Orthodox or Methodist views. I think the views I outlined from these reformed creeds are in many ways shared across Christian traditions. What I was meaning to say in the footnote is that one could read the article as rebutting a couple of comments in the Round Table discussion, though that is not the starting point of the article.

All of that is to say I’m excited to read your upcoming article. Hope that gives you a better picture of where I was coming from in writing the piece.

Loading…

Reply
1. Ben Cabe
  
  December 22, 2014
  
  Thank you, George. In contrast, my article may be a little more critical. However, my intention is to outline the importance of the Incarnation—an importance for both pre-fallen and fallen mankind. Should be posted on Christmas day.
  
  Your article gives me a great platform to propound the Orthodox understanding of the Incarnation. I value your insights and beliefs (which many others share)—although we disagree on this subject (more specifically on the eternal will of the Father and whether the Incarnation would have taken place for pre-fallen man) I am greatly appreciative of your work here on Conciliar Post. I do mention you and the article in my up-and-coming piece. I will take this comment into consideration while crafting my references to your intent.
  
  Also. Merry Christmas!
  
  Loading…
2. George Aldhizer
  
  December 22, 2014
  
  I welcome the critical 🙂 Merry Christmas to you!
  
  Loading…

Benjamin Winter

December 24, 2014

I love your focus on humility in this article. Also, the Catechism quotations were very informative.

It will be interesting to see the dialog continue with Ben’s upcoming post. I do have a question now for George, though! You state: “The Incarnation, rather than being a stand-alone celebration, proceeds from an eternal will that precedes it, and results in a death that reconciles.” My question is about the eternal will behind the incarnation. How would you answer the critique that your focus on the reconciling death (effect #1 of 4 from my post on the roundtable) seems to tie God too closely to the injustice of sin, or rather, to give sin (which is not a thing in in itself, but a “missing the mark”) too important a role in the divine economy?

Another articulation of my thoughts: If the sole purpose of the incarnation involves God identifying himself with humanity through taking on sin, does it then follow that God’s will and sin are too closely tied? So this can perhaps be seen as a question about the effects of God’s foreknowledge, and about the extent of human freedom (which is a question of anthropology), especially given that your acknowledgment that “God from eternity past decided to create the world, knowing that it would fall into sin.” Thanks!

George Aldhizer

December 24, 2014

Thanks Benjamin for your probing questions. I have a feeling that Ben’s response article coming out tomorrow may assume that this article is saying too much than I mean it to say, maybe that reflects poor writing on my part. By the statement, “Christmas is about the Cross,” I don’t mean to be saying Christmas is only or even primarily about the cross. I’m merely hoping to connect our imaginations from Advent and Christmas to Good Friday (and then Easter). I also don’t want this to be viewed as THE Reformed view on the Incarnation, or even THE Reformed view on the atonement. I think there is more to the Incarnation than subsequent atonement (as my prior article on setting the captives free in my earlier article) and there is more to the Reformed view on the cross than penal substitution.

In my footnote #3, I write that there can be a serious danger in thinking that Christ only came to earth to die. I’m sure Ben will accuse me of missing the very important doctrine of union with Christ within my article. Maybe that shows a blind spot in my article, but I believe it shows that I wasn’t trying to that much within my article. So, Benjamin, when you write, “If the sole purpose of the incarnation involves God identifying himself with humanity through taking on sin…” I don’t believe that in the slightest. Again, that may reflect poor writing on my part, or a (very right) recognition that the evangelicalism that I write from too often equates Christ’s birth with his death. (These two points are not meant to say that Ben will not have anything left to critique)

As for your important questions Benjamin. In the article, I’m attempting to write concerning Reformed Trinitarian soteriology, that I think is nicely summed up by Michael Horton, “The doctrines of the Trinity and predestination (or God’s decree) converge at the point of the eternal covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) between the persons of the Godhead. In that covenant, before the world existed, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit already turn toward us, with a purpose to create, redeem, and gather a church for everlasting fellowship. As in all of God’s external operations, both the eternal decree itself and its execution in history are accomplished from the Father, in the Son, through the Spirit.”

So, given that framework, certainly sin is, in some sense, tied to the eternal will of God. More specifically, redemption is tied to the eternal will of God. “Everlasting fellowship” with God as the end goal requires a reconciliatory death, given that God knows humanity will fall into sin. I’d be curious if you believe that those explanations still fall into your critiques.

Loading…

Reply
1. Ben Cabe
  
  December 24, 2014
  
  Benjamin and George, thank you for these comments. I do believe there is some truth in how I will critique George’s article–as I did read this as “the incarnation does not have any value in itself”, which I am not convinced as of this last comment, that George actually believes.
  
  This being so, the value of my piece may be the explanation of why I believe the incarnation would have happened even without the fall. And that man needed it in order to achieve this union with God (like Goerge says I will critique him) even before the fall.
  
  I also wanted to point out in the article that the incarnation does accomplish something tangible (even without the cross). However, because of our fallenness, it is both the Incarnation and the cross that make open the way for our salvation–not one without the other.
  
  The question is, would man have needed the incarnation if he had not fallen. I would answer yes. For those reasons, look for the article tomorrow morning.
  
  Thanks again, George. Like I said, my article is critical, but I am in no way attempting to attack you; just attempting (probably poorly) to explain my line of thinking, and why claiming the Incarnation was not needed for pre-fallen man, seems to go against the telos of man, man’s creation in the image and likeness, and creation ex nihilo.
  
  Loading…
2. George Aldhizer
  
  December 24, 2014
  
  Again, I’m looking forward to it Ben. I look forward to it both because it’s about me, and it challenges my views. And also because I think it will be the first article written specifically on one of the author’s views of Conciliar Post. I think that kind of engagement among authors (if done well and charitably) is a valuable thing for the site.
  
  Loading…
3. George Aldhizer
  
  December 24, 2014
  
  Just to clarify, I do believe that the incarnation is not valuable in and of itself. What I mean by this is that god in the flesh does not reconcile a sinful humanity to God, for we remain sinners in the midst of a holy God. Thus, the cross must be connected to the mission of the incarnation. This is not to say that the incarnation is not important for the many ways that the Orthodox believe it to be, just that God in the flesh does not reconcile in and of itself.
  
  Just to be clear, the comment that “the incarnation is not valuable in and of itself” is aimed at sinful humanity, not a hypothetical pre-fall humanity. I look forward to the article, maybe this is too much discussion pre-article haha.
  
  Loading…
4. Ben Cabe
  
  December 24, 2014
  
  Ah, yes. That is what I suspected: that you believe the Incarnation is of no value (to post-fallen) humanity (with respect to reconciliation) without the cross. I would disagree with this. Hence, the article.
  
  Loading…
5. Benjamin Winter
  
  December 25, 2014
  
  It will be interesting to read the continued debate in the next article (which is already out, and which I will get to next). For now, though, I want to go back to my comments to George.
  
  First off, thank you for clarifying your position, and for the charity you showed me in my questions. I’d like to expand my thoughts a bit more and then get your reaction(s).
  
  So, I have no qualms with stating that the purpose of Christ’s coming into this world is the pro nobis (“for us”) that is his redeeming sacrifice. Furthermore, I agree with your footnote 3 [sorry for overlooking it] about the ‘bigness’ of this sacrifice. In my view, too, this sacrifice occurred throughout the life of Christ, through his words and deeds and through his example of obedience to the Father. Again, I see all of this as falling under the first effect of the incarnation listed in the Catholic catechism (the other three effects being summarized as “knowing love,” “modeling holiness,” and “deification”).
  
  I do, however, still worry about your statement: “The eternal will of the Father has always been to redeem broken humanity out of sheer grace through the person and work of Jesus Christ, applied through the drawing of the Holy Spirit.” Before humankind sinned, was this redemption needed? You seem to argue that it was, given God’s foreknowledge of sin. But to conceive of God’s foreknowledge in this way makes God depend on human acts, and on wicked human acts for that matter (more on this below). If God created everything “good,” as the book of Genesis relates, then there was in fact no need for the redemption of any created thing. How could there be redemption in a good creation? [see final paragraph, below, for a brief comment directed to Ben on this topic]
  
  If you say that God eternally wills to save humanity from sin, it implies that sin is an eternal problem. I agree that “before the world existed, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit already turn toward us,” but I do not think that this “turning toward us” involved sin in any way shape or form. By creating a free being (whether human or angelic), God of course creates the possibility for that being to sin. But God did not need to turn toward his creation in a “redeeming” way until that creation departed from the joy of God’s presence by choosing lesser goods in the place of the highest good. To summate, it is impossible for us to say God’s will has always been to redeem broken humanity because humanity was not always broken!
  
  I do like the phrase felix culpa (“blessed fall”), because God brings good even from evil (God is, after all, goodness itself), but connecting the fall to God’s plan for the universe would make death (the violent kenosis of Christ) part of that original plan–and the Scriptures clearly teach that death came through sin.
  
  If we describe God’s foreknowledge of humanity’s future sin in the way that you do, it implies that God created an imperfect universe, a universe “destined” to become corrupted by sin. God certainly works through sin with the rectifying action of Christ, whose entire pro nobis aims at restoring things to their original “good” condition. But sin is not part and parcel to God’s plan/will for humanity!
  
  Stepping back a bit, our disagreement may be primarily about what God’s foreknowledge implies, since I do not think you want to connect death and sin to God in the way I’m describing above—but I see these connections as being a logical result of your views on the eternal will of God to redeem humanity.
  
  Please do note that these thoughts do not take away from your explanation that “the birth of Christ is not an end in and of itself, but is part of a Trinitarian mission to reconcile a broken world to God.” I completely agree! Plus, I have no problem linking the incarnation with the crucifixion. I do think an even more beautiful and complete link should be made that includes the other primary salvific acts of Christ, namely his descent to Hades his resurrection and his ascent to heaven. These also have extreme significance for us and are just as essential to our salvation (e.g. “If Christ be not raised our faith is in vain”) as is the crucifixion and of course the incarnation!
  
  Finally, I will say a bit about where my views may differ from Ben’s (although I have yet to read his new article). I’m not as adamant as he is about the necessity of the incarnation if man did not sin—to me this is a bit of a hypothesis contrary to fact. I do not have a naïve belief that Adam and Eve did not need to grow, and that they did not need to interact with Christ even if they did not sin. More on this when I comment on Ben’s article. My main disagreement with Ben thus comes from the fact that he is placing too much emphasis on the rational explanation of something mysterious, which is a bit ironic because I’ve always been accused of this by my Orthodox friends. 😀 Also, you might think that the hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy is one that I fall into with my comments, above. After all, we don’t really know what would have happened if man had not sinned, and thus you might argue that we can only speculate, from our current need for redemption, that we always needed redemption. But I would reply that my distinction about God’s foreknowledge rests on the revealed truth of Scripture that God created everything “good,” and hence redemption cannot have been necessary.
  
  Loading…
6. Ben Cabe
  
  December 25, 2014
  
  Yes. Ultimately it is a mystery.
  
  Loading…
7. Benjamin Winter
  
  December 25, 2014
  
  Thanks for this, Ben. I hope you did not think it was too bold of me to speak before having read your article! I already have some other thoughts queued up, and I look forward to even further reflection on this interesting question.
  
  Loading…
8. George Aldhizer
  
  December 26, 2014
  
  Yeah, I’m totally with you that we need to connect the incarnation to all of the actions of Christ. I also like your critique of the ‘mystery’ of incarnation concerning pre-fall humanity, would be curious to hear Ben’s response to that.
  
  Let me know how this thought process works with you Benjamin, I’m not sure if we are in disagreement. God is not fooled by sin. God certainly creates the world good, calling it to goodness and flourishing. However, God knew from eternity that it would fall, and thus had a redemptive intent to save the world and his elect from eternity past. This is not to give sin some sort of reign over God, or restricting God’s work. But it is to say, as I’ve said before in response to Ben in footnote #1, that God’s will is not reactive (as if sin took him off guard) but is sovereign. Just think of the beauty of a God that enters into covenants with his creation continually, with Adam and Eve knowing they would fall, with Israel knowing that their Judges and response to the law would suck, and to his elect knowing that they would be imperfectly sanctified until glorification. I digress. What a beautiful God that deals with sin in a patient and yet victorious way. Maybe I’m off topic.
  
  As for discussions of foreknowledge and human freedom, you’re right it is a big topic. Though I think I would handle it like you would. In many ways, it is paradoxical, with God being sovereign and us being free. Sin and death are truly on our shoulders. And yet God knew it would happen, he was not taken off guard. Something unrelated, I’ve always been intrigued by Luis de Molina’s middle knowledge, in which God constructs a world in which he knows by middle knowledge how creatures would act given the circumstances they are in. Maybe this is in some way contradictory to my Reformed theology, I dunno. But I’m intrigued by the philosophy of it all. Dunno if this helps, let me know where you feel like we disagree Benjamin.
  
  Loading…
9. Benjamin Winter
  
  January 2, 2015
  
  George, sorry for the delay in responding as my family has all been under the weather!
  
  With regard to your first full paragraph. Doubtless, God knew from eternity that the world would fall—I’m glad we are in agreement on this. But the question I keep asking myself is: “How can God engage in a covenant with something (in this case, humanity) that does not yet have existence?” From my understanding, two parties must be involved in a covenant.
  
  I appreciate your careful comments on foreknowledge and freedom. Good to know about Luis de Molina’s “middle knowledge.” Interestingly enough, St. Bonaventure uses a somewhat similar distinction. He says that there are three ways God can know the universe. First is intrinsic knowledge, which is basically knowing all things perfectly through Christ, the Divine Word. Second is the knowledge of vision, which is knowing all things, good and bad, that happen in the world. It is distinct from intrinsic knowledge insofar as the latter applies to things that can happen (i.e. to potential knowledge) while again the former is limited to things that are happening. Finally, there is the knowledge of approbation, which is God knowing (and approving of) the good things that happen in the world. It is distinct from vision because to see something is not to approve of or cause it.
  
  Loading…

Ben Cabe

December 22, 2014

George, thank you for contributing this piece about the Reformed worldview / understanding of the Incarnation and the cross. In the stead of a long comment, I will write a response in the form of an article. Look for that this week, sometime before Christmas. Thanks again.

Loading…

1. George Aldhizer
  
  December 22, 2014
  
  Very much so looking forward to it. I don’t want the article to read as aimed against Orthodox or Methodist views. I think the views I outlined from these reformed creeds are in many ways shared across Christian traditions. What I was meaning to say in the footnote is that one could read the article as rebutting a couple of comments in the Round Table discussion, though that is not the starting point of the article.
  
  All of that is to say I’m excited to read your upcoming article. Hope that gives you a better picture of where I was coming from in writing the piece.
  
  Loading…
  
  1. Ben Cabe
    
    December 22, 2014
    
    Thank you, George. In contrast, my article may be a little more critical. However, my intention is to outline the importance of the Incarnation—an importance for both pre-fallen and fallen mankind. Should be posted on Christmas day.
    
    Your article gives me a great platform to propound the Orthodox understanding of the Incarnation. I value your insights and beliefs (which many others share)—although we disagree on this subject (more specifically on the eternal will of the Father and whether the Incarnation would have taken place for pre-fallen man) I am greatly appreciative of your work here on Conciliar Post. I do mention you and the article in my up-and-coming piece. I will take this comment into consideration while crafting my references to your intent.
    
    Also. Merry Christmas!
    
    Loading…
  2. George Aldhizer
    
    December 22, 2014
    
    I welcome the critical 🙂 Merry Christmas to you!
    
    Loading…
Benjamin Winter

December 24, 2014

I love your focus on humility in this article. Also, the Catechism quotations were very informative.

It will be interesting to see the dialog continue with Ben’s upcoming post. I do have a question now for George, though! You state: “The Incarnation, rather than being a stand-alone celebration, proceeds from an eternal will that precedes it, and results in a death that reconciles.” My question is about the eternal will behind the incarnation. How would you answer the critique that your focus on the reconciling death (effect #1 of 4 from my post on the roundtable) seems to tie God too closely to the injustice of sin, or rather, to give sin (which is not a thing in in itself, but a “missing the mark”) too important a role in the divine economy?

Another articulation of my thoughts: If the sole purpose of the incarnation involves God identifying himself with humanity through taking on sin, does it then follow that God’s will and sin are too closely tied? So this can perhaps be seen as a question about the effects of God’s foreknowledge, and about the extent of human freedom (which is a question of anthropology), especially given that your acknowledgment that “God from eternity past decided to create the world, knowing that it would fall into sin.” Thanks!

Loading…

1. George Aldhizer
  
  December 24, 2014
  
  Thanks Benjamin for your probing questions. I have a feeling that Ben’s response article coming out tomorrow may assume that this article is saying too much than I mean it to say, maybe that reflects poor writing on my part. By the statement, “Christmas is about the Cross,” I don’t mean to be saying Christmas is only or even primarily about the cross. I’m merely hoping to connect our imaginations from Advent and Christmas to Good Friday (and then Easter). I also don’t want this to be viewed as THE Reformed view on the Incarnation, or even THE Reformed view on the atonement. I think there is more to the Incarnation than subsequent atonement (as my prior article on setting the captives free in my earlier article) and there is more to the Reformed view on the cross than penal substitution.
  
  In my footnote #3, I write that there can be a serious danger in thinking that Christ only came to earth to die. I’m sure Ben will accuse me of missing the very important doctrine of union with Christ within my article. Maybe that shows a blind spot in my article, but I believe it shows that I wasn’t trying to that much within my article. So, Benjamin, when you write, “If the sole purpose of the incarnation involves God identifying himself with humanity through taking on sin…” I don’t believe that in the slightest. Again, that may reflect poor writing on my part, or a (very right) recognition that the evangelicalism that I write from too often equates Christ’s birth with his death. (These two points are not meant to say that Ben will not have anything left to critique)
  
  As for your important questions Benjamin. In the article, I’m attempting to write concerning Reformed Trinitarian soteriology, that I think is nicely summed up by Michael Horton, “The doctrines of the Trinity and predestination (or God’s decree) converge at the point of the eternal covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) between the persons of the Godhead. In that covenant, before the world existed, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit already turn toward us, with a purpose to create, redeem, and gather a church for everlasting fellowship. As in all of God’s external operations, both the eternal decree itself and its execution in history are accomplished from the Father, in the Son, through the Spirit.”
  
  So, given that framework, certainly sin is, in some sense, tied to the eternal will of God. More specifically, redemption is tied to the eternal will of God. “Everlasting fellowship” with God as the end goal requires a reconciliatory death, given that God knows humanity will fall into sin. I’d be curious if you believe that those explanations still fall into your critiques.
  
  Loading…
  
  1. Ben Cabe
    
    December 24, 2014
    
    Benjamin and George, thank you for these comments. I do believe there is some truth in how I will critique George’s article–as I did read this as “the incarnation does not have any value in itself”, which I am not convinced as of this last comment, that George actually believes.
    
    This being so, the value of my piece may be the explanation of why I believe the incarnation would have happened even without the fall. And that man needed it in order to achieve this union with God (like Goerge says I will critique him) even before the fall.
    
    I also wanted to point out in the article that the incarnation does accomplish something tangible (even without the cross). However, because of our fallenness, it is both the Incarnation and the cross that make open the way for our salvation–not one without the other.
    
    The question is, would man have needed the incarnation if he had not fallen. I would answer yes. For those reasons, look for the article tomorrow morning.
    
    Thanks again, George. Like I said, my article is critical, but I am in no way attempting to attack you; just attempting (probably poorly) to explain my line of thinking, and why claiming the Incarnation was not needed for pre-fallen man, seems to go against the telos of man, man’s creation in the image and likeness, and creation ex nihilo.
    
    Loading…
  2. George Aldhizer
    
    December 24, 2014
    
    Again, I’m looking forward to it Ben. I look forward to it both because it’s about me, and it challenges my views. And also because I think it will be the first article written specifically on one of the author’s views of Conciliar Post. I think that kind of engagement among authors (if done well and charitably) is a valuable thing for the site.
    
    Loading…
  3. George Aldhizer
    
    December 24, 2014
    
    Just to clarify, I do believe that the incarnation is not valuable in and of itself. What I mean by this is that god in the flesh does not reconcile a sinful humanity to God, for we remain sinners in the midst of a holy God. Thus, the cross must be connected to the mission of the incarnation. This is not to say that the incarnation is not important for the many ways that the Orthodox believe it to be, just that God in the flesh does not reconcile in and of itself.
    
    Just to be clear, the comment that “the incarnation is not valuable in and of itself” is aimed at sinful humanity, not a hypothetical pre-fall humanity. I look forward to the article, maybe this is too much discussion pre-article haha.
    
    Loading…
  4. Ben Cabe
    
    December 24, 2014
    
    Ah, yes. That is what I suspected: that you believe the Incarnation is of no value (to post-fallen) humanity (with respect to reconciliation) without the cross. I would disagree with this. Hence, the article.
    
    Loading…
  5. Benjamin Winter
    
    December 25, 2014
    
    It will be interesting to read the continued debate in the next article (which is already out, and which I will get to next). For now, though, I want to go back to my comments to George.
    
    First off, thank you for clarifying your position, and for the charity you showed me in my questions. I’d like to expand my thoughts a bit more and then get your reaction(s).
    
    So, I have no qualms with stating that the purpose of Christ’s coming into this world is the pro nobis (“for us”) that is his redeeming sacrifice. Furthermore, I agree with your footnote 3 [sorry for overlooking it] about the ‘bigness’ of this sacrifice. In my view, too, this sacrifice occurred throughout the life of Christ, through his words and deeds and through his example of obedience to the Father. Again, I see all of this as falling under the first effect of the incarnation listed in the Catholic catechism (the other three effects being summarized as “knowing love,” “modeling holiness,” and “deification”).
    
    I do, however, still worry about your statement: “The eternal will of the Father has always been to redeem broken humanity out of sheer grace through the person and work of Jesus Christ, applied through the drawing of the Holy Spirit.” Before humankind sinned, was this redemption needed? You seem to argue that it was, given God’s foreknowledge of sin. But to conceive of God’s foreknowledge in this way makes God depend on human acts, and on wicked human acts for that matter (more on this below). If God created everything “good,” as the book of Genesis relates, then there was in fact no need for the redemption of any created thing. How could there be redemption in a good creation? [see final paragraph, below, for a brief comment directed to Ben on this topic]
    
    If you say that God eternally wills to save humanity from sin, it implies that sin is an eternal problem. I agree that “before the world existed, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit already turn toward us,” but I do not think that this “turning toward us” involved sin in any way shape or form. By creating a free being (whether human or angelic), God of course creates the possibility for that being to sin. But God did not need to turn toward his creation in a “redeeming” way until that creation departed from the joy of God’s presence by choosing lesser goods in the place of the highest good. To summate, it is impossible for us to say God’s will has always been to redeem broken humanity because humanity was not always broken!
    
    I do like the phrase felix culpa (“blessed fall”), because God brings good even from evil (God is, after all, goodness itself), but connecting the fall to God’s plan for the universe would make death (the violent kenosis of Christ) part of that original plan–and the Scriptures clearly teach that death came through sin.
    
    If we describe God’s foreknowledge of humanity’s future sin in the way that you do, it implies that God created an imperfect universe, a universe “destined” to become corrupted by sin. God certainly works through sin with the rectifying action of Christ, whose entire pro nobis aims at restoring things to their original “good” condition. But sin is not part and parcel to God’s plan/will for humanity!
    
    Stepping back a bit, our disagreement may be primarily about what God’s foreknowledge implies, since I do not think you want to connect death and sin to God in the way I’m describing above—but I see these connections as being a logical result of your views on the eternal will of God to redeem humanity.
    
    Please do note that these thoughts do not take away from your explanation that “the birth of Christ is not an end in and of itself, but is part of a Trinitarian mission to reconcile a broken world to God.” I completely agree! Plus, I have no problem linking the incarnation with the crucifixion. I do think an even more beautiful and complete link should be made that includes the other primary salvific acts of Christ, namely his descent to Hades his resurrection and his ascent to heaven. These also have extreme significance for us and are just as essential to our salvation (e.g. “If Christ be not raised our faith is in vain”) as is the crucifixion and of course the incarnation!
    
    Finally, I will say a bit about where my views may differ from Ben’s (although I have yet to read his new article). I’m not as adamant as he is about the necessity of the incarnation if man did not sin—to me this is a bit of a hypothesis contrary to fact. I do not have a naïve belief that Adam and Eve did not need to grow, and that they did not need to interact with Christ even if they did not sin. More on this when I comment on Ben’s article. My main disagreement with Ben thus comes from the fact that he is placing too much emphasis on the rational explanation of something mysterious, which is a bit ironic because I’ve always been accused of this by my Orthodox friends. 😀 Also, you might think that the hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy is one that I fall into with my comments, above. After all, we don’t really know what would have happened if man had not sinned, and thus you might argue that we can only speculate, from our current need for redemption, that we always needed redemption. But I would reply that my distinction about God’s foreknowledge rests on the revealed truth of Scripture that God created everything “good,” and hence redemption cannot have been necessary.
    
    Loading…
  6. Ben Cabe
    
    December 25, 2014
    
    Yes. Ultimately it is a mystery.
    
    Loading…
  7. Benjamin Winter
    
    December 25, 2014
    
    Thanks for this, Ben. I hope you did not think it was too bold of me to speak before having read your article! I already have some other thoughts queued up, and I look forward to even further reflection on this interesting question.
    
    Loading…
  8. George Aldhizer
    
    December 26, 2014
    
    Yeah, I’m totally with you that we need to connect the incarnation to all of the actions of Christ. I also like your critique of the ‘mystery’ of incarnation concerning pre-fall humanity, would be curious to hear Ben’s response to that.
    
    Let me know how this thought process works with you Benjamin, I’m not sure if we are in disagreement. God is not fooled by sin. God certainly creates the world good, calling it to goodness and flourishing. However, God knew from eternity that it would fall, and thus had a redemptive intent to save the world and his elect from eternity past. This is not to give sin some sort of reign over God, or restricting God’s work. But it is to say, as I’ve said before in response to Ben in footnote #1, that God’s will is not reactive (as if sin took him off guard) but is sovereign. Just think of the beauty of a God that enters into covenants with his creation continually, with Adam and Eve knowing they would fall, with Israel knowing that their Judges and response to the law would suck, and to his elect knowing that they would be imperfectly sanctified until glorification. I digress. What a beautiful God that deals with sin in a patient and yet victorious way. Maybe I’m off topic.
    
    As for discussions of foreknowledge and human freedom, you’re right it is a big topic. Though I think I would handle it like you would. In many ways, it is paradoxical, with God being sovereign and us being free. Sin and death are truly on our shoulders. And yet God knew it would happen, he was not taken off guard. Something unrelated, I’ve always been intrigued by Luis de Molina’s middle knowledge, in which God constructs a world in which he knows by middle knowledge how creatures would act given the circumstances they are in. Maybe this is in some way contradictory to my Reformed theology, I dunno. But I’m intrigued by the philosophy of it all. Dunno if this helps, let me know where you feel like we disagree Benjamin.
    
    Loading…
  9. Benjamin Winter
    
    January 2, 2015
    
    George, sorry for the delay in responding as my family has all been under the weather!
    
    With regard to your first full paragraph. Doubtless, God knew from eternity that the world would fall—I’m glad we are in agreement on this. But the question I keep asking myself is: “How can God engage in a covenant with something (in this case, humanity) that does not yet have existence?” From my understanding, two parties must be involved in a covenant.
    
    I appreciate your careful comments on foreknowledge and freedom. Good to know about Luis de Molina’s “middle knowledge.” Interestingly enough, St. Bonaventure uses a somewhat similar distinction. He says that there are three ways God can know the universe. First is intrinsic knowledge, which is basically knowing all things perfectly through Christ, the Divine Word. Second is the knowledge of vision, which is knowing all things, good and bad, that happen in the world. It is distinct from intrinsic knowledge insofar as the latter applies to things that can happen (i.e. to potential knowledge) while again the former is limited to things that are happening. Finally, there is the knowledge of approbation, which is God knowing (and approving of) the good things that happen in the world. It is distinct from vision because to see something is not to approve of or cause it.
    
    Loading…

Conciliar Post