The following post will be a final reading
reflection for the THEO 351 blogging assignment. It will be a reflection on a
section entitled “The Spirit of Jesus Christ” from the book Light of Truth and Fire of Love: A Theology
of the Holy Spirit, by Gary D. Badcock.[1]
Badcock writes that some early
christologies had a broad pneumatic character to them, but in later theology
the Holy Spirit was excluded from the christological category of theology, resulting
in negative implications which are still with us today.[2]
In this article Badcock is concerned with how to reintegrate pneumatology into
christology in order to gain a more holistic understanding of Christ and the
Spirit, and of God’s salvific work in creation.[3]
He examines the Roman Catholic reappraisal of the scholastic doctrine of the
“habitual” or “accidental” sanctification of Jesus, which describes the
relation of the Spirit and the Logos to the human nature of Christ, within the
doctrine of the hypostatic union (the union of the two natures in Christ).
In the scholastic doctrine of the hypostatic union a distinction is
made between the grace of union and habitual, or accidental, grace. The grace of union is strictly concerned
with the Logos assuming the human nature in the incarnation. This anointing of
the human nature with the divine gave Jesus essential
or substantial sanctification. Accidental or habitual sanctification and graces are graces received external to
hypostatic union, and appropriated by the Holy Spirit. In the case of Jesus habitual grace enabled him to live a
godly life, and heal the sick. In this doctrine then, the role of the Holy
Spirit in Jesus’ life is secondary to the hypostatic union.[4]
It should be noted that there is no time lag or long process involved
here. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “Since he [Jesus] had already reached
the goal of creaturely union with God from his conception, through his
substantial sanctification in the grace of union, the accidental graces of the
Holy Spirit must also have been present in their fullness from the beginning.”[5]
The purpose of this doctrine of hypostatic union was to “acknowledge
the true humanity of Christ and to provide a distinctive role in Christology
for the Holy Spirit in its relation to humanity.”[6] The
problem, Badcock writes, is that since the accidental sanctification of the
humanity of Jesus is a function of the incarnation, the work of the Holy Spirit
ends up appearing superfluous. Badcock goes on to examine Heribert Mühlen’s
corrective to the doctrine of accidental sanctification as a possible solution.
This is a new doctrine and new discussion for me. It has taken me quite a few
readings to get a grasp on the various terminology and ideas
being expressed. I have hardly mastered this doctrine, but I think I have not too
bad of an understanding of it now. One of the things that I have wondered as I have
read through this article is what kind of effect the doctrine of the communication
of attributes (communicatio idiomatum)
would have in this discussion. I will give two examples.
Badcock writes that the concept of human nature in the doctrine of accidental
sanctification is defective since it does not allow for “growth of movement in
Jesus’ human relation to God”; such development is “essential to human
existence,” and without it one cannot be human.[7] Reference the communicatio idiomatum, Lutheran
theologian A.G. Voigt writes:
“Full justice is not done to such declarations
[as found in Matt 9:6; 11:27, 28:18; John 5:27; Phil 3:21; Eph 4:10] by
attributing to the human nature of Christ only extraordinary, but limited
powers, while the divine properties are exclusively restricted to the divine
nature . . . . Such utterances show that the human nature participates in the
glories of the divine, that is, the attributes of the divine nature are in
their operation shared in by the human
nature.”[8]
Given the way that the human nature of Christ
shares in the divine nature, I wonder if Badcock’s statement about the
necessity of development as a requirement for being human is really valid for
Christ. If not, then there is no problem.
In another example, St. Thomas Aquinas writes that since the mission
of the Holy Spirit is to bestow habitual grace, and since the Holy Spirit
rested on Jesus, it is therefore evident that Jesus must have possessed
habitual grace. And, since Jesus’ human nature is not confused with the divine
after hypostatic union, it is therefore necessary that Jesus participate in the
divine just like any other man, i.e. through the reception of habitual grace by
the Holy Spirit.[9] In the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum Christ’s two
natures are not confused, but there is a true communion between them, and each
nature shares in the attributes of the other. Again, given the communication of
attributes between the divine and human natures, I wonder if St. Thomas’
statement about Christ having to participate in the divine just like any other
man (and hence the necessity for habitual grace) is accurate.
Regardless of whether my thoughts regarding the communication of attributes
are correct or not, this article has made me interested in doing further study
on this topic. I would like to think further on the necessity and benefits of
developing a christology with a broader pneumatic character.
______________________________
[1] Gary D. Badcock, Light of
Truth and Fire of Love (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company,
2016), 145-153.
[2] Ibid., 145-146.
[3] Ibid. 147.
[4] Ibid., 146-147. (for this whole paragraph)
[5] Ibid., 147.
[6] Ibid., 149.
[7] Ibid.
[8] A.G. Voigt, Biblical
Dogmatics, American Lutheran Classics Volume 3, ed. Jordan Cooper
(Fairfield, IA: Just and Sinner Publications, 2013), 126.
[9] Badcock, Light of Truth,
147.
No comments:
Post a Comment