Philosophers and Theologians question the usefulness of dualism – in some circles physicalism is the standard position
According to some – physicalism makes most sense of the world, especially in light of the work of some neuroscientists – Both the OT and NT teach monism
Substantivalist accounts of the Imago Dei – lend themselves toward physicalism
In spite of these developments – traditional dualism has been and should continue to be the position of the global church
“Most laypeople assume our capacity to sin requires dualism – and I agree”
Three accounts of physicalism that provide an attempt to say how moral responsibility is possible
Look at biblical material of sin
Argue that the biblical material requires dualism
Respond to one objection
Part 1
The hard problem of Consciousness
The “hard problem” on Sin
Three accounts: Green, Murphy, and Clayton
Part 2
Does Scripture have anything to say about human composition and sin?
Matthew 5:27-30 – The inner thought not the external act is the real location of the sin – there is an implicit anthropology here.
Romans 2:28-29 – Being outwardly Jewish is not sufficient – a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly – circumcision of the heart. This inward outward contrast is best understood with some form of dualism
Ezekiel 36 & Jeremiah 31 – The heart is understood metaphorically as talking about the inner person
Demons are immaterial creatures – and they are quintessential sinners – therefore one should think a body isn’t necessary for sin
Because we are embodied – sin has an embodied character but embodiment is not necessary for our sin
Summary
Physcialism can’t provide moral responsibility
Biblical data assumes doctrine of sin
One Objection – if one things theological determinism is true and still hold to moral responsibility, why not think physical determinism is true and hold to moral responsibility
First, theological determinism does not entail physical determinism
For the sake of argument lets conceded Calvinism entails physical determinism, this would be a problem if physical was all there is
Conclusion
Is this account too dogmatic? Is the problem that we have differing intuitions? But there are two main questions:
Does my Anthropology fit with current scientific findings?
Does my Anthropology fit with the dogmatic deliverances of the faith?
Most Christian physicalists acknowledge science cannot adjudicate the debate.
Not only is dualism more plausible given the reality of sin but also other doctrines: The intermediate state (Rev 6).
Does our theorizing actually preach, comfort the disturbed?
Our thoughts on this topic must also fit with our Christology
The following are notes from Frances Young’s plenary talk.
Slime Mold
Japanese Scientist “trained” them to make their way through a maze
A self-organizing organism that is greater than the sum of its parts
Emergence & feedback mechanisms – do we need to reimagine ourselves as constituting an organism that is greater than the sum of its parts?
David Kelsey
Shares some common themes – but today we take up a feature that lies outside of Kelsey’s definition
Personal living body with an unsubistitutable identity
Rules out participation in Christ
“It is human kind that is some sort of corporate whole that exhibits the image of God. However just what this means is unclear.”
Corporate Personality (Whole of Humanity Represented both in Adam and in Christ)
Central to early Christian understanding
Athanasius
He took humanity that we might share divinity
Does he think of Christ’s humanity as that of a particular human man or humanity in general?
To grasp the sweep of his story we need to take account of his apologetic concerns
There is an oscillation in Athanasius’ work between Humanity and Soul
The Death of all was fulfilled in the Lord’s body – he somehow dies the death of the whole human race – its impossible to do justice to patristic thought without taking into account the corporate whole of humanity
Athanasius and the Corporate Whole
Passages reflect Platonist intellectual background – particular cases acquire a certain property by participating in its absolute form.
Because he is the TRUE Son – particulars can participate in this form
The body of Christ – passing through death and resurrection – is absolute humanity – renewed and recreated – the humanity of Christ is some kind of coproprate whole and Athanasius’ theological schema will fall apart without it.
Two-fold scheme – Solidarity in Sin and Solidarity in Christ
Charles Taylor and The Modern Sources of the Self
Contrast “modern” anthropology & this participation model
We no longer think of ourselves collectively
The term community has crept in but it is a way of talking about individuals who feel they are in the same boat – they think relationships are ultimately about themselves and their own personal commitment
“The Hunger Angel”
However necessary it is to counter individualism with the emphasis on our communal nature does not actually reclaim the human corporations that we find in the patristic sources.
See the book “Think like an anthropologist” – we are all interconnected – scientific study upholds a view of a universal human nature – the intertwining of narratives is a way in which the particular and universal interact
Back to Slime Mold
Through feedback mechanism individuals become part of a larger whole
By emergence we have the capacity to reappropriate something like the corporate personality of the patristics
Rought notes on Marc Cortez’s LATC 2018 Plenary Talk
Christology as basis for establishing anthropology
Hedgie the Hedgehog
Why should Hedgie be seen as paradigmatic?
Establishing that JC is perfect human – how can we make the jump to making claims about true humanity….
Irenaeus as a conversation partner for thinking why JC should be the basis for our theological anthropology
Humans are made in the image of God
Jesus is the True image of God
How does Irenaeus unpack this? What are the implications? Four Claims
TA must be rooted in the embodied humanity of Christ
TA must be rooted in the eternal identity of the son
TA must recognize the ontological and epistemological priority of Christ over Adam
TA must be studied in such a way that does not completely bifurcate nature and grace (I did not fully catch this 4th point)
Claim 1
The very idea of an image requires an embodied form – the son must have a visible and determinate form
The body is intrinsic to the Imago Dei – Man not a part was made in the likeness of God. The perfect man consists of the comingling of soul and flesh
The fashioning of the human flesh is intimately connected to Christ – Humanity is patterned according to the pattern of the incarnate Christ
The imago is Christological in the sense that we see the reality that all persons are directed towards the Triune God
No biblical passages prove this but there is biblical warrant
Claim 2
What does it mean for I to claim that human nature in the manger is logically prior to the humanity in Genesis 1?
Means archetype of humanity exists eternally even though it has not been instantiated
Maybe it’s a divine idea – maybe Christ is the historical idealization of that idea
I never posits an eternal idea…. The archetype of humanity is always the person of JC himself (Does a Gnostic background inform why he never did this?)
Schleiermacher & James Dunn
Jesus just is the idea of humanity – the driving person behind the act of creation
This however may overshadow the son’s existence in eternity
The Son’s identity has been shaped eternally in virtue of the incarnation
Claim 3
Adam does not simply prefigure Christ – Adam was consequent on Christ – his humanity has been shaped by the archetype which is Christ
There is at least one sense in which Christ is ontologically dependent upon Adam
For JC to be fully Human he had to receive his humanity from Adam – to claim J could have received a different kind of humanity – would be problematic for our salvation – he would be instantiating a new kind of humanity rather than recapitulating the humanity which started with Adam
How come – looking at the ontologically secondary being (Adam) wouldn’t be a good way to figure out what humanity is all about?
I thinks we need to maintain C’s epistemological priority?
I says because Adam wasn’t perfect…. They are not yet complete and hadn’t fully grown yet
Even though Humanity was created in the image in the beginning we don’t truly see what humanity is until the advent of Christ
“Adam and Even give only a dim impression of what it means to be in the image of God.” – Boersma
Does this approach do justice to the canonical form of the biblical message about Humanity?
Don’t we already know what it means to be human when JC is born? The logic of cannon and creed seems to indicate we already know what it means to be human prior to the incarnation
We can know other things about humans….
Studying humanity in general can and should provide some insight into humanity (learn about the Mona lisa by studying a replica) – move is complicated by falleness of humanity (someone wrote all over the mona lisa)
The developmental account does not denigrate the fact that we can know something about humanity from stages prior to the incarnation. (Studying Marc Cortez as a 7th grader can give you some info about Marc Cortez today). This means we shouldn’t neglect the study of Humanity in its history prior to Christ
Claim 4
Doesn’t lead us to distinguish between Nature and Grace
This developmental model provides some basis for interdisciplinary studies of human nature
In addition to understanding humanity through the lens of the natural – we are required to study humanity in the state of Grace too
Conclusion
Although Hedgie might be the cutest hedgehog to ever walk the earth – it seems reasonable to claim that not hedgehog forms the epistemological or ontological basis for all other hedgehogs.
On I’s view of the Imago Dei we have something very different with the embodied humanity of JC. We have the actualization in history – the archetype – of humanity. For I that is the only adequate ground upon which to base a theological conception of the human person.
This year LATC came back to Fuller Seminary. I will be trying to post my notes from the plenary sessions on this blog. However, this year I am helping to co-cordinate the event, so I may not fully catch all the talks or all the content of each talk!
Plenary Speakers
Marc Cortez- Wheaton College Nature, Grace, and the Christological Ground of Humanity
Megan DeFranza – Boston University School of Theology Imago Dei: Theological Anthropology in a Hall of Mirrors
Hans Madueme – Covenant College “Man’s Heart is the Seat of All Evils:” A Theological Argument for Dualism
Ian McFarland – University of Cambridge “The Upward Call:’ The Category of Vocation and the Oddness of Human Nature
Frances Young – University of Birmingham Adam and Christ: Human Solidarity Before God
