Sin condemned in flesh

Here is what incarnation means: God the Son takes all of our broken humanity to Himself, embraces it, lives in it and with it, keeps faith with His Father through it all, even to death. And in His death, He takes our ruin to the grave. The cross is the death of twisted humanity, God’s . . . . Continue Reading »

Unto death

John Meyendorff gets the nub of Cyrillian - one is tempted to say simply orthodox - Christology in this brief statement: “God without ceasing to be God, made human nature his own to the point of mortality.” God joins Himself to humanity, makes it His, and won’t let go. Even death . . . . Continue Reading »

Baptismal meditation

Galatians 4: When the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent for the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, . . . . Continue Reading »

Exhortation, First Advent

Christians often have a hard time with the incarnation. How can an exalted, sovereign God become flesh? This question starts from the wrong end. Instead of trying to learn about God and then trying to make sense of the incarnation, we should learn of God as the God of the incarnation. “The . . . . Continue Reading »

Extra-Augustinisticum

Barth provides a flurry of quotations to demonstrate that Calvin’s Christology was perfectly catholic. Augustine wrote, “Quando in forma servi et mediator esset, infra angelos esse voluit in forma Dei supra angelos mansit; idem in inferioribus via vitae qui in superioribus vita.” . . . . Continue Reading »

En and An

Barth ( CD 1.2) gives an powerful exposition of the crucial importance of anhypostasis and enhypostasis as Christological concepts. The first refers to the “impersonal” character of the human nature, and the second to the notion that the human nature exists only as the human nature of . . . . Continue Reading »

Cheers for scholasticism

Barth ( CD 1.2) defends the church father’s from Herder’s charges of intellectualism and scholasticism. He sees two objections in Herder’s complaint: a “formal” objection to the meticulousness of patristic Christology, and a “material” objection that the . . . . Continue Reading »