Flesh and Blood

A Dogmatic Sketch Concerning the Fallen Nature View of Christ's Human Nature

Daniel Jordan Cameron

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781498232739
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Church

If you were told that Christ assumed a fallen human nature, how would you respond? This statement makes many uncomfortable because they believe that to agree with this statement would sacrifice the sinlessness of Jesus. Others have said that this view is heretical and completely undermines what scripture teaches. But does it? In Flesh and Blood, Daniel J. Cameron examines this idea and its critics, such as Oliver Crisp and Kevin Chiarot, to see if it is possible to say that Christ did in fact assume a fallen human nature. Daniel examines one of the most well known proponents of this view, T.F. Torrance, to see if his arguments can overcome those who have critiqued him. Daniel begins by explaining the fallen nature view from the perspective of Torrance. He then moves to explain some of the biggest critiques of this view and then, in chapter 4, seeks to find an answer to the critics. This book ends by examining the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of Christ as it pertains to this question.

Chapter 1

Setting the Stage

“For that which he has not assumed he has not healed; but that which is united to his Godhead is also saved.”

Gregory of Nazinanzus

I was at church recently and we were in the middle of our time of musical worship when we began singing a song that most people are probably familiar with, “Jesus Messiah” by Chris Tomlin. The lyrics began, “He became sin, who knew no sin, that we might become his righteousness.”1 Tomlin is quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21. When I have heard this verse explained it is usually in the context of defending the sinlessness of Christ, which I am a fan of, but I don’t recall ever addressing “he became sin.” I do believe that this is because we like to look over the things that we don’t quickly understand, or the things for which there is not an easy answer. Sadly, I think that this topic has become one of the topics that we ignore because it is a hard topic without an easy answer. In a recent conversation I had with a friend about this after I explained what this book would be about he asked me this question, “Do I need to know this to get into heaven?” Of course the answer to this question is no, but should that stop us from trying to understand it? The answer to that question should be an emphatic no! In theology it can be hard to hold the tension between doctrines such as the full deity of Christ and his full humanity. I believe that we have become so afraid of those that wish to make Jesus out to be simply a man,2 we have lost sight of the reality that he was truly man just like us and his humanity has an important part to play in our atonement and it is not purely for the sake of mortality.

So I ask, in what ways, and using what language, must we speak of the “flesh” of Jesus Christ? This is a question that many have sought to answer. It is a question that we must discuss so that we do not fall into Docetism or Nestorianism, etc. This also raises the question of the status of his human nature. Is it fallen, like the status of our nature currently, or is it unfallen, similar to that of Adam before the fall? This is a question has seemingly been on the forefront of current theological conversation. Luke Stamps has spoken of this topic for the Gospel Coalition as recently as 2012.3 Oliver Crisp published an article in the International Journal of Systematic Theology in 2003 on this topic.4 Kelly Kapic wrote an article in the IJST in 2001.5 Ian McFarland, in 2008, published an article for IJST as well.6 This is not simply a recent conversation though, as there is a section in the Monthly record of the Free Church of Scotland in 1984 entitled “Did Christ have a Fallen Human Nature?”7 To which T. F. Torrance responded through a letter to the editor.8

Those who want to affirm that Christ assumed a fallen human nature “are often interpreted as sacrificing the sinlessness of Jesus,”9 and thus sinners still need a savior. On the other side of the debate, those who want to affirm an unfallen human nature are often accused of presenting a Jesus who is not “truly man, thus losing the soteriological significance of his life, death, resurrection and ascension.”10 It is a debate that needs much clarity if we desire to move forward at all.11

This brings me to the purpose and significance of this project. First, the discussion of the full humanity of Christ has been the topic of discussion for centuries, even leading to the demise of those who held what was considered unorthodox. This study is an attempt to work towards a better understanding of the full humanity of Christ. Second, I desire to show that there are arguments that can answer some of the problems proposed by defenders of the unfallen camp. Third, I hope to bring additional clarity to the discussion and put this discussion in its rightful category within dogmatic rank.

In order to accomplish the above purposes I will be using the theology of two of the main proponents of the debate, Oliver Crisp (unfallen) and T. F. Torrance (fallen). I will attempt to exposit the doctrine as held by these two theologians creating a sort of theological dialogue between the two theologians.

Why did I choose Crisp? I was reading Crisp’s article “Did Christ Have a Fallen Human Nature?”12 and the first and most obvious reason that I chose him is that he has this article and a few other writings specifically on the topic of Christ’s assumption of a fallen or unfallen human nature.

The second reason that I chose Crisp has to do with T. F. Torrance. In the above named article, Dr. Crisp attempts to make an argument for Christ’s assumption of an unfallen human nature while arguing against those who hold that he assumed a fallen human nature. He names Karl Barth, James Torrance, Edward Irving, etc. but does not give mention to T. F. Torrance. Since James Torrance has only published one book and T. F. Torrance has published many more, many that have to deal precisely with this topic, I thought it unfair that James Torrance gets treatment while the more prolific T. F. Torrance is not even mentioned. Instead of using an already existing argument, Dr. Crisp creates his own version of an argument for fallenness in order to show its shortcomings ultimately declaring the fallenness argument invalid and unorthodox. He claims, “any such candidate argument has to overcome apparently insuperable difficulties posed by this view, difficulties to do with the fact that fallenness requires original sin.”13

My third reason in choosing Dr. Crisp is to take this statement as a challenge to see if there is a candidate argument that can overcome the difficulties posed. Since T. F. Torrance was not addressed by Crisp, I am using his argument as the candidate argument.

The fourth reason that I chose Crisp is his statement that the argument he proposed for the fallenness view “appears to be fatally flawed if one wishes to retain a Chalcedonian Christology.”14 He attempts to achieve this in three stages. First, he looks at the “theological problem original sin poses for defenders o...

Table of contents

• Preface
• Chapter 1: Setting the Stage
• Chapter 2: Understanding the Fallen Nature View
• Chapter 3: Is Fallenness a Problem?
• Chapter 4: Searching for Answers
• Chapter 5: Christ and the Spirit
• Appendix: Discovering Torrance
• Bibliography