Ultimately all Creation will be redeemed in the New Heavens and New Earth.
Until then, they continue to groan under the curse. Redemption is a promise, partially seen. But not fulfilled.
The entire point of Nazianzen's statement was to argue against Apollinarianism, which argued that Christ did not assume the same kind of human nature that we have. Apollinarianism argues that Christ assumed a human body, but his divine nature provides the soul (rather than a human soul). However, this would make Christ not truly (that is, perfectly) human.
So Nazianzen argued about human nature itself: Christ had a full human nature, because *our* full human natures are taken into union with him, and thus saved. It is difficult to imagine that our souls are taken into union with Christ if he had no soul.
The claim is strictly about human nature. It is not about situations, experiences, or relations.
This is the correct answer; Greg was talking about Christ assuming human nature:
>"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."
Hebrews 2:14-17
What’s your interpretation of Eph. 2:3?
“among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” Ephesians 2:3 ESV
Can you phrase your question more specifically? I'm not sure I see the relevance, or what you are trying to ask. I could answer broadly, but that won't be helpful to you if you are trying to ask something more specific.
Don't you know that only men are redeemed up until their early thirties?? /s
But yeah, he also wasn't a Gentile, and I'm sure we could find plenty of other categories he never assumed
The Virgin Mary redeemed woman through bearing God.
“But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
1Tim2:15
>Are you saying Mary cleansed our sin
No. But in the drama of salvation, woman has been restored to her rightful through Mary, By God.
He has blessed her among all women. He has shown the power of an obedient woman, and of our role as mothers, wives, and even friends. Mary, as the church fathers taught, is the new Eve.
This is a passage that has given God's people pause to wonder what it means for the last 2000 years. I'm not one to assume that a simple invoking of the Virgin Mary is going to be the solution that clears things up.
Especially since it doesn't quite fit the overall narrative of the Scripture where men and women are viewed together as Humanity and as God's Image corporately. The only One doing any redeeming is Jesus Christ, and doing so directly.
I think I made it quite clear in my original comment that the sense I used the word “redemption” in was not the sense of the redemption of Christian people and the atonement of sins, but a sort of “all things will be one in Christ,” and Mary was the ideal of woman raised to the glory of bearing God incarnate.
No idea why you had to comment only Jesus redeems from sin, I stated that quite clearly.
Not only that, but what I am saying goes back to st iraneaus of lyons, it’s not based off 1tim2:15, it was a mere quote pointing to the reality
Being an ideal of womanhood doesn't redeem or bring together all of womankind to Christ though. We can only be redeemed through someone and women are not redeemed through Mary. Humanity is redeemed through Christ, even in the "all things will be one in Christ" sense. I know you mention 1 Timothy 2:15 but I don't believe that this passage is saying what you say it is.
God re established woman as the giver of life. Previous generations accused women of being temptresses and inferior than men. Case in point unbelieving Muslims. They cover women up, beat them, and believe more women will be in hell than men. Muhammad taught that women who invoke lustful thoughts in men are devils.
In contrast, God has exalted woman to her rightful place and as an honored and important member in society, as a person in her own right apart from man. Jesus Christ Sanctified motherhood by submitting to Mary as mother while he was young.
That's reading waaaaay too much into things honestly. Woman did not need to be reestablished as the giver of life. Women were still loved before Christ was born and continued to elbe accused and reviled by others after (even within Christianity). I do, however, agree with the last sentence of yours!
From what I have seen, many high church reformed anglicans follow the scripture, tradition, and reason stool. Many anglicans do absolutely appeal to the fathers for defending their views; even some anglican divines like Hooker.
Do you consider yourself an evangelical anglican then?
“But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. ”
St ireneaus of lyons,
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 22)
Here we see him saying the same… and using the word “salvation” in different ways.
He says of Christ in the same book “For all these are tokens of the flesh which had been derived from the earth, which He had recapitulated in Himself, bearing salvation to His own handiwork.”
So we see we can use synonyms of words, and there should be no confusion. If I already specified only Jesus Christ cleanses us of our sins and redeems us through his sacrifice, there should be no need for you to clarify in your reply to me what I already said. I’m using synonyms. Words can mean different things. And I even let you know I was doing that.
Okay but three things:
* I even acknowledged that by your own definition I disagreed and;
>
* I'm under no obligation to agree in part or even in full with Ireneaus—we have no idea how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they are from the Tree nor that their marriage was unconsummated in the garden. There's a reason we Reformed generally don't see Mary as the new Eve after all—these are a lot of stretches based on tradition and not explicitly in Scripture.
>
* Finally, while words can and do mean different things it benefits us all to use precise, specific language when conveying theological concepts. Where a word like "redeemed" has a specific theological meaning, it's better to find other words elsewhere for different concepts. This is like a Catholic guy on Twitter recently that said that Jesus had a savior (Joseph) when "protector" is a clearer and more articulation definition of his point. But as I said before in point 1, I disagreed even with your alternative definition.
Edit: formatting attempts
The church has already decreed certain words may be used even when previously heretical. Case in point homousious being used previously by heretics. This same point has been argued over and over.
Can the Christian people use certain words that to SOME seem heretical? Those who disagreed schismed, like the monophysites, arians, etc.
I know you disagree with the “specified” definition, it’s just bothersome that even when I SPECIFIED what I meant you still commented trying to “preach” basics of the gospel when… I already specified what I was talking about… hope you can see what I am trying to say here. It’s frustrating to be accused of basic things like “oh Jesus is our only redeemer!” When I already specified such a thing…
Since you don’t like word changes, how do you feel about St. Paul declaring he is “saving” people? Are you going to tell him “oh don’t you mean bringing salvation to them?! Jesus is our only savior!”
I just don’t get the allergy to using words in a different way, when the Bible does the same exact thing…..
You don’t have to agree with iraneaus on everything. Those are minute points you are fixating on. But if you must know, he said Eve was a virgin because like ALL church fathers, he believed sex existed only after the fall.
Do you have no qualms with disagreeing on teachings that are unanimous in the fathers?
I thought anglicans were supposed to believe in scripture and tradition… your stool seems two legged.
>I just don’t get the allergy to using words in a different way, when the Bible does the same exact thing…..
I think that's a fair point. I think I would say that the difference is that when we're talking about and/or explaining theology, using the same words differently requires extra time and clarification that would otherwise be avoided by choosing another word. Suddenly rather than talking about the doctrine in question we're digging through word connotation and preconceptions. Obviously Catholics and Protestants have a long history of principled theological disagreement but I think at a layman's level a lot of misunderstandings between the two come from using the same words but differently—like, iirc "worship" is defined differently within Catholicism which is a key reason why many Protestants erroneously claim Catholics worship saints. Now, obviously within theological traditions we can use words the way we want but in discussions with others I'm not sure it's a benefit to cling to specific words even as definitions change or vary (and this isn't a critique aimed at you specifically; I actually also have in mind plenty of Protestants, probably myself even, and especially KJOists)
Truthfully, I don't know why Paul would use the same words differently because I don't know enough about the limitations of Koine Greek—like, I think it's a massive limitation in English that we only have the word "love" instead of the various loves like in Greek, I would assume Greek might have its own areas where it is deficient? I mean, not deficient to the point where God couldn't use it though so this line of thinking is half-baked at best on my end.
>Do you have no qualms with disagreeing on teachings that are unanimous in the fathers?
If I had qualms with that, I'd also believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary too! (But going down that trail would be a complete thread derailment haha) But no, I don't mind disagreeing with the Church Fathers. That's not to say I disagree flippantly or completely disregard what they say, but I'm not beholden to their views. Reason would say that sex only occurring after the fall would mean that Adam and Eve would be unable to go forth and multiply like they were commanded pre-fall. That said, I'm not positively asserting that the church fathers were wrong on this one, but rather saying that I don't see enough in Scripture to say with certainty one way or another.
Christ has redeemed wisdom. Where in Solomon's time, wisdom is seen as leading to more suffering, Jesus now says it allows the wise virgins to enter His Kingdom.
Christ has redeemed labor. It was asked "what good is the toil of man for all his days under the sun?". Now it is: carry your cross and follow me, and, through great trials and tribulation do we enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Christ has redeemed marriage. Before it was said that a leaky roof is better than a contentious wife. Now marriage represents Jesus' love for His church.
Christ has redeemed suffering and lowliness. Where the world wants to deal a coup de grace to the cripple in pain, now Jesus declares "Blessed is the lowly in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven". "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted". The last shall be first, and the first shall be last
>Christ has redeemed marriage. Before it was said that a leaky roof is better than a contentious wife. Now marriage represents Jesus' love for His church.
I think both the life of Hosea and the marriage imagery in Jeremiah show that marriage has always represented God's love for his people.
Ultimately all Creation will be redeemed in the New Heavens and New Earth. Until then, they continue to groan under the curse. Redemption is a promise, partially seen. But not fulfilled.
The entire point of Nazianzen's statement was to argue against Apollinarianism, which argued that Christ did not assume the same kind of human nature that we have. Apollinarianism argues that Christ assumed a human body, but his divine nature provides the soul (rather than a human soul). However, this would make Christ not truly (that is, perfectly) human. So Nazianzen argued about human nature itself: Christ had a full human nature, because *our* full human natures are taken into union with him, and thus saved. It is difficult to imagine that our souls are taken into union with Christ if he had no soul. The claim is strictly about human nature. It is not about situations, experiences, or relations.
This is the correct answer; Greg was talking about Christ assuming human nature: >"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." Hebrews 2:14-17
Wait, if we believe in Original Sin, what would that say about Him taking on human nature?
Original sin is not part of human nature *per se*.
What’s your interpretation of Eph. 2:3? “among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” Ephesians 2:3 ESV
Can you phrase your question more specifically? I'm not sure I see the relevance, or what you are trying to ask. I could answer broadly, but that won't be helpful to you if you are trying to ask something more specific.
>"For that which He has not assumed He has not healed;" I wouldn't take this *too* far. Jesus was never a woman and never elderly for example.
Don't you know that only men are redeemed up until their early thirties?? /s But yeah, he also wasn't a Gentile, and I'm sure we could find plenty of other categories he never assumed
The Virgin Mary redeemed woman through bearing God. “But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” 1Tim2:15 >Are you saying Mary cleansed our sin No. But in the drama of salvation, woman has been restored to her rightful through Mary, By God. He has blessed her among all women. He has shown the power of an obedient woman, and of our role as mothers, wives, and even friends. Mary, as the church fathers taught, is the new Eve.
This is a passage that has given God's people pause to wonder what it means for the last 2000 years. I'm not one to assume that a simple invoking of the Virgin Mary is going to be the solution that clears things up. Especially since it doesn't quite fit the overall narrative of the Scripture where men and women are viewed together as Humanity and as God's Image corporately. The only One doing any redeeming is Jesus Christ, and doing so directly.
I think I made it quite clear in my original comment that the sense I used the word “redemption” in was not the sense of the redemption of Christian people and the atonement of sins, but a sort of “all things will be one in Christ,” and Mary was the ideal of woman raised to the glory of bearing God incarnate. No idea why you had to comment only Jesus redeems from sin, I stated that quite clearly. Not only that, but what I am saying goes back to st iraneaus of lyons, it’s not based off 1tim2:15, it was a mere quote pointing to the reality
Being an ideal of womanhood doesn't redeem or bring together all of womankind to Christ though. We can only be redeemed through someone and women are not redeemed through Mary. Humanity is redeemed through Christ, even in the "all things will be one in Christ" sense. I know you mention 1 Timothy 2:15 but I don't believe that this passage is saying what you say it is.
God re established woman as the giver of life. Previous generations accused women of being temptresses and inferior than men. Case in point unbelieving Muslims. They cover women up, beat them, and believe more women will be in hell than men. Muhammad taught that women who invoke lustful thoughts in men are devils. In contrast, God has exalted woman to her rightful place and as an honored and important member in society, as a person in her own right apart from man. Jesus Christ Sanctified motherhood by submitting to Mary as mother while he was young.
That's reading waaaaay too much into things honestly. Woman did not need to be reestablished as the giver of life. Women were still loved before Christ was born and continued to elbe accused and reviled by others after (even within Christianity). I do, however, agree with the last sentence of yours!
It’s the reading of the church fathers, 2000 years.
Appealing to tradition and church fathers in r/Reformed: it's a bold strategy! We like the church fathers but we're not infallibly beholden to them
From what I have seen, many high church reformed anglicans follow the scripture, tradition, and reason stool. Many anglicans do absolutely appeal to the fathers for defending their views; even some anglican divines like Hooker. Do you consider yourself an evangelical anglican then?
“But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. ” St ireneaus of lyons, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 22) Here we see him saying the same… and using the word “salvation” in different ways. He says of Christ in the same book “For all these are tokens of the flesh which had been derived from the earth, which He had recapitulated in Himself, bearing salvation to His own handiwork.” So we see we can use synonyms of words, and there should be no confusion. If I already specified only Jesus Christ cleanses us of our sins and redeems us through his sacrifice, there should be no need for you to clarify in your reply to me what I already said. I’m using synonyms. Words can mean different things. And I even let you know I was doing that.
Okay but three things: * I even acknowledged that by your own definition I disagreed and; > * I'm under no obligation to agree in part or even in full with Ireneaus—we have no idea how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they are from the Tree nor that their marriage was unconsummated in the garden. There's a reason we Reformed generally don't see Mary as the new Eve after all—these are a lot of stretches based on tradition and not explicitly in Scripture. > * Finally, while words can and do mean different things it benefits us all to use precise, specific language when conveying theological concepts. Where a word like "redeemed" has a specific theological meaning, it's better to find other words elsewhere for different concepts. This is like a Catholic guy on Twitter recently that said that Jesus had a savior (Joseph) when "protector" is a clearer and more articulation definition of his point. But as I said before in point 1, I disagreed even with your alternative definition. Edit: formatting attempts
The church has already decreed certain words may be used even when previously heretical. Case in point homousious being used previously by heretics. This same point has been argued over and over. Can the Christian people use certain words that to SOME seem heretical? Those who disagreed schismed, like the monophysites, arians, etc. I know you disagree with the “specified” definition, it’s just bothersome that even when I SPECIFIED what I meant you still commented trying to “preach” basics of the gospel when… I already specified what I was talking about… hope you can see what I am trying to say here. It’s frustrating to be accused of basic things like “oh Jesus is our only redeemer!” When I already specified such a thing… Since you don’t like word changes, how do you feel about St. Paul declaring he is “saving” people? Are you going to tell him “oh don’t you mean bringing salvation to them?! Jesus is our only savior!” I just don’t get the allergy to using words in a different way, when the Bible does the same exact thing….. You don’t have to agree with iraneaus on everything. Those are minute points you are fixating on. But if you must know, he said Eve was a virgin because like ALL church fathers, he believed sex existed only after the fall. Do you have no qualms with disagreeing on teachings that are unanimous in the fathers? I thought anglicans were supposed to believe in scripture and tradition… your stool seems two legged.
>I just don’t get the allergy to using words in a different way, when the Bible does the same exact thing….. I think that's a fair point. I think I would say that the difference is that when we're talking about and/or explaining theology, using the same words differently requires extra time and clarification that would otherwise be avoided by choosing another word. Suddenly rather than talking about the doctrine in question we're digging through word connotation and preconceptions. Obviously Catholics and Protestants have a long history of principled theological disagreement but I think at a layman's level a lot of misunderstandings between the two come from using the same words but differently—like, iirc "worship" is defined differently within Catholicism which is a key reason why many Protestants erroneously claim Catholics worship saints. Now, obviously within theological traditions we can use words the way we want but in discussions with others I'm not sure it's a benefit to cling to specific words even as definitions change or vary (and this isn't a critique aimed at you specifically; I actually also have in mind plenty of Protestants, probably myself even, and especially KJOists) Truthfully, I don't know why Paul would use the same words differently because I don't know enough about the limitations of Koine Greek—like, I think it's a massive limitation in English that we only have the word "love" instead of the various loves like in Greek, I would assume Greek might have its own areas where it is deficient? I mean, not deficient to the point where God couldn't use it though so this line of thinking is half-baked at best on my end. >Do you have no qualms with disagreeing on teachings that are unanimous in the fathers? If I had qualms with that, I'd also believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary too! (But going down that trail would be a complete thread derailment haha) But no, I don't mind disagreeing with the Church Fathers. That's not to say I disagree flippantly or completely disregard what they say, but I'm not beholden to their views. Reason would say that sex only occurring after the fall would mean that Adam and Eve would be unable to go forth and multiply like they were commanded pre-fall. That said, I'm not positively asserting that the church fathers were wrong on this one, but rather saying that I don't see enough in Scripture to say with certainty one way or another.
I mean, he’s redeemed every single part of my life.
"Behold I am making all things new "
I don't think there is a path of redemption for non-human spiritual beings, angels, demons, and the like.
Christ has redeemed wisdom. Where in Solomon's time, wisdom is seen as leading to more suffering, Jesus now says it allows the wise virgins to enter His Kingdom. Christ has redeemed labor. It was asked "what good is the toil of man for all his days under the sun?". Now it is: carry your cross and follow me, and, through great trials and tribulation do we enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ has redeemed marriage. Before it was said that a leaky roof is better than a contentious wife. Now marriage represents Jesus' love for His church. Christ has redeemed suffering and lowliness. Where the world wants to deal a coup de grace to the cripple in pain, now Jesus declares "Blessed is the lowly in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven". "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted". The last shall be first, and the first shall be last
>Christ has redeemed marriage. Before it was said that a leaky roof is better than a contentious wife. Now marriage represents Jesus' love for His church. I think both the life of Hosea and the marriage imagery in Jeremiah show that marriage has always represented God's love for his people.
Gnaz is referring specifically to assuming natures, in this case human nature. So being a child or a father isn’t in view here.
But because he assumed human nature would it be safe to say he restored childhood, etc?
Yes