It’s hip to be a traditionalist, but traditionalism isn’t just hip. It also provides us with our identity. The stability and strength of the Great Tradition are great boons for our sense of identity. The continuity that this tradition provides is indispensable in an age that has long exchanged the forms of Platonism for the fluidity of postmodernity. Still, it’s not just continuity per se that provides us with a sense of who we are. Rather, it’s the content of Christian Platonism that is a warrant for human identity: Christ as the form of forms and as our final end is the one who gives us the true perfection of our humanity.
Fr. Boersma - I can only hope you will respond to this comment...
You say, "[Christ] took on our human nature, such that his (divine) person assumed a universal human nature."
But, did He only "assume" it in the incarnation - or is He the very ground and Archetype of it for all eternity? Does our "identity" rest in what is to come - or, more fundamentally, is it not grounded in who we were made to be from the beginning?
Your language reflects a certain understanding of human anthropology that I have wondered much over in these my latter years: I am deeply intrigued by an idea that seems implicit in Scripture - but which is readily dismissed by most with whom I share it...
It's rather simple: We (all of humanity) are made "in the image of God" - AND, Jesus Christ IS "the image of God". Syllogistically combined, I find a catalytic explosion of possibilities in my imagination!
What it leads me to this conclusion (in brief) is the idea that Jesus Christ (in His eternally preexistent state, e.g., "Son of Man") is (somehow?) the eternal Archetype of humanity and therefore not only the "end" (telos) of humanity - but also it's "beginning". I believe this relates to Paul's "mystery", "hidden for the ages". I am not saying that Christ had a physical body before the incarnation - but that what happened is somewhat akin to what Charles Williams proposes in his novel, "The Place of the Lion"...
I think that the preexistence of “the Son of Man” introduces a richer idea – and that seeing Christ as the Archetype of Humanity (“THE image of God” that grounds us as being made “in the image of God”). Every human is “stamped” with His imprint as their Creator (Col.1:15-16). But this image is in disrepair and must be “renovated” (Col.3:10) according to the image of our Creator (especially relevant to Christ, who, as God’s Son, creates in Colossians 1, leaving the imprint of His own being as “the Image of God”)
I would love to hear you thoughts - even your corrections if you think I am wrong...
Yes, Wayne, I agree with you. “Inasmuch as the Savior existed beforehand,” writes Irenaeus, “it was necessary that what was to be saved should also exist, so that the Savior would not be something without a purpose” (haer. 3.22.3). For Irenaeus, the pre-existence of Christ as Savior called for the creation of human beings. Maximus similarly refused to treat the incarnation as an afterthought. The Confessor, writes Paul Blowers, “does not allow Christ himself to be treated merely as a deus ex machina introduced at the most strategic or climactic moment in this unfolding drama. Rather, the activity of Christ as the Logos and Wisdom of God saturates the drama from beginning to end.” And because creation exists always already with a view to Christ, Christ came not just to deal with human sin, but also—and primarily—with the purpose of securing the maturity or perfection (τελειότης) of Adamic being in the telos of the eternal Love that is God.
Dr. Boersma - thanks so much for your kindness in taking time to reply - and for your encouraging answer.
BTW - I was drawn into your orbit by way of a your endorsement of Markos' book, From Plato to Christ, where you said, "Christianity is incomprehensible without Platonism." I immediately resonated with such a bold claim - and how it counters what I more often hear or read: that the Church was corrupted by Augustine because of his Platonism, etc.
I intend to go deeper into your posts and your books which have so far been a stimulating encouragement to know and experience the riches hidden in Christ ever more deeply.
Aquinas is based on Aristotle, which based on Plato. Take Aquinas and you have the whole package, nicely incorporated into Christian thought. Without philosophy, we'll run in emotional circles
Sometimes I think Christian’s mistake Platonism for Gnosticism. It’s Gnosticism that taught that the demiurge created the material world in an attempt to trap aspects of the divine in materiality that leads to escapism.
Great thoughts to mull over more. Do you have any thoughts on how medieval Aristotelianism was even allowed to happen with the Christian Platonism of the early church? I understand the re-discovery of old manuscripts of Aristotle's work by the Persian world, but it seems like up to Boethius Platonism was writ-large.
I do have some thoughts on this. I'm finishing up a new book (tentatively called "Theophanizing Love") with a chapter that traces the modern emphasis on autonomous nature to the 12th century and, in part, to Aquinas's appropriation of Aristotle. I see the rise of medieval universities as undermining Benedictine (Christian Platonist) spirituality.
Fr. Boersma - I can only hope you will respond to this comment...
You say, "[Christ] took on our human nature, such that his (divine) person assumed a universal human nature."
But, did He only "assume" it in the incarnation - or is He the very ground and Archetype of it for all eternity? Does our "identity" rest in what is to come - or, more fundamentally, is it not grounded in who we were made to be from the beginning?
Your language reflects a certain understanding of human anthropology that I have wondered much over in these my latter years: I am deeply intrigued by an idea that seems implicit in Scripture - but which is readily dismissed by most with whom I share it...
It's rather simple: We (all of humanity) are made "in the image of God" - AND, Jesus Christ IS "the image of God". Syllogistically combined, I find a catalytic explosion of possibilities in my imagination!
What it leads me to this conclusion (in brief) is the idea that Jesus Christ (in His eternally preexistent state, e.g., "Son of Man") is (somehow?) the eternal Archetype of humanity and therefore not only the "end" (telos) of humanity - but also it's "beginning". I believe this relates to Paul's "mystery", "hidden for the ages". I am not saying that Christ had a physical body before the incarnation - but that what happened is somewhat akin to what Charles Williams proposes in his novel, "The Place of the Lion"...
I think that the preexistence of “the Son of Man” introduces a richer idea – and that seeing Christ as the Archetype of Humanity (“THE image of God” that grounds us as being made “in the image of God”). Every human is “stamped” with His imprint as their Creator (Col.1:15-16). But this image is in disrepair and must be “renovated” (Col.3:10) according to the image of our Creator (especially relevant to Christ, who, as God’s Son, creates in Colossians 1, leaving the imprint of His own being as “the Image of God”)
I would love to hear you thoughts - even your corrections if you think I am wrong...
Blessing and Peace!
Wayne Fair
(the "Sovereign Love" YouTube channel)
Yes, Wayne, I agree with you. “Inasmuch as the Savior existed beforehand,” writes Irenaeus, “it was necessary that what was to be saved should also exist, so that the Savior would not be something without a purpose” (haer. 3.22.3). For Irenaeus, the pre-existence of Christ as Savior called for the creation of human beings. Maximus similarly refused to treat the incarnation as an afterthought. The Confessor, writes Paul Blowers, “does not allow Christ himself to be treated merely as a deus ex machina introduced at the most strategic or climactic moment in this unfolding drama. Rather, the activity of Christ as the Logos and Wisdom of God saturates the drama from beginning to end.” And because creation exists always already with a view to Christ, Christ came not just to deal with human sin, but also—and primarily—with the purpose of securing the maturity or perfection (τελειότης) of Adamic being in the telos of the eternal Love that is God.
Dr. Boersma - thanks so much for your kindness in taking time to reply - and for your encouraging answer.
BTW - I was drawn into your orbit by way of a your endorsement of Markos' book, From Plato to Christ, where you said, "Christianity is incomprehensible without Platonism." I immediately resonated with such a bold claim - and how it counters what I more often hear or read: that the Church was corrupted by Augustine because of his Platonism, etc.
I intend to go deeper into your posts and your books which have so far been a stimulating encouragement to know and experience the riches hidden in Christ ever more deeply.
Thanks for your ministry to the Body of Christ!
Yours in Him,
Wayne
Aquinas is based on Aristotle, which based on Plato. Take Aquinas and you have the whole package, nicely incorporated into Christian thought. Without philosophy, we'll run in emotional circles
Sometimes I think Christian’s mistake Platonism for Gnosticism. It’s Gnosticism that taught that the demiurge created the material world in an attempt to trap aspects of the divine in materiality that leads to escapism.
Great thoughts to mull over more. Do you have any thoughts on how medieval Aristotelianism was even allowed to happen with the Christian Platonism of the early church? I understand the re-discovery of old manuscripts of Aristotle's work by the Persian world, but it seems like up to Boethius Platonism was writ-large.
I do have some thoughts on this. I'm finishing up a new book (tentatively called "Theophanizing Love") with a chapter that traces the modern emphasis on autonomous nature to the 12th century and, in part, to Aquinas's appropriation of Aristotle. I see the rise of medieval universities as undermining Benedictine (Christian Platonist) spirituality.
Will be looking for this new book. Gives me a great start to investigate the question more thank you Mr. Boersma!