Physicalist Christology?

Comments

2 responses to “Physicalist Christology?”

1. 

   Jonathan Barber

   August 8, 2024

   It is said, there are no new heresies, just a rehashing of the old ones. From your account it seems that Merricks has a good attempt at rehashing the heresy of Appolinaris, who held that the Logos takes the place of the human soul in the incarnate Christ. To which Athanasius (I think it was he) replied with the famous two word refutation: ‘aproslepton, atherapeuton’ – ‘that which has not been assumed is not remedied’.

   Reply
2. 

   BV

   August 8, 2024

   Jonathan,
   Your characterization of the Appolinarian heresy is accurate, but I don’t see that Merricks can be taxed with it. On the heresy in question, the Logos is to the man Jesus as rational soul is to the body of Socrates. That is a substance dualist way of thinking; Merricks, however, holds that Socrates and his body are one and the same.
   The Athanasian refutation of Appolinaris seems correct: for humans to be ‘remedied,’ i.e. redeemed, the Logos must take on or assume the whole man, body, sensitive soul and rational soul and not just the body and sensitive soul.

   Reply