The human nature of Christ, fallen or unfallen?: a comparative analysis of the Christologies of Pannenberg and Hatdzidakis with reference to the Seventh-day Adventist Church debate

Abstract

Did Christ, in the incarnation, take a fallen or unfallen human nature? This question, in its various forms, has occupied the Christian Church for as long as it has existed. For the Seventh-day Adventist church, to which tradition I belong, the question centres on whether Christ as a human being had sinful tendencies or not. This question has divided the church into two main camps, with one camp saying he did, and the other saying he did not. And the debate goes on. It is from the Seventh-day Adventist church tradition that I picked up on this debate, following it up to mainstream Christianity and motivating this research. My research seeks to identify the causes of the debate. Its premise is that unless the specific causes of the debate are clearly identified and appropriately addressed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to conclude it. For a close analysis, two scholars, each representing one side, are picked and examined: Pannenberg, representing the fallen nature position, and Hatzidakis, representing the unfallen nature position. Their respective arguments are gleaned, compared and analysed; and their differences, causes and possible solutions are pointed out. The findings are then applied to the Seventh-day Adventist church debate and to Christianity at large.