Christology for Protestants

[Notquitewetyet]

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary said recently about issues in not calling oneself Christian that "The first is Christology. What about the full divinity of Christ?"

Evangelicals say this a lot and are fond of this topic, but what do they mean? The councils that defined orthodox Christology, duophysite, say that Christ is fully God and fully man at the same time. Of course there are the miaphysites (or monophysites, a term they dislike) and then the Nestorians. So what does Richard Mouw mean? Does he follow Calvin in saying that Christ is "autotheos" God of his own nature or do they follow Nicene orthodoxy which holds Christ is "true God from true God, begotten not made" which seems to militate against an autotheos nature of Christ? And how do Protestants honestly support Chalcedonian and Nicene formulations when by that time the veneration of relics, icons, and statues, plus a definite structured priesthood led by an episcopal authority, all things which evangelicals (and Presbyterians such as Mouw) utterly reject, but these men are the ones who decided the definitions by which heretic vs. true believer â?¢ was established? But I really get confused by the doctrinaire spin Mouw et al. are fond of using when it comes to defining and defending dogma. Now as Mouw is a nice guy, I mean this in full candidness. I'm interested in hearing responses from Protestants/non-CatholicOrthodx (especially those groups that reject an episcopal structure).

[Notquitewetyet]

no takers?

[3DOP]

no takers?

I was a Baptist minister. I hesitated to answer because you limited your field to Protestants and I am no longer so.

There was no concern for Nicea or Chalcedon in my Bible school, or in the churches that I pastored. I took a church history class which disdained the notion that we should uphold the Catholic creeds and councils with their sacramental theology and authoritarian hierarchy. Mouw would have been one more liberal from a neo-evangelical school who has no more authority to define what makes a Christian than the pope. I believed Christ was God and if I had thought about it, perhaps man.

Being Catholic now, I obviously don't have a quarrel with your argument, but nor would I have twenty years ago when I had already been a church going Protestant for eleven years and a pastor for four with no qualms about rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church.

Rory

[TOmNossor]

And how do Protestants honestly support Chalcedonian and Nicene formulations when by that time the veneration of relics, icons, and statues, plus a definite structured priesthood led by an episcopal authority, all things which evangelicals (and Presbyterians such as Mouw) utterly reject, but these men are the ones who decided the definitions by which heretic vs. true believer â?¢ was established?

I wanted to reproduced this sections. There are some non-Catholic, non-LDS Christians on this board who I respect a great deal, but the idea you presented above has almost single handedly SUNK the Protestant truth claims for me. The fact that I see the SEEDS of the ministry in the Bible and the very ECF is added to the above.

The folks who defined the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, and even the books of the NT were correct in an inerrant way; all the while claiming ordained authority and developing the structure of the ministry (beyond what was present in the Bible and the very early church). And the ordained authority they claimed and they developed was totally human and flawed despite their PERFECTION in other important theological areas.

I define â??liberalâ? differently that Rory does. A liberal non-LDS Christian is one who sees the hand of the human in much of the early church. Humans took to themselves increased authority and power developing the ministry. Humans defined theological ideas often as a pretense for taking power to themselves. Humans selected the books of the Bible and preserved them well, but not necessarily inerrantly. This position seems more defendable than the more mainline Protestant position be that mainline Protestant a â??creedal Protestantâ? (who boldly embraces all or much of the first four Ecumenical Council) or a non-creedal Protestant (who generally embraces the definitions of the first four ECs and almost without fail will utilize such definitions to explain why Mormons are outside the fold).

That being said, I think the early church was apostolic in that there was ordained authority present from the apostles (not apostolic in that this ordained authority was equivalent to the apostles or even sufficient to preclude a loss of essential authority). The authority either developed with divine guidance while it developed with divine guidance the definitions of the first four, first seven, and twenty-one Ecumenical Councils or it was largely a human endeavor. If human this equals apostasy IMO. If divine this points to Catholicism IMO. Very liberal Protestantism has some legs to stand on, but it is very late to the party.

I have little to say about your original question, but you might like to read this:

â??John Calvin: a tritheistic heritic???â?

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/10/...ic-heretic.html

Charity, TOm

[Mudcat]

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary said recently about issues in not calling oneself Christian that "The first is Christology. What about the full divinity of Christ?"

Evangelicals say this a lot and are fond of this topic, but what do they mean? The councils that defined orthodox Christology, duophysite, say that Christ is fully God and fully man at the same time. Of course there are the miaphysites (or monophysites, a term they dislike) and then the Nestorians. So what does Richard Mouw mean? Does he follow Calvin in saying that Christ is "autotheos" God of his own nature or do they follow Nicene orthodoxy which holds Christ is "true God from true God, begotten not made" which seems to militate against an autotheos nature of Christ? And how do Protestants honestly support Chalcedonian and Nicene formulations when by that time the veneration of relics, icons, and statues, plus a definite structured priesthood led by an episcopal authority, all things which evangelicals (and Presbyterians such as Mouw) utterly reject, but these men are the ones who decided the definitions by which heretic vs. true believer â?¢ was established? But I really get confused by the doctrinaire spin Mouw et al. are fond of using when it comes to defining and defending dogma. Now as Mouw is a nice guy, I mean this in full candidness. I'm interested in hearing responses from Protestants/non-CatholicOrthodx (especially those groups that reject an episcopal structure).

I don't know what he means. Nor anything about him. Im not a Christological expert.

I suppose I would follow along the course of duophysitye. Though confessionally I like some aspects of miaphysitism, if it weren't for one particular logical gap I can't bridge, I would follow that line of thinking.

[3DOP]

I wanted to reproduced this sections. There are some non-Catholic, non-LDS Christians on this board who I respect a great deal, but the idea you presented above has almost single handedly SUNK the Protestant truth claims for me. The fact that I see the SEEDS of the ministry in the Bible and the very ECF is added to the above.

The folks who defined the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, and even the books of the NT were correct in an inerrant way; all the while claiming ordained authority and developing the structure of the ministry (beyond what was present in the Bible and the very early church). And the ordained authority they claimed and they developed was totally human and flawed despite their PERFECTION in other important theological areas.

I define â??liberalâ? differently that Rory does. A liberal non-LDS Christian is one who sees the hand of the human in much of the early church. Humans took to themselves increased authority and power developing the ministry. Humans defined theological ideas often as a pretense for taking power to themselves. Humans selected the books of the Bible and preserved them well, but not necessarily inerrantly. This position seems more defendable than the more mainline Protestant position be that mainline Protestant a â??creedal Protestantâ? (who boldly embraces all or much of the first four Ecumenical Council) or a non-creedal Protestant (who generally embraces the definitions of the first four ECs and almost without fail will utilize such definitions to explain why Mormons are outside the fold).

That being said, I think the early church was apostolic in that there was ordained authority present from the apostles (not apostolic in that this ordained authority was equivalent to the apostles or even sufficient to preclude a loss of essential authority). The authority either developed with divine guidance while it developed with divine guidance the definitions of the first four, first seven, and twenty-one Ecumenical Councils or it was largely a human endeavor. If human this equals apostasy IMO. If divine this points to Catholicism IMO. Very liberal Protestantism has some legs to stand on, but it is very late to the party.

I have little to say about your original question, but you might like to read this:

â??John Calvin: a tritheistic heritic???â?

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/10/...ic-heretic.html

Charity, TOm

Hey tOm,

Good to see you! Well said too. I would draw the lines very similarly, although I would discourage any attempt to draw conclusions on the data we have alone. Not because the data is against the position I take, but it isn't inspirationally convincing. There will be exceptions, but far away from historical discussions and biblical debates, most of us must find the beating heart of a Church that helps us to be happier than we think we can be anywhere else. For me, it also needs to be true, which is why I defend my faith to myself, and sometimes publicly. For others, if it works, that is enough.

My present occasional hints that I consider myself a "liberal Catholic" would require some explaining and you would probably be among very few Mormons who would get my drift. Admittedly, to so define myself requires some irony. I am liberal in one particular way, and to my mind, the most critical way. Whereas those who are habitually liberal are hard headed authoritarians in this particular area which I would argue cries out for tolerance of mind and diversity of thought for faithful Catholics. I am fully confident that history will vindicate my tolerance of multiple points of view.

As used above, by liberal, I simply meant that I would once have considered someone like Mouw a compromiser. I find your definition in general to be helpful, more so than mine now or mine in the past. I do not now find what I would have once said to be a valid observation. Heh.

[3DOP]

I don't know what he means. Nor anything about him. Im not a Christological expert.

I suppose I would follow along the course of duophysitye. Though confessionally I like some aspects of miaphysitism, if it weren't for one particular logical gap I can't bridge, I would follow that line of thinking.

Yeah Mudcat. You're like I was...and as a Protestant, why not? You don't have to get in line with Catholics on Christology. If we are wrong on salvation, why would we be right about Christology?

[Mudcat]

Yeah Mudcat. You're like I was...and as a Protestant, why not? You don't have to get in line with Catholics on Christology. If we are wrong on salvation, why would we be right about Christology?

Hey Rory,

I know you didn't mean the statement inclusively, but I wanted to respond as such.

If we are wrong about salvation, then Christology is irrelevant. Isn't it?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[prisonchaplain]

If the question is why do evangelicals rely upon Catholic doctrinal formation for our trinitarian teachings, less so for our teachings about Jesus, and not at all for our teachings about church polity, perhaps I can take a stab at it. I respect church history, including the period (very roughly beginning in the 100s and going through most of the 1400s) during which Catholicism was pretty much all that was going. God did use that vessel, just as he used Israel from Abraham forward. There is no need to jettison foundational doctrine because of disagreements we have today.

So... we concur that the Council at Nicea protected orthodoxy from heresy. Most evangelicals don't bother to strain gnats on our Christology. Christ is God the Son, and he was fully human on earth.

As for church polity, I just do not see a strongly hierarchical structure in the New Testament. There were those whom Christ called, and later those who received callings. I wouldn't necessarily oppose an episcopal governance, but neither do I find it the only biblical one. God can direct a central church organization, and He can anoint the procedures of the local congregation.

[3DOP]

Hey Rory,

I know you didn't mean the statement inclusively, but I wanted to respond as such.

If we are wrong about salvation, then Christology is irrelevant. Isn't it?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Hi Mudcat,

Yes. However, I think some Protestants tend to imagine that salvation is easier to sort out than Christology. I found them equally impossible.

[3DOP]

If the question is why do evangelicals rely upon Catholic doctrinal formation for our trinitarian teachings, less so for our teachings about Jesus, and not at all for our teachings about church polity, perhaps I can take a stab at it. I respect church history, including the period (very roughly beginning in the 100s and going through most of the 1400s) during which Catholicism was pretty much all that was going. God did use that vessel, just as he used Israel from Abraham forward. There is no need to jettison foundational doctrine because of disagreements we have today.

So... we concur that the Council at Nicea protected orthodoxy from heresy. Most evangelicals don't bother to strain gnats on our Christology. Christ is God the Son, and he was fully human on earth.

As for church polity, I just do not see a strongly hierarchical structure in the New Testament. There were those whom Christ called, and later those who received callings. I wouldn't necessarily oppose an episcopal governance, but neither do I find it the only biblical one. God can direct a central church organization, and He can anoint the procedures of the local congregation.

Hi Prison Chaplain. Our Restorationist friends might be better than me at pointing out the differences between the coming of Christianity to Israel and the coming of the Reformation to Catholicism. I hadn't heard that idea before and I do not want to be dismissive. I disagree of course, but I find the theory to be fresh and worthy of discussion...but not at 2:45 in the morning! I gotta go to work.

My experience as a Protestatnt with Christology would be what you described in your second paragraph and as to church polity in the Bible, I think you are correct there too.

Great days to all,

Rory