DOCSLIB.ORG

The Person and Work of Christ Revisited: in Conversation with Karl Barth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Person and Work of Christ Revisited: in Conversation with Karl Barth ATR/95:1 The Person and Work of Christ Revisited: In Conversation with Karl Barth Christopher R. J. Holmes* The person of Christ is often equated with his saving work. The problem in immediately identifying Christ’s person with his work, I argue, is that it shortchanges what the biblical testimony de- mands: an account of Jesus Christ as the underlying basis of his benefits. Rather than leading us to seek after a “Christ in himself,” however, the immanent perfect being of Jesus Christ renders his salvation effective. Accordingly, what is at stake is the honoring of Christ’s person not as something removed from his work but rather as what grounds his work as the revealer of God to human- ity and the reconciler of humanity to God. I The basic theological issue at stake in this essay, namely a right accounting of the relationship between Christ’s person and work, be- tween who he is and what he does, can be best accessed by compar- ing two statements, one by Colin Gunton and the other by Donald MacKinnon. The former writes, “The person of Christ is his saving work, so that an adequately articulated Christology will also be a the- ology of salvation.”1 The latter states, “He [Jesus Christ] remains not simply the logical subject of this proposition: ‘He was incarnate’; but ontologically he is the author of the act.”2 The thrust of this essay is to inhabit the latter as what enables a modified and more chastened af- firmation of the former. Indeed, it is MacKinnon who identifies Jesus * Christopher R. J. Holmes is Senior Lecturer in Theology in the Department of Theology and Religion, the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, and an Anglican priest. 1 Colin Gunton, “Salvation,” in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 144. 2 Donald M. MacKinnon, “Prolegomena to Christology,” in Themes in Theology: The Three-fold Cord: Essays in Philosophy, Politics, and Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 173. 37 38 Anglican Theological Review Christ, specifically the very being of the person of Jesus Christ, as that which grounds—or better, underwrites—what he does: namely, become incarnate. MacKinnon’s intuition is salutary. Distinguishing the person and work of Christ is an important thing to do, MacKin- non reminds us, if each is to be given its proper due. But it is diffi- cult to give each its due, as it might suggest that Christ’s person can be separated from his work. This would lead us to pursue a Christ in himself, a Christ who can be contemplated apart from who he is for us. Indeed, to champion such a vision of Christ’s person would be to supply, to use Karl Barth’s language, “an abstract doctrine of his ‘person.’”3 More specifically, it would suggest that an ontological gap lies between who Christ is and what Christ does. Accordingly, the “ontological co-inherence” of Christ’s person and work would no longer be “a fairly concise affair.”4 The unsettling development in all this—it is supposed—is that Christology involves description of One who transcends his history rather than a Christ whose very being is identified with his history. It is the contention of this essay that the basic issues of Christol- ogy as Barth identifies them—for example, Jesus Christ’s Godhead and humanity, his work, and his state of humiliation and exaltation— can only be taken up well to the extent one gives “a proper place” to both Christ’s person and work.5 In other words, the task of this essay is to inhabit Barth’s aversion to the doctrine of Christ’s person being “absorbed and dissolved in that of his work, or vice versa,” so as “to give a proper place to them both,” especially with respect to his per- son, by which I mean his being as the anterior condition of his atoning work.6 Expressed exegetically, the essay asks who is the “he” “who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30)?7 I will unfold this contention with three points. As regards the first point, I will offer a reading of §58 (“The Doctrine of Reconciliation [Survey]”) of Church Dogmatics IV/1 with 3 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. G. W. Bromiley, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957–1975), IV/1, 127. “Person” in the orig- inal is set within quotation marks. Note that I follow the original with respect to emphases. I have thus added them to the English translation which, unfortunately, excludes most of them. Where I alter the English translation, I indicate that I have done so by using the citation “rev.” 4 This is Paul D. Jones’s language. See The Humanity of Christ: Christology in Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 90. 5 Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/1, 128. 6 Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/1, 128. 7 Scripture passages are from the English Standard Version. The Person and Work of Christ Revisited 39 the intention of indicating how for Barth articulation of a doctrine of Christ’s person that is not “abstract” does not mean the positing of a Christ in himself—Gunton’s fear—but rather a Christ who, even as he “exists in the totality of his mediating being and mediating work,” even as he has his being in history, cannot be said to be one whose being dissolved into his history.8 To say that Jesus has his being—his person—in history is not to affirm that he has his being with history.9 To argue so would be to make his identity dependent on what he does. This cannot be, as it shortchanges the sense in which the economy of salvation is revelatory of his being. Indeed, the task in this first section is to consider how Barth seeks to give a proper place to both the person and the work of Christ, and to do so in a way that is sensi- tive to strengths and weaknesses of one recent reading of the same. As regards the second point: given the way in which Barth orders an account of the person and the work of Jesus Christ, might there be a place for a qualified affirmation of the extra calvinisticum, for endorsement of the notion that the Godhead—the divinity—of Jesus Christ is not exhausted by his flesh? Expressed otherwise, does Barth encourage us to say that the babe born in Bethlehem has the whole world in his hands? Might Jesus Christ in being for us remain free in relationship to us, and so negate our sinful attempts to reduce him to our possession? Pastorally speaking, the extra calvinisticum points to an important truth: Jesus Christ stands against our attempts—indi- vidual and corporate—to make him over in our image. It is because of who Jesus is that he forever graciously eludes our sinful attempts to domesticate him. As regards the third and last point, why does an ac- count which gives a “proper place to them both” promote an account of salvation that “secures the fulfillment of creaturely being against self-destruction”?10 Why must the person of Christ be said to be the anterior condition of salvation? II Barth’s description of Jesus Christ is one tethered to the economy of salvation. This is his way of avoiding an “abstract” Christ. To be 8 Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/1, 123 (rev.). 9 Compare Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, Volume 1: The Triune God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 59. 10 John Webster, “‘It was the Will of the Lord to Bruise Him’: Soteriology and the Doctrine of God,” in God of Salvation: Soteriology in Theological Perspective, ed. Ivor J. Davidson and Murray A. Rae (Surrey: Ashgate, 2011), 19. 40 Anglican Theological Review sure, there is a place for an account of “the metaphysics of Christ’s person.” However, the content, for Barth, of such an account must be oriented to Christ’s history. The creedal homoousios is a gloss on the gospel narratives—who is the One who acts thus? Hence, when Barth describes the atonement as “the middle point, the one thing from which neither the God who turns to man nor man converted to God can be abstracted, in which and by which both are what they are,” he is not suggesting that Jesus Christ has his being—his person—as a result of the economy of salvation.11 Rather, Barth’s point is that Jesus Christ exists only in relationship to “the men of Israel and His disciples and the world, from what He is on their behalf.”12 He cannot be conceived otherwise. But to say that he only ever exists in this relationship is not to say that he is because of this relationship. Jesus Christ does not “need” us in order to be who he is. Rather, he freely comes among us in a saving way because of who he is. Christology is indeed a doctrine about the being and work of Christ—and in that order. Were one to say that Christology is merely about his being, one would be shortchanging the very real sense in which “He exists in the totality of his mediating being and mediating work—He alone as the Mediator, but living and active in His mediatorial office.”13 The subtle point that needs to be honored in all of this is the significance of the “He,” meaning that “what is said about Jesus Christ Himself, the christological propositions as such, are constitutive, essential, necessary and central in the Christian doctrine of reconciliation.”14 Reconciliation’s reality is undergirded by One who is God in se, One who is, in other words, homoousios with the Father and the Spirit.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eph 5:1-2 A. Second-Personal Life with Jesus Christ, Rev. 3:14-22
    Bible Doctrines (T/G/B ) Theology June 25, 2017 Eschatology Thanatology Ecclesiology Matthew 22:36-40; 2 Pet 1:2-4; 1 Cor 13:1-7; Eph 5:1-2 Israelology Dispensationalism Doxology A. Second-personal life with Jesus Christ, Rev. 3:14-22. Hodology Soteriology - 8 principles on life with Christ and the problem of a closed heart. Hamartiology Natural Law Anthropology B. Through the Bible, Rom 11:1-16: The hardening of Israel. Angelology - 5 reasons God is not through with Israel. Pneumatology Christology Paterology C. Hermeneutics: Natural Law 32, Rom 2:14. Natural Law and America’s Trinitarianism Cosmology founding fathers. Theology Proper - 6 principles on natural law and the American experiment. Bibliology Natural Theology Foundations/Reality 7 Hermeneutics 33 D. Bible doctrine: the Glory of God 35 (John 1:14; 12:23-24; 13:31-32; 17:1; -Natural Law-31 1 Cor 1:27-31). 6 Science 51 5 Language 155 - 6 principles on the glory of God. 4 Epistemology 32 Existence 50 History 50 3 Metaphysics 32 Trans. 50 2 Reality - Logic, 32 http://www.fbcweb.org/sermons.html - Truth, 32 1 Realism – 32 Historical overview of Christology on how “the Word BECAME flesh/sarx.” 1. Rejection of Ebionism (denial of Jesus’s divinity), a Jewish heresy (contra 1 John 2:2). 2. Rejection of Docetism (denial of Jesus’s human nature), contra 1 Jn 4:3; 2 John 4:7. 3. Ignatius (d. 170) defends Incarnation against Docetism with “Communicatio idiomatum.” 4. Justin Martyr the apologist (d. 165) defends transcendence of the Logos using Stoic concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Calvin's Christology from Geneva to Belgium
    0 Calvin’s Christology from Geneva to Belgium: The Importance of Calvin’s Institutes for Understanding the XIX and XXXV Articles of the Belgic Confession of Faith Written by J. Alberto Paredes Submitted to: Prof. Derek W. H. Thomas, Ph.D. In May 2019 In Attendance of Those Requirements For The HT731 Theology of John Calvin Course As the Assigned Research Paper At the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC. 1 Calvin’s Christology from Geneva to Belgium: The Importance of Calvin’s Institutes for Understanding the XIX and XXXV Articles of the Belgic Confession of Faith The study of the person of Christ has been a central topic in the theological discourse for centuries. This area of study on theology, known as Christology,1 gives us some aid for us to answer the question made by Jesus himself to his disciples on Caesarea Philippi: … who do you say I am?2 Even then, people differed about the reality of his nature. On the very instant someone begins to utter any response to this question, they are confessing what we have come to call a creed.3 After Christ’s resurrection, and centuries later, it was no more his divinity which was a subject of debate, but his human nature. Thus, some written documents begun to rise from the earliest stages of the church to state what Christendom ought to believe in this regard.4 When reading these documents, one is able to see a development in regard to the theological language used, especially in the way this question is answered.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth of Divine Impassibility: a New Look at an Old Argument Jeffrey G Silcock
    198 Jeffrey G Silcock The truth of divine impassibility: a new look at an old argument Jeffrey G Silcock Jeff is head of the History and Systematic Theology Department at ALC and serves as chair of the LCA’s Commission on Theology and Inter-Church Relations. Introduction From his Nazi prison cell in 1944, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote to his friend Eberhard Bethge that ‘only the suffering God can help’.1 Just after the war, the Japanese Lutheran theologian Kazoh Kitamori published his ground-breaking book, Theology of the pain of God,2 based around Jeremiah 31:20, where he developed a similar theology of the cross: the pain of God heals our pain. In the suffering of Christ, God himself suffers. In 1973 Jürgen Moltmann came out with his classic, The crucified God, where he takes this further and develops a critical theology of the cross. He holds that a ‘theology after Auschwitz’ has to revise completely the traditional doctrine of God that teaches divine impassibility. Moltmann at the outset reflects on his own experience: ‘Shattered and broken, the survivors of my generation were then returning from camps and hospitals to the lecture room. A theology which did not speak of God in the sight of the one who was abandoned and crucified would have had nothing to say to us then’.3 The old teaching of classical theism that God is beyond suffering died in the death camps of WWII and was no longer tenable. Moltmann wrote his book, which had an enormous impact in its day, with the conviction that only if God is not detached from human suffering, but willingly enters into it with compassion, is there any hope for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dual Story Line of Calvin's Sense-Making Approach
    The dual story line of Calvin’s sense-making approach Erasmus van Niekerk Department of Systematic Theology and Theological Ethics, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa Abstract Calvin’s sense-making approach, which is embedded in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), can be construed as a story embodying two reflexive realms, one of creation and the other of redemption. In each of these realms, two trajec- tories operate closely together. The first is a “vertical” mirroring trajectory with God and human beings facing each other. The second is a “horizontal” trajectory consisting in a process that begins with God approaching human beings and the natural cosmic world. Calvin, who was at times very eclectic but could be very consistent too sometimes, contra- dicted what usually made sense to him (e.g. his instrumentality in the death of Servetus). Introduction Traces and clues of a dual storyline are found throughout Calvin’s actions, reflections and writings. His sense-making story is told through two con- structed realms of creation and redemption in which God, as the all-initiating agent, leads Calvin’s reflection about the actions and dealings of God, human beings and the natural cosmic world with each other. In establishing the two biblical realms of creation and redemption for his reflection within the bibli- cal storyline from Genesis to the Book of Revelation, Calvin follows Luther’s strategy of salvation history. By doing so, he bypasses the speculative strategies of the scholastics, whose starting point was firmly located in their question-and-answer technique about the essences of God, human beings, the church and the sacraments.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Unification Christology
    Volume XXI - (2020) Unification Christology THEODORE SHIMMYO • Shimmyo, Theodore T. Journal of Unification Studies Vol. 21, 2020 - Pages 51-76 In the history of Christianity theology, there has been a conflict between two types of Christology: "high" and "low" Christology. High Christology, which is orthodox Christology, holds that Christ, as the divine Logos "consubstantial" (homoousios) with God the Father, is actually God who assumes a human nature added as a "nature in the person" (physis enhypostatos) of none other than the divine Logos after the incarnation.[1] Christ, then, is not a human being in the same sense that we are human beings. By contrast, low Christology, which is liberal Christology, believes that Christ is a real man with a real human nature who assumes only some or no divinity. Now, according to Unification Christology in Exposition of the Divine Principle, Jesus is "a man who has completed the purpose of creation."[2] This certainly gives the impression as if Unification Christology were a low Christology. In actuality, however, Unification Christology is far from being a low Christology, as it recognizes his full divinity unlike low Christology which does not. Unification Christology firmly believes that Jesus as a man possesses "the same divine nature as God," by completing "the purpose of creation" at the individual level, i.e., by becoming "a person of perfect individual character" who is "perfect as God is perfect"[3] and who is in "inseparable oneness with" God, assuming "a divine value, comparable to God."[4] If Unification Christology is thus not a low Christology, it is obviously not a high Christology, either.
    [Show full text]
  • Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology
    Stefan Lindholm, Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology © 2016, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525551042 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647551043 Stefan Lindholm, Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology Reformed Historical Theology Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in Co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Elsie Anne McKee, RichardMuller,Risto Saarinen, and Carl Trueman Volume 37 © 2016, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525551042 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647551043 Stefan Lindholm, Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology Stefan Lindholm Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht © 2016, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525551042 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647551043 Stefan Lindholm, Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology Bibliographic informationpublishedbythe Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliotheklists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online:http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISSN 2198-8226 ISBN 978-3-525-55104-2 Yo ucan find alternative editions of this book and additionalmaterial on ourWebsite:www.v-r.de 2016, Vandenhoeck & RuprechtGmbH & Co.KG, Theaterstraße13, D-37073 Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & RuprechtLLC,Bristol, CT,U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rightsreserved. No partofthis work maybereproduced or utilized in anyform or by anymeans, electronicormechanical, including photocopying, recording,orany information storage and retrieval system, withoutprior written permissionfrom the publisher. Printed in Germany. Typesetting by Konrad Triltsch GmbH, Ochsenfurt Printed and bound by Hubert & Co GmbH & Co.KG, Robert-Bosch-Breite 6, D-37079 Göttingen Printed on aging-resistantpaper.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trinity, Christ As Autotheos and the Calvinistic Extra
    Week 4 Book I and II: The Trinity, Christ as autotheos and the Calvinistic extra 1. 1:12; 1.13.2-3, 6-7, 16-20 Idolatry and the Trinity 2. 2.13.1, 4; 2.14.1-4 The Person of Jesus Christ Helm, Paul. John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: OUP, 2004), c hapters 2 and 3. 1. The Trinity What is important is not just a sense of the divine, or a general religious worship, but that we know God as he has revealed himself and worship him accordingly Calvin starts straight away with the Trinity … even if the doctrine of the Trinity is a bit difficult to explain pantheism confuses creator and creature, dualism separates them too far ‘Unless we grasp these [three persons], only the bare and empty name of God flits about in our brains, to the exclusion of the true God.’ (1.13.2) a) Trinity and the doctrine of the simplicity of God ‘lest anyone imagine that God is threefold, or must think God’s simple essence to be torn into three persons, we must here seek a short and easy definition to free us from all error.’ (1.13.2) Simplicity means that the divine essence cannot be divided into parts; that is, God is indivisible. In Gerald Brays terms: ‘he is the basic minimum of divinity as well as the maximum’ b) Technical Language ‘some hatefully inveigh against the word “person,” as if humanly devised’ (1.13.2) Augustine’s words: ‘We say “three persons”, not that it may be said, but that we may not keep silent.’ (De Trin.
    [Show full text]
  • Nestorius and Cyril: 5Th Century Christological Division and Recent Progress in Reconciliation
    Nestorius and Cyril: 5th Century Christological Division and Recent Progress in Reconciliation Ben Green Department of Theology and Religious Studies Villanova University I. Introduction The 5th century controversy of Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople and Bishop Cyril of Alexandria centered on the Person of Jesus Christ: To what extent is he human? To what extent divine? And to what extent and how are his humanity and divinity united? The controversy takes shape on two fronts: (1) the Christological debate, primarily because of the potential implications for soteriology (whether a certain conception of Christ can be considered an efficacious Savior); and (2) the persons involved, because each is venerated by his later adherents and thus an integral part of the ongoing debate. This fact, that the controversy continues to be worked out though it is more than 1500 years old, owes its significance to the ecumenical movement which emerged in the 20th century. This particular Christological problem has been at the center of much dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Ancient Churches of the East. And, as we will see, an examination of the ecumenical dialogue will provide us with fresh insights by which to reevaluate the initial controversy itself. II. Setting the Scene First, let us review the basic outline of events as they unfolded. Cyril (c. 378-444) succeeded his uncle Theophilus as Bishop of Alexandria in 412, after having begun his ecclesiastical career nine years earlier as Lector of the church of Alexandria. In contrast, Nestorius (d. ca. 451) was a monk in the Antioch area who was called upon to preach publicly in Antioch.1 Known as a powerful speaker, and receiving the recommendation of John of Antioch, in 428 Nestorius was appointed Bishop of Constantinople by Emperor Theodosius II.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge of Karl Barth's Doctrine
    CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Volume 84:1–2 January/April 2020 Table of Contents Christology as Basis for Lutheran Theology Aaron M. Moldenhauer ................................................................................... 3 Double Truth? Daniel Hofmann and the Discussion on the Relation of Theology and Philosophy Roland F. Ziegler ............................................................................................ 23 Illumination, Healing, and Redirection: A Lutheran Philosophy of Reason Angus Menuge ................................................................................................ 39 The Challenge of Karl Barth’s Doctrine of the Word of God Jack D. Kilcrease ............................................................................................. 59 Luther on the Fulfillment of the Law: Five Theses for Contemporary Luther Studies Brian T. German ............................................................................................. 83 Fellowship in Its Necessary Context: The Doctrine of the Church and the Overseas Theses of 1961 Jonathan G. Lange ........................................................................................ 101 Praying the Psalms with Jesus and His Body Thomas M. Winger ...................................................................................... 119 Contraception: An Embryo’s Point of View Donna J. Harrison ........................................................................................ 137 Theological Observer ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Do Not Cite Without Express Permission of the Author PRINCETON
    PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY NOVA LINGUA DEI: THE PROBLEM OF CHALCEDONIAN METAPHYSICS AND THE PROMISE OF THE GENUS TAPEINOTICON IN LUTHER’S LATER THEOLOGY IN FULFILLMENT OF THE PH.D. QUALIFYING EXAMINATION IN THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINE DAVID W. CONGDON JANUARY 12, 2011 Do not cite without express permission of the author Congdon 1 INTRODUCTION Scholars have long noted that Luther makes a decisive contribution to the debate over divine impassibility. That he speaks of God’s suffering and death is well-attested in the literature. The question is the precise nature of this provocative language. It is widely acknowledged that Luther’s theology exhibits a radicalization of the communicatio idiomatum: the properties of divinity and humanity are not merely communicated to the one person, but they are also shared, at least in some respect, between the natures. In one direction (from divine to human), the result is the genus maiestaticum (“genus of majesty”), employed by Lutherans within the eucharistic debates as the basis for Christ’s bodily ubiquity. This paper will instead focus on the communication in the other direction (human to divine), known as the genus tapeinoticon (“genus of humility”; from the Greek, ταπεινωσις).1 While scholars such as Paul Althaus and Marc Lienhard have mentioned this concept with respect to Luther’s christology,2 the notion of a genus tapeinoticon remains controversial and raises a number of complicated questions regarding the relation of Luther to the orthodox tradition associated with the Council of Chalcedon. There is a continual danger of reading the modern acceptance of divine passibility 1 “The phrase genus tapeinoticum .
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Nestorianism” in Spain: the Letter of Vitalis and Constantius and Pseudo-Athanasian De Trinitate
    Junghoo Kwon Dream School Seosan, S. Korea [email protected] “PRE-NESTORIANISM” IN SPAIN: THE LETTER OF VITALIS AND CONSTANTIUS AND PSEUDO-ATHANASIAN DE TRINITATE Leporius from Gaul has been regarded as a precursor to Nestorius in the West.1 At the same time, he has been found to be the only fi gure tied with “pre-Nestorianism” in the West. In this paper, I would like to introduce two more “pre-Nestorian” examples which deserve our att ention: The Lett er of Vitalis and Constantius (ca. 431)2 and the pseudo- Athanasian De trinitate.3 Both documents came from Spain and most likely they were writt en in the early part of the fi fth century. These Spanish documents present an extremely strong dyphysite Christol- ogy in danger of proposing two independent entities in the Media- tor. First, I will point out key Christological points of each document (parts 1 and 2). Then, I will demonstrate the critical reaction to such acute two-natured Christology on the part of Capreolus, the bishop of Carthage (part 3). Finally, I will argue that one of the major factors that produced the theological context for such a strong dyphysite Christol- ogy was that of the Latin Arians (part 4). (1) A. GRILLMEIER, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, Atlanta, 1975, pp. 464–467. (2) PL 53, 847–849. The Latin text is also available in P. GLORIEUX, Pré Ne- storianisme en Occident, Rome, 1959, pp. 39–41. (3) PL 62, 237–334; CCSL 9:3–99. For a comprehensive overview of the previous studies on the pseudo-Athanasian De Trinitate including the questions of authorship, date and place of origin, see the doctoral thesis of J.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Lutheran Christology Does Not Lead to Kenoticism Or Divine Passibility Stephen R
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository Asymmetrical Assumption: Why Lutheran christology does not lead to kenoticism or divine passibility Stephen R. Holmes University of St Andrews ’…the most relevant and beautiful problems in dogmatics begin at the very point where the fable of “unprofitable scholasticism” and the slogan about the “Greek thinking of the Fathers” persuade us we ought to stop.’1 Abstract: It has been commonplace for over a century to argue that the distinctively Lutheran form of the communicatio idiomatum leads naturally to kenotic christology, divine passibility, or both. This argument has been generally accepted as a historical claim; it has also been advanced repeatedly as a criticism of ‘classical theism’ in the literature, and it has featured significantly in almost all recent defences of divine passibility. I argue that it does not work: the Lutheran scholastics had ample resources drawn from nothing more than ecumenical Trinitarian and christological dogma to defend their denial of the genus tapeinoticum. I argue further that this defence, if right, undermines a remarkably wide series of proposals in contemporary systematic theology. Introduction For well over a century, theologians have been arguing that the distinctively Lutheran form of the communicatio idiomatum, which accepts the genus maiestaticum, leads naturally to kenotic christology, divine passibility, or both. Indeed, it is not hard to find suggestions that the move is so obvious that the interesting question is why the scholastic Lutheran theologians could not see it, a question generally answered by lamenting their captivity to alien hellenistic conceptions of deity (recently termed ‘classical theism’).
    [Show full text]