From the outset Grenz’s theological/confessional grid is seen. The “community” pervades his presentation and controls his Christology. Grenz is sympathetic to liberal evangelical theology. His supportive penchants towards modernism’s ideologies can be seen throughout his presentation (I have only highlighted a few). For example, Grenz attempts to coalesce the Christ of faith to the Jesus of history in order to affirm the assertion that Jesus is Divine. He argues that Jesus’ claims alone are not sufficient to serve as “the definitive historical foundation for the declaration that Jesus is divine” (256), nor is the resurrection as an “isolated event” capable of forming the foundation for our initial assertion (259). Agreed. He continues in his rhetoric to contend that in order to affirm the deity of Jesus one must take the claims of Jesus coupled with his resurrection as the “historical foundation” by which such an affirmation can be upheld. Where Grenz’s liberal sympathies appear is where Jamie already pointed out on (255). He disavows Biblical inerrancy and its ability to satisfactorily answer the questions posed by modern higher criticism. His logic breaks down when he emphasizes the naivety in accepting the NT historical claims (255), but then turns around to support the historicity of the resurrection by ironically citing, NT claims (257-259). Interestingly enough much of his support for the “dimensions of the history of Jesus [that] form the historical givens” (261) he finds in the NT.
Another example is his interesting 3+ page discussion of Jesus’ relationship to women. Such a topic is not common in evangelical S.T. Of course the egalitarian/complementarian debate continues to rage between the evangelical liberals and conservatives. I understand his premise that Jesus is the “universal human.” I simply find this insertion interesting.
Lastly, while the virgin birth may not be the “necessary foundation for the declaration that Jesus is divine” (322) the incarnation (as set forth in the NT) is dependant upon the virgin birth. Though the VB may not “support the entire weight of our incarnational Christology” it does seem to be Christologically “indispensable” in regards to the union of the divine and human. Grenz's casual treatment of the VB is indicative of my initial statement.
4 comments:
Glad to see you're back blogging... I agree that with Grenz that inerrancy is unable "to satisfactorily answer the questions posed by modern higher criticism." Yet my problem is not with inerrancy but with the philological methods of HC.
I disagree with the idea that the virgin birth is "indispensable" for the incarnation. Aside from OT prophecy, I don't see any reason why Jesus could not have come from normal human conception while still being fully Divine. Jesus was fully human just like anyone conceived by normal sexual means. To say that the Divine, thus the incarnation, could not have come except through a virgin sounds similar to Apollinarianism.
Notice that I too agreed with his statement. I too disagree with theological and philosophical underpinnings of HC.
It all depends upon how you are using "virgin birth." It seems that you are using it in a different sense than I. I am using it in the sense of hypostasis. God became man through the vb. When you make statements like "Aside from OT prophecy" you do realize that you are setting "a lot" aside? Jesus could have come from "normal human conception" but the point is that he did not. Jesus was fully human, I agree, but he was not conceived by "normal [human] sexual means." I am not emphasizing that he could not have come another way or by another means, but rather I am merely stressing the fact that the "virgin birth" was the miraculous event of Christ entering humanity. It was in this way that God became man. Thus, the VB in that sense is "indispensable."
I guess I don't really see the point in calling the VB indispensable if all you mean is hypostasis. Yes, hypostasis is indispensable for the unity of the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the VB is needed for such hypostasis to occur. If all you mean is that the hypostasis did indeed occur through the VB, then what is the point of making the VB indispensable if in fact there is nothing to "dispense" in the first place (no alternative options available)? I suppose what you mean is that the hypostasis is indispensable (historically by means of VB) rather than the VB itself.
You got it man....you're probably right that we need to drop the terminology "virgin birth." I admit that it is easily misunderstood. But as you state, I understand VB "historically" as referring to hypostasis.
I could be wrong (which I often am), but I'm not so sure that Grenz is along the same line. If he's merely wanting to stray away from the "virgin birth" simply due to semantics he does not explicitly indicate so.
Again, while I agree that it may not be the "necessary foundation for the declaration that Jesus is divine," I have a hard time seeing from the Biblical presentation that the hypostasis (which I refer to as the Virgin Birth) as not indispensable.
Good insights and comments though....I always need the challenge to be sharper in my semantics and presentation.
Post a Comment