Culver: Christology

While pounding out over 80 pages of Culver’s Christology, I realized out that my reading merely scratched the surface of his 200+ page discourse. Culver’s presentation is quite thorough and at times excessively prolix, but overall his stuff is solid. Due to the size and amount of data, I did not cover a lot of his Christology. So the part which I got through I did not have any concerns. My comments will be brief and mostly positive.

In Appendix II (457) Culver states his “principles for writing about Christology.” His intent in his systematic is to present a thorough examination of orthodox teaching rather than an apologetic. Therefore, he does not continually present opposing views, and if he does mention them rarely will he comprehensively “advertise” their arguments. He simply presents their views/errors that are pertinent to the discussion and moves on.

Not surprisingly, Culver (like Shedd) argues that Christ coupled and united with a new human nature and not a new person (472), thus denouncing any Nestorian tendencies. He (like Warfield, unlike Grenz) views the Virgin Birth as “indispensable” and therefore vital for doing Christology. His eight points on the “practical importance and values of the VB” were helpful although I felt his first three (especially his third) points were weak if not unnecessary. I understand the arguments of those who want to “drop” the VB as essential to Christology, I just do not see the benefits.

Reymond ~ Christology

(623-702)

I appreciated Reymond’s presentation concerning the “major revision” in Christian thought of the cross work of Jesus Christ. His argument concerning the “God-ward reference” of the cross work was helpful, but in a few areas I am needing refinement of thought, so maybe you guys can help clarify those areas.

First, (in accordance with the previous discussion concerning Reymond’s overstatement in regards to reconciliation) I question the legitimacy of Reymond’s use of aorist tense in the 4 passages on reconciliation (643-650). I understand that the aorist can be and often is used “punctiliarly.” I recognize that Paul uses it in reference to the cross work which was an “accomplished fact.” However, does the aorist in reference to the -allasso verbs demand “a past, objective, and forensic event” and never “a subjective ongoing operation in men’s hearts”? (647) Is he freighting the aorist with more than it was intended? I lose him when he states, “Such a change of attitude clearly can be true only of God and only with reference to the elect since most men continue in their enmity toward God” (647).

Second, in his treatment of Eph. 2:14-17 he remarks, “…clearly it is God’s enmity which Paul says…” (649). I am having a hard time seeing the “clarity” amidst his “God-ward reference” presupposition.

Third, should we even answer the question “to whom was Christ’s death as a ransom paid?” (657) God paid God a ransom?

Lastly, footnote 25 on 692-93, Reymond seems to reject the God has two wills. I disagree with Reymond that view projected by Murray “imputes irrationality to God.”

Shedd's Christology

Here are a few of my comments from Shedd's Dogmatic Theology from this past weeks perusal.

Shedd’s theanthropic presentation of Jesus Christ is thorough and stimulating. The concepts that heightened interest in my reading are as follows.

Shedd argues that the Incarnation had to happen with the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Son, the Logos (615-616). He argues, “The Godhead did not become incarnate,” and he seemingly leans incautiously towards Sabellianism when he remarks that, “the essence in all three modes [of the Godhead] did not become incarnate.” Hypothetically, what would the ramifications be if the Father or the Spirit incarnationalized? I am still giving that concept more thought (see supplement 5.1.1 {641}). Is OT prophecy the only grounds that the hypostasis occurred singularly with the Logos (Jn 1:14) and not trinally with Godhead? Or is there other reasons?

His discussion concerning Christ being a divine person who took on a (not the) human nature is interesting (626-33). Shedd distinguishes between “nature” and “person.” He argues that a nature can exist without being “personalized.” The sperma of Heb 2:26, Rom 1:3, and Gen 3:15 which the Logos took on was a human nature “individualized,” and not a person. He thus avoids Nestoranian tendencies.

The question Shedd raises as to why Christ could not be peccable and impeccable (since he is both finite and infinite, passible and impassible, impotent and omnimpotent, ignorant and omniscient) is insightful (661). Due to the structure of his person, Shedd attempts to philosophically support Christ’s impeccability.

Lastly, his distinction between the “sinful” and “innocent” temptations (supported by Acts 8:21-22), and his dichotomy between “seduction” and “trial” (in James 1:14 coupled with Heb 4:15) are ingenious. See supplement 5.5.3 on pg. 671.

Grenz: Christology

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.