Gottfried Thomasius View Of Kenotic Christology Religion Essay

Gottfried Thomasius View Of Ke nonic messiahology Religion EssayIntroductionThe avatar of saviour deliveryman has been a subject of attention from the earliest decades of the machinateation of the rescuerian perform. It has non been with strike forward its subsequent controversies. Several early councils were convened to encompass the various issues regarding the divinityhead and in special(prenominal), the individual and reputation of messiah. Of these, the fourth enormous council of Chalcedon established the parameters of the soul and character of delivery boy in the Orthodox get.1In an get to articulate the mortal and dis identify of delivery boy, the German theologian Gottfried Thomasius publish a relieve unitaryself amid 1853 and 1861 entitled delivereri Person und Werk (Christs Person and Work).2In this essay, Thomasius called attention to the Greek watchword kenosis bring in Philippians 27 in demonstrating his theory of the empty of Christ during the incarnation. Thomasius slang of kenosis contributed con posturerably to the interest in the incarnation principles of Christology. His work became the basis for further studies into what is much comm moreover called Kenotic pietism. This paper allow attempt to disposition that Thomasius prospect of kenosis is not arrant(a)ly consistent with the formula of Chalcedon and did not adequately comply with the orthodox principles of the incarnation.Develop handst of Systematic TheologyAs the early church began to call d profess so did varying looks as men began to think closely the doctrines of scripture in a systematic direction. Was savior God? First-century Christians saw that the answer was not simple-minded. Nature is not simple, so why then should we expect the Creator of nature be simple?3Within the first four hundred years of Christianity in that location arose 6 major heresies and they all involved an aspect of the psyche of Christ.4Then, as now, thither argo n doctrines, which men wrestle with and that still divide themselves over. Even at once there are those who would say that some things are too obscure to fully understand such as Robertson McQuilkin who said, As we approach the record intent on discovering all the truth God intends for us to understand, we should leaven our expectations and attitudes, as there are limitations on what is possible.5Not withstanding, it is the obligation of every Christian to search out the truths of Gods word and to faithfully study it in order to build a competent system of beliefs. With regard to the mortal and nature of Christ, the words of Millard Erickson ring all the more true when he said, All departures from the orthodox doctrine of the soulfulness of Christ are entirely variations of one of these six heresies. While we may give up difficulty specifying exactly the gist of this doctrine, full fidelity to teaching of Scripture will carefully keep down each of these distortions.6The Council of ChalcedonThe early councils of the Christian church were ecumenical gatherings of church leadership and scholars who were brought together in order to address the issues that divided the church and desire to set forth declarations that defined the proper reasonableness of these controversial theological issues that had an impact on the church. Each of the great councils formulated certain belief about these issues of controversy, which then became the orthodox view of the Christian church.Concerning the first great council of Nicea, Norman Geisler states, The Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) states the uniform belief of all orthodox Christianity that Christ was fully God and fully Man. All heresies regarding Christ abandon one or the former(a)(a) of these.7One of the intense important issues to the Church was, and rightfully should have been, a proper understanding of the person and nature of Christ. In regard to the council of Chalcedon, which was convened in 451, J. H. H all wroteThe work of Chalcedon can be understood whole in the light of a series of Christological declarations beginning with the Council of Nicea (325). The Nicene Creed say that Christ is of the akin overlord marrow squash with the Father, against Arius, who taught that Christ had a beginning and was only of similar substance. The Council of Constantinople (381) both(prenominal) ratified and refined the Nicene Creed, in opposition to continuing Arianism, and declared against Apollinarianism, which stated that Christs benevolent soul had been replaced by the divine Logos. Moreover, Constantinople declared that the blessed Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.8As examinations act to grow about the nature of Christ in the incarnation, so did controversy. The preceding councils established the churches opinion with regard to the deity of Christ that He is indeed of the same substance as the father.Later questions arose with respect to the adult male side and divine s ide of the nature of Christ. The Nestorian view held to a separation of the two natures of Christ as opposed to the Eutychian view, which theorized that Christ had only one nature.9The Nestorian view was rejected at the council of Ephesus but Eutychianism was later embraced. Seeing the continued discord, pope Leo I instigated Emperor Marcion to call a new council and it was pertinacious that it would be held in the city of Chalcedon.The Council of Chalcedon achieved three important things. J.H. Hall states, First, it reaffirmed the Nicene tradition second, it accepted as orthodox the letters of Cyril and Leo and third, it provided a definition of the faith.10Hall continues, There existed two overarching concerns- maintenance of the unity of Christs person and establishment of the two natures of Christ.11The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril of Jerusalem attribute a portion of Epiphanius, Ancoratus, 118, c. AD 374, as creationness that which contained the Nicene assent which was read and clear at Chalcedon.12What Chalcedon effectively achieved was setting forth certain parameters about the nature of Christ. That which is formulated to the understanding of these two natures must(prenominal) therefore fall inwardly these parameters in order to remain orthodox.In setting these parameters of orthodoxy, certain attributes must be maintained. One of the most important issues involves immutability. The Definition of Chalcedon sustained the continued immutability of Christ. The council declaration was as followsTherefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our manufacturer Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in mankind, genuinely God and truly man, consisting also of a bonnie soul and body of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood like us in all respects, apart from sin as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father earlier the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without di trance, without separation the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the juncture, but rather the characteristics of each nature being continue and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.13The Chalcedonian Creed provided the church with a statement that Christ indeed possessed two distinct natures, both a human side and divine side and that he existed in one person in an unchangeable way.14Gottfried Thomasiuss view of kenosisIn the first part of the nineteenth century, when Ferdinand Baur became professor of theology at Germ boths Tubingen University, he following in the footsteps of G.W.F. Hegel began in burning to attack the historical credibility of the New Testament and in particular the Gospel of John.15But after a series of textual and archeological finds, Adolf von Harnack, who himself once sympathized with Baur, rejected his assumptions stating in 1897 that, The assumptions of Baurs school, one can almost say, are now wholly abandoned.16This confrontation sparked by the rise of modern censure produced galore(postnominal) such debates and it serves to adorn the theological climate within which Gottfried Thomasius and other German theologians wrote.Gottfried Thomasius was a Lutheran theologian who in the mid-eighteen hundreds, attempted to arrive an acceptable Christology that could withstand the criticism of his day.17In an attempt to do so, he published his Christi Person und Werk. D avid Law states,The first edition of Christi Person und Werk appeared amid 1853 and 1861. Beca physical exertion of the criticism leveled at the early volumes of the first edition, Thomasius began revisions for the second edition before all three volumes of the first edition had appeared. The second edition was published between 1856 and 1863. A third and abridged edition, edited after Thomasiuss goal by F.J. Winter, was published between 1886 and 1888, but it is the second edition that is regarded as the mature and writeitative statement of Thomasisus kenotic Christology.18Subsequent publications showed Thomasiuss efforts to expound on his imagination of kenosis. David Law states, In Beitrag Thomasius argued that the tensions within Lutheran Christology could be resolved only by reformulating the doctrine of the person of Christ in margins of a self-limitation of the Logos.19In essence this self-limitation is the intellection behind Thomasiuss view of kenosis. Law gives a mor e defined description of this idea stating,It was above all Thomasiuss percentage to kenotic Christology that established him as a major theologian. The noun kenosis and the adjective kenotic are derived from the use of the term ekenosen in Phil. 27, where we read of Christ Jesus who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself heauton ekenosen, taking the form of a servant, being born in human likeness. On the basis of the use of the term ekenosen in this text, kenosis has come to be used as shorthand for a series of issues arising from the claim that Christ is both truly divine and truly human. How can divinity and humanity coexist in the one, united person of Christ without undermining the integrity of either nature? Kenotic christologies are those christologies which attempt to address this enigma by arguing that Christ emptied himself of some aspect of his divine nature in order to become a human being.2 0The conceit of Christ emptying himself of some aspect of the divine nature in an act of self-limitation has serious significance and questions the immutability of God the Son.This comes into direct contradiction in terms with the statement of Chalcedon in several key areas.First, Chalcedon established that the incarnation of Christ did not change, effect or diminish any attributes of deity Christ had before the incarnation. He is without change21. Secondly, Chalcedon affirmed the distinction of natures, being no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature, being carry on and coming together to form one person and subsistence.22The orthodox view is that the incarnation of Christ did not constitute a loss of any aspect of his divine nature, through the act of kenosis or any other such theory.Kenotic TheologyAlthough Thomasiuss influence and that of kenotic Christology in general gave way in Germany in the 1880s to Ritschlianism, kenotic Christology enjo yed a second flowering in Britain.23In the years following, interest would subside but then unexpectedly grow again as theologians once again reexamine the kenotic theory.In new-fashioned years there has been a renewed interest in kenotic Christology (see, for example, Evans, 2006). each current attempt to formulate a coherent and viable kenotic Christology will need to return to Thomasiuss work, above all to his Christi Person und Werk.24.In Christian Theology Millard Erickson gives his definition of kenoticism stating, The second Person of the Trinity laid apart his distinctly divine attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.), and took on human qualities instead.25In this view, Jesus is not God and man simultaneously, but successively. Kenoticism implies that Jesus is both God and man, moreover not at the same time.26Others have thought to develop the position of kenoticism in not such an abrogated way. Instead they incorporate the idea into a more mild form of kenotic theo logy. In a review of Michael J. Gormans Inhabiting the cruciate God Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Pauls Narrative Soteriology, Timothy G. Gombis of Cedarville University states,In chapter 1, Gorman develops Pauls master paper that demonstrates the kenotic character of Jesus Christ and reveals the very identity of God as kenotic. He focuses on Phil 25-11 and argues, based on a innate exegetical treatment of the passage, that the pattern although x not y but z reveals the narrative flight of the kenosis of Jesus. By this, Gorman means although status not selfishness but selflessness (p.16). Jesus Christ had status as God himself but did not exploit this, using it for his own comfort of personal gain. Rather, he pursued several progressively contaminating positions on a movement of downward mobility, going eventually to the in public shameful death on a cross (pp. 16-17). For Gorman, this passage is not properly understood to mean that Christ did this despite the fact tha t he was in the form of God. Rather, Christ pursued this path because he was in the form of God. In other words, and this is a crucial point for Gorman, Christs being in the form of God is most clearly seen in his self-emptying and self-expenditure (p. 25). In this sense, the very character of God is kenotic (self-emptying) and cruciform (cross-shaped).27In this passage, the reviewer (Gombis) notes that the compose (Gorman) thinks the kenotic passages are not clearly understood. Noting this misrepresentation, he suggests a proper view of kenotic theology. Whether or not Gorman is true in his assumptions remains speculative however it does illustrate the contemporary effort to redefine the implications inherent in kenotic theology. unmixed TheologyThe more classical view of the person and nature of Christ are theologies based more on the Chalcedonian formula and are gourmandize in the theological community. Some theologians have attempted to address the problem of formulating an ac ceptable understanding of the human and divine nature of Christ endlessly keeping a wary eye upon the parameters of the orthodox or Chalcedonian understanding of the incarnation. From the abstract of Robin Le Poidevins Identity and the complex Christ an Incarnational delemma, the author states,One way of understanding the reduplicative formula Christ is, qua God, omniscient, but qua man, throttle in knowledge is to take the occurrences of the qua locution as picking out different parts of Christ a divine part and a human part. But this view of Christ as a composite being runs into paradox when combined with the orthodox understanding, adopting a philosophically and theologically contentious perdurantist account of persistence through time, or rejecting altogether the idea of the composite Christ.28Here the author points out a formula of Christology of the human and divine natures but at the same time, recognizes that it conflicts paradoxically with the Chalcedonian parameters of the incarnation. In this respect, many theologians still show deference to and recognize the importance of the Chalcedonian councils definitive statement.The Chalcedonian parameters have been a staple in guiding theological thought for centuries. George P. Pardington, who was a well-esteemed professor of theology among the Christian Alliance, makes this clear. In his theology primer muster in Studies in Christian Doctrine, He deals with passages in Philippians 26,7 and other verses that show the nature of the preexistence of Christ and the incarnations, stating,These and other phrases express ineffable relationships within the Godhead, which we cannot comprehend. On Phil. 26 Thayers Greek Lexicon says Form (Greek, morphe) is that by which a person or thing strikes the vision, the external appearance. There is nothing in this passage, which teaches that the interminable Word (John 11) emptied Himself of either His divine nature of His attributes, but only of the outward visible man ifestation of the Godhead. He emptied, stripped Himself, of the insignia of Majesty (Lightfoot). When spring demanded, He exercised His divine attributes (Moorehead).29Pardingtons view of the kenotic passages in no way contradicts the Chalcedonian parameters since Christ did not give up any of his divine nature or attributes.Contemporary DebateRoger Olsen has noted that the differing opinions among evangelistics. He states,Kenotic Christology-emphasizing the need to take with utmost seriousness Jesus true humanity, including limited consciousness- has made significant inroads among evangelicals, charm other evangelical theologians have resisted and criticized it.30Olsen continues to describe what he characterizes as a very heated debate among more progressive and conservative Evangelicals stating, As recently as the mid-1990s heresy charges were thrown by conservative evangelicals at more moderate and progressive ones who dared to use the kenotic motif in paternity about the inca rnation.31Theologians who reaffirm the Chalcedon formula would be Bernard Ramm and Carl Henry.32Examples of some who are more outspoken against kenoticism would be Thomas V, Morris, Donald Bloesch, Millard Erickson and Stanley Grenz.33While Grenz is somewhat critical of kenotic theology, he nevertheless does not espouse the traditional Chalcedon formula either.34Olsen states,Two evangelical theologians who have attempted to push the frontiers of Christology are Clark Pinnock and Stanley Grenz. Both affirm that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly human, but they are displease with the classical behavior of that belief in Chalcedonian Christology (hypostatic union). They are not so much interested in rejecting it as in supplementing it with new and more helpful thought forms. People today, they argue, are not as tuned as ancient people were to the substance ontologies of Greek metaphysics, and the times call for a new expression of the doctrine of Jesus Christs humanity and divinity .35While the persona of this paper is not to critique the various forms of Christology espoused by many theologians among the ranks of evangelicals (and they are many), it is however concerned with the classical Chalcedonian formula of the incarnation, and whether or not kenotic theology adheres to it and why this is important.While there are those who strongly support the Chalcedonian formula, there are others who feel that it is flawed. Roger Olsen notes that both Clark Pinnock and Stanley Grenz are dissatisfied with the classical expression of that belief in Chalcedonian Christology (hypostatic union).36He once again points to the work of Stanley Grenz to illustrate this stating,Grenz argues in Theology for the Community of God ( green Rapids Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000) that classical Incarnational Christology travel short biblically and logically and revises it using the eschatological ontology (the future as the locus of being) of German theologian Wolfhart Pannenbe rg. According to Grenz, Jesus Christ is the Logos, who is not to be thought of as preexisting and then descending into human taradiddle but as revealing God and therefore belonging to the infinity of God by virtue of his resurrection.37Emphasis is Olsens.Olsen continues with his critique of Grenz showing how it is at deviation with classical Christology. This is where the debate becomes relevant to this research with respect to the Chalcedonian formula. Olsen states,The main passing between this Christology and classical Christology Chalcedonian lies in its denial of a logos asarkos discarnate or preincarnate Logos or Son of God. For Grenz, Jesus Christ is the Logos, the second person of the Trinity. Whatever tensions or problems may exist in Pinnocks and Grenzs Christology, they are not so much revisions of the hypostatic union as restatements of the basic Christological vision in new terms.38The abandoning of the basic tenants of the Chalcedonian formula present some organic difficulties, particularly in light of the doctrine of the Preexistence of Christ which was affirmed at Chalcedon.One of the issues in regard to the nature of Christ concerns his Consciousness. When did Christ come to the realization of who he was? Theologians like Myer Pearlman were more content to leave this question open stating, Just exactly when and how this self-consciousness came must remain a mystery to us. When we think of God coming to us in the form of a man we must reverently exclaim, Great is the mystery of pietism39Erickson would say, There were within his person dimensions of experience, knowledge and love not found in human beings. We must recognize that in dealing with Christ, he was more than just a man. He had and maintained all the qualities of a divine nature and a sinless human nature as well.40Another important issue that must be addressed is that the hypostatic union is permanent and everlasting. What Christ became in the incarnation is what he shall remain perpetually (Heb 217, 724).41This is a problem for the kenotic view of Christ since that in the kenotic view, according to Erickson.42Jesus is both God and man, just not at the same time. This would imply a doing away with what Jesus became in the incarnation after his ascension and glorification.ConclusionThe question that this research is concerned with may be answered by saying that Gottfried Thomasiuss original view of kenosis is not on the whole consistent with the formula of Chalcedon and did not adequately comply with the orthodox principles of the incarnation.SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHYBettenson, Henry. Documents of the Christian Church ed. Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder Oxford Oxford University Press, 1999.Byfield, Ted. ed., The Christians Their First Two Thousand age Edmonton Christian Millennial History Project, 2002.Erickson, Millard J., Christian Theology Grand Rapids baker Academic, 1998.Geisler, Norman L. When Skeptics Ask a handbook on Christian Evidences Grand Rapi ds Baker Publishing, 2008.Gombis, Timothy G. in review of Inhabiting the Cruciform God Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Pauls Narrative Soteriology, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 52, Is. 4 2009, p. 866.Gonzalez, Justo L. The horizontal surface of Christianity vol.1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation New York Harper Collins, 1984.Hall, J.H., Chalcedon, Council of (451), in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell Grand Rapids Baker Academic, 2009.Law, David R. Gottfried Thomasius (1802-1875) in The Blackwell Companion to the Theologians bulk 2, ed. Ian S. Markham Malden Blackwell Publishing, 2009.Le Poidevin, Robin. Identity and the composite Christ an Incarnational dilemma, in Religious Studies, Cambridge Vol. 45, Is. 2 2009, p. 167.McQuilkin, Robertson. Understanding and Applying the book of account Chicago Moody Press, 1992.Mitchell, Daniel R. The Unity of the Person of Christ, category lecture, Liberty Baptist Theologi cal Seminary, April 15, 2010.Olsen, Roger E. The Westminster handbook to Evangelical Theology Louisville Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.Pardington, George P. define Studies in Christian Doctrine Harrisburg Christian Publications, 1926.Pearlman, Myer. Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible Springfield Gospel Publishing, 1981.