Christ and the first six General Councils of the Church
The 7th General (or "Ecumenical") Council of the Church, as most people reading my posts already know, dealt strongly with the issue of iconoclasm. The 7th Council is most known for these dealings and subsequent condemnation of the iconoclasts.
But, prior to this Council, the Church had 6 General Councils in all. And it could be truly said that these first few Councils dealt more with Christology (and the Trinity, almost by implication in the Christology) than with any other subject. Given this, a certain Christological view flows forth from the first six Holy and General Councils of the Church. This is a Christology which, it seems, all mainstream Protestant denominations hold-to. In fact, most of them would agree with these first Six Councils and condemn as a heretic anyone who denied the following view of Christ, which springs forth from these Councils.
Christ could be truly said to be the Second Person of the Triune Godhead. He is of the same substance as the Father and Holy Spirit. That is, Christ is one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. There is one Person (hypostasis) of Christ, even though in the Incarnation, the one Person takes on two natures: one divine, one human. He is fully divine in the Incarnation, yet he is fully human in the Incarnation as well. Each of the two natures possessed by the one hypostasis of the Son has a will of its own. That is, Christ has two wills to correspond to the two natures: one divine, one human.
Now, contemporary Evangelical Protestants writings systematic theologies will invariably point, not to the first six Councils which really gave them their "orthodox" view, but to the Bible as support for all of these dogmas concerning Christ. (The last one which condemned Monotholitism, it must be admitted, is the most difficult one for which to find explicit biblical support. That Christ has two wills does not exactly jump off the pages of Scripture, and most honest Protestants will admit this.) But what is interesting to me is that one needs only to consider any historic heretic who was condemned in one of these early Councils (the list in an earlier post will do well: "Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another"). Every single one of them mustered scriptural support for their various rejections of the bare-bones Christology given above. (Modern day "cults" do the same. See JW's or Mormons)
What is more is that when one reads a contemporary Evangelical systematics textbook covering Christology, the writer will appeal to scriptural passages as if that settles the matter in question. What seems to be the problem with this procedure is twofold. First, often the verses cited in support of the Christology coming out of the first 6 Councils do not overwhelm you with their obviousness, in terms of actually being solid and undeniable support for the Christological position staked out by the Protestant. The texts are often cited, however, in such a way as to lead the reader to think that the author believes there to be no reasonable view of the verse in question, outside of the view held by the author. This stretches credulity to say the least. Second, if the Scriptures themselves are the very things giving rise to the "orthodox" views concerning Christ, then why is it that the Scriptures themselves were used as primary supports by all the heretics condemned by these first few Councils. If the Scriptures are so overwhelmingly obvious in these regards, then it seems we are left with an odd view: they give rise to both orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Or it seems we must conclude that the early heretics were either insane or quite stupid, given that they missed the obviousness of the scriptural passages supporting the Conciliar view of Christ. Either option, again, stretches credulity.
It seems to me that a Protestant must be honest and admit that he gets his Christological orthodoxy from the Bible and the Councils. To not admit this seems as disingenuous as if he were to say that his 27 books of the New Testament in his Bible have nothing to do with the canonical pronouncements of the local councils of Hippo and Carthage. Yes, the Bible does support orthodox Christology, but it doesn't do so in such a way as to make one an idiot if he believes, for example, that Christ has only one will to correspond to his singular Personhood (or if he believes in monophysitism or modalism). And if you admit that though the Scriptures are fairly clear, yet not altogether sufficient to give one a full-blown Christology (and we not being altogether infallible interpreters of the fairly clear Scriptures), then you are on your way to a proper view of how orthodoxy comes about: i.e., from the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (especially in the Ecumenical Councils).
And, of course, it seems to me that a Protestant getting his "orthodox" view of the Trinity and Christ from these Councils raises instantly the issue of the infallibility of the Church. If orthodox means necessarily true in the mind of a Protestant, then what were the decrees of those first six Councils other than infallible? If the Christology you hold is orthodox, and it corresponds exactly with the Christology of the 6 Councils, then it was either luck that the Councils got it right and agreed with you (!). Or, rather that the view you hold is orthodox specifically because the Councils from which you mediately inherit the view were infallible. In which case, the Church must have some charism of general infallibility, irrespective of what one believes of the specific infallibility as regards the pope. But, a post on general infallibility must wait for another day.
posted by Jeremiah Kier Cowart at 6:32 PM
13 Comments:
Jeremiah states:
"Now, contemporary Protestants writings systematic theologies will invariably point, not to the first six Councils which really gave them their "orthodox" view, but to the Bible as support for all of these dogmas concerning Christ."
There is at least one exception to the above statement (that I am aware of anyway) and that is Charles Oden.
His systematic theology as well as his commentaries point to the Church Fathers as proof of these doctrines (albeit he does not eliminate Scripture but includes it too).
He is quite Protestant, but his theological emphasis is both ecumenical and mostly based on the Church Fathers. . .
Interesting, huh?
"It seems to me that a Protestant must be honest and admit that he gets his Christological orthodoxy from the Bible and the Councils."
Just to add another note:
As a Protestant, I agree emphatically with your above comment.
Thanks! That was actually a slip up. What I had in mind in that context (even when I read it from your quote of it) was *Evangelical* Protestants or just "Evangelicals." Not that this makes me immune from your point. I don't know Oden or his writings. But, point well-taken, and I will have to edit this post to reflect my original intentions. Certainly, it could not be said of all the big-wigs of Protestantism (e.g., the individuals Ben Myers is so fond of) that they merely appeal to the Bible for their Christology.
However, in context my comments were pointing to a contrast between holding to the Councils/Scriptures as authoritative for Christology on one hand and sola scriptura on the other. (This may not have been clear from my post.) Sure, all sorts of individuals will appeal to the Church fathers for further support (e.g., N. Geisler even does this in his systematics) for what they take to be authoritatively settled by the Scriptures themselves. My point is that it is not always plausible and/or possible to say one got his Christology from the one infallible rule of faith--the Bible. It is also inherited, like it or not, from the decrees of the Councils, which themselves trace heavily back onto the greatest of the Fathers, to be sure.
Well, I slipped up as well and said 'Charles' Oden, when in fact it is not _Charles_ but rather Thomas Oden. . . my bad :(
For biblical support, try John 6:38 as well as the passion in the garden.
www.energeticprocession.com
A reading from the Holy Gospel, according to St. John.
"because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me." (John 6:38)
The Word of the Lord
{And all the people say...}
Thanks be to God
The will there in jn 6:38 has to be the human will, because Christ shares one will and one intellect with the Father and the Spirit. The will then is natural and not hypostatic on pain of tri-theism or monothelitism.
To be quite honest it is not as if Catholic theologians have done a bang up job on the two wills of Christ either. Granted that they profess it, but reading say the Summa Theologia on it one comes away somewhat disappointed.
Thomas' gloss for example on the passion narrative is that Christ really doesn't will other than the Father but this is only a human desire, not a genuine act of will.
The problem then seems that human nature is opposed to the divine will and that looks a lot like Manicheanism.
In essence, any view which ends up rendering the human volitional activity of Christ determined in order to secure its impeccability ends up licensing predestinarianism and monothelitism. God can trump the human will of Christ, then he can do the same for everyone. And likewise if the human will of Christ is determined, then there is really only one energy of operation in Christ and not two.
Predestinarian schemes then are primarily Christological errors and not anthropological ones.
www.energeticprocession.com
Thanks for the interaction. I appreciate it. I assume you've gotten the thrust of my post? It was concerned with arguing that it is ultimately an unreasonable position to think one can come away with the Conciliar Christology by using a sola scriptura (or ss plus the Fathers, etc.) approach. As I said in the post and the interaction with T. Vick above, the argument here is not to suggest that the Scriptures cannot give support for this or that Christology. It is to suggest that they alone cannot force one into any Christology; not even the Conciliar (i.e., orthodox) one. Any verse or passage whatsoever can be (and what is more important, has been) spun in all manner of ways to support all manner of early heresies, as St. Vincent of Lerins noted. John 6:38 does not of itself force one into the orthodox view. For I could still hold to Sabellianism, ultimately, and give my Sabellian spin on the verse. You merely assert that "Christ shares one will and one intellect with the Father and the Spirit" for it is not borne out of the verse itself. Therefore, all types of heresies are still on the table: Nestorianism, Monophysitism, &c. Sure, you'll attempt some type of synthesis with other verses you hold to support your contention, but aye that's the point, isn't it. That's what everyone does, even the heretics. Hence, the need for something more than the Sacred Scriptures alone, as the post argues...
As to the rest of the comments on Christology, I follow you. No argument here except for the last line: "Predestinarian schemes then are primarily Christological errors and not anthropological ones." It is not obvious to me that Protestant errors on Predestination are more centered on Christology than anthropology, for they are often born out of a particular view of original sin, which is itself just as often based on a certain psychology of man or another (e.g., total depravity). It would be convenient if what you suspect were actually the case, but I doubt it is.
Again, thanks for the interaction.
I got the thrust of your post. Did you get the thrust of me comments? ;) Perhaps we have two different purposes in writing?
My comments on Jn 6:38 were assuming a context of chalcedonian dyophysitism-quite true. Far be it from me to argue for Sola Scriptura as I am not Protestant (I am not Catholic either for that matter.)
The Protestant error on original sin depends not on psychology but on the pelagian identification of nature and grace. If nature is identified with grace, then a fall from grac eimplies that the resulting nature has no positive value, and presto! total depravity.
But that is separate from predestinarianism since plenty of systems have been predestinarian apart from any notion of original sin. The fact that most Protestants (with the exception of Barth and a few others) think that predestinarianism is rooted in anthropology doesn't imply that it is. Why suppose that they are fully self concious as to the ground for their theological positions?
The connection with Christology is obvious. It is because Christ is the paradigm predestined individual than licenses the predestination of anyone. Moreover, predestinarian systems implicitly fail to distinguish between person and nature so that the predestination of one entails the other. It should come as no suprise that Lutheranism and Calvinism have mutually accused eachother of Christological heresy (Eutychianism and Nestorianism) for the last 500 years.
www.energeticprocession.com
Greetings!
It is no trouble if you wish to bring up issues a bit a field from the thrust of my original posts, especially since I find what you say intriguing. Since you granted the primary point, I'll leave it alone.
As to the connection between pychology and predestination, I don't assume that most Protestants are so self-conscious of the grounds for their views. But this is all the more reason, it seems to me, to downplay too much dependence of one's views on predestination with one's attending theological views on Christology. But, my views are more borne out of hunches than mature readings or reflections.
When I look at the particular psychologies of (say) Luther and Calvin (to say nothing of their own personal psychologies, whatever might definitively known about them and how they might be brought to bear on their view of anthropology), I find it fascinating that they both seem to shift to the negative aspects of man so quickly in their writings. Often, I find it a bit unexpected and shocking (ie, such a switch to a negative commentary on man not following, necessarily, from their previous comments). So, it makes me question whether their views on predestination are so much linked with Christology. Not to say that this isn't an avenue that affects their views of predestination. But whether it's reduceable to merely that seems reductive and I suspect not wholly true.
Much has been written about Luther's own personal struggles with sin and his hyper-sensitivity in this regard. Therefore, I would find it a stretch for someone to think he was so easily able to dichotomize his personal views/struggles from his theology in, say, the Bondage of the Will, or whatever else.
Also, there are senses in which anthropology is more basic than Christology, in the way that philosophy is more basic (or primary, or first-order) than a sacred science like theology. So, on a bottom-up approach to theology, one has more or less settled important aspects of anthropology much prior to delving into Christology. But, perhaps you find that most Protestants are not bottom-up in their theological explorations.
The negative views and psychology are motivated by their pelagian anthropology. Both Pelagians and Classical Protestants (Lutherans & Reformed) are monergists.
The fact that Protestants are not conscious of the ultimate Christological basis for their error is all the more reason to bring it to light for two reasons. First, people are often not persuaded by full frontal assaults, especially when they are along the lines of reasons that that have enountered previously. Backdoor apporaches are far more effective.
Second, Christology trumps soteriology every time. Protestants generally will dump their soteriological views if it ends up entailing a rejection of chalcedonian christology. Moreover, since this is not the usual approach they are far less likely to be familiar with the material and less likely to find much of any help in Protestant sources. Protestants, either as laymen or professional theologians usually spend little time in Christology.
To link up your comments about a negative view of human nature with Christological problems, perhaps I can bring out the connection more clearly. In order to secure the impeccability of Christ, Protestants usually will admit that the human will is determined by the divine will in Christ. If not, then it would be possible for Christ to sin. Human nature has to be over ridden in its natural willings because it is naturally opposed to God and here the Manicheanism should be obvious.
I can't see much of any way in which anthropology is antecedent to Christology. First because Christ is the Image of God. We are made in the image but he *is* the image. Second, Christ is the best and really only example of what is essential to human nature. Third, Christ is the focus and lens through which all other theological doctrines pass through. I know that you are thinking that in a scholastic approach, Christology comes later. This may be true, but scholasticism isn't necessarily a method that is de fide. Moreover, one could easily argue that in the order of knowing Christology is later but in the order of being, it is first.
Are you implying my approach in uneffective? ;-) I might take offense to that. No, please by all means flank them. From as many directions as possible and/or necessary Protestants ought to be confronted with the reality that there are many reasons to be a non-Protestant, not the least of which are some of the epistemic problems I've raised and the Christological connections you've made. In these endeavors, you'll find nothing but an advocate from me. I find your comments on Christology and the connections you've made to be fascinating.
But, as regards philosophy, I granted that you might find bottom-up theology to be a bit rare among Protestants (something I'm inclined to believe). In order to clarify my comments, I only mean to say that philosophy is antecedent to (though ironically still the handmaid of) sacred theology. And I only mean this to say that one cannot understand (say) St. Thomas Aquinas or the Bl. John Duns Scotus without previously getting down the metaphysics of Aristotle. That is to say, you cannot understand St. Thomas' discussion of the anthropology of man (to say nothing of his discussion of the hypostasis of Christ) without first having the Aristotelian undergirding of form/matter and (further) how the form/matter distinction applies to rational animals. This is just one example of the basicness of philosophy. The Church has known for a very long time that improper acquaintance with philosophy can only lead to irresponsible theology. Philosophy isn't a negotiable handmaid. It is the handmaid to theology.
Yes, of course, we are made in his image and therefore in the order of being Christ has primacy. However, we do not begin our quest of knowledge with immediate illumination about divinity and then work our way downward to the world. (I can only assume you do not wish to contest this.) It is the exact opposite, actually. We begin with the perception of things themselves and work our way upward (ie, cosmologically).
Scholastic philosophical theology a la St. Thomas Aquinas may not be de fide, but that has no relevance to me. If I find no serious rivals to it (as I've not) and further see continual Magisterial admonitions toward it (as I do), I've no good reason to move to any other method. Nor, I would argue, does anyone else.
One final note, your comment
"Moreover, one could easily argue that in the order of knowing Christology is later but in the order of being, it is first"
only supports everything I've thus far said regarding this relationship between the natural sciences and the sacred science, as we begin all investigations by knowing particulars, and not with immediate, intuitive knowledge of being.
Thank you for the interaction. I wish you had a web space on which I might be able to read some more of your Christological reflections. Christology, I must admit, is not at all a strong suit of mine. I've plenty yet to learn.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home