Christology: Lutheran and Reformed

Daniel9v9 · Feb 20, 2018

I'm reading a study on Christology in Lutheran and Reformed tradition, and though I've studied all of this before, it still feels dense and technical. It's basically an expansion or commentary of Christology in the Book of Concord.

A couple of things I find:
1. In the Reformed tradition, they explain the Lutheran position rather inaccurately. I even noticed this recently in a theology glossary I bought, along with an old Reformed systematics book I own. This is actually the reason why it took me a while to properly conform to Lutheranism, because I had a very wrong idea of what was actually taught.

Do you think in our day, is it mainly sophism or ignorance; or a combination of both? Do you think if people knew the Lutheran doctrine as plainly taught in the Lutheran church, they would be less suspicious? (I'm using a younger version of myself as an example) Also, do you think in the Lutheran tradition, we don't explain the Reformed position well? (I know it's a bit difficult as it can vary)

2. Every time I read Christology, I get a bit embarrassed. That may sound weird and it may very well just be me. I just feel like it's an impossible study, because we're trying to formulate the fullness of the deity in Christ, which is a mystery. Now, I agree with the Lutheran view, for it embraces the mystery and doesn't venture to speculate, however, at the same time I feel like it's not in my place to be overly adamant about scientific theology.

With "non-academics" in mind, would you rather talk about Christology in simpler ways, though it becomes more ambiguous? Or would you dedicate more time for a thorough and systematic approach, though, by some necessity it would have to be properly explained in relation to other doctrines, like the Eucharist. It also has the danger of falling into rationalism.
Where's the right balance? Should Christology be emphasized or de-emphasized in our day? What do you reckon?

John the Ex-Baptist · May 21, 2018

Daniel9v9 said:
Should Christology be emphasized or de-emphasized in our day? What do you reckon?

To be quite honest Daniel, I don't think Christology can ever be over emphasized. It seems to me that as soon as we Christians fail to hold the Person and work of Christ at the core of everything we consider to be true, it is only a matter of moments before we stray into false teaching at best, and heresy at worst.

So many churches boast they are "Christ centered", yet in truth spend virtually no time at all focussing upon Him, and the majority of time focussing upon more "exciting" doctrines. I've been writing Christian blog articles for years now, and when you put together something extremely carefully, pointing the reader to the Person and work of Christ in some way, very few show any interest at all. But you write a post about speaking in tongues, the tribulation, the antichrist, the errors of the Alpha Course, or something along those lines, and you start getting queues of people wanting to respond.

Some things just never change I suppose.

Daniel9v9 · May 22, 2018

John the Ex-Baptist said:
To be quite honest Daniel, I don't think Christology can ever be over emphasized. It seems to me that as soon as we Christians fail to hold the Person and work of Christ at the core of everything we consider to be true, it is only a matter of moments before we stray into false teaching at best, and heresy at worst.

So many churches boast they are "Christ centered", yet in truth spend virtually no time at all focussing upon Him, and the majority of time focussing upon more "exciting" doctrines. I've been writing Christian blog articles for years now, and when you put together something extremely carefully, pointing the reader to the Person and work of Christ in some way, very few show any interest at all. But you write a post about speaking in tongues, the tribulation, the antichrist, the errors of the Alpha Course, or something along those lines, and you start getting queues of people wanting to respond.

Some things just never change I suppose.

Good points! I have often heard that stuff like: "We don't preach doctrine. We preach practical.", which is the same Campbellite non-creed spirit we have today.

I agree that it's essential to have a clear idea of the works and person of Christ. The more I've been mulling this over, the more I'm leaning towards a fuller systematic approach. Better to be thorough than vague.

John the Ex-Baptist · May 24, 2018

Daniel9v9 said:
I agree that it's essential to have a clear idea of the works and person of Christ. The more I've been mulling this over, the more I'm leaning towards a fuller systematic approach. Better to be thorough than vague.

This is a massive subject for me currently. I remember about 10 years ago when I came out of the charismatic church, there were so many doctrinal issues that used to bother me a lot, especially where eschatology was concerned. Then one day...Blam!...I read Kim Riddlebarger speaking on the subject, contrasting dispensationalism with amillennialism. I literally changed my life, because I was suddenly made aware of this whole substructure that was an untrue foundation everything else was sitting upon. When I suddenly learned what it was to come to the Scripture through a Christ centred hermeneutic rather than a national Israel hermeneutic as dispensationalism does, everything seemed to fall into place effortlessly.

In a similar way, when my journey led through Calvary Chapel, to a Reformed church when I rejected dispensational theology, I had begun to have issues with regards to the differences between Reformed and Lutheran theology. I couldn't quite put my finger on the spot so to speak. Was it baptism, or the Lord's supper, or some other place the differences rested? Then a couple of weeks ago at my confirmation class with my pastor, I mentioned this stuff. He simply said that it's all in the Christology. Get that right, and everything else will fall into place. And boy was he right!

I spent hours the other day reading through Calvin's Institutes regarding the Person of Christ, and I have to admit, much of it sounded true. But much of the conclusions seem to be based upon natural conclusion, rather than what the Scripture says. However I only realised just how much, when I did the same thing and read the solid declaration on the same subject. There it seems to me that whatever conclusions are drawn, they are fully backed up by Scripture, and where the Scripture doesn't fill in the gap, then no attempt is made to do so.

For me personally, this subject is giving possibly an even bigger step than the one that happened years ago for me, and of course it involves much more core doctrinal issues, such as baptism and the Lord's Supper etc.. If I hadn't begun to study what was written in the Book of Concord on this matter, I wouldn't have been able to spot the crucial differences in a million years.

That whole doctrine of the union and communion of the two natures in Christ, and the way it works out for us, I find utterly mind blowing. I've only read a portion of the Lutheran confessions, and I feel like I've drunk the ocean! ^_^

I just don't see how such truth can be condensed to a few slogans, such as is the fashion these days.

Daniel9v9 · May 24, 2018

John the Ex-Baptist said:
This is a massive subject for me currently. I remember about 10 years ago when I came out of the charismatic church, there were so many doctrinal issues that used to bother me a lot, especially where eschatology was concerned. Then one day...Blam!...I read Kim Riddlebarger speaking on the subject, contrasting dispensationalism with amillennialism. I literally changed my life, because I was suddenly made aware of this whole substructure that was an untrue foundation everything else was sitting upon. When I suddenly learned what it was to come to the Scripture through a Christ centred hermeneutic rather than a national Israel hermeneutic as dispensationalism does, everything seemed to fall into place effortlessly.

In a similar way, when my journey led through Calvary Chapel, to a Reformed church when I rejected dispensational theology, I had begun to have issues with regards to the differences between Reformed and Lutheran theology. I couldn't quite put my finger on the spot so to speak. Was it baptism, or the Lord's supper, or some other place the differences rested? Then a couple of weeks ago at my confirmation class with my pastor, I mentioned this stuff. He simply said that it's all in the Christology. Get that right, and everything else will fall into place. And boy was he right!

I spent hours the other day reading through Calvin's Institutes regarding the Person of Christ, and I have to admit, much of it sounded true. But much of the conclusions seem to be based upon natural conclusion, rather than what the Scripture says. However I only realised just how much, when I did the same thing and read the solid declaration on the same subject. There it seems to me that whatever conclusions are drawn, they are fully backed up by Scripture, and where the Scripture doesn't fill in the gap, then no attempt is made to do so.

For me personally, this subject is giving possibly an even bigger step than the one that happened years ago for me, and of course it involves much more core doctrinal issues, such as baptism and the Lord's Supper etc.. If I hadn't begun to study what was written in the Book of Concord on this matter, I wouldn't have been able to spot the crucial differences in a million years.

That whole doctrine of the union and communion of the two natures in Christ, and the way it works out for us, I find utterly mind blowing. I've only read a portion of the Lutheran confessions, and I feel like I've drunk the ocean! I just don't see how such truth can be condensed to a few slogans, such as is the fashion these days.

I can totally relate to all of this, as I too, came out of a Charismatic environment. There are many aspects that won me over to Luther, but I think the Lutheran embrace of divine mystery over the Rationalistic tendencies of the modern church (Reformed - particularly non-denominational) is what really caught me. An example of this is the clear understanding of salvation being entirely from God, and damnation being entirely from us; and that this is not understood through science, but correctly apprehended through faith and trust in God and His Word and Sacraments.

I agree, I think the understanding of communicatio idiomatum, while not obvious to me before I was taught it, feels entirely Scriptural and overthrows all kind of extreme Rationalistic views. I found that it's really only through understanding the person of Christ - his nature and works - that the Eucharist makes properly sense. I used to have a very confused idea of the Sacraments, to the point where I'm even ashamed to say I showed contempt for them. I considered it something merely an empty gesture or a man-made rite; something "religious" and contrary to "faith". However, after studying Lutheranism, and Christology being a big part of this, I can see the whole harmony and consistency of doctrines. Even though the Lutheran church, as with any church body, is regrettably divided, it seems to me that - at least the orthodox view (which I subscribe to) - is remarkably uniform.

Search

Search

Christology: Lutheran and Reformed

Daniel9v9

†

More options

John the Ex-Baptist

Active Member

More options

Daniel9v9

†

More options

John the Ex-Baptist

Active Member

More options

Daniel9v9

†

More options

Similar threads