- Jun 5, 2016
- 1,948
- 1,725
- 38
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
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?
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?