# A Chalcedonian Christological Question from Lutherans. Anyone?



## ARStager (Feb 14, 2005)

This comes from http://metalutheran.blogspot.com - Here We Stand. Anyone want to take a hack at it? This was a major, major issue for me when wrestling with Lutheranism and Calvinism and specifically the Supper, so I'd be curious how you might respond - those who know more than I on this subject.

Go ahead and move the thread if it's supposed to go somewhere else. Didn't see any Christological forum.



Question for the Reformed

Ok, so it's been over 400 years since Zwingli invented "alleosis" as a means of explaining away clear Scriptural statements about the exaltation (genus maiestaticum) and divine works (genus apotolesmaticum) of Jesus (for a description of alleosis, go here and scroll to point number 7[here they cite WCF 8.7]). It's likewise been over 400 years since Chemnitz wrote Two Natures and

1. ripped apart every single argument ventured by Zwingli, Calvin and Beza to deny the communication of attributes,

2. exploded the Reformed hypothesis that Lutheran christology "contradicts the definition of Chalcedon,"

3. brought together a definitive body of historical evidence that Reformed christology is the exact sort of doctrine that Chalcedon was called to refute, and

4. refuted every mischaracterization of Lutheran christology.

As far as I know, there has been no response to Chemnitz, as every Reformed argument I've read for separating the two natures in all areas but a mystical union of "personhood" (which is defined in a way completely foreign to the Chalcedonian use of the term) and insisting that every biblical reference ascribing a real divine exaltation or divine power to Jesus is simply a nominal predication predates Chemnitz's treatise and has already been addressed.

So here's my question:

Why do you still maintain Zwingli's Christology? Is there some sort of definitive "What Went Wrong With Chalcedon" treatise that I can pick up, or maybe a massive "Why Scripture Doesn't Really Mean That" book backing up the use of alleosis in hermeneutics? Ok, that was sarcastic, but I want a serious answer that Chemnitz hasn't already thoroughly dealt with. In other words, explain either:

1. Why Calvin/Zwingli's Christology was right, and direct me to where Chemnitz's book has been refuted, or deal with it yourself. Just dealing with Andrae's Catalogue of Testimonies would be a good start. Explain why everyone from Athanasius to Damascenus was wrong about the basic Christological facts (not the "why" as in "OR THE CHURCH HAS FAILED LOL!!" just an analysis of what's wrong with patristic Christology)...or explain how Chemnitz, Andrae, etc, interpreted the Fathers totally wrong, and how they really did teach alleosis and Zwinglianism. It wouldn't be the first time an ancient source was misread.

2. Admit Chemnitz demolished the old reasons, and give some new reason discovered since the Reformation why Calvin and Zwingli were right. Like perhaps NT Wright has written a massive tome drawing from new insights on 1st-century Judaism as to why the divine and human natures in Christ had no communion and acted apart from each other. I don't know.

3. If in fact there is no evidence or solid arguments against Chemnitz, Luther, Cyril, etc, the explain why in the face of a mountain of contradictory evidence and zero arguments from your side of the table, you continue to maintain the doctrine. I mean, why not just change it? Say "Oops, Calvin was wrong about something." I'm not saying become Lutherans, but at least the rest of your distinctive doctrines have some kind of logical or exegetical foundation. But after Chemnitz, this one is just totally out in left field. Just white out that part of the Westminster Confession of Faith, quit teaching that section in Berkhof, and we'll let bygones be bygones.

I'm not being sarcastic, either. I've thought about this for a long time, and just about every other doctrine I disagree with, I understand, having once believed it myself and defended it against detractors. Rejecting the Real Presence? Universal atonement? Baptismal regeneration? Ok, I understand where you're coming from...but Christology? I gotta say, that's the one place where I'm absolutely clueless as to why Calvinists have to be different from everyone else. I'd highly appreciate someone directing me to some Reformed resources that actually interact with the mountain of evidence I detailed prior, or else blogging some sort of comprehensive explanation and defense of Reformed Christology over and against Cyrillene Christology.

[Edited on 2-15-2005 by ARStager]


----------



## tdowns (Feb 14, 2005)

*Simple explanation*

Is there a simple, short way of explaining the debate (and what's at stake) for us ignorant to the christology arguments between Calvin and Luther?

TDREVOLVER


----------



## tdowns (Feb 14, 2005)

*Anybody?*

Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## turmeric (Feb 15, 2005)

Is this a Monophysite/Nestorian thing?


----------



## DTK (Feb 15, 2005)

Do you understand the terms, and the nuances and implications of each? And have you read Richard A. Muller's definition of the terms and explanation of the differences between the Reformed and the Lutheran views on these issues in his _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985)? He discusses this issue on pages 72ff under the heading of "communicatio idiomatum/communicatio proprietatum."

DTK

[Edited on 15-2-2005 by DTK]


----------



## Peter (Feb 15, 2005)

Here's something on biblical Reformed Christology vs. blasphemous Lutheran:
http://dr-fnlee.org/docs4/dgdoc/dgdoc.pdf


----------



## tdowns (Feb 15, 2005)

*Perfect*

Great article, thanks.

This quote from it seems to sum up major problem of issue, am I right?

..."This led to the Gnesio Lutheran view that after His resurrection and especially His ascension, Christ’s human nature became omnipresent-and hence present also in the element sat the Lord’s Table."

Thanks,

TDREVOLVER


----------



## ARStager (Feb 15, 2005)

My problem with the Lutheran Supper, then, is that if he's omni-present in his human nature, then why put him inside bread and wine at all? My one Lutheran friend always talks about how the incarnation is important to answer "where" and "when" Jesus "is" --- claiming that it clears up the mistakes that modern evangelicals (and Mexican Catholics) make when they look for Jesus in the wrong places, like CCM music (and tortillas). My Lutheran friend talks about how Word and Sacrament point us to that which Christ has bound himself to - and where we can always find him at work. This, of course, (with WCF's addition of pious prayer) is true for Reformed folks, too...and keeps us out of idolatry. 

But then I return to my original problem: if the Lutherans assert omnipresence of the incarnate, glorified, risen Christ...then why NOT look to your U2 CD, your tortilla, or your next door neighbor when you want some Jesus? What, then, makes Christ MORE "there" in bread and wine than anywhere else? Lutherans focus so much on ingesting Christ orally --- but according to their definitions, if they miss their mouth and the wafer falls, as long as they ingest something (air, bacteria, etc.), they've ingested the incarnate, glorified, risen, omnipresent Christ. 

Is this a logical, reasonable complaint to point out, or am I missing something?

[Edited on 2-15-2005 by ARStager]


----------



## TimV (Feb 15, 2005)

The theological foundation if resolving the issue between our view and the Lutheran is already in place. I refer to economic appropriation.

Can God feel thirst? Yes and no. He can't but He can, because we can attribute thirst to God due to His relationship to the Son.

Is Christ's blood in the wine? Yes and no. It isn't, but is can be attributed to it.


----------



## ARStager (Feb 15, 2005)

Tim:

Sorry, you completely lost me there.


----------



## Scott (Feb 15, 2005)

I am not schooled on the Reformed / Lutheran debates. They rarely occur these days. Here is an interesting excerpt from a Lutheran article on ministry that criticizes Reformed views for essentially the same reasons posted on the list. 
http://members.aol.com/SemperRef/playing.html



> The Office of the Public Ministry is Christ's Office in Christ's Church. Individuals are allowed, even commanded, to exercise the Office, yet it is not their possession. The Ministry, like the Church, belongs to Christ alone. A Pastor, therefore, cannot perform the functions of the Office personally. The Minister can act only as a representative of Christ. Thus Melanchthon, in Apology VII & VIII, was able to assert:
> [Ministers] do not represent their own persons but the person of Christ, because of the church's call, as Christ testifies (Luke 10:16), "He who hears you hears me." When they offer the Word of Christ or the sacraments, they do so in Christ's place and stead.6
> The Minister functions "in the stead and by the command" of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the modern Lutheran liturgy so clearly states.7
> This common description of the Christ/Clergy relationship, however, can easily convey a Reformed rather than Lutheran christology if understood in isolation. To say only that the Pastor represents Christ or stands in His place can suggest that Jesus is locally confined in heaven and thus incapable of personal presence among His people. Under this scheme a Minister must serve as the earthly surrogate necessitated by Jesus' heavenly exile. Since the Minister is required to perform churchly acts for Jesus, as His substitute, the functions of the Office ultimately eclipse the Office itself. Christ is relegated to a place far removed from His Church on earth and to the very fringe of any discussion of the Office of the Ministry. In as much as this understanding of the Public Ministry portrays Christ in absentia, it must be identified as neither Lutheran nor truly christological. This was never the intent of the early Lutheran fathers.
> ...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 15, 2005)

The answer to this question is here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/CD/TwoWillsBookCD.htm

http://www.puritanpublications.com/ReformedBooks.htm

Really you are delaing with an issue of hermeneutics.

God does not thirst, cry, feel hunger, become sad, get angry, etc. - He is without parts and passions, and immutbale.

Christ did thirst, sleep, etc.

How this formulations works is critical to not mixing the natures of Christ, becoming neither a Nestorian, or Eutychianist.


----------



## TimV (Feb 15, 2005)

God doesn't feel hunger, but hunger can be attributed to God; this is an application of the doctrine of economic appropriation.


----------

