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]
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]
