Discussion Board Forum 1
The conventional Christology focused on trinity in regard to its miracle-working and preexistent second person aspects, and the denominational standards formed the basis Christ’s discussion. The standards were a reflection of various issues that had been resolved in the ecumenical councils held during the earlier centuries[1]. There was, however, a shift to the historical Christology to metaphysical Christology brought about by suspicion that there was difference between the actual Christ and Christ in tradition[2]. Some individuals such as Adolf von Harnack tried to describe the perception of liberal Christianity in which Christ was presented as having no supernatural abilities, so that he denied miracles that were purportedly originated from Jesus. According to him, the possibilities of these miracles had not scientific insights, thus believing them was based on collective naiveté[3]. With concerns increasing that liberal views in historical Christology involved fabrication of ideas about Jesus some scholars such as George Tyrrell evaluated such views and equated them to liberal protestant reflection “seen at the bottom of a deep well”[4]. Others like Schweitzer were suspicious of the aim of liberal researchers that presented varying conclusions to their historical investigations and he concluded that they introduced a preconceived idea of Christ into their views and he concluded that their perception of eschatological Jesus failed to match the current suppositions[5].
Christology from above
The notion by Kahler of the importance of studying the person and works of Christ (risen) and the relationship with His disciples instead of focusing on historical Jesus in terms of his human nature resulted in formation of studies focused on “Christology from above[6]”. This became the conventional way of studying of studying Christ before the scripture inerrancy begun being challenged by scholars as being not correct historically. In this regard, Emil Bruner highlighted various major ideas of such Christology that comprised of: the proclamation by the church as a better basis of studying that looking into history of Jesus’ life; Paul’s writing and Book of John were viewed as more appropriate for studying theology on Christ from above given that historical accounts instead of explicit ideas were provided by Synoptic Gospels; a reasoning process that seeks rational proof cannot be a basis of understanding faith in Christ. Only the understanding of Christ-in-flesh history with evaluation of certain accounts from witnesses can offer better knowledge in comparison to considering “Christ after flesh” which needs faith[7].
Christology from below
Another pursuit to discover Jesus in history was again addressed in Bultmann’s demythologization that held that a connection between kerygymatic Christ and life of Jesus as human was impossible. This view was challenged by Kasemann who argued that the only way to understand Christology was to examine him through a search on his Person and Works[8]. An idea was developed that it was possible to start studying historical Jesus which would finally lead to Christology and then His Deity, not as presupposition from assessment but as a conclusion[9].
Alternative approach by Erickson
Erickson argues that the real value of Christ incarnation among His followers is considered in Christology from above, but substantiating belief is quite difficult. Jesus’ Deity is seen in this approach as one that cannot be proved through studying Christ human life facts. Subjectivity is removed by Christology from below and thus Christ Divinity and miracles[10]. To resolve the problem presented by the two approaches, Erickson attempts to by acknowledging the reason dichotomy vs. same faith in which the world including believers have been entangled. He therefore, introduces the Augustinian model in which the study begins with kerygma faith without disregarding reason. Reason and faith are mutually dependent and that the better the scholar is familiar with kerymatic Christ, the more he will apply historical data[11].
Importance of the debate
The debate indicates how the importance of faith in a Christian while trying to understand historical inquiry and that a bias will always exist while using Christianity from below approach. A reasoned method is likely to be used by mature Christians while seeking more knowledge about risen Christ and Human Jesus. It is important to first understand the Work and Person of Jesus from a biblical point of view rather than human philosophy.
Bibliography
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 2013
Hoyt, Samuel L. The Judgment Seat of Christ: A Biblical and Theological Study. Duluth, Minn: Grace Gospel Press, 2015.
Kähler, Martin. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962.
Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1964
[1] Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 2013
[2] Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 2013
[3] Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 2013
[4] Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 2013
[5] Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 2013
[6] Kähler, Martin. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962.
[7] Hoyt, Samuel L. The Judgment Seat of Christ: A Biblical and Theological Study. Duluth, Minn: Grace Gospel Press, 2015.
[8] Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 2013
[9] Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 2013
[10] Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 2013
[11] Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 2013
