Christ and
his work are inseparable. This presupposition has fueled Christological debates
for centuries and held as dogma by the early church. A shift occurred during the
medieval period when “scholastic theology separated the doctrine of the person
of Christ from the offices and work of Christ, making it more difficult for the
average Christian to appreciate how this plays into their everyday living.”[1] The quest of the historical Jesus was a means
of making sense of all this.
Erickson considers the “Christology
from above” approach as fideistic.[2] Understandably so as Scripture went mostly
unquestioned during the early years of church history. It makes three
assumptions: (1) foundational to the Christian faith is the witness of Christ
and his word proclaimed (the kerygma); (2) there is a preference for the
“explicit theological interpretations of the apostle Paul and the Synoptic
Gospels (especially John) and the witness of the prophets and apostles; (3)
faith in “the Christ in the flesh” as foundational; “he or she will accept
historical statements by being rationally persuaded.”[3]
On the other hand, “Christology from
below” takes the opposite view. It “attempts to demonstrate the supernatural
character of Christ from historical evidences” giving priority to historical
reason over faith as the authority.[4] Another way to look at
this view is that “faith precedes but does not remain permanently independent
of reason; it is a starting point for reason to enable understanding.”[5] The findings of this
approach were called “Jesusologies,” but were saturated with anti-supernatural
biases and methodical inadequacies.[6] The problem is, this strategy
not only denies faith, it attempts to eliminate the subjective experience of
the believer, which is evidenced by dismissing the witness of the early church
fathers (ignoring the kerygma).
To counteract these two views (above
and below), Erickson advocates an alternative approach that integrates both historical
reason and faith; “an intertwined, mutually dependent, simultaneously
progressing approach.”[7]. This is a more balanced
approached. Christ’ dual nature (human and divine) presupposes a mix of natural
and supernatural acts. The historical Jesus is God (Jn.1:1; 1 Tim. 3:16; Col.
2:9). The very foundation of the Christian faith is based upon the acts and
witness of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:14). Understandably, the world will continue to
deny the miraculous and the supernatural, preferring instead to attribute the supernatural
acts of “Christ in the flesh” (and the
prophets and apostles) to natural laws. Still, there is great value in
understanding the historical Jesus, as this is a means of coming to faith. Some
will need concrete evidence (reassurance) in order to believe (Lk. 7:19,22).
But as Erickson argued, even in light of the facts some will not believe (Mat.
12:22-32).[8] Interestingly, the
incarnation of Christ suggests a God who is willing to make all necessary
sacrifices and provisions in order to meet people where they are, with the goal
of accomplishing his purpose and will. What really matters is “the effect of
Jesus’ life upon those who believe in him,” and history has shown that God
delights in revealing himself in diverse methods with the intent to redeem a
people back to covenant relationship (Heb.1:1-2).[9] Erickson’s alternative approach then, posits
“familiarity with the kerygmatic Christ, and the understanding and integration
of historical research of Jesus” as a helpful means of assurance for faith in
Christ.[10]
Written by Kevin A. Hall
No comments:
Post a Comment