In the Incarnation
A warning against “novel ideas” concerning the person of Christ.
Whenever the discussion turns to Christology and the Incarnation, people seem to crawl out of the woodwork and start shooting from the hip. This is one area of theology where orthodoxy is very meticulously defined and has been accepted by all major traditions without serious challenge since the fourth century. Why anyone would want to enter the fray with a “Well, I think this: [your novel idea here]” kind of argument is mystifying to me.
The reason these issues were hashed out so carefully in the early church is that they are absolutely foundational. And it behooves us all to study historical theology and the major creeds on these matters before launching into speculation.
(Phil Johnson at Pyromaniacs)
Here’s what might be the perfect example of the sort of DIY Christology that Phil Johnson warns about: Leslie Wiggins reports that a speaker at a Women of Faith conference she attended taught that “Jesus wasn’t onmipotent or omniscient.” You’d think that would shock those who were listening, but instead “8,000 women erupted in applause and high-pitched woo-hoos.”
I wonder if the women attending weren’t familiar enough with the orthodox teaching on the nature of Christ to recognize unorthodoxy when they heard it. Or did they just not care?
In Eternity
Andy Nasselli answers this question: Does the Son submit to the Father eternally? (mp3).
In Him
Kim Shay quotes Derek Thomas:
Even as mature Christians we need to remind ourselves continually of the basis of our acceptance - it is entirely because of what Christ has done for us. Thus, faith in Christ is not a one time event; we must live by faith each day.
(The Upward Call)