PLEASE POST ON NEW SITE
After a recent conversation with some modern evangelical friends, I have come to believe that the understanding of the incarnation of Christ is one of the key differences separating their churches from more confessional ones. Improperly (or never) answered questions about where we find Christ, when we find Him, and who He really is, led to much of doctrinal confusion earlier in life, and much of the confusion of my mega-church going friends.
Is worship an emotional experience? A divine experience? Is Christ with us in His fullness, or is it only the a recollection of Christ and His work that wells up on our hearts? Is Jesus in, with, and under our spoken Word, or is this just an explanation of "what we believe, and you should too?"
Great post, John.
So, tell me, is the Lutheran Church there in England in need of pastors? Just thought I'd ask. It's not like I think that you should sort of, you know, consider it a possibility for you or anything like that there... Being a pastor that is, or at least, well, er, maybe investigating the slightest intimation that maybe it would be fruitful to look into it...
There, direct and blunt as always!
Funnily enough, you're the second person to suggest a career move for me today. The first suggestion was more tempting - but only in the Matthew 4:1-11 sense of the word, I fear. Being taken to the top of a very high mountain (well, the hill just up from my office) and shown all the kingdoms of the world and their glory... 
My views can sometimes come across as extreme?
ShockGaspHorror 
At this point I recommend reading any confessional Lutheran Christology or Eucharistic theology book (the two are not separable), then talking to some contemporary evangelicals about who Christ is.
Chris Williams:
"I recommend reading any confessional Lutheran Christology or Eucharistic theology book"
Suggestions (apart from Chemnitz Two Natures)?
I may be wrong, but I think the NIV's translation of Greek sarx as "sinful nature", not the literal "flesh" is a sympton of the problem in general evangelicalism. In the other translations spirit and flesh are wrestling with each other, something which directs our focus to our problem being both our sin AND the mortal flesh we have inherited from Adam. The incarnation, God become flesh (sinless yes, but flesh shared with us), the resurrection of the flesh--suddenly all of these things key into each other.
But when flesh is replaced by "sinful nature" mortality and corruption are removed as issues, leaving only sin itself, which particularly in Arminian churches is seen entirely as a thing stemming from free will. God becoming flesh is stripped of its amazing contradictory quality when we are not reminded of how the flesh is our problem.
Now, I know that in the "fine print" our mortality and corruption are consequences of sin. And in the "fine print" of "sinful nature" is the idea of it being an inborn nature. So I am not arguing that the NIV is blatantly heterodox in this aspect. But it is misleading and has significantly different nuances from the Greek "flesh/sarx", in ways that diminish the incarnation.
Of that which I have read, other than Chemnitz' "Two Natures in Christ", I'd recommend "This is My Body" by Sasse, "The Lord's Supper" by Chemnitz, and "Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics Vol. VI Christology" by Scaer.
But only if you want to end up having "extreme" views like me
Honestly, the more good theology I read, the less tolerance I have to heresy.
Chris,
I didn't mean "extreme" as in, well, "extreme", or "extremist" - and I only used the word in order to dismiss it anyway. It was more that your statement was quite a strong one, one that some people (who are less au fait with Lutheran objections to the weak Christology of other evangelicals) might find an overstatement. Certainly what was an eye-opener for me was just how shocking I found Simon Manchester's statement - an indication of how far my own views have changed in the past 12-18 months, when previously I would probably have sympathised more with what Manchester says.
Your fellow extremist in Christ,
John
Sasse anything. His "We Confess" trilogy is A+, as is "This is My Body."
I should have clarified my use of the word "extreme"... I really wasn't offended. I've gotten used to being called a doctrinal extremist so it's a term I somewhat treasure now. (As I stated above, the more I learn, the less "tolerant" I find myself becoming). I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression. And no blogger needs to be afraid of offending me. I really don't get offended easily.
Chris A:
Unlike you, I would not hesitate to call the NIV heterodox on account of its mistranslation of "sarx". It's a theological conclusion (and an erroneous one at that) posing as a translation. The NIV is execrable.
John:
tell people why Jesus came in the flesh: namely, to die as a sacrifice for our sins
Even to say this is to continue to subordinate the Incarnation to the crucifixion, which can't be right. Christ's mission to die for our sins does not exhaust the purpose of the Incarnation. For He also became man to unite us to Himself and to bestow on us the divine Life. He came not just to restore the status quo ante before the fall, not simply to remove our sins, but to make possible, and to inaugurate, the fulfillment of our vocation of becoming one with God. Not only to give His life as a ransom for many but also that [we] might have Life and have it abundantly, and so that through His poverty [we] might become rich.
An orthodox soteriology will always be centred on the Incarnation, for what is not assumed is not healed, but what is saved is united to God (St Gregory Nazianzen).
Even to say this is to continue to subordinate the Incarnation to the crucifixion... Christ's mission to die for our sins does not exhaust the purpose of the Incarnation
You got me. It's a fair cop. Knew someone would pick me up on that statement
This post is an adaptation of a letter to The Briefing in response to Simon Manchester's article, so in the context I wanted (i) to be brief, and (ii) to acknowledge the need stressed by Manchester to point people to the cross even at Christmas.
But yes, I agree there is far more to the purpose of the Incarnation than what I said in that sentence.
Chris:
I haven't quite reached that point of extremism yet. I'm trying, I'll be there in a little :^D
Seriously, looking at it in the store over the weekend I have been impressed by the English Standard Version which the LCMS is adopting. (The introduction is rather full of self-praise, though). But funny I forgot to check on sarx. I hope it's flesh.
In this context (Christmas and Easter) the EO concept of divinization/theosis, or to put it in Biblical terms, partaking in the divine nature, needs to be stressed, precisely because to so many evangelicals it sounds shocking.
While we're talking about good books on the Incarnation/Euchrist, I recommend On the Unity of Christ, a damn fine dialogue by Cyril of Alexandria. It's uncanny how Cyrillian the Christology of, say, the Formula of Concord or Luther's works really is, and far from accidental, because it happens to be that found in, oh, John, Paul, Matthew, Peter...
Amen to Thomas's comment. His book is great and remarkably readable (plus it is an a cheap paperback format.) If there is ever a contest for "underappreciated Church father" Cyril would win hands down. The problem was like Chris W. he knew too much theology and had little patience with heretics (think "robber synod" at Ephesus). Then along comes Gibbon who ridicules the whole controversy, and Cyril is set up as the bad guy, while Nestorius is exonerated as actually teaching what the evangelical (and even RC!) church really believes. What does that say actually about evangelical/RC theology today? It is my impression that Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans are the only real heirs of Chalcedon around today.
Re ESV and flesh:
I checked the ESV online and it looks like it translates sarx as flesh. Here's a few comparisons from Romans 7.
Romans 7:5
ESV
For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
NIV
For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.
Romans 7:14
ESV
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.
NIV
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
Romans 7:18
ESV
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.
NIV
I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
Romans 7:25
ESV
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
NIV
Thanks be to God–through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Chris
Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans are the only real heirs of Chalcedon
I've seen modern RC theology characterized as "Nestorianizing" before, but (since I never read any RC theology) I don't know what the basis for that is, or whether it's fair.
Since Rome officially accepts Ephesus & Chalcedon as irreformable ecumenical councils, it would seen that any Roman theologian who is Nestorianizing would be in danger of being officially heterodox, especially since Rome also accepts Constantinople II & III. The point of those councils was to make sure that Chalcedon would be understood in a Cyrilline way, rather than (as the Nestorians wished) being understood as an implicit "repeal" of Ephesus.
As much as I'd like to regard Lutheranism and Orthodoxy (my two favorite Churches) as "the only real heirs" of Chalcedon, I suspect it's not fair to Rome to do so.
As I understand it, the "Nestorianizing" current in RC theology works not by saying Ephesus was wrong but by saying, "Of course the errors decried at Ephesus and Constantinople II and III are errors, but Nestorius did not in fact believe in the errors anathemized in those documents." (This is of the same school as "of course Trent's anathemas are still valid, but Luther never believed what is anathemized at Trent.")
Apparently Nestorius's sole surviving work "Bazaar of Heraclides" was rediscovered recently. I haven't read it, though.
The Assyrian Church of the East independently holds an officially anti-Ephesus, anti-Chalcedon position. I've read one their works, the Marganitha; the issues are complicated by the issue of translating Syriac into Greek. As much as understood it, I disagree with it.
Thanks Jeremy for the ESV refs. Let's all switch ASAP.
Let's all switch ASAP.
Some of us already did
What Nestorius personally believed is irrelevant. If Nestorius was "misunderstood", then fine - Nestorius personally can be "rehabilitated". But that would mean only that "Nestorianism" is poorly named, not that it is not a heresy. There can be no compromise on the doctrine taught by the Christological councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople (II & III).
About switching, I was actually thinking of our congregation. LCMS churches will have to consider whether to purchase or not the new LCMS hymnal/lectionary. (It will also mean there will probably have to be another catechism volume). At home I read the NASB.
Chris A: I gather the LSB uses the ESV, but there is *not* going to be an ESV-ed version of the catechism. Not because people preferred the NIV per se - I think Luther's own words from the preface to the catechism prevailed, about how retaining even a poor version of the Creed, Commandments and Lord's Prayer was better than switching and chopping between different versions, so that people end up knowing none of them.
I would rather people had said - "Here's the last change for a generation or more", since the ESV is not only far superior to the NIV, but would represent a return to mainstream English translation, esp. for the commandments. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
I've heard from someone who served on the LSB committee at the 2004 convention that the issues raised about catechism translation were because people were confused as to whether a new printing of it was going to occur. If I remember correctly, the only places you'll find a differing translation in the Biblical texts is when the catechism is quoted in parts of the LSB, but when actually printed in toto, it will be the current NIV.
I can't remember if that ended up passing or not, though. I hope not, since it'd be too confusing (as the illustrious Mr. H. points out above).
I do have one comment/question on the 'flesh' vs. 'sinful nature' translation. While I am in favor of the more literal 'flesh', and in no way wish to be seen as defending the NIV, I do wish to raise the issues of Docetism or Gnosticism and whatever present-day forms they take. I certainly see 'flesh' as a stronger, more definitive word, but perhaps the NIV translators chose differently because of some un-warranted fear of Gnostic-esque misuse. Just to put the fairest light on it. Anyone know for sure?
The NIV's "sinful nature" for sarx may be a bad translation - and one of a number of good reasons for preferring the ESV - but it's not as bad as the Good News Bible, which translates sarx as - get this - "human nature".
And I don't think we should overdo the anti-NIV thang. The NIV is a generally good translation that reads well, and that has nurtured a very large number of Christians (eg me) in the biblical faith. The ESV is better, IMO, and the existence of the ESV makes it unnecessary and undesirable to live with the NIV's weaknesses.
But if we overdo the NIV-bashing then we risk confusing people and putting them off reading any Bible version. The NIV and the ESV are both streets ahead of the proliferation of more recent translations (CEV, NLT etc) which seem to be taking ever-increasing liberties with the text.
Keith:
You are exactly right about the origin of the anti-sarx bit. The NIV editors realized the Holy Spirit was a great inspirational author but kind of, you know, not sufficiently trained in theological distinctions, and they discretely helped Him out, lest His basically valid words be "taken out of context".
But John really does take the fun out of everything, even bashing the NIV. No sooner do I discover a hobby horse to ride than he has to remind me that my present hobby horse is NOT the sum of Christianity, and must not be presented as if it is.
Seriously, John, you ought to consider what Thomas said at the beginning of this thread.
Commenting by HaloScan
