Service Times
Sunday School: 9:30 am
Worship Service: 10:45 am
Evening Bible Study: 6:00 pm
LEADERSHIP
PASTOR'S BLOG
Neoorthodoxy can be defined as “a twentieth-century theological movement, emphasizing Scripture as a pointer to revelation that is centered in Christ, and holding that Scripture contains the Word of God but is not identical with it.” See, Karleen, P. S. 1987. The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System. Oxford University Press: New York. It originated as a response to liberalism and its fundamental failures to accept the truth of man’s depravity and God’s holiness. In so doing, however, it abandoned true orthodoxy in the understanding of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture:
The term neo-orthodoxy means “new orthodoxy” ; however, although it is new, it is not orthodox. Neo-orthodoxy was a reaction to the failure of liberalism. The advent of World War I demonstrated the theological error of liberalism with its denial of sin and its affirmation of the basic goodness of man. Karl Barth (1886–1968) sought to recover the truth when he abandoned his liberal training and gave himself to a serious study of the Scriptures. The publication of Barth’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans in 1919 is considered the beginning of neo-orthodoxy, the break from liberalism. Neoorthodoxy, however, has a wide divergence of theological opinions.
See, Enns, P. P. 1997, c1989. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Moody Press: Chicago, Ill., p. 31.
Specifically, as a system of biblical interpretation, neoorthodoxy, while rejecting the views of liberalism which disavowed the validity and reality of the spiritual truths of the Bible, goes so far to make the Bible a “living book” that it views Scripture as a merely a commentary on God’s continual subjective revelation of Himself:
[T]he Bible is truth insofar as God works through it to disclose himself to individuals. It becomes the word of God whenever the Holy Spirit illumines it to the individual. Thus inspiration and illumination are again confused; or, more exactly, the former is swallowed up by the latter. Certainly neo-orthodoxy was right to protest against a dead ‘word’ that neither transformed nor gave life to individuals. But its solution is too drastic and ends up denying what Jesus and the earliest believers understood the Scripture to be.
See, Carson, D. A. 1994. New Bible Commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.). Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA. Similarly put:
It tells us that the Bible was simply a comment in its day on man’s spiritual experiences, and today man is still having spiritual experiences, therefore he needs another comment. One writer said that we need a Bible to be written today, just as we did when the Bible we have in our hands was written, because we need somebody to comment on what God is doing now. He also said that when Tom or Mary stand up in your church and say, “Thus says the Lord,” they are as equally inspired as Isaiah, Jeremiah, or any of the other prophets (J. Rodman Williams, The Era of the Spirit, Logos International, 1971).
See, MacArthur, J., Jr. 1996, c1982. How to Study the Bible. John MacArthur's Bible Studies. Moody Press: Chicago.
The major tenets of neo-orthodoxy are the following.10 The Bible is not revelation but a witness to revelation: it is not to be equated objectively with the Word of God; the revelation of God is not in words. Jesus Christ is the focal point of God’s revelation: man meets God in an experiential encounter with Jesus Christ. The events of Scripture, such as Christ’s resurrection, are termed geschichte, “story,” in contrast to historie, “history.” Geschichte refers to the transcendent, experiential truth of God that is unaffected by the truth or error that may characterize the earthbound particulars of historie. Historie is historically verifiable and, therefore, the lower level of Scripture in which errors can and have been discovered. Geschichte is historically unverifiable and, therefore, the higher level of Scripture in which errors cannot be discovered. It is unimportant, therefore, whether or not the stories of the Bible really took place in space and time; the fact that many Bible accounts are “myths” or “sagas” does not affect their higher meaning and validity. God is transcendent, the “wholly other.” A sharp distinction exists between man and God; man can come to fellowship with God only through a “leap of faith.”
See, Enns, supra. Neoorthodoxy is found in the writings and teachings of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, and is believed to have originated in Barth’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans in 1919. See, Enns, supra.
Neoorthodoxy’s strength lies in its rejection of liberalism, but it fails because of its unwillingness to accept the Bible as the complete, inspired, inerrant Word of God, wherein God chose to reveal Himself, most of all in Christ:
The Barthian (another name for neoorthodoxy) says that his authority is Christ and not the Bible, for that is a fallible book. But since it is a book full of errors (and if it is our only source of information about Christ), then how do we know that Christ has any authority unless we arbitrarily assign Him authority on the basis of our faith or of our reasoning? Operating within the framework of this hybrid kind of thinking, the Barthian merrily goes on his way, preaching like a conservative but believing everything that liberalism has taught through the years.
See, Ryrie, C. C. 1995, c1972. A Survey of Bible doctrine. Moody Press: Chicago. Not only is such logically deficient, it flies directly in the face of Scripture’s testimony about itself, Christ’s teaching and understanding concerning the inspiration and perfection of Scripture right down to the punctuation, and the warning of Scripture concerning its finality and completeness:
Let’s look at the end of the last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation: “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (18b–19). The Bible ends with a warning not to take away anything, and not to add anything. That’s a testimony of its completeness. It is infallible in its total, inerrant in its parts, and it is complete.
See, MacArthur, J., Jr. 1996, c1982. How to study the Bible. John MacArthur's Bible Studies. Moody Press: Chicago.
Is Jesus a man who is "like" God. Did He "become" diety? Is He fully God? Is He fully man, too? Questions like this are asked today, and they have been asked and answered (both correctly and incorrectly) in the past. One of the more famous wrong answers is that of Arius, a third-century Christian leader from Alexandria, known today as the Arian Heresy. To understand the Arian Heresy (and why it is heresy) it is necessary to understand the doctrine of Christ’s two natures. Nature, has been defined as “the essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing,”[i] and as “the sum total of all the essential qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is.”[ii] It is with regard to the truth concerning the essential characteristics of Christ (His nature), that a consideration of the Arian Heresy must be undertaken.
Generally speaking, the Arian heresy taught “Christ to be more human than divine.”[iii] Particularly, seizing upon such verses as John 14:28 (I am going to the Father, for My Father is greater than I), it was believed that Jesus was “a lesser being than the Father,”[iv] denying Him as the eternal Logos (John 1:1 et seq.), and teaching that He was a created being with a divine nature that was similar to God (homoiousian - similar in substance), but not the same (homoousian - same in substance).[v] Consistent with this believe, Arius taught concerning Christ, whom the Bible teaches is both eternal and was active in creation, that “yhere was once when he was not.”[vi] (Internal citations omitted). As such, the Arian heresy denied Christ’s complete deity, by denying His co-eternality with the Father. As set forth below, the teaching of the Arian Heresy was scripturally unsound and theologically flawed.
Contrary to the teachings of Arius, the truth is that Christ has two natures, divine and human, existing in one Person, with neither nature diminished or lessened by the existence of the other. This is referred to as the hypostatic union:
Many facts point to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God; many others lead to the conclusion that He is truly human; at the same time we see only one Person moving across the pages of the gospels. This union of undiminished deity and perfect humanity forever in one Person is called the doctrine of the hypostatic union (that is, the union of two hypostases or natures), and this is the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.[vii]
(Internal citations omitted). Accordingly, it is with regard to this truth, that the Arian heresy falls short in declaring Christ to be something less than completely God.
Christ has a divine nature because He is God. He is co-equal and co-eternal with the other Members of the Godhead (Jn 1:1). Further evidence of Christ’s deity consist of His own testimony (Jn 8:58); His works, including: forgiving sins (Mk 2:1–12), judgment (Jn 15:26; Acts 17:31), creation (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16), and upholding all things (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3); His characteristics of omniscience (Mk 2:8; Jn 1:48), omnipotence (Mt 28:18), and omnipresence (Mt 18:20); and His titles in Scripture and the declaration of His worthiness to receive worship.[viii] Accordingly, Christ’s essential characteristics (His nature) are those of complete Godhood. Scripture rightly concludes that "in Him dwells all of the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
Without diminishing the fullness of His divine nature, Christ also took upon Himself the nature of a human. ( Jn 1:1). Accordingly:
Jesus was not only fully God but also fully man—with one important exception to our usual concept of humanity. He was without sin and no other human being has that characteristic.
The truth of Christ’s humanity is evidenced by His birth, wherein He became flesh taking upon Himself a human body a fact to which He testified (Jn 8:40; 1 Jn 1:1), the possession of a human soul and spirit (Mt 26:38; Lk 23:46), experienced hunger (Mt 4:2), thirst (Jn 19:28), fatigue (Jn 4:6), love (Mt 9:36), sadness (Jn 11:35), and testings (Heb 4:15), and possessed names identifying Him with humanity (Lk 19:10; Mk 10:47; Mt 1:21; 1 Ti 2:5).[ix] Perhaps the most telling evidence of His humanity is His ability to die, as He did voluntarily upon the cross. Just as with His complete divinity, Christ’s essential characteristics (His nature) include perfect humanity
Christ’s natures exist in perfect unity, but are in no way intermingled. For instance, Christ expressed His human will in praying to the Father “not my will, but thine.” (Lk 22:42). Nonetheless, the two natures exist in one person as evidenced in 1 Ti 2:5–7:
A “mediator” (2:5) is one who stands between two parties to remove a disagreement or reach a common goal. The mediator must perfectly represent both parties. Christ, the God-man, is the perfect mediator, representing both God’s interests and man’s without prejudice or compromise. This verse supports the doctrine of hypostatic union—that the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ were united in one person forever without the mingling of attributes.[x]
Thus, Christ’s two natures are complete and undiminished:
He remains forever the God-man, fully God and fully man, two distinct natures in one Person forever. “Though Christ sometimes operated in the sphere of His humanity and in other cases in the sphere of His deity, in all cases what He did and what He was could be attributed to His one Person. Even though it is evident that there were two natures in Christ, He is never considered a dual personality.” In summarizing the hypostatic union, three facts are noted: (1) Christ has two distinct natures: humanity and deity; (2) there is no mixture or intermingling of the two natures; (3) although He has two natures, Christ is one Person.[xi]
Thus the conclusion that the teachings of Arias are heretical in that they deny the truth concerning Christ’s full deity is correct, and are easily refuted on the basis of Scripture.
Anyone up for discussion? Questions, comments, or cries of outrage?
[i] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
[ii] Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Edinbergh: Banner of Trust, 1941; p. 322.
[iii] Achtemeier, P. J.. Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985; The Bible and Western Literatue.
[iv] Kaiser, W. C. Hard sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press; p. 504.
[v] Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999; p. 290, 291.
[vi] Carson, D.A. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press; 1974.
[vii] Ryrie, Charles C. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Hughes, Robert B. Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1990.
[xi] Enns, P. P. The Moody handbook of theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1997.
Proberbs 27:17 says "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." I want to use the FBC-Brookville Pastor's blog as a forum for us to sharpen one another's understanding of Scripture and its application in our lives. To that end, I will be posting weekly blogs concerning various matters of Christian teaching and have enabled comments in order to invite comment and discussion. Please take the time view the Pastor's Blog at FBC-Brookville every Monday morning to glean what you can as well as contribute to our collective understanding. I will post my first blog posting this Sunday night. -- Pastor Rudd
© 2008 FBC Brookville....site by buildachurchwebsite.com - church website design