Christocentricity

[GraceAmbassador]

I know we have an old thread on it called: The Implications of the Christocentric Hemeneutic started by Bob Higby, but I could not find the link to respond it in there. So if anyone want to merge this in there it is fine with me.

Because of a heated discussion I had with a very nice gentleman from Australia, I decided to go deep in my studies on Christocentricity, not only Canonical, but in all aspects of our beliefs, including but not limited to, hymnology, liturgy, preaching, teaching, acts of charity, etc. In my study I came up with his article, from a Baptist Professor (at least he is from a Baptist Institution) that I found it very interesting because he uses a very key passage on the N.T. (The Disciples on the way to Emaus) to make the point that Jesus Himself taught the Christocentric Hemeneutic. Here is the article:

http://www.shasta.edu/admin/userfile...ty_Lk24v27.pdf

I was also surprised that there is quite a bit of material out there on the issue and that there are legitimate concerns when people ABUSE of the Christocentric Hemeneutics to prove vary bad theology.

Well, I just want to focus on that article and find out what my fellow P-Netters would say about it.

Thanks,
Milt

[Saint Nicholas]

Greetings bro. Milt.

I think the article was written in good taste, with the emphasis primarily on extremes and abuses of the Christocentric hermeneutic. However, I felt his article lacked a sufficient amount of examples to more fully elaborate his point. However, that is my personal opinion.

That's really all I have to comment on for now.

In Christ,
Nicholas

[GraceAmbassador]

Thanks Saint Nicholas!

I thought the same thing.

At F.B. I posted this article preambled by the following: "I am a adherent of the CHRISTOCENTRIC hermeneutic, and I am aware of the exaggerations thereof and I don't need this guy (linked to the article) to warn me of that."

I have found that very few Christocentric people will commit exaggerations but they do happen! Any "donkey", "angel", "rock" if any, that speaks on behalf of God is immediately said to be "Jesus" in the O.T.! I have heard some dire absurdities in the name of the Christocentric hermeneutic, but again, they are rare and if not, they happen among the cooks, the superstitious people anyway.

The most interesting thing of the article, it seems, is the fact that it is NOT UNCOMMON for people who want to "warn" anyone of the exaggerations of the Christocentric Hermeneutic, quickly mention Luther in a "not so elevated way"! The FEAR of any discussion about the Canon is a shroud of scare upon these guy's heads! If they admit Luther had a legitimate point, then they have to reconsider their position on some books (plural).

I am not in the "plural" yet, but I do think that JESUS' METHOD in Luke 24 was to use the BOOKS IN WHICH HE WAS OBVIOUSLY MENTIONED, PROPHETICALLY MENTIONED OR THE MENTION TO HIM WAS SOMEWHAT DEDUCTIVE. By saying that, I don't think Jesus used the book of Esther, for example, in demonstrating HIM to the disciples as to where he is in the SCRIPTURE.

Also note the importance of Jesus ascribing as SCRIPTURE the books that speak of Him!!!!

Folks, is anyone thinking like I am thinking? I don't want to be irreverent, but by the way Jesus accredits SACRED STATUS to Scripture, and calls WHAT IS SCRIPTURE, "SCRIPTURE" I believe we just would have a very distinguished member at P-net writing posts... Any suggestion for what could be His screen name?

Now, let me paraphrase an old "revival" tune: "if it was good for Jesus, if it was good for Jesus, if it was good for Jesus, IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!!!!!!

I guarantee you, now the lurkers here think I have gone entirely mad...

Thanks!

[Robert R. Higby]

Great observations, Milt and Nick!

The Christocentric hermeneutic is entirely foreign to Reformed Protestant thought--because the 'reformed' catholics accept the 66-book canon as the self-authenticating starting point of truth, NOT the testimony within the revealed scriptures regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ. The whole of scripture is not believed and embraced on the basis of its core message, rather, the truths regarding Christ and his person & work are believed on the basis that the self-authenticating 66 book canon 'lets him in'.

So, let alone an evaluation of the New Testament (James especially), there will NEVER be an evaluation of the commonly accepted Protestant Old Testament by the 'reformed' using the Christocentric hermeneutic as the plumbline. Protestantism is by definition a 'protest', not a full renunciation, of the Roman Catholic and Eastern 'churches'. The Roman Church dictates what the Protestants must accept as canon; this has been the case since the 16th century.

[Highlyfavored]

The Roman Church dictates what the Protestants must accept as canon; this has been the case since the 16th century.

This just shows how modern reformed "christendumb" is blinded. To not even scratch their heads and question Rome on this one is pure lunacy.

[Robert R. Higby]

In this context we should go back to the 2004 article of James Swan, which was one of the main 'catalysts' for me bringing this debate to P-Net originally:

http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm

I personally do not think Swan's incredible research on this issue, taken as a whole, can be matched for generations to come.

[GraceAmbassador]

In this context we should go back to the 2004 article of James Swan, which was one of the main 'catalysts' for me bringing this debate to P-Net originally:

http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm

I personally do not think Swan's incredible research on this issue, taken as a whole, can be matched for generations to come.

Check this pearl from this article and ponder (emphasis is mine)

Althaus continues, “For Luther, ‘preaching’ Christ means proclaiming that the crucified and risen Christ is the Savior and that the salvation he brings is received through faith alone. Luther was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture, that he did not think of himself as approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criterion but with the standard which Scripture itself offers in its on-going central proclamation…Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than the Scripture. To this extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.

Even before I read this quote, I used this phrase in a discussion: "Jesus' usage of Scriptures in Luke 24 and John 5:39 criticizes the canon in an even sharper way than I do..." - Although I recognize that it wasn't Jesus' purpose to criticize any Canon (because there wasn't such a question or issue those days, at that moment), I believe that THERE IS something very key and important that has been ignored by my own Reformation heroes, that Jesus expressed that which is SCRIPTURE and ascribed the quality of SCRIPTURE that which speaks of Him. I know that since Sunday School, for churches who keep this still in vogue (sadly many have replaced it by "dough-playing" for children and "chit-chat" for adults), they call some books in the Bible Historical Books, which is as close as to say that these books have no value other than History. However it is not said clearly that these books do not contain any Christocentric value and that they should belong to a lower rank of canonicity.

I believe that, if the author of the article posted by Bob is right, then James should be placed in some category, such as "Good moral books reinforcing the Law of God but not of any soteriological value".

In a personal note, there is upon me something equivalent to a "shroud of a curse" because of my position on James. There are a good number of friends, (among my small number of friends) who say that "they love everything I say, write and defend on the Reformed doctrine, but that they PRAY FOR ME on the issue of James, and some say that the things I say and teach about James discredit me from everything else I say, write and teach that is good." I just gently tell them that they should apply the same level of scrutiny they apply to me to the book of James and end the conversation. I really think that, as far as my interaction with others and in my ministry, if they are in the group who wants to learn from ZERO, then I teach them and disclose it to them... but if they are in the group who has already been inoculated from "reasoning" and "critical thinking" by churchinaity, then, I am no longer wasting my time debating with them. If they know by outside third party source my positions on James I just warn them that our interaction or discussion will not go very far and at least on THEIR PART will not be on good faith.

Milt

[rlhuckle]

In a personal note, there is upon me something equivalent to a "shroud of a curse" because of my position on James. There are a good number of friends, (among my small number of friends) who say that "they love everything I say, write and defend on the Reformed doctrine, but that they PRAY FOR ME on the issue of James, and some say that the things I say and teach about James discredit me from everything else I say, write and teach that is good." I just gently tell them that they should apply the same level of scrutiny they apply to me to the book of James and end the conversation. I really think that, as far as my interaction with others and in my ministry, if they are in the group who wants to learn from ZERO, then I teach them and disclose it to them... but if they are in the group who has already been inoculated from "reasoning" and "critical thinking" by churchinaity, then, I am no longer wasting my time debating with them. If they know by outside third party source my positions on James I just warn them that our interaction or discussion will not go very far and at least on THEIR PART will not be on good faith.

Milt

Don't feel like the lone stranger Milt...

[GraceAmbassador]

I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but therein the author of the information on Paul Althaus later in his life criticized Luther for defending the inerrrancy of the Bible. Does anyone know anything about this information that can clarify it to me.

It may be that some equate the fact that Luther stance on the Canon is reason enough for anyone to slander his defenders, but I would like to know if anyone has anymore information on Paul Althaus.

Thanks.

[Robert R. Higby]

I haven't been back to read Paul Althaus in about 30 years since seminary; I never found much use for him. His book on the theology of Luther has some value but Althaus himself is basically a Lutheran skeptic--as with all skeptics you really have no idea what his core convictions are.

[GraceAmbassador]

The most interesting thing of the article, it seems, is the fact that it is NOT UNCOMMON for people who want to "warn" anyone of the exaggerations of the Christocentric Hermeneutic, quickly mention Luther in a "not so elevated way"! The FEAR of any discussion about the Canon is a shroud of scare upon these guy's heads! If they admit Luther had a legitimate point, then they have to reconsider their position on some books (plural).

...and...

The Christocentric hermeneutic is entirely foreign to Reformed Protestant thought...

I placed this two quotes together to make a point here, which, perhaps by NO COINCIDENCE I had to experience in real life just as recently as I started this thread:

In discussing with an apparent very erudite Calvinist from another country, we began a discussion on the Canon and the Christocentric Hermeneutics. The veritable rush, the unhindered haste, the unprecedented rhetorical velocity in which this good man jumped into a tirade about the errors of Martin Luther was as if he was in a mind reading spell attempting to preempt me from introducing Martin Luther in the conversation to support my views about the Canon! Robert Higby is right that the Christocentric Hemeneutics is foreign to what is called Reformed Theology and that is sad!

I was reading a non related article (the article was about the Extra-Calvinisticum, which is a derogatory term assigned by Lutherans to Calvin's teachings on the Communion), where the author treated the term as if it was a "doctrine" and all of a sudden the author introduces the term Christocentric and makes the following commentary based upon another author's quote:

As I see it, the Extra Calvinisticum brings great and helpful benefits to our understanding and love of God. Firstly, it protects Chalcedonian Christology by preserving the humanity and deity of Christ against kenotic Christologies which empty Christ of His true divinity. Secondly, it preserves General Revelation by admitting true revelation beyond the flesh of Christ (of course, sadly the unregenerate man suppresses the truth of God’s revelation as per Romans 1). Thirdly, this brings some sense to the confusions surrounding the term ‘Christocentric.’ It insists upon a Soteriological Christocentrism whereby Christ is the beginning and center of Salvation (which is historically orthodox), yet banishes the idea of a Principial Christocentrism which insists that Christ (not Scripture) is the beginning, ground and center of all doctrine of God (which is not historically orthodox). The danger of the wrong-headed idea of a Principial Christocentrism, Muller says is that: ”… it becomes a Christological reductionism, a ‘Christmonism,’ as some have labelled it.” Muller, The Barth Legacy. p691.

http://www.earngey.info/2010/01/15/t...calvinisticum/

As we can (hopefully) see the author of the quote attempts to establish a dichotomy of Christ and the "doctrine of God". The article, although deserving of reflection and serious thought, dispenses, at least to me, a foul odor of resistance of any scintilla of consideration that, perhaps, what God intended WITH SCRIPTURE was not to reveal primarily a DOCTRINE OF HIMSELF, but HIMSELF IN THE PERSON OF JESUS.

I can only impact those that God places under my ministry as MY responsibility for discipleship and teaching. So, as much as I can, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and, with His illumination, I intend to teach what I teach from the Christocentric Hemeneutics perspective and pray that I will not fall into the traps of the superstitious ones. However I think that if a Bible teacher ardently seeks to show Jesus in the O.T., whereas skipping the books in which it appears that He is not there, and then confirming such teachings with His revelation in the N.T., this teacher will likely NOT teach any error and WILL present a theologically faithful picture of Whom God is.

May God help me!

[Robert R. Higby]

In discussing with an apparent very erudite Calvinist from another country, we began a discussion on the Canon and the Christocentric Hermeneutics. The veritable rush, the unhindered haste, the unprecedented rhetorical velocity in which this good man jumped into a tirade about the errors of Martin Luther was as if he was in a mind reading spell attempting to preempt me from introducing Martin Luther in the conversation to support my views about the Canon! Robert Higby is right that the Christocentric Hemeneutics is foreign to what is called Reformed Theology and that is sad!

Absolutely! The canon established by Calvin in his French Confession of 1559 has stood in all Reformed Protestantism ever since. Yet the very confession of 1559 that Calvin supported (paradoxically), in which the 66 book canon was stated officially for the first time in history, was contradictory to Calvin's own views:

1. He did not believe that 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation were full revelatory scripture. In other words, they were not homologoumena. This is evidenced by the fact that he never wrote a commentary on those books, even though he wrote extensive commentary on all the rest!

2. He did not believe that the apostle Peter was the author of II Peter, even though he accepted the book as homologoumena. He tried to propose some notion of the book as scripture based on the fact that the author was 'spiritually one' with the apostle Peter.

Milt, maybe you could clarify further what you mean in this statement:

However I think that if a Bible teacher ardently seeks to show Jesus in the O.T., whereas skipping the books in which it appears that He is not there, and then confirming such teachings with His revelation in the N.T., this teacher will likely NOT teach any error and WILL present a theologically faithful picture of Whom God is.

I'm not objecting, just trying to understand your meaning! Are you just stating a principle that we don't need to teach from the OT books men allege as scripture where Jesus is not clearly revealed?

Bro. Bob

[GraceAmbassador]

In discussing with an apparent very erudite Calvinist from another country, we began a discussion on the Canon and the Christocentric Hermeneutics. The veritable rush, the unhindered haste, the unprecedented rhetorical velocity in which this good man jumped into a tirade about the errors of Martin Luther was as if he was in a mind reading spell attempting to preempt me from introducing Martin Luther in the conversation to support my views about the Canon! Robert Higby is right that the Christocentric Hemeneutics is foreign to what is called Reformed Theology and that is sad!

Absolutely! The canon established by Calvin in his French Confession of 1559 has stood in all Reformed Protestantism ever since. Yet the very confession of 1559 that Calvin supported (paradoxically), in which the 66 book canon was stated officially for the first time in history, was contradictory to Calvin's own views:

1. He did not believe that 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation were full revelatory scripture. In other words, they were not homologoumena. This is evidenced by the fact that he never wrote a commentary on those books, even though he wrote extensive commentary on all the rest!

2. He did not believe that the apostle Peter was the author of II Peter, even though he accepted the book as homologoumena. He tried to propose some notion of the book as scripture based on the fact that the author was 'spiritually one' with the apostle Peter.

Milt, maybe you could clarify further what you mean in this statement:

However I think that if a Bible teacher ardently seeks to show Jesus in the O.T., whereas skipping the books in which it appears that He is not there, and then confirming such teachings with His revelation in the N.T., this teacher will likely NOT teach any error and WILL present a theologically faithful picture of Whom God is.

I'm not objecting, just trying to understand your meaning! Are you just stating a principle that we don't need to teach from the OT books men allege as scripture where Jesus is not clearly revealed?

Bro. Bob

Thanks Bob! And thank you for the question for clarification.

What I am saying is that, whenever, or if ever, I be criticized by teaching Theology (Doctrine of God) if I stick to teaching Jesus Christ, both in the O.T. and N.T., even if I DON'T MENTION (perhaps skipping was not a very good choice of words), ESTHER, SONGS OF SOLOMON, ECCLESIASTES, etc. (books that I DON'T dispute), and JAMES, (which I do dispute) again, even if I don't mention these books in my teaching, there is still a tremendous body of SOUND TEACHING about God (or the Doctrine of God to use the terms of the article I linked) and I will remain perfectly CHRISTOCENTRIC and orthodox, so the criticism will be unfair. I say this in context to the first post where I mention JESUS Himself teaching about Himself using that which HE QUALIFIED AS SCRIPTURE in Luke 24.

I believe that the historic position (which does not mean the "correct" position) is that we need all the 66 books to "understand God" (teach THEOLOGY), considering that the Christocentric books are for SOTERIOLOGICAL purpose. That leads me to conclude that SOTERIOLOGICAL STUDIES have been historically considered something subaltern to THEOLOGY, when I believe that what we learn by learning JESUS CHRIST SOTERIOLOGICALLY is indeed THEOLOGY. Basically, I am not so sure that the distinction made in the article I posted is a correct one; In simple terms, I believe that STUDYING JESUS, we know about God.

I have no desire, and actually NO FEAR, of waking up tomorrow and being accused of NOT TEACHING correct THEOLOGY and departing from "historic theological teaching" (speaking as imagination), if I stand in front of a congregation, and teach from Genesis to the "Maps" from a Bible, about Jesus, if I decide not to mention anything from the books I mentioned in my first paragraph. I can teach from those books on all kinds of other subjects, such as, that the Bible is a book that speaks about love in a clear way in Songs of Solomon (without attributing the meaning of the book to the relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church, as most often do); or I can teach Jewish History from the Book of Esther, and even balanced wisdom from the book of Ecclesiastes, but IF I DO NOT MENTION THEM, I'd be still teaching GOOD AND SOUND THEOLOGY because that's what Jesus did in Luke 24 to the disciples in the road to Emaus and when He presented Himself physically to them after the resurrection. He taught His theology from the Law, (Moses) The Prophets and Psalms and called it SCRIPTURE! Amazingly, the kind of SCRIPTURE Jesus taught demonstrating Himself and His mission, caused a glorious reaction on both instances: the two on the road to Emaus and to the remainder of the disciples! (Luke 24:27 and 24:44).

If I understood your question, that's my rather long answer.
Allow me to insert this in here just for safety:

"I shall never be a heretic; I may err in dispute, but I do not wish to decide anything finally; on the other hand, I am not bound by the opinions of men. Martin Luther.

Thanks again, Bob!

[trav]

Bro. Bob,

Your post spurred me to look up Calvin's confession and I found what you were talking about regarding what he stated about the canon:

IV. We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books upon which, however useful, we can not found any articles of faith.

I am quite ignorant when it comes to the formation of the canon and why we have what we have, but this statement is so subjective, especially with all of the waffling that went on with the different men in the past regarding which books they thought were Scripture. Can anyone explain why the church (post-Calvin) stood with his view and accepted what he had to say on it? Was it because he protested the RCC and that lended him an amount of authority in their minds? It seems to me that the prevalent thinking is: "these are just the books that we have always had in our Bible". Please correct me if I am off base here; and I would welcome any thoughts on this topic as well as any suggested reading on it also. Thanks

[Highlyfavored]

"I shall never be a heretic; I may err in dispute, but I do not wish to decide anything finally; on the other hand, I am not bound by the opinions of men. Martin Luther.

Praise the Lord!

This is what i believe we at p-net are all about!

[GraceAmbassador]

This is a somewhat honest research site (as I see it). Here you will find who were the "ancients" whom Luther referred to in his Preface of the Epistle of James, and the different accepted Canons and when they were accepted/rejected and by whom. There are also helpful lists, charts, and it is very informative (again, in my ignoramus view).

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Milt, thanks so much for your clarification! It was great.

Trav: I am quite ignorant when it comes to the formation of the canon and why we have what we have, but this statement is so subjective, especially with all of the waffling that went on with the different men in the past regarding which books they thought were Scripture. Can anyone explain why the church (post-Calvin) stood with his view and accepted what he had to say on it? Was it because he protested the RCC and that lended him an amount of authority in their minds? It seems to me that the prevalent thinking is: "these are just the books that we have always had in our Bible". Please correct me if I am off base here; and I would welcome any thoughts on this topic as well as any suggested reading on it also. Thanks

The French Confession of 1559 is a paradoxical compromise, yet it is the basis of the 66-book canon of all of Protestantism (all sects). There is no confession or statement of doctrine prior to it that establishes the 66 books as homologoumena--it is the first in history. In spite of my attempts to solicit an earlier 'canon law' document, no one has come up with one to date. I cannot find one in any of my 'church history' library (including Schaff who is pretty comprehensive).

Although Calvin supported the French Confession, he paradoxically denied the full authority of 2/3 John and Revelation, personally believing that these books were antilegomena. He also denied the Petrine authorship of II Peter but called it a 'Petrine book' nonetheless.

The 'spirit hermeneutic' of the FC is the worst hermeneutic ever invented by Protestants--one that they usually deny completely when addressing such issues as 'spectacular' gifts. It doesn't stand the test of sound conviction; it is bankrupt of Divine authority and elevates tradition above Holy Spirit revelation in history.

Milt, I am not sure why the author of the latest link you provided leaves out such important 'canon lists' as those of Irenaeus and Tertullian, which are significant in revealing the current thinking of 'churchianity' at the time those men wrote. Both have no mention of James and a few other books. But it is certainly valuable in getting people to look at the issue.

==Bob

[GraceAmbassador]

Milt, I am not sure why the author of the latest link you provided leaves out such important 'canon lists' as those of Irenaeus and Tertullian, which are significant in revealing the current thinking of 'churchianity' at the time those men wrote. Both have no mention of James and a few other books. But it is certainly valuable in getting people to look at the issue.

I think they're there Bob! I will find them for you and send you the link. I think that's why I find the author to be so honest!!!! There is also a comment on the "ancients" expression used by Luther where he mentions Irenaeus, at least. Let me check again.

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

I think they're there Bob! I will find them for you and send you the link. I think that's why I find the author to be so honest!!!! There is also a comment on the "ancients" expression used by Luther where he mentions Irenaeus, at least. Let me check again.

Milt

Sorry, Bob, but you're right. The ones you quoted are not there, but I highly recommend the site as a research tool for the Canon and other issues. No commentaries, just documents and chronologies!

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

In these pages you will see where the book of James is: rejected, considered disputed, or not even mentioned (by categories). There is also an article on the Muratorian Fragment, of 170AD, which is the first "bible" where James is not mentioned either. It is worth the research!

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks Milt! Yes, as late as 240 A.D., in harmony with all earlier canon writings, even Origen mentions nothing whatsoever of the existence of a book called James.