Dear Dr. Tipton,
In a post entitled “Incarnation, Inspiration, and Pneumatology: A Reformed Incarnational Analogy” (published on the OPC site “Ordained Servant”), you wrote a footnote (#4) in which you described me as a “revisionist.” You base this description, it would seem, on the claim that I “deny the Logos asarkos and extra Calvinisticum.” The truth of the matter is that I have done neither. The issue for me has never been the existence of a Logos asarkos (to deny which would be tantamount to rejecting the pre-existence of the eternal Son). The issue has always been the identity of the Logos asarkos (i.e. whether the identity of the eternal Son can be established on the basis of some form of natural theology or only on the basis of Christology). That is the issue I pose in the article to which you refer (as well as in others).
You also offer up a few passages from Reformed sources on the meaning of the anhypostasia – and you seem to suggest that if I wish to deny that the passages you cite “ express the historic Reformed view on the matter”, I would only show thereby that I have not properly understood the Reformed sources.
I am glad, at least, that you have opened the door to a more substantive engagement on the issues I posed in my brief analysis of the HTFC report. I would like, therefore, to extend to you the following challenge. I will post a second brief “essay” on Art Boulet’s blog site when I return from California on the 13th of June with the title “Chalcedon and Reformed Christology: A Response to Lane Tipton” – if you will agree to respond to it on Art’s blog site and express your willingness to do so before my return on that same site.
Yours,
Bruce
5 June 2008 at 2.11 am
Bruce has (again) misquoted the source, though this time it is more of a typo than anything. Second paragraph should read:
“do not *express* the historic Reformed view on the matter.”
Without “express” the sentence is confusing.
I’m hoping Lane Tipton does agree because I, for one, would like Bruce McCormack to flesh out in more detail some of the claims he made in his previous essay.
Mark Jones
5 June 2008 at 2.23 am
[...] challenge to Lane Tipton Bruce McCormack has now laid down the gauntlet, so to speak, to Lane Tipton. This is very interesting. First an “open letter to R. [...]
5 June 2008 at 9.01 am
Nicholas,
I didn’t know that we could keep Satan from messing up our discussions by simply banishing the Muslims.
I have a different take on our peaceful Ahmadi Muslim’s participation (which seems perfectly “dignified” to me). I think it’s a reminder that our theological discussions never take place in an academic vacuum, but have profound implications in a very real world (in which there just happen to be over a billion Muslims).
Granted, this thread may or may not be the best place to dialogue with our Muslim friends. But I do think you owe somebody an apology.
Christ’s peace,
Manlius (Alex)
5 June 2008 at 9.01 am
Wow, Art, is there anyway to remove the last comment so we can have some Christian charity?
5 June 2008 at 9.02 am
Sorry, I meant that to Nicholas’s post, Manlius and I seemed to have posted at the exact same time…creepy.
5 June 2008 at 1.13 pm
I accidentally hit the wrong button when I got the email. Here is paarsurrey’s comment:
The issue for me has never been the existence of a Logos asarkos (to deny which would be tantamount to rejecting the pre-existence of the eternal Son). The issue has always been the identity of the Logos asarkos (i.e. whether the identity of the eternal Son can be established on the basis of some form of natural theology or only on the basis of Christology). That is the issue I pose in the article to which you refer (as well as in others).
__________________________________________
Hi
Sorry for the interruption. Please don’t mind.
I think Jesus never claimed that he was an eternal Son.
Jesus was from the mother side Son of Mary and from the father side; since he had no physical father, he selected from the sinless persons , Adam as his metaphorical father. Jesus mentioned many a times as per NTBible that he was Son of Adam/Man; thereby pronouncing that Adam was sinless like him.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
5 June 2008 at 7.28 pm
Art,
Could you please remove my comments since they were completely misunderstood. I was simply pleading for discussion of the topic at hand, not getting sidetracked by someone who wants to deny the words of Jesus in the Gospels.
Alex and Jared,
I am sorry you took my comment to be a loveless, ivory-tower statement. BTW, Jesus had a lot harsher things to say to people who denied His claims of Deity. For instance, “Brood of Vipers,” “Synagogue of Satan,” and, through the apostle John, “anti-Christs.” So, if you still want to have the same view of my response perhaps you would say Jesus was “loveless” also.
5 June 2008 at 9.27 pm
Nicholas Batzig,
Not to be picky, but how do you get that he said those harsh things to people who (because) they “denied His claims of Deity”?
Hear me, I am not denying the deity of Christ. But, I am not aware that Jesus was taking issue in those instances with people denying His divinity.
5 June 2008 at 9.32 pm
Also, just to move us to the point of this post…
How many people think Lane will actually engage McCormack and his HISTORICAL points, whether in the blogging world or somewhere else?
5 June 2008 at 10.15 pm
Unless it’s in some safe place for him (New Horizons, WTJ), I doubt Tipton will engage McCormack.
6 June 2008 at 7.44 am
Stephen,
In 1 John we read, “Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ, this one is anti-Christ…And we know that many anti-Christs have gone into the world.” In the Gospels Jesus called the Pharisees “offspring of vipers” precisely because they denied His claim to be the Son of God and then kept people back from believing in Him. I admit that there was an element of persecution involved as well, but the chief reason for all this was the fact that the scribes and Pharisees opposed the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God.
Just to clear the air, I have spent the last year witnessing to a Muslim who I know very well. I have prayed for his salvation often and have spent many hours trying to persuade him that Jesus is the Son of God. I am not “hating” on Muslims. I spent three summers doing evangelistic work–spreading the Gospel to people from every cultural and religious background. I should never have written the first comment I wrote after Ahmadi wrote in. This is also why I asked for my comments to be removed.
6 June 2008 at 9.03 am
Nicholas,
If we had personal knowledge of the character and motive of our Muslim poster, perhaps we would know better how harshly or gently to deal with him. The decent and dignified thing to do is assume the best. What I find objectionable is your decision to assume the worst.
When you think of Jesus dealing with an honest person who had theological misunderstandings, think of his discussion with the Samaritan woman.
Manlius
P.S. You’re also wrong in your assumption that I always object to harsh language and therefore deny Jesus and the Gospels. How would you like it if I assumed that because you object to gentle treatment in this particular case, you must always object to gentle treatment and therefore you deny Jesus and the Gospels? Don’t you think that would be a little over the top? Some advice: Remember the Golden Rule and stop assuming so much.
6 June 2008 at 9.14 am
Alex,
You misunderstood my statement about denying Jesus and the Gospels. That was in reference to Ahmadi saying that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. My deepest apologize for not being clear on that. Nothing was directed to you except my defense. I really am not as antagonistic as I now appear to be on this blog. I made a statement, that I shouldn’t have made (please forgive me), in order to keep the discussion flowing. Art deleted the comment that I was responding to, which in turn caused more confusion about what I am talking about. Then several of you attacked me for mentioning Satan in reference to a Amadhi’s denial of the Deity of Christ.
Since my original statement was a plea to stay on track with the discussion in Art’s original post, I recommend Dr. van Til’s article on “Karl Barth on Chalcedon.” It was published in the WTJ 22:2 in May 1960. Van TIl deals with the issues raised by McCormick. I think this article chows why people have said what they have said about McCormick’s Barthian leanings in this particular instance.
6 June 2008 at 9.26 am
Nicholas,
Fair enough. I too have made comments that I quickly regretted. And thank you for mentioning how you witnessed to a Muslim friend. That helped me know that you’re obviously a much better man than your one mistaken comment.
Christ’s peace, Manlius
6 June 2008 at 9.45 am
I also wanted to recommend Richard Muller’s article, “Directions in the study of Barth’s Christology.” This was published in the WTJ 48:1, Spring 1986. The whole issue of Barth and Chalcedon is viewed in the light of then recent scholarship.
10 June 2008 at 6.51 am
[...] Posted by Jason Goroncy under Bruce McCormack, Christology Recently over at aboutlet, Bruce McCormack cleared up a few misreadings and then laid down the gauntlet to Lane Tipton: [...]
11 June 2008 at 12.04 am
If the Reformed don’t stay grounded in the first 5 Ecumenical Councils, they will slide fast into certain error and the loss of the Trinity and the “consubstantial” Son with the Father!
Fr. Robert
11 June 2008 at 12.19 am
“The dogma of consubstantiality, which safeguards the unity of the Holy Trinity, thus remains a sealed book so far as we are concerned – for in a religious sense it has neither assimilated no unfolded.” – Fr. Serguis Bulgakev