The Meaning of Christ’s Ascension
In a recent comment Steve Bush takes issue with the accuracy of some of my review of John Franke's The Character of Theology, which appears in Reformation21. I take up - I hope in the spirit of generous orthodoxy - his three points in turn.
"Are you going to the dogs this year?" was the question put to me.
I suppose my initial reaction was that I should respond in the affirmative. I tend to think that I am making little progress in anything as the years go by. This year I probably am going to the dogs...
Then I realised that "dogs" was a severe abbreviation for a particular dogmatics conference which was to be held in (a location which will remain undisclosed in) the United Kingdom.
Anyone who felt perplexed – even outraged – the first time they read Romans 9 may identify with Thomas Bradwardine, a 14th-century Archbishop of Canterbury. His age was, like ours, entrenched in Pelagianism, exalting man’s free will and ability to come to God on his own terms. That’s the philosophy he had learned at Oxford, where he “rarely used to hear about grace, except in an ambiguous way.”
At the beginning of the seventh century, the decision of the Council of Chalcedon that Jesus had two natures, human and divine, indivisible but distinct, was still not universally accepted. Even if the Council had specified that the expression “two natures” doesn’t mean that Jesus is “parted or divided into two persons,” many took it this way. It was a cause of disunity, and emperor after emperor tried hard to come to a compromise.
Basic information – four ideas
(Rev. 1:17, 18)
Walking with God