The problem of Christology-first apologetics

This was something I was guilty of a few years ago.  On one hand, who wouldn’t disagree with the proposition that we should begin all of our theology with Christology first?  That we should let Christology be the template for doing all theology?  On one hand it is true that we should do this, but the above claim has several hidden presuppositions:

  1. To let a Chalcedonian Christology dominate your paradigm, you must first define a number of highly technical philosophical terms:  phusis, hypostasis, motion, and participation.
  2. This isn’t beginning with Christology, but demanding an intriciate knowledge of several highly technical fields.
  3. These are important fields and I’ve read most of the more mainstream technical literature, and while I am ignorant of many things, I have a pretty good idea of what is going on, and as such I don’t spout off things I can’t define, like person, nature, and motion

A more biblicist approach is warranted:  Vos’s book on Pauline eschatology is a good start.