Skip your Christology class…this is what you need

Rod Rosenbladt is lecturing (or has lectured through) Martin Chemnitz’ On the Two Natures of Christ.  Of course, I have some substantial reservations about Lutheran Christology and their view of the Supper, but still…it’s hard to pass this up.


6 comments on “Skip your Christology class…this is what you need

  1. Mark says:

    Listening to part 1. If there is only one numerical divine essence who eternally subsists in three modes of subsistence, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and each is fully that divine essence yet truly distinguished from the others in their perculiar mode of subsistence. Then why not the Father and Holy Spirit also assumed the flesh, since they are also that same divine essence in cardinal numerics?

    • Good question. I thought about the same thing as I read John Owen last year. I haven’t been able to fully get into them (I am listening to Rosenbladt’s lectures on Galatians right now. I posted the Chemnitz link for reference).

      • Mark says:

        Bayou Huguenot, speaking on Galatians and Lutherans, what is your opinion on the learned Barne’s note on Romans 4:3, namely the greek word commonly translated “impute, reckon, count, think and etc.,” in the NT never mean in its proper biblical usage the Lutheran and Reformed notion of to impute something that does not stricty belong to the person to whom the righteousness is imputed.

  2. I have’nt read that particular note, though I’m familiar with the argument. I used to hold to the NPP thesis, but I don’t anymore. As regarding the note, even though NT Wright rejects imputation of active obedience, he does affirm that Romans 6 speaks of imputation via baptism. Regardless of what one makes of that, that would be an example of the NT using impute/reckon in such a sense.

    • Mark says:

      Bayou Huguenot, when you say imputation, do you mean to impute something which does not belong to someone (Christ’s perfect righteousness), or simply God forgives us and counted us as forgiven without the notion of a perfect righeousness being credited to our account, to balance the book if you will. Albert Barnes argues against it and said, “impute” was never used in the Scriptures in the Lutheran sense, I get very interested in his exposition, and tested all the accounts of this word “impute” and found Barnes to be correct.

      • Metzger’s lexicon, if I recall correctly, still lists it as “reckon.” If reckon stands as a viable translation, then there is a movement between God man. I just don’t see Barnes’ argument dealing with that.

        At the end of the day as long as one does’nt translate it as “infuse” then I am open to different translations.

Comments are closed.