derailed christology

In the video below, Dr. Willem Ouweneel recommends the second part of his Dogmatic Series: the Christ of God. A beautiful title, directly taken from Luke 9:20. Listen how he, in the clip below (a little over a minute), formulates his starting point (in Dutch). [embedplusvideo height=”225″width=”400″ editlink=”http://bit.ly/1mrvFmm” standard=”http://www.youtube.com/v/el8uYWjpDPA?fs=1&start=18″ vars=”ytid=el8uYWjpDPA&width=560&height=315&start=74&stop=149&rs=w&hd=0&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=” id=”ep6917″/] Ouweneel tries to adhere to the traditional view. But it is a false start, to begin with. He immediately derails. Was it not Jesus himself, who declared that it precisely is tradition that invalidates the Word of God (Mat.15:6)? Ouweneel argues that the ancient church, after centuries of struggle, has finally come to a correct insight. Paul, on the other hand, had warned Timothy, that after his passing, believers would turn away from the truth and would no longer tolerate sound doctrine (2Tim.4:3,4). That’s not an evolving insight into God’s truth, but a steady, further, moving away from “the sound words” of Scripture. Ouweneel demonstrates this moving away from the truth, perfectly, when he continues:

You cannot talk about the Lord Jesus, without speaking of the Trinity…

Isn’t that astounding!? Paul, Peter and John have openly and in detail spoken and written about the Lord Jesus Christ, without ever naming or referring to the Trinity! They did not know the concept, because that idea would take centuries before it was developed and adopted. Ouweneel admits that the concept of Trinity is problematic, particularly in relation to Jews and Muslims. Indeed a problem of the first order! For every Jew it goes without saying that there is only one God, the Father (1Cor.8:6). Please note, Jesus himself spoke of his Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3; Mar.12:29-32). The idea of the Trinity is a totally un-Jewish concept, for both Jews and Muslims, it is a horrible, idolatrous thought. Ouweneel continues:

Who is the Lord Jesus said to be, when the Trinity is discussed? He is said to be the second person in the Godhead, God the Son…

Ouweneel tries to adhere to the traditional view with the result that his speech is peppered with “words of human wisdom” (1Cor.2:13), such as, Trinity, the second person in the Godhead, God the Son – all of it is terminology that is unknown in Scripture. Search for the expressions in a concordance and you will find none of them! Christology is with Ouweneel an accumulation of problems, because he has placed his confidence on human inventions and formulations, instead of on “it is written”. That makes his Christology into a thick book. He continues:

With this you come immediately to a second problem. The first was: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, how do they relate to each other? And the second problem is, Christ, man and God. How does the human and the divine relate to each other within one person?

The concept of Trinity automatically raises the second problem: how can Christ be God and man? Each answer in turn lays the foundation for new problems. This is logical, because the starting point is flawed. Paul did not know this “second problem” and did, therefore, not have to solve it either. He wrote:

For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, -1Tim.2:5-

Is this simplistic? Perhaps – but the truth is simple, that is: uncomplicated: one God, one Mediator, namely, the Man Christ Jesus. Is this biblicistic? If with this you mean: exclusively invoking the Bible, then the answer is a resounding: Yes, certainly! Human additions make all of this complicated by adding binding inventions and constructions, as formulated at the councils at Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. It takes courage to distance oneself from these confessional creeds, because, thereby, one tends to place himself outside of Christianity. Unmercifully, these creeds declare:

Whoever wants to be saved, must retain this belief about the Trinity. -Athanasian Creed, art.26/28-

Indeed, sound doctrine is not tolerated…

Delen: