Page History

...

1. Lutheran orthodox christology is (1) embedded in that part of dogmatics concerned with the "principles," or "sources," of salvation; and

Wiki Markup(2) entitled as a chapter \ -\- the central of the three chapters comprising this part of dogmatics \ -\- "the fraternal redemption of Christ \ [= the Son\]." To this not inconsiderable extent, justice is done to the "functional," "soteriological," emphasis both of the New Testament and of the Reformers, and, indirectly, to the existential character of the christological question; and to the same extent, Pohlmann's criticism (cf. 39) needs to be qualified before it is acceptable.

2. Lutheran orthodox christology nonetheless provides a textbook example of what happens when one allows the consequences of others' faith to become (part of) the ground of one's own. I could put this by saying that it beautifully illustrates the outcome of treating second sentences as first sentences, and neglecting to justify them by reference to the first sentences from which they're derived, not to mention the experience and faith of which even the first sentences were themselves but a formulation and expression. But to put it this way fails to take account of another essential part of the problem -- namely, that sentences originally functioning as formulations and expressions of faith -- understood as an answer to the existential question – come to be used as though they performed the very different function of stating the conditions but for which faith would not be a justified response. In other words, existential confessions come to be understood as objectifying descriptions or explanations, or, as I should prefer to say in other ,non-Bultmannian terms, statements expressing the meaning of Jesus for us are understood as statements about the being of Jesus in himself. Thus, even though Lutheran orthodox christology is indeed, embedded in a larger context concerned with the "principles," or "sources," of salvation; and even though it itself is conceived under the title, "of the fraternal redemption of Christ," it is nonetheless "objectifying" (in Bultmann's terms) -- in its discussion of salvation as well as of the person of Christ -- rather than "existential," or "existentialist." To this not inconsiderable extent, justice is not done to the "functional," "soteriological" emphasis both of the New Testament and of the Reformers, and, indirectly, to the existential character of the question christology answers; and to the same extent, Pohlmann's criticism can and should be accepted as to the point and valid.

...