LIBERTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY THE NECESSITY OF AN ACCURATE CHRISTOLOGY FOR AN EFFECTUAL SOTERIOLOGY A PAPER

LIBERTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY THE NECESSITY OF AN ACCURATE CHRISTOLOGY FOR AN EFFECTUAL SOTERIOLOGY A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. GENE L. JEFFRIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLASS SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II THEO 530 BY KRIS R. PALMER BETHEL, MISSOURI MAY 15, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. CHRISTOLOGY....2 Overview. 2 Deity of Christ. 3 Humanity of Christ..6 Union of the Two Natures...8 III. SOTERIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS.13 V. CONCLUSION.15 BIBLIOGRAPHY...16 iii

1 I. INTRODUCTION There has been a significant amount of debate within theology over the past couple of centuries as to the place and significance of Jesus identity and Jesus work. The debate has been such that it would almost seem there is a tension between the two and one could and should be displaced by the other. Within the paradigm shift from a theocentric theology to a more homocentric theology, a strong emphasis has been placed on Jesus work to the point where many theologians have indicated that ontological Christology has little practical significance. Jesus work has almost completely overshadowed who He is. In reality there is no tension between the function and ontology of Jesus. 1 They not only compliment each other, but in fact one actually necessitates the other. Man s salvation is dependent on a correct understanding of who Jesus actually is. To fail to recognize that reality, is to miss the Biblical basis for effectual salvation, and to be in jeopardy of placing one s faith in a different god, for a different salvation. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to argue for the necessity of the unified God/Man, Jesus Christ, as the essential element in making man s salvation possible. 1 Alister E. McGrath, Studies in Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 64. 1

2 II. CHRISTOLOGY Overview Christology is not new to theology. It has played a significant role within Christianity from the time of the early church. The idea that Jesus was somehow both God and man has basically been believed since the beginning of the church. 2 Within what is considered to be the earliest of the gospels, The Book of Mark, Christ s identity is an important theme. 3 Even though Mark does not make the clear statements about Christ s deity which are presented in The Book of John, there is within the message of Mark, a high Christology clearly affirming Christ s deity. 4 Finding itself so predominate in such an early New Testament writing seems highly significant as to the importance of this doctrine. Although Christology is clearly part of the New Testament as a whole, it is integral to both John and Paul s writings. 5 As the doctrine developed over the first few centuries, error also occurred. Controversies surrounding these errors resulted in the convening of two important church councils. The first was in 325 A.D. and resulted in the Nicene Creed, which was the orthodox response to errors regarding the divinity of Christ. It affirms Jesus being of the same substance as the Father. 6 2 Wayne Grudman, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 553. 3 D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 183. 4 M. Eugene Boring, Markan Christology: God-language for Jesus, New Testament Studies 45, no. 4 (October 1999): 470. 5 Frank J. Matera, Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology, Theological Studies 67, no. 2 (June 2006): 237. 6 Millard J. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh: A Contemporary Incarnational Christology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 56.

3 Issues regarding the process of the development of an understanding of the union between the humanity and the deity of Christ reached a hallmark in 451 A.D. with the Council of Chalcedon. This council not only reaffirmed the Nicene Creed, but it also issued a statement that for the next fifteen hundred years was the standard of orthodox Christology. 7 This definition was in actuality just a restatement of what had already basically been established within the first four hundred years of Christianity. Although in the end no definition is completely adequate, as the union of the God/Man is a mystery like unto the Trinity, this definition was an attempt to encompass the whole of the matter to bring unity to the church. Basically the definition states, Christ is full deity and perfect humanity without mixture, change, division, or separation in the one Person forever. 8 Orthodox Christianity to this day has held this to be the definitive Christological definition, and it is the basis for the thesis of this paper. To correctly understand Jesus identity, it is necessary to briefly examine His deity and His humanity, and then to clarify the union of the two natures in the one Person Jesus Christ. Deity of Christ The position taken in this paper is that of a traditional orthodoxy, which begins with the divinity of Jesus, having the fact of the incarnation as its center. Proponents of this way of thinking would be inclined to hold to the validity of the Chalcedonian definition. It is considered to be a Christology from above, 9 and is often called Incarnational Christology or Logos 7 Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 65. 8 Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck, eds. Understanding Christian Theology (Nashville: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 2003), 336. 9 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus God and Man, trans. Lewis L Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), 33.

4 Christology. 10 It is stated that this type of Christology presupposes Christ s deity. 11 However, it does not presuppose Christ s divinity, as much as it takes a high regard for the reliability of the New Testament and uses the texts as written as the source of a proper Christology. Within the Gospels, there are implicit claims by Jesus Himself in regards to His being God. 12 This would include Jesus apparent awareness that His statements carried divine authority. An example would be His statements regarding the giving of the New Testament law in the Sermon on the Mount. 13 Also there are a number of Old Testament passages about Yahweh, which Jesus applied to Himself. 14 Outside of Jesus statements, there are a number of passages in both the Gospels and in the Epistles that speak to the deity of Christ. These are particularly prevalent in the writings of John and although not from the same starting point, Paul s writings. 15 Significant passages would include, but not be limited to, John 1:1-4, 1:18, 8:58, 20:31, Romans 8:3, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 2:9, and Hebrews 1:2-3. 16 10 San-Ehil Han, Journeying into the Heart of God: Rediscovering Spirit-Christology and Its Soteriological Ramifications in Korean Culture, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15, no. 1 (October 2006): 113. 11 Pannenberg, Jesus God and Man, 34. 12 Millard Erickson, Evangelical Christology and Soteriology Today, Interpretation: A Journal of Bible & Theology 49, no. 3 (July 1995): 258. 13 Matthew 5:21-48 HCSB 14 Erickson, Evangelical Christology and Soteriology Today, 258. 15 Matera, Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John, 239. 16 HCSB

5 To miss the fullness of Christ s deity has a significant impact on the fullness and effectiveness of one s Christology. Probably the earliest departure from the fullness of Christ s deity was the Ebionites. This was basically a complete denial of Christ s deity. 17 A more subtle denial was Arianism, which denied the full deity of Christ and believed He was the Son of God as created being, albeit the first creature. 18 As there really is nothing new under the sun, most denials somehow fit into these categories. Within more contemporary theology, a departure from the fullness of Christ s deity is probably the most significant issue in modern Christology. The full deity of Christ has been and is being attacked from several angles. Many of these issues stem from the homocentric view of theology in general and salvation in particular, and are articulated as issues with the functionality of one s Christology. This results in issues as to how to define salvation in the first place. 19 From whatever the angle, however, the end result is a departure from the Biblical view of the deity of Christ. Significant in this respect, and impactive to later ideas along the same line, is Friedrich Schleiermacher s idea of Jesus perfect God-consciousness. 20 His denial of a supernatural conception and a virgin birth cannot help but diminish or even obliterate Christ s deity. 21 Although many might disagree, in attempting to establish a Christology from below Christ s 17 Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 42. 18 Ibid., 51. 19 J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective, vol. 1, God, the World, and Redemption (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 326. 20 Ralph Del Colle, Schleiermacher and Spirit Christology: Unexplored Horizons of the Christian Faith, International Journal of Systematic Theology 1, no. 3 (November 1999): 289. 21 Mark Nestlehutt, Chalcedonian Christology: Modern Criticism and Contemporary Ecumenism, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 35, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 177.

6 deity is negatively impacted. Within this group would be the Christology of Wolfhart Pannenberg. In his attempt to find objective historical evidence of Jesus as God s Son, his naturalistic reasoning actually diminishes the fullness of the deity of Christ. 22 Humanity of Christ As a traditional orthodox Christology basically holds to the Chalcedonian definition, along side the full divinity of Christ is His perfect humanity. The eternally begotten Son of God came in the flesh into the realm of time and space as the incarnate son of Mary through the virgin birth. Through the incarnation, Jesus remains unblemished deity, but also possesses true, sinless humanity in the one Person forever. 23 As the position of this paper is based on a Christology from above, then the incarnation is not a human becoming God; it is about God adding humanity to deity. God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, condescended to take on humanity. In attempting to understand Jesus as the perfect human, it is important to remember no human Jesus existed prior to the incarnation. 24 However, it is important one understands that even though this is true, Jesus was not without a distinct individual human personality. To miss this point is to fall into the heresy of Anhypostatic Christology. This individual human subsistence or personhood is significant as it speaks to the nature of the act of Jesus incarnation. It is in Christ where one sees the perfect representation of true humanity. 25 Often in attempting to 22 Paul Molnar, Some Dogmatic Implications of Barth s Understanding of Ebionite and Docetic Christology, International Journal of Systematic Theology 2, no. 2 (July 2000): 158. 23 Paul Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 222. 754. 24 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 25 McGrath, Studies in Doctrine, 74.

7 understand Christ s humanity, theologians take their understanding of man from what they now see within themselves and within other humans. The reality is humans have been perverted by the fall of the race, and what we are without Christ is incomplete. It can be stated that He is in fact genuine humanity. 26 This is also significant to the nature of the incarnation and will also be significant to the hypostatic union of the two natures that will be discussed below. It is through the possession of a human nature that the Son of God could be ignorant, weak, could be tempted, suffer, and even die. 27 Like His deity, the source for a proper understanding of His humanity is the Scriptures. The Synoptic Gospels contain a significant amount of information regarding Jesus humanity. This issue is a part of Mark more than any other Gospel (Mark 14:33-34) 28. Matthew and Luke both include birth narratives. 29 Luke goes so far as to say Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people. 30 There is implicit validation of Jesus humanity with the Gospel of John, and his Epistle explicitly talks about His humanity. Significant texts would be John 1:14, 8:40, 1 John 1:1, and 1 John 4:2-3. 31 Paul both implicitly and explicitly speaks of 26 Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 557-558. 27 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1996), 323. 28 HCSB 29 Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 21. 30 HCSB 31 Ibid.

8 the humanity of Christ. Relevant passages would be Gal 4:4, Philippians 2:7, 1 Tim 2:5, and 3:16. 32 The humanity of Jesus is significant to the whole context of the Book of Hebrews. A significant threat to early orthodox Christianity was the denial of the humanity of Christ from Docetism. It was not a particular theology as such, as much as it was the characteristic of several different schools of thought, most significantly the Gnostics. This was also an issue for Marcion, a second-century heretic. 33 Within the Fourth Century, Apollinarianism developed, which basically denied the full humanity of Christ. Apollinarius believed the incarnation meant the human joined with the divine so as to create a oneness of being. Christ therefore only had one nature instead of two. There was something like a fusion between the human and the divine, giving significant preeminence to the divine. The humanity of Christ seems to present less of an issue for many contemporary theologians, as this fits better into liberal and process theologies emphasis on the immanence of God. 34 This issue is so significant for these groups of theologians, one could easily place them within the category of the Ebionites, or at least charge them with a form of Apollinarianism. Union of the Two Natures Having stated that a proper Christology declares Jesus Christ is in fact both fully God and perfectly human, then the question becomes, How can two seemingly contradictory natures exist together? The nature of this union is the most significant aspect of Christology 35 and the 32 HCSB. 33 Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 47. 34 Nestlehutt, Chalcedonian Christology, 183. 35 Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man, 283.

9 most difficult to adequately explain. A unity between the infinite and the finite appears paradoxical. 36 However, although a complete understanding of the mystery 37 of the union within the God/Man is not possible, there is a way past the paradox. The relationship between the two natures is the very issue which the Council of Chalcedon was attempting to define. The Council was actually convened in defense against heretical ideas, which were in fact at that time developing. Nestorianism was advocating the idea of two persons, one divine, and one human, together in the Christ. Eutychianism was advocating the idea of the two natures somehow being mixed or merged into one in the Christ. The resulting mixture ends up being something, which is not exactly God or man. 38 In a similar fashion to Docetism and Ebionism, these heresies continue to occur in varying formats. Normally if ones understanding of the union of the two natures is off balance, it falls into one of these categories. The Chalcedonian definition presents what has been called the hypostatic union. (Hypostasis is the word used in the definition for one person. Even though attributes may vary, there is one underlying or essential part.) 39 The pre-incarnate Christ came and took on the addition of a human nature. The result of the union of the two natures is the theanthropic Person, the God/Man, Jesus Christ, inseparably united forever, without mixture or loss of separate identity. 40 What is important to understand is there is one person, with two distinct and very real 36 Williams, Relational Theology, 342. 37 1 Timothy 3:16 HCSB 38 Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 62. 39 Everett F. Harrison, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Carl F. Henry, eds., Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1960), 275. 40 Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, 227.

10 natures, which cannot lose or transfer a single attribute. To lessen His divine attributes is to make Him not God, but to lessen His human attributes is to make Him not human. 41 This union is not a philosophical construct, but is, in fact, implied by several Biblical texts. These would include John 1:1-14, Romans 1:3-4, Galatians 2:9, and Philippians 2:6-8. 42 This union is the foundational key to understanding much of the Scriptures. It is important to remember the Pre-incarnate Son of God did not abandon or devoid Himself of any of His divine attributes, but instead added or assumed 43 the essential attributes of man. 44 This is significant because modern theology, in attempting to define the union of the natures, developed Kenoticism. 45 This idea being, Second Person of the Trinity somehow emptied Himself of His divine attributes, like omniscience and omnipresence. 46 This is, however, completely subversive to the very nature of God as immutable, and in fact, destructive to the Trinity, by making Jesus at least for a time basically not God. 47 With the act of the incarnation, the divine nature did not undergo any essential change. The incarnation resulted in two distinct natures, together in the one person, Jesus. 41 Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, 228. 42 HCSB 43 Philippians 2:7 HCSB 44 Swindoll, Understanding Christian Theology, 337. 45 John Meyendroff, New Life in Christ: Salvation in Orthodox Theology, Theological Studies 50, no. 3 (September 1989): 487. 46 Erickson, Christian Theology, 749. 47 Berkof, Systematic Theology, 328.

11 Contemporary theologians should be given credit for their attempts to move the understanding of this union out of an abstract definition of humanity and deity, as this seems to cause one to have to say that the union is impossible. 48 However, the Chalcedonian definition does not necessitate a rationalistic Greek philosophical understanding, 49 if the starting point is, in fact, an Incarnational Christology. Starting with the reality of the incarnation enables one to see the God/Man Jesus as the best source for understanding both the nature of God, and the nature of man. As has been stated, Jesus is the fullness of what constitutes real genuine humanity. 50 Also, humanity being created in God s image makes it the creature most like God, thus seemingly drawing the two natures closer together than being utterly separate. This also guards against falling to a Kantian or Existential understanding, in which God is totally unknowable. 51 For in Christ, knowledge of the nature of God and man is possible. Added to this is the Biblical evidence of deity and humanity actually co-existing in Jesus and therefore making the union of the two not impossible. 52 In attempting to understand how the two natures functioned within the context of the hypostatic union, it is possible to understand something of a divine self-limitation 53 in regard to the incarnation. This would entail a voluntary decision on the part the Trinity for the Christ to 48 Erickson, Christian Theology, 753. 49 Erickson, Evangelical Christology and Soteriology Today, 260. 50 Williams, Renewal Theology, 331. 51 John Lamont, The Nature of the Hypostatic Union, Heythrop Journal 47, no. 1 (January 2006): 23. 52 Erickson, Christian Theology, 753. 53 Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 548.

12 have a restriction on the independent exercise of some of the divine attributes without forfeiting His essential deity. This actually seems to work when the context is a taking on of the human nature and not a kenosis of the divine nature. There would be a natural constraint imposed upon the divine nature by the addition of the human nature with its inherent limitations. 54 The result would be the divine attributes would not be lost, only the ability to independently exercise them. This could have even been to the extent that Jesus, at least for a time, would have had no conscious understanding of even possessing them. 55 As a result the qualities of the human and divine would not be lost, only their expression and function would be different. 56 The manifestation of the natures can then be explained through the ideas presented in what could be termed Spirit Christology. 57 Within this is the idea that while on the Earth, Jesus developed a distinct understanding of His utter dependence and need for complete obedience to the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. 58 This seems clearly what Jesus was talking about in statements about His unity with the Father in the Book of John. What He accomplished on Earth was then done through the power and anointing of the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. 59 This enables Christ to be wholly God, and wholly man, while 54 Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 549. 55 Ibid., 550. 56 Ibid., 556. 57 Han, Journeying Into the Heart of God, 107. 58 Ivor Davidson, Theologizing the Human Jesus: An Ancient (and Modern) Approach to Christology Reassessed, International Journal of Systematic Theology 3, no. 2 (July 2001): 152. 59 Acts 10:38 HCSB

13 functioning within His humanity during His time on the Earth. 60 Jesus remaining completely God, while functioning according to His genuine human nature, has distinct Soteriological implications, 61 as will be seen in the remainder of this paper. III. SOTERIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS A few preliminary statements are important before moving onto the Soteriological implication of the unity of the God/Man, Jesus Christ. One of the most significant contributions contemporary theology has made is one s Christology should have practical meaning. They are correct in stating Christology should not be so metaphysical and abstract as to lose its significance. However, the modern approach has placed such great emphasis on function that in many ways, Jesus identity has become obscured. They have either done away with Christology in general, or have constructed their Christology out of their Soteriology. To fix the inadequacies of the traditional approach, it is important not to become unbalanced. It does no good to fix one problem by creating an even bigger one. To have the proper meaning and function, meaning should dictate function. The opposite (Christology out of Soteriology) causes ones faith in salvation itself to lose any real foundation. 62 The traditional orthodox Christology, as defined by Chalcedonian, does in fact build a proper foundation from which one can then develop an effectual Soteriology. This then enables function to complement 60 Han, Journeying Into the Heart of God, 116. 61 Davidson, Theologizing the Human Jesus, 141. 62 Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man, 48.

14 the necessary foundational characteristics of the ontological aspect of a proper Christology. 63 Salvation can only be understood when one is able to embrace the inseparability between the Person and the Work of Jesus Christ. 64 The breadth of this paper does not warrant an in-depth Soteriological discourse; suffice it to say that the orthodox theology of salvation by grace through faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross of Calvary is the position presented in this paper. The sin of man broke the original relationship man had with the infinite God, and the wages of infinite sin is death. Effectual Soteriology is a payment of the wages of death, and the full reconciliation of man back to God. Atonement and thereby reconciliation, then, is the real reason (although not the only reason) for the incarnation. 65 For the atonement to be of any help to mankind, it had to have been the work of the human Jesus Christ. However, for it to have the infinite value necessary to atone for the sins of the whole world, in relation to an infinite God, then it had to also be the work of the divine Christ. 66 In other words, man sinned and therefore a man had to die. But, only God could be the perfect sacrifice necessary to atone for the sins of all mankind. Propitiation only works if Jesus was in fact the unified God/Man, for it is not about sinful man placating God s wrath, it is about God placating His own wrath. 67 This was the very issue Paul wrote about when 63 Erickson, Evangelical Christology and Soteriology Today, 260. 64 Harrison, Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, 122. 65 James M. Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: InverVarsity Press, 1986), 286. 66 Erickson, Christian Theology, 740. 67 Boice, Foundations of Christian Theology, 290.

15 he stated God was both the just and the justifier. 68 Therefore any attempt at developing a Christology, which lessens in any way either the humanity or the Deity of Christ, or negates the true unity of the two, totally undermines the possibility of salvation. IV. CONCLUSION What has been attempted in this study is to show the relationship between Christology and Soteriology. For the work of the cross to have had any real impact, someone who is both at the same time fully divine, and perfectly human must have accomplished it. Given the nature of man, and the nature of God, the existence of such a person would seem to be an impossibility. The mystery of godliness truly is great. As a result, one can see why for a significant portion of church history, when there has been error, it has usually had something to do with this issue. Error has resulted when attempts were made do develop a Christology which lessened Christ s deity or His humanity, or unbalanced the necessary perfect union between the two. At the same time, modern attempts to focus almost completely on Soteriology have faired little better. Biblically, what is known is Christ came to reconcile sinners, and He has accomplished the task. Therefore, the best explanation of what is necessary for effectual salvation is the orthodox Christological position presented by the Chalcedonian definition. When Christology and Soteriology are both ontologically and functionally held in balance, the orthodox position not only brings explanation, but viable relevance to a world in desperate need of true salvation given by a real Savior. 68 Romans 3:26 NASB

16 BIBLIOGRAPHY Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. Boice, James M. Foundations of the Christian Faith. Downers Grove: InverVarsity Press, 1986. Boring, M. Eugene. Markan Christology: God-language for Jesus. New Testament Studies 45, no. 4 (October 1999): 451-471. Carson, D. A., and Douglas Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Davidson, Ivor. Theologizing the Human Jesus: An Ancient (and Modern) Approach to Christology Reassessed. International Journal of Systematic Theology 3, no. 2 (July 2001): 129-152. Del Colle, Ralph. Schleiermacher and Spirit Christology: Unexplored Horizons of the Christian Faith. International Journal of Systematic Theology 1, no. 3 (November 1999): 286-307. Enns, Paul. Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989. Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.. Evangelical Christology and Soteriology Today. Interpretation: A Journal of Bible & Theology 49, no. 3 (July 1995): 255-266.. The Word Became Flesh: A Contemporary Incarnational Christology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000. Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Han, San-Ehil. Journeying into the Heart of God: Rediscovering Spirit-Christology and Its Soteriological Ramifications in Korean Culture. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15, no. 1 (October 2006): 107-126. Harrison, Everett F., Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Carl F. Henry, eds. Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1960. Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Bible. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2004. Holy Bible: New American Christian Standard Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990.

Lamont, John. The Nature of the Hypostatic Union. Heythrop Journal 47, no. 1 (January 2006): 16-25. Matera, Frank J. Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology. Theological Studies 67, no. 2 (June 2006): 237-256. McGrath, Alister E. Studies in Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. 17 Meyendroff, John. New Life in Christ: Salvation in Orthodox Theology. Theological Studies 50, no. 3 (September 1989): 481-499. Molnar, Paul. Some Dogmatic Implications of Barth s Understanding of Ebionite and Docetic Christology. International Journal of Systematic Theology 2, no. 2 (July 2000): 151-174. Nestlehutt, Mark. Chalcedonian Christology: Modern Criticism and Contemporary Ecumenism. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 35, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 175-196. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus God and Man. Translated by Lewis L Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977. Swindoll, Charles R. and Roy B. Zuck, eds. Understanding Christian Theology. Nashville: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 2003. Williams, J. Rodman. Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective, Vol. 1, God, the World, and Redemption. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.