The Truth About The Christ (continued  from www.truthaboutthechrist.com/thetruthaboutthechrist/ascension.html)
Critique of other Systematic Theology Christology Works

There is a difference between a Bible doctrine book and a theology book. The "ology" in theology emphasizes a discourse which meanders down every conceivable avenue of consideration for a topic. While a Bible doctrine must detail every straight and narrow consideration of what God has revealed, a thorough "ology" must do that, plus expand and expound on every thread. It must further introduce and explore some of the major broad paths and wide gates of mans creation. It should thereby open some vistas which may not have been considered by the student of doctrine, being ever vigil because the wide paths do lead to destruction. Review of other works of systematic theology pursues this mind broadening purpose.
Critique of John Miley's 1892 Methodist Christology
John Miley wrote an extensive Christology section in his Systematic Theology.1 A brief introduction of John Miley, taken from wikipedia is included below:

John Miley (1813–1895) was an American Christian theologian in the Methodist tradition who was one of the major Methodist theological voices of the 19th century. Miley had graduated from Augusta College and, as a Methodist pastor, had held nineteen different pastoral appointments. He served as chair of systematic theology at Drew University in Madison, NJ beginning in 1873, after his brother-in-law, Randolph Sinks Foster, left the seat to become a Bishop. He was the author of Systematic Theology (1892, ISBN 0-943575-09-5), a two-volume work which served as a key text for Methodist seminarians for decades. He also authored The Atonement in Christ (1879), in which he demonstrated what he believed were severe Biblical and theological problems with commonly held theories on the doctrine of the atonement such as the punishment view of Calvinism and the moral example view of Pierre Abélard, developing a strong moral government theology which was thoroughly Wesleyan and Arminian, heavily reliant on the work of Hugo Grotius.2

John Miley's systematic theology was reviewed in my studies to keep Hodge and Strong's excessive Presbyterian leanings in check, however, he does have an extensive Christology section. In his development Miley states that in the logical order of doctrines, meaning the intelligent order in which they arise for thought, Anthropology must precede Christology, and Christology must precede Soteriology. He then gives extensive coverage of "Leading Errors In Christology3" before he deals with Christology proper.4 After which he further develops another section on the errors in Christology.5 Concerning the leading errors, his overlap with Dr. Cambron's coverage is shown in the table below:

Dr. Cambron Bible Doctrine 1954 deals with:these leading error in Christology:

John Miley, Systematic Theology 1894, pg 851 Chapter V. Leading Errors In Christology,

1. Ebionitism.

2. Corinthianism.
3. Docetism.
4. Arianism. 133 A Systematic Theology for the 21st
5. Apollinarianisin.
6. Nestorianism. [p70]
7. Eutychianism.
8. Monothelitism.
9. Unitarianism.
10. Christian Science.
11. Millennial Dawnism. 		I. Earlier Errors.
1. Ebionism
2. Gnosticism


3. Arianism
4. Apollinai'ianism
5. Nestorianism
6. Eutychianism :


II. Later Errors.
1. The Socinian Christology ;
2. The Lutheran Christology
3. The Kenotic Christology
(pg 45-59).

Because John Miley gives an extensive coverage to the errors of Christology, from a late 19th centure Methodist's viewpoint, his public domain chapter on this topic is given in a block quote below. Make particular note of his coverage of the kenosis theory, which we called upon earlier and which he calls an error in Christology:

Miley's Chap V. Leading Errors In Christology.

The treatment of Christological errors is specially the work of historical theology; yet some attention to them is proper in a system of doctrines. We may thus set in a clearer light the true doctrine of the person of Christ. However, a brief presentation of the leading errors is all that we require and all that we attempt.
I. Earlier Errors.
While it is convenient to make the general distinction between the earlier and later Christological errors, a chronological order is not important in the treatment of the errors as classed in the two divisions. Here it is better to observe, as far as practicable, a logical order.
1. Ebionism. The Ebionites were probably so named by an opprobrious application to them of a Hebrew word which means poor; but not on account of their low and impoverished views of Christ, as some have held. Ebionism Avas a strongly Judaized form of Christianity. This is true as a general characterization. However, Ebionism represents several sects, with different Christological tenets. There were two leading sects: the Essene and the Pharisaic. The Essene Ebionites held the Mosaic law to be obligatory on all Jewish Christians, but did not require its observance by Gentile Christians. Therefore they accepted the apostleship and teaching of St. Paul. The Pharisaic Ebionites held that all Christians must observe the law of Moses, the Gentile no less than the Jewish. Therefore they repudiated the apostleship and teaching of St. Paul. They were his virulent and persistent opposers and persecutors.
Both sects held Christ to be the promised Messiah, but their notion of him was the low, secularized notion of the Jew. But, with agreement on this point, the two sects differed on others. The Essene held the miraculous conception of Christ, while the Pharisaic held him to be the son of Joseph and Mary by natural generation. The former of these views is in close identity with the earlier Socinianism; the latter in a like identity with a more modern humanitarianism, which holds Christ to be a man, just as others, whatever moral superiority may be conceded him. With these statements the errors of Ebionism in Christology are manifest. The divinity of Christ and the divine incarnation in him are both denied.'

2. Gnosticism. No doubt the term Gnostic had its ground in the Greek word yi'waic. As appropriated by the Gnostics it meant the profession of a high order of knowledge. As knowledge is possible, such a claim is not necessarily groundless; but it may mean, and with the Gnostics did mean, the profession of a peculiar insight into great problems which lie beyond the grasp of other minds. They dealt freely, and with much pretension of knowledge, with the profoundest questions.6 All may instance the world-ground or absolute being; all secondary or finite existences; the mode of their derivation from the absolute; the origin of evil and the mode of the world's redemption. Mostly, however, their treatment of these great questions was in a purely speculative mode. Hypothesis and deduction were in the freest use. Deduction, however, must be kept within its own sphere, and proceed only from grounds or principles of unquestionable truth.
The Gnostics were heedless of these imperative laws, carried their speculations into spheres where induction is the only appropriate method, and proceeded from the merest hypotheses or assumptions. With such methods in view the vagaries of Gnosticism should cause no surprise.
Gnosticism divided into various schools. This was an inevitable consequence of its purely speculative method. It was also made certain by the diverse influences to which its speculations were subject. The principal sources of Gnosticism may probably be summed up in these three. To Platonism, modified by Judaism, it owed much of its philosophical form and tendencies. To the dualism of the Persian religion it owed one form at least of its speculations on the origin and remedy of evil, and many of the details of its doctrine of emanations. To the Buddhism of India, modified again probably by Platonism, it was indebted for the doctrines of the antagonism between spirit and matter and the unreality of derived existence (the germ of the Gnostic Docetism), and, in part at least, for the theory which regards the universe as a series of successive emanations from the absolute unity." 7' Theories would thus take form just as one source of influence or another predominated, or according to the elements combined in their construction.
It is already apparent that leading tenets of the Gnostic heresy flourished in different philosophies long before the Christian era. As a heresy in Christianity it began its evil work while the apostles yet lived and wrote. There are many references to it in the New Testament, particularly in the writings of St. John. It is every-where reprehended as false in doctrine, evil in practice, and corrupt in influence. These characterizations are not limited to its evils as then manifest, but are prophetic of far greater evils in a future not remote. The truth of these prophecies was fully verified in the early history of the Church.
There were two principles of Gnosticism which led to an utterly false doctrine of the person of Christ. These were the perturbing tenets of emanation and the intrinsically evil nature of matter. God was not a creator of the universe, but the source of emanations. In this mode all things have proceeded from him. But this process is on a descending scale; so that even the first emanation must be inferior to the original ground of all things. Hence, wherever Christ is placed in the scale of emanated existences, even though it were at the top, he cannot be truly divine. The other tenet that matter is intrinsically evil, and corruption of all spiritual being in contact with it, was common to the different schools of Gnosticism, and led to a denial of the divine incarnation. That is: Gnosticism denied the reality of the human nature of Christ.
What in him seemed a real body was not such in fact, but a mere phantasm or appearance. It was on this ground that the Gnostics were often called Docetse, from Sokeo, to seem or appear.8 If there was no reality in the bodily form of Christ, of course there was no divine incarnation in him. It was in view of this heresy as an evil already at work, and as seen in prophetic vision, soon to become a far greater evil, that St. John opened his gospel with a doctrine of the Logos, which could mean nothing less than his essential divinity, and asserted in a manner so definite the reality of his incarnation.' It was in the same view that he wrote in his epistles: "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."9
It is obvious that such texts are indirect reprobation of certain principles of the Gnostics, which determine for them an utterly false doctrine of the person of Christ. According to these principles he could be neither divine nor an incarnation of divinity in our nature.10"

3. Arianism. The term Arianism was derived from Arius, who became the representative of certain doctrinal views regarded as heretical. Arius was a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, early in the fourth century, and a man of influence. He set forth and maintained views at issue with the accepted doctrine of the Trinity; but the real point of the issue concerned the divinity of the Son. When, in an assembly of his clergy, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, maintained the eternity of the Son, Arius openly opposed him, and maintained that in the very nature of his relation to the Father, the Son could not be eternal. This position could not remain as the whole adverse view. It involved doctrinal consequences which could not be avoided, and which, therefore, were soon accepted and maintained. If the Son was not eternal, then there was a time when he was not. This consequence was accepted and avowed. If the Son was not eternal, then his existence must have originated in an optional will of the Father, and either in the mode of generation or in that of creation. These consequences were also accepted; but respecting the actual mode of the Son's origin the earlier Arianism was vacillating or indefinite. Later, the mode of creation was more in favor. Thus, the Son was held to be of creaturely character. The departure from the orthodox faith was really the same, whichever view of his origin was maintained. A being originating in time, and by an optional act of God, whatever the mode of his operation, could not be truly divine. This consequence was fully accepted.[pg49]
The results of these views respecting the doctrines of the Trinity and the person of Christ are obvious. They are utterly subversive of both. The truth of the Trinity imperatively requires the essential divinity of the Son. He must be consubstantial with the Father, and his personal subsistence must be in the mode of an eternal generation, not by any optional act of the Father. A true doctrine of the person of Christ equally requires the essential divinity of the Son. Hence Ariauism subverts the deepest truth of the person of Christ. When the Son is reduced to a temporal existence, to a finite being, to carnation. the plane of a creature, there can be no divine incarnation in Christ, no theanthropic character of Christ. No attribution of greatness to the Son can obviate these consequences. Arianism may declare him, as it did, the head of creation, and far above all other creatures, so far as to be like God; but all this avails nothing because such likeness means, and is intended to mean, that he is not God, and that the divine nature is not in him. No more relief comes with the ascription to the Son of the whole work of creation. Relief might thus come if this work were allowed to mean what it really means for the divinity of the Son ; but there is no relief so long as Arianism denies his divinity and reduces him to the plane of a creature. The contradictory ascription of the work of creation to the Son, after he is reduced to the plane of a creature, leaves Arianism in the utter subversion of the truth respecting the person of Christ.11

4. Apollinarianism. The Apollinarian Christology was so named from Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea, and was disseminated in the fourth century. Its distinctive characteristic is that it denies to Christ the possession of a human mind. Necessarily, therefore, the theory grounded itself in a trichotomic anthropology. Man was assumed to consist of three distinct natures, body, soul, and spirit. In the theory body and mind were held in their usual meaning: the former as the physical nature; the latter as the rational and moral nature. The peculiarity of the theory was in the meaning given to the psyche or soul. This was held to be a distinct nature, intermediate between the physical and mental, and the seat of the sensuous or animal life. Provision was thus made for the theory of a partial incarnation. If man consists of three distinct natures it was possible that in the incarnation the Son should assume two of these natures and omit the third. It was assumed, accordingly, that the rational and moral [pg50] nature was omitted, and that the Son united with himself merely the physical and psychic natures of man.
With such limitation of the human nature assumed in the incarnation, or the omission of the mental nature, the mental facts, must account for the rational and moral facts, such as have a human cast, in the life of Christ. The account was attempted on the assumption that the incarnate Logos so fulfilled the functions of a rational mind in Christ as to account for this class of facts in his life.
While trichotomy provides for a partial incarnation, it is the necessary ground of a Christology which makes such limitation fundamental. If man is only dichotomic natures, there is no place for such a Christology. However, the refutation of Apollinarianism is not to be most readily achieved through the refutation of trichotomy. While the Scriptures are seemingly in favor of dichotomy,12 yet they are not decisive, as appeared in our discussion of that question. Nor can the question be concluded in any scientific or philosophic mode. On the other hand, there is here a fatal weakness of the Apollinarian Christology. In the first place, it is unable to establish the truth of trichotomy, which yet is its necessary ground. In the next place, the established truth of trichotomy could not conclude the Apollinarian Christology; indeed, could not furnish any proof of it.
The disproof of this Christology lies in the historic life of Christ. The facts of a rational and moral life in the cast of the human are as manifest therein as the facts of a psychic life, as here distinguished from the rational and moral. The presence of a human mind in Christ is the necessary ground and the only rational account of these facts. They cannot be accounted for simply by the presence of the incarnate Logos. To assume this possibility would be to assume the compression of his divine attributes into the limits of the human, after the manner of the modern kenoticism. Then there could no longer be a divine incarnation. The humanization of the Logos in Christ contradicts the deepest truth of the incarnation, which lies in the divine consciousness of the human. If the divine is in any way changed into the human there can no longer be a divine consciousness of the human.
The reality of the divine incarnation is itself the disproof of the Apollinarian Christology. The assumption of a human nature without the rational mind could not be an incarnation in the nature of man. The mind is so much of man that without it there is no true human nature. Nor could the [pg51] self-incarnating Son, with such limitation of the nature assumed, so enter into the consciousness of experiences like our own as to be in all points tempted like as we are, and thus appropriate the deepest law of his sympathy with us. Our deepest trials and our deepest exigencies of experience lie in our rational and moral nature; therefore it was necessary that he should take this nature into personal union with himself. Only in this mode could he share the consciousness of such experiences and so appropriate the law of his profoundest sympathy with us.13

5. Nestorianism. The term Nestorianism is derived from the name of Nestorius, and means the doctrine of two persons in Christ. This doctrine was propagated early in the fifth century, and at one time very widely prevailed, particularly in the Eastern Church. Nestorius, whose name is so responsibly connected with the doctrine, was a presbyter of Antioch, and later Patriarch of Constantinople, and a man of eminence and moral worth. However, he was not the author of the Christological view so directly connected with his name. The true authorship was with Theodore of Mopsuestia, but his doctrine found able advocates in his former pupils. Nestorius and Theodoret, the latter, Bishop of Cyrus.
While it was a special aim of the Apollinarian doctrine to make sure of the oneness of the person of Christ, it was equally the aim of the Nestorian doctrine to make sure of the integrity of his two natures, particularly of his human nature. Each made an unnecessary sacrifice of vital truth in order to the attainment of its aim: the former, of the integrity of the human nature of Christ; the latter, of the unity of his personality in the union of the two natures. It is true that the dualism, such as we have named, claimed Christ to hold the personal oneness of Christ, or denied the dualism with which Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, and others charged them. Cyril was their chief opponent. Their doctrine of the union of the Logos with the human nature in Christ fell far short of the requirement of his personal oneness, and left the human in the mode of a distinct and complete human personality.14 They called it an inhabitation ; and the general nature of the personal. inhabitation, as distinct from that by which God dwells in all men, through his omnipresent essence and energy, they indicated by the [pg52] phrase 'by good pleasure' (evoiav); and this indwelling by good pleasure in Christ they further discriminated from God's indwelling in other good men, by representing it as attaining in him the highest possible degree. This indwelling of the Logos in Christ was also said to be according to foreknowledge, the Logos choosing the man Jesus to be in a peculiar sense his temple, because he knew beforehand what manner of man he should be.
Among other phrases current in the same school were such as these; union by conjunction; union by relation, as in the case of husband and wife; union in worth, honor, authority; union by consent of will; union by community of name, and so forth; for it were endless to enumerate the Nestorian tropes or modes of union.15" ' No such union of the divine nature with the human assumed in the incarnation is here expressed, or even allowed, as will answer for the personal oneness of Christ. Therefore, while Nestorianism might repudiate the doctrine of two persons in Christ, it could not free itself from the implication of such a doctrine.
The disproof of Nestorianism lies in the proofs of the personal oneness of Christ in the union of the divine and human natures. These proofs were given in the treatment of that question; hence they need not here be repeated. Further, this doctrine, as the Apollinarian, and even more fully, is refuted by the reality of the divine incarnation. The great texts adduced in the treatment of that question mean, and must mean, that the divine Son took the nature of man into a personal union with himself; so that of the two natures so united there is one Christ, very God-man. The Nestorian Christology must deny the reality of the divine incarnation, and, therefore, must be false to the Christology of the Scriptures.

6. Eutychianism. This error is coupled with the name of Eutyches, a monk without other distinction, unless we reckon to his account a notable lack of culture, an intense love of debate, and an extreme doggedness. He is not reckoned the author of this Christological error, though he may have contributed something toward its extreme form. His intense activity in the propagation of the doctrine seems to be the only reason for its bearing his name. [MILEY, ERRORS IN CHRISTOLOGY pg53]
Eutychianism is monophysitic as it respects the nature of Christ; that is, that as the incarnate Logos Christ possessed but one nature. This view was in direct contradiction to the Chalcedonian symbol, which so formally declared that in him there were two complete, unmixed, and unchanged natures, the human and the divine. Eutychianism admitted the reality of the divine incarnation, and the incipient duality of the natures, but denied that their distinction remained in Christ. Just when, and in what mode, the distinction ceased, and the two natures became one, are questions on which the doctrine was quite indefinite. Respecting the time, it was held that it might have been instant with the incarnation, or at the baptism of Christ, or after his resurrection. Nor was the theory less definite respecting the change in the natures whereby the two became one. Whether the divine was humanized, or the human deified, or the two so mixed and compounded as to constitute a nature neither human nor divine was not determined, though the stronger tendency was toward the view of the deification of the human nature. In this view Christ was wholly divine. The human nature was transmuted into the divine, or absorbed by the divine, as a drop of honey is absorbed by the ocean. Such an illustration was in frequent use for the expression of the change to which the human nature assumed in the incarnation was subject and the monophysitic result determined. Much is thus expressed.
The drop of honey absorbed by the ocean would no longer be a drop of honey; nor would it be distinguishable from the body of the ocean. Hence the frequent use of such an illustration fully justifies our statement, that the doctrine strongly tended to the view of a deification of the human nature in Christ.
It seems quite needless to subject such a doctrine to the tests of criticism. Unless this change is held to have occurred at least as late as the ascension of Christ, the doctrine is openly contradicted by the daily facts of his life. We may as readily question his divinity as his humanity. His life is replete with facts so thoroughly in the cast of the human that he must have possessed a human nature; for otherwise these facts have no rational or possible account. Besides, if the human nature assumed by the divine was so transmuted or absorbed, the incarnation loses its own true, deep meaning and assumes a purely docetic form. Thus all grounds of the atonement and of the sympathy of Christ through a law of common suffering with us are utterly swept away.
It may suffice to add that such a transmutation of the human nature into the divine is an absolute impossibility. We mean by [pg54] this that it is not within the power of God. This must be manifest to any mind which takes the proposition into clear thought.16

II. Later Errors.
A review of all the modern phases of Christological error would be tedious, and without compensatory result. It will suffice that we consider some of the leading forms of such error.

1. The Socinian Christology. Socinianism, as a system of theology, originated in the sixteenth century, and took its designation from Laelius Socinus, an Italian, but who spent most of his active life in Poland, because he there found more liberty in the propagation of his peculiar doctrinal views.
However, while the original of this system is with Laelius Socinus, his nephew, Faustus Socinus, born 1539, more fully developed and propagated it, and first formed the converts to this faith into a distinct religious body, so that he may properly be regarded as one of the founders of Socinianism.
We here need only the most summary statement of its doctrinal tenets. Mostly, the Scriptures were admitted to be of divine origin, but rather as containing than as being a divine revelation. A strong rationalistic principle was held as a law of biblical exegesis. It was in this mode that Socinianism provided for itself so much liberty of interpretation, that it might the easier wrest the Scriptures from the proof of the orthodox faith and maintain its own opposing views. With all this rationalism, the earlier Socinianism admitted the supernatural in Christianity, particularly in its Christology. It held the miraculous conception of Christ; that he was the subject of supernatural moral and spiritual endowments, and that he was temporarily taken to heaven in order to a better preparation for his great work in the redemption of the world. As Socinianism denied the divinity of Christ, so it denied the doctrine of the Trinity. Its anthropology was Pelagian, and its soteriology admitted no other ground or power of human salvation than the moral influence of the life and lessons of Christ.
With these tenets of doctrine in hand, the Christology of the system is easily stated. With all the concession of supernatural facts, as previously stated, the Christ of Socinianism is a man, nothing more. True, he was declared to be more than man, but no sufficient ground was given, or even [pg55] admitted, for the truth of the declaration. No supernatural fact conceded, nor all combined, could raise him in his own nature or being above the plane of the human. No other ground is given for the assertion that he was more than man. In its Christology, therefore, Socinianism was substantially the same as the old Ebionism. In many instances of its later purely rationalistic or Unitarian forms it has degenerated from the higher views of Christ with which it began.
The Christology of Socinianism is utterly false to the Christology of the Scriptures. It denies the divinity of Christ; the reality of the divine incarnation; the union of the two natures in the personal oneness of Christ. All ground of the atonement is excluded from the system.17

2. The Lutheran Christologic. This error lies in the ascription of divine attributes, particularly of omnipresence, to the human nature of Christ. Only in an omnipresence or, at least, multipresence of his human nature could the Lutheran Christology answer to the doctrine of consubstantiation the doctrine of the presence and communion of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the supper. If in this supper the communicants really partake of the body and blood of Christ, then in some real sense, however obscure its mode, he must be present in his human nature, and, therefore, he must be present in many places at the same time. This is not denied by those who hold the doctrine of the real presence; indeed, it is affirmed.
It has often been said by divines who controvert the Christology of the Lutherans that its construction was determined to by the requirements of their doctrine of the real presence. Lutherans, however, deny this, and maintain that their doctrine of the person of Christ was constructed directly upon the ground of the Scriptures, and in the proper interpretation of their Christological facts; yet it is admitted that the one doctrine confirms the other and sets it in a clearer light. Thus, Dr. Gerhart having maintained that the Lutheran doctrine of the person of Christ was developed from the Lutheran theory of the sacrament,18 Dr. Krauth replies: 'If Dr. Gerhart means no [pg56] more than that God in his providence made the discussions in regard to the Lord's Supper the means of bringing more fully and harmoniously into a well-defined consciousness and into clearer expression the doctrine of the Scriptures in regard to the person of Christ, we do not object to it; but if he means that the doctrine of our Church on the person of Christ originated in the necessity of defending her doctrine in regard to the Lord's Supper, we think he is wholly mistaken. The doctrine of our Church rests upon the direct testimony of God's word; and her interpretation of the meaning of that word is not one of her own devising, but had been given ages before her great distinctive confession, by the fathers and councils of the pure Church.'19
Theologians of any distinct Christian communion have the right of stating their own case on any such issue ; but have no final authority. That the Lutheran doctrine of the person of Christ was the doctrine of the early fathers and councils is rejected as groundless. Further, it is in the truth of doctrinal history that the Christology of the Lutheran Church has ever been associated with her doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the supper, and that mostly the former has been treated as secondary or subordinate to the latter.
It is true that Dorner concedes to Luther a construction of his Christology independently of his doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but he also says this: "During the sixteenth century it was the doctrine of the supper that gave its direction and character to the concrete development of Christology."20 The Lutheran doctrine is greatly lacking in clearness. Nor is this to be thought strange, especially in view of its peculiar tenets.
Further, Lutherans have differed widely among themselves, and in fact greatly blurs the clear apprehension of the doctrine. The contentions on this question within the Lutheran Church were quite equal to those which she maintained with Papists, Zwinglians, and Calvinists. There were two schools of special prominence in these interior doctrinal issues: one in the following of Brentz; the other in the following of Chemnitz.
There were other schools, each with its own doctrine, and for which it contended against all opposing views. Among the contending parties there were real differences of doctrine. These contentions were fruitful of much evil. This came to be so clearly seen and deeply felt as to awaken an intense desire for peace and a harmony of doctrinal views. The attainment of these ends was [pg57] earnestly attempted. The Formula of Concord was the product of this endeavor. The aim was good, but the result brought little satisfaction. The desiderated concord was not attained. Divisions were rather increased than diminished. There was still a Brentzian doctrine, and still a Chemnitziau doctrine. Others were added, notably a Niessen doctrine, and a Tilbingen doctrine. There were others, but enough have been named to show the persistence and prevalence of the strife. These facts of division and disputation not only hinder the clear apprehension of the Lutheran Christology, but clearly point to peculiar difficulties of the doctrine, and really disprove it.
Where shall we find the doctrine? Naturally, we turn first to the Augsburg Confession; but it is not given in the looking for article which directly concerns this question.' In the the doctrine article on the Lord's Supper some facts are given which, if true in themselves, must be determinative of some vital elements of the doctrine.21 We note specially the alleged facts that the body and blood of Christ are truly present with the bread and wine, and are communicated to those who partake of the supper. But the determination of the doctrine of the person of Christ from the contents of this article would subordinate it to the doctrine of the supper in a manner to which Lutheran divines strongly object.
The Formula of Concord, while giving a later formulation of the doctrine, and the latest with any claim to authority, formula of still leaves us in uncertainty, and for two reasons: one, concord. that this statement was a compromise among opposing parties; the other, that it has not been held in any unity of faith. Yet we know not any better source to which we may look for the Lutheran doctrine.
Much of the article on the person of Christ is in full accord with the Chalcedonian symbol, but it contains elements article which are peculiar to the Lutheran doctrine.22 These eight. appear in the ascription of divine attributes to the human nature of Christ. It is not meant that the human nature is deified in any Eutychian sense, but that by virtue of the union of the two natures in Christ the human possesses the attributes of the divine. This is the sense of the communication turn, the communion of the attributes of the two natures in Christ. It seems obvious that, if the union is such that the human should possess the attributes of the divine, then, conversely, the divine should possess the attributes of the human. This, however, is denied. Omniscience, omnipotence, and ubiquity are the divine attributes which are more specially ascribed to' the human nature of Christ. "Therefore now not only as God, but also as man, he [pg58] knows all things, can do all things, is present to all creatures, has under his feet and in his hand all things which are in heaven, in the earth, and under the earth." These facts are central to the Christology of the article, and other facts affirmed are in full accord with them. " What the divine has in its essence and of itself, the human has and exercises through the divine, in consequence of its personal union with it. We might imitate one of our Lord's own deep expressions in characterizing it, and might suppose him to say: “As my divine nature hath omnipresence in itself, so hath it given to my human nature to have omnipresence in itself."23 If the union of the two natures is valid ground for the omnipresence of the human, the same union must be equally valid for its omniscience and omnipotence.
The statement of such a doctrine seems entirely sufficient for its refutation. The human nature assumed by the Logos in the incarnation remained human, with the attributes of the human. In itself it possessed the capacity for only such knowledge, power, and presence as are possible to the human.
How then could it become omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? The answer is, through the divine nature with which it was united. But if this union answers for such results, either it must give to the finite attributes of the human nature the plenitude of the infinite, or invest that nature with the attributes of the infinite. Attributes of knowledge, power, and presence, such as we here contemplate, are concrete realities of being, not mere notions or names. There can be neither knowledge, nor power, nor presence without the appropriate attribute of being. The being must answer for the character of the attribute, and the attribute must answer for all that is affirmed of it. Only a mind possessing the power of absolute knowing can be omniscient. Omnipotence must have its ground in a will of absolute power. Omnipresence, such as the Lutheran Christology affirms of the human nature of Christ, is possible only with an infinite extension of being. Hence, either the finite attributes of the human nature assumed by the Logos must be lifted into the infinitude of the divine attributes, or the divine attributes must be invested in the human nature, which is intrinsically finite, and which in itself, even as the Lutheran Christology concedes, must ever remain finite.
It is at this point that the doctrine encounters insuperable difficulties, even absolute impossibilities. There is no possibility that the human nature of Christ should possess the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence [pg59] which the Lutheran Christology ascribes to it. It is properly regarded as an axiom that the finite has not a capacity for the infinite. The principle is absolutely true in application to the points which we here make. The finite attributes of the human nature can neither be enlarged to the infinitude of the divine attributes nor receive into themselves the plenitude of the divine. Neither can the finite nature of man receive the investment of these divine attributes. But there can be no omniscience without the attribute of absolute knowing; no omnipotence without a will of absolute power; no omnipresence of being without an infinite extension. Here are the impossibilities which the Lutheran Christology encounters in the ascription of such attributes to the human nature of Christ,'

3. The Kenotic Christology. The seed-thought of kenoticism in Christology is credited to Zinzendorf, but it remained fruitless for a long time after he cast it forth. In later years his thought has been developed into doctrinal form. Indeed, there are several forms of this development. Professor Bruce has carefully noted four leading types of the doctrine, as severally represented by Thomasius, Gess, Ebrard, and Martensen.24 With this classification he proceeds to a careful statement and critical review of each type.25 A study of this discussion is helpful toward a clear insight into the kenotic Christology. We, however, are mainly concerned with the deeper tenets of the doctrine.
Kenoticism is the doctrine that in the incarnation the Logos emptied himself of his divine attributes, or compressed them into the measure and cast of the human; that he parted with his omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, and subjected himself to the limitations of a merely human life. These are the central ideas of the doctrine, though not all kenoticists hold so extreme a view.
Whether in the incarnation the Logos assumed a human soul as well as a body, or whether in his own humanized form he fulfilled the functions of a human soul in Christ, is a question on which kenoticists are not agreed. The admission of a distinct human soul must mean, for this doctrine, the co-existence of two souls in Christ, two not different in their human cast. In this case there could be no personal oneness of [pg60] Christ. On the other hand, the denial of a distinct human soul must mean a denial of the divine incarnation. The reality of such an incarnation cannot lie in the assumption of a mere body of flesh and blood. Certainly such a limitation could not answer to the sense of the Scriptures respecting this profound truth.
This kenoticism has really no ground in Scripture, though it assumes such ground. The proofs which it brings are proofs, because it is only by an unwarranted interpretation of the texts adduced that they can give any support to the theory. We give a few instances. "And the Word was made flesh." ' This cannot mean any transmutation of the divine Logos into a body of human flesh. Much less can it mean a transformation of the Logos into a man, for this is much farther away from a literal sense than the former. The meaning is simply that in the incarnation the Logos invested himself in a human nature, of which a body of flesh is the visible part. This interpretation places the text in complete accord with other texts of the incarnation. Here are other instances: "God was manifest in the flesh."26 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." ' These texts give the same doctrine of the incarnation, but without any suggestion of the transformation of the Son into a man. That the Logos was made flesh can mean nothing more than these texts.
The special reliance of the theory is on a passage from St. Paul: 'Who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men." We have cited the Revised Version, it being more literal than the Authorized. We gave the meaning of this text in the treatment of the incarnation, and therefore require the less in considering its application to the present question.
"Being in the form of God" must mean an existence of the, in the nature of God or in the glory of God. If the former be the true sense, then, on the ground of his divine nature, an equality of glory with the Father was his rightful possession. If the latter be the true sense, then we have simply the fact that the Son rightfully existed in the full glory of God. It should be specially noted that this estate of glory was not his merely in right, but his in actual possession. This meaning is in the words, "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself." This accords with another text: "And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with [pg61] the glory which I had with thee before the world was." ' Here the clear meaning is that the Son actually existed in the glory of the Father prior to his incarnation. Such is the sense of the great text now under special consideration.
What, then, is the truth of the kenosis in this case? The Son emptied himself. But of what? Surely not of his divine nature, nor of his divine perfections, which are inseparable from his nature. Nor can this act of kenosis mean the compression of his perfections into the cast and measure of mere human powers. Such an idea seems utterly foreign to any idea which the terms of the text either express or imply.
This act of kenosis has respect to that estate of glory which, on the ground of his divine nature, the Son rightfully possessed in equality with the Father. It means a self-emptying or self-divestment of that glory. This accords with his own words as previously cited: “And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."27 That glory he once possessed, but had surrendered. The surrender was by the act of kenosis which we have in the text under special consideration. This interpretation brings all the parts of the text into complete harmony. The form of a servant in the likeness of men, which the Son assumed in the incarnation, stands in clear antithesis, not with his divine nature and perfections, but with the estate of glory which he possessed with the Father; which glory he might have rightfully retained, but with which he freely parted, and took instead the form of a servant in the likeness of men. The text gives no support to the kenotic Christology.
The aim of kenoticism is twofold: to secure the unity of the person of Christ, and to provide for the human facts of aim of kenosis his life. The self-limitation of the Son in the incarnation to a mere human cast and measure is held to be necessary to the personal oneness of Christ, and to the reality of the human facts of his intramundane or historic life. The personal oneness is declared to be impossible on the ground of the traditional doctrine of the divine incarnation. It is readily conceded that this personal oneness is incomprehensible; but surely the the mystery is not solved nor in the least relieved by the theory of a humanized Logos as co-existent with a human soul in Christ. A duality of persons seems absolutely inseparable from such a co-existence; and this attempt to secure and explain the personal oneness of Christ is utterly futile. Further : if, as we formerly pointed out, the deepest truth of the incarnation lies in [pg62] the divine consciousness of the hnman, may not this question of personal oneness have for us less pressing concern than we usually concede it? All that we require is such a relation of the divine to the human in Christ as will provide for this consciousness. And may there not be such a relation without the rigid unity of personality which is usually maintained ? Let it be observed, however, that, in this hypothetical putting of the case, we do not yield the doctrine of the personal oneness of Christ. But on the ground of this kenoticism there could be no divine consciousness of the human in the incarnation, because the humanized Logos could no longer have any divine consciousness.
The implications of this doctrine of the kenosis in Christology are contrary to the deepest truths of Christian theology. If the Son of God could part with his divine attributes himself, then divinity itself must be mutable. This consequence can be denied only on a denial of the divinity of the Son. But his divinity is conceded in the very idea of his self-divestment of his divine attributes. The theory is subversive of the divine Trinity. The humanized Son, self-emptied of his divine attributes, could no longer be a divine subsistence in the Trinity. Hence this kenosis of the Son must mean the destruction of the Trinity. The theory is not less subversive of other fundamental truths of Christian theology. No ground of an atonement in the blood of Christ could remain. That the Son once existed in the divine Trinity, and in the plenitude of the divine life, could avail nothing for such an atonement. If self-reduced to the measure of a man, his death could be no more saving than the death of a man. No ground of the sympathy of Christ could remain, as that sympathy is revealed in the Scriptures, and as it must be in order to meet the exigencies of Christian experience. Such a sympathy we have found to be possible only through the divine consciousness of human experiences of suffering and trial. But there can be no such consciousness in the mere human consciousness to which this kenoticism limits the incarnate Logos. A theory with such implications can have no ground of truth in the Scriptures.28 29

Other than this thorough treatment of errors, the nineteenth century Methodist scholar John Miley follows the same development of Christology as Cambron does. Other than the coverage of the leading errors of his day there is little value added by his coverage. He does, however, dismiss the kenotic view of Christ's incarnation, a view that fits the Scriptures better than any classic or orthodox view, for three reasons 1) it is not the orthodox view, 2) it does not fit with the orthodox view, and 3) it is destructive to the orthodox view. Since I previously promoted this view as the best fit to Scripture, let's briefly examine his oppositions.

Answering Miley – Kenosis Does Harmonize Scripture
Openly examine some points of contention that John Miley has toward the Kenotic view of Christ's incarnation. Roman Catholicism, and consequently all Protestants are confused about the soul, and Methodist Miley is first confused that Christ, in a Kenosis position, might end up with two souls in co-existence. This confusion comes because orthodox theologians hold that the human is a dichotomy with only a material side and an immaterial side. That is what the learned philosophers had told them. The soul, they suppose, is something that God adds to this mix at some time during human development. The Bible student knows that man is formed with body, soul, and spirit united together in one. The Bible and its student pays little attention to exactly when and how the soul gets added; that is only important to Roman Catholic theologians who think themselves in complete control of souls of men. This orthodox insistence of discerning how two natures coexisted in Christ, and what part the soul played completely muddies the water when examining Scripture.
The Bible student knows that death is the separation of body, soul, and spirit, i.e. Christ commended his spirit into the hands of the Father (Luke 23:46), while his soul went to hell (Ps 16:10, Acts 2:31), and his body hung on a cross until it was taken to the tomb (Matt 27:60). (This separation is death, Christ's death occurred on Thursday, and he remained dead on Thursday, on Friday, the high Sabbath, and on Saturday the weekly Sabbath. That is three days in a Bible students count, despite the Roman Catholic misinformation.) This understanding of body, soul and spirit, squelches all the orthodox misunderstandings about the union of a human soul with a divine being. When engineers got lost in minutia of design details the USAF pilot attendant in our meetings used to say “Pull up! Pull up! Your in the weeds!” Such an analogy is appropriate in the orthodox theologian's consideration of how two natures molded themselves together.
When Christ humbled himself, took on the form of a servant and was made in the image of men, he took on the body, soul, and spirit that man is made of. God is a trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit; man made in his image and likeness is a trichotomy, body, soul and spirit. This need not confuse the Bible student who believes first, and rationalizes second, but it does produce great confusion for the orthodox theologians who reject the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired testimony of God and first embrace the testimony of scholar, philosopher and theologian.
Once John Miley is certain that the Kenotic view is unorthodox, and unable to resolve issues about where the soul of Christ comes from, he dismisses it as “only an unwarrented interpretation of the texts adduced that they(kenoticites) can give any support to the theory.” Like other theologians of his day Miley considers theology a science wherein one stacks up all the facts, devises a hypothesis, refines a theory then debates until he has established the truth. Theology is nothing like that! It is not a science and cannot use the scientific method popularized and declared omniscient in the 19th century. A true Bible theologian stacks up all the revealed facts, declares them to be inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired truth and only debates about the rational understanding that finite minds might use for comprehending those facts. Truth is not out their waiting for discovery, it is declared by … The Truth, i.e. John 14:6, “Jesus saith unto him (Thomas), I am the way, (I am) the TRUTH and (I am) the life; no man (theologian, philosopher, or scholar) cometh unto the Father, but by me.” This is an important distinction missed by generations of theologians, theology is not a science and cannot follow the normal scientific methods.
The Bible says the Word was made flesh, that Christ was made a little lower than the angels, that he made himself of no reputation, took on the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. Miley contends “this cannot mean any transmutation of the divine” nor can it mean “a transformation into man,” it must only mean that Christ “invested himself in a human nature, of which a body of flesh is the visible part.” Orthodox theologians, and now John Miley, tiptoe around these verses because they cannot conceive that Christ was made in the likeness of men and that likeness has body, soul, and spirit. Their man made cliché that “Jesus was as much God as if he were not man, and as much man as if he were not God,” does not have the fidelity to tell what Christ did and has them, and many others, in a tailspin, not able to believe all that the Scripture is saying. When Christ humbled himself, and was made in the likeness of men, the infinite took on some level of finiteness, the eternal God was born into a merely everlasting body, and it is conceivable and adequate for understanding these Scriptures that for thirty-three years he set aside his omnipresence, his omnipotence, and his omniscience. John Miley says no, such an “interpretation” of these Scriptures is not orthodox and produces a two soul scenario. Go figure.
In exploring with his pen Miley does state that “This interpretation (Kenosis) brings all the parts of the text into complete harmony.” But alas, he rejects it because “A humanized soul in Christ cannot solve the mystery of the personal oneness of diety and humanity united.”30 In other words Kenosis can bring all the Scriptures into harmony, but it cannot bring all the consternation of orthodox hypothesis and theory into harmony. As Miley wades out into the consternation of hypothesis and theory, the Bible student need only concern themselves with what brings all the inerrant Scriptures into harmony. The understanding that Christ temporarily set aside omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience, while retaining all the other attributes of his diety, and was made in the likeness of men does indeed bring all the Scriptures into harmony.

Critique of Charles Hodge's 1878 Presbyterian Christology
Charles Hodge wrote no Christology section in his Systematic Theology.31 A brief introduction of Charles Hodge, taken from Christian Classics Ethereal Library, where his public domain works are available, is included below:

Charles Hodge (December 27, 1797, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – June 19, 1878, Princeton, New Jersey) was the principal of Princeton Theological Seminary between 1851 and 1878. A Presbyterian theologian, he was a leading exponent of historical Calvinism in America during the 19th century. He was deeply rooted in the Scottish philosophy of Common Sense Realism. He argued strongly that the authority of the Bible as the Word of God had to be understood literally.32

Charles Hodge, called the Father of printed systematic theology, only addresses a Christology as it is presented in its essential features under other topics of his systematic theology. Even then he presents his Christology as the predicates which the Church gives to Christ, rather than the predicates which the Holy Bible gives to Christ. Further, when he does address what the Bible says about Christ he speaks of what the Old Testament states, what the Gospels state, or what the Doctrine of Paul states in the Pastoral Epistles. Although Hodge is a learned Princeton graduate with a very scholarly manner, and is a very gifted communicator, his systematic theology is first and foremost laden with Presbyterian doctrine. He presents reformed theology well. Remember that for a Catholic or Protestant theologian a systematic theology book is important because there are so many loose ends of their religion that need to tied up. For a Bible believer, holding to the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Holy Scriptures as their final authority, the Holy Bible is their Systematic Theology book, and this one, built on that premise, has only to unravel and expose those previously bound up loose ends. Ergo there is little value added in the review of Hodge's Christology.
Critique of Augustus Strong's 1907 “Baptist” Christology
Much needs to be said about Christ. Saying much, in Greek, is pronounced "ology." Augustus H. Strong, 1836-1921, was a Yale graduate who taught theology at Rochester Theological Seminary for forty years and became the first president of the Northern Baptist Convention. His systematic theology has a tremendous depth and scope but his motivation and purpose must cause grave concern. Strong sets out to mold a traditional reformed emphasis and an atheistic evolutionary critical scholarship into the distinctive Baptist conviction. In his Christology, this dangerous blend caused A. H. Strong to follow Charles Hodge's lead and submerge his Christology as a by line of his Soteriology.
Even there, Strong begins his discourse on Christ with an emphasis making our Lord and Saviour little more than yet another decree of God. His opening paragraph states:

Since God did from eternity determine to redeem mankind, the history of the race from the time of the Fall to the coming of Christ was providentially arranged to prepare the way for his redemption. The preparation was two fold: I. Negative Preparation, in the history of the heathen world, and II. Positive Preparation, in the history of Israel.33

Strong's dogmatic belief in reformed theology and their decrees of God, not only robs him of a passion in Christology, it prevents him from seeing God in all his glory. It overshadows the fact that God is capable of being a friend of man. Reformed, Presbyterian, and Calvinistic theology has God's sovereignty, God's decrees, and God's unfolding of events exactly as he knew from eternity past, held in such an overbearing consideration, that they cannot see the whole truth of Scripture. Baptists are first and foremost people of the Book. It is distressing that A. H. Strong sacrifices solid Baptist distinctives, on the altar of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Once indoctrinated with reformed theology's notion that the catholic church is the new chosen people of God, elect in the foreknowledge of God, elect before the foundation of the world,... little else can penetrate that dogma. It feeds their Replacement Theology and nurtures their Covenant Theology, and here, not even the centerpiece of all Scripture, Christ in Christology, can bump their dogma. Their decrees must remain in its preeminent position, even above Christ himself.
Augustus H. Strong is a worthy student of theology but when reading his extensive systematic theology one must always keep in mind his objective. Strong's overriding purpose is to blend together reformed theology, Baptist distinctives, and the atheistic evolutionary process of creation. Abram was a friend of God forever.34 The second lesson that Abram learned about God, was God does not need blenders he desires separators. Strong is genius, but he is a blender that takes doctrines, blends them and tries to reconstruct a persuasive Bible doctrine. Although he is a deep thinker, and a profound communicator, he is dangerous.
Strong's Christology is developed extensively.35 It is embedded in his Soteriology in Part IV of his second volume. It is unfortunate that early systematic theology works kept theology divorced from Bible doctrine. That divorce procedure is evident in Strong's presentation of Christology. He begins by wedging it between the decrees of God, as if Christology were only another thing that God had decreed from eternity past. Concerning the person of Christ, Strong opens with the paragraph:

The redemption of mankind from sin was to be effected through a Mediator who should unite in himself to both the human nature and the divine, in order that he might reconcile God to man and man to God. To facilitate an understanding of the Scriptural Doctrine under consideration, it will be desirable at the outset to present a brief historical survey of views respecting the Person of Christ.36

The study of theology should be systematic. The sole source of theology should be the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Word of God. So any systematic method should start with that source as its foundation. Augustus H. Strong does not. His opening paragraph on the person of Christ gives a very practical function of the Christ and then delves into a historical survey of the doctrine. His Bible is not open. The seventh and last of his referenced historical doctrines is, “The Orthodox doctrine promulgated at Chalcedon, in A.D. 451.” With no other development from Scripture, and his Bible still closed, A. H. Strong uses this "Orthodox" position as the doctrine of the Person of Christ and goes on to expand that Roman Catholic Orthodox position, which expounds the two natures of Christ. In a development of theology, that is certainly “systematic error.” A. H. Strong's primary source of truth is not the Holy Bible, it is a Roman Catholic Synod!
The Council of Chacedon in 451 A.D., which A. H. Strong cites as his source of orthodox truth, convened 600 bishops under the auspicious of Pope Leo I37. It passed the "Definition of Faith" at the council's fifth session. In the sixth session the Pope and Emperor concurred, and the formula that Christ is one in two natures was "promulgated" solemnly. (Notice here that the pope and Augustus Strong, use the exact same word!) This counsel was transferred from Nicaea to Chalcedon so as to be close to Constantinople, and the Emperor Marcian. This "Definition of Faith" has a revealing first paragraph as follows:

The sacred and great universal synod by God's grace and by decree of your most religious and Christ-loving Emperors Valentinian Augustus and Marcian Augustus, assembled in Chalcedon, metropolis of the province of Bithynia, in the shrines of the saintly and triumphant martyr Euphemia, issues the following decrees.38

The Roman Catholic Religion's orthodoxy continues with more audacious claims of authority, and none of them are Scripture. It also continues with a detailed definition of their faith which is not referenced to any Scripture. They then "promulgate" the Roman Catholic Religion with twenty seven additional audacious disciplinary cannons. The first of which states "We have deemed it right that the canons hitherto issued by the saintly fathers at each and every synod should remain in force."39
It is no small thing that A. H. Strong begins his Christology using Roman Catholic Cannons as his defining authority. He does add foot notes that point to some shortfalls of these Roman Catholic doctrines, and he does develop their good points with the Holy Bible. But systematic development of theology needs a solid starting point in the Bible doctrine not in Roman Catholic doctrine.
A. H. Strong writes a scholarly Christology which may be effectively used to augment this work with an in-depth perspective. His two systematic flaws are: 1) his motive to blend reformed theology and atheistic evolution into Baptist distinctives, and 2) his failure to use the inerrant, infallible Word of God as a sole source for his theology, or even as his primary source of theology. These two systematic flaws are so flagrant that Strong's Systematic Theology can not be recommended as a complete work. However, his extensive and scholarly coverage of Christology provides a depth to ones studies that can be of benefit.
Strong's Christology does contain a thorough analysis of the two natures of Christ, their reality and integrity. After analyzing the humanity of Christ, and the deity of Christ, he carefully expounds on the union of the two natures in one person. (pg. 673, 681, 683) He explores the Scriptures that give the proof of this union. He discusses the modern misrepresentations of this union, giving; A) the theory of incomplete humanity, to which he urges several objections, and B) the theory of gradual incarnation, found objectionable for his documented reasons.
A depth in Strong's coverage is next found in his treatment of the real nature of this union (pg. 691-700) With extensive foot notes he examines: (a) the great importance of this union, (b) the chief problems of this union (being only one personality with pre-incarnate, incarnate and post?incarnate considerations), (c) the reason for mystery in this inscrutable union, (d) the grounding of the possibility of the union in the original creation of man, (e) the possession of the two natures does not involve a double personality, (f) the effect upon the human nature, wherein the divine nature, with its power to be, to know, and to do as God, is imparted to the human nature without passing over into its essence, (g) the effect upon the divine nature wherein the human nature, with its ignorance, weakness, temptation, suffering, and death, is imparted on the divine nature without passing over into its essence, (h) the necessity of the union in order to constitute Jesus-Christ a proper mediator between God and man, (i) the union of humanity with deity in the person of Christ is indissoluble and eternal, and, (j) the infinite and the finite are no longer mutually exclusive.
Considering this kind of depth in the miracle of the incarnation is what extends a Bile doctrine of Christology into a systematic theology of Christology. A. H. Strong is a master at corralling all the considerations for an 'ology', on a subject. When guarding against his two systematic errors, it is always a joy to explore the great depth in his discourse.
Critique of Thiessen's 1949 “Baptist” Christology
Henry Clarence Thiessen (19__-1947) taught his "Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology" which were published in 1949. Little is written about Thiessen's background. John MacArthur's Master's College history annals records him as the fourth president of the Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary. It was after Thiessen's death in 1947 that that seminary matriculated into the neo-evangelical Master's College under John MacArthur, but the seeds of that matriculation are evident in Thiessen's lectures.
The genius and integrity of Henry Clarence Thiessen needs to be unequivocally affirmed here with a rehearsal of the old truth, “It takes no size to criticize.” Thiessen's theology lectures have steered hundreds into the straight and narrow path of truth. When up to your neck in alligators it is easy to loose sight of the goal of draining the swamp. Dr. Thiessen and many other sound independent fundamental Baptists did not see how extensive was the diabolical attack against God's Word, nor how Satan would use the multiplicity of copyright translations to his full advantage. Little compromises, viewed in hindsight, open large fissures that allow the adversary to gain strategic footholds. Here we exercise some of that hindsight.
Three systematic errors of Thiessen must be held in background while critiquing his Christology. First, he did not use the Holy Bible as his sole or even primary source of theology. In fact Thiessen even denies the existence of an inspired, inerrant, infallible Holy Bible. He solidifies his errant doctrine thus: "Inspiration is affirmed only of the autographs of the Scriptures, not of any of the versions, whether ancient or modern, nor any of the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts in existence, nor of any critical texts known. All these are either known to be faulty in some particulars, or are not certainly known to be free from all error."40
Thiessen continues in this misguided ruse to express his faith in ecumenical critics and their bibles, supposing they may eventually restore some approximate similitude of the very words which God failed to preserve for our present generation. Like all neo-evangelicals Thiessen makes a pretense that although God failed to accurately preserve his very words "textual critics tell us that the number of words that are still in doubt, whether in the Old Testament or in the New, is very small, and that not doctrine is affected by this situation."41 (These never consider the doctrine of inspiration, the doctrine of inerrancy, the doctrine of infallibility, nor the doctrine of preservation, which are directly and blatantly attacked by Satan's modernist ecumenical textual critics, Bible critics, and translators.)
Every lecture of Henry Clarence Thiessen is effected by his steadfast belief in this "situation." Ergo he does not use the Holy Scriptures as his sole source or even his primary source of theology. By his own testimony the Bible he holds in his hands is not the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. Everything in his 574 pages of published Systematic Theology must be weighed because of this systematic shortfall of Dr. Thiessen.
A reformed theologian is always a reformed Augustinian theologian. Augustinian's philosophy, which constructed the Roman Catholic Church, is what the reformers were reforming, and Thiessen was more reformer than Baptist. Roman Catholic Saint Augustine framed the doctrine that God has decreed and knows for certain everything, to the minutest detail, that ever is to happen in the universe. That is Augustinian doctrine, not Bible doctrine. Any theologian who makes the concerted effort of rationalizing Roman Catholic Saint Augustine's doctrine of decrees into some rendition of a Bible doctrine is a reformer of theology and thus properly labeled a defender of reformed theology.
In force fitting Augustinian doctrine into his theology Thiessen makes this audacious declaration:
Some hold that prayer can have no real effect upon God, since he has already decreed just what He will do in every instance. But that is an extreme position. 'Ye have not, because ye ask not' (Jas. 4:2) must not be left out of account. The facts seem to be this, that God does some things only in answer to prayer; He does some other things without one's praying; and He does some things contrary to the prayers made. In His foreknowledge, again, He has taken all these things into account, and in His providence He works them out in accordance with His own purpose and plan. If we do not pray for the things that we might get by prayer, we do not get them. If He wants some things done for which no one prays, He will do them without anyone's praying. If we pray for things contrary to His will, He refuses to grant them. Thus there is perfect harmony between the foreknowledge, decrees, and providence of God.42

There is no harmony between the Augustinian doctrine of decrees and the revelation of God in his Holy Word. No matter how much verbiage a theologian uses to rationalize the two revelations, Augustine's doctrines do not fit into God's doctrine. Those who repeatedly try to reconcile Augustinian doctrines into God's Word are reformed theologians attempting to reform what should have been discarded long ago.
Thiessen's third systematic flaw is directly connected to the first two, but is it so illuminating that it is included here as a separate entity. The inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God is clear and emphatic that man is made in the image and likeness of God, that God is a triune being, and that man is a trichotomy, consisting of body, soul, and spirit. Henry Clarence Thiessen declares that man is only material and immaterial, a dichotomy, just like the ancient Greek philosophers said. The Roman Catholic Church adopted this dichotomy of man as their doctrine. In order to hold on to this Roman Catholic dogma, Dr. Thiessen not only rejects the Scriptures that reference body, soul, and spirit as separate entities43, he attributes 1Thes 5:2344 as nothing more than what Paul "seems to think."45 Dr. Thiessen has already denied the inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration of the bible he holds in his hands, he defends Roman Catholic and Reformed Roman Catholic doctrines of decrees, and now, in defense of a Roman Catholic dogma he calls Holy Scripture just a matter of Paul's opinion. These three systematic flaws in Dr. Thiessen's lectures make the work, on a whole, very suspect and not reliable for use as a systematic theology. His Christology suffers with these flaws.
Thiessen's Christology
Like Baptist theologian, A. H. Strong before him, Baptist theologian Thiessen starts his Christology with a historical survey of the many views about the person of Christ. Likewise, the orthodox view he settles on hangs on the Roman Catholic Chalcedon Cannon of 451 AD, and not on Holy Scripture.
Thiessen speaks of the Pre-Incarnate Christ but only to bolster his support of the Reformed position on election. Dr. Chafer, in contrast, presents a whole informative section on the pre-incarnate Christ. Thiessen, lamely concludes his section: “We know very little of Christ's work during this period, only that the Father through Him framed the ages (Heb 1:2, A.S.V.46 marg.) and that He chose the believers in Him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).47
When a theologian is entangled in the error of reformed theology wherein God decrees who gets saved and who burns in hell, that error permeates every area of his theology. Here it even mars Thiessen's discourse on Christology.
Thiessen's Little Value Added
Thiessen's Lectures in Systematic Theology adds nothing to a discourse on Christology. His commentary rehearses A. H. Strong's discourse but does not attain the depth of Strong. His rejection and denial of God's preservation of inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures make his writings a liability more than an asset. One need not read more of Thiessen's lectures on Christology.
Critique of Chafer's 1948 Christology
Lewis Sperry Chafer, who waxed so incomprehensible in volume four and could not communicate the truth of "So Great Salvation" in volume three, waxes more eloquent than all predecessors of systematic theologies when expressing his Christology. It is an astounding transformation, likely lectured and written prior to his venture into a printed systematic theology effort. This volume is worth its price despite all the other volumes of his incorrigible effort.
Make no mistake, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer started as a fundamentalist. The song leader under C.I. Scofield became a gifted teacher for the newly formed World's Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA) and in 1924 his Evangelical Theological College became Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas, a fundamental seminary.48 Evangelicals became Neoevangelicals when they scoffed at the Fundamental Separatist position and refused the Fundamentalist's militant attitude. Dr. Chafer never scoffed, but he never separated either. Dr. Chafer never mocked militantism, but he never became one, and he never camped with any.
Dr. Chafer's Ecclesiology and his pandering to 70+ denominations, endangers his Christology. His belief in a Catholic Church with Denominational Divides is a poisonous root which renders his whole whole Systematic Theology dangerously suspect. The rationalizations that he imagines in his work, illustrate the ever present danger of mixing with apostasy, rather than separating from it. Such is the plight of the neoevangelical who purposefully rejected the staunch separatist position of the early Fundamentalist. When trying to appease 70+ denominations, Chafer is "conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. And judgment is turned away backward, justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." (Isa 59:13b-14)
Some would contend that Lewis Sperry Chafer was not neoevangelical leaning, and Dallas Theological Seminary was indeed Fundamental. One can let George W. Dollar, Professor of Church History at Bob Jones University answer that. In his 1973 book "A History of Fundamentalism in America", he states,
Alumni of Dallas Seminary would raise the old claim that all is sound and Fundamental there, although such known sympathizers with New Evangelicalism as H.G. Hendricks, H.W. Robinson, G.W. Peters, and R.H. Seume serve on the faculty... Each year an array of speakers who travel with New Evangelicals mold the mind of students to a middle-of-the-road position. These speakers have included R.A. Cook, Arnold T. Olsen, H.T. Armerding, Clark Pinnock, F.A. Schaeffer, Carl Henry, Clyde Taylor, and Ted Engstrom.49

Dr. Dollar also clarifies succinctly,
That the new evangelical strategy must be one of infiltration and not separation. In addition, he (New Evangelical Harold Ockenga, President of Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California50) named the new evangelical forces as the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Fuller Seminar, Billy Graham, and Christianity Today... In 1960 Ockenga wrote: 'my personal concern as the originator of the New Evangelicalism has been to stir the interest of Evangelical Christianity in meeting the societal problems through content of Biblical Christianity. This is the tradition of Calvin, Luther, and Knox.'51

Dollar goes on to clarify that Charles J. Woodbridge, a Fuller Seminary faculty member who left in protest to Ockenga's new direction, called this new and dangerous direction,
a theological and moral compromise of the deadliest sort. Such a threat is it that the sharpest language must be used to expose its threat and insidious danger... Neo Evangelicalism advocates toleration of error. It it following the downward path of accommodation to error, cooperation with error contamination by error, and ultimate capitulation to error.52

It is reiterated here that Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924, does not use the sharpest language and does not expose the error of the 70+ denomination that he is pandering to. He is the epitome of neoevangelicalism as herein defined. His Christology, however, has some saving merit.
Chafer's introduction to Christology brings out a notable difference between a Bible doctrine book and a theology book. The "ology" in theology emphasizes a discourse which meanders down every conceivable avenue of consideration for a topic. While a Bible doctrine must detail every straight and narrow consideration of what God has revealed, a thorough "ology" must do that, plus introduce and explore some of the major broad paths and wide gates of mans creation. It should thereby open some vistas which may not have been considered by the student of doctrine being ever vigil to show how the wide paths do lead to destruction. Chafer's Christology pursues this mind broadening purpose.
In previous volumes Chafer has missed this higher calling of a systematic theology. Dr. Chafer states his purpose to "collect and systematically arrange, compare, exhibit and defend all facts concerning God and his works from any and every source."53 In making such a brash definition Chafer unwittingly puts philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, and Roman Catholics such as Saint Augustine and Saint Aquinas, and Protestants who persecuted Baptist, men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, on equal grounds with Holy Scripture. In writing his eight volumes on Systematic Theology he repeatedly makes this blunder. Systematically such an approach is theological malpractice. His lack of organizing thoughts and direction is serious, but his total miss-organizing the "system" in systematic, coupled with his strong reliance on extra Biblical sources make his systematic theology inexcusable. His Christology, however, is still commendable.
This author has found no Systematic Theologies which carefully follow the aforementioned methodology. They each, more or less, follow Dr. Chafer's recipe and end up parked on some wide road, defending mans twisted ideas about eternal decrees of God, the election of individual souls, the Catholicness of a Church, an allegorical end time, or the replacement of God's chosen Israel with their Catholic Church. For that reason systematic theology has often been a dangerous venture for the impressionable student. For the student well grounded in Bible Doctrine, however, a careful venture into the mind broadening arena of mans ideology is still a worthwhile venture. Dr. Chafer's Christology documented in his fifth volume seems to be such a worthwhile excursion.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's opening chapter on the pre-incarnate Christ is the most comprehensive of all systematic theologies this author reviewed. Since his introduction to this chapter eloquently introduces his whole subject it is recited below:
Dr Chafer's Introduction to The Pre-incarnate Christ
Christology (Cristos, logoV), to which this entire volume is devoted, is the doctrine respecting the Lord Jesus Christ. In attempting to write on His adorable Person and His incomprehensible achievements - which achievements when completed will have perfected redemption, exercised to infinite satisfaction the divine attribute of grace, manifested the invisible God to His creatures, and subdued a rebellious universe in which sin has been permitted to demonstrate its exceeding sinfulness - the limitation of a finite mind which is weakened by a faulty perception are all to apparent. Samuel Medley expressed this sense of restriction when he sang:
"O could I speak the matchless worth,
O could I sound the glories forth
Which in my Saviour shine,
I'd soar, and touch the heavenly strings,
And vie with Gabriel while he sings
In notes almost Divine."
Thus, again, the same inability is felt and expressed by Charles Wesley:
"O for a thousand tongues to sing,
My great Redeemer's praise;
The glories of my God and king,
The triumphs of His grace."
Of this incomparable One it is said that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God"; yet such an One, who thus occupied the highest place of Deity in company with the Father and the Spirit, "Was made flesh, and dwelt among us." He who is from everlasting to everlasting was born of a woman and died on a cross. He who according to the mind of the Spirit is Wonderful, was spit upon by men. He who, by the same mind, is Counselor is rejected of men. He who is The might God is crucified in abject weakness. He who is The everlasting Father, is a Son who learned obedience by the things which He suffered. He who is the Prince of Peace must Himself tread the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God, for the "day of vengeance" must yet be in His heart and He must yet break the nations with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces as a potter's vessel. He who said, "I am among you as he that serveth," also said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword,: He who is the chaste, wooing Lover of the Canticles is the King of glory who is might in battle. He who created all things occupied an infant's cradle. He who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners was made to be sin in behalf of others. He who was the Bread of Life was Himself hungry. He who was the giver of the supernatural Water of Life was Himself thirsty. He who was God's Gift of Life to a lost world was Himself dead. He who was dead is alive for evermore.54

Chafer also broadens the general outline of Christology to pursue a sevenfold division. He defends the need for such an expanded outline as follows:
Dr Chafer's seven fold divisions of Christology
The larger and usual division of Christology is twofold - Christ's Person and His work. The work of Christ, being generally restricted to the redemption He has achieved, does not include other essential features- his life on earth, His teachings, His manifestation of divine attributes, His offices as Prophet, Priest, and King, or His relationships to angelic spheres. It is with this larger consideration of Christology in view that a sevenfold division of this extended theme will be pursued: (1) the pre-incarnate Christ (Chap I), (2) Christ incarnate (chaps. II-VIII), (3) the sufferings and death of Christ incarnate (chap. IX), (4) the resurrection of Christ incarnate (chap. X), (5) the ascension and session of Christ incarnate (chap. XI), (6) the second advent and kingdom of Christ incarnate (chaps. XII-XIII), and (7) the eternal kingdom of Christ incarnate (chap. XIV).55

Despite Chafer's later complication of the genuine purpose of a theologian, he carefully defines it properly in this introduction. Chafer's Christology, likely written for lecture, rather than for his more inclusive, less direct systematic theology, follows this formula well, as can be seen in his outline for teaching the preiincarnate Christ:
To the theologian whose task is to discover, arrange, and defend the truth which God has spoken, the assignment relative to the absolute Deity of Christ is simple indeed. The joining of the doctrine of Christ's humility to the doctrine of His Deity does create a problem which demand the most exact and careful consideration; but the doctrine respecting Christ's Deity when standing alone is without complications.
The general division of the divine revelation regarding Christ's preexistence may be comprehended under a sevenfold arrangement of truth: (1) Christ is God, hence His preexistence; (2) Christ is the Creator, hence His preexistence; (3) Christ is party to the before time covenant, hence His preexistence; (4) the Old Testament anticipation of Messiah which Christ answered is that of Jehovah God, hence His preexisted; (5) the Old Testament angel of Jehovah is Christ, hence His preexisted; (6) indirect Biblical assertions declare Christ to have preexisted; and (7) direct Biblical assertions declare Christ to have preexisted.56

In presenting the deity of Christ Dr. Chafer waxes the more eloquent. He uses the Westminster Confession's extensive delineation of God and follows that with this profound paragraph:
It is probable that no more comprehensive declaration respecting God has been framed than this; yet it is precisely this infinity of Being which Scriptures predicate of Christ. There is nothing which is said to be true of God which is not said to be true of Christ and to the same degree of infinite perfection. It is true that He took upon Himself the human form and that is so doing important problems arise regarding the theanthropic Person which He became. These problems have been considered under Theology Proper and will yet be resumed later when contemplating the incarnation and earth-life of the Savior. The fundamental issue is that Christ is God. This has also been proven earlier earlier and is now to be demonstrated again. The student is enjoined not to pass over these proofs without having attained to a profound conviction of the Deity of Christ. If he wavers respecting this foundation truth, he should re-canvass every argument and attempt no forward step until this credence is definitely acquired, for apart from this conviction no true progress will be made. If, on the other hand, such a conviction is not gained, the student is fundamentally wrong and can, under such abnormal unbelief and want of amenableness to the Scriptures, serve no worthy purpose as an exponent of the Sacred Text. The Lord has Himself declared that "all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father" (John 5:23). The Son is dishonored when assigned a lower place than that of the Father. Such dishonor to the Son is displeasing to the Father, and a ministry is vain indeed which, though sincere, advances under the displeasure of God. The Deity of the Father is all but universally admitted, so also the Deity of the Spirit; but the Deity of the Son is challenged. Such a doubt would not have arisen had the Son not become incarnate. It is His entrance into the human sphere that has provided a field for unbelief. Thus it is required the more that the exact testimony of the Word of God should be given in its full authority. As would exist through misunderstanding of the theanthropic Person, the strongest evidence is supplied concerning the Deity of Christ. The Scriptures are as clear and conclusive in their expressions respecting the Deity of Christ as they are respecting His humanity. His humanity is revealed by the natural method of ascribing to Him human titles, human attributes, human actions, and human relationships. Similarly, His Deity is disclosed in the same manner by ascribing to Christ divine, divine attributes, divine actions, and divine relationships.57

One area where Chafer's description of the divine names applied to Christ exceeds Cambron's doctrine description is in the name of Logos. Since Logos is also the root stem of the "ology" in theology that whole thesis is included here:
1. The Divine Names. The names found in the Bible - especially those applied to divine Persons - are far more than empty titles. They define as well as indicate the Person to whom they belong. The name Jesus is His human designation, but it also embodies the whole redemptive purpose of His incarnation (cf. Matt. 1:21). Similar titles such as "The Son of man, The son of Mary, "The son of Abraham," "The son of David," assert His human lineage and relationships. In like manner the designations "Word," or Logos, "God," "Lord," "The might God," "The everlasting Father," "Immanuel," "Son of God," connote His Deity. Among these divine names, some are final in their implications.
a. DESIGNATIONS OF ETERNAL RELATIONSHIP: Logos (LogoV). As language expresses thought, so Christ is the Expression, the Revealer, the Manifester of God. The term Logos - used only by the Apostle John as a name of the Second Person - indicates the eternal character of Christ. As Logos He was in the beginning, He was with God, and He was God (John 1:1). He likewise became flesh (John 1:14) and thus is - according to divine functions - the manifestation of God to man (cf. John 1:18). In His manifestation, all that may be disclosed relative to the Person of God was not only resident in Christ - "In him dwelleth all the fullness [plarwma] of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9) - but all the competency of God - knowledge-surpassing, indeed - was resident in Him. No stronger declaration of the Deity of Christ can be made than is indicated by the cognomen Logos. Without the use of this specific title the Apostle Paul also has written both in Colossians and in Hebrews of the same preexistence of Christ; and concerning the origin of this title and the fact that the Apostle John employs it without explanation - suggesting a general understanding of its meaning - collateral reading may be pursued (cf. Dean Alford, M.R. Vincent, and in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.w., Alexander).
Bishop Lightfoot, in his commentary on Colossians, chapter 1, verse 15 ff., has declared the meaning of Logos and its use in the Sacred Text. He Writes:
As the idea of the Logos underlies the whole of this passage, though the term itself does not appear, a few words explanatory of this term will be necessary by way of preface. The word Logos then, denoting both "reason" and "speech," was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestatio' of the Unseen God, the Absolute Being, in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As his reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation Whether the logos was conceived merely as the divine energy personified, or whether the conception took a more concrete form, I need not stop now to inquire; but I hope to give a fuller account of the matter in a later volume. It is sufficient for the understanding of what follows to say that Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1_ "The Word is a Divine Person, " o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeos hn o logoV; and (2) "The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ," o logos sarx egeneto. It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logoV; and that therefore their use in Alexandrian writers, such as Philo, cannot be taken to define, though it may be brought to illustrate, their meaning in St. Paul and St. John. With these cautions the Alexandrian phraseolgy, as providential preparation for the teaching of the Gospel, will afford important aid in the understanding of the Apostolic writing. - 8th edition., pp. 141-14258

The designation of Christ which capture his eternal relationship is further enhanced by his title of "First Begotten" (poqtotokoV). This is explained by Chafer using John F. Walvoord's outline as follows:
First Begotten" (poqtotokoV). This title - sometimes translated First-Born - indicates that Christ is First-Born, the elder in relation to all creation; not the first created thing, but the antecedent to all things as well as the cause of them (cf. Col. 1:16). Of this title Dr. John F. Walvoord writes, "This term is used twice in the New Testament without referring to Christ. (Heb. 11:28; 12:23), and seven times as His title. An examination of these references will reveal a threefold use: (a) Before all creation (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15). As the 'firstborn of every creature' (Col. 1:15), the title is obviously used of Christ as existing before all creation, hence, eternally self-existent. (b) Firstborn of Mary (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7; Heb 1:6). Here the reference is plainly to the fact that Christ was the first child born to Mary, a usage in contrast to that speaking of His eternal sonship. The term is used, then, of His pre-incarnate Person, and also of His incarnate Person. (c) Firstborn by Resurrection (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5). The meaning here is that Christ is the first to be raised from the dead in resurrection life, hence, 'the firstborn form the dead' (Col. 1:18). In relation to the eternity of Christ, this title is another proof that Christ is the self-existent, uncreated God spoke of in Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15; and that in view of His eternal Person, He also has the honor of being the first to be raised from the dead in resurrection life" (Outline of Christology, unpublished ms., pp. 5-6).
A consideration of thee designations cannot but impress the devout mind with the truth that the Lord Jesus Christ existed as God from all eternity, and that He will so exist throughout eternity to come.59

Dr. Chafer puts more emphasis on types than do other theologians. In his introduction to the doctrine of Christ incarnate, under the heading, the major types of Christ, he quotes a whole section of Dr. Walvoord's unpublished notes.60 In his section on the sufferings and death of Christ incarnate Dr. Chafer again includes a list of the major types of Christ.61 These two lists are combined and inserted into his text and should be studied with care.62
Dr. Chafer included in his Christology an extensive and needful section on the second advent of Christ incarnate. The area is covered in this work under Eschatology, but it is of such importance that highlights are included in this section.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer set out as a young fundamentalist to reprove the Protestant's error and preach the Premillennial return of Christ and the dispensational doctrines that support it. That zeal was somewhat quenched when he settled into the midst of 70+ denominations and founded Dallas Theological Seminary, but his introduction to his chapter, "The Second Advent of Christ Incarnate" deserves audience. That introduction is included below:
Dr. Chafer's "The Second Advent of Christ Incarnate"
Since Christ is the center of all Biblical prediction, there is properly an eschatology to be included in Christology. It contemplates the return of Christ to the earth, the kingdom which He will then set up on the earth, and His eternal reign. The first of these is now to be considered, the second in the chapter following, while the last forms the theme of the closing main division of Christology or chapter XIV.
Though theologians differ about the time and the manner of Christ's second advent, all who receive the Bible seriously do agree that He will return to this earth The Scriptures clearly teach that Christ will come for judgment and for the setting up of His kingdom on the earth. Over this kingdom He with His Bride shall rule forever. No apology is entered or entertained for taking the vast body of Scripture which presents Christ's coming again and his kingdom in other than its natural, literal, and grammatical sense. All predictions due to be fulfilled before the manner and without exception; it is therefore reasonable to believe that unfulfilled predictions will be accomplished as faithfully and as definitely. It is possible that for want of faith some men of the past age of law who were confronted with predictions respecting the first advent when it was yet future were inclined to place some so-called spiritualizing interpretations upon these great prophecies; but it remained true, and would have remained so though no living man had taken God at His Word, that the inspired predictions moved on majestically in their natural, literal, and grammatical fulfillment. Foe those who have not done so, it may be introduction into almost limitless fields of divine revelation and into overwhelming demonstrations of divine faithfulness to follow through an investigation which pursues this specific method of interpretation - such, anyway, is this division of Christology designed to be. The theme is as august, majestic, and consequential as the consummation of all divine purposes in mundane spheres must be. If matters of present world crises arrest the attention and spread consternation among all civilized inhabitants of the earth, how much more should believing men be aroused to unprecedented attention b the portrayal of those stupendous realities which constitute the closing scenes - the final disposition of evil and the final enthronement of righteousness and peace unto all eternity to come! However vividly - unless it be the creation of the universe - and that program which is yet to come is, so far as that which is sublunary is concerned, more of prophecy related to the first advent and the probability of literal fulfillment of prophecy related to the second advent, George N. H. Peters writes63: ...
... The truth that Christ is coming to the earth again is so emphatically and repeatedly asserted in the Sacred Text that nearly all creeds have included it in their declarations, and only those who are lacking in respect for the verity of the Bible text fail to acknowledge that Christ is to return; however, a wide variation in belief has existed about how and when He will return. A woeful lack of attention to the precise testimony of the Word of God is revealed in these conflicting sentiments more than is found in connection with any other one doctrine. Human notions and fancies have run riot with little apparent attempt to harmonize these ideas with the Scriptures. The assumption must arise that they are not diminished by it. An example of the human imagination's straying when making no reference to the extended testimony of Scripture is furnished - and similar quotation might be made from various theologians - by Dr. William Newton Clarke, late Professor of Christian Theology in Colgate University, in his book An outline of Christian Theology (5th ed., pp. 443-46). Having written at some length on certain points and having implied that Christ's second advent is fulfilled in the death of the believer - using John 14:1-3 as the proof-text, by the coming of the Spirit on Pentecost, and by the destruction of Jerusalem, he summarizes as follows:64...

The battle against Reformed Theology's Covenant Theology was well worded when Dr. Chafer quoted Dr. William Newton Clarke. That battle is ongoing. Their Roman gate may be wider and their Catholic path broader, but there is a straight and narrow truth expounding a Premillennial return of Christ, and a Pretribulational Rapture of the Church. Although there be few that find it, rejoice that you are herein standing on it.
Dr. Chafer has much more to say about Christology. His depth here is unique, not showing itself in other areas of his “Systematic Theology.” The study of his fifth volume might be worthwhile, but this volume is not exemplary of Dr. Chafer's work.
+Critique of Geisler's 2002 Christology
Normal L. Geisler has Christology as an appendix to his systematic theology.65 Although that tells something about his organization, he does begin his appendix with this note:

Christology is discussed in three other places: The work of Christ on the cross is treated under Soteriology in chapters 60-61; the nature of Christ as a member of the Trinity is discussed in Chapter 40; Christ's future reign is examined in part 8 on eschatology ("last things"). Other elements of Christology are outlined here in this appendix.

This caption to his appendix reveals the importance of including a complete section for Christology in ones systematic theology. Although the preeminent topic touches every area of theology and might be addressed in other areas, there are concepts that need expounded in its own section. Secondly the caption tells us that Geisler only outlines his Christology, and does not expound any areas to the point of being an "ology."
Of Norman L. Geisler's Systematic Theology in One Volume66, Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary said,
Great theologians are best when they are outstanding philosophers also. Then, of course, you often cannot fathom what they are saying. Norman Geisler has the unique ability as a philosopher and theologian to deal with profound concepts in ways that the common man can easily grasp. Consequently, this systematic theology will not only sit on the desk of the scholar but also of the pastor, and on the coffee table of many a layman67.68

Geisler's single volume of systematic theology is indeed superior to Charles Hodge, and Augustus Strong's work. Charles Hodge was a meticulous and scholarly Princeton graduate but he was first and foremost a Presbyterian with a staunch reformed theology. Augustus Strong was a Baptist, equally meticulous and scholarly, but desiring to meld Baptist doctrine with reformed theology and atheistic evolution. Where Dr. Henry Thiessen did not believe an inspired, inerrant, infallible Holy Bible was in existence in his day, Dr. Geisler uses such as his prima facie source, if not his sole source for his doctrine. Dr. Geisler's work in one volume is also superior to Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's eight volumes of systematic theology. Whereas Dr. Chafer wrote an extensive Christology, and a superior chapter on the pre-incarnate Christ, Dr. Geisler's concise style and complete organized coverage of theology exceeds Dr. Chafer's verbose eight volumes of effort.
Despite Geisler's outlined treatment of Christology in an appendix, some of his outline forms present remarkable insight to the wealth of Bible information available. His presentation of fourteen direct physical evidence of the death of Christ69 is a good example. And concerning the resurrection of Christ, he fully expounds on the twelve appearances of the resurrected Christ.70 His tabling of the miracles of Christ 71 marks a very useful outlining in considering the whole life of Christ. The presentation of this outline prompts the inclusion the more extensive table compiled by this author.
1John Miley, Systematic Theology Vol. 1 & 2, The Library of Biblical and Theological Literature, New York: Eaton and Mains, 1894, The Internet Archive www.archive.org/details/systematictheolo01mile.
2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Miley accessed 29 Sep 2014. [wikipedia has not been, in general, treated as a reliable reference for professional works, but it is a very assailable reference.]
3John Miley, Systematic Theology, pg 851 Chapter V. Leading Errors In Christology, I. Earlier Errors. 1. Ebionism 2. Gnosticism 3. Arianism 4. Apollinai'ianism 5. Nestorianism 6. Eutychianism : II. Later Errors. 1. The Socinian Christology ; 2. The Lutheran Christology 3. The Kenotic Christology (pg 45-59).
4John Miley, Systematic Theology Vol. 1 & 2, 851,885-947.
5Ibid., 947-976
6A 2018 AD Note: This same airs is found in followers of Peter Ruckman and others who suppose angels bred with humans, created giants and that is why God destroyed the world with flood, it was those angels fault!, then supposes they did it again and made giants in Canaan, then those rascal evil angels did it again and now our world is governed by secret hidden giants covered up by government officials in Washington DC. Other cults advance a flat earth, a geocentric universe, alien beings as our creators and/or a gap theory that might account for the Bible's misrepresentation of the age of rocks. Be careful of those who promote their own special insight into the Bible, and demonize with ignoance those who do not see things their way.
7Burton: Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Bampton Lectures, 1829, lect. iii ; Reuss : Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, book i, chap, ix ; Neander: History of the Church, vol. i, pp. 344-353 ; Schaff : History of the Christian Church, vol. li, pp. 431-442, 1886 ; Dorner : Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. i, vol. 1, pp. 188-217. [pg47]
8Mansel : The Gnostic Heresies, p. 32.
9'John i, 1-3, 14. ' 1 John iv, 3 ; 3 John 7.
10Burton : Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Bampton Lectures, 1829 ; Mansel : The Gnostic Heresies ; Norton : History of the Gnostics ; Lightfoot : Commentary on Colossians, pp. 73-113 ; Ueberweg : History of Philosophy, § 77 ; Eeuss : Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, book iii, chaps, ix, x ; Neander : History of the Church, vol. i, pp. 366-478 ; Domer ; Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. i, vol. i, pp. 218-252 ; King : The Gnostics and their Remains. An appendix to King's book gives very fully the literature of the subject.
11Newman, Cardinal : Arians of the Fourth Century ; Gwatkin : The Avian Controversy ; Waterland : Defense of the Divinity of Christ ; A Second Defense of Christ's Divinity, Works, vol. ii ; Cunningham : Historical Theology, vol. i, pp. 276-293; Gieseler: Ecclesiastical History, vol. i, pp. 294-322; SehafE : History of the Christian Church, vol. iii, ^§ 119-125, 1886; Domer : Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. i, vol. ii, pp. 201-241.
12 A 2018 AD Note: In actuality the Scriptures are most in favor of the trichotomy of man, it is the Roman Catholic and orthodox theologians who favor a philosopher's dichotomy of man. This is more fully developed in our section on Anthropology.
13Neander : History of the Church, vol. iii, pp. 428-434; SchaflE: History of the Christian Church, vol. iii, 136.
14 Plumptre : Christ and Christendom, Appendix H ; Hagenbach : History of Doctriiies, § 99 ; Domer : Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. i, vol. ii, pp. 351-398.
15Hefele : History of Church Councils, book x, chap, ii ; Neander : History of the Church, vol. iii, pp. 504-511.
16 Schaff : History of the Christian Church, vol. iii, §§ 140-145, 1886 ; Hooker : Ecclesiastical Polity, book v, §§ 53-54 ; Dorner : Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii, vol. i, pp. 79-119.
17 Dorner : Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii, vol. ii, pp. 249-265 ; Cunningham : Historical Theology, chap, xxiii ; Owen : Works (Goold's), vol. xii. The utter falsity of this and all other forms of Christology grounded in the mere humanity of Christ is fully shown in discussions of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, to which reference was given under our own treatment of these questions.
18 Bibliotheca Sacra, 1863.
19' The Conservative Reformation and its Theology, p. 502.
20Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii, vol. ii, p. 301.
21Article iii. * Article x. ' Article viii.
22Krauth : The Conservative Reformation and its Theology, p. 479.
23Domer : Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii, vol. ii, pp. 53-115 ; 266-315 ; Schmid : Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, § 55.
24Gerhart : Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1863 ; Krauth : The Conservative Reformation and its Theology, article x.
25Bruce : The Humiliation of Christ, lect. iv.
26' John i, 14. ' 1 Tim. iii, 16. ' Heb. ii, 14. * Phil, ii, 6, 7.
27John xvii, 5.
28Bruce : The Humiliation of Christ ; Pope : The Person of Christ, note viii ; Goodwin : Christ and Humanity ; Martensen : Christian Dogmatics, pp. 237-288 ; Crosby : The True Humanity of Christ ; Hodge : Systematic Theology, vol. ii, pp. 430-440 ; Gess : Scripture Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Translation and additions by Reubelt. This work and Bruce's Humiliation of Christ are specially useful in the study of this question.
29John Miley, Systematic Theology Vol. 1 & 2, The Library of Biblical and Theological Literature, New York: Eaton and Mains, 1894, The Internet Archive www.archive.org/details/systematictheolo01mile, 851-947.
30John Miley, Systematic Theology, 1894, pg 62
31Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology: Volume I-IV. Charles Scribner & Company, 1871, Hardback- Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1940.
32Christian Classics Ethereal Library http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge (Accessed 29 Sep. 2014).
33A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Three Volumes in One, Judson Press, 1907, 665.
342Chron 20:7, Isa 41:8, James 2:23
35Ibid., 665-796.
36Ibid. 669
37From the Papal Encyclicals, www.papalencyclicals.net accessed Aug 2014 The decree, incidently, has a Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease of 1.7% and an Average Grade Level for readers of 22.4 grade (that is 12th grade plus 11 years of college!).
38www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum04.htm#Definitiooffaith accessed Aug 2014
39ibid. /ecum04.htm#Canons
40Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Mich., William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1949, 107.
41Ibid., 107
42Ibid., "The Works of God: His Sovereign Rule", closing paragraph, 187-188.
431Sa 1:15, Job 7:11, Isa 10:18, 26:9, 42:1, 51:23, Da 7:25, Mic 6:7, Mt 10:28, 12:18, 1Co 5:3 6:20, 7:34, 15:45, Eph 4:4, 1Th 5:23, Heb 4:12, Jas 2:26
441Thes 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
45Ibid., "The Trichotomous theory", 227
46ASV is the registered trademark of Thomas Nelson & Sons and symbolizes the bible which was copyrighted and published by Thomas Nelson & Sons in 1901. In 1928, the International Council of Religious Education (the body that later merged with the Federal Council of Churches to form the National Council of Churches) acquired the copyright from Nelson and copyrighted the ASV in 1929. .Even quoting Thiessen, this author cannot recommend or condone the use of any of the modernist ecumenical copyright bibles, all of which brazenly disregard the inerrancy and infallibility of the verbally inspired Holy Bible by utilizing the Westcott and Hort Bible criticism, textual criticism and critical text as their source.
47Ibid., "The Pre-Incarnate Christ", 287
48Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America, 160
49George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America, 1973, Bob Jones University Press, 209
50Harold John Ockenga (1905-1985) was an American evangelical leader, a Congregational minister, and one of the co-founders of Fuller Theological Seminary. Harold John Ockenga (June 6, 1905 – February 8, 1985) was a leading figure of mid-20th-century American Evangelicalism, part of the reform movement known as "Neo-Evangelicalism". A Congregational minister, Ockenga served for many years as pastor of Park Street Church in Boston, Massachusetts. He was also a prolific author on biblical, theological, and devotional topics. Ockenga helped to found the Fuller Theological Seminary and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, as well as the National Association of Evangelicals. from http://www.theopedia.com/Harold_Ockenga (Accessed 15 June 2014).
51Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America, 204
52Ibid. 205
53from www.ChristianBook.com book promotion accessed Dec 2013
54Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume V, Christology, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 3-4.
55Ibid., 5
56Ibid., 7
57Ibid. 8-9.
58Ibid., 9-10
59Ibid., 11-12.
60Ibid., 43-44
61Ibid., 177
62Dr. Walvoord's notes on types of Christ was found at www.walvoord.com , Browse Articles, Series in Christology (Accessed 15 June 2014), also found at http://www.1stcchartfordwi.org/Systematic_Theology (Accessed 15 June 2014).
63 Chafer is a complex writer. This paragraph analyzed by https://readability-score.com shows Chafer writes on an average grade level (based on the USA education system) of 17.2 (Twelfth grade plus 5 years of college!) Words per Sentence 34.3.
64 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol V, 281-283.
65 Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology In One Volume,Bethany House, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2002, 3, 4, 5, 11.
66 Ibid.
67 The author objects to the Roman Catholic categorization of Christians being clerics, or clergy, who are denominationaly trained to read and interpret the Holy Bible, and laity or laymen, who were not trained and professional in their denomination. True, Bible believing, Born-again ones, are indwelt by the Christ and have eyes made to see, and ears made to hear. Such exude the priesthood of all believers.
68 Ibid., flyleaf
69 Ibid., 1510-1512.
70 Ibid., 1512-1518.
71 Ibid., 1504 - 1506.
To Continue in this series click the link below:
The Harmony of Christ
www.truthaboutthechrist.com/thetruthaboutthechrist/harmony.html

This Series' Table of Contents