My Deploma!

Excerpt from pages 123-125 of THE WAY TO LOVE: The Last Meditations of Anthony De Mello (Image Books 1991)

(this is my favorite book other than the Bible) If you wish to get in touch with the reality of a thing, the first thing you must understand is that every idea distorts reality and is a barrier to seeing reality. The idea is not the reality, the idea “whine” is not wine, the idea “woman” is not this woman. If I really want to get in touch with the reality of this woman I must put aside my idea of womanness or Indianness and experience her in her thisness, her concreteness, her uniqueness. Unfortunately most people most of the time do not take the trouble to see things like this in their uniqueness; they just see the words or the ideas, they never look with the eyes of a child at this concrete, unique, fluffy, alive thing that is moving out there in front of them. They only see a sparrow, they never see the wondrous marvel of this unique human being here in front of them. They only see an Indian peasant woman. The idea therefore is a barrier to the perception of reality. There is yet another barrier to the perception of reality—the judgment. This thing or person is good or bad, ugly or beautiful. It is barrier enough to have the idea of Indian or woman or peasant when I look at this concrete individual. But now I add a judgment and I say, ‘She is good,’ or ‘She is bad,’ or ‘She is attractive and beautiful,’ or ‘She is unattractive and ugly.’ That further prevents me from seeing her because she is neither good nor bad. She is ‘she’ in all her uniqueness. The crocodile and the tiger are neither good nor bad, they are crocodile and tiger. Good and bad are in relation to something outside them. Inasmuch as they suit my purpose or please my eyes, or help me, or threaten me, I call them good or bad.

what Moses did in is free time

The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit by Craig Van Gelder. Baker Books, 2002. Craig Van Gelder, in his book The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit, aims to help pastors and church leaders to develop an applied perspective of available research and scholarship, to integrate diverse perspectives from a variety of disciplines, to focus on the church within the context of North America, and to work from an understanding of the Triune God as central to a correct understanding of the church. He develops the idea of a missional ecclesiology through the idea that the nature of the church is based on God’s presence, the ministry of the church comes out of the church’s nature, and the organization of the church supports the ministry of the church. Van Gelder begins his book by pointing out that the word church has many meanings. The church in modern day North America is usually defined by either its organization or its function. As an organization, the church is composed of a variety of denominations, missional structures, and local congregations. As a function, the church is defined as what it does, making it a series of functions. Both of these approaches neglect the nature of the church, which is human behavior empowered by the Holy Spirit, and God’s presence in the world through the Spirit. To better comprehend this concept, Van Gelder believes that we must discover the complementary aspects of missiology and ecclesiology. Van Gelder then explains the idea of a missiological ecclesiology. Ecclesiology is a what the Bible to teaches about the character and purpose of the church in relation to its setting. Missions, on the other hand, is home or overseas evangelism carried out by specially trained missionaries. Recently, however, more people are beginning to see the church as inherently a missionary church. Missionology and ecclesiology are becoming one idea, not two. Van Gelder believes that one can better understand this by focusing on the being-ness of God, the social reality of the Trinity, and the specific rolls of the Trinity. In order to understand how denominational traditions and beliefs about ecclesiology and missionology have arisen, Van Gelder presents a brief survey of five periods of church history. During the first period, many creeds were developed that focused on the catholic, apostolic, and holy nature of the church, and emphasized the community of believers. Many missional and ecclesiological developments were made during the Medieval times, but, unfortunately, led to the attributes of the church being thought of as the exclusive possession of the Roman Catholic Church. The second period, the Protestant Reformation, placed less emphasis on the apostolic nature of the church, and more on its institutional nature. Third, the Free Church movement introduced self-governing congregations that were connected to denominations for programming purposes rather than for government. This movement emphasized the individual. The fourth period saw the emergence of pietism, mission societies, and the modern missions movement. Out of these, the idea that missions is a specialized task of the church arose. In the fifth period, denominations arose because of the view that the voluntary association of individuals forms the church. This led to the idea that the church is an organization that exists to meet people’s needs. Van Gelder then explains the idea of the kingdom of God as God’s present redemptive reign, and the future final judgment of sin and evil. Christians are now able to experience the power of the redeemed life, including the power to struggle against the evil one. Jesus called his followers the “little flock,” naming them a prototype of the church that will receive the kingdom, and will be accompanied by the Holy Spirit. God designed creation to be in relationship to himself in kingdom service. This kingdom service consists of fellowship, social community, marriage and family, governance on behalf of God, and cultural creation. When sin entered, it distorted this picture, but God provided a new reality through Jesus. Because God is an acting and sending, or missionary, God, the church that exists in this new reality is a missionary church by nature. God has sent it to testify and to be a sign of the redemptive reign of God. This new reality, the redemptive reign of God over the church, is described with numerous images in the New Testament, and in a variety of ways in the history of the church. Some of the main images used in the New Testament are the idea of the church as a social community, the people of God, the body of Christ, the communion of the saints, and the creation of the Spirit. In history, the Nicene Creed described the church with the words “holy,” “catholic,” “one,” and “apostolic.” This came at a time when the church, as the official religion of the Roman Empire, was the only church. The idea of the church as holy was the result of God’s redemption of sinful people, and of the consequent striving of these redeemed people to live up to God’s standards. It was catholic in the sense that it extended throughout the entire known world. It was apostolic because the apostles started church, and God has sent it. These ideas of what the church is leads to an understanding of what the church does. Because of the Reformation, the ministry of the church is usually seen from the perspective of Christ, the cross, and the individual believer. To understand it more fully, Van Gelder asserts that it must be seen in light of God’s purpose in creation, re-creation, and consummation, as well as in the community of believers. The church is also to define itself over the world, not over other churches. God has given many covenants of redemption to establish his special relationship with his people, and to work through his people to bring the message of redemption to the rest of the world. The Holy Spirit leads the church, and teaches it how to live in God’s redemptive reign. It gives a correct understanding of Bible as it is taken as a whole by the church, and equips the church for ministry with Spiritual gifts. The church must also practice grace. Specifically, it must practice the administration of the sacraments, the many aspects of worship, discipleship, fellowship, service, witness, vision, and stewardship. The church organizes these aspects of what it does. This organization, according to Van Gelder, is seen in the institutional nature of the church. It provides structures that bind people together, and tends to hinder change. Because the church is historical and missional, it must adapt to change in order to be relevant to the culture. These organizations serve as witnesses of God’s redemptive reign, as well as God’s authority. In the New Testament, church was organized into congregations that were related to various mobile missions structures. The polity of the church began with local congregations and mobile missions structures as they strove to support each other. Polity is necessary for the church to confess truths held in common, make decisions about specific cultural issues, and organize itself as a social community. The leaders form relationships and help this community live together. These leaders must be people of mature Christian character who are chosen according to their gifts and skills, which should be formally acknowledged. Van Gelder’s book has provided a way to rethink the church as a missiological ecclesiology in order to interact with the complexity of the church in North America. He does this by showing the history that has led to the common understanding of the church, and by arguing that the nature of the church is God’s presence in the world, the ministry of the church is based on its nature, and the organization of the church supports the ministry of the church. Response Evaluation: Van Gelder, in The Essence of the Church, makes an excellent, although brief, argument that the church should not separate the ideas of ecclesiology and missionology. His best arguments for this come out of his historical surveys of the development of our modern conceptions of the church. These show that many of our ideas of the church, and the reason that missions has been separated from church life, stems out of historical developments, particularly the reaction of the Reformers to the rule of the Roman Catholic Church. In addition, it is interesting that Van Gelder showed history as being divided into two “covenants.” The second covenant is divided into eight different covenants. In doing this, Van Gelder appears to be combining a covenantal understanding of history with a dispensational understanding of history. By combining the covenantal and dispensational understandings, Van Gelder may have been pointing out the unity of the church, an idea he focused throughout this book. He emphasized the idea that churches should not define themselves over other churches, but over the world. He believed that many congregations exist because of the many different cultural contexts in North America and in the world. Although this idea of unity is an excellent point, and many variations of theology can exist within the church as a whole, Van Gelder neglects the idea that some churches have gone beyond simply adapting themselves to different cultural contexts, and have left out some of the essentials of the Christian faith. For example, the idea that Jesus was not the son of God contradicts the New Testament teaching on salvation. In addition, although Van Gelder does point out how to rethink some of the historical developments related to ecclesiology and missionology, he does little to explain how to develop an applied perspective of the available research and scholarship. The ability for pastors and church leaders to develop an applied perspective of these was one of his stated goals at the beginning of this book. It would have been interesting to read a chapter that focuses on how to do this.

Holy Scriptures by Donald G. Bloesch, InterVarsity Press, 1994.

In his book Holy Scripture, Donald G. Bloesch explores how to understand the revelation, inspiration, and interpretation of the Scriptures. Throughout his discussion, he develops the ideas that there are three general views available today. The first is to take the view of evangelical rationalists who equate Scripture with divine revelation. The second is to adopt the view of religioethical experientialists who believes that human moral experience produces theological understanding. The third is that of biblical evangelicals, who believe that people can have a real knowledge of God through the Holy Spirit as they read or hear the Bible. Bloesch also explains the influence that Ruldolf Bultmann has had on theology, the problem of myth in the Bible, and the many different ways that truth is understood.

For much of church history, most Christians held that the Bible is without error. More recently, many views on whether or not the Bible contains errors have sprung up. Many of these have come from the rationalism of the enlightenment, a rationalism that Bloesch criticizes as having devastated theology, especially through the effects of historical criticism, which has caused many theologians to dismiss the miracles and stories of the Bible. On the opposite side, many have taken the inerrancy of the Bible to mean that God gave each word of the original manuscripts. Bloesch takes the middle ground by stating his belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but that it is not completely errorless because it came through human authors in a cultural and historical context.

In addition to these views on inerrancy, three views on the authority of the Bible are dominant today. These are the sacramental, the scholastic, and the liberal or modernist. The sacramental view holds that God works through the Bible, the church, and the sacraments in order to relate to humanity. The scholastic view holds that the infinite is accessible to the finite, and that it is important to harmonize the axioms of Scripture in order to have a comprehensive view of life and the world. The liberalist or modernist view holds that the revelation of God in the Bible is a revelation into self-discovery that helps us understand ourselves.

The meaning of this revelation, according to Bloesch, has been understood in many ways. In Church history, revelation was a higher form of knowledge that builds and completes the natural understanding of God. Because of the Enlightenment, many modern theologians see the revelation of the Bible as objective and static. This idea has been altered in neo-Protestant and Catholic theology. For example, Schleiermacher gives a mystical or experiential understanding of revelation, whereas other scholars, such as Pannenberg, give it a historical understanding. Bloesch contends that although revelation, whose goal is salvation, came through history, it transcends human reason, and can only be understood and believed through the Holy Spirit.

Bloesch goes on to declare that the Scriptures are both divine and human. Calvin, Wesley, and other past theologians tended to ignore the human aspect. Now, many who hold to historical and literary criticism also tend to deny the human origin of the Scriptures. In the Roman Catholic mindset, God is the primary author of Scripture, and humans are the secondary authors. The Reformers recognized the human aspect of the Scriptures as well as the divine.
As for the truth in the Scriptures, Protestant Orthodoxy defends the historic and scientific accuracy of the Scriptures, but elevates reason as an authority alongside of the Scriptures. Pietists and Puritans believe that the Bible is dead without the Holy Spirit. Fundamentalists teach that truth is in the original autographs, but that the copyists made errors. Truth for them tends to be factual and logical. Neo-evangelicals, similar to fundamentalists, accept historical and form criticism, and have a very high view of scripture. Many neo-orthodox scholars contend that the Bible is the Word of God even though the human authors made errors. Liberal and neo-Protestant scholars, such as Bushnell and Tillich, believe that inspiration means enlightenment, and that truth is found in experience.

Tradition has existed alongside of the truth of the Bible throughout history. Tradition in the early church was a way to hand down Scripture, and was subordinate to the Bible. During the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church made tradition into an additional source of truth in order to defend the Church against the Reformers. Many modern Protestants now believe that tradition is as authoritative as the Bible. Bloesch, along with Barth, contends that the Bible must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit, and that the church cannot establish traditions above the Scriptures.

The question of which books belong in the Bible, or canonicity, has been debated in history. Roman Catholics believed that the church has the power to determine canonicity. The Reformers, in contrast, emphasized that the Holy Spirit must determine canonicity. They believed that, because the Scriptures are over the church, they cannot be determined by the church.

How to come to a right interpretation of the canonical books, or hermeneutics, is another theological debate that is answered various ways. Many Christians believe that the surface meaning of the text is enough. However, the Scriptures themselves call for an interpretation. This interpretation, according to traditional Catholics, is given by the church. Similarly, adherents to Eastern Orthodoxy believe the mind of the church interprets the Scriptures. Modern liberal Christians hold that the magisterium of scholars provides the correct interpretation. Sectarian fundamentalists teach that the Bible alone, without tradition, is the correct way to interpret the Bible. The Reformers believed that the Bible must be interpreted by the illumination of the Holy Spirit in the community of believers. Bloesch believes that the presence of the Word of God in the Bible speaks through the text. To interpret it, we must see it as sacred history culminating in Jesus Christ. We can criticize the text, but also must
let it criticize us, and must pray for a proper understanding of it.

The question of how many meanings the Bible contains is another problem in theology. In Medieval times, the theory that the Bible contains levels of meaning was popular. Most of the church fathers, the Reformers, and the Roman Catholic teachers spiritualized the events of the Bible, or used typology. This idea that the text of the Bible contains more than one meaning decreased after the Reformation, but is now becoming popular again. Bloesch believes that typology is only valid if it is based on critical historical exegesis, and argues for a historical-pneumatic hermeneutics. In this hermeneutic, historical criticism gives the cultural context, but illumination by the Holy Spirit brings us the revelational meaning of the historical events.

Rudolf Bultmann, according to Bloesch, has had a huge impact on biblical studies in the twentieth century. He caused the movement to substitute existential truth for ontological truth, and made salvation central to theology. With Barth, Brunner, and Gogarten, he helped to bring back the paradox and the dialectic, and made the translation of scripture, rather than the meaning of scripture, the main theme of theology. Influenced by his Lutheran heritage, he believed faith to be “a new understanding of existence.” Bultmann’s primary concern was to take rid the Bible of archaic language, especially supernaturalistic and mystical speculations, in order to make it acceptable to the modern mind. Bultmann believed that God is not accessible to the senses, and we cannot speak of His being. He reconceived ethics as a freedom for obedience through love, and declared that people know the good they should do, but fail because of their human natures.

This problem of myth in the Bible is a concern to many theologians. Many rationalists, such as Bultmann, believe that the biblical myths are projections of inner experiences. Bloesch holds that the events in the Bible are real events that surpass human understanding, and were written in what he calls “mythopoetic” language, mythical language from the surrounding people that is used to describe Biblical events. These events, according to Bloesch, should not be taken literally since they are written in this type of language. For example, Bloesch believes that the millennium should not be taken as a literal thousand-year reign of Christ.
Bloesch continues by explaining that the definition of truth is also debated. The most common understanding is the correspondence theory, which is held by modern naturalists. This theory sees truth as a description of the way things are, and a substantial correspondence between our perception and reality. Another is the coherence theory, in which truth is logically interrelated and congruent with all of reality rather than being an agreement with external reality. Mystics believe that truth is the vision of the unity behind the world of appearance. Pragmatics holds that truth is whatever is workable, especially if it serves humanity. In modern technological societies, truth is that which is valid or precise, and can be verified by empirical reason. Truth in the Bible means genuineness, veracity, faithfulness, steadfastness, and the right description of reality. It came through hearing and conforming to the ontological reality. The Bible, although not completely historically accurate, leads us into truth.

Evaluation:

Donald G. Bloesch, in his book Holy Scripture, explained the issue of the inerrancy, authority, meaning, divineness and humanness, and truth of the Bible. He also explained the idea of tradition as an additional source of truth, the issue of canonicity, the debate of hermeneutics, and the idea of levels of meaning in the Bible. He went on to cover the huge impact that Rudolf Bultmann has had on theology, and concluded with the various understanding of truth, including Biblical truth.

Bloesch does an excellent job of explaining the various views on the revelation, inspiration, and interpretation of the Bible, and of developing his own balanced view of these. For example, rather than going to the extremes of the rationalists, who do not believe that that Bible should be taken literally, or of the fundamentalists, who believe that God gave every word of the manuscripts of the Bible, Bloesch believes that the Bible is both divine and human. It was inspired by God, but can contain errors because it was written by human authors.
Bloesch, however, became unbalanced in his discussion of myth in the Bible. He argues that many Biblical events should not be taken literally because they were written in what he calls “mythopoetic” language, or the language used in the myths of the surrounding pagan societies. While it is true that many elements of these events probably are symbolic, such as angels using literal swords to strike people down, and that the Bible must be interpreted according to the genre that each part was written in, Bloesch takes this idea too far. An example of this is his statement that the millennium spoken of in the Bible cannot literally be one thousand years because this idea was written in this “mythopoetic” language. Although the author was using “mythopoetic” language, this does not mean that he did not have some literal truth to convey through this language. A thousand-year reign, even in “mythopoetic” language, could mean a literal thousand-year reign. Perhaps the author wanted to explain that Christ would reign for one thousand years, and did not see any need to use metaphorical language to indicate this. He probably knew that his readers would be able to understand the concept of a literal thousand-year reign.

In spite of this, Bloesch concludes with an excellent explanation the many ways that truth is understood. He makes the interesting point that our society tends to see truth as what is valid or precise, and can be verified by empirical reason. In the biblical understanding, however, truth is more than just a right description of things. It is conformity to the true God. The Bible, although written by human authors, leads us into truth.

Overall, Bloesch does an excellent job of explaining the views of the Bible, and of elaborating his own balanced views. Although he goes too far in his explanation of “mythopoetic” language, he concludes by giving an excellent explanation of the views of truth in the world and in the Bible.

Our Legacy: The History of Christian by John D. Hannah. Navpress, 2001. John D. Hannah, in his book Our Legacy: the History of Christian Doctrine, seeks to provide a framework for theological thinking by surveying the historical development of seven doctrines that are essential to Christianity. In this book, he looks at how each of these doctrines developed from early church to modern church times. The first doctrine covered by Hannah is that of authority. The ancient church found authority in the scriptures. The apologists, those writers who sought to defend the Christian faith from its accusers, began making lists of the books that were considered canonical. Exactly which books should be included in this cannon was disputed throughout the middle ages. Finally, the Protestant and Orthodox churches settled on the sixty-six books that are currently in our Bibles. The Catholic Church also included the apocryphal books. Authority was also seen in tradition at the time of the apologists, who held that tradition was the verbal witness of the gospel. By the time of the early modern churches, tradition had also become the various practices that are handed down throughout the generations. The second doctrine that Hannah covered is the doctrine of God. The early church fathers believed that God exists as a trinity. Heresies and attacks on the church led the later apologists to formulate a theology of the trinity. Theologians formulated the Nicene Creed of 325 in order to reconcile the opponents in this issue. However, it had little effect until the second ecumenical council inserted the proper terminology. Later, Protestant liberalism strove to make a more palatable version of God, which tended to paint God as a loving being who exists to make life easier. These liberal theories often deny a literal trinity. The third doctrine covered by Hannah is the doctrine of the person of Christ. The early church fathers, the apologists, and the theologians generally taught that Jesus was both human and divine. However, theologies such as Apollinarius and Nestorius denied the full deity of Christ. Because of these denials, the Council of Chalcedon was called to affirm the both the deity and the humanity of Christ. This affirmation caused the Syrian, Egyptian, Ethiopian, and Armenian churches to form the Monophysite Catholic Church. The remainder of the church was the Chalcedonian Catholic Church. In the early modern churches, many new ideas emerged. The rise of liberalism distorted the traditional understanding of the nature of. In response, Barth and other conservative theologians sought to refute these beliefs. The Orthodox churches, which believe strongly in the authority of tradition, have maintained that Jesus is both divine and human. The Catholic Church also still affirms the divinity and humanity of Christ, but teaches a wide variety of doctrines of Christ. After surveying the doctrine of Christ, Hannah turns to the work of Christ on the cross. The controversies surrounding this issue deal mainly with the questions of whether or not Christ’s sacrifice was necessary, whether the death of Christ was based on love or justice, whether the atonement was for guilt or for the acts of sin, and whether Christ suffered for our sins or suffered as an object lesson. The church fathers held that Christ died for our sins. The apologists later began to expound on this belief. For example, the apologist Irenaeus taught that Christ’s death is a result of God’s justice. Later, the theologian Athanasius further developed this view by saying that Christ’s work was substitutionary. Also, both Oregon and Gregory of Nyssa developed the idea that Christ’s sacrifice was a ransom paid to Satan. During the medieval period, many new ideas were added. One of these was the idea that Christ was a moral example. Another was the idea that Christ’s sacrifice was not the only way God could forgive sins. In the early modern period, the Roman Catholic Church developed the idea that sacraments are also necessary for salvation. They provide a progressive means to salvation. Protestants, in contrast, argued that the death of Christ provides complete salvation. However, Calvinists and Lutherans saw the atonement as a payment for all of the particular sins of people, whereas Armenians saw it as only a payment for past sins. In the late modern church, Protestant liberals produced the idea that Christ simply died as an example for us. Orthodox churches, because they hold to the traditions of the church, did not change their view of Christ’s sacrifice. Rather, they continued to see it as a victory, and disliked the Protestant and Roman Catholic emphasis on the judicial nature of Christ’s death. Next, Hannah surveys the doctrine of salvation, or what the sinner is or is not able to do to be saved. In the early church, some, such as Justin Martyr, taught that sin does not affect our ability to choose Christ. Others argued that man is unable to choose God. Some, such as Origen, denied the historicity of the original sin, whereas others, such as Tertullian, affirmed it. Before Augustine came on the scene, eastern theologians believed that faith is the means to salvation, and that people cooperate with God through their free wills to receive salvation. When Augustine came along, he argued that human will is limited to evil choices, but that some people are predestined. Pelagius opposed Augustine by teaching that human will, untainted by original sin, is free to choose good or bad, but choose the bad. Another theologian, Cassian, taught that the original sin only weakened the ability to do good. Synod of Orange affirmed Augustine’s view. However, the late medieval church drifted from his view to Pelagianism. In the late modern churches, liberalism distorted the message of the gospel. The theology of Calvinists who strove to make relevant response to this liberalism originated the theology known as New England Theology, New Haven Theology, or Taylorism. This theology rejected the doctrine of original sin. The next doctrine that Hannah covers is that of the church. The early church was at led by a plurality of leaders, and recognized only two sacraments: the Lord’s Table, and baptism. It generally viewed these as symbols. Later churches shifted to having a single leader over each church, and many sacraments. It set itself up as the sole distributors of these sacraments, introduced the doctrine of transubstantiation, and struggled to gain power over the state. In the early modern period, Protestant churches reverted to the original two sacraments. The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic continued to hold to seven sacraments. The seventh doctrine covered by Hannah is that of the end times. The early church held to ancient premillenialism. However, amillennialism emerged in the third century, and remained the dominant view until early modern church times when ancient premilieialism was revived, and the doctrine of postmillennialism was created. In modern times, modern premillennialism emerged. This view sees history as divided into various periods called dispensations. However, ancient premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism continue to be held by various churches in the modern age. The survey of these seven doctrines in Hannah’s book Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine has shown the development of the doctrine of authority, the trinity, the person of Christ, the work of Christ, salvation, the church, and the end times. It has shown how they have developed throughout the centuries. Hannah did an excellent job of showing the development of seven essential doctrines of the faith throughout history. Reading this book, as Hannah asserts in the introduction, will help Christians to understand that no Church or denomination has the complete truth. However, Hannah made a faulty assumption when he asserted that Christians throughout the generations have accepted the essentials of the faith. Evaluation: Hannah showed the development of seven doctrines throughout the church ages. One his reasons for doing this was to show, as he states in the introduction, that “no single assembly of saints or denominations, however orthodox, evangelical, or primitive, strictly follows the Bible.” Indeed, Hannah did such an excellent job of portraying the individual views of the prominent theologians within the many theological developments that it would be difficult for anyone to come away from this book believing that any particular denomination could have accurately determined the whole truth of the Bible. However, Hannah made the faulty assumption that Christians have embraced the essentials of the faith throughout history. He asserts “all truth,” as is found in I John 2:27, refers to the essentials of the faith, and that it “embraces what Christians essentially believe and have commonly accepted across all traditions and denominations.” However, this book, through its survey of the development of many of these essential doctrines, clearly shows that many people in the church have not accepted the essentials of the Christian faith. For example, concerning the person of Christ, Hannah explained, “The insights of Servetus, the Socinians, and the Unitarians concerning Christ, the attempt to reject His deity while clinging to His humanity, have dominated theology in the last two centuries.” The deity of Christ is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Its denial shows that the essentials of the Christian faith have not been commonly accepted across all traditions and denominations. It is possible that Hannah views those Christians who do not accept some of the essentials of the faith as not part of the Church. If so, Hannah’s exclusion of them appears to be based upon circular reasoning. In other words, because they do not accept the essentials, they are not Christians. Because they are not Christians, everyone who is accepts the essentials of the faith. Hannah’s book increases the understanding of the reader on how the various doctrines of the church have developed, and leaves them feeling as if no denomination could hold the pure truth. However, his assertion that the essentials, or “all truth,” have been accepted by Christians throughout history is clearly erroneous.

cow