When We Should Not Answer the Heretics 26 February, 2010
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Heresy, PC (USA).Tags: Heresy, PC (USA), Union (Richmond)
3 comments
While I no longer am a member of the PC(USA) many of my friends, relatives, and colleagues still reside there so I from time to time check into the latest news concerning my former denomination. Recently I came across an article that notes a recent lecture series given at Union Theological Seminary and PSCE in Richmond, VA that tries to say that the …”use of the cross to symbolize God’s love was a latecomer to church history.” Claiming instead that the breast of the Virgin Mary (whom I presume the lecturer does not believe was actually a virgin but that is another discussion for another time) was “…An earlier and presumably more persuasive symbol of God’s love”. Now I cannot imagine that this is true and with a .24-second search on Google one can find it is not true and the only people who do hold to this view are radical Feminist theologians at urban or suburban seminaries. Now this in and of itself does not discredit the theory but what does is basic biblical research. The Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 15 squarely places the cross and love in communion with each other. Now the radical Feminists will say Paul hates women. So next we go to the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:14-39 and surprisingly enough Peter makes the same argument. Though the radical Feminists will say all I am doing is quoting men and of course men would say violent acts are loving. So I guess we’ll go to Anna in Luke 2:36-38. Looks like she is saying the same thing as Paul and Peter. Well I guess Anna must have been brainwashed by Phanuel. So I guess then we’ll go to Jesus in John 15:13. How soon do I forget though that John 15:13 is disputed by the Jesus Seminar. So I guess if we do away with all of that I guess the author of the original article may have a point.
That is of course unless you discount nearly all of the early Church.
All this is to ask the question should we be actively concerned when unbelievers act like unbelievers? When unbelievers are not even average scholars and not even really worthy of sharing the name “heretic” with giants of heretical faith like Pelagius, Marcion, Arius, Schleiermacher, Spinoza, etc…? Do we give them too much credence and legitimacy by confronting them and giving them a larger audience for their views? Dealing with this kind of lousy scholarship and rabid unbelief and giving far too much energy (emotional and physical) personally to engaging with them in seminary I have found it quite relaxing to dealing with authors like this much in the same way I deal with people who clamor like Anti-Government anarchists or like those who claim that Elvis lives with Jim Morrison and John Kennedy on a tropical island in the South Pacific. Prov. 10:7-10 speaks quite clearly and succinctly about what I think concerning this.
Pray for them? Of course. Share with them about the Gospel? Absolutely.
Pay any attention to their ideas and give them any sense of respectability among serious scholarship?
No Thanks.
Sermon For August 9, 2009 9 August, 2009
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in My Sermons, PC (USA), Psalms, Sermons.Tags: My Sermons, PC (USA), Psalms
1 comment so far
This Sermon was preached on August 9, 2009 at First Fairmont Presbyterian Church, PC(USA).
Scripture Text: Psalm 130
Images of the Godhead and the Second Commandment, Part 6 4 June, 2008
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Ant-Intellectualism, Anti-Nomianism, Deuteronomy, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Emergent Conversation, Genesis, Gospel, Higher Criticism, Idolatry, Images of the Godhead, Moses, Original Sin, PC (USA), Plenary Inspiration, Second Commandment, Ten Commandments.Tags: Charles Darwin, Dispensationalism, Evolutionary Progressivism, Images of the Godhead, J.C. Ryle, Second Commandment, Walter Rauschenbusch
2 comments
(I had a much better and longer post but I somehow deleted it so this is the cliff notes version as I do not have time to rewrite the 1500 words I had finished)
We have moved from the 16th to 17th to the 19th centuries and have watched how the unanimous voices of Reformed orthodoxy in the past have spoken against the construction (or injection-molding, chipb) of images of the entire Godhead. In this part we will look at the modern effects on how we view not just the Decalogue but the Mosaic Law in general. How is it that now one cannot go 10 feet without seeing the Scandinavian-”Jesus” plastered on everything from T-shirts to Billboards? Well Greg Bahnsen in his work on Post-Millennialism entitled Victory in Jesus (published post-mortem) has a very good short section on the three things plaguing not just the rampant violation of the second commandment but other problems encroaching on orthodox Reformed Christianity in the West. While his focus is presenting a case for Post-Millennialism and why it has fallen out of favor he is correct in identifying the three major issues confronting orthodoxy in general. Two of these three movements would not even consider the Second commandments words on imagery binding today but it is their influence in the minds of those who may that bring them into this discussion.
Bahnsen begins by identifying firstly Liberalism. By Liberalism Bahnsen means to direct his words to the movement that began under the influence of men like Hermann Samuel Reimarus and Heinrich Paulus who were the forerunners of and greatly influenced 19th century Historical Jesus research. Also understood in this section is the work by Immanuel Kant whose philosophy continues to undergird nearly all persons in the West. Included in this is the work of higher critics like Julius Wellhausen and David Strauss. However for Americans the greatest influence was brought forth by Friedrich Schleiermacher whose thoughts and ideas are still taught in every mainline seminary. The effect these men had on the subject of this essay is in the way we now approach the Scriptures in the West. Out of all of their criticisms of the Biblical text the most divisive has been the hatchet job done on the Pentateuch especially on the Mosaic Law. If the law was not received by Moses in toto (as Scripture testifies it did, Ex. 20-23) then what bearing does it have on us today? How can a collection of separate instructions hold any weight for today’s Christian? These are serious questions that cannot be answered by simply dismissing these ungodly men and their followers away by wrote. They must be challenged and confronted in a manner that does not cause their descendants to shun orthodoxy.
The Second influence recognized by Bahnsen is the work of Evolutionary Progressivism. One may look at the title and wonder “How does that differ from Liberalism?” Well to answer the question a person needs to understand that their is a difference between what most people refer to in contemporary times as Liberalism and what academically should be referred to as Liberalism. This second part is what we would identify with the modern usage of the word. This movement led by men such as Charles Darwin and Walter Rauschenbusch delivered a focus that moved Christianity away from its foundation in the Older Testament to a purely New Testament focus, a recurrence of Marcionism. Also another thing that distinguishes it from Liberalism as defined above is its belief that man is is generally good and has evolved past the Mosaic prohibitions to a new era of life that looks not upon the strictures but upon the liberty brought by Christ. Hence the term “Evolutionary”. In other words Christianity no longer needs to worry about offending God by their actions as long as they do so with a kind heart and a loving mind. Therefore in regards to the Second Commandment the Evolutionary Progressivist has moved on from the old covenant completely and any attempt to use it in discussion is Pharisaical.
Thirdly in Bahnsen’s hypothesis is the effect of Dispensationalism on the mind of today’s Evangelical. Mostly brought to the forefront of Christianity in America by the work of Cyrus Scofield and his reference Bible and the writings of John Nelson Darby. The greatest effect Dispensationalism has had for this discussion is its emphasis on the distinctions between the New Testament Church and ancient Israel of the Old Testament. Scofield believed that between creation and the final judgment there were seven distinct eras of God’s dealing with man and that these eras were a framework around which the message of the Bible could be explained. Therefore the words of the second commandment can be properly explained as belonging to a prior dispensation and no longer applicable in there literal sense to today’s Christian.
Cumulatively these three positions have effected the way in which most in the Reformed camp come to the Decalogue and the Case Law of Moses imparticular. With a Hermeneutic of Suspicion the Second commandment (and its spiritual brother, the 4th commandment as we saw here in J.C. Ryle’s thought) is cast in a light of a “Canon within a Canon” as it passed over, with rest of the first table, in our times for all the reasons the three positions of Liberalism, Evolutionary Progressivism, and Dispensationalism have provided.
In the final part of this 7 part series on the Second Commandment I will present a Biblical and Systematic argument showing why it is not only unlawful according to the Older Testament but also in the New Covenant to picture the Godhead in physical form.
Remember Thy Sabbath Day and Keep it Holy 18 February, 2008
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Charles Hodge, Colossians, Hebrews, PC (USA), R.L. Dabney, Sabbath, Worship.add a comment
Of the many Reformed doctrines that have been forgotten, argued out of existence, or just downright ignored by Confessional and liberal Presbyterians since the death of Princeton (The Hodges’, Warfield, etc…) and Southern theology (Robert Lewis Dabney, James Henley Thornwell, etc…) at the turn of the 20th century none is probably more widespread then the slipping away of the observance of the Sabbath day. Now I do not want to discuss Blue Laws or any such civil matter in this discussion but want to focus exclusively on the Sabbath observance of the New Testament Christian. There are two key passages for us to look at when discussing this issue. The first is Colossians 2:15-17
When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of
them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore no one is to act as
your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon
or a Sabbath day things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the
substance belongs to Christ.
and the second is Hebrews 4:9
So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
At first glance it would seem to look like these two verse contradict each other. One says that no one is to command you as to whether you should or should not observe the Sabbath because the Sabbath is but a shadow of things to come. The other says the Sabbath remains in effect for the people of God. Well in my posting this week I’ll expand more on these verses and others to show why I believe we are still to hold to a strict Sabbath observence in the New Testament Church.
PC (USA) Ordains Non-Celibate Homosexual to Ministry 28 January, 2008
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Homosexual Ordination, Layman, PC (USA).2 comments
Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area ‘Fidelity/chastity’ ordination standard not an essential of Reformed faith and polity, commissioners decide
By Craig M. KiblerStaff Writer
The Layman Online
Monday, January 28, 2008
EDINA, Minn. – Scripture and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) both took a beating Jan. 26 when the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area overwhelmingly voted that the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard in the Book of Order is not an essential of Reformed faith and polity. With several inches of snow on the ground and temperatures hovering in the high teens, more than 350 people were in the sanctuary of Christ Presbyterian Church as commissioners voted on a declared scruple to that clause by Paul Capetz, an openly gay former minister in the PCUSA. Later, the presbytery also voted overwhelmingly to restore Capetz to the exercise of the ordained office of minister of Word and sacrament, as well as validating his service as an associate professor at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities in New Brighton, Minn.Commissioners voted on the following motion: “The Committee on Ministry recommends that Dr. Capetz’s declared departure from G-6.0106b be not found to constitute a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order.” Of the 283 votes cast by written ballot, 197 commissioners voted in favor of permitting the scruple; 84 voted against; and there were two abstentions. In a statement, Interim Executive Presbyter Sarai Schnucker said, “We are overwhelmed by the grace and love that this presbytery exhibited today. The members of the presbytery have conducted themselves with respect and restraint, even while handling such a controversial issue. As a presbytery, we listened to each other and heard each other. In the midst of this time of debate and discernment, there was true worship by the Body of Christ as we sang songs and broke bread together.” “We are unaware of what might take place as a result of today,” she said, “but we have come together as the Body of Christ and we are grateful for the presence of the Spirit with us. Thanks be to God.” Second declared scruple It was the second time in 10 days that a presbytery had approved a declared scruple regarding the denomination’s “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard. On Jan. 15, San Francisco Presbytery approved a scruple in the case of Lisa Larges, a lesbian who is seeking to take the first steps in the ordination process. The three votes in Edina came in response to a request by Capetz that he be restored to ordained ministry. In April 2000, he had requested, and the presbytery agreed, that he be released from the exercise of ordained ministry because of clause G-6.0106b in the denomination’s Book of Order.That “fidelity/chastity” clause, approved by a majority of the PCUSA’s 173 presbyteries in 1997, requires those called to office in the denomination to “lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church,” including living “either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.” At the time, Capetz said in a document provided to the presbytery for the Jan. 26 meeting, he was “unable to construe that amendment to the constitution as implying anything other than commitment to a life of permanent celibacy on the part of homosexually-oriented persons who serve as ordained officers in the church.”
PUP report
In June 2006, the 217th General Assembly approved the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity that included an authoritative interpretation that allows individual church sessions and presbyteries to declare whether G-6.0106b is essential. The authoritative interpretation focuses on the “conscience” clause (G-6.0108) and states that the judgment of ordaining bodies cannot be bound by any rule that they deem non-essential.In August 2007, Capetz cited the PUP report in making a request for restoration as a minister to the presbytery’s committee on ministry. At that time, he said he was “grateful for this new authoritative interpretation of section G-6.0108 in our Book of Order that makes it possible for me to request reinstatement as a minister with a good conscience and for this presbytery to have the authority to determine my fitness for holding this office once again.” According to a November letter provided to commissioners by Stated Clerk Nancy E. Grittman, at the time he was released from ordained office, Capetz “was a member in good standing of the presbytery. … There were no charges pending against Paul, nor was there reason to believe that there might be. As Paul says in his letter, he acted in good conscience following the passage of Book of Order G-6.0106b. …” “Following the passage by the denomination of the Peace, Unity and Purity report and the authoritative interpretation,” Grittman wrote, “Paul has asked to be restored to the ordained office of minister of the Word and sacrament.” The presbytery’s committee on ministry voted 11-3 that same month to approve Capetz’s request, saying that his declared scruple to the “fidelity/chastity” clause did not constitute a failure to adhere to an essential of Reformed faith. A Dec. 1 special meeting to consider the issue was postponed, however, after presbytery commissioners at their November meeting directed the committee to provide the presbytery with “a clear statement of what the departure from the constitution is and what was the rationale of the committee on ministry to recommend his reinstatement.” That material was provided to commissioners for the Jan. 26 meeting.
Local 1,700 member Church Votes 664-25 to disaffiliate 21 January, 2008
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in PC (USA), Pittsburgh.6 comments
Memorial Park Presbyterian Church secured a court injunction last week to allow its congregation to meet this past weekend over the objections of the Pittsburgh Presbytery, and the McCandless church used the opportunity to vote overwhelmingly to disaffiliate from the Presbyterian Church (USA) for a more biblically conservative denomination.
While Memorial Park leaders said their members’ 664-25 vote with three unmarked ballots means the church is now a member of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, a presbytery official said, however, that under denominational law he still considered it part of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
The ballots were handed out during one Saturday service and three yesterday to people whose names were checked against a membership list. The ballots covered four separate questions:
• Disaffiliating from the Presbyterian Church (USA).
• Affiliating with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
• Amending church bylaws to remove any mention of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
• Affirming all of its current pastors, elders and deacons.
The 692 ballots represented less than half of the church’s 1,675 members, but the number was close to its usual Sunday attendance in January. Memorial Park is the largest church in the Pittsburgh Presbytery, which has 155 churches and more than 40,000 members.
The votes this past weekend had been expected to be uneventful, given that the church’s session, or governing body, had voted unanimously earlier this month to disaffiliate, and the congregation had voted 951-93 in June to seek dismissal from the national church, believing it had strayed from biblical authority and no longer fully adhered to classical Christian doctrines.
But Tuesday, Memorial Park officials received a letter from a presbytery-appointed administrative commission that was formed, the letter said, to deal with “the destruction, disorder and unrest at our Memorial Park congregation.”
According to the letter, the seven-member commission of pastors and elders had the right to “remove, replace, restructure or dissolve the pastor’s relationship with the congregation” and remove all assistant pastors, elders, deacons and lay officers.
And the letter forbade the congregation from meeting or voting this past weekend.
On Wednesday, Memorial Park lawyers got an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Judith L. Friedman that prevented the presbytery from interfering with the vote.
On Thursday morning, the presbytery’s attorneys responded in court that they feared Memorial Park’s vote would affect the disposition of its buildings and 71/2-acre property on Peebles Road.
After the church agreed not to take any actions to transfer or dispose of its assets, the presbytery withdrew its opposition to the injunction.
A hearing is scheduled tomorrow before Judge Friedman to determine whether the injunction filed by the church will be dissolved or sustained.
Because Memorial Park no longer considers itself part of the Presbyterian Church (USA), church officials said it would not be bound by either decision.
“The vote [this past weekend] means we move forward with the ministry and the mission that we believe God has called us to,” said the Rev. Dean Weaver, senior pastor at Memorial Park.
But the Rev. Doug Portz, acting pastor of the Pittsburgh Presbytery, called this past weekend’s votes “unconstitutional” and said he would have preferred church officials meet with commission members rather than turn to the civil court.
“According to the Pittsburgh Presbytery, Memorial Park is still a member church of the presbytery,” he said yesterday. “We are saddened by their actions to take this vote.
“The vote that they have taken is an unconstitutional vote according to our constitution.”
Officials of Memorial Park plan today to hand-deliver notice of the church’s disaffiliation to the presbytery.
None of these maneuverings affects the lawsuit Memorial Park filed earlier this month against the presbytery, seeking to confirm its property title and avoid any threat of seizure of its buildings by the presbytery.
Memorial Park is seeking to become the second church in Allegheny County to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA), following Beverly Heights Presbyterian Church, which was dismissed in October.
Prayer Request 7 December, 2007
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in PC (USA), Prayer, West Virginia.2 comments
I want to ask my friends in the blogosphere for their prayers for myself this weekend. I am going down to Charleston, WV for the required annual consultation with my Committee on Preparation for the Ministry. Some of you may find it shocking that my CPM and I have a contentious relationship. So my prayer is both for my CPM, that they may be gracious and courteous and for myself that I may not be the cause of any consternation.
Property Issue Getting Ugly in Western PA 7 November, 2007
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in PC (USA), Pittsburgh, Property.2 comments
Washington Presbytery has put forth a plan to try to resolve property issues with a Peters church that voted Sunday to break ties with the Presbyterian Church (USA), but its leaders say they will litigate ownership in civil court if forced to.
At Tuesday night’s special meeting in Eighty-Four, tremendous sympathy was expressed for the minority at Peters Creek Presbyterian Church who had opposed the break and who are now seeking to be declared “the true church” in the dispute. The meeting ended with the 80 ministers and elders gathered around a half dozen representatives of the minority, laying hands on them in prayer and singing Amazing Grace.
The Rev. David Bleivik, the general presbyter, said that if a court battle became necessary there was a possibility of financial assistance from both national headquarters and the regional synod.
“On every level we have sought to avoid legal action in accordance with [the biblical book of] Corinthians . . . . But if we are forced to defend the just side of this, we will prevail. I have no doubt,” he said.
“I have a deep place in my heart for the loyal minority because of what they have been through and how they have been treated.” Others at the meeting harshly criticized the conduct of Peters Creek leadership toward the minority.
Ray Peterson, an elder who is spokesman for the majority at Peters Creek, said later that whatever the presbytery said or proposed was irrelevant, since his congregation was no longer part of that denomination. He has previously expressed confidence that the majority from the church will receive a fairer, faster hearing in civil court than from the presbytery. The congregation took two votes, one 273-86 and on Sunday 207-26 to leave the PCUSA and affiliate with the more conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
“The reason we disaffiliated from the PCUSA is so we did not have to contend with specious motions and initiatives from the Washington Presbytery,” Mr. Peterson said.
More details in tomorrow’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Continuing My Walk 5 November, 2007
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Abortion, Discernment, PC (USA).add a comment
For the third installment of my walk of discernment I would like to take a look at the official statements made by the PC(USA) on the matter of Abortion
The Denominations current stance on the practice of Abortion is muddy and I believe purposefully vague. At various General Assemblies[1] the GA voted and passed resolutions that include the following statements about the denominations position on Abortion:
The considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable, though certainly not the only or required, decision.[2]
Humans are empowered by the spirit prayerfully to make significant moral choices, including the choice to continue or end a pregnancy. Human choices should not be made in a moral vacuum, but must be based on Scripture, faith, and Christian ethics.[3]
Some of us would focus on the biblical material that emphasizes human decision-making. Real decision-making[4] is one of the gifts of God to us as human beings. It is part of being created in the image of God. God’s own dominion over all of creation does not deny this intention of the Creator: that human beings must make real decisions that have real consequences for their lives and for the world…[5]
Now these statements in and of themselves are in opposition to lots of presuppositions in Reformed theology. The fourth citation being the greatest departure from any semblance of the Doctrines that used to constitute the Reformed faith within the PC(USA). However ultimately what truly brings me to question these statements (and as one questioning his remaining a member with the PC(USA)) is that they are ultimately human-centered, that is they are always speaking as if God is 1) outside the decision-making process of the individual, and 2) that God cannot possibly understand the difficult decisions that abortion entails. The second quotation I have chosen to highlight disturbs me the most. I have spoken previously of my concern that Scripture is now last in the Presbyterian’s “Wesleyan Quadlateral” (with the first place going to experience, then reason, tradition, and lastly “s”cripture). While it may seem silly to some to quibble with the separation of faith and Christian ethics from Scripture in the wording it signals a much deeper problem and that is the continued denial of an active God within the human life that has dictated through his Word the “ethic” we as followers of Jesus Christ should follow. That somehow we have gone from the Amazing Grace of the reformation where Christ is the dominant mover to a simple common Grace where humanity has been given the ultimate word, not Christ, on the moral decisions of ending human life prematurely and without cause.
[1] As an aside it is of the utmost arrogance that the PC (USA) tries to claim that its 2006 General Assembly was its “217th”. It is ludicrous for the denomination to claim heritage back to the 18th century when it was actually founded by the joining of two separate denominations in 1983.
[2] Minutes of the 204th General Assembly (1992), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), pg. 367-368, 372-374
[3] Minutes of the 217th General Assembly (2006), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), pg. 905
[4] The major fault behind the hermeneutic used in the last quote will be critiqued in a separate post
[5] Sections “I. D. 6. Positions A & B” of the Report of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion to the 1992 General Assembly Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), pg. 9-10
Working through Discernment 23 October, 2007
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Discernment, Genesis, PC (USA).1 comment so far
Working through Discernment
By Benjamin P. Glaser
As anyone who reads this blog semi-regularly knows I am in a period of discernment and prayer as to what my future in the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be for me and my family. As part of this discernment process I have decided to work out some central passages in which I differ from the majority of my colleagues in seminary and the general view of the PC (USA). It is important to remember when reading this that these writings are not intended to be full treatises for publication and may seem not to be fully exegeted, that is not my goal. My goal is to test my beliefs against a subjective audience and see if what I believe is so outside the denominational witness that a move is necessary both for the health of my own conscience and my ability to give an honest witness to what Scripture is teaching.
My plan is to do this bi-weekly and in a systematic and chronological way. Therefore the first question I will begin with is Adam and Eve and the majority belief in the Old Testament scholarship of the PC (USA) that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are separate accounts and are disconnected explanations of the creation of man. (cf: documentary hypothesis).*
*- It should be noted here that not all positions will be covered but just the main position of the PC (USA)
1) Man and Woman created in Genesis 1:26-27
2) “Adam” and “Eve” (Man and Woman) created in Genesis 2:7,18,21-22
Now modern PC (USA) (and all mainline) Old Testament scholarship gives the following explanation for this supposed “double creation” event.
1) Gen. 1:26-27 was written by the Priestly Source and Gen. 2:7,18, 21-22 by the Yahwist
2) Both accounts arise out of other near east creation texts. Therefore the text is not meant to be “complimentary” but necessarily conflicting. In other words Genesis 1 is the view from God’s perspective and Ch. 2 is Man’s perspective.
Here is where I disagree with this hypothesis. The mention of the creation of humans in 1:27 in no way makes the second mention in chapter two “contradictory” or even competing. While it has been the recent tradition of OT scholarship since Wellhausen (and to a lesser degree Spinoza) to make these two statements I believe the second statement to be easily refuted. Not only throughout Jewish tradition have these two chapters been treated as one narrative but Christ in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 quotes both from Gen 1:27 and 2:24 in one thought (as well as attributing Mosaic authorship to the whole of the Torah in Matt 8:4, 19:7, 22:24, Mark 1:44, 7:10, 12:19, 12:26, Luke 2:22, 5:14, 16:19, 20:28, 20:37, 24:27, 24:44, John 1:17, 1:45, 5:45, 5:46, and 7:23). Now one may say here that Jesus is just following his ritual, not necessarily giving credence to the view of chapters 1 and 2 being of the same tradition. In other words the critique says that Christ’s use of both chapters; giving equal voice to both 1 & 2 as if they are telling the same story, does not necessarily mean that both speak with the same voice or having the same author. Christ, since he had voluntarily emptied himself of divine knowledge (as seen in his not knowing the Day of Judgment), and had “forgotten” or even more implausibly Jesus chose not to share with the apostles the truth he knew about the writing of Genesis 1 and 2 thereby quoting from both honestly outside of the truth we now hold.
I cannot begin to describe how this view does damage to Chalcedonian Christology. However in the interest of giving a more thorough understanding of how dangerous this last statement is to historical orthodoxy let us look at one example of how this critique breaks down orthodox foundations of how we see Christ.
The distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved
Now if according to the last critique that by emptying himself Christ necessarily gave away his knowledge of past events-which is what is being said by those who deny the Mosaic (or singular if you will) authorship of Genesis 1 and 2-it is then illogical to say then that the divine nature is not affected by the bodily nature, which in and of itself denies historical Christology.
