Who Said That?

"If Jesus is the true man through his dedication to God's future, in his message of the nearness of God's Lordship, as well as through the anticipatory fulfillment of human destiny in his own person through his resurrection from the dead so that truly human life becomes possible through community with him, then that realization toward which all human hopes are aimed is already fulfilled in him in an anticipatory way."

Leave your guess in the comments section below.  Please, no google searches or cheating.

Update on Saturday, July 26, 2008 at 07:06PM by Kim Riddlebarger

This is a quotation from Wolfhart Pannenberg's famous text, Jesus -- God and Man (p. 206).

Pannenberg is a very important theologian.  But as I was reading this, I found myself going back over it, again, and again . . .   Will someone please translate this into English?  Wait, someone already did . . . 

Comments

[Philip Walker]

Someone possessed of an excessivley stodgy style. And yet when you cut through it, it doesn't sound unorthodox.

It's not the present Archbishop of Canterbury, is it?

[Ken Rapoza]

With terms like "dedication to God's future..." and "human destiny..." this strikes me as something that would come from John Shelby Spong.

[Brett]

sounds kind of new perspective-ish to me

[KyleinWI]

I am going with Bell or McLearn. Does that quote even make sense.

It sounds like Tuesday is blacker than three. Makes no sense whatsoever that is why it has to be E.

["lee n. field"]

What blather. You read this stuff for fun, or are you teaching an "Intro to Heresies" course over the summer?

[Rev. Z. Bartels]

It's not Emergent; this is old-school early 20th century modernist Protestant liberalism (although Wittmer's Don't Stop Believing and DeYoung's Why We're Not Emergent both use Machen's work to build a case that Emergent is just de ja vu all over again). I'd guess Ritschl, Schliermacher (SP?), or Harnack. At any rate, I can hear my man Barth spinning in his grave.

[Paul C. Quillman]

My first reaction was Mc Laren. The only phrase that is missing is "dream of God"....

[John Yeazel]

Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. Anything but Jesus came to save us from our sins and sinfulness. What the hell is he talking about. It has to be some emergent- they seem motivated to confuse any clear doctrinal formulations we have passed down in the historical Church's creeds and confessions.

[carl]

I'm no professional theologian so I'm not sure what's heretical or heterodox about this statement. I see many echoes of solid Christian doctrine - Christ as the new and true adam, Christ's resurrection as a deposit and guarantee of ours, Christ's ushering in of God's kingdom. But then, the devil's in the details sometimes. My guess is that the language comes from some philosophical system I'm not familiar with. It definitely sounds humanistic/man centered but ... sorry for rambling... I guess I don't know who said it.

[Robert W]

Either Professor Irwin Corey or Norm Crosby.

[Charles S]

Someone who needs to take a creative writing course

[Coyle]

Hmm... fuzzy, probably wrong (if I'm understanding it right) but with vague hints of orthodoxy? I'm going to guess John Paul II. The buzzwords of "community", "anticipatory" and "nearness" smack of Vatican II.

[John Yeazel]

This has got my head spinning. I have to comment again. The language used is not the type of language used in any creeds or confessions. It is not the type of language used in any good systematic theology. A good theologian would not say "If Jesus is the true man." They would make the claim that Jesus is truly God and truly man. And I have never heard a Reformed or Lutheran theologian used the phrase "through his dedication to God's future." What is that supposed to mean? Yet this person mentions "his resurrection from the dead." This is like the devil tempting Eve with something that sounds like God but is just leading you to deny or believe something different than the clear Words of God. This is the most subtle language I have heard yet in this "Who Said That" blog. I cannot wait to find out who it is. I might be totally off base too. I am miffed.

[Randy]

Ummm...Shirley McLain?

[jeremy]

thomas merton?

[Lloyd]

Luther is going to kill me when I get to heaven for saying this -- but it is Augustine, before he became a Christian!!

[Philip Walker]

'A good theologian would not say "If Jesus is the true man."'

Can't see why not. Paul predicates the condiitional of certainties: I submit Rom. 5:15-17 as but one example. From more modern times, CT Studd has a well-known quotation, "If Jesus Christ be God and died for me..." The problem is that we don't have full context.

'"through his dedication to God's future." What is that supposed to mean?'

I assume it's the "God's future" bit that's problematic? I read that as meaning the future God has planned for humanity [to which Jesus most certainly *is* dedicated], rather than God's own future--which is a concept best left on the cutting-floor. Of course, that might not have been what the original author meant, but this is the nature of the game: we can have no full context.

In short, I think it should be possible to re-write this passage for style in a way which is utterly orthodox, allowing that the understanding of certain phrases may or may not be faithful to the original intention.

[John Yeazel]

You might be right Philip. But it still sounds a bit uncertain to me. Most Reformed and Lutheran theologians speak with more certainty in their statements. Even with the example you gave of CT Studd. Perhaps it is someone who knows Reformed and Lutheran Orthodoxy but has become a process theologian or a theologian of the Clark Pinnock type (Open Theism). Context does matter here and we do not have the whole context. Thanks for the comments- if you are right I stand corrected.

[Philip Walker]

John, I absolutely understand your concern. After making my own guess, I Googled and found out who said it, and frankly, I'd not be too sure whether the overall context is good or bad (I think it's one of those folk who could run either way depending on what precisely they're discussing, and that's why I agree with the need for context). But taken on its own, the quote is more bizarre than bad, and therefore defensible with due caution.

[John Yeazel]

Isn't this fun!! I love this stuff- I am going to have to do my own google search now.