[…] Within this volume, he correctly says that Christology cannot be altered and to do such is to have an incorrect Jesus. I, and many others, wholeheartedly agree. A strange irony occurs within this volume, however. In Martin’s assessment of Jehovah’s Witnesses, he deviates from orthodox ecumenical Christology! As one can tell, I presuppose the weight and validity of ecumenical consensus before the split of 1054 and before the Reformation that followed in the West. I speak to that a bit in my article on Orthodox Christology. […]
One response
[…] Within this volume, he correctly says that Christology cannot be altered and to do such is to have an incorrect Jesus. I, and many others, wholeheartedly agree. A strange irony occurs within this volume, however. In Martin’s assessment of Jehovah’s Witnesses, he deviates from orthodox ecumenical Christology! As one can tell, I presuppose the weight and validity of ecumenical consensus before the split of 1054 and before the Reformation that followed in the West. I speak to that a bit in my article on Orthodox Christology. […]