LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY

Book Review of Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective

Submitted to Dr. John Landers

CHHI 610 – D01

by

Caleb R. Brown
April 29, 2018
 Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..iii

Summary………………………………………………………………………..…….iii

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...viii

Bibliography…………………………………………………...………………………x

ii
 Introduction
This paper will review the text of Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler’s work Jesus in

Trinitarian Perspective. The main idea behind their work is to communicate the central doctrine

of Christ and its relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. The council of Chalcedon and the logic

behind the language they used in 425 to explain the doctrine of Christ lies in the backdrop. The

thesis of Sanders and Issler’s “Introductory Christology” attempts to communicate how

Christology began as an intellectual attempt to account for the mystery of salvation that

Christians have experienced throughout the ages and how now contemporary theologians have

turned their attention to the examination of the doctrinal content that lay within the truth claims

of the Christian faith.1 The intention of this review is to examine the strengths and weaknesses of

how Sanders and Issler use the logic behind Chalcedon, that Sanders states is widely held as the

standard for Orthodox, and how it helped formulate the person and work of Christ to provide a

framework to accommodate both the divinity of Christ with the oneness of God.

Critique
The greatest strength to argue the logic behind Chalcedon is introduced in the opening

chapter by Fred Sanders where he briefly explains the logic behind it. Most importantly he lists

three axioms for Christological study. The first axiom he uses is a definition of Christology

1
Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler, Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology, (Nashville: B&H,
2007), 1.

iii
which he states, “is an interdisciplinary theological project requiring incite from biblical,

historical, philosophical, practical, and systematic theologians.”2 The second axiom explains that

in order to properly understand the doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, or the

atonement they must be thought about all at once in how they relate to the other.3 The third

axiom states that the gospel of Jesus Christ is what presupposes the story of how the Son of God

enters into human history and it is the categories provided by Chalcedon are a conceptual

resource that make sense of it.4 The axioms stated are not only the major theme of the book, but

they provide the framework to lay forth to the reader their argument concerning how to think

rightly about Christ and His relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. This strategy is important to

communicate to the reader in how their framework for a defense of the study of Christology

comes from the language used at Chalcedon, there is a weakness in it does not communicate how

many Christians from the church in the East reject the language used at Chalcedon. While their

work may do well in making an argument from a Chalcedonian point of view, the Eastern

Church’s point of view is absent from their interdisciplinary axiom. This is not to imply that the

Eastern Churches view must be needed. Sanders does state that Chalcedon and its two natures

language of Christ provides the categories that evangelicals need to tell their story of how Christ

is their personal savior, He is one of the Trinity, and He died on a cross.5 This would put their

book in a category being for evangelicals to teach the way we are to think about the two natures

of Christ but also how we should communicate these ideas to others. This makes the heart behind

their work a great strength that makes up for the weakness of omitting the Eastern Church’s view

2
Sanders and Issler, 2.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid., 1-2.

iv
post Chalcedon. The next part of this paper will examine Part 1 of Sanders and Issler’s text that

covers the person of Christ over three chapters.

The next three chapters that cover the person of Christ are written by other contributors.

In keeping true to Sanders first axiom, this is considered to be a strength in that this book brings

together six scholarly minds to make their case. Part 1 of the person is Christ is written by

scholars whose perspectives come from a historical, philosophical, as well as systematically

theological viewpoint. Each author lays out the same approach as Sanders before them in that

they each lay out their own axioms for Christological study and the key terms used in making

their argument. The strategy used here is another strength in that they are able to bring together

these different people with different perspectives and have their thoughts communicated in an

orderly system without putting God in a system. J. Scott Horrell authors the second chapter

largely from the historical perspective. Rather than pointing to the historical tradition, the

Reformation, or even the church Fathers, Horrell makes his case by pointing to the Bible by

explaining how the New Testament Church, as he states, “was marvelously rich in Trinitarian

experience.”6 Horrell doesn’t just leave it there, he say points to how the new Testament church

showed reverence to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by how it was reflected in the passages of

the New Testament over one hundred times.7 Horrell’s contribution here is considered a strength.

However, there could have been more attention brought to the historical and biblical argument

that Horrell mentions if he showed how and why the original authors taught and thought in this

way by tying their New Testament expressions to the Old Testament texts. Doing so would help

further substantiate the case he is making here by also showing that the conceptual thought of the

6
J. Scott Horrell, “The Eternal Son of God in the Social Trinity,” in Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective, 45, ed. Fred
Sanders and Klauss Issler, (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 45.
7
Ibid., 45

v
ancient Israelite and the idea of the oneness of God are made to mankind differently all

throughout scripture. Horrell states that the conceptual language to help understand the idea of

the Trinity was different than what the church had ever thought before but in the next sentence

says that, “it can never be said that the early church was not Trinitarian.”8 This argument is

considered weak in that it poses competing ideas. If the church had never thought of the idea of

the Trinity before it is hard to argue the point that the early church cannot be said to not be

Trinitarian. However, Horrell does attempt to explain how the Old Testament has passages that

record God speaking in the first person. But he poses the question of how does the “I” language

of the Old Testament fit together with the declarations of the New Testament. Horrell uses this

statement to make the case for what he calls distinct centers of consciousness. This argument is

weak in that he is using plural language to divine God’s oneness and in doing so confuses the

doctrine of the Trinity further by not expanding further on the idea that the idea of the Trinitarian

God would not have been completely foreign to the New Testament church. The language that

the New Testament authors used about Jesus was also the attempt to teach others to think rightly

about the God of the Old Testament and that Jesus was a fulfillment of these scriptures.

The chapter that makes the strongest arguments for Chalcedon and the language that it

used to define Christology is the one written by Donald Fairbain. The reason he makes such s

strong case is in how he negates the idea that Chalcedon was a clash between two equally

opposing but equally represented “schools,” that lead to a compromise at Chalcedon.9 Fairbain

also states that the controversy was also not about whether Christ was one person or if He had

two natures, but rather was fundamentally about who the person of Christ was.10 The key figure

8
Horrell, ed. by Sanders and Issler, 45.
9
Donald Fairbain, “The One Person Who is Jesus Christ: The Patristic Perspective”, 80-113, in Jesus in Trinitarian
Perspective, ed. by Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler, (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 80.
10
Ibid., 82.

vi
was Cyril of Alexander and the council of Chalcedon was consistent in Cyril’s thought.11 This is

where the book partially makes up again for the proposed weakness of failing to represent the

Eastern Church’s view. That is because Cyril is arguably the greatest theologian of the Eastern

Church according to Fairbain.12 Fairbain concludes that the definition proposed by Chalcedon

showed a consensus of the Church’s faith that was proposed by those in Alexandria like Cyril

and others in his time.13

The chapter following Fairbain’s attempts to expand upon the person of Christ and His

two natures by explaining two different metaphysical models of the incarnation. This chapter is

covered by philosophical professor Garrett DeWeese. DeWeese examines the Medievel

Dyothelite Model as well as the Contemporary Model. He states that contemporary philosophical

theologians have four main problems with the medieval model.14 DeWeese argues that the case

for the contemporary model is philosophically superior.15 While the philosophical language and

implications of DeWeese’s contribution can be difficult to wade through, he does make a better

case for the contemporary model in how it generates new positive implications.16 The next part

of this paper will review part two which examines the work of Christ.

The second part of Sanders and Issler’s work covers the work of Christ. The authors of

this part of the review are Bruce Ware and Klaus Issler. By the time a reader gets to the second

part of their book, it is apparent its organization is much like that of the definition that was laid

forth at Chalcedon. It is in the last part that the fullness of Klauss and Issler’s work reveals an

excellent work for it being an introductory Christology. Ware covers the atonement and explains

11
Fairbain, eds. Sanders and Issler, 82.
12
Ibid., 87.
13
Ibid., 103.
14
Garrett DeWeese, eds. Sanders and Issler, 127.
15
Ibid., 152.
16
Ibid.

vii
how it was work of the trinity. Ware’s axioms for study that are introduced at the introduction of

his work are each thoroughly covered. Ware does well to introduce Anselm and how his work

was instrumental in articulating why Christ must have been both God and man in order for

Christ’s atoning death to be efficacious.17

Klaus Issler’s contribution to prove the books argument for the Chalcedonian definition

explains Jesus’ example and as he states how Jesus Christ gave His believers the genuine model

for how Christians are to live their life beyond the average human life.18 Issler’s axioms are most

intruiging. The first is obvious, Jesus is an example for all Christians.19 This would be true,

however the language that would have been more appropriate is that Jesus’ example was for all

of humanity. It is in Christ’s example that one may come to Christ in the first place. The second

axiom explains that what is unexemplified in Jesus’ life cannot be an example for Christians and

ties in with the third axiom which explains how Christ’s mission was unique to him and it is the

manner in which he lived it that Christians can share in common with Jesus. Issler’s contribution

is to be applauded. The ideas and examples he presents were this reader’s favorite to read, but

they also complete what Fred Sanders argued they wanted to lay out to their readers. A step

beyond Chalcedon that travels the trajectory the church has followed down the road of conciliar

Christology from Chalcedon to Constantinople II.20

Conclusion
Christology is a difficult doctrine to explain, especially to non-believers. The work that

this paper examined was to examine the strengths and weaknesses of how Sanders and Issler use

the logic behind Chalcedon, that Sanders states is widely held as the standard for Orthodoxy, and

17
Bruce Ware, “Christs Atonement: A Work of the Trinity,” eds. Sanders and Issler, 159.
18
Klaus Issler, “Jesus’ Example: Prototype of the Dependent, Spirit-Filled Life,” eds. Sanders and Issler, 189.
19
Ibid., 189.
20
Sanders, 26.

viii
how it helped formulate the person and work of Christ to provide a framework to accommodate

both the divinity of Christ with the oneness of God. In conclusion, after thorough review,

Sanders and Issler’s work on introductory Christology successfully communicates how

Christology began as an intellectual attempt to account for the mystery of salvation that

Christians have experienced throughout the ages. Their work is another example of how now

contemporary theologians have turned their attention to the examination of the doctrinal content

that lay within the truth claims of the Christian faith.

ix
 Bibliography

Sanders, Fred and Klauss Issler. Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology.
Nashville: B&H, 2007.