Christocentrist

It is our contention that to accuse Barth in an exaggerated way of being anti-philosophical, and therefore of being a purely biblical christocentrist, is grossly unfair.

Barth becomes a christocentrist in order to support a valid christianocentrism.

The great christocentrist was advocating the possibility of a thorough Spirit Christology that would complement the dominant Logos Christology: a Christological programme pursued from a Trinitarian perspective, highlighting the mutual relations between the Son and the Spirit in the incarnation.

And even when heard, the prophets are heard rather selectively, as determined by the hearer’s special interest, whether she is an “end-times” buff, a “Jesus on every page of the Old Testament” christocentrist, or a social justice advocate.

This contrast between Jefferson and many a present-day “christocentrist” is one more exemplification, applied in this instance to a crucial religious figure, of the dissociation of sensibility, the divorce of the imagination’s world from the intellect’s conviction concerning the real world in modern literature, of which T. S. Eliot and so many other modern critics have spoken.

Luther became an effective affective christocentrist.

The christocentrist position arose when, about 1100, it began to be taught that the cause of Christ’s incarnation was God’s predestining man to deification—a christology, in other words, developed in relation to a particular view of God’s eternal will for the temporal order.

Nevertheless, I am a Christian believer, a Roman Catholic scholar—self-described as a credal trinitarian, incarnationalist, christocentrist theologian who in believing knows that which he believes.