X says that Christological dilemma is some kind of theological logic and suggests that ordinary Christians are not affected by this artificial problematic.
There are two issues here worth looking at separately.
Is the problematic artificial? Well, it depends. I am not claiming that every Christian (past, present and future) is aware of this problematic, of course. This is a general formulation that attempts to capture the variety in Christianity as answers to some specific problem. It has the same status as some or another scientific law. Even though what we have in this Cosmos, say, are concrete, moving objects of specific size, volume, density and so on, we have laws that describe such specific movements as instances of a general law. In exactly the same way, I (partially) describe the varieties within Christianity as various answers to the Christological dilemma. Does that make my description artificial? Well, this is an issue about your own metaphysics: what ‘natural’ is, what ‘social’ is, what ‘cultural’ is and what ‘artificial’ is. All I can say is that my description does partially capture the variety within Christianity.
Are the ordinary Christians not affected by this problematic? Of course, they are. Their particular understanding of ‘God’ and ‘Christ’ is how their particular tradition answers the Christological dilemma. Each Christian does not interpret the Bible ab ovo. He/She is taught by the minister, reverend, priest, etc to read and understand the Gospels in a particular way. The latter, in their turn, are trained by the seminaries (or whatever else) in theology, Christology, missiology, pastoral work, etc. Here, the answers that each tradition has with respect to ‘God’, ‘Christ’, ‘the Church’, etc. are taught to the aspiring ministers, reverends, priests and so on. This being the case, I cannot, I am afraid, see how an ordinary Christian is independent of the history of doctrinal disputes within Christianity.
- How did I come up with the theory I did?
- Religious tolerance and Ecumenism