'25 SUMMER READING LIST, #21 - "SUPERHEROES CAN'T SAVE YOU" BY TODD MILES

 

How many apologetics books defending biblical Christology from several different false teachings can be called fun? If you don't think that's possible, you probably haven't located this book yet.

In "Superheroes Can't Save You: Epic Examples of Historic Heresies," Todd Miles takes a look at seven deviations from an orthodox view of Christ. He does this by comparing those teachings with seven different superheroes. For comic book fans like myself, you'll find representatives both from DC (Superman, Batman, Green Lantern) and Marvel (Ant Man, Thor, the Hulk, and Spiderman). 

Each chapter follows this format:

1. Introduction to the superhero and autobiographical insights
2. The heresy (or false teaching or "bad idea about Jesus"
3. Who follows this heresy today? (In this section, he'll mention particular groups that hold to that teaching but also ways that someone may be slipping into a particular trap of thinking that isn't accurate.
4. What does the Bible say?
5. Why does it matter?

BOOK REVIEW - SUPERHEROES CAN'T SAVE YOU: EPIC EXAMPLES OF HISTORIC HERESIES BY TODD MILES

 

Who says Christian apologetics can't be fun?

Todd Miles (professor at Western Seminary in Portland, OR) has given a useful and relevant understanding of who Christ is in his book Superheroes Can't Save You: Epic Examples of Historic Heresies. He looks at seven incorrect views of who Jesus Christ is through history (he refers to them as bad ideas about Jesus) and compares these distortions with various superheroes. The result is a fun, readable book that helps us understand doctrine.

Each chapter follows this format:

1. Introduction to the superhero and autobiographical insights
2. The heresy (or false teaching or "bad idea about Jesus"
3. Who follows this heresy today? (In this section, he'll mention particular groups that hold to that teaching but also ways that someone may be slipping into a particular trap of thinking that isn't accurate.
4. What does the Bible say?
5. Why does it matter?

When I was younger, I considered the three most important aspects of theology to be Bibliology (the Inspiration of the Bible), Christology (who Jesus is) and Soteriology (the teaching on salvation). While I consider all three (and also all other areas of theology) important still, I'm at the point of believing Christology is the most important. Of course, you need a solid Bibliology to have a solid Christology, and if you have a proper Christology, you will by default realize our salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Thus, this book is helpful in identifying a Biblically consistent Christology.
I highly recommend this book both as a student of the Word (I considered calling myself a theologian - it sounds more intellectual and intimidating, even though "theologian" and "student of the Word" are the same thing) and as a comic book fan.

ARE GOOD DOCTRINE AND GOOD CHARACTER SYNOMONOUS? - A LOOK AT CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

 

Cyril of Alexandria by Rousanu

 

Let's say I'm writing a novel with the twelve church fathers Bryan Litfin covers in his book Getting To Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction having dinner together. (Would it be considered historical, since it deals with individuals who lived between 100 and 500 AD, or speculative since they weren't all contemporaries of each other?) One of the guests gets murdered. Which one? Good question, but it isn't Cyril. For me, the question is whether I want to make Cyril the killer, or just the red herring you suspect until he becomes the second victim.

First, I'll deal with why he is included as a Church Father. You probably are familiar with the 4th century conflict with Arianism during the days of Constantine and Athanasius (definitely if you've been reading this series and quite probably even if you haven't).  However, the 5th century had it's own controversies, which were more Christological. What relationship did the eternal Begotten Son of God have with Jesus of Nazareth? Was His real nature divine? Human? Or both?

One of the promoters of a variant teaching on the subject was Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople. (NOTE - an excellent book dealing with Nestorianism and other Christological heresies like Arianism and Modalism is Superheroes Can't Save You: Epic Examples of Historic Heresies by Todd Miles, where he compares various false teachings concerning Christ with various superheroes.) The orthodox view was defended by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Cyril held that Christ was fully God and fully man, not some strange hybrid. He was the one to introduce the theological term "Hypostatic Union", of how Jesus Christ was one person with two natures.

Why, then, do I have a problem with Cyril? Remember two installments ago when I was mentioning Theophilus, then Bishop of Alexandria, was unhappy with John Chrysostom being Bishop of Constantinople, and gave trumped out charges which resulted in John being exiled and dying due to his treatment? Do you want to guess who Theophilus' nephew was? Yep, it was Cyril. Did Cyril have a problem with how John was treated? Not at all. Now, after the dastardly deed  was done, Cyril did reluctantly admit that Chrysostom was orthodox, and later on quoted him.

Was that the only question mark I have about Cyril? I wish. In Alexandria, some "Christian" thugs brutally and savagely murdered a pagan prophetess. Do you remember what Cyril said against that attrocity? Same thing I did at that time - nothing! Of course, I can say I didn't say anything because it occured over 1500 years before I was born. Cyril did not have that excuse.

Let's go to the Council of Ephesus, where Cyril successfully defeated Nestorianism, with Nestorius being declared a heretic and his ideas being condemned on the first day of meeting. Could it be that was because Cyril was appointed as representative of the Roman party until they arrived, not to mention the senior bishop of Alexandria, he took charge? Maybe, though he did have the authority to do so. How about the council being called to order on time, even though Cyril knew many of Nestorius' supporters had been delayed from being there at the time? Now that wasn't completely kosher or, in 21 century terms, fair and balanced, was it?

So here's the question: Is good doctrine negated by bad character, or vice versa for that matter?