The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 2 questions: Trinity, Incarnation

Pilgrim said:
CovenantInBlood,

I understand the difference between Luther's view re: Christ's presence in the Supper compared to Calvin's and I reject both! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> I believe that neither went far enough from Rome in their respective positions. For me, Bullinger expressed most correctly what Scripture teaches on this issue, which is actually off-topic. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

What is salient, however, is that Martin Luther King was fraught with errors. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

is to say that Jesus’ human nature was not always with his divine nature. This is a separation of Christ.

But the human nature was not always with the divine nature! That's the whole point of the Incarnation: the divine TOOK ON flesh.

speratus said:

Mr. Cloute does not dispute that. What Mr. Cloute is disputing is the Reformed doctrine that expands the divine presence of Christ beyond His physical body at certain times after the Incarnation. As Chalcedon and the other Creeds teach, after the divine took on flesh, the divine and human natures are inseparable in "one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons."

CovenantInBlood said:
I'm not aware of anyone who claims that Christ's divine nature "expands" at some "times" after the Incarnation. Christ is "recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved." The divine nature remained and remains as it was from eternity. The human nature also remains human.

We do not subscribe to the Lutheran view, which is akin to the "Kenosis Theory", wherein it is said that at the incarnation, the divine nature of the Son was restricted to a certain degree, albeit voluntarily.

speratus said:
The divine nature was never restricted. In His state of humiliation, Christ did not fully use His divine powers. We do not subscribe to the Reformed view, which is akin to the "Nestorian Theory", that there is a Christ on the cross who suffers and dies as a man only and that there is a Christ on the earth today who comes to us as God only.

Are you two in agreement on the doctrine of the Incarnation? Are you two disagreeing about that or about the view of the different Reformers?

And why don't you interact with my positive statements concerning the divine nature consisting of the 3 "Omni's"?

You unfortunately have the habit of quoting from Lutheran writers but rarely do you ever go to Scripture and EXEGETE relevant texts to support your view?

Because in Christ dwells bodily (swmatikw~v, corporeally) all the fulness of the Deity(qeo&thtov, abstract for qeo&v), and because (repeat the o#ti) in Him you have been made complete. And He,remember, is the One “who is the head of all rule and authority” (a)rxh=v kai\ e0cousi/av). So why look forsomething more? Why let anyone try to add to what the Savior offers when you are already complete in Him?“All the fulness of the Godhead” means exactly what it says. Fulness (to_ plh/rwma) includes all ofGod’s attributes without exception. They all dwell bodily in Jesus Christ, not only in the Son of God (FC, S.D.,57), but also in the Son of Man. Paul is asserting the divine mystery that the divine attributes katoikei= in Jesusbecause of and in connection with His human nature. The indwelling of the attributes is corporeal (Luther,leibhaftig), not merely spiritual, “not in the spirit of Christ alone, but in his whole human nature” (Lenski).In Christology this verse is one of the primary passages which offers evidence for the doctrine of thecommunication of the attributes. Our particular concern is with the genus maiestaticum, especially with thecommunication of the divine omnipresence to the human nature of Jesus Christ. The Nestorian/Zwinglian errorseparated the Deity of Christ (together with all the divine attributes) from the human nature (the sw~ma) ofChrist Jesus. Thus according to the Zwinglians, Jesus could not be present everywhere except in a spiritualsense to faith. That error obscures the truth that the body Jesus gave for us and the blood He shed for us on thecross redeemed us because all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in that body and blood. His blood was “holy,precious blood” because it was divine blood.

speratus quotes Gerlach as saying:
Our particular concern is with the genus maiestaticum, especially with thecommunication of the divine omnipresence to the human nature of Jesus Christ. The Nestorian/Zwinglian errorseparated the Deity of Christ (together with all the divine attributes) from the human nature (the sw~ma) ofChrist Jesus. Thus according to the Zwinglians, Jesus could not be present everywhere except in a spiritualsense to faith. That error obscures the truth that the body Jesus gave for us and the blood He shed for us on thecross redeemed us because all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in that body and blood. His blood was “holy,precious blood” because it was divine blood.

Pilgrim said:
Yes, and this is where I have to strongly disagree with what you are embracing and which Gerlach embraces, et al..... i.e., that the INCOMMUNICABLE attributes of Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence were communicated to the human nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. The PERSON of the Lord Jesus Christ was not and is not Omnipresent!! Chalcedon makes it crystal clear that this is error; i.e., the two natures though inseparable were not intermixed. The COMMUNICABLE attributes of God in Christ were communicated to Him. The divine nature, i.e., the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity changed not one iota at the incarnation. He was, is and forever shall be God. But the PERSON of the Lord Jesus Christ is not Omnipresent, never was, is not now and never shall be Omnipresent. This means that the doctrine of "consubstantiation" must be rejected. Christ is truly present in the Supper via the presence of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's "Advocate" Whom He sent when He ascended on high to sit at the right hand of the Father. The triune God communes with believers as can be seen in John 14:23,


Again, I suspect that Lutherans have allowed the doctrine of "consubstantiation" to dictate their unique view of the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Doubtless, this is but another area of doctrine where the Reformed and Lutherans shall always differ.

In His Grace,

Boanerges said:
Hey Pilgrim I don't mean to disagree here but in this post:
speratus against consubstantiation speratus said that Luther never taught consubstantiation but rather "a sacramental union of the undivided body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine." Which I'm not sure but seems to be transubstantiation. But I could be wrong.

Be that as it may I agree with you Pilgrim.

Pilgrim said: But the PERSON of the Lord Jesus Christ is not Omnipresent, never was, is not now and never shall be Omnipresent. This means that the doctrine of "consubstantiation" must be rejected...
Again, I suspect that Lutherans have allowed the doctrine of "consubstantiation" to dictate their unique view of the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Doubtless, this is but another area of doctrine where the Reformed and Lutherans shall always differ...

Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians...As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10, 16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11, 28: Let him so eat of that bread.

Accordingly, they hold and teach that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, offered, and received. And although they believe in no transubstantiation, that is, an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, nor hold that the body and blood of Christ are included in the bread localiter, that is, locally, or are otherwise permanently united therewith apart from the use of the Sacrament, yet they concede that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. [that when the bread is offered, the body of Christ is at the same time present, and is truly tendered]. For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preserved in the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in the procession and exhibited, as is done in popery, they do not hold that the body of Christ is present....
Although this union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine is not a personal union, as that of the two natures in Christ, but as Dr. Luther and our theologians, in the frequently mentioned Articles of Agreement [Formula of Concord] in the year 1536 and in other places call it sacramentatem unionem, that is, a sacramental union, by which they wish to indicate that, although they also employ the formas: in pane, sub pane, cum pane, that is, these distinctive modes of speech: in the bread, under the bread, with the bread, yet they have received the words of Christ properly...

Pilgrim said:
The PERSON of the Lord Jesus Christ was not and is not Omnipresent!! Chalcedon makes it crystal clear that this is error; i.e., the two natures though inseparable were not intermixed.

DaveVan3 said:
Certainly..,it would seem to me, it would be correct to say that the “person” of Christ is omnipresent..or omnipotent...or omniscient.. but only in His divine nature....not in His human nature.