2 questions: Trinity, Incarnation

From the paper of Martin Luther King, Jr. in another thread:

Quote

When he comes to the person of Jesus, Luther quite readily accepts the orthodox views of the councils. With Nicaea he sees Jesus as "Very God of Very God." With Chalcedon he sees Jesus as fully human and fully divine. However, Luther went beyond the councils by setting forth the views that the human nature of Jesus absorbs the divine nature and the divine nature of Jesus absorbs the human nature. This view of Luther's is called communicatic ideomatum, "The communication of attributes." Through the interchange of attributes, the divine nature of Jesus could experience birth, suffering and death, while the human nature of Jesus could experience eternity, omnipotence and ubiquity. It is probably that Luther posited this view in order to give logical validation to his view of consubstantiation.

Like Luther, Calvin accepts the orthodox views of the Church councils as to the person of Christ. In The Institutes, he states,

Choosing from the womb of the Virgin a temple for his residence, he who was the Son of God, became also the Son of man, not by a confusion of substance, but by a unity of person. For we assert such a connection and union of the Divinity with the humanity, that each nature retains its properties entire, and yet both together constitute one Christ."[Footnote: Insti., II. xiv. 2.]

This immediately reveals that Calvin does not accept Luther's view of the communicatio ideomatum. He is quite convinced that "each nature retains its properties entire."

Which is correct? Could someone give me a better explanation of all this? My theology classes at Boyce weren't that detailed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Second, what's all this about there being a picture of the Trinity in the human family? I remember the OrthodoxCatholic guy talking about that. Everyone seemed to oppose his ideas that the father, mother, children relationship was a metaphor for the Trinity. There is a site that I have always trusted that has an article about that in which the author espouses a similar view. The website is The Center for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and one specific article is on page 13 of this .pdf journal: The Journal For Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Spring 2001 -Trinitarian Perspectives on Gender Roles This especially concerns me because one person on "the Council" is Bruce Ware, an elder at my church, and another contributor in that issue, Rob Lister, is a member at my church. I'm suspicious that with all the new seminary students flocking to my church every semester because most of our elders are seminary professors, including Bruce Ware, they might not give much thought to these things, but rather, nod their heads in easy agreement. Not only that, but I saw many other articles on the CBMW site that propose the same stuff. Bruce Ware has gained a reputation in dealing with Open Theism well, but I don't know about this other stuff.

Please answer these questions and give me any more insight as I have a hard time dividing these issues. It seems like I could go either way (or both ways due to my ignorance) with Luther and Calvin, except on the issue of consubstantiation, in which I agree with Calvin in contradiction to Luther and Zwingli, and I am very hesitant with the issue of gender roles being derivative of the roles of the Persons of the Trinity and even more hesitant with regard to OrthodoxCatholic's idea that the father, mother, children relationship is a metaphor of the Trinity. I'm confused!

Ben

Ben,

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think in that quote the "Luther" being referred to was Martin Luther King, and not the ex-Roman Catholic, Martin Luther?

But more to the point, the "confusion of the two natures", contrary to who wrote the article/critique of Martin Luther King, King clearly did NOT accept the teaching of Chalcedon which specifically says that there is no "confusion" of the two natures of Christ; i.e., the divine and the human. You can read the Creed for yourself, which I am confident you will be able to fully comprehend.

The Chalcedon Creed

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, 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 and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

As far as an earthly family being representative of the Trinity......

I think that is total fantasy and the product of men's vivid imagination. Okay, so that was a little "in your face". But I do not find any justification for such a novel idea in the Bible.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

Actually, that was a paper by MLK, Jr. about Luther and Calvin. What King is getting at is Luther's position on the two natures of Christ, which is somewhat confused because of Luther's insistence on the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. In opposition to this, Calvin strongly maintained that Christ's human nature has limitations like ours, and so the body of Christ is locally present in heaven only.

All the material in the quote box is taken from Martin Luther King Jr.'s paper that Marie posted in the Open forum. Dr, King's paper was a comparison of the theologies of the two reformers, Luther and Calvin. I just don't understand Calvin and Luther's opposing sides on the incarnation and kind of wanted to have it all in perspective.

As for the idea of the family being a metaphor of the Trinity, would you reject it in any form, both that of OrthodoxCatholic (and all Roman Catholics as far as I know), and that of the CBMW? Don't worry about being harsh, both views seem baseless to me. I can see where one might draw similarities and then use peripheral truths to bolster the argument, man being made in God's image, for example, but that doesn't prove to be enough since Scripture doesn't say close to anything regarding that idea even implicitly.

Quote

I just don't understand Calvin and Luther's opposing sides on the incarnation and kind of wanted to have it all in perspective.

I think the problem is rooted in their respective understandings of the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Luther affirmed that Christ's body is present with the bread and the wine, saying that since He is God He can do anything. Calvin rejected this view, and seeking to affirm the true humanity of Chirst, he said that Christ's body is subject to spatial limitations just like ours, and is therefore locally present only in heaven, to which Christ ascended.

That's really weird because Luther's view sounds acceptable for exactly the reason he had for it, and Calvin's view (my view) is difficult because if Christ still has spatial limitations but is in heaven, which I understand to be a spiritual realm, it's almost like another plane of existence entirely for Christ, being physical and spiritual and omnipresent. Then again, what about us? We're both physical and spiritual, so "where" are we in the spiritual realm, seeing as how it doesn't work at all in terms of space? AH!! Somebody help me pick up the pieces of my brain! In the end, even then I hold Calvin's view, I'm still not sure about the Lord's Supper. My signature is especially relevant.

Ben,

I read the entire article that was allegedly written by Martin Luther King and I have to say that I have no doubt that he misunderstood much that both Luther and Calvin wrote/believed. Thus, his assessment of what Luther taught concerning the incarnation I find to be flawed. If nothing else, Chalcedon contradicts his views. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

As for the novel idea that the family is a "picture" of the Trinity, I maintain that there is no biblical warrant for that view and I reject it entirely.

[Linked Image]

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,

Thanks, Pilgrim, I always thought Dr. Ware's idea about that was suspect. As novel as it sounds, it's just not even close to being taught by Scripture.

Pilgrim, I think it's relevant to the topic! Maybe I wouldn't know, since I'm not a moderator, but feel free to discuss Bullinger, now that we've got that bit about Calvin and Luther out of the way.

Ben,

VERY briefly,

Calvin considered the Lord's Supper to be an instrument of God's grace, through which believers commune in the body and blood of Christ. Bullinger explicitly rejected such "instrumentalism" and considered the Supper to be a testimony to or an analogy of God's grace, whereby God testified to the believers, through the analogy of bread and wine nourishing an invigorating our bodies, concerning the salvation and nourishment won in Christ's body and blood received in faith.

It is my contention that Christ communicates and communes with believers THROUGH His "advocate", the Holy Spirit, who He sent. The Spirit, Who is not restricted spatially, He being without a body as does Christ, i.e., He can freely function in His Omnipresence. It was the Lord's purpose in sending the Spirit that He would be "another Comforter" to believers because He would not be able to do so as would the Spirit Who could and would dwell within them and minister to them individually and corporately. Thus, it is the Spirit of God as the representative of Christ Who is actually present in the Supper.

In His Grace,

Ok, thanks.

Pilgrim, this has been very interesting. Not between Luther and Calvin, but the idea that the Reformed position need not totally agree with Calvin.

Would you say the Bullinger views on the Lord's Supper represent the classical Reformed view? What other doctrines have the majority of the Reformed moved away from Calvin? It appears as if so much of the infighting within the Reformed ranks concerns what exactly is and who represents the classical Reformed position. Maybe it is not that easy.

(if this needs to be moved to a new thread, please do so).

Two misconceptions are presented in this thread that need to be corrected.

1. It was Luther who, in the doctrine of communicatic ideomatum, upheld the Chalcedon Creed whereas Calvin and his followers divided the person contrary to "the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons." Justin Cloute in "Reformed Christology: Modern Nestorianism?" writes,

Quote

Reformed theologians claim agreement with the symbol of Chalcedon, but in reality this agreement is only superficial. "On the basis of the philosophical principle that ‘the finite is not capable of the infinite’ (finitum non est capax infiniti), they insist that the Son of God, after the incarnation, is not everywhere present according to his human nature, but that his presence is limited to a single place." [James R. Janke, "’We (still) do not have the same spirit’ A Critique of Contemporary Reformed Christology and Its Impact on the Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper," We Believe in Jesus Christ, ed. Curtis A. Jahn (Milwaukee: NPH, 1999) p.267] Grudem, an author of a popular Reformed dogmatics book,[Systematic Theology] says, "When we are talking about Jesus’ human nature, we can say he ascended to heaven and is no longer in the world (John 16:28; 17:11; Acts 1:9-11). But with respect to his divine nature, we can say that Jesus is everywhere present."Quotations like this one demonstrate that the Reformed do not hold to the unity of person in Christ as it is found in Scripture and as it was affirmed at Chalcedon. To say that Jesus’ human nature is contained within his human body, but that his divine nature supercedes this body and fills everything, is to say that Jesus’ human nature was not always with his divine nature. This is a separation of Christ.

2. Luther rejected consubstantiation which implies a mix or mixture of two substances. He taught a sacramental union of the undivided body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine. Calvin, on the other hand, divided the person, contrary to Chalcedon, and taught that Christ was only spiritually present.

John,

As far as the Lord's Supper and specifically the matter of the "Real Presence", there were several who disagreed with Calvin during his day and those shortly after his death; all whom were of high esteem. I would venture to say that many of those views are still held today in various circles. One of the better books out there that provides some historical data and the debates which took place between parties concerning this matter is Keith Mathison's book, Given For You. I am not qualified to say which view is the "Classic Reformed View", but what I do NOT hold to is the idea that John Calvin is to be the sole source of what Calvinism is. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> What I mean by that is most knowledgeable people in the Reformed camp will agree that John Calvin did not invent/discover the doctrines which have been unfortunately named, "Calvinism". But rather, Calvin, with the gifts given to him "codified" and refined those doctrines which had been believed long before he arrived. Thus, our Reformed faith is that which is most biblical, IMHO, and which has come down to us from the efforts of many men and women who God raised up throughout the centuries as in its development. I'll leave it to the obnoxious "TR's" to fight it out among themselves as to who holds to that which is "THE classic Reformed" view! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> For myself, I'll embrace what I believe the Scriptures teach and which has historical precedence in the church.

What I AM sure of is that speratus' "god", Martin Luther was unfortunately in error in regard to his view of the two natures of Christ and consubstantiation. I suspect that the latter determined how he interpreted (forced upon) Chalcedon to preserve and defend it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Quote

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,

I agree with you that would seem to be a heresy . It would make the trinity up of 3 separate individuals not one God in 3 persons .

That is a very different concept and close to the mormon definition of the "trinity"

Quote

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.

Quote

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

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."

Quote

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."

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.

Quote

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.

Amen! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> 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. However, Chalcedon and the majority of Christian scholars have consistently maintained that in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ co-existed two distinct natures in their fulness; the divine and the human. Thus, the totality of the Son existed in the person of the Lord Christ, i.e., the second person of the Trinity took upon Himself human flesh but without change. He was Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent of necessity else He would not be God. These essential divine attributes are incommunicable as they belong to God alone. This again, Chalcedon insists that there be no confusion of the two natures in the one person of the Lord Christ. Yet, although the two natures were and are separate they are inseparable.

In the present discussion it is Scripture's teaching and my belief, along with myriad others, that the resurrected Christ now sits at the right hand of God in the heavenlies, yet the divine nature within the one person is truly God of very God and thus is Omnipresent.

In His Grace,

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

I don't know where you get your information in regard to what the Reformed churches hold to be true, but it is erroneous. Nestorianism has been strongly refuted by Reformed scholars and in fact, all believers for centuries. 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? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> I personally find this rather ironic given that Luther was one who held tenaciously to Sola Scriptura. You would do well to follow in his footsteps, at least in regard to this fundamental doctrine.

In His Grace,

I have no idea what anyone is talking about, save for the person Christ. Maybe I'm a heretic out of ignorance, but I'd like to understand this further. 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? What is going on here?! Maybe I'm tired or just not intelligent enough for this.

Sincerely seeking the truth,
Ben

Ben,

Quote

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?

I believe the disagreement is on the nature of the hypostatic union not the Trinity or the Incarnation. Perhaps Pilgrim could reference some articles to help you better understand the controvery.

Pilgrim,

Quote

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

Yes, in Him dwells all fulness of the Godhead bodily: Omnipotence Mt 28:18. Omniscience Jn 21:17. Omnipresence Mt 18:20.

Quote

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?

Being a simple layman yet being tasked by Christ to judge doctrine, I let the words of scripture speak for themselves. So I'll let Lutheran theologian Joel Gerlach exegete the revelant text from his "Of the Person of Christ: A Sermon Study on Colossians 2:8–10",

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

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,

"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

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,

Quote

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,

Quote

"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."<br>

Hey Pilgrim I don't mean to disagree here but in this post:
speratus against consubstantiation seperatus 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.

Quote

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.

Well, you are 100% correct in that speratus did clearly deny that Luther taught "consubstantiation", although every source I have read re: the Lutheran view of the "Real Presence" has labeled it "consubstantiation" or "ubiquity". Granted, I have not read every possible source regarding Lutheran sacramental theology and probably speratus has. So, I'll accede to him. Nevertheless, the view that he is espousing, regardless of what he would like to call it, is still contradictory to the teaching of Scripture and the Chalcedon Creed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Quote

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...

All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in the undivided PERSON of the Lord Jesus Christ. The difference in teaching on the hypostatic union is the most important difference between Lutherans and Reformed and explains other doctrinal differences (e.g., sacraments, atonement).

Luther and the Lutheran Church have strongly condemned transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Let me quote the following passages from the Book of Concord. The first from Smalcald Articles was written by Luther; the second from the Formula of Concord quotes Luther.

Quote

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.

Quote

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...

I too, along with Ben, would like to have a deeper and fuller understanding of the “hypostatic union” and am endeavoring to read up on this subject. Meantime though, I have some questions that either Pilgrim or Speratus could field.....or any others:

Quote

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.

Since there is one person with two natures, it seems that this distinction of the “person” of Christ would not be correct. Couldn’t it be said of the person that “whatever may be affirmed of either nature may be affirmed of the person” Hodge Systematic Theology Vol II pg 392

Berkof says: “The person can be said to be almighty, omniscient, omnipresent..and so on...Systematic Theology, pg 324

If this is true...then does it follow as Hodge goes on to say..”....Christ is finite and He is infinite....that He is less than God and equal with God...that He existed from all eternity and He was born in time?”

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.
(“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 and coming together to form one person..”)Chalcedon

Am I understanding correctly here?

Dave

Quote

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.

Absolutely! My point is, albeit perhaps not expressed as clearly as it should have been, that the divine nature retained all its incommunicable attributes while the human nature remained finite, being fully man in the one person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The divine nature is not "Christ". For Christ is the incarnate Son of God, and He having a body cannot be actually, physically present either corporeally or spiritually in the Lord's Supper. The divine Son of God being Omnipresent cannot be contained within the body of Christ. And the body of Christ and the human nature is not Omnipresent. Further, Christ without the divine nature would no longer be truly the Lord Christ; the two natures are inseparable.

What might make this easier to comprehend is by the analogy found, albeit not of two distinct natures, in the makeup of man. A man consists of body and soul, for those of us who are Dichotomists. Although there is a distinction between these two elements, a man isn't a true man unless both body and soul are joined together. Thus, the Lord Christ would not be and cannot be Christ unless both the divine nature and the human nature are joined together in the one person. Thus, it is my contention, along with myriad others, that the PERSON of the Lord Jesus Christ is not physically nor spiritually present in the Supper, for the Person of Christ now sits at the right hand of God. But rather, He is present through the ministry of the Holy Spirit Whom He sent upon His ascension.

In His Grace,

Quote

Pilgrim stated:
What might make this easier to comprehend is by the analogy found, albeit not of two distinct natures, in the makeup of man. A man consists of body and soul, for those of us who are Dichotomists. Although there is a distinction between these two elements, a man isn't a true man unless both body and soul are joined together. Thus, the Lord Christ would not be and cannot be Christ unless both the divine nature and the human nature are joined together in the one person.

Hodge makes a similar analogy:

Quote

”The union of soul and body in the constitution of man is the analogue of the union of the divine and human nature in the person of Christ..... And as the difficulties to the understanding in the union of two distinct substances, matter and mind, in the person of man have induced many to deny the plainest facts of consciousness, so the difficulties of the same kind attending to the doctrine of the union of two natures....in the person of Christ have led many to reject the plainest facts of scripture." Hodge, pg 380

A study of this sort certainly treads upon Holy ground...but as Pink states..in Mediatorial Union.... “Right thoughts of Him are to be esteemed far above all silver and gold.”

Dave

When Pilgrim misspoke, he actually articulated the true doctrine of the Reformed Church. The Reformed accept the words, "one person and subsistence" of the Chalcedon Creed but deny its meaning. Pilgrim even contends that the Son of God and the Son of Man are physically separate beings contrary to Chalcedon, "not as parted or separated into two persons."

The Reformed also misunderstand the Chalcedon "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 characteristics of each nature are preserved and are never mingled, changed, or confused with the other nature.

However, that does not mean there is no communication of the attributes. The Lutheran Concordists use the analogy of iron being heated in a fire. The heat is communicated to the iron but the iron does not give up any of the properties of iron and heat remains a property of the fire. So the characteristics of each nature are preserved without change, division or separation.

If Christ lived, suffered, and died only as a man as the Reform propose, He would be a poor Savior. He would be unable conquer sin, death, and the Devil and atone for the infinite offense of the world of sin and sinners. But, in Him dwells all fulness of the Godhead bodily. He has all power and all knowledge, is always present as He has promised, and His Holy precious blood cleanses us from all sin.

Quote

speratus said:
Pilgrim even contends that the Son of God and the Son of Man are physically separate beings contrary to Chalcedon, "not as parted or separated into two persons."

And here, dear people, is another perfect example of what happens when you become sold out to a denomination and its official documents and "Sola Scriptura" becomes nothing more than a by-word with no real practical use. In fact, it would appear that studying the Bible is not something which is to be cherished. I see more Romanism than Lutheranism in your responses, speratus! [Linked Image]

First of all I have NEVER even hinted that there were two separate "beings" in Christ Jesus. The distinctions I have made have been crystal clear and true to Chalcedon; e.g., there are two NATURES in the one PERSON. So, you have misconstrued what I've written many times over in my replies.

Second, due to your lack of Biblical knowledge, you have made a faux pas, not realizing that the phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" can be synonymous in Scripture. In the O.T., the phrase, "Son of Man" also referred to deity. (cf. Dan 7:13, 14) and in the N.T. the phrase, taken from the O.T. usage likewise refers to deity. (cf. Matt 9:6; 10:23; 12:8; 13:41; 16:27, 28; Jh 3:13; et al). Further, it would not be correct to refer to the human nature of Christ as the "son of man" for indeed His origin was of the Holy Spirit and not Joseph. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

So again, the "Son of God", i.e., the second person of the Trinity is equal with God and is God (Jh 1:1) and thus possesses the INcommunicable attributes of Omnipresence, Omnipotence, and Omniscience. When He took upon human flesh, the Son of God remained fully God and His deity was never intermixed with the human nature with which He co-existed in the one Person.

On that note I shall leave you to your musings and your Lutheran authors on this subject. I much prefer to spend my time in Scripture and discussing Scripture. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Quote

Second, due to your lack of Biblical knowledge, you have made a faux pas, not realizing that the phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" can be synonymous in Scripture.

They are synonymous in Scripture. That was my point. If I misstated your position, I apologize. Since you said the divine nature resides where the human nature does not and there is no communication between them, I assumed you meant there were two beings.

I also tire of this. I am withdrawing from active discussion except to answer specific questions.

Quote

speratus said:
Since you said the divine nature resides where the human nature does not and there is no communication between them, I assumed you meant there were two beings.

Just a quick rebuttal and then I'm off. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I have NEVER said that there was "no communication" between the two natures. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> What I have insisted upon is that the INCOMMUNICABLE attributes of the Son of God; the divine nature in Christ, are just that... IN-communicable, i.e., they cannot be shared, delegated, etc., with finite man nor with anything else that has been created by God. They belong to Him and Him alone since there is but one GOD. I also stated quite succinctly, that the COMMUNICABLE attributes, which all men are given to one degree or another were also given and possessed by the human nature of Christ.

Perhaps you are so obsessed with seeing everyone outside of your little group, aka: "the one true Church" to the exclusion of every other on earth, that you are blinded to not only the truth but you can't even read someone's words without twisting them so that they can be found erroneous from which you then create a strawman you can burn them at the stake? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> Doubtless, I have enough errors in my thinking that I have no need of someone like yourself fabricating more of them which I do not believe. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I seriously doubt that Martin Luther treated Calvin or his writings in the manner you do mine and others here. Nor do I have any doubt that Luther actually believed that he and he alone was infallible and that his followers were the "only true Church". So, if I may be so bold as to suggest but something else to you . . . that if you are going to follow an earthly man, that you at least emulate some of the virtues which his possessed.

In His Grace,

Just a quick comment on your rebuttal. I did miss the distinction between no communication at all and no communication of divine attributes to the human nature for which I apologize.