-Q
To be clear, it is an altogether false assumption that the Christian Church arrived at the true knowledge of the Person of Christ only in the course of time and that before the ecclesiastical termini were coined, this knowledge was lacking. Luther is perfectly right when he sets forth that the true doctrine of the Person of Christ, inclusive of the cornmunicatio idiomatum, was known and believed in Christendom from the very beginning, before any council passed any resolution, on the basis of the clear statements of Scripture. All that our Confessions teach concerning the Person of Christ every Christian knows and believes because it is found clearly revealed in the Word of the Prophets and Apostles.
The Christian believes that there are two natures in Christ, for he reads or hears that the eternal Son of God became man through the Virgin Mary (Gal. 4:4–5; John 1:1–2, 14). He does not doubt the unity of the Person, for he reads in Scripture that one and the same Jesus presents Himself as the Son of Man and the Son of the living God Matt. 16:13–17). He entertains no doubt about the real communion of natures, for Scripture tells him that the fullness of the Godhead dwells not beside, but in the human nature of Christ as in its body (Col. 2:9). He believes, on the testimony of Scripture, that the Lord of Glory was crucified (1 Cor. 2:8) and that this gives to the suffering and death of Christ its value (Rom. 5:10; 1 John 1:7). (First genus of the communication of attributes.) The Christian further believes, on the testimony of Scripture, that to Christ was given, here in time, according to His human nature, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. (Matt. 28:18; Matt. 11:27; John 3:34–35.) The thought is foreign to his mind that the omnipotence, omniscience, etc., of which Scripture speaks, may designate merely “finite, great gifts.” And when Christ promises His Church that He will be with her always even unto the end of the world (Matt. 28:20), he cannot but think of this theanthropic Savior as being present, not without and outside His human nature, but with and within it, i.e., he ascribes to Christ also according to His human nature omnipotence, omniscience, and, equally so, omnipresence. (Second genus of the communication of attributes.) And when Scripture states that the Son of God appeared in the flesh to destroy through His activity in the assumed flesh and through the assumed flesh the works of the devil and to save mankind (1 John 3:8; Heb. 2:14–15), the Christian understands this to mean exactly that Christ performs His official acts as Prophet, Priest, and King not beside, but in and through, the assumed human nature, i.e., according to both natures. He believes the una actio ?????????, even though the term may be unfamiliar to him. (Third genus.) He repudiates the notion that the finite is not capable of the infinite (finitum non est capax infiniti), for Scripture has convinced him that the Son of God did actually become partaker of flesh and blood, that therefore the Infinite has been united with the finite into one Person. This short summary, based on clear Scripture passages, contains the entire doctrine of Christ’s Person in its farthest reaches—and all of it is intelligible to every Christian.
That applies also to the theologian. As Seeberg correctly remarks, if one grants the personal union of God and man in Christ, he will necessarily have to teach the most intimate communion of the natures and the communication of attributes.
I would also re-read the Athanasian Creed again. It’s also helpful.
In His service and in yours,
–Brandt Hoffman
Anchorage, AK
