re-posted and revised from October, 2007 at the old HB
—
Over at the Puritanboard Sebastian asks
I find often that people think the Refgormed undiscrimantely reject(ed) the communicatio idiomatum. However, the 2nd Helvetic Confession is as clear as any in accepting it. However, it does not qualify the way later theological formulations do. The text of the confession is:
"For we accept believingly and reverently the 'communication of properties,' which is deduced from the Scriptures and employed by the ancient Church in explaining and harmonizing seemingly contradictory passages." (Ch. XI,11)
The note in the Schaff edition elaborates:
"'Nam communicationem idiomatum ex Scripturis petitam et ab universa vetustate in explicandis componendisque Scripturarum locis in speciem pugnantibus usurpatam, religiose et reverenter recipimus et usurpamus.' It is an error, therefore, to charge the Reformed Church with rejecting the communicatio idiomatum. It admits the communication of the properties of one nature to the whole person, but denies the communication of the properties of one nature to the other, viz., the genus majestaticum, so called, whereby the infinite attributes of the divine nature (as omnipresence and omnipotence) are ascribed to the human nature, and the genus tapeinoticon, whereby the finite attributes of the human nature are ascribed to the divine. Either of these forms leads necessarily to a Eutychian confusion of natures. The Lutheran Church teaches the genus majestaticum, as a support to its doctrine of the Eucharist, but rejects the genus tapeinoticon."
Is that correct?
Is that a case of comunicatio idiomatum in concreto (Reformed view) versus CI in abstracto (Lutheran view)?
Sebastian,
This is a great point.
We (the confessional Lutheran and Reformed) do have a different doctrines of the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties). Even if we don't always use the expression our theologians and confessions do teach that what can be said of a given nature can be said of the person. The confessional Lutherans, on the other hand, say that what can be said of the person (e.g., he is ubiquitous - i.e., everywhere) can be said of any particular nature. Therefore, for the Lutherans, his humanity can be said to be ubiquitous.
In short, yes, Schaff is basically right.
Bullinger does implicitly qualify what he means. Notice that he says "Our Lord truly suffered." He goes on to say that "we do not deny that the Lord of glory was crucified for us." When he says "we do not deny" he's responding to the gnesio (genuine) Lutherans who alleged that unless one holds their Christology one necessarily denies that the Lord of Glory was crucified. In other words, the whole discussion is framed with reference to the questions posed by the Lutheran critics. Those critics had been particularly hostile to the Swiss Reformed for 40 years by the time this confession was published.
We can see him positing the Reformed communicatio when he says that "the same Jesus Christ our Lord, in his true flesh in which he was crucified and died, rose again from the dead, and that not another flesh was raised other than the one buried…." This is a direct re-assertion of the Reformed Christology over against the Lutheran doctrine that in his glorification (or before) the humanity began to partake of the properties of the deity. It's also a denial of the claim that the Reformed are rationalist for holding this view. We're not reducing the mystery of the incarnation but we are preserving, per Chalcedon, the true humanity of Jesus. His humanity is consubstantial with ours and the Lutherans cannot really say this. For the Lutherans Jesus has a one-of-a-kind humanity. Notice too that Bullinger stipulated explicitly the creeds to which the Reformed subscribe.
"The Creeds of Four Councils Received. And, to say many things with a few words, with a sincere heart we believe, and freely confess with open mouth, whatever things are defined from the Holy Scriptures concerning the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and are summed up in the Creeds and decrees of the first four most excellent synods convened at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon–together with the creed of blessed Athananasius…."
This is an assertion of the catholicity of the Reformed
communicatio.
And now a word from our sponsor. This post brought to you by Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant which contains an entire chapter on this very topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment