theory in Germany. Dr. Howard Crosby has maintained a similar view in America.

The theory of Thomasius, Delitzsch and Crosby has been, though improperly, called the theory of the Kenosis (from ejke>nwsen ? ?emptied himself? ? in <502007>Philippians 2:7) and its advocates are often called Kenotic theologians. There is a Kenosis of the Logos but it is of a different sort from that which this theory supposes. For statements of this theory, see Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 2:233-255, 542-550; Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 323-333; Howard Crosby, in Bap. Quar., 1870:350-363 ? a discourse subsequently published in a separate volume, with the title: The True Humanity of Christ, and reviewed by Shedd, in Presb. Rev., April, 1881:429-431. Crosby emphasizes the word ?became,? in <430114>John 1:14 ? ?and the Word became flesh? ? and gives the word ?flesh? the sense of ?man,? or ?human.? Crosby, then, should logically deny, though he does not deny, that Christ?s body was derived from the Virgin.

We object to this view that:

(a) It contradicts the Scriptures already referred to, in which Christ asserts his divine knowledge and power. Divinity, it is said, can give up its world- functions, for it existed without these before creation. But to give up divine attributes is to give up the substance of the Godhead. Nor is it a sufficient reply to say that only the relative attributes are given up, while the immanent attributes, which chiefly characterize the Godhead, are retained for the immanent necessarily involve the relative, as the greater involve the less.

Liebner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 3:349-356 ? ?Is the Logos here? But wherein does he show his presence, that it may be known?? Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, 11th ed., 217, note. John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 2:125-146, criticizes the theory of the Kenosis but grants that, with all its self-contradictions as he regards them, it is an attempt to render conceivable the profound truth of a sympathizing, self-sacrificing God.

(b) Since the Logos, in uniting himself to a human soul, reduces himself to the condition and limitations of a human soul, the theory is virtually a theory of the coexistence of two human souls in Christ. The union of two finite souls is more difficult to explain than the union of a finite and an infinite, since there can be in the former case no intelligent guidance and control of the human element by the divine.

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment