the beginning, then, this man is not yet the God-man; the Logos only works in him, and on him. ?The unio personalis grows and completes itself and becomes ever more all-sided and complete. Till the resurrection, there is a relative separability still.? Thus Dorner?s views are. But the Scripture knows nothing of an ethical relation of the divine to the human in Christ?s person. It knows only of one divine-human subject.? See also Thomasius, 2:80-92.
(c) While this theory asserts a final complete union of God and man in Jesus Christ, it renders this union far more difficult to reason, by involving the merging of two persons in one, rather than the union of two natures in one person. We have seen, moreover, that the Scripture gives no countenance to the doctrine of a double personality during the earthly life of Christ. The God-man never says: ?I and the Logos are one?; ?he that hath seen me hath seen the Logos?; ?the Logos is greater than I?; ?I go to the Logos.? In the absence of all Scripture evidence in favor of this theory, we must regard the rational and dogmatic arguments against it as conclusive.
Liebner, in Jahrbuch f. d. Theologie, 3:349-366, urges, against Dorner, that there is no sign in Scripture, of such communion between the two natures of Christ as exists between the three persons of the Trinity. Philippi also objects to Dorner?s view on the basis that it implies a pantheistic identity of essence in both God and man, it makes the resurrection, not the birth, the time when the Word became flesh and that it does not explain how two personalities can become one. See Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:364-380. Philippi quotes Dorner as saying: ?The unity of essence of God and man is the great discovery of this age.? But that Dorner was no pantheist appears from the following quotations from his Hist. Doctrine of the Person of Christ, II, 3:5, 23 , 69, 115 ? ?Protestant philosophy has brought about the recognition of the essential connection and unity of the human and the divine. To the theology of the present day, the divine and human are not mutually exclusive but connected magnitudes, having an inward relation to each other and reciprocally confirming each other, by which view both separation and identification are set aside. And now the common task of carrying on the union of faculties and qualities to a union of essence was devolved on both. The difference between them is that only God has aseity. Were we to set our face against every view which represents the divine and human as intimately and essentially related, we should be willfully throwing away the gains of centuries and returning to a soil where a Christology is an absolute impossibility.?
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?