It is objectionable for the following reasons:
(a) The Scripture plainly teaches that that which was born of Man was as completely Son of God as Son of man was ( <420135>Luke 1:35); and that in the incarnating act and not at his resurrection, Jesus Christ became the God- man ( <502007>Philippians 2:7). But this theory virtually teaches the birth of man who subsequently and gradually became the God-man, by consciously appropriating the Logos to whom he sustained ethical relations. Relation, with regard to which, the Scripture is entirely silent. Its radical error is that of mistaking an incomplete consciousness of the union for an incomplete union.
In <420135>Luke 1:35 ? ?the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God? ? and <502007>Philippians 2:7 ? ?emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men? ? we have evidence that Christ was both Son of God and Son of man from the very beginning of his earthly life. But according to Dorner, before there was any human consciousness, the personality Jesus Christ was not divine- human.
(b) Since consciousness and will belong to personality, as distinguished from nature, the hypothesis of a mutual, conscious and voluntary appropriation of divinity by humanity and of humanity by divinity, during the earthly life of Christ, is but a more subtle form of the Nestorian doctrine of a double personality. It follows, moreover, that as these two personalities do not become absolutely one until the resurrection, the death of the man Jesus Christ, to whom the Logos has not yet fully united himself, cannot possess an infinite atoning efficacy.
Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 2:68-70, objects to Dorner?s view, that it ?leads us to a man who is in intimate communion with God, a man of God but not a man who is God.? He maintains, against Dorner, that ?the union between the divine and human in Christ exists before the consciousness of it.? 193-195 ? Dorner?s view ?makes each element, the divine and the human, long for the other and reach its truth and reality only in the other. This, so far as the divine is concerned, is very like pantheism. Two willing personalities are presupposed, with ethical relation to each other, two persons, at least at the first. Says Dorner: ?So long as the manhood is yet unconscious, the person of the Logos is not yet the central ego of this man. At the beginning, the Logos does not impart himself, so far as he is person or self-consciousness. He keeps apart by himself just in proportion as the manhood fails in power of perception.? At
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?