Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 1:397-408 ? ?The impossibility of making two finite souls into one finally drove Arianism to the denial of any human soul in Christ? (Apollinarianism). This statement of Dorner, which we have already quoted in our account of Apollinarianism, illustrates the similar impossibility, upon the theory of Thomasius, of constructing out of two finite souls the person of Christ. See also Hovey, God with Us, 68.
(c) This theory fails to secure its end which is that of making comprehensible the human development of Jesus, for even though divested of the relative attributes of God-hood, the Logos still retains his divine self- consciousness, together with his immanent attributes of holiness, love, and truth. This is as difficult to reconcile with a purely natural human development as the possession of the relative divine attributes would be. The theory logically leads to a further denial of the possession of any divine attributes or of any divine consciousness at all on the part of Christ and merges itself in the view of Gess and Beecher that the Godhead of the Logos is actually transformed into a human soul.
Kahnis, Dogmatik, 3:343 ? ?The old theology conceived of Christ as in full and unbroken use of the divine self-consciousness, the divine attributes and the divine world-functions from the conception until death. Though Jesus, as futus, child, boy was not almighty and omnipresent according to his human nature yet he was so, as to his divine nature, which constituted one ego with his human. Thomasius, however, declared that the Logos gave up his relative attributes, during his sojourn in flesh. Dorner?s objection to this, on the ground of the divine unchangeableness, overshoots the mark, because it makes any becoming impossible.
?But some things in Thomasius? doctrine are still difficult. Divinity can certainly give up its world-functions for it has existed without these before the world was. In the nature of an absolute personality, however, lies an absolute knowing, willing and feeling which it cannot give up. Hence
<501706> Philippians 2:6-11 speaks of a giving up of divine glory but not of a giving up of divine attributes or nature. Little is gained by such an assumption of the giving up of relative attributes, since the Logos, even while divested of a part of his attributes, still has full possession of his divine self-consciousness, which must make a purely human development no less difficult. The expressions of divine self-consciousness, the works of divine power and the words of divine wisdom prove that Jesus was in possession of his divine self-consciousness and attributes.
?The essential thing which the Kenotics aim at, however, stands fast, namely, that the divine personality of the Logos divested itself of its glory
Was this article helpful?