Seven Questions on the Two Natures in Christ

Seven Questions About The Two Natures by Bill Grover

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2XOC6T06V2WAO?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

My Communio group is into the Incarnation section of Part III of the Summa Theologica, which raises issues about the relationship of the divine and human natures of the divine Logos in the hypostatic union. This is obviously unclearly territory fraught with much misunderstanding. This is a book about those misunderstandings. The author Bill Grover is an Evangelical with, I assume, a Calvinist background. The aim of his book is to question the lack of agreement among modern Evangelical theologians.

And there is a lot of disagreement, some of which verges, or steps directly into, notorious heresies.

The chapter breakdown should give the reader a good idea of the topics covered by this book:

Chapter 1: How Do Evangelical Scholars Disagree about the Two Natures in Christ?
Chapter 2: Does the Bible Require that We Learn Theology and Christology?
Chapter 3: Is the Son Eternally Begotten?
Chapter 4: Is the Son Eternally Role-Subordinate?
Chapter 5: Does Christ Have a Distinct Human Center That Wills, Acts, and Experiences?
Chapter 6: Did Christ Lose the Use of Divine Powers in the Incarnation?
Chapter 7: Does Christ's Divine Nature Give Divine Attributes to His Human

Chapter 1 is a survey of the literature of modern Evangelical theology concerning the incarnation. Evangelical theologians are all over the map on a lot of different issues, including the eternal begetting of the Logos by the Father, the equality of the Persons of God, and whether the divine nature of Christ includes divine properties. This last point introduces the concept of “modified kenoticism” which argues that during the Incarnation, the Logos gave up all divine properties. Grover writes:

“McCall is confusing regarding what modified kenoticism teaches regarding the ignorance of Christ as in Mark 13:32. He says this view teaches that the ignorance is predicated to only one nature, not to the Person.63 One could understand that one nature to be the humanity as this section is about the human nature. But the implication is that in the other nature (the divinity), the Son is not ignorant. But Feenstra, who adheres to modified kenoticism, rather teaches that the Son of God “during His life on earth was not omniscient.”

Grover acknowledges that he cannot accept “modified kenoticism,” which, frankly, is inconsistent with Chalcedonian Christianity. Chalcedon affirmed that Christ was fully God, which is contradicted by a “Godless” divine nature. In addition, the idea that God can give up divine power misconceives God's relationship with creation, i.e., that God maintains creation in existence at all times. A God who stops acting as God means a universe that stops existing. (For purposes of the Trinity, each person of the Trinity acts with respect to creation.)

Chapter 2 provides a good discussion of why this level of theology matters. Briefly, believers are instructed to hold to traditions:

“1. Believers must adhere to doctrinal tradition. “Hold to the traditions we taught you whether by speech or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). The plural noun (traditions) is paradoseis. This substantive refers to the transmission of doctrine.73 It appears at times to assume a fixed verbal form of teaching as in 1 Corinthians 11:23, where Paul recalls the Lord Jesus' words in the Gospel account of the Last Supper. Buchsel notes that Christian teaching is the tradition which must be kept, according to 1 Corinthians 15:2 because salvation depends on keeping it.74 The text in 2 Thessalonians alludes to all doctrinal teachings of Paul to that church. One should not think that the apostle would expect less of other churches. So, by extrapolation, members of churches in the Christian tradition today should adhere to the Pauline theology, including topics as Christ's Person, salvation, the work of the Holy Spirit, the Church's ordinances and officers, the after-life, and the Second Coming.”

In addition, Christians are affirmatively charged with learning and defending doctrine. (“Growing in the knowledge of God” (Col. 1:10); “We must progress beyond the elementary instruction about Christ” (Heb. 6:1).) Grover's arguments correspond to the Observations of Robert Louis Wilken in “The Spirit of Christian Thought” that Christianity has been intellectual from the beginning. For those of us who find theology important and enlightening this is a useful reminder that theology is important and enlightening.

Chapter 3 addresses the Evangelical position on whether Jesus is “eternally begotten.” Under Christian creeds, this should not be a difficult question, which makes this observation surprising:

“Erickson (2013 reprint) and Grudem (1994) reject the tenet of the eternal generation of the Son. The subject index in Erickson does not even include a reference to it, and in his discussion of the Trinity, he makes no mention of the doctrine. In 2000, Grudem added an appendix to his 1994 systematic in which he suggests the doctrine of eternal generation should be abandoned in theology textbooks.118 It is reported that Grudem, in 2016, changed his view and now believes the Son to be eternally begotten.”

And:

“As for making the Nicene creed, itself, normative, Charles Hodge expresses belief that the Nicene fathers wrongly decided eternal generation meant a derivation of essence; Hodge states it is instead the Person of the Son which was generated.”

And:

“The Heidelberg Catechism mentions the only begotten Son but does not reference eternal generation. The Augsburg Confession (1530), in Art. III on the Son of God, does not reference eternal generation, but earlier, in Art. 1, indicates agreement with the Nicene Synod. But none of these say the begetting is ongoing or that the Son receives essence or deity by it.”

Some of the concern with eternal generation involves a concern with placing the logos into a subservient position vis a vis the Father. There is also a concern with the meaning of “monogenes” which Grover explains does not clearly mean begotten.

I don't know what Grover's take is on this issue. The answers to these issues are clearly established within Catholicism's Thomistic tradition. The lesson I took away was that having a tradition that makes all theological answers provisional is one that has to constantly be re-inventing itself.

Chapter 4 deals with the Trinitarian question of whether Christ was subordinate to God. The Thomistic answer is that Christ's human nature was subordinate to God, and to all the persons of God, including the Logos, whereas none of the Trinity is subordinate to any of the other Persons. In part, this is because the Trinity share the same will, power, essence, and memory; what distinguishes the Persons of the Trinity is their origin with respect to each other.

Evangelicals have largely jettisoned this tradition, which raises a lot of questions:

“Yet, a number of modern theologians teach there are three powers of will in God and inhere the wills rather in the Persons of God. Again, I am surprised by Erickson in this matter because of his supporting the possibility of three wills in God. I am surprised because the one will theory, as Giles shows, is a better posture for rejecting eternal role-subordination.248 And Erickson rejects eternal role-subordination. Erickson states Luke 22:42 evidences a difference between the will of the Father and the will of the Son, but he quickly adds this text may allude only to the human will of Christ.”

The distinction between the human and divine wills was accepted by St. Augustine, which makes the confusion perplexing. (To be fair, Grover points out that there are Evangelicals who accept that God has one will.) Grover points out a number of scriptural passages that would seem to supports a subordinationist position, which he then distinguishes.

Chapter 5 deals with the issue of whether Christ has a “human center” that thinks and wills. The Thomistic answer is that the Logos assumed a human nature. Thus, it is the Logos that lives as a human person, which involves understanding and willing as a human being. This same person also wills and understands as God. So, the answer is both yes and no.

The problem is that failing to find the proper balance either divides the Incarnation into two persons (Nestorianism) or erases one nature in practical effect (Monophysitism). Grover provides an excellent survey of the issues and history of the issue that is worth reading.

Chapter 6 is perhaps the most interesting chapter of the book. I had not heard of “modified kenoticism” before reading this book, although I had been involved in an internet debate with a person making such an argument a few months back.

Grover explains that “Modified kenoticism—also called “functional kenoticism”—is the belief that when incarnating, Christ had to give up the use of some divine attributes.” One can see the attraction of this position because it makes understanding the Incarnation much easier; there is no confusing balancing of human and divine natures, it is functionally all human. In other words, this is Monophysitism but with the divine nature erased or overwritten rather than the human.

What surprised me is how popular this position is. One has to wonder if this has something to do with modernity and a desire for a God who suffers with us, perhaps, making God less culpable for the horrors of existence.

Chapter 7 asks whether God's divine attributes were communicated to Christ's human nature. The traditional position going back to at least St. Augustine is labeled the “communication idiomatum” which says that since the person who is Jesus is the Logos, it is proper to attribute human powers and properties to the Logos, but not to the Father, and since the Logos is God, to God. Thus, it can properly be said that the Logos died on the Cross, or that God died on the Cross, with the understanding that this means “in His human nature.” On the other hand, divine attributes cannot be ascribed to humanity in general; God became man, man did not become God.

This is a complicated area that leads to differences between different traditions:

“Pieper at length explains the genera of the Lutheran understanding of the communication of attributes. The first is the genus idiomaticum, which is that because Christ is one Person, the attributes of both natures belong to the Person.472 The second is the genus maiestaticum, which is that the humanity of Christ is given divine attributes.473 The third the genus apotelesmaticum, is the belief that all the works of Christ are attributable to both natures.474 Then, of course, the humanity participates in the use of the divine attributes. Of the three, the Reformed only accept the first.”

Likewise,

“Pieper proceeds to demonstrate the humanity of Christ also is omniscient. He uses John 3:31–32 as evidence that the Son knew all that other members of the Trinity knew, and that because that knowledge took place in and through the humanity, therefore, the humanity is omniscient. Pieper asserts that in the case of Mark 13:32, the divine omniscience of the human nature did not always “become functional.” The divine knowledge is “dormant” in Christ's human nature. Christ has only one consciousness, so the human nature is also omniscient.”

This seems to be the opposite of “modified kenoticism” and a move in the direction of “functional Monophytism” (however much the advocates of this position explain that they do not reject the two natures.)

The Thomistic answer to the problem that Christ is one person whose human nature had the maximal natural human knowledge (infused/prophetic knowledge) and the beatific vision at all times during his life. This creates its own problems such as explaining why Jesus said that no one knew the time of the end of the world except the Father.

I found this book interesting and useful in being a survey of Evangelical approaches to fundamental questions. Many of those questions are dead issues in my tradition, having been resolved a long time ago. It's revealing to find that these questions remain live and that the answers given by my tradition are as live today as they were in the time of St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas.

Each chapter ends with the author's summary and a set of questions for readers to answer.