.
.
Subsection
The Grounds of Christ the Mediator Receiving Divine Worship
.
.
Contents
Articles
That Christ’s Human Nature was from Mary
That Christ has a Human & a Divine Will
.
.
Articles
1800’s
Bavinck, Herman – The Divine and Human Natures of Christ, no date or source info
Brown, Charles – The Divine Glory of Christ, 1868, 134 pages
This short book collects the teachings of the scriptures regarding the divinity and glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, while aiming at heart-stirring devotion.
Cunningham, William – Evidence for the Divinity of Christ, p. 213, 23 pages, from his Historical Theology, vol. 2
.
1900’s
Berkhof, Louis – The Names and Natures of Christ, 1950, 21 paragraphs, from his Systematic Theology
.
.
That Christ’s Human Nature was from Mary (and not created ex nihilo)
Hooper, John – ‘A Lesson of the Incarnation of Christ’ in Later Writings (Parker Society), pp. 1-18
Turretin, Francis – 13th Topic, Q. 5, ‘Was the human nature assumed by the Logos like ours in all respects (sin excepted) and his flesh taken from the substance of the blessed virgin; or did it come down from heaven? The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Anabaptists.’ in Institutes (P&R), vol. 2, pp. 306-310
.
.
That Christ has a Human & a Divine Will
Intro
This controversy, whether Christ has one will (monothelitism) or two wills (dyothelitism) was decided in the early Church at the Third Council of Constantinople (the 6th ecumenical council) in A.D. 681.
It was (rightly) determined that ‘will’ is a property of ‘nature’, and not of ‘person’. Hence, as Christ has two natures, so He has two wills, one human, creaturely and finite, and one divine, uncreated and infinite; both are willed by his one and the same Person.
.
Francis Turretin
Institutes (P&R), vol. 2, 13th Topic, Q. 7, ‘Was the hypostatical union of the two natures of Christ such that neither the person is divided nor the natures confounded? We affirm against Nestorius & Eutyches.’, pp. 320-21
“XIII. A second rock to be avoided here is Eutychianism… who… confounded the two natures into one… one nature is neither changed nor converted by the hypostatical union into the other. Nor are the natures so confounded or mixed with each other that each of them does not retain its own properties and conditions.
XIV. The reasons are: (1) the opposition of the two natures in Christ is frequent in Scripture (Rom. 1:3; 1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 9:14; Jn. 1:14; Phil. 2:6-7, 11); (2) two wills are ascribed to Him (‘not my will, but thine, be done,’ Lk. 22:42). Nor does it follow that there are two [persons] willing because the will belongs to the nature, while willing belongs to the person; nor is it evident that the will follows personally forthwith because in God there are three persons, but only one will. (3) Contraries are ascribed to Christ, which could not be if there were not two natures in Him (as that He would depart from the world and remain with us forever; that a child was born, who is the Father of eternity; that He suffered death and was made alive; in the form of God and in the form of a servant, etc.).
XV. Although the efficient cause of the operations of Christ is one alone, still the exciting cause is twofold–the divinity and humanity. The work upon which both exciting (egergema) causes exert their power is one, but the action (energeia) is twofold.”
.
.
.
“Remember that though it was not the eternal Godhead that suffered, but the humanity, it was a person and not a nature that suffered – God-man.”
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan
.
.
Books
Miller, Samuel
Letters on the Eternal Sonship of Christ: addressed to the Rev. professor Stuart, of Andover 1823 308 pp. 8 letters specifically aimed at Unitarianism
Letters on Unitarianism : addressed to the members of the First Presbyterian Church, in the City of Baltimore1821 328 pp. this specifically addresses the person and divinity of Christ
.
.
“The Son of Man is the Son of God.”
“Human excellency in its perfection united to eternal Godhead.”
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan
.
.
.
Related Pages