Communicatio idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates by Richard Cross

2020 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 322-326
Author(s):  
Corey L. Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Communicatio Idiomatum

Communicatio Idiomatum

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Cross
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Human Nature ◽  
Close Attention ◽  
Divine Attributes ◽  
Son Of God ◽  
Comprehensive Account ◽  
Highly Sensitive ◽  
The Reformation ◽  
Communicatio Idiomatum

This book offers a radical reinterpretation of the sixteenth-century Christological debates between Lutheran and Reformed theologians on the ascription of divine and human predicates to the person of the incarnate Son of God (the communicatio idiomatum). It does so by close attention to the arguments deployed by the protagonists in the discussion, and to the theologians’ metaphysical and semantic assumptions, explicit and implicit. It traces the central contours of the Christological debates, from the discussion between Luther and Zwingli in the 1520s to the Colloquy of Montbéliard in 1586. The book shows that Luther’s Christology is thoroughly Medieval, and that innovations usually associated with Luther—in particular, that Christ’s human nature comes to share in divine attributes—should be ascribed instead to his younger contemporary Johannes Brenz. The discussion is highly sensitive to the differences between the various Luther groups—followers of Brenz, and the different factions aligned in varying ways with Melanchthon—and to the differences between all of these and the Reformed theologians. And by locating the Christological discussions in their immediate Medieval background, the book also provides a comprehensive account of the continuities and discontinuities between the two eras. In these ways, it is shown that the standard interpretations of the Reformation debates on the matter are almost wholly mistaken.

scholarly journals Obrona integralnego człowieczeństwa Chrystusa przeciw apolinaryzmowi w dziełach Epifaniusza z Salaminy

Vox Patrum ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 253-269
Author(s):  
Roland Marcin Pancerz
Keyword(s):  
Human Nature ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Church Fathers ◽  
Hypostatic Union ◽  
Apostolic Fathers ◽  
Communicatio Idiomatum ◽  
The One ◽  
In The Beginning ◽  
The Church ◽  
Technical Terms

Epiphanius of Salamis was one of the Church Fathers, who reacted resolutely against incorrect Christology of Apollinaris of Laodicea. The latter asserted that the divine Logos took the place of Christ’s human mind (noàj). In the beginning, the bishop of Salamis tackled the problem of Christ’s human body, since – as he told himself – followers of Apollinaris, that arrived in Cyprus, put about incorrect doctrine on the Saviour’s body. Among other things, they asserted it was consub­stantial with his godhead. Beyond doubt, this idea constituted a deformation of the original thought of Apollinaris. Anyway, Epiphanius opposing that error took up again expressions, which had been employed before by the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists in the fight against Docetism. Besides, Epiphanius told that some followers of Apollinaris denied the exi­stence of Christ’s human soul (yuc»). Also in this matter, in all probability, we come across a deformation of the original doctrine of the bishop of Laodicea. A real controversy with Apollinaris was the defence of the human mind of the Sa­viour. Epiphanius emphasized that He becoming man took all components of hu­man nature: “body, soul, mind and everything that man is”, in accordance with the axiom “What is not assumed is not saved” (Quod non assumptum, non sanatum). A proof of the integrity of human nature was the reasonable human feelings the Saviour experienced (hunger, tiredness, sorrow, anxiety) as well as knowledge he had to gain partly from experience, which was witnessed by Luke 2, 52. In the lat­ter question, the bishop of Salamis was a forerunner of contemporary Christology. The fact that Epiphanius admitted a complete human nature in Christ didn’t bring dividing the incarnate Logos into two persons. Although the bishop of Sa­lamis didn’t use technical terms for the one person of Jesus Christ, he outlined nonetheless the idea of the hypostatic union in his own words, as well as through employing the rule of the communicatio idiomatum. The ontological union of the divine Logos with his human nature assured Christ’s holiness, too.

scholarly journals The Gift in Martin Luther’s Theology

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Kristian Holm
Keyword(s):  
Gift Exchange ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
Gift Economy ◽  
Social Fact ◽  
The Gift ◽  
Justification By Faith ◽  
Proper Name ◽  
Communicatio Idiomatum ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Late Renaissance

In analyzing the role of gift and giving in Martin Luther’s theology, one almost inevitably has to deal with the contrast between Marcel Mauss’s description of archaic gift economy, where gifts and exchange are interconnected and gift exchange a total social fact, and Derrida’s critique of Mauss for talking of anything else but the gift, since only a gift uncontaminated by exchange deserves the proper name “gift.” Accordingly, any reading of Luther relating Luther’s theology to the reciprocity of giving seems, from the outset, to grasp anything but the cornerstone of his theology: the justification by faith alone apart from works of the law. Nevertheless, scholars in the early 21st century have been discussing Luther as a theologian of the gift. Some defend a position according to which Luther’s theology can only be rightly understood by maintaining that the divine gift is free and pure. Others argue that Luther’s mature theology allows for an integration of some kind of exchange as a vital part of the very doctrine of justification. In both cases, social anthropological gift studies can function as a lens for highlighting the heart of Luther’s theology, either negatively by presenting the absolute opposite of Luther’s understanding of divine giving in justification and creation or positively by revealing the very heart of the same. The young Luther vehemently criticized a piety regulated by economic principles and understood divine righteousness in contrast to human principles for righteousness. However, he soon began integrating reciprocal aspects from the traditional definition of righteousness into his doctrine of justification. This was possible due to an emphasis on the divine self-giving, revealed in Christ and slowly elaborated to cover Luther’s understanding of the whole Trinity. In this move, Luther seemed to have been influenced by Roman popular philosophy, which was widespread in the late renaissance, but biblical passages emphasizing reciprocal justice also played an important role. Advocators for understanding Luther’s theology from the perspective of inter-human gift exchange will argue that Luther’s theology of the gift is intimately related to his use of the figure of communicatio idiomatum, which allows the giver to share his attributes with the receiver.

Tertullian and the Crucified God

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 298-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Rankin
Keyword(s):  
Fifth Century ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Third Century ◽  
Early Form ◽  
Cyril Of Alexandria ◽  
The Third ◽  
Restricted Sense ◽  
Communicatio Idiomatum ◽  
Definition Of

The Christological doctrine of the “communicatio idiomatum” requires that whatever is predicated of one nature of Christ — human or divine — may be predicated of either. It was a major feature of the thought of Cyril of Alexandria and the Alexandrian school generally but denied by most of the Antiochene school. It was accepted in a restricted sense by Leo of Rome but largely ignored in the documents of the mid-fifth century Council of Chalcedon. It appears nowhere in that council's Definition of Faith. This paper suggests that an early form of the doctrine is evident in the works of Tertullian of Carthage, writing in the early years of the third century. Whether Tertullian understood the full, logical implications of what he wrote in relation to the “communicatio”, however, cannot be said with any certainty.

scholarly journals Asymmetrical assumption: Why Lutheran christology does not lead to kenoticism or divine passibility

2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-374
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Holmes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Theology ◽  
Classical Theism ◽  
Communicatio Idiomatum ◽  
Almost All

AbstractIt has been commonplace for over a century to argue that the distinctively Lutheran form of the communicatio idiomatum leads naturally to kenotic christology, divine passibility, or both. Although this argument has been generally accepted as a historical claim, has also been advanced repeatedly as a criticism of ‘classical theism’ and has featured significantly in almost all recent defences of divine passibility, I argue that it does not work: the Lutheran scholastics had ample resources drawn from nothing more than ecumenical trinitarian and christological dogma to defend their denial of the genus tapeinoticum. I argue further that this defence, if right, undermines a remarkably wide series of proposals in contemporary systematic theology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document