Timmay
Puritan Board Freshman
The communicatio idiomatum says that the properties of both, the human and divine natures are now the properties of each person, and are therefore ascribed to the person. The one person can exhibit attributes of divinity and humanity but nothing particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature.
Now some proponents of Jesus’ impeccability say that since both nature’s attributes were ascribed to the one person of Jesus, that because the divine nature cannot sin and the human nature was united to the divine nature, that means Jesus could not sin. This seems to be some sort of communication of divine attributes to human attributes.
But, here’s my question, how can this work? By this logic can we not say then that the human can then be omniscient since it’s united to the divine. Or is this line of reasoning only postulating that, as Shedd says, the actions,that proceed from a nature become responsible to the whole person?
Or because the divine nature couldn’t sin, the person of Christ can’t sin? But, because the divine nature is omniscient, the person of Christ is omniscient, but his human nature isn’t?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the communicatio idiomatum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now some proponents of Jesus’ impeccability say that since both nature’s attributes were ascribed to the one person of Jesus, that because the divine nature cannot sin and the human nature was united to the divine nature, that means Jesus could not sin. This seems to be some sort of communication of divine attributes to human attributes.
But, here’s my question, how can this work? By this logic can we not say then that the human can then be omniscient since it’s united to the divine. Or is this line of reasoning only postulating that, as Shedd says, the actions,that proceed from a nature become responsible to the whole person?
Or because the divine nature couldn’t sin, the person of Christ can’t sin? But, because the divine nature is omniscient, the person of Christ is omniscient, but his human nature isn’t?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the communicatio idiomatum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited: