Sebastian Heck
Puritan Board Freshman
I find often that people think the Reformed undiscriminately reject(ed) the communicatio idiomatum. However, the 2nd Helvetic Confession is as clear as any in accepting it.
However, it does not qualify the way later theological formulations do. The text of the confession is:
"For we accept believingly and reverently the 'communication of properties,' which is deduced from the Scriptures and employed by the ancient Church in explaining and harmonizing seemingly contradictory passages." (Ch. XI,11)
The note in the Schaff edition elaborates:
"'Nam communicationem idiomatum ex Scripturis petitam et ab universa vetustate in explicandis componendisque Scripturarum locis in speciem pugnantibus usurpatam, religiose et reverenter recipimus et usurpamus.' It is an error, therefore, to charge the Reformed Church with rejecting the communicatio idiomatum. It admits the communication of the properties of one nature to the whole person, but denies the communication of the properties of one nature to the other, viz., the genus majestaticum, so called, whereby the infinite attributes of the divine nature (as omnipresence and omnipotence) are ascribed to the human nature, and the genus tapeinoticon, whereby the finite attributes of the human nature are ascribed to the divine. Either of these forms leads necessarily to a Eutychian confusion of natures. The Lutheran Church teaches the genus majestaticum, as a support to its doctrine of the Eucharist, but rejects the genus tapeinoticon."
Is that correct?
Is that a case of comunicatio idiomatum in concreto (Reformed view) versus CI in abstracto (Lutheran view)?
However, it does not qualify the way later theological formulations do. The text of the confession is:
"For we accept believingly and reverently the 'communication of properties,' which is deduced from the Scriptures and employed by the ancient Church in explaining and harmonizing seemingly contradictory passages." (Ch. XI,11)
The note in the Schaff edition elaborates:
"'Nam communicationem idiomatum ex Scripturis petitam et ab universa vetustate in explicandis componendisque Scripturarum locis in speciem pugnantibus usurpatam, religiose et reverenter recipimus et usurpamus.' It is an error, therefore, to charge the Reformed Church with rejecting the communicatio idiomatum. It admits the communication of the properties of one nature to the whole person, but denies the communication of the properties of one nature to the other, viz., the genus majestaticum, so called, whereby the infinite attributes of the divine nature (as omnipresence and omnipotence) are ascribed to the human nature, and the genus tapeinoticon, whereby the finite attributes of the human nature are ascribed to the divine. Either of these forms leads necessarily to a Eutychian confusion of natures. The Lutheran Church teaches the genus majestaticum, as a support to its doctrine of the Eucharist, but rejects the genus tapeinoticon."
Is that correct?
Is that a case of comunicatio idiomatum in concreto (Reformed view) versus CI in abstracto (Lutheran view)?
Last edited: