Per Caritatem

Cynthia, what does the Reformed Confession teach on Christ having faith? Or does it teach that Christ, during his earthly life, was without the imperfect knowledge of faith, since he enjoyed the beatific vision?

Sacred Scripture never explicitly affirms that Christ walked by faith, but rather he was “the pioneer and perfecter of our faith” (Heb. 12, 2). I have never come across any of the Church Fathers explicitly teaching that Christ had faith. All the studies I have read concerning the knowledge of Christ in St. Augustine (Caron, Dubarle, Galtier), affirm that the Bishop of Hippo held that there is the greatest of distance between the knowledge that is in Christ and the knowledge in the rest of mankind as viators (cf. De diversis quaestiones, LXXXIII, q. 65, PL 40, 60).

In is interesting to note that according to Aquinas, human salvation (humana salus), which is the ultimate perfection of humanity (“Est enim beatitudo ultima hominis perfectio,” S Th. I-II, 3, 2, c.), consists in the knowledge of truth: “Consistit enim humana salus in veritatis cognitione” (Compend. Theol. 1) or “ultima autem salus hominis est secundum intellectivam partem perficiatur contemplatione veritatis primae” (SGC IV, 42). That is why the beatific vision is the end or purpose of and the very perfection of revelation: “perfectio autem divinae revelationis erit in patria” (S Th. II-II, 171, 4, ad 2; cf. also S Th. II-II, 173, 1, c.). Moreover, salvation or the ultimate perfection of man in the beatific vision is unattainable without revelation, since it transcends man’s natural capacity; thus: “Necessarium fuit ad humanam salutem, esse doctrinam quandam secundum revelationem divinam, praeter philosophicas disciplinas, quae ratione humana investigantur” (S Th. I, 1, 1, c.; cf. also S Th. II-II, 2, 3; III SCG 154; De ver. 12, 1, ad 3).

It should be noted that revelation was given to man before the Fall. In Aquinas, the necessity of revelation is never connected to the “wound of ignorance” caused by sin, and neither is human salvation, therefore, something consequent to sin (PERSSON, Sacra doctrina, 34). Even Aquinas’s use of the past tense in the first article, it can be argued, seems to echo back to a distant time before the Fall: “quod necessarium fuit ad humanam salutem; necessarium fuit quod de divinis per divinam revelationem instruantur; Unde necessarium fuit homini ad salutem, quod ei nota fierent quaedam per revelationem divinam, quae rationem humanam excedunt; Necessarium igitur fuit… sacram doctrinam per revelationem haberi” (S Th. I, 1, 1, c.).

Moreover, some authors (Congar and Torrell) accuse Aquinas of making a “flagrant exception” as regards Christ’s human psychology by placing in Him the beatific vision (cf. M. LEVERING, Christ’s Fulfillment of Torah and Temple: Salvation according to Thomas Aquinas, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), 32). However, according to Aquinas, Christ, as Perfect Man and Saviour, is indeed exceptional, because He cannot be in need of salvation, i.e., of the further perfection of His humanity by the beatific vision. For if Christ, the Author of human salvation, during his earthly mission, had only faith and not the beatific vision, He would need to be, not redeemed for He is without sin, but in a certain sense “saved,” for He would lack the perfection in knowledge of which eternal beatitude consists and which He came to preach as the Good News: “Una quidem deiformis, secundum quod Deum per essentiam videt, et alia videt in Deo, sicut et ipse Deus intelligendo seipsum, intelligit omnia alia, per quam visionem et ipse Deus beatus est, et omnis creatura rationalis perfecte Deo fruens. Quia igitur Christum dicimus esse humanae salutis auctorem, necesse est dicere, quod talis cognitio sic animae Christi conveniat ut decet auctorem. Principium autem et immobile esse oportet, et virtute praestantissimum. Conveniens igitur fuit ut illa Dei visio in qua beatitudo hominum et salus aeterna consistit, excellentius prae ceteris Christo conveniat, et tanquam immobili principio. Haec autem differentia invenitur mobilium ad immobilia, quod mobilia propriam perfectionem non a principio habent, inquantum mobilia sunt, sed eam per successionem temporis assequuntur; immobilia vero, inquantum huiusmodi, semper obtinent suas perfectiones ex quo esse incipiunt. Conveniens igitur fuit Christum humanae salutis auctorem ab ipso suae incarnationis principio plenam Dei visionem possedisse, non autem per temporis successionem pervenisse ad ipsam, ut sancti alii perveniunt” (emphasis mine) (Comp. Theol., liber 1, cap. 216).

This is Aquinas’s understanding of Chalcedon’s statement that Christ is perfect God and perfect man; i.e., a Man perfected by the beatific vision, even as a viator.

What is the Reformed Confession’s teaching on knowledge in Christ?

Dear Fr. Gregory,

Great to hear from you! It’s been too long.

It has been some time since I’ve studied the Reformed Confessional statements on Christological issues, and it would take me some time to go back over these things in detail—time that I do not have right now. So perhaps for now, we can use what McCormack says as a model and if someone in the Reformed world takes issue with McCormack’s presentation, then they can chime in.

As McCormack explains, in contrast to the Lutherans, who tended to emphasize the unity statements from Chalcedon, the Reformed stressed a unity-in-difference (“two natures unimpaired in their original integrity subsequent to their union.”). E.g., in Calvin we read, “For we affirm his divinity so joined and united with his humanity that each retains its distinctive nature unimpaired, and yet these two natures constitute one Christ” (Inst 2.14.1). So, as I understand things, there is no inter-penetration of the divine and human natures, rather the properties of each nature are predicated of the Person, the one theandric person. This then leads to the doctrine of the “communication of operations.” As McCormack explains, “in classical Reformed theology, the meaning of this doctrine is that in every act of the one God-human, both natures are fully involved – and involved in a way that protects their integrity. The Westminster Confession defines the ‘communication of operations’ this way: ‘Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself…’ (Chapter VIII, vii). It is not the case, on Reformed soil, that the ‘Person’ acts through His human nature as His instrument, much less upon it. Rather, the God-human acts according to both natures.
From this second point flows a third. Because the Reformed insisted upon the integrity of the human nature and resisted its instrumentalization as a consequence of the hypostatic union, they were also willing to insist that the ‘excellencies’ of the human nature of Christ were the consequence of the work of the Holy Spirit who bestowed upon Him certain gifts. It is important to note that these gifts were understood to be “created graces” – gifts of knowledge, power, faith and love which were appropriate to the ‘substance’ of the creaturely which He shared with us. As Francis Turretin put it, ‘Here belong the passages in which he is said to be anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power (Acts 10:38), anointed with the oil of gladness (Ps.45:7), which can pertain only to the gifts of the Spirit, wonderfully rejoicing his soul. The plenitude of these is also designated when Christ is said to be ‘full of grace and truth’ (Jn.1:14) and to have received the Spirit without measure (Jn.3:34). Still it must not be supposed that this plenitude is simply infinite, both because the humanity is finite in itself and cannot be receptive of the infinite and because this grace is a created thing” (Thirteenth Topic, Q.12). It is because these excellencies are created and therefore compatible with his humanity, that Turretin can then go on to say that he finds it appropriate to ascribe to the human Jesus both faith and hope (Thirteenth Topic, Q.13)”

So the answer would be “yes,” Jesus did possess faith as a gift of the Holy Spirit, because his humanity like ours is finite. This interpretation seems to me compatible with the many passages in Scripture in which Jesus is said to grow in knowledge and wisdom, just like other human beings.

McCormack continues, “It could be argued that John Owen represents the logical outcome of the Reformed insistence upon the integrity of the natures and resistance to an instrumentalizing of the human when he says, “The only singular and immediate act of the person of the Son on the human nature was the assumption of it into subsistence with himself” (John Owen, Works, vol.3, “Pneumatologia”, p.160). Every other act, then, including all of Christ’s miracles, were performed by the power of the Holy Spirit at work in the human Jesus. “The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, no less than the Spirit of the Father. … And hence he is the immediate operator of all divine acts of the Son himself, even upon the human nature. Whatever the Son of God wrought in, by, or upon His human nature, he did it by the Holy Ghost, who is his Spirit, as he is the Spirit of the Father” (ibid., p.162). With these words, Owen introduced a final clarification into the doctrine of a “communication of operations.” In every act of the God-human, both natures operate in a manner consistent with each nature – but the Logos acts by bestowing His Spirit upon the human Jesus. In this way, the full humanness of the activities of the Mediator is preserved”

So again, the two natures are upheld, we see an emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ earthly ministry.

McCormack then gives us the following very interesting and helpful paragraph, “The unifying ground of these three concerns – the integrity of the natures, resistance against an instrumentalizing of the human nature and the emphasis on the Spirit’s ministry in the life of Jesus – was found in the Reformed understanding of the person of the union. There is, you see, an ambiguity at the heart of the Chalcedonian Definition where the “Person” is concerned. On the one hand, the Definition can say that “the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being.” On the other hand, the Definition can say, “he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ…” On the basis of the first formulation, it would seem that the person is formed out of the coming together of the natures. On the basis of the second, it would seem that a straightforward and direct equation is being made of the “person” and the pre-existent Logos as such. It is because of this ambiguity that patristic scholars are, to this day, divided over the question of which party to the controversy actually attained the upper hand at Chalcedon (which already, by itself, would render untenable any simplistic appeal to “Chalcedonian Christology”).. There are those who, leaning heavily on the first of these formulations, say that the Formula grants a certain victory to Nestorius. But there are also those who say that it is Cyril’s theology which triumphed at Chalcedon. In the first group is to be found Aloys Grillmeier and Brian Daley; in the second, John McGuckin. My own view is that a carefully contextualized reading of the Definition will show that it is the second of these opinions which is correct. But here’s the thing: classical Reformed theology clearly stood on the side of the first of these options – not the second.”

It is my understanding that St. Thomas would also agree that the Person is constituted “out of” the two natures, human and divine. Is that correct? If not, what does he take issue with about the formulation? If so, would it then be correct to say that on this point, the Reformed position stands in the line of orthodox teaching as espoused by the Roman Catholic Church over against Greek Orthodox teaching (on this particular point)? In other words, is the RC position the same as the Reformed with regard to the teaching that the Person is not equated with the Logos but ranges over both natures such that the two natures constitute a single Person, the God-Human, Christ Jesus? Also, it would be interesting to see what Scotus has to say on this topic as well.

Best wishes,
Cynthia

Thanks for the clarification regarding St. Thomas’ position, Perry. I take the point to be that the Logos was a Person prior to the union of the two natures that occurred in the Incarnation. Stated negatively, personhood (with regard to the Logos–not Christ, right,as I have always associated the denomination “Christ” with the second Person as Incarnate?) does not come to be in the union of the two natures that occurs in the Incarnation. Moreover, we don’t have a “new” Person, but the same Person who now (in the Incarnation) has two natures and is hence, composite.

(I haven’t looked up the ST reference yet).