Richard Muller nicely explains this in the concept of the theologia unionis. Jesus human knowledge was finite. Jesus had the extraordinary gifts bestowed upon him by the Holy Spirit, but it (his human knowledge) was still finite. This preserves the archetypal/ectypal distinction. 2. Theologia unionis in the orthodox Reformed definitions. The theologia unionis appears as a basic epistemological category in theology that identifies the difference on the one hand between the knowledge of God given to the human Jesus and the ultimate divine self-knowledge belonging to all the persons of the Trinity and, on the other, between Jesus’ knowledge of God and the knowledge of God available to believers. Thus, in brief, The theology that we call [theology] of union [is] the entire wisdom of divine things communicated to Christ the God-man, that is, as the Word made flesh, according to his humanity. The concept of theologia unionis was taken directly from the medieval scholastics, notably from Alexander of Hales. The idea of a theologia unionis does not, therefore, indicate the presence of archetypal theology, known to God alone but somehow delivered in the finite form of Jesus’ humanity. Rather, it refers to the knowledge of God available to Christ as our Mediator, according to his human nature. The Reformed orthodox affirm, of course, that the Word, the second person of the Trinity, retains the theologia archetypa in its union with the human nature. There is no kenotic emptying out of divine essence in the incarnation; the sapientia Dei remains an attribute of the Word. The issue is that the infinite sapientia Dei or theologia archetypa cannot be communicated to a finite mind, even to the sinless mind of Christ Jesus. Alsted refers to the theology of union as one suitable to the position and purpose of Christ’s person—a theologia mediatoris or theologia oeconomica, that is, a theology of the mediator or a theology suited to the economy or divine dispensation of salvation. Of course, the reason that Christ’s human knowledge of God is both finite and most exalted of all finite forms is that it rests on the union of the two natures: the divine nature, knowing the archetype, communicates the ectype directly in the union—neither by vision nor by revelation, both of which imply separation of object and subject. In defining the efficient cause of theology, Walaeus first notes that the appointed end of things, the creaturae rationalis extrema beatitudo & Dei gloria, cannot be attained in us unless God himself communicates with us. This communication of divine wisdom is accomplished in three forms: by the hypostatic union, by intuitive vision (per visionem ut vocant intuitivam), and by revelation strictly so-called. The first of these—the theology of union—is that sapientia most fully communicated to the human nature of Christ, the fullness of which both represents the greatest knowledge of God possible in a creature and that knowledge necessary to the work of the mediator between God and man. This communication does not mean—as the ubiquitarians would have it—that infinite divine wisdom is transformed into a human intellect. Rather Christ’s mind was enlightened extraordinarily by the Holy Spirit because of the power of union (ex vi conjunctionis illius cum natura divina) with the divine nature. This limitation of theologia unionis as finite knowledge and, therefore, as a form, albeit exalted, of ectypal theology, rests upon two basic principles: no proportion can be given or made between the finite and the infinite (finiti ad infinitum dari proportio non potest) and there can be no confusion of natures or transfusion of properties in the hypostatic union. Both of these principles can be stated in terms of the frequently cited Reformed maxim finitum non capax infiniti (“the finite is not capable of the infinite”). We note that the argument is both philosophical and christological and that the philosophical side of the argument reflects both epistemological and ontological issues. On the philosophical side, Junius’ language concerning the absence of analogy or proportion between the finite and the infinite, like his basic distinction between theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa, reflects late medieval models, specifically the nominalist dictum finiti et infiniti nulla proportio according to which reason cannot move from the finitude of revelation to the infinite being of God. The christological problem follows as a result of the philosophical: if the human nature of Jesus, as finite, is incapable in itself of comprehending the infinite knowledge of the theologia archetypa, then any equation of the theologia unionis with archetypal theology must involve some alteration of the human nature of Jesus. For Jesus to be possessed of an infinite divine wisdom according to his humanity, there would have to be either a communication of divinity to humanity or a transference of divine attributes to Jesus’ humanity within the hypostatic union. But that union takes place without comixture or comingling, without a confusion of the natures, and thus without either a communication of divinity to humanity or a transference of the divine attributes to the human nature. Thus Jesus has two natures, two wills, two intellects—a divine and a human—and each has the knowledge that is proper to it. Christ has knowledge or wisdom, then, according to two modes, the divine and the human, the former being essential and incommunicable, the latter being habitual and communicable. These arguments do not, of course, mean that the Reformed in any way diminish the quality or extent of the knowledge given to Christ. They view it as the most exalted form of human knowledge of God, higher than either the theology of the blessed in heaven (theologia beatorum) or the theology of human beings before the fall (theologia viatorum ante lapsum). Therefore this theology is the wisdom of divine things communicated from heaven in the Spirit of God to man, without measure, for the sake of the enlightenment of all those who are created according to the image of God. Such a communicatio sine mensura, however, cannot be found among all creatures. Indeed, Junius argues, when the definition passes from consideration of the theologia unionis in se to consideration of this theology as it actually exists in subiecto, the measureless wisdom of the Spirit appears as an inaccessible source (fons inaccessus) and a great abyss (abyssus magna) beyond the capacity of angelic and human subjects. Only Christ our Savior can approach such knowledge in his sinless humanity through the work of the Spirit, for “the Father loves the Son and has given him all things in his hand.” This concept of a theologia unionis draws upon the christological concepts of a communicatio apotelesmatum, the communication of mediatorial operations, which bring to completion the work of the two natures, and of the dona extraordinaria finita, the extraordinary finite gifts bestowed by the Spirit on Christ’s human nature for the sake of his mediatorial work. In the hypostatic union, Christ is both anointing and anointed (ungens et unctus), the divine nature consecrating the human both by uniting with it and by bestowing the gifts of the Spirit. The wisdom of divine things known to Christ, moreover, is a wisdom bestowed in accord with his mediatorial work so that it provides a basis for the ultimate enlightenment or illumination of rational creatures, just as Christ’s work of salvation provides the foundation of their redemption. The “enlightenment of all those who are created according to the image of God,” then, occurs in Christ—so that the theologia unionis provides the immediate foundation of our theology, even as the theologia archetypa provides the immediate foundation of the theology of union. The theology of union represents a soteriological or mediatorial principle in the basic epistemology of Reformed system. Thus, over against the archetypal theology, the theologia unionis is to be recognized as ectypal, finite, created, and habitual (habitualis), but nonetheless as “truly absolute according to the manner of created nature” (absolutissima secundum naturae creatae modus) because of the light of the divine nature united to the human as its principium or foundation. In relation to us, therefore, the theologia unionis is “as if infinite and close to the infinite” (quasi infinita & infinitae proxima). Compared to the measure and limited scope of our wisdom, it appears infinite and can only be called finite in the company of the essential and infinite wisdom of God. Thus Scripture can attribute both growth in wisdom and ignorance to Christ (Mark 13:32; Luke 2:52); and can also say that Christ knows all things (Matt. 11:27; John 21:17)—the former being said in recognition of the finitude of his knowledge, the latter being said in relation to our ignorance.
Posted on: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 01:15:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015