Theologia Unionis as Epistemological Model

The Christological problem follows the [epistemological issue]:  if the human nature of Jesus, as finite, is in capable in itself of comprehending the infinite knowledge of the theologia archetypa[think of the simple divine mind, admitting no real distinctions], then any equation of the theologia unionis [for our present purpose, think the communication of attributes; BH] 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 (Muller, PRRD I: 250]

The point is this:  If Christ in his incarnation didn’t exhaustive knowledge, then how can  we expect fallen sinful man to have it?   If you do not accept this point, then you will doom yourself to deadly spiritual models that can only cause theological insanity.  You will end up asking questions like,

  1. If there is no infallible speaking church/pope, then how can I have certainty about anything?
  2. How do I know which books are in the canon?
  3. How do I know I am elect?

All of these questions, pursued in a false context of Illegitimate Religious Certainty, are spiritual death.

Advertisements

2 comments on “Theologia Unionis as Epistemological Model

  1. […] spoken.   However, even this recognition is fallible and human.  If the  perfect Incarnate Logos did not have infinite knowledge according to his human nature, then how can the church claim such knowledge vis-a-vis the […]

  2. […] I am amazed at how the Reformed orthodox interweave epistemology, (Christology), trinitarian distinctions, and predestination in one fell move.  If we begin with the […]

Comments are closed.