Westminster Larger Catechism: Question 40

Question 40

Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person?

It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us, (Matt. 1:21,23, Matt. 3:17, Heb. 9:14) and relied on by us as the works of the whole person. (1 Pet. 2:6)


The Westminster Larger Catechism: With Scripture Proofs. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

Here again we see the Westminster Larger Catechism follows the teaching of the Definition of Chalcedon, 451 A. D.  The creed of Chalcedon is fine as far as it goes.  However, it did not solve all the problems of the incarnation since the monothelite issue came up and was addressed by the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D. with another creed affirming the two wills in Christ.  The decision in 681 affirmed that Christ had both a human will and a divine will.  The question then arises that if Jesus had a true reasonable human soul and a human will, how could he be fully human and not have a human personality?  That was Gordon H. Clark's point in his final book, The Incarnation.  Clark never denied the union of the human nature and the divine nature in Christ but he insisted that the divine nature was a divine person, the Logos and that the human nature of Christ was a genuine human person, which in fact the creed of 681 A.D. implies.   (See:  Wikipedia:  Third Council of Constantinople).

Thomas Morris in more recent times has contended for a view that there were two "minds" in Christ.  (See:  Two Minds).  The divine mind of the Logos is not contained by the human mind of Christ but it is reverse.  The human mind of Christ would be contained within the divine mind of the Logos, the second person of the Godhead.  The Logos assumes into union with himself a fully human nature, reasonable human soul, and a fully human person with a genuine mind and will like the rest of us and all without compromising even one of God's attributes of deity or propositions of deity.  The propositions of deity are who God is and therefore cannot be laid aside without compromising the Tri-unity of the Godhead in some way.  The Logos does not become less than God. 

On the other hand, Robert L. Reymond points out that the resurrected body of Christ is localized in heaven and is at the right hand of the Father.  (Hear his lecture at Sermon Audio:  Demolishing the Stronghold of a False Christology).  He is not omnipresent in the resurrected body as the Lutherans argue.  Another point Reymond makes is that we do not worship the human body or nature of Christ.  We do not worship physical images.  This is what makes Protestants distinct from Roman Catholics and why Protestants cannot and will not adore the creatures of bread and wine in a communion service.  The 1662 Book of Common Prayer forbids the lifing up and adoring of the elements in the Black Rubric.  The same is forbidden in Article 28 of the 39 Articles of Religion.


The Black Rubric in the Holy Communion Service of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer says:

---

"WHEREAS it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."

Gordon H. Clark: Quote of the Day: Jesus Christ Did Not Lay Aside Any Divine Attributes

. . . Christ upholds all things by the word of his power.  If he ceased doing so, the world would have collapsed the day of his birth. -- Gordon H. Clark

Some pages back person was defined as a complex of propositions.  A man is what he thinks, for as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.  This definition also allowed the Trinity to consist of three different persons, although far more closely related than any three human persons, yet quite distinct, contrary to the heresy of Patripassianism.  With this settled, the question becomes, Was Jesus a human or a divine person, or perhaps both?  When the Second Person became man, did he retain his divine mind and activities, or did he become a different person by laying aside some of his prerogatives?  I shall not waste time on the extremes of the Kenosis theory; but some of the more orthodox theologians hold that Christ laid aside a number of his trinitarian activities.  If this were the case, we would have difficulty in thinking he was the same person.  But worse than that, there would be cosmic repercussions.  Not only does John say that Christ created the universe, but Hebrews 1:3 declares that Christ upholds all things by the word of his power.  If he ceased doing so, the world would have collapsed the day of his birth.  Would he have recreated it thirty years later?  On this schedule he could not have met the Samaritan woman at the well.  In fact there would have been no wood for a cross on which to crucify him.  Colossians 1:17 enforces this point:  "by him all things hold together," the solar system and even the Roman Empire.  One or more theologians try to avoid these conclusions by the peculiar phrase that Christ on earth laid aside the "independent use" of his divine attributes.  But this ruins the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity because, quite aside from the previous impossibilities, there never were any independent uses of his divine attributes.  Christ as the Second Person, before his Incarnation, never did anything independently of his Father.  John 1:1-3 states that Christ created all things without exception.  But so did the Father.  Creation is ascribed to both. . . . [1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 3:9; Revelation 4:8, 11; 10:6]

Gordon H. Clark, The Incarnation, (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1988), pp. 64-65.