The Two Natures of Christ

Two Natures of Christ





"These arguments of the Monothelites can be found in the proceedings of the Sixth General Council and in the writings of Damascenus. The Church was severely shaken by this controversy, for on the one hand, the Nestorians, under the pretext of the two wills and activities in Christ, tore the person of the one Christ in two, and on the other hand the Eutychians, stressing the one activity, took away the difference of the natures and the essential attributes of Christ."

Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures of Christ, 1578, trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971. p. 234. [Monothelite means Christ has only one will, which is divine, so He would never be tempted. Nestorius attributed some things to human nature, other actions to divine nature, dividing the Two Natures of Christ.]



"This dispute concerning the two wills and the two natural operations in Christ is no idle thing, for in addition to the points which we have mentioned, it also has this use that the Son of God assumed our nature in such a way that first in and through Himself He restored our nature to its pristine beauty which had been despoiled and corrupted in Adam, as Cyril says, In Johannem, Book 11, chapter 25...He restored even the powers which our nature had lost because of sin, and in Himself He first repaired and renewed the powers which had been corrupted through sin."

Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures of Christ, 1578, trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971. p. 239.



"To repudiate the errors of both Eutychianism and Nestorianism, we may briefly say: As in Christ the natures themselves are not transformed, but are and remain distinct. This is expressed in the words: 'Each of the two natures does what is peculiar to it.' However, as the natures are not separated, but personally united in such a manner that 'all fullness of the Godhead' dwells in the human nature as in His body, so also the actions of the natures are not separated, but always united, that is, divine-human (theandric) actions. This is expressed in the words: 'Each nature does what is peculiar to it in conjuction with the other.'"

Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 268 Colossians



"To judge Reformed Christology correctly, we must, in the first place, consider the fact that Reformed theology, through the use of rationalistic axions, fixes an unbridgeable gulf between itself and genuine Christian theology; and secondly, set forth the points at which Reformed theology itself agains establishes connection with the Christian doctrine. It is only by this approach that we can rightly understand the Reformed denominations in our own country which, through their representative teachers, on the one hand, honestly mean to stand up for the Bible doctrine against liberalism, and yet, sharply attack the Lutheran doctrine of the Person of Christ, which, as we have seen, is the teaching of Holy Scripture."

Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. p. 272.



"If Reformed theology wishes to free itself from the confusion of self-contradiction and its other Christological errors, it must by all means eliminate its rationalistic principle that the finite is not capable of the infinite."

Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. p. 275.