In their Reformed Systematic Theology, Beeke and Smalley accuse Lutherans of having a contradictory Christology and one that, if held consistently, would lead to “pantheism or panentheism”:
Twelfth, the God of truth does not contradict himself.
Lutheran theology involves a contradiction by asserting that Christ’s divine
and human natures are not confused or mingled in their attributes, yet also
asserting that his humanity is endowed with infinite power, majesty, and
presence by the union of both natures in one person. Luther insisted that we
must accept such matters by faith, since everything is possible for God, even bestowing
the infinite on the finite. Yet God’s omnipotence does not mean he can make the
same substance both finite and infinite in presence. The finite cannot contain
the infinite (finitum non capax infiniti). If it can, what holds us
back from pantheism or panentheism? Creation must never be confused with
the Creator (Rom. 1:25), for God is infinitely greater than the world (Isa.
40:17-18, 25). (Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic
Theology, 4 vols. [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2024], 4:587-88, emphasis in
bold added)
As for the meaning of “finitum
non capax infiniti,” here is the definition provided by Muller:
Finitum
non capax infiniti: The
finite is incapable of the infinite; i.e., the finite or finite being is
incapable of grasping, comprehending, or receiving the infinite or infinite
being; an epistemological and ontological maxim drawn into christological
debate between the Reformed and the Lutherans. The background to medieval and
early modern use of the phrase is probably the discussion of infinitude in
Aristotle’s Metaphysics
(2.2.994b.8–30) and Physics
(3.4–8.202b.30–208a.36), where the Philosopher concludes that the infinite is
not a perceptible or comprehensible magnitude. The maxim also appears in the
form Finitum non possit capere infinitum,
The finite is not capable of grasping the infinite. A similar thought is found
in the wording Finiti ad infinitum nulla
proportio (q.v.), There is no proportion of the finite to the infinite. In
this form the maxim indicates that difference between finite and infinite
remains infinite and irreducible to a proportion, no matter the number of
gradations that one might identify between them. Medieval thinkers, in a
significant departure from Aristotle, applied the maxim to the discussion of
the divine nature, given that God, as infinite, is not self-evidencing or
capable of being intellectually comprehended. Ontologically, the assumptions of
non capax and nulla proportio correspond with the distinction between necessary
and contingent being, indicating the impossibility of contingent, created, or
relative being attaining to the absolute or necessary, but also serving to
reinforce assumptions concerning the necessity of finite being participating in
the being of God and being upheld by a providential concurrence. The infinite,
in other words, is fully capable of grasping, conceiving, and receiving the
finite, albeit without transforming the finite into another infinite.
Extended use of these phrases is found among the
Reformed. Calvin, who does not appear to have used the phrase Finitum non capax infiniti, did have
recourse to the language of Finiti ad
infinitum nulla proportio, with specific reference to the
incomprehensibility of God. The later Reformed thus insist not only that all
human theology is theologia ectypa
(q.v.) and not theologia archetypa
(q.v.) but also that the theologia
unionis (q.v.), which is known to Christ according to his humanity, must be
finite. Christologically, moreover, the maxim points toward the finitude of all
humanity, including Christ’s, and therefore its incapacity for receiving divine
attributes, such as omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. Thus, from an
epistemological perspective, it signifies the limitation of the human mind,
even the mind of Christ, in the knowledge of divine things. From an ontological
perspective, it corresponds with the assumptions of a doctrine of the
communication of proper qualities in the concrete, namely, with the assumption
that divine attributes are not and cannot, as such, be communicated to the
human nature, but belong with the human attributes to the whole person of Christ.
(Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms:
Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology [Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2017], 125-26)
See also:
Joel M. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley Condemning Lutheran Christology as Contradictory
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
