Read on Twitter
This point has received some pushback, so let me very briefly clarify.
1) partitive exegesis recognizes three “forms” of the Son, per Augustine - “form of God,” “form of a servant,” and “form of the only begotten.” https://twitter.com/m_y_emerson/status/1337847788474871808
1) partitive exegesis recognizes three “forms” of the Son, per Augustine - “form of God,” “form of a servant,” and “form of the only begotten.” https://twitter.com/m_y_emerson/status/1337847788474871808
My OP mentioned only one of these (“form of a servant”) because I specifically have in mind those who posit eternal submission of the Son to the Father based on text that refer to the economy, not theology proper.
Those contextual considerations aside, it is important to say a few other things so that my OP isn’t mistaken.
2) “submission” and “subordination” were terms used in the early church, as a reflection of biblical language, to describe the other two “forms” as well.
2) “submission” and “subordination” were terms used in the early church, as a reflection of biblical language, to describe the other two “forms” as well.
They were quick to clarify, however, that they meant these terms to describe the taxis of the eternal relations of origin and of the economic missions, not the distinct, separate volitional activity of one of the divine persons.
So, the reason I narrowly defined partitive exegesis the way I did is because my only concern is with those who wrongly posit any distinct volitional activity of the Son prior to the incarnation, not to exclude traditional language about the other two “forms.”
3) I should also add that by describing the incarnate Son as “acting” acc. to his humanity, I’m not positing a Nestorian breach btw Christ’s two natures but...
am rather relying on reduplication to say that certain activities of the one person of the incarnate Word are in virtue of one of his two particular natures.
The one person of Jesus, the incarnate Word, acts according to his two natures and in ways appropriate to each.
The one person of Jesus, the incarnate Word, acts according to his two natures and in ways appropriate to each.
Nevertheless, we have to be careful not only of Nestorianism but also Monophysitism here. The one incarnate Word dies on the cross - in virtue of his humanity, for the God the incarnate Son cannot die in virtue of his divinity. An analogous situation is true of servile submission
So, partitive exegesis, in its full employment (all three “forms”) and in conjunction w/other scripturally warranted hermeneutical rules (eg analogical language) should keep us from the following errors:
1) Subordinationism;
2) Nestorianism;
3) Monophysitism.
1) Subordinationism;
2) Nestorianism;
3) Monophysitism.
