Pieper, 1968, vol. 2 “The Genus Apotelesmaticum and the Ancient Church”

“The Genus Apotelesmaticum and the Ancient Church” (Loc. 5962)

Pieper asserts that “The Reformed Confessions, just as also the Reformed theologians, ardently affirm their full agreement with the traditional doctrine of the Ancient Church” (Loc. 5962). Thgey assert the communication of attributes as affirmed in Chalcedon. Yet they do not allow for the two natures of Christ to act together. The divine nature acts only in the divine sphere and the human nature acts only in the human sphere. The ancient Church confessed that God did his divine works through the human nature of Christ without any harm (Loc. 5996).

Walther, 1906. Chapter 16, “The Communicants: Private Absolution”

Chapter 16, “The Communicants: Private Absolution” (pp. 120-121)

Private confession and absolution are not commanded in Scripture but have a long and profitable history. The confession gives the penitent sinner opportunity to receive God’s forgiveness in a personal and authoritative way (p. 120). While it is not necessary for a Lutheran congregation to have private absolution it is a good practice. Walther affirms that the pastor may and should ask the one confessing about accusations which have been made, but cannot convict of those. It is a confession, not an inquisition (p. 123). The entire experience is about penitents receiving forgiveness.

In cases of known sin and impenitence the preacher may suspend communion, though he is not able to excommunicate. This is a very serious move and must be done carefully. It is also important that when the pastor proclaims absolution he should do it freely and categorically.

The seal of the confession is absolute (p. 126). The one who hears a confession may never be forced to reveal the sin which God has forgiven.

Nouwen, 1972. Introduction, "The Four Open Doors"

Nouwen, Henri J. The Wounded Healer: Ministry in Contemporary Society. New York: Doubleday, 1972. Kindle Edition.

Introduction, “The Four Open Doors” (Loc. 82)

In this book Nouwen opens four doors of life to consider what is behind them, realizing that every door in life leads to many more. “The first door represents the condition of a suffering world (Chapter 1); the second door, the condition of a suffering generation (Chapter 2); the third door, the condition of a suffering man (Chapter 3); and the fourth door, the condition of a suffering minister” (Loc. 87). As he wrote this book, Nouwen says he came to a realization that all of life and ministry was finding its focus on the healer who is wounded.

Pieper, 1968, vol. 2. “The Practical Importance of the Genus Apotelesmaticum”

“The Practical Importance of the Genus Apotelesmaticum” (Loc. 5848)

In discussing the genus apotelesmaticum Pieper observes that “the first two genera, the genus idiomaticum and the genus maiestaticum, are its necessary presuppositions, so that the Church contends for them in the interest of the third” (Loc. 5848). This third  genus demonstrates that “all actions of Christ are theanthropic and so of a unique, saving, and truly consoling nature” (Loc. 5848). This genus gets its name from the “work” (apotelesma) of the Christ (Loc. 5857). Jesus, true man and true God, remains man and God. His divine nature receives nothing from the human nature (Loc. 5883). Being truly divine and truly human is at the heart of his ability to atone for our sins. Luther’s criticism of Zwingli was largely based on Zwingli’s separation of the natures. By denying the suffering of the divine Zwingli leaves us with a mere man dying for us, which is ineffective. Pieper does observe that many Reformed theologians are inconsistent and admit both divine and human natures in the atonement (Loc. 5910). The desire of God to take on a human nature and thereby be able to suffer as we do has often been treated as a matter of great comfort (Loc. 5935).

Walther, 1906. Chapter 15, “The Communicants: Announcement”

Chapter 15, “The Communicants: Announcement” (pp. 107-119)

Walther now discusses the practice of communicants’ visiting with the pastor to announce their intention to receive communion. This is a duty which should not be neglected. Presenting someone with communion unworthily may harm a person spiritually. Walther also observes (p. 108) that open communion is used by some fanatics as a way to lure people in. On the contrary, all who are to be admitted to the table should be examined, even by a new pastor taking over an existing flock, a practice which causes dissension (p. 108).

The distinction is that preaching is for all but the Supper is for strengthening the repentant person in the faith. Reception without repentance brings condemnation. Certainly the Sacrament is for the regenerate, so is never given to unbaptized people. Those who receive the Sacrament in unbelief find only condemnation (p. 110). Those who receive worthily receive to their great blessing. The work of the pastor is to bring blessing, not cursing. Luther’s guideline (p. 115) was that the pastor should interview every communicant at least once a year. Walther adds, “If possible, the preacher should find out what he needs to know without giving the person the impression that he is being examined” (p. 117).

Kreeft, 2002. Chapter 9, "Look Out! It's Alive!

Chapter 9, “Look Out! It’s Alive!” (Loc. 1502)

We continue with Socrates’ third meeting of the Christology class. Socrates has read the New Testament as a follow-up to the Old Testament. He has met Jesus. His conclusion is that the Jesus as presented in the New Testament is quite real. While they participants in the class are concerned to learn Socrates’ reaction, maybe a mystical experience, Socrates wishes to discuss Jesus, as that is the goal both of the course and life (Loc. 1520). There were various groups with various reactions. Of them all, Socrates first though the disciples had an unusual reaction because they engaged with a concept of one person with both a divine and human nature. In the New Testament Socrates met this same person whose natures go beyond our reason and logic. The other participants have decided that to believe the two natures in the one person requires blind faith, abandoning reason. Socrates insists that reason can remain intact when contemplating the supernatural.

What Socrates does not understand is where the Christians are, why their lives are not changed by an encounter with Jesus. The class is offended by this question (Loc. 1586). They see Jesus as a good idea, maybe archetypal, but not so much as an historic person. The Bible portrays him as both, which changes the entire paradigm.

Socrates concludes, counter to the professor, that the biblical account is of a real resurrection and real life imparted by the real man who is God, Jesus. He also rejects multiple ways to the same God, a figurative view of the resurrection, and any scenario in which we believe in a falsehood such as an invented resurrection.

Pieper, 1968, vol. 2 "The Third Genus of the Communication of Attributes"

“The Third Genus of the Communication of Attributes (Genus Apotelesmaticum)”

“The Reformed theologians and their followers are guilty of burdening the discussion of the communication of attributes with a third genus, namely the so-called genus apotelesmaticum, for they demand that the human nature of Christ be kept apart in its activity or operation from the activity and operation of the divine nature, since the human nature as something that is finite is not capable of being the organ of the acts of the infinite divine nature” (Loc. 5679). Pieper goes on to cite several Reformed theologians in stating that the human and divine natures in Christ are separate. The human nature, not being capable of the divine, cannot participate in divine works. Pieper continues to show implications. “Wherever an official act is to be performed whose performance demands divine omnipotence, there, according to the Reformed view, the human nature as a finite creature cannot cooperate” (Loc. 5697). The human nature of Christ is thus seen as uninvolved in anything miraculous. The genus apotelesmaticum counters that all Christ does he “performs according to both natures, by each nature doing what is proper to it, not by itself and apart from the other nature, but in constant communion with the other” (Loc. 5759).