“Olevian agreed that the deity operated on Christ’s humanity, not to transform it, but to make it suitable for the accomplishment of redemption. Christ’s deity ’sanctified Christ’s flesh and vivified it hypostatically in unity’.”
When you say “deity” are you speaking about the work of the Holy Spirit? It seems as though you are speaking about the hypostatic union. But, if you are speaking about Christ’s divine nature making him “suitable for the accomplishment of redemption”, would that not make the role of the Spirit (Luke 1,4; Matt. 12; Heb 9, etc.) superfluous? I recognize that we’re talking about Olevian, but this is just for my own curiosity.
Would you say that Olevian differs from Owen, who wrote: “The only singular and immediate act of the person of the Son on the human nature was the assumption of it into subsistence with himself” (John Owen, Works, vol.3, “Pneumatologia”, p.160). And later:
“The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, no less than the Spirit of the Father. … And hence he is the immediate operator of all divine acts of the Son himself, even upon the human nature. Whatever the Son of God wrought in, by, or upon His human nature, he did it by the Holy Ghost, who is his Spirit, as he is the Spirit of the Father” (ibid., p.162).
I’m maybe reading too much into the statement by Olevian, but I’m curious to know what role he sees for the Spirit in light of his comments above.
Cheers,
mark
Hi Mark,
You should probably read the chapter/book to get the context.
I wrote that a long time ago now and I’d have to go back myself and look at the sources and what I wrote. My recollection is that Olevianus was speaking about the hypostatic union, but I don’t know that that what he said is necessarily in tension with what Owen wrote (decades later) or that Olevianus would necessarily disagree. It’s not an either/or question.
Scott,
“Olevian agreed that the deity operated on Christ’s humanity, not to transform it, but to make it suitable for the accomplishment of redemption. Christ’s deity ’sanctified Christ’s flesh and vivified it hypostatically in unity’.”
When you say “deity” are you speaking about the work of the Holy Spirit? It seems as though you are speaking about the hypostatic union. But, if you are speaking about Christ’s divine nature making him “suitable for the accomplishment of redemption”, would that not make the role of the Spirit (Luke 1,4; Matt. 12; Heb 9, etc.) superfluous? I recognize that we’re talking about Olevian, but this is just for my own curiosity.
Would you say that Olevian differs from Owen, who wrote: “The only singular and immediate act of the person of the Son on the human nature was the assumption of it into subsistence with himself” (John Owen, Works, vol.3, “Pneumatologia”, p.160). And later:
“The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, no less than the Spirit of the Father. … And hence he is the immediate operator of all divine acts of the Son himself, even upon the human nature. Whatever the Son of God wrought in, by, or upon His human nature, he did it by the Holy Ghost, who is his Spirit, as he is the Spirit of the Father” (ibid., p.162).
I’m maybe reading too much into the statement by Olevian, but I’m curious to know what role he sees for the Spirit in light of his comments above.
Cheers,
mark
Hi Mark,
You should probably read the chapter/book to get the context.
I wrote that a long time ago now and I’d have to go back myself and look at the sources and what I wrote. My recollection is that Olevianus was speaking about the hypostatic union, but I don’t know that that what he said is necessarily in tension with what Owen wrote (decades later) or that Olevianus would necessarily disagree. It’s not an either/or question.