Asymmetrical assumption: Why Lutheran christology does not lead to kenoticism or divine passibility

Abstract

AbstractIt has been commonplace for over a century to argue that the distinctively Lutheran form of thecommunicatio idiomatumleads naturally to kenotic christology, divine passibility, or both. Although this argument has been generally accepted as a historical claim, has also been advanced repeatedly as a criticism of ‘classical theism’ and has featured significantly in almost all recent defences of divine passibility, I argue that it does not work: the Lutheran scholastics had ample resources drawn from nothing more than ecumenical trinitarian and christological dogma to defend their denial of thegenus tapeinoticum. I argue further that this defence, if right, undermines a remarkably wide series of proposals in contemporary systematic theology.