Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

Of course, the comparison is defective. It does not illustrate the union of the divine and
the human, of the infinite and the finite. It does not even illustrate the unity of two
spiritual natures in a single person. In the case of man the body is material and the soul
is spiritual. It is a wonderful union, but not as wonderful as the union of the two
natures in Christ.
E. THE LUTHERAN DOCTRINE OF THE COMMUNICATION OF
ATTRIBUTES.
1. STATEMENT OF THE LUTHERAN POSITION. The Lutherans differ from the Reformed
in their doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum. They teach that the attributes of one
nature are ascribed to the other on the basis of an actual transference, and feel that it is
only by such a transference that the real unity of the person can be secured. This
position does not involve a denial of the fact that the attributes of both natures can be
ascribed to the person, but adds something to that in the interest, as they see it, of the
unity of the person. They did not always state their doctrine in the same form. Luther
and some of the early Lutherans occasionally spoke of a communication in both
directions, from the divine nature to the human, and also from the human to the divine.
In the subsequent development of the doctrine, however, the communication from the
human nature to the divine soon receded from sight, and only that from the divine to
the human nature was stressed. A still greater limitation soon followed. Lutheran
scholastics distinguished between the operative attributes of God (omnipotence,
omnipresence, and omniscience), and His quiescent attributes (infinitude, eternity, etc.),
and taught that only the former were transferred to the human nature. They were all
agreed that the communication took place at the time of the incarnation. But the
question naturally arose how this could be squared with the picture of Christ in the
Gospels, which is not the picture of an omniscient and omnipresent man. This gave rise
to a difference of opinion. According to some, Christ necessarily exercised these
attributes during His humiliation, but did it secretly; but according to others their
exercise was subject to the will of the divine person, who voluntarily left them
inoperative during the period of His humiliation. Opposition to this doctrine repeatedly
manifested itself in the Lutheran Church. It was pointed out that it is inconsistent with
the idea of a truly human development in the life of Christ, so clearly taught by Luther
himself. The great Reformer’s insistence on the communication of attributes finds its
explanation partly in his mystical tendencies, and partly in his teachings respecting the
physical presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.
357