CHRISTOLOGICAL
DEBATE IN PATRISTIC PERIOD
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Arius, Athanasius,
Appolinarius, Nicene Creed, Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandria, Antiochene-
Alexander debate, Chalcedonian definition
People often questions why the church
entered into disputes in different aspects, especially the conceptual
distinction between Christ’s divinity and his humanity. Christian began to as
doctrinal questions: Who Jesus was? What is the nature of Salvation and many
others. The development of classical Christological dogma and its expression
began to be assessed. Adolf van Harnack reiterated “the development of dogma
as deterioration and a deviation from the simple message of Jesus of Nazareth”.
Accordingly, the development of Christological dogma moved from functional
Christology of the New Testament to the more ontological thought. Yet another
position judges the early council’s doctrine to be a true expression of the
reality of Christ but nonetheless finds the development of dogma marked by a
gradual narrowing of the questions even till today. These early Christological
disputes were in themselves contextual responses to the culture of the day, the
Greek/Hellenistic culture, which was philosophically and conceptually oriented
in contrast to the Hebrew/Judaic culture which was less philosophical and more
holistic in its approach to divine things.
Was Jesus a Real Human Being?
In the second century, the Christological
debate centered on the question of the divinity of Christ most early church
fathers took it granted that Christ was human. In this discussion, the
Johannine concept of Logos was introduced and its implication for a more
developed Christology were considered.
Two heretical views concerning the nature
of Christ’s humanity were rejected. They were Ebionitism and Docetism
which were attempts to define Jesus’ Humanity in a way that did not compromise
his divinity.
Ebionitism
Ebionites (from Hebrew term that means
“the poor ones”) were primarily a Jewish sect during the first centuries that
regarded Jesus as an ordinary human being, the son of Mary and Joseph. Theses
Jewish believers, to whom the monotheism of the Old Testament was the dearest
heritage, could not begin to imagine that there was god besides the God of
Israel. Such belief would naturally lead to Polytheism. Most Ebionites saw
Jesus as one who surpassed others in wisdom and righteousness but was still
more a human being than a god.
According to the early church historian
Eusebius from the third century, there were actually two classes of Ebionites.
Both groups insisted on the observance of the Mosaic Law. The first group held
to a natural birth of Jesus, who was characterized by an usual moral character.
The other group accepted virgin birth but rejected the idea of Jesus’
preexistence as the Son of God.
Docetism
The term docetism comes from the Greek
word ‘dokeo’, “to seem” or “to
appear” According to this understanding, Christ was completely divine, but his
humanity was merely an appearance. Christ was not real human being.
Consequently, Christ suffering was not real.
Docetism was related to a cluster of
other philosophical and religious idea that are oftenly put under the umbrella
of Gnosticism. (from Greek term, gnosis. “knowledge”). The most important
contribution Gnosticism made with regard to Docetism was the idea of dualism
between matter and spirit. It regarded spirit as the higher and purer part of
creation, whereas matter represented frailty and even sinfulness.
Christian theology denied both Docetism
and Ebionitism. Docetism had a divine Savior who had no real connection with
humanity. Ebionitism had only a human, a moral example.
The New testament’s dual emphasis on
Christ as both a human being and a divine figure came to be known as Logos
Christology, for the simple reason that these early fathers adopted the
Johannine concept of Logos.
Irenaeus (c. 120/140 CE – c. 200/203 CE)
The first two
centuries were the most formative for Christian theological development.[1]
This era witnessed the shaping of
doctrines in the midst of controversies. Second century is distinct in the
study of Christian theology as it is a rough marker of a significant change.[2]
It had to do with the more urgent and fundamental tasks of defining the scope
and limits of what Christianity itself was to become. Christian writers in this
period had to face much more challenge from external forces than the No one set
out the ‘primitive Christian Kerygma’ of the Christian message in written form
more clearly than did Irenaeus, who was bishop in Lugdunum (Lyons) after the
persecution of 177 C.E.[3]
He is the first systematic theologian of the Christian church.[4]
He was from Asia Minor, where at Smyrna he had listened to the teachings of
Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of Apostle John. Irenaeus’ teachings were
influential and to a great extent dominated the Christian West.
He has two major works
which survives: Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses[5])
a form of theosophy survives in fragments, but a Latin translation from about
380 C.E., is complete. He called it The Refutation and the Overthrow of the
Knowledge Falsely So Called. His another work Demonstration of Apostolic
Preaching or Proof of Apostolic Preaching, known in a sixth century Armenian
translation since 1907 is “a compendium of theology.”[6]
Irenaeus’ anti-heretic polemics are well known especially his Against Heresies.
His main concern was to unmask the Gnostic myths as absurdities and to affirm
the corporeal reality of Jesus’ birth, career, death and resurrection against
the denial that anything material can be of God.[7]
Irenaeus presents a
catalogue containing various groups and sects whom he calls “Falsely so Called”
in the first volume of his Adversus Haereses. Its impact on the subsequent work
against the heresies has been quite extraordinary and unrivalled. Several of
Irenaeus’ uses of the designation gnostikos are more ambiguous, and it is not
very clear whether he is indicating the specific sects again or using
“Gnostics” now merely as a shorthand reference for virtually all of the groups
he is opposing.
His Christology
emerges out of his confrontation with ‘heretics.’ “The feud with Gnostic faith
helps Irenaeus formulate his Christology.”[8]
His Christology was not metaphysical but as Baillie writes, Irenaeus’ attempt
to find the divine in Jesus is not linked to a metaphysical basis but is an
attempt to correlate the redemptive love of Jesus and the nature of God.[9]
Irenaeus accuses the
Gnostics of ignoring the ‘hypothesis of truth,’ the substance of Christian
faith. Irenaeus accuses the Gnostics of substituting the ‘hypothesis of faith’
with their own hypothesis which they ‘dreamt into existence’ and is a
subtraction from the ‘hypothesis of faith.
For him the gospels
were the main resource for his Christology. He opposed the Docetics. He
rejected Marcion (he rejected the God of the Hebrew scripture as the one who
created evil and humanity, also the dualism of evil and good; and two
Christs-heavenly and earthly) and maintained that God is God of love and He was
known through Jesus Christ.
He used Logos (the
Hebrew notion) as the communication of God, though not quite equal to God. It was
through the Logos that God entered creation and history from the beginning,
always wanting to share Self with all of creation. The incarnation, is the
climax of creation summing up, or ‘recapitulates’ what God had intended for the
world all along: the union of the divine and the human. In Christ a new
humanity begun and through this humanity sin is overcome. He is credited with
the origin of incarnational theology.[10]
Clement
of Alexandria (c. 150 CE – c. 215 CE)
Titus
Flavius Clemens’ (popularly known as Clement of Alexandria) date of birth is
not known (some suggests it was around 150 CE) and he died about the year 215
CE. He was a Greek philosopher (Platonism) who later converted to Christianity
and became a theologian and head of the catechetical school of Alexandria.
He
had a thorough knowledge of the whole range of Biblical and Christian
literature, of orthodox and heretical works. He was fond of letters also, and
had a fine knowledge of the pagan poets and philosophers; he loved to quote
them, too, and has thus preserved a number of fragments of lost works.
Clement
taught that God was revealed to the philosophers as well as to the prophets.
Every revelation comes through Logos, which in time became incarnate in Jesus
the Christ. This Word “clothed in human flesh,” reveals God to human being. His
Platonic emphasis rendered Jesus’ humanity vague and his emphasis on the
teaching of the Word, rather than on the person and life of Jesus would become
later the foundational emphasis of the Alexandrian school on the divinity of
Christ.[11]
Clement
taught the Godhead in three terms. Some critics doubt whether he distinguished
them as Persons, but a careful reading of him proves that he did. The Second
Term of the Trinity is the Word. He merely drew a distinction between the
Father’s Divine immanent attribute of intelligence and the Personal Word Who is
the Son. The Son is eternally begotten, and has the very attributes of the
Father. They are but one God.
Clement
affirms the perfect identity between the Paraclete who is at work in the
Church, and the Paraclete who was active in the prophets. Implicit here is the
identification of this Paraclete with the Logos, because he had affirmed that
it was the Logos who worked in the prophets. The Paraclete, functions as a technical
term in Clement’s description of how the Logos transforms the perfect souls
towards godlikeness.[12] In
his Spirit Christology one can find at least three determining factors: First,
similarly to earlier writers, Clement deploys an allen compassing theory of the
Logos, and thereby inevitably claims for the Logos certain areas of activity
traditionally associated with the Holy Spirit, namely the inspiration of
Scripture and the charismatic empowerment of the believer. Second, Clement
follows the Philonic model of “translating” Scriptural terms and images into
philosophical concepts, and “explains” the Biblical Pneuma in light of
philosophical “Logos.” Thirdly, the term Dunamis seems to facilitate this
tendency, insofar as Clement uses it alternatively for the Logos and the
Spirit. There is a clear blurring of distinction between the Logos and the
Pneuma in him. However, there is no ontological identification.[13]
Arius
(c. 250- 336 CE)
Arius
was a Libyan Christian priest at Alexandria. He was well-known for his
ascetical, and moral teachings among his community. He attracted many to his
teachings especially about the absolute oneness of the divinity as the highest
perfect being. His theological teachings came to be known as Arianism where he
affirmed the finite nature of Christ and was denounced by the early church as a
major heresy at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.
Arius
appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: “the Father is
greater than I” and also Colossians 1:15: “the firstborn of all creation.”
Thus, Arius insisted that the Father’s Divinity was greater than the Son’s, and
that the Son was under God the Father, and not coequal or co-eternal with Him.
What then is the relation of the Son or the Word to God, to the Father? Arius,
given his view of God, logically concluded the following four things about this
relation:
a. The Son or the Word of God must be a creature, ktisma or poiema.
b. As a creature the Son or the Word must have had a beginning.
c. The Son can have no communion with, and indeed no direct
knowledge of, His Father.
d. The Son must be liable to change and even sin (treptos; alloiotes).
Arius
tried to secure the divinity of Jesus in regards to other human beings. At the
same time, this position did not make Jesus equal to the Father. In a sense,
Jesus was in the middle. The controversy came to be expressed by two Greek
words: homoousias, the Son is of the same essence as the Father, and
homoiousias, the Son is of similar essence as the Father. The Nicene creedal
formula, saying that Son is homoousias with the Father, became the orthodox
view, and Arianism was condemned by the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Arius was
exiled to Illyricum along with supporters. However, the victory of his
opponents short-lived. He returned back and a compromising formula was
negotiated but before that could happen, he died.[14]
Athanasius
of Alexandria (c. 296 – 298 CE)
There
are doubts about his birth date (c. 296-298 CE). He died in 373 CE. He was a
short, dark (sometimes called “the Black Dwarf”) and a poor man from a Coptic
family in Egypt. He went on to become the bishop of Alexandria (for over four
decades). He was also a renowned theologian, Church Father and an able
apologist. He is particularly known for his conflict with Arius and Arianism. A
staunch Alexandrian, he held to the full divinity of the Word. God alone saves,
and the purpose of the incarnation was to save humanity. His famous slogan was:
“God became human so the human might become God.” His well-known Christological
treatise is On the Incarnation.
The
starting point of his Christology is evidently John 1:1. It is of the
Word-flesh type. He writes, “The Logos has become man, and has not just entered
into a man.” His Christology has a very soteriological emphasis. He writes, “We
ourselves were the motive of His incarnation; it was for our salvation that He
loved man to the point of being born and of appearing in a human body.” It is
interesting to note how he explains the process of incarnation. According to
him, Christ took flesh. He fashioned a body for himself in the Virgin’s womb.
Logos is the governing principle to understand incarnation. It (?) is the
animating principle, and the rational soul of human. Logos in Christ is both
the integral part of him as well as the moving and animating force off his
body.[15]
Apollinarius
of Laodicea (c. 310 – c. 390 CE)
He
is also known as Apollinarius “the Younger” (c.310-c.390 CE). He was
particularly peeved with the increasing spreading of the belief that in Christ
the Logos assumed human nature in its entirety. In that case, he thought that
Logos would be contaminated by the weakness of human nature. And Jesus’ sinless
nature cannot be maintained. Apollinarius being a pious, orthodox theologian
cannot maintain such a position, so he suggested, that if a real human mind in
Jesus were replaced by a purely divine mind, only then could Christ’s
sinlessness can be maintained. He maintained that Christ had a human body and a
human sensitive soul, but no human rational mind, the Divine Logos took over
the latter.
His
teachings gave rise to what came to be known as Apollinarianism. His
Christological position rendered Christ’s human nature incomplete. It
compromised Jesus’ role as the Saviour. His position was to obviate the Arian
position, but ended up proposing a similar position like his opponent.
Apollinarianism was condemned at the Council of Constantinople, 381 CE.
Council
of Nicaea (325 CE): Nicene Creed;
About
250 bishops (majority of them were from the East) were summoned by Emperor
Constantine at Nicaea (present-day Isnik in Turkey). Arius and his followers
were condemned and an official creed was formulated. It reads,
We believe in
One God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and
invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son
of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light
from Light,
True God from True God, Begotten, not made, of one
substance with
the Father, through Whom all things were made.
Imperial
authority was used to settle doctrinal issue. Church became part of the
‘kingdom’ something different from the kingdom of God preached by Jesus. There
was an over reliance on Greek philosophy than on scripture. This led to a more
‘high Christology.’
Cappadocian
Fathers
These
were a remarkable group of philosophically minded theologians from
Cappadocia—Basil of Caesarea also known as Basil the Great (330-379 CE), his
younger brother Gregory of Nyssa (c.332-395 CE), and his lifelong friend
Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389 CE). Quasten says, Basil was the “man of action,”
Gregory of Nazianzus “the orator,” and Gregory of Nyssa “the thinker.”[16] They
were instrumental in development of the early doctrine of Christian theology
especially the doctrine of the Trinity. They were also responsible in making
substantial defence against Arianism and Apollinarianism.
Arianism
has two views: some believed/taught that the Son is of like substance with the
Father and others who were more radical believed that the Son cannot be like
the Father (in terms of essence), because he is created, therefore, he cannot
be God. By using the formula of “one substance (ousia) in three persons
(hypostaseis)” the Cappadocian Fathers presented their Christology.
Gregory
of Nazianzus teaches about Logos that He bore the flesh, and conjoins Himself
with an intelligent soul for humanity’s sake, and became human except being
sinful. Gregory states that the two natures “have been substantially (kat’
ousian) conjoined and knit together.” For him, the Lord’s rational soul
provides the meeting-place for them (two natures); because of His natural
affinity to the soul, the Word can “mingle” with it.
Gregory
of Nyssa opines that the God-head had entered into the humanhood, so that
Jesus could be called “the God-receiving human (theodochos anthropos).”
His Christology becomes problematic when he argues that when Christ endured
suffering or other human experiences, it was not His divinity which endured
them, but “the human attached by the union to the divinity;” they belonged “to
the human part of Christ.”
Basil
the Great, Christology is not found in detail. It is, however, well known
that he advocated the Nicene position against Arianism. For him Godhead is
perceived as three particular ‘personhoods’ that share the same essence. He
sees the exalted position of Christ to the ‘right hand of the Father’ as ‘a
relationship of coequality’ to the Father. Christ therefore, is divine and
equal in divinity to the other Persons in the Trinity. Christ is the power of
God, the wisdom of God, the image of the invisible God, and the brightness of
God’s glory. For Basil, Christology is ecclesially embedded in the worship,
liturgy, preaching of the Word, and the Sacraments. The real presence of Christ
is located in the church, and in the liturgical practice of worship and
participation in the Sacraments.
The
most important ‘heresies’ to be confronted by the fifth century church known as
Nestorianism. Its proponent was Nestorius who became bishop of
Constantinople in 428. He was opposed to the inappropriate usage of the title theotokos
(‘God-bearer’ or ‘Mother of God’) for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and from this
the conclusion was drawn that he denied that Christ was God and regarded him
merely as a human. He preferred to use the term ‘Christ-bearer’ as the best
solution to this problem. Studies on Nestorius have shown that he has been
misrepresented by his opponents in many issues on the person of Jesus Christ.[17]
Cyril’s main concern was not the relation of the two natures in Christ, but
rather the identity and the unity of the Word before and after the incarnation.
For him there are two modes of existence of the God-human: pre-existence and
incarnation, but it is one and the same Word that exists in these two modes.
Godhead and humanity are united in the one God-human. He emphasized that both
the divinity and humanity are ‘hypostatically’ united, not just ‘conjoined.’[18] And
each of the elements in his being “remains and is perceived in its natural
property.”
Antiochene- Alexander debate
The
Alexandrian and the Antiochian debate on Christology exposed from their own
thought. There were many different viewpoints of the doctrine proposed by
Alexandrian School (ex: Arius, Athansius, and Apollinarius) and Antiochene
School (ex: Eustathius, Diodore) in the Church. However, the controversial
zenith of the Christology is between Cyril of Alexandrian School and Theodore
of Antiochene School from the 4th to 5th century.
The
Alexandrian school adopted the "hypostasis union" or the "nature
union" of the Godhead and manhood to assert the oneness of Jesus Christ, the
Antiochian School accepted the "indwelling theology", that is, the
Godhead dwells in manhood, as if were two persons in one, to assert that no
confusion had occurred between the Godhead and manhood, and to avoid
attributing human weakness to His divinity. The starting point of the
Alexandrian School was John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh", while
that of the Antiochian was Colossians 2:9 "For in Him dwells the fullness
of the Godhead bodily".
The main debate is the Divine and human nature
of Christ
The
Alexandrian school of thought:
-
God became human being in order that
humanity might become divine.
-
Logos assume the human nature.
-
Cyril of Alexandria: Logo there is
one nature of logo. Logo assume united the human nature to itself.
“God
became human thus not mean that there was any change in the nature of the word
when it became flesh”. “The logo united personally to himself the flesh entered
with the rational soul”.
Alexandrian
school of thought: Logos is divine and assumed the general human nature
Antiochene
school of thought:
Two
nature of thought. Christ was at one hand at same time both divine and human.
there was a perfect conjunction of divine and human nature.
Antiochene
school of thought: Logos is human but assumed a specific human being. (i.e.
Jesus of Nazareth)
Controversies:
1. Appolinarianism
Appolonarius
(Alexandrian view) - Christ had a physical body but a divine mind
Gregory
of Nizianzus ( Antiochene view) - because anything in Jesus that wasn’t
human couldn’t be saved.
Council
of Constantinople – 381 - Antiochene Position Wins
2. Nestorianism—for argument see Bishop Cyril
and Nestorius above.
Bishop
Cyril(Supported by west and Emperors Valentinian III, Theodosius II)
–Alexandrian View -
Nestorius(Patriarch
of Constantinople) ( Antiochene View)
Council
of Ephesus – 431- Nestorius was excommunicated
Council
of Ephesus 431 CE
At
Ephesus Nestorius was excommunicated and condemned by Cyril with the help of
Caelestin bishop of Rome. This controversy sullied the image of Christianity
very much. The only positive achievement of this council was that it canonized
the Nicene Creed as enshrining the core of Christological orthodoxy. However,
the Council of Ephesus could not solve the problem of unity of person in Jesus
Christ. Aftermath of Ephesus was murkier than ever before. So, attempts were
made for reconciliation. An important accord was reached between the
Alexandrians and Antiochenes in 433 C.E. called the Symbol of Union. Cyril for
his part denied any change or confusion of the two natures, while the
Antiochenes reluctantly abandoned Nestorius. Cyril’s favourite expressions,
such as “one nature” and “hypostatic union” were left out, and there was
explicit mention of a duality of natures in the union. Theotokos was admitted,
and there was no mention of a “conjunction” of the natures
Towards
Chalcedon 451 CE
After Nestorius was condemned and
ex-communicated the Alexandrian and Antiochene were in serious clashe which was
precipitated by Eutyches (c. 378-454), by teaching that in the incarnate
Christ there are no longer two natures but one. This is the doctrine of
‘monophysitism’ the doctrine that in Christ there is only a divine, not a
human, nature. It was also almost fully Docetic. Eutyches was condemned in the
general council. They called for a new council at Chalcedon in 451. Some
500 bishops, majority of them from East attended this council. An interesting
comment is valid here. The main concern of the council was the Empire’s unity,
so a resolution of the Christological controversies had to be found and imposed
once and for all.
Council
of Chalcedon (451 CE)- Chalcedonian
definition
The
Council tried to resolve the Christological controversies between Alexandrians
and Antiochenes. However, they tried, but could not reach a permanent settlement.
But it was able to combat some major ‘heresies’ like Nestorianism and
Eutychianism.
The
controlling principle of Chalcedon holds that provided that was both truly
divine and truly human, the precise manner in which this is articulated or
explored is not of fundamental importance.
Maurice
Wiles neatly summarizes the aim and achievement of Chalcedon:
On the one hand
was the conviction that a saviour must be fully divine; on the other hand was
the conviction that what is not assumed is not healed. Or, to put the matter in
other words, the source of salvation must be God; the locus of salvation must
be humanity. It is quite clear that these two principles often pulled in
opposite directions. The Council of Chalcedon was the church’s attempt to
resolve, or perhaps rather to agree to live with, that tension. Indeed, to
accept both principles as strongly as did the early church is already to accept
the Chalcedonian faith.
One
could perhaps say that, on the one hand, Chalcedon functioned as a signpost
pointing in theright direction, and on the other hand, it was a fence
separating orthodoxy and heresy.
Justin
Martyn
Greek
philosophy “Jesus who has appeared for as human being represents logo principle
in all its fullness”
LOGO/
Word is the ultimate source of knowledge. This logo was understood both Greek
philosophers and Christian believers.
The
Greek philosophers understood logo partially were Christian understood logo
fully. Through the Christian had full understood about logos.
Origen
Origen
also follow the logo. In incarnation, human soul of Christ is united with the
logos. Although the logo and father are co-eternal and the logo is subordinate
to the father. And this is the starting point of debate in patristic period.
Arius
1. Raised the
issue of relationship between father and son.
God
was not always father. There was a time God was alone. And only after logo God
became the father.
Son
din not always exists. God created everything out of nothing, definitely the
logo of the son created out of nothing.
The
logos was a created being like any other creature, son had a beginning.
2. Son of God-
son does not exist
3. God the son
was a just a created being. the son ship of
Jo: 3:135, 10:30,
The history of Christian thought
Bishop
Athanasius
1. Only God can
save humanity
2. No creature
can cannot save another creature:
cannot
be the only savior. Because JESUS CHRIST just a creature.
John
1:14-since is the only the savior then he cannot be created by God.
Christian
worship and pray to Jesus. Therefore JESUS CHRIST is God, coeternal, etc.
His
argument is based on general Christian understanding about salvation.
Counsel
of Nicene 381 AD
Two
terms
1. Homoiousios:
of like substance/ of like being
2. Homoousios:
of same substance/ of same being
Nicene
council conclude that, Christ is of same substance and of same being. This
council also affirms that JESUS CHRIST is the only begotten of the father and same
substance of the father.
Gibbon
Never
had there been so much energy spend over a single vowel.
Conclusion
of Nicene council:
JESUS
CHRIST the only begotten son of God,
begotten of the father, before all the worlds, God od God, begotten not made,
being of one substance with the father.
What
kind of human nature had be assumed?
Wheter
the logo assume sinful nature?
Apollinarius
of Laodices
How
could, the son of God be allowed to be tainted by purely human nature?
Logos
assumed the human nature: If we argues
that sinlessness of Christ would be compromised. In Christ, Purely human mind
human soul were replaced by purely divine mind and divine soul.
How
could human nature be redeemed if only part of human nature had be assumed by
the law?
The
answer given by Gregory of NAZIANZUS
For
what has not be assumed has not be healed: it is what id united to his divinity
that is saved.
Theodore
of Mopsuestia
“JESUS
CHRIST was Embodiment of both divine and
human therefore JESUS CHRIST was worship
and honor”.
Nestorian: “If you say JESUS
CHRIST was both divine and human you are
creating two son. That is son of man and son of God. In order to avoid this
danger he argue that, is the common name of both nature.”
Christ
is indivisible in that he is Christ, but he is twofold in that he both God and
a human being.
Theodore: How human and
divine nature are related?
The
hypostatic unit.
Antiochene
argue that, the union of divine and human of JESUS CHRIST is nothing but hypostatic unit.
Hypostatic
literally means subsistence or concrete and actual existence.
The
union of divine and human nature are moral union.
Nestorian
Marry
was address as mother of God:
Theotokos-
bear of God because of Mary carry Jesus Christ.
Why
can’t we called marry as the Anthropotokos- bear about humanity.
Chalcedon
counsel reject the Nestorian thought
Nestorian
says that “…Begotten of the father begotten of the Virgin Mary, theotokos… made
non in two nature without confusion, without change, without division, without
separation…”
Whether
the council of Chalcedon cleared all the doubt of nature of Jesus or not?
both
Human and divine. But the point is council of Chalcedon failed to explain how
this tow nature are united in Jesus Christ. In other word, council of Chalcedon
could not bring the two natures of Jesus Christ.
We
can see the emergence of Mono-physitism in the 6th century.
What
is Mono-physitism? Mono-physitism argued that there is one nature in Christ. That
nature is not human rather divine.
This
argument is accepted by Coptic Church, Armenian Church, Syrian Church and
Abyssinian Church.
Cappadocian
Father
a. Basil the
great
b. Geogory of
Nazianzus
c. Geogory of
Nyssa
Came
from Durki.
Cappadocian
Father
One
God act exist in three different modes of being. For them substance is one
(ousia) but that substance is spread in three person (hypostasis). That is
Father Son and Holy Spirt.
Their
argument is that son is begotten of the father spirit proceeds from the
father.
Geogory
of Nyssa says that “The one person of the father from who the son is
begotten and the spirit proceeds. Three have one nature (Divine Nature) the
ground of their unity being the father, the father is given the priority”.
How
can one substance be present in three person?
For
that Basil of Caesaree: He argued that “a common human nature shared by
all people does not mean that all beings are identical: it means that they
retain their individuality even though they share this common nature”
Geogory
of Nyssa says that “Peter, James and John are called three humans even
though they share a single common humanity”.
Though
it was written in three historical is narrated in the bible one god in the
three essence.
Ireneaus
Vs Origen- Christological Debate
Ireneaus “In
incarnation JESUS CHRIST recapitulated
in himself in long history of human race in order to save the humanity and
regain the lost image in Adam”. (The origin of God is Lost)
“Jesus’s
life was ransom for many”. Based on mark 10:45 I timothy 2:6.
Origen ask question
that, If Jesus life was the ransom paid to someone then whom the ransom was
paid?
Irenaous response that
the ransom was not paid to Satan
Ex.
Jesus’s death was like a hook used to get the fish. And Jesus’s life was a trap
to kill the power of Satan.
Filogue
controversy
The
Nicene Creed holy spirit proceed form the father. 9th century
western church change this phrase holy spirit proceed form father and the son.
In order to change this phrase they used Filogue Latin word that is (father and
the son.). Eastern Church continued with the old phase that is Holy Spirit
proceed form the father.
God
the son is, the word of God
God
the Holy Spirit is the breath of God.
Augustine: “No can we
say that Holy Spirit does not also proceed form the son, based on John 20:22”.
[1]
Samuel
George, “The Emergence of Christology in the Early Church: a Methodological
Survey with Particular Reference to the Anti-Heretical Polemics of Irenaeus of
Lyons,” Asia Journal of Theology 24, no. 2 (October 2010): 219-231.
[2]
Arland
J. Hultgren and Steven A. Haggmark, eds., The Earliest Christian Heretics.
Readings from Their Opponents (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 2.
[3]
Eric
Osborn, “Irenaeus of Lyons,” in The First Christian Theologians. An
Introduction to Theology in the Early Church, ed. G. R. Evans (Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004; reprint, 2005), 120.
[4]
Robert
F. Brown, “On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus’ Adversus
Haereses IV, 38,” Scottish Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (1975): 17.
[5]
This
title was given by Eusebius (EH3.23.3) cf. John Behr, The Way to
Nicaea, Formation of Christian Theology, vol. 1 (New York: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 2001), note no. 4, 112.
[6]
Irenaeus,
Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, trans., Joseph P. Smith, Ancient
Christian Writers, vol. 16 (New York: Newman Press, 1952), 19.
[7]
Gerard
S. Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus. History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1995), 80.
[9]
D.
M. Baillie, God Was in Christ: An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948),70.
[10]
Brennan
R. Hill, Jesus the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, New ed. (New London,
Connecticut: Twenty-Third Publications, 2006), 224-25.
[11]
For
a detailed work on Clement’s Christology refer to Oleh Kindiy, Christos
Didaskalos: The Christology of Clement of Alexandria (Germany: VDM Verlag
Dr. Mueller, 2008)
[12]
Bogdan
G. Bucur, “Revisiting Christian Oeyen: “The Other Clement” on Father, Son,
and the Angelomorphic Spirit,” Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007):
388-9.
[13]
Bogdan G. Bucur, “Revisiting Christian Oeyen…, 389.
[14]
Cf.
Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the
Fall of Reason (New York: Vintage Books, 2002); Jonathan Kirsch, God
Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism (New
York: Viking Compass).
[15]
Hill, Jesus the Christ: Contemporary
Perspectives, 229.
[16]
Johannes
Quasten, Patrology, vol. III (Texas: Christian Classics, 1962), 204, 36,
54.
[17]
F.
Nau (ed.), Le livre d’Heraclide de Damas, Paris 1910 and F. Loofs,
(ed.), Nestoriana, Halle 1905, also S. Cave, The Doctrine of the
Person of Christ, Duckworth, 1925, quoted in Macquarrie, 162.
[18]
George
Sabra, “The Christological Controversies of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries,” Bangalore
Theological Forum XXXII, no. 1 (June, 2002): 82.
