06-19-2005, 08:35 PM
Paul, Andrew, Dean, Larry, and anyone else,
I will briefly outline my understanding of those philosophies and then ask some questions. I'm sure that depending on your answers I will have several follow ups.
I've been thinking about the Trinity lately. I believe that had we held on to the ancient definition of the "qnoma" there would be many less un-orthodox variants of our faith. There probably would be no Arians, Mormons, or JW's.
Nestorianism emphasized the fulness of both the Word's deity and His humanity but these were emphasized to the degree of one had to speak of Christ as almost two persons; one divine and the other human. Nestorians sacrificed the unity of Christ's person for the fulness of deity and humanity.
Apollinarianism taught that the Word of God, took the place of the rational human soul of Jesus and that the body of Christ was a glorified form of human nature. In other words, the Word became the divine nature of Christ. Even though Jesus was a man, He did not have a human mind but that the mind of Christ was solely divine. This philosophy taught that the two natures of Christ could not coexist within one person. The solution was to lessen the human nature of Christ.
Arianism taught that the Word is not eternal with the Father but was created by the Father. It was this heresy that brought forth the Council at Nicea and the famous Nicene Creed and the belief in "homousios".
Gnosticism arose in about 60 AD with the premise that knowledge was superior to virtue, a nonliteral understanding of scripture is correct and can be understood only a select few, evil in the world precludes God from being the only creator (since God is good), the incarnation is an impossibility because deity cannot unite with anything material as the body (since the body is evil), and there is no resurrection of the flesh.
Hypostasis or Hypostatic Union teaches that the Father and the Son are of the same substance or nature. This gave rise to the idea of the customary refrain; in one God there are three persons.
Eutychonianism and Monophysitism simply taught that in Christ existed only one nature.
Chalcedonian emphasizes the oneness of Christ's person and the distinction of His two full natures, divine and human, in unity with each other. Against the Apollinarians, it teaches that Christ had a human soul in addition to human flesh. Against the Nestorians, it teaches that Christ's two natures are distinct yet not divided or separable. Against the Eutychans, it taught that Christ was of the same human essence as we are and that both the natures (divine and human) exist with being absorbed by the other.
Now for the questions:
1) Nestorius did not teach what we call Nestorianism?
2) It sounds to me as if the Chalcedonians are closest to what we believe with the possible exception that those who believe in the "qnoma" believe that Christ's nature, while distinct is separable?
Let me know what you guys thinnk,
Keith
I will briefly outline my understanding of those philosophies and then ask some questions. I'm sure that depending on your answers I will have several follow ups.
I've been thinking about the Trinity lately. I believe that had we held on to the ancient definition of the "qnoma" there would be many less un-orthodox variants of our faith. There probably would be no Arians, Mormons, or JW's.
Nestorianism emphasized the fulness of both the Word's deity and His humanity but these were emphasized to the degree of one had to speak of Christ as almost two persons; one divine and the other human. Nestorians sacrificed the unity of Christ's person for the fulness of deity and humanity.
Apollinarianism taught that the Word of God, took the place of the rational human soul of Jesus and that the body of Christ was a glorified form of human nature. In other words, the Word became the divine nature of Christ. Even though Jesus was a man, He did not have a human mind but that the mind of Christ was solely divine. This philosophy taught that the two natures of Christ could not coexist within one person. The solution was to lessen the human nature of Christ.
Arianism taught that the Word is not eternal with the Father but was created by the Father. It was this heresy that brought forth the Council at Nicea and the famous Nicene Creed and the belief in "homousios".
Gnosticism arose in about 60 AD with the premise that knowledge was superior to virtue, a nonliteral understanding of scripture is correct and can be understood only a select few, evil in the world precludes God from being the only creator (since God is good), the incarnation is an impossibility because deity cannot unite with anything material as the body (since the body is evil), and there is no resurrection of the flesh.
Hypostasis or Hypostatic Union teaches that the Father and the Son are of the same substance or nature. This gave rise to the idea of the customary refrain; in one God there are three persons.
Eutychonianism and Monophysitism simply taught that in Christ existed only one nature.
Chalcedonian emphasizes the oneness of Christ's person and the distinction of His two full natures, divine and human, in unity with each other. Against the Apollinarians, it teaches that Christ had a human soul in addition to human flesh. Against the Nestorians, it teaches that Christ's two natures are distinct yet not divided or separable. Against the Eutychans, it taught that Christ was of the same human essence as we are and that both the natures (divine and human) exist with being absorbed by the other.
Now for the questions:
1) Nestorius did not teach what we call Nestorianism?
2) It sounds to me as if the Chalcedonians are closest to what we believe with the possible exception that those who believe in the "qnoma" believe that Christ's nature, while distinct is separable?
Let me know what you guys thinnk,
Keith