Final Flashcards

Question

What was the Ebionite heresy?

Answer 1

The Ebionite heresy was a heresy that taught that Jesus was just a human and was not divine; He was only a really good prophet. The Problem with Ebionitism is that it does not take into consideration John 1:1-18 or 1 Cor. 8:6.

Answer 2

The Docetic heresy was a heresy that taught that Christ was not really human, only a mirage to the eyes. He did not really suffer on the cross or feel hunger. This heresy fails to take into account the apostolic witness of the humanity of Jesus (1 John 1:1-4).

Answer 3

“There was a time when the Son was not” – popular slogan The Father was not always the Father Christ is not an angel, but is a lower class of god The issue with Arianism is that Scripture ascribes things to Christ that only God can do (Col. 1:17)

Answer 4

Jesus had a divine mind and a human body. Like a hand in a glove. “That which is not assumed is not healed.” – Gregory of Nazianzus Christ, If he was not truly human (meaning if he was just as human as you and I are), then he could not sympathize with us (Heb. 4:14-16; Heb 2:10-18).

Answer 5

Another name for it is Two Sons Theology Taught that there was a Son of God and Son of Mary All built on the assumption that deity could not change or unite, Mary is not the origin of God The issue is that Christ is described as one person in the Bible.

Answer 6

The Son of Mary is not the Son of God Two natures or subjects are connected by moral unity or accidental unity Human activities are asserted by the man Cannot say that God Incarnate suffered and died Mary cannot in any sense be the bearer of God

Answer 7

Cyril of Alexandria is the first one to Articulate the ‘Hypostatic Union’. He asserted that Christ was truly God and truly man without any confusion and melding of his natures. Jesus is One Person with Two natures. He is one and the same person. The Chalcedonian Definition draws heavily upon his language.

Answer 8

The doctrine of theotokos (θεοτοκος) was such a controversial point for Nestorius because he falsely reasoned that when the fathers called the Virgin Mary theotokos, they were saying that Mary was the origin of Christ’s divinity. We agree with Nestorius on that point, Mary is not the origin of God, but she did ‘bear’ God Incarnate. The term theotokos is not so much about Mary is it is about Jesus. Jesus was fully God even in the womb of Mary and from the moment of his conception.

Answer 9

The major theological points are, “the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity…” “one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation;” There is no mixture or separation between the natures, yet there is one person, one and the same Jesus Christ who for us men and our salvation became Incarnate.

Answer 10

Anhypostasia (ἂνυπόστασια) or “impersonality” teaches that Christ’s humanity does not exist before the hypostatic union and Enhypostasia (ἒνυπόστασια) or “inpersonality” teaches that Christ’s humanity was upheld by his deity just like the rest of us. Anhypostasia is important for our Christology because is guards against the idea that Jesus was ‘adopted’ by the Father and ‘made’ the son of God. Ever since his conception, Jesus has been God-Incarnate. Enhypostasia is important for our Christology because it is a testament to Christ’s true humanity. If Christ was not truly human like us, we could have no salvation.

Answer 11

The basic argument for images is that we are honoring Christ, the saints, and whoever else with images, but we are not worshipping them. John of Damascus, in favor of images, distinguished between doulia (δοῦλια) which means ‘service’ and latria (λάτρια) which means ‘worship’. The problem with this is that Scripture no where commands this image making or veneration of any of the saints or angels. Service and Worship are to be given ultimately to Christ alone. The argument against images is from the Second Commandment. Scripture is clear, images or any representation of any persons of the Godhead is sin. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, however, sided with John of Damascus and has permitted the usage of images to extreme of cultic practices in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern traditions.

Answer 12

Chalcedonian Christology is adamant about the unity and distinction of the natures of Christ. Christ is one person with two natures. These natures do not combine into a third nature. Yet, Christ does certain things according to his human nature (eats, sleeps, dies) and he does things according to his divine nature (forgives sins, knows the thoughts of men). His two natures are in perfect harmony in the one person of Jesus. This does not mean they share attributes, rather they work in perfect harmony together. Lutheran Christology asserts that the human nature of Christ and the Divine nature of Christ share attributes. Their view could be called a Semi-Eutychian view, since the Eutychians taught that the divine nature of Christ and the human nature of Christ combined to make a third nature. All of this is done to preserve the Lutheran’s doctrine of Lord’s Supper. The problem with Lutheran Christology is that it does not present Jesus as truly human. Humans, by definition, are not omnipresent. Just like God, by definition, cannot die on a cross. If the human nature of Christ is omnipresent, then he is not truly human. Just like if God could die, he would not be God.

Answer 13

Christ’s state of humiliation is his work as the Incarnate Son of God. He came down from heaven, took on our nature, lived a sinless life all the while being tempted like’a nobodies' business. Then he is unjustly condemned and executed like a criminal, he bears the weight of his Father against the sins of his people, then he is buried in a stranger’s tomb.

Answer 14

The state of Christ’s exaltation is his resurrection and vindication by God the Father, his ascension, his sitting at the right hand of the Father, his current ruling and reigning over all things, and one it will be his physical rule and reign over all things and the resurrection of his people.

Answer 15

You bet your Baptist britches he isn’t. The language that the Council of Nicaea uses to equate the Father’s deity and the Son’s deity is in direct rebuttal to Arianism, which teaches that the Son is a lesser god than the Father who is God. The issue with Eternal Subordination is that it uses the same reasoning as the Arians to say that Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father. Jesus is truly God, and God is one. He shares the same dignity and substance as the Father and the Spirit. Eternal Subordination could then be rightly called Semi-Arianism.

Answer 16

No. Jesus did not assume a fallen human nature. If he did this would make him disqualified from being our perfect mediator (Psalm 15). A sinful nature produces sin, and Hebrews says that he can sympathize with us in every way, sin only excepted (Heb. 4:14-16).

Answer 17

It depends on what you mean by able. Yes, Jesus had arms that could have strangled someone, he had eyes to look lustfully, he had feet to ‘rush to do evil’. Jesus had the faculties to sin. But Jesus is also God in the Flesh. God cannot sin. Not only this, but Jesus assumed an unfallen human nature. So, although he had the faculties to sin, he was not able to sin being God Incarnate.

Answer 18

The atonement was necessary because of the nature of our debt to God. Our debt for failing to keep his law is a penal one, meaning that it deserves punishment. Our sinful natures keep us from obeying the law. Not only this, but a mere human cannot bear the full wrath of God against sin. Therefore, once Adam fell, the atonement of Jesus became necessary.

Answer 19

The doctrine of Penal Substitution can be defined by looking at its two aspects: ‘penal’ and ‘substitution’. ‘Penal’ is an adjective that describes something as deserving punishment, and substitution means someone or something standing in place for someone or something else. So Penal Substitution means a substitution for a penal debt. Jesus was our substitute in his life and in his death. He was punished for our penal debt of sin. Scripture speaks of this in Isa. 53, 2 Cor. 5:21, and Eph. 1:7.

Answer 20

The biblical case for definite atonement can be found in John 6 and John 10. In these passages Jesus himself tells the unbelieving Jews that they are not his sheep, or that the Father has not given them to him. It follows that when Christ dies for his sheep, he dies for them alone. The Theological case can be made from looking at the alternatives. If Christ died for every single person, then every single person is atoned for. And if every person is atoned for, that means that everyone will be saved. If people, for whom Christ died, are in hell right now, then Christ death for their sins did not save them. Scripture also never speaks of man being made savable. Christ came to die for sinners. Those sinners for whom Christ died either have been, are presently, or will be saved. Christ is not a potential Savior. He is a definite Savior.

Answer 21

Hypothetical Universalism teaches that Christ’s death applies to all people generally, making all men savable. It does this by rearranging the order of the decrees of God, putting redemption before election, implying that every person is elect. This view is a very nuanced view which seeks to preserve the integrity of God’s offering of the gospel. Limited/Definite Atonement makes it a whole lot easier. God has elected a people for himself. We do not know who God’s elect are. Therefore, when preach the gospel of Jesus, we know that God knows those who are his and will bring them and not one of them will be left behind (John 10)

Answer 22

The Ransom Theory teaches that after the fall of Adam mankind is owned by Satan. God wants to redeem mankind, so he sends his Son to pay for the debt to Satan. However, Satan does not know that Jesus is God Incarnate and when he kills him he accidentally kills the Son of God. By raising Jesus from the dead, Jesus defeats Satan and invites all people to join in his spoils. This theory fails to take into account the penal nature of the fall and the sin that comes from. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) helpfully showed how the nature of the fall does not put man into the debt of the devil, rather it makes him a coconspirator with him, and both are liable to judgement.

Answer 23

The atonement is the culmination of the divine conflict between God and the serpent; Christ gains the victory in the cosmic battle at the cross This idea sometimes overlaps with the Ransom to Satan theory, but Aulén removes that influence Only made complete when paired with Penal Substitutionary Atonement; Christ is victorious through Him being punished on our behalf in order to secure our redemption

Answer 24

The Recapitulation Theory teaches that Jesus, in his Incarnation, was redeeming mankind at every stage of life. As an infant Christ did not sin and therefore made atonement for infants. As a teenager Christ did not sin and therefore made atonement for teenagers and so on. Irenaeus taught that Christ was 55 years old when he died. This view places all the emphasis on Christ’s Incarnation, and not on the Incarnation and his atoning death together as one unified working. It is true that Christ lived a perfect life for us, but that really means nothing if our sins are not dealt with one the cross.

Answer 25

We owe God a triple honour: We must immediately render to God honour in everything (total obedience) We must pay back the honour which we deprived God of (reparation) We must pay back even more honour due to our infinite insult (reparation) Anselm essentially says that God wants to fill empty seats, previously reserved for angels that didn’t come, in His giant football stadium, so He must save the required number of sinners to fill those seats

Answer 26

Held to unlimited atonement, meaning that he disagreed with penal substitution Christ suffered as an atoning sacrifice, but not in a penal substitutionary way Christ suffered, but it was not punishment God’s justice is satisfied by Christ’s perfect confession of sin (throughout His ministry) on our behalf, not His death on the cross One tear of sorrow by seeing us in our lost condition offers more atonement than a thousand years of punishment according to Campbell We are redeemed by Christ essentially saying “I’m sorry” on our behalf (contrition/repentance) This begs the question, “Why did Christ die?” Campbell doesn’t seem to have an answer

Answer 27

The Moral Influence or Exemplar Theory teaches that Jesus’s death on the cross was an example for all who follow him. Christ dies as an act of love to the Father and we as Christians must follow in such love. This view was allegedly taught by Peter Aberlard, but when looking at his commentary on Romans, his view appears to be more nuanced than this. This theory is like some of the others. It is not wrong, it is just incomplete. Yes we should follow the example of Christ, but this view completely overlooks sin and God’s wrath against sin. It also overlooks Christ’s love for his people in dying for them.

Answer 28

The Governmental Theory teaches that although he could have just forgiven people, God wanted to maintain order in the universe. Jesus’s sacrifice is nothing more than God showing humanity what happens if he disobeys. This theory is not founded in Scripture. If anything, the opposite is found. “For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever would believe in him would not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16).

Answer 29

“One and the same” frames the whole document Perfect divinity and perfect humanity (not fallen humanity) No confusion, change, division, or separation between the natures Two natures in one person, not two The one person is the only-begotten Son of God

Final Flashcards

(53 cards)