Lecture 5 Flashcards
What was one of the main issues that came about after the Council of Nicea?
The trinity was almost impossible to define without drifting in to some kind of heresy.
What factors led to the difficulty in defining the trinity between the church in the East and West?
- The “Jewishness” of Christians and their view of Christ
- The language of the Trinity embodied in the Logos Doctrine
- The subsequent heretical notions formed when theologians were too precise or too vague in their attempts to describe the trinity
- Differences in methods of biblical/theological interpretation (Antioch vs. Alexandria)
- Differences between Latin and Greek
In the first 300 years of Christianity heresy came from the outside. What was different now?
The Church had to band together and form a defense against heresy, but this time the heresy came from within
What did the Ebionites add to Christological heresies?
(ebionites) The “Jewish Christian” problem: Ebionites—Jewish Christians created problems for the apostle Paul (Gal 2:4; 2 Corinthians 3:1)
1. Jesus Christ was a prophet like Moses
2. Only Jesus had completely fulfilled the law, so God “adopted” him as his Son.
3. Jesus was capable of sinning
4. They were essentially monotheistic: Jesus was a man, and one dared not add to the Godhead
What did the Logos doctrine add to Christological heresies?
Philo of Alexandria: saw the Logos as God’s Wisdom—a participant in the act of creation, and an intermediary between God and humanity.
Justin Martyr said that the universal logos became fully known when it became a human being, in the form of Jesus. This is the same rational principle who was with the Father and was begotten before other things and persons were created.
Irenaeus in Against Heresies, says that the Logos was preexistent with God at all times. Attaches the full divinity of God on Christ.
Dynamic Monarchianism
a. “Non-Logos” adherents: Theodotus—Christ received “powers” (dynameis) from the baptismal Spirit for his special vocation, but he was not God
b. If he became God, it was after the resurrection
Modalistic Monarchians (Sabellius or Patripassianism)
The one, single, and unified Monarch—the one God as appearing in 3 separate and successive “modes”
What is the context that shaped how the School of Alexandria viewed theology?
Gnostic and Neoplatonic environment
a. In the tradition of Philo, Pantaenus founded the school for Christian instruction, to be followed by Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
What impacted Origen’s hermeneutics?
He had a Hellenistic interpretation + Hellenistic philosophy.
According to Origen, what is the relation of the Logos to Jesus?
o There are 2 separate natures in Christ
o The preexistent human soul of Jesus: Origen saw this in terms of a “substance” between deity and human flesh made it impossible for the nature of God to intermingle with a body without and intermediate instrument—the God-man is born.
How is Origen perspective on Logos and Jesus pivotal in at least two ways?
o In the east part of the Empire, the debate on the Trinity and Christology for the next period was carried on in the terms that he had set forth. It was as if he had made the rules of the game (Allegory)
o Second, he promoted the deductive method in theology and it reigned supreme in the middle ages.
What is the context that shaped how the School of Antioch viewed theology?
a. Connected with a literal adherence to the letter of the sacred texts
b. Gnostic and Greek speculative philosophy were less influential around Antioch
c. Christian thinkers in Antioch began with monotheism (makes sense, they were Jewish):
How did the Jewishness of Antioch influence their Christology?
Christian thinkers in Antioch began with monotheism (makes sense, they were Jewish):
• To protect the unity and oneness of God
• They centered on the humanity of Jesus (as a divine member of the trinity)
How did Paul of Samosata view the Trinity?
- The developing doctrine of the Trinity, including the eternal deity of the Son, threatened the monotheism of Jesus
- From his perspective, the Jewish Shema (“Hear, O Israel the Lord your God, the Lord is one. . .”) meant that the Logos-Son was a power of God so unified with him that it became a distinct existence only periodically—thus a limited experience
- Jesus-Christ was a man adopted by God as his special human son; he simply enjoyed this special relationship with God the Father beginning with his baptism in the Jordan River.
- Paul was condemned by a synod of bishops in Antioch (268)
Homoousios
homo means same; for example, homogenized; homoi means like or similar.
Ousia, from fem. part. ousa of verb eimi, “to be,” means essence or substance.
Christological problems were historically a consequence of what controversy?
The Christological problem is historically a consequence of the Trinitarian controversy.
The champions of orthodox doctrine both of the Trinity and the person of Christ were defenders of the mystery, not over-rationalists trying to figure them out and make them rationally intelligible to human thinking
Mere assertion of belief in the Trinity was not good enough if the way you explained it actually denies it! (Sabellianism, etc.)
1. The same was the case with Christology
What did the first two councils address?
Trinitarian Controversies.
What did the next four councils address?
Christological Controversies.
What did the last council address?
Iconoclasm
Homoousios
Jesus is divine, of the “same substance” as the Father.
What was the same substance that Jesus shared with the Father?
His divine nature. The Trinity shares the divine in the same way.
Hypostasis
A thing’s subsistence.
How were ousia and hypostasis related before 350?
The General Way: The essence of particulars.
-The essence of particular dogs is their “dogness”.
The Particular Way: The essence of a particular individual.
-The essence of that particular bulldog is made up of the particular characteristics that make it a bulldog (and not a Beagle).
When it came to differences in language, what got the East and Western church in trouble?
The Particular way of explaining ousia and hypostasis made it entirely proper to speak of the Trinity in three particular hypostasis (or traits).
How did the East and West understand hypostasis?
In the West, hypostasis tended to be understood only in the general sense of the shared essence (like Tertullian). Whereas in the East, hypostasis was understood in the particular sense.
How did the East and West hear each other when they spoke of hypostasis?
So, the East, in speaking of the three Persons of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—said there were three hypostases.
• Since the Westerner tended to think of hypostasis in the general sense, when the Easterner said three hypostases it sounded to the Westerner like three different essences.
• To the Western ear, this sounded like tri-theism.
• To the Eastern ear, when he/she heard the West speak of one hypostasis, it sounded like a form of monarchianism; it seemed to deny distinctions.
• The Easterner also feared homoousion denied any distinctions in the Godhead.
In a nutshell. The guys in the west thought that the guys in the east were not monotheistic. And the guys in the east didn’t think the guys in the west acknowledged any distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The council of Nicea defined the Trinity. But what happened to Arianism after the council?
There was a resurgence of it, and it threatened Christianity. Many Christian, especially in the East, followed Arianism.
What was Athanasius’ main concern as the Champion of Nicea?
a. He was primarily concerned with the salvation of humanity
b. This was only possible when “true God” united with “true man.”