Early Christian Theology Final Exam

Augustine's understanding of evil, against the Manichees

(Book 7 of Confessions); needs to show he is no longer a Manichee, the Confessions is a very public book Manichees: evil is substance, materiality, God is a superphysical mass He was attracted to the Manichees because he wanted to seek after wisdom and was repelled by the style and content of Christian scriptures Becomes skeptical of Faustus' faulty science and cosmology and grasp of the liberal arts Meets Ambrose (good public speaker, highly cultured): the Bible was ugly, but Ambrose talked pretty Ambrose taught him how to read the Bible 1. God is ABSOLUTELY GOOD, not the cause of evil 2. There is only one God: evil is not the parallel principle to God (monotheism) 3. Evil is not a THING: Creation (existence) is good (Gen. 1) because God is good 4. the origin of evil is the WILL (in both humans and angels): the nature of evil is a perversion of the good KEY: he is denying that evil is a principle of the cosmos, and affirms the goodness of creation Dualism refuses to take responsibility for evil (including the evil within yourself) God is supremely good, and creation is beautiful (it reveals God) Evil has infected language (system of signs), therefore society is deeply corrupt at the level of language, therefore signs and sacraments are given to replace the language COROLLARY: 1. Evil is always PARASITIC (it depends on good to exist) Evil is never the final word about the universe (God will right every wrong) 2. Evil is the product of a will: Evil is not a THING, but a DISPOSITION OF THE HEART ministry changes hearts/minds the WILL is the moral/spiritual direction of the entire person

Augustine's understanding of use v. enjoyment

(from De Doctrina Christiana) THINGS v. SIGNS (things that point to other things, they signify) THINGS are meant to be ENJOYED or USED ENJOYMENT (not pleasure/joy): cling to something lovingly for its own sake (All of Augustine's theology is organized around love) ONLY THE TRINITY CAN BE TRULY ENJOYED (only thing we can successfully love for its own sake, with our whole mind/soul/strength) Everything else is USED We try to cling to other things because we imagine they will satisfy us We are creatures of love/desire (we enter the world needing), but we love the right things in the wrong order The proper order of loves: 1. Only God for God's own sake 2. Our neighbor The love of self is good, but I should love other people more than I love my body (this is the rationale for martyrdom)

radical subordinationism

Arius' subordination of the Son to the Father He originally meant to emphasize solely the fact that the uncaused Father caused the Son Arius had interpreted orthodox (Alexander of Alexandria's) position of Son's co-eternality with the Father as obscuring the fact that the Son was necessarily begotten Later he got carried away, daring to declare that the Son was of a totally different nature from the Father, created "out of nothing" Son created with the rest of creation - so a creature If created then not one with the father - Son is subordinate (much more than Origen places the ordering) If created than not of the same substance (homoousios) Only homoiousios (like the Father and only like human nature. No substantial identification with God or humanity No union of God and humanity in Christ then there is a gap between God and humanity and if that is the case then there is no salvation! Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cappadocian Fathers were chiefly responsible for arguing how the implications of radical subordinationism could be expressed in terms of Homoousian Christology (the Son is consubstantial with the Father) and the Trinitarian theology of three coequal divine hypostases sharing the same nature. After the fourth century Niceno-Constantinopolitan settlements, subordinationism was officially excluded from patristic conciliar orthodoxy.

Neo-Chalcedonianism

Associate with Maximus the Confessor Attempt to interpret Chalcedon in a way consistent with continuing influence of Cyril Maximus influenced by Gregory more than anyone else (along with Origen, pseudo-Dionysius) Maximus uses (Leontius of Byzantium's?) definition #1 of ὑποστασις (specific instance of general οὐσια) There's no such thing as a hypostasis or nature; these are analytical terms for what really exists: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit Incarnation is not a metaphysical puzzle, but a narrative about Jesus, the Son of God "who" is Christ, not "what" is Christ?

Strict Chalcedonianism

Associated with Leontius of Byzantium Chalcedon didn't define ousia or hypostasis, it simply used them Strict C. was an extrapolation of Chalcedon in terms of a metaphysical scheme developed by Leontius Makes strong distinction between ousia (essence) and hypostasis (person) Strict Chalcedonians tend to emphasize the dualist pieces of Chalcedon at the expense of Christ as a single subject Agenda: explain a balanced two-nature Christology metaphysically Against: Eutychean miaphysitism Three Metaphysical Points natures are always hypostasized (Aristotle vs. Plato) not all natures hypostasized uniquely definition of hypostasis as that which distinguishes X from what is common and other instances of the particular Implication: ordinary Christian theological language is inadequate, and you need specialized theologians

Athanasius' two arguments in defense of the incarnation-crucifixion

Based in two dilemmas: 1) of life and death, 2) of knowledge and ignorance: 1) God made all with a purpose, and saw it as absurd that what he had made was destined to die. So He decided to defeat death through the crucifixion of the incarnate Word (Jesus). 2) We ignored knowledge of the good as seen in nature and the prophets, and so we can't become just. So God made the incarnate Word in order to restore our proper understanding of the good; Jesus is an image of God on the basis of which we can now reconstruct our broken humanity and resemblance to God. (ZF, GJ) 1) Ontological/physical argument death was a problem for God since all creatures were made out of nothing, it was our natural inclination to return to nothing after our deaths (decomposition) humans are prone to death and we needed to more to endure the more is participation in the Word of God by Grace but our free will removes us from the Grace and we return to our natural state - participation in the Word by Grace is no longer enough by the incarnation, the Word is made flesh and flesh is made incorruptible. Yay! ("soteriology of contact") 2) Epistemic problem/knowledge Christ is the visible image of the invisible God (Origen) in our turning away from God, we became obsessed with things we could see and so ignored the invisible God what to do about this? Incarnation! visible image needed for vision-centric people (us) the resurrection shows us that Christ is God, and so we have something that we can focus our attention on, and the resurrection is only possible because of the crucifixion

Irenaeus' doctrine of recapitulation

Bringing things back around to their starting point Incarnational soteriology as a cosmic mystery of the summation of time Irenaeus is considered to be the first to clearly express a recapitulation view of the atonement: "He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things...And therefore does the Lord profess Himself to be the Son of man, comprising in Himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned, in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm [of victory] against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death." [16] - New Adam For Irenaeus all things are recapitulated in Christ / cross Turns conventional thinking about creation on its head and made it much more Christ-centered Redemption/Salvation Irenaeus' idea is found in this Adam typology - "new creation" / renewal of creation redemption of the human body and soul and in doing that through Jesus' obedience, God is recreating the human race... Jesus' obedience vs. Adam's disobedience the restoration of humanity's communion with God "summed up" the original point of creation, which had fallen away but is now recapitulated through Christ Common term in New Testament and rhetoric Romans 13: Scripture recapitulates in this word and that you should love your neighbor as yourself... Matthew 22: on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets Ephesians 1: 7-10: "...as a plan for the fullness of time to SUM UP all things in heaven and earth in Christ

The "theological principle" of Cyril's Christology in The Unity of Christ

Cyril of Alexandria - 440 AD - "On the Unity of Christ" (p. 84-5) - Bequeaths to later tradition this great phrase : "The mystery of Christ" to denote the whole incarnation, the whole Christ event The Theological principle of the incarnation according to Cyril (and Gregory too): - "God and human nature are not equal" - A categorical difference exists between them - In light of this, there is the great Christ hymn→ Phil 2 "emptied himself etc" - God's self emptying is a way to talk about the relationship between God and human creatures- for God to become human could also be described as: - Self-emptying condescension - Cyril emphasizes the theological principle: - Divinity is fullness, by contrast humanity is emptiness - Compared to God, our nature is empty Note: in total he stated 4 principles, the others are soteriological, devotional and hermeneutical.

Augustine's understanding of the three-fold method of Christian preaching

De Doctrina, book 4; from Augustine (II) lecture on 11/18 1) Teach Make it true, clear and instructive 2) Delight Use (pagan!) rhetorical strategies, keep the congregation's interest not so much that stylistic aspects obscure the substance of your sermon if you tell a cutesy story, make sure that's not the only thing people remember about your sermon 3) Sway (persuade) Move people both emotionally and towards truth, love of God & neighbor Change their lives Not simply intellectual persuasion - this can be done solely using 1) above (teaching, lecturing) If you can do this, this is a true sermonic victory How to do this? read and hear other people's sermons live out your sermons let congregation know your true emotions This is what cura animarum (curing souls) is Connection with Cicero's saying: "eloquence = saying minor things calmly (teaching), middling things moderately (delighting), and grand things grandly (swaying)" (p. 220, Teaching Christianity)

communicatio idiomatum

Deals with the natures and actions of the single person who was the Logos incarnate. [These - second word] signify the things which are "proper or peculiar to a nature" to the [this] of the humanity would be mortality, hunger, weakness, and the [this] of divinity would be immortality, infinite power, etc. While Cyril of Alexandria wished to stress the organic unity of the divine person of Christ operating in a human body that had been fully integrated into divinity, Pope Leo wished to stress the authentic humanity. The Tome of Leo, therefore, laid considerable stress on the "two natures," which continued their respective operations under the presidency of a single divine person. Cyrilline Christology regarded this as a defectively mechanistic view. Alexandrians had long been accustomed to refer to the two [these] indiscriminately as a mark of their strong support for the single-subject Christology. Thus, Cyril often spoke of the "sufferings of the divine Word." Leo suggested that in Christ both the divine and the human [these] must always be attributed to the selfsame person, the divine Word who had become flesh. In this way the hunger of Christ was a human act of the divine Word in his human body. [This] thus became the basis of common agreement between Latin and later Byzantine christological thought as to the viability of the Chalcedonian scheme of the "single divine person in two complete natures."

Leontius of Byzantium's two definitions of the relationship between nature and hypostasis

Definition #1: a nature is a general category, a hypostasis is an instance of that category. • only a hypostasis is a real thing • hypostases exist in themselves, natures only as hypostasized things • Every hypostasis is of a nature • There is not a radical distinction between the two • Maximus the Confessor develops this definition (Neo-Chalcedonianism) Definition #2: a nature is a universal thing (katholikon pragma), a hypostasis is what distinguishes a thing from a) what is common and b) other instances of the particular • e.g., whatever distinguishes Peter from James and John is his hypostatic identity • hypostasis does not include the nature itself • Leontius deploys this in his exegesis of communicatio idiomatum: all statements about Christ refer to the hypostasis, not to either nature • does not apply well to Trinity; for Nicaea, Athanasius, and Gregory, shared divine nature is based on the idea of eternal generation of the Son; L.'s definition makes this Christ's hypostasis and not nature

Ignatius' anti-docetic Christology

Docetism is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; he only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence "the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Like the Gnostics, they denied the fullness of Christ's human nature and the reality of his suffering Ignatius' letters are highly opposed to Docetism His main point in the letter to the Smyrnaeans was to counter docetism and defend the true Incarnation of Christ, which was a major issue in the early church. He wrote against Docetism because Docetists deny Christ's humanity "Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And he suffered truly..." (Letter to Smyrnaeans) stressed the physical actuality of Christ's suffering and death because of a fundamental need of a real body for Christ to work within it the process of redemption for humanity Reality of Christ's humanity, suffering, death, resurrection is what a) makes our resurrection real and b) validates our suffering (Ignatius's martyrdom) Ignatius likens his suffering to an eventual transformation into the "bread of God" - martyrdom makes us share in physical body of Christ

Augustine's understanding of grace, against the Pelagians

Grace is God's operation in the world -- everything God does is grace Biblical principles: Rom 5:5 (love of God, poured into our hearts through the HS), 1 Cor 13 (love is patient, yada yada) John 15:5 (vine/branches, apart from me you can do nothing) We must turn our will towards God, we must choose. Pelagian Debate -- We can do this all ourselves. Adam's Fall stops with Adam -- we can live as perfect humans Augustine -- We absolutely need God's grace, but it must be our choice as well to turn to God HS confers God's grace (through baptism). This is one reason for baptizing infants. Grace of Perseverance- Necessity of God's grace extends through the whole Xn life Augustine writes on this throughout his office of bishop- from 404-430

Catholic Church

Heresies have been defined versus this term during the whole of the patristic period. It has NT roots (Paul writes in 1 Cor that there is only one gospel, not the gospel of Cephas/Apollos/Paul etc.) Ignatius uses this term for the first time in section 8 of his letter to the Smyrnaeans: "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church." In later use (by ca. AD 200) the word "catholic" became a technical term designating "the Catholic Church" as opposed to the heretical sects, but in Irenaeus the expression is used in the sense of "universal" or "general," or possibly "whole." Catholicity, or acceptance by the whole Catholic church, came into play during the Donatist controversy: Between 399 and 415 Augustine wrote a series of treatises against the Donatists. His points were (1) that the initial charge against Caecilians had been wrong (2) that the Donatist movement was a local sect, not in communion with the rest of the Catholic church, and thus could not lay claim to catholicity, which was a fundamental mark of the true church (3) that the Donatists had lapsed into heresy by insisting on the rebaptism of converts from the Catholic church, knowing that baptism is unrepeatable. started out as "the church everywhere" (in Ignatius and Martyrdom of Polycarp), but more narrowly: the church everywhere in apostolic tradition, not "churches" that added extra, possibly heretical, practices and teachings Singularity, unity, commonality, of the universal church via linguistic and non-linguistic ways Linguistic: the church everywhere; the true church which is everywhere maintained by recognized apostolic descended leadership across urban centers Non-linguistic: how visitors sent and received from one church to another; same mission - same theme; one big happy singular church The agreement of the church in faith and practice

John of Damascus' distinction between worship and veneration of holy images

Iconophiles don't worship the wood and pigment of the icon's materiality, but venerate the one it points to by way of analogy Because Jesus was Word made flesh we can and should venerate his human form Not a lot of distinction between word and image at this point in history. This ties in nicely to the image of Christ as Word of God made flesh John Damascene was also among the first to distinguish, in the cult, both public and private, of the Christians, between worship (latreia), and veneration (proskynesis): the first can only be offered to God, spiritual above all else, the second, on the other hand, can make use of an image to address the one whom the image represents.

Gregory Nazianzen on the monarchy of God the Father

Monarchy of God the Father is the structural grammar/logic of the divine being. Out of light (God the Father), we comprehend light (Son), through light (HS) (<Is there another way to say this? ) God the Father is the principal of the three.(<the Father?) not "God" or "the divine essence" or "personhood", but the Father as a person God the Father is the SOURCE of the Son and HS. God the Father is without source God the Father is unbegotten, hypostatic existence Father is the principal of the unity, and distinction (the fact that there are three) Each are divine, complete, a divine hypostasis Am I right in saying that G. Naz is anti-monarchian? That's what I have in my notes (correct! "monarchy" and "monarchian" are not the same for .Naz.) He is anti-monarchian in the sense that he is opposed to monarchian modalism (see above); he is monarchian in the sense that he believe in a monarch = mon-archos = sole cause (of the Trinity), the Father, as opposed to polyarchy or anarchy (see Beeley handout translation of Or. 29.2)

Augustine's understanding of the church, against Donatists

North African phenomenon, the defining N.A. debate In 3rd C, many persecuted Xn priests lapse under pressure of apostasy → they are labeled traditores. Controversy continues to Augustine's time in late 4th, early 5th C When traditores want to return to church, some think it's OK, others do not. N.A church continues with non lapsed priests, believes they are the true church, and Catholic Church is not the true faith anymore. ISSUES: Nature of the sacraments, nature of the church Augustine from Against the Donatists: Donatist claim to being a perfect church is untrue Church is a mixed community. It is not a pure entity Full of tensions and in flux True church is only understood eschatologically Schism (of the Donatists) is a grave sin Validity of sacraments performed, bestowed by traditores Catholic priests is valid Moral/Spiritual character does matter, but the real issue is the validity of the sacramental act God has never been without a people and therefore the church has always existed

eternal generation

Refers to the eternal begetting of Jesus Christ Son of God Greek term is "gennetos" Do not use the word creation with this term - that was part of why the Church fought Arius - he thought Jesus was created with the rest of creation and therefore "like" the Father and subordinate to the Father 325/381 Creeds: "begotten/generated not made" (gennēthenta ou poiēthenta) Gregory: "what is created is not God" (Or. 29.4) Need to connect the part of the Nicene Creed with this - from The Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople "...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds...Begotten, not made..." an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, He generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of God, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father's person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son. Origen. (yes?) and Augustine too I believe. Associated with both and I believe becomes orthodox Origen held that the Son was eternally generated, because the Father-Son relationship was proper to God the Father's nature; this was the essence of Christian revelation, over and above the general Greek philosophical concept of God Gregory: Or. 29 argues for the eternal generation of the Son Eternal generation from the Father The Son and the Father are co-eternal This is vaguely helpful. Beeley's arrow chart F ← → S ← → HS ← (....but imagine it's better. The picture. Imagine the picture is better. If you could draw a picture of God. But you can't. You can't draw a picture of God. So, pretend there is no picture of God and that it's a really good not picture of God.)

Origen's spiritual exegesis

Scripture Source of all revelation (both OT and NT) Need for rational rule of faith because of disagreements - need for Apostolic Tradition Word incarnate found in scripture Spiritual Exegesis Spiritual nature of law after the advent of Christ - Christ makes biblical interpretation possible (e.g. law as veil that lies over Moses is lifted) Literal interpretation: moral teachings, narrative stories Spiritual interpretation: symbolism, allegory, and ecclesiological, eschatological and Christological references the way scripture unfolds is analogous to way human body works; body, soul, spirit Inward and outward sense - spiritual meaning heightens We are often led to look for the spiritual sense by the illogical literal sense ("if your right eye offends you")

single v. double-subject Christological hermeneutics

Subject and Predicate: "Jesus [SUBJECT] suffered [PREDICATE]", "[One of the Trinity] [SUBJ.] [died on the cross] [PRED]" So single-subject predication: "the Son of God died," "through the Son of God, all things were created," "the Son of God ate Cheerios with his Mom in Nazareth" one subject ("the Son of God") can have human or divine things predicated of him Orthodox Position of Gregory + Cyril Nicene Creed Gregory of Nazianzus Cyril of Alexandria Constantinople II Double-subject predication: "Jesus died," "through the Son of God, all things were created," "Jesus ate Cheerios with his Mom" a human subject can only have human things predicated of it, and a divine subject divine things "Antiochenes" (Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius of Constantinople) One example of single-subject Xology we have is from Greg. Naz. Orations 29.18 (from section discussion with Tom the TF): One should apply "lofty" passages about God to his pre-incarnational Divinity, which is uncaused and uncomposite But on the other hand, one should apply "lowlier" passages to God's post-incarnational Divinity-Humanity which is composite (ho synthetos) and caused This is to say, Jesus Christ is a single subject, literally "the composite one," in that he is a single hypostasis with a combined divine-human nature Double-subject Xology, on the other hand, would describe the Jesus event with two subjects distinct from each other. Diodore of Tarsus, who believes in difference between Jesus and Christ (Son of David/Mary, and Son of God, respectively).

Augustine's understanding of The City of God

The Christian gospel is profoundly social (countercultural for us today) our words/actions/character matter we need to understand our Creator and evil in light of God's goodness, etc. To understand society, we must understand God's city (not history, but theology interpreting history) the human heart and community are defined by the giving and receiving of divine love (and love of neighbor) Church in this world: community of believers (graced with the Holy Spirit) congregation is a school of love the church is not pure (we are the body), headship belongs to Christ alone we are not finished, we are pilgrim people (A's favorite image of Christian life), we are journeying to final existence defined by baptism and church (word, sacrament): we are a MIXED BODY, but the TEACHING is pure (Context: his church was full of refugees from the fall of Rome) The good = life of virtue and natural goods of soul/body Augustine is a realist, happiness is in eternal life, and is God's doing, not the optimistic goal-oriented project of humans The City of God and the City of Earth mix, make use of common goods (there's an epoch making difference between the two cities' use of those good) Cities defined by love of God (even to the point of contempt of self) or love of self (even to the point of contempt for God). The first leads to humility the second to pride. Society lives according to flesh/pride or God/humility Origins of the Cities: creation of angels, angels redirect love to themselves, Adam falls types of death: soul, body, whole person (the first death), eternal suffering of soul/body (the second death) Final Separation of two cities: eternal suffering (lake of fire, weeping) or eternal beatitude (faith becomes sight, vision of God, see God face to face, bodies spiritualized, we will finally know each other and be known, worship God without satiation, finally rest, ultimately perfectly free)

Ambiguities in the Chalcedonian Definition

The Text from the council of Chalcedon has conflicting language that obscures the true intentions of the council. The council states that in Christ there are 2 natures come together, met in the same person. Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man EXAMPLES FROM TEXT "The Same" = pro Cyril language ('the same perfect in Godhead,the same perfect in manhood') 'one Lord Jesus Christ... of one substance"... one, subject Christology, pro-Cyril (Cyril likes one nature). The Council opposes those who think of a mixture or confusion of the two natures --> this is Nestorian language, he did not like mixture language. "born of Mary the Virgin theotokos in manhood" ... throwing Nestorius a bone, the MAN is born of Mary. The language is ambiguous at best. It is unclear the exact direction this document takes, which is underscored by the incredible history of the event, outlined in the larger statement above. I like to think of this document as trying to explain the unity of Christ, but with a dualistic Nestorian framework (as suggested by Tom the TF). (ZF)

one-nature v. two-nature Christologies

The major conflict boils down to whether or not Jesus had one divine (or mixed/combined) nature or two natures (human + divine) · Apollinarius asserts a Logos-sarx Christology: there is one (divine) nature in Jesus Jesus had no human mind (He was God talking through human lips) Antiochenes condemn Apollinarius at Constantinople (381) · Diodore and the Antiochenes (leads to Theodore Mop. and Nestorius): No union between divinity and humanity (no real communicatio idiomatum) JC is (one figure and another figure) αλλος και αλλος · Gregory of Nazianzus (Letter 101 semi-canonical document) Trinity = 3 hypostases, 1 thing/nature Christ = 2 natures/things, 1 son/figure (2 THINGS, ONE HYPOSTASIS) Αλλο και αλλο (one thing and another thing) = Christ Language of MIXTURE: God predominates in the incarnation, cause of all of Jesus' human actions and human behavior (confess the union as strongly as possible) · Theodore of Mopsuestia Two natures (from Luke 2:52: Jesus increasing) Unity of Christ is by good pleasure, not essentially/nature Union of the divine and human in Christ in prosopic union (they look like they're one) · Nestorius God did not die on the cross (wants to protect God's impassibility) God put on human nature as a garment United the worship, divide the natures · Cyril of Alexandria (not clear which of the letters is semi-canonical) 2nd Letter: Acknowledges distinct natures, but unity very strong (ONE HYPOSTASIS): God was born in Bethlehem, died a human death (communicatio idiomatum) 3rd Letter: (John 1 and Phil. 2) Only one son, JC = one hypostasis of Word of God made human 2 natures (divine and human) -> singularity of Christ (divine son) to confess Jesus as Son of God is the heart of the faith There is no HUMAN Jesus (no independently existing human) Crucifixion: God the Word did suffer and die AT THE SAME TIME as existing everywhere NO two subject predication (Jesus' tears were God's human tears) Word of God had become his own high priest and the sacrifice Key Relevant Ideas (summarized briefly) God is impassible (can't suffer) Son of God suffers in own flesh (didn't suffer as divine) Word was alive, flesh was death on Holy Saturday (still full union between Word and body) · Huge conflict at Ephesus 431 and 433, truce declared 433 (language of union) · Robber Council of Ephesus (449) Discorus of Alexandria: single nature formula (from Cyril) -> monophysite Christology Eutyches (ally to Dioscorus) condemned, Flavian/Theodoret (Antiochene) call him Apollinarian · Emperor calls a council, Leo is invited and sends the Tome Full humanity and divinity, distinct from one another and without confusion Appeals to common Nicene faith: Christ had to be fully CONSUBSTANTIAL (homoousion) with God AND with humans (THIS IS NEW) The distinction was preserved, even in the incarnation, and the divine and human meet in one person and one hypostasis The Son of God was crucified in weakness of human nature FORM (Nestorius/Antiochene language): humanity does some things, divine do others · "THE DEFINITION" (at Chalcedon): [the section starting "Following therefore..."] TWO NATURES, ONE HYPOSTASIS consubstantial with humans natures are uniting not conjoining The key question remaining is whether Cyril is Chalcedonian or not. The two natures idea needs further clarification and bringing back in line with Cyrilline thought, so you get Constantinople II and Neo-Chalcedonians.

Gregory Nazianzen's argument for the Holy Spirit's divinity

The scriptures do not say that the Holy Spirit IS God. Some do not believe HS is God (Eunomians, Pneumatomachi) Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 41 - On Pentecost: The Spirit dwells in the saints. The Spirit is with us, giving us access to God's being Transformation the Spirit brings about: baptism G of N, Oration 31, Sec 28-29: "The argument for the divinity of the HS is not biblical, it is not logical. PROOF comes from the Xn experience. From the Xn experience, we know the HS to be God. Our knowledge has increased since the HS given to the apostles. HS makes actual the divinization of Jesus the new Adam. What happened in Jesus is only in Jesus. It is through the HS that we actualize this potential (actual vs potential) Through all this, we have a Trinity! in the OT the F is revealed and S is hinted at; in NT S is revealed and HS is hinted at; here and now in our life the HS is revealed (Or. 31.25-27)

Nestorius' understanding of the Theotokos idea

Theotokos means 'God-bearer' Nestorius was opposed to the Theotokos idea as it did not do justice to the complexities of the Incarnation God could not have a human mother God has no origin So mMary was the mother of Jesus or even of Christ Mary's womb a "temple of the Word" God did not die on the cross (Q:< the Father or the whole person of God? A: Prof. Beeley said "God," but I guess the understanding should be close to "Father," since this is what Nestorius wanted to avoid [patripassianism]; he just went overboard) God is unchangeable, immutable and impassible The Incarnation was necessary because a human atonement was necessary Christ paid a debt for humanity, a saving work accomplished by human flesh Christ is God who wears human flesh like a garment joined to flesh, but safe from sufferings This really began to piss off Cyril who felt his own position (and that of his church) was being attacked and so he begins to write against it Nestorius says Cyril is confusing the natures of Christ

Apostolic Tradition

This is the preached, transmitted, oral gospel of Christ. The teaching of the apostles guided the early church, reframing the OT to add Jesus' teachings, parables, Paul's letters, and other documents. • Originates with Paul's image of gospel as something he received and is "handing on" (Lat. traditio) (1 Cor. 15) • Continued with Irenaeus' conception that bishops uphold the right doctrine • The key word for Irenaeus is "apostolic" not "tradition." He argues that tradition is important to the extent that it tells us what the apostles taught, and that tradition is only necessary when we don't have the apostles' writings. • [This is] the crystallization of Christianity into a common body of scripture, and understanding of unity between OT and NT, great church project (unity with diversity), supported by apostolic authority and tradition • This is one of two hermeneutical categories for Irenaeus (other is Canon of Truth) • Ignatius treats the authority of the apostles very highly. Lines up God, Christ, and the apostles, then bishop and deacons. • Irenaeus says that Gnostics claim to have secret knowledge, but that apostolic tradition public.

Origen's anti-monarchian/modalist Trinitarian theology

Trinity Father as first principle and eternal source of Holy Spirit and Son; necessary for salvation (supreme gift of grace allowing knowledge of God in Christ); three-fold cord by which church is sustained each item = distinct hypostasis rejects homoousios God only one creator not corporeal but incorporeal invisible incomprehensible first principle of all things (including Christ) unbegotten Christ Christ as Wisdom/Word Distinct from Father only-begotten Son is God's wisdom hypostatically existing Both divine and human God creating for eternity Holy Spirit revealed in NT and OT inspired scripture and provides for interpretation supreme gift for knowledge of Christ and God principle source for holiness of saints Modalistic Monarchianism Heresy developed in 2nd Century It arose in an attempt to maintain monotheism and refute tritheism Contradicts doctrine of the Trinity Considers God to be one person appearing and working in the different modes of the Father, Son, and the HS Teaches that the Father, the Son, and the HS are just modes of the single person who is God Consecutive modes of one person Teacher of this: Praxeas - in Rome in year 200 Purports that the person of God the heavenly Father suffered on the cross

Maximus the Confessor's doctrine of Christ's two wills

Two disputes: monenergist (Christ has "one activity") and monothelite (Christ has "one will") Monenergism: two natures, but one activity if "one of Δ was crucified in the flesh" (Severus of Antioch thinks this is the logical conclusion of Constantinople II) Monothelitism: one will of Jesus, divine and human at once Maximus responds to both doctrines: single subject, one hypostasis, two wills distinction of natures preserved by the divine nature, which predominates soteriology: whatever hasn't been assumed hasn't been healed, so human will must have been assumed in order to be healed. Human mind (Greg Naz.!) -> human will analysis of willing: if God made fully human, must have both divine and human will, not just a fleshy mouthpiece (based on denial of Apollinarianism) Jesus' human will always aligned with divine will (because without sin) therefore it is the first truly natural human will (since Adam) two wills, two objects of the will, two manners of willing, but one subject of the will: the divine Son of God Pastoral implications; because Jesus wept at Lazarus's tomb and prayed not to die at Gethsemane, it is natural and not sinful to grieve and to fear death preservation of nature: God is not opposed to the natural functioning of any creature (because God created them)

Apolinarian Christology

logos-sarx (Word-flesh) Christology: human beings are mind + flesh, Jesus was Word + flesh Friend of Athanasius and proponent of single-subjectnature predication response to subordinationism of Arius Jesus is fully and personally divine; God walking with us 'one and same' Son of God But if God became man, God would be limited by humanity (passability, death) didn't this mean that God was changeable? in the Incarnation, the Word remained unchanged adopted a human body, but was not a human person human and divine nature not only unified, but mixed together the combination of Word and mind led to a conflict and the human mind couldn't handle the Word as a result, there is only one nature in Jesus: divine As a result, Jesus has no human mind So why the incarnation? God needs to come in our member (Romans 7) because the law of sin is in our flesh a powerful enough mind was needed in human likeness Mary is the Theotokos - God -bearer . Because Jesus is God walking among us, this makes Mary the Mother of God. Diodore counters Apollinarius, maintaining that there is no union. No communicatio idiomatum. When Jesus wept, that was human. Corollary is that there was no divinization for Jesus, and humanity is not divinized. So Diodore denied Theotokos.

homoousios in the Nicene Creed

the key term of the Christological doctrine formulated at the first ecumenical council, at Nicaea in 325, to affirm that God the Son and God the Father are of the same substance. The Council of Nicaea, presided over by the emperor Constantine, was convened to resolve the controversy within the church over the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. The council condemned Arianism, which taught that Christ was more than human but not fully divine. The use of homoousios (Greek: "of one substance" or "of one essence" - exact in sameness) in the Nicene Creed was meant to put an end to the controversy, although the influence of Arianism persisted in the church for centuries. Origen rejected homoousios because he saw it as a Gnostic term being used by Valentinus and in its most literal Greek it meant exactly the same being - in the context of the "nature" type of being and to Origen this term implied modalism non-traditional term, not found in scripture supported by Athanasius, mainly to ensure that a more moderate Arian theology didn't come to dominate

Augustine's understanding of the will

will/voluntas (latin) power of the soul which moves in a particular direction The will IS: a human being in motion The will is- (1) rooted in and expressive of our character, (2) the mortal condition of the human soul, (3) is imbedded in habit, and (4) the sum total of the soul's aspects & activities.. Wishes, desires, lusts, intentions Confessions, Book 1.8: Even as a baby, we want things. Human life is rooted in desire Thus: Do we want good things, or bad things? Do we experience joy in happy things or joy in evil things? We live with divided wills → this division leads to good and evil Pride (superbia) -- the desire to replace God w/ ones self we love praise, we love to be loved So, what's the solution? God's Humility -- humbling ourself in God. Aug: we think we need to become strong, but what we need is to become weak, humble in God.

"one of the Holy Trinity was crucified in the flesh" (Constantinople II, 553)

• Constantinople II (553) arises from dispute over continuing Antiochenes (preference for literal and moral exegesis, Christ had two authentic natures, both human and divine) especially Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus. • Justinian wants to make peace in empire by making room for Miaphysites (e.g. Cyril, Chalcedon, believed in one physis, or concrete reality, of Christ, i.e. one "hypostasis" in Christ) • The tenth anathema of Constantinople II reads: "If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity; let him be anathema." • Constantinople II decided Christ's primary identity is divine Son of God; Christ is the only-begotten God as a human being • Constantinople II also decided that the Christ who worked miracles and who suffered are one and the same; most famous phrase: "one of the Trinity was crucified in the flesh" • This is the logical conclusion of Gregory's and Cyril's single-subject predication