Bible Stories

Dangerous denials

Early in the fourth century. Arius taught that the Father alone was true God. This denial of Christ’s true deity was countered by councils of church leaders at Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381), and by great theologians such as Athanasius. The Nicene Creed was the product of these synods. At last the Church established that the Son was as fully divine as the Father. Like Irenaeus in the second century, Athanasius showed how the hope of salvation depended on Christ’s being true God as well as true man. The Christian could confidently trust Jesus Christ for salvation, because he was none other than God himself, ‘who became man for us men and for our salvation‘. No one less than God could restore us to fellowship with God.

Later in the fourth century a denial of the full manhood of Christ was also condemned. Against Apollinarius’ teaching, the church made it absolutely clear that Jesus had not only a human body but also a human mind and soul. Apollinarius taught that the divine Son was totally responsible for thought and action in Christ. He felt he could have no confidence in Jesus if he was controlled by a fallible human mind. His opponents argued that if the Son did not take to himself the whole of human nature — soul and mind as well as flesh, then he did not redeem our whole humanity.

Two different approaches

In the fourth and fifth centuries two different approaches to the person of Christ developed in Christian teaching in the great Eastern churches of Antioch and Alexandria. They have often reappeared in the later history of the church, for example among the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century.

Theologians of Antiochemphasized the importance for our salvation of Christ’s life of complete obedience as man, his

Victory as a fully-human being over temptation and sin. They insisted that Christ’s human nature was quite unchanged by being united with the Son of God. The two natures in the incarnate Christ remained distinct and retained their proper character. As a consequence the Antiochenes were not very convincing when they spoke about the unity of Christ’s person.

The Alexandrians’ viewpoint had the greater influence. For them Christ’s divine nature was all-important. The incarnation was all about God coming to rescue humanity. At times they seemed to portray Christ as a divine person merely using a human body (which was close to Apollinarius’ error). They were able to hold on strongly to the unity of Christ’s person, but at the.cost of implying a mixture or fusion of his two natures into one. Jesus Christ’s human life and experiences were largely neglected. He was generally assumed to be all-knowing and all-powerful.

Two natures, one person

The struggles between these competing viewpoints led to the council of church leaders at Chalcedon (451). It produced a famous statement which has remained basic to the faith of the church ever since. At the time it was enforced by the law of the state! This definition made clear that Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man. These two ‘natures‘ were united in one ‘person‘ but without being changed or confused. They remained distinct, but they came together in the single person of Christ.

Parts of the Eastern church were unhappy about the words used by the council. They took a strongly Alexandrian view, following Cyril of Alexandria. They wanted to use the phrase ‘one-nature‘ (not two) of the incarnate Christ. The difference was largely a battle over words. Nevertheless, within two centuries, separatist churches had broken away in Egypt and Syria. They were known as Monophysite (’single- nature‘) churches. This division occurred despite repeated attempts to find a compromise (which the emperors wanted for political and military reasons).

Chalcedon did not bring an end to discussion among orthodox churchmen about the ‘two-natures‘ doctrine. Even subtler questions were raised. Did Christ also have two wills, and two modes of action (’energies’)? Was his human nature ‘personal’ or not? Could human nature be real without being focussed in a human person? On this point Leontius of Byzantium (died 543) developed a view that was widely accepted: Christ’s humanity ‘became personal’ in union with the incarnate Son of God. This avoided the danger of dividing Christ into two full persons, and made more sense of the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
The Church’s Understanding of Jesus Christ, Bible and God continue…

• Faith and God: From the Christian Fathers to the Moderns
• Faith and Believe, the Importance of the Trinity
• The Church's Understanding of Jesus Christ, Bible and God
• Jesus: Christ of Faith
• Sharing God's Rule (Christian)
• Bible, without error?
• How Hindus See Jesus
• The real problem behind Bible, Soul God
• Christian Miracle and God
• Moral problems in Bible