Christological
Disagreements and arguments before Nicea
Dr Boris Paschke
Heliopolis, Egypt, 14
March 2013
Christology
“‘Christology’ discusses any evaluation of Jesus in
respect to who he was and the role he played in the divine plan” (Raymond E.
Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology [1994], p. 3).
·
Low Christology: “the evaluation of him in terms that do not
necessarily include divinity: e.g. Messiah, Rabbi, Prophet, High Priest,
Savior, Master” (Brown, 4)
·
High Christology: “the evaluation of Jesus in terms that include an
aspect of divinity, e.g., Lord, Son of God, God” (Brown, 4)
Deity of Christ
No NT writer denies the divinity of Jesus Christ
(Brown, 4)
“The deity of Christ sits at the pinnacle
of controversy and belief concerning the Christian faith. While some have
overemphasized the deity of Christ, others such as the Ebionites and the
Arians, have portrayed Christ as a unique human not possessing a divine nature.
Relevant biblical passages clearly indicate that this is not the case.”[1]
“It is true that Jesus did not make an
explicit and overt claim to deity.”[2]
Unity with the Father: John 10:30
Preexistence: John 8:58
“My Lord and my God” (John 20:28)
“The Gospel of John is, of course, noted
for its references to Jesus’ deity.”[3]
John 1:1
“He has both identified the Word as divine
and distinguished the Word from God. He is not describing a simple monotheism
or a modalistic monarchianism here.”[4]
“The Book of Hebrews is also most emphatic
regarding Jesus’ divinity.”[5]
Heb 1:3
Heb 1:8: “In verse 8, which is a quotation of Psalm
45:6, the Son is addressed as ‘God.’”[6]
“Paul frequently witnesses to the deity of Jesus.”[7]
Col 1:19
Col 2:9
Phil 2:5-11
Humanity of Christ
Logos Christology
Apologists
Justin Martyr
“the Logos is God’s preexistent Spirit – a second God
– who became incarnate in Jesus Christ.” (Olson, 60)
Like fire from fire (Olson 60)
“the Logos was thought of as a mediating being between
the one God and creation” (Olson 61).
“This Logos (Christ) was in the world before Jesus
Christ. He spoke through both Jewish prophets and Greek philosophers” = Logos
spermaikos (the ‘seed of the Logos’) (Olson 61).
“Christ as the universal Logos preexisted Jesus as
God’s Son as fire taken from fire – somewhat less than God himself but of God’s
own nature and substance.” (Olson 61).
Origen
Origen never tired of emphasizing that the Logos/Word
is God’s very Son and in no way created or begotten in time. This is ironic
since Arius, the archenemy of the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth
century, claimed Origen as the source of his subordinationism of the Son”
(Olson, 110).
Arius
Monarchianism as reaction to Logos
Christology (= ‘Ditheism’)
Ebionism
“Being strongly monotheistic, they focused their
attention upon the problematic deity of Christ. They rejected the virgin birth,
maintaining that Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary in normal fashion” (Justin
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 47).[8]
Arianism
“A central conception in the Arian understanding of
Jesus is the absolute uniqueness and transcendence of God.”[9]
“The Word is also a created being, although the first
and highest of the beings. He is not an emanation from the Father, but a fiat
creation out of nothing”[10]
“the Word must have had a beginning at some finite
point”; cf. slogan “There was a time when he was not.”[11]
“the Son has no communion with or even direct
knowledge of the Father.”[12]
“the Word was given the status of a demi-god”[13]
“the most divisive schism the Christian church had
ever experienced”[14]
Arius
·
Born in Libya (Epiphanius, haer.
69.1; 152.19); also suggested by the fact that Arius’ had two episcopal
supporters from Libya, i.e., the bishops Secundus and Theonas from Ptolemais
and Marmarica, respectively. “In fact, we know of no Libyan bishops opposing
Arius” (Williams 29).
·
Arius was an old man (gerōn) when
the controversy broke out (Epiphanius, haer. 69.3; 154.12).
·
“The widespread consensus that puts Arius’
birth in the 250s has no definite foundation in the texts of the fourth and
fifth centuries, but it seems safe to assume that he was not a young man when
the crisis broke” (Williams 30).
·
Education in Antioch: sulloukianista =
“fellow-Lucianist”, study with the martyr Lucian of Antioch
·
Outward appearance described in Epiphanius,
haer. 69.3; 154.12–16; “a guru, we might almost say” (Williams 32).
·
“Before 313, nothing is clear” (Williams
32)
Lucian of Antioch (died in 312)
·
Influenced by the heretic bishop Paul of
Samosata
·
None of Lucian’s writings survived
·
Emphasized the humanity rather than the
deity of Jesus Christ
·
Tried to find a way to explain the
incarnation of God in Christ without making Jesus himself God or falling back
into Paul of Samosata’s adoptionist heresy
Eusebius of Nicomedia
·
Fellow Lucianian student of Arius
·
Friend of Arius
·
Both hated and feared the heresy of
Sabellianism (modalism) more than the heresy of adoptionism
Melitian Schism
·
February 303: persecution under Diocletian
Alexander, bishop of Alexandria
·
Alexander became bishop in 313
Adoptionism
·
Declared a heresy by the Synod of Antioch
in 268
Controversy
“Arius led a minirebellion of Christians against the
bishop after he heard Alexander preach a sermon that he considered too close to
the heresy of Sabellianism. That is, Arius thought he detected in the bishop’s
theology at least a trace of the old modalistic heresy of Praxeas and Sabellius
that reduced the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to mere names or aspects of the
one divine person, God.”[15]
“Arius began to preach sermons, deliver lectures and
write letters criticizing Alexander’s theology and leadership.”[16]
Synod of Alexandria 318
·
Attended by about 100 bishops
·
Arius condemned
·
Arius deposed from position as presbyter
·
Forced to leave the city
Nicomedia
·
Arius went to Nicomedia, to his old friend
and now important bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia
·
From Nicomedia, Arius and Eusebius began a
letter-writing campaign to bishops who had not attended the Alexandrian synod
Arius’ Works
“Arius’s only known written works are these and later
letters and one book titled Thaleia, which means ‘banquet.’ All have been
lost, and only fragments of Arius’s works are able to be reconstructed from
quotations found in his opponents’ writings.”[17]
“We have only a handful of texts that can confidently
be treated as giving us Arius’ own thinking in his own words; apart from these,
we are wholly dependent upon the reports of his enemies.”[18]
Theology of Arius
[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 699.
[2] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 701.
[3] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 705.
[4] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 705.
[5] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 705.
[6] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 705.
[7] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 705.
[14] Olson, 139.
[15] Olson, 141.
[16] Olson, 141.
[17] Olson, 146.
[18] Williams, 95.
1 opmerking:
Expliciet misschien niet, maar Jezus laat in het dispuut over de Goddelijkheid duidelijk blijken dat Hij dat wel gezegd heeft in een eerder stadium. Daarvoor moeten we gaan naar Johannes 10 vers 36: "...gij lastert,omdat Ik gezegd heb: Ik ben Gods Zoon?"
Het is zover ik weet de enige getuigenis van Jezus zelf, waaruit blijkt dat Hij dit eerder gezegd heeft, maar niet is opgeschreven. Het is dus niet correct om te stellen dat Hij deze woorden nooit heeft gebezigd en zichzelf Gods Zoon noemt, zoals vaak door tegenstanders wordt beweerd.
Een direct expliciet bewijs is er misschien niet, maar er zijn genoeg aanwijzingen in de H.Schrift geweest (en ook voor gelovige Joden van die tijd - die hadden aan een half woord genoeg) wie Hij werkelijk was, en welke identiteit Hij werkelijk bezat.
Een reactie posten