Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Nicea and Chalcedon (Athanasius (Opposed to Arius - tried to defend Nicea…
Nicea and Chalcedon
Athanasius
Opposed to Arius - tried to defend Nicea against Arius - claimed that if God and Christ are one and Christ less than divine, then this implies that God is less than divine
-
Claimed that the Arian Christology made God impersonal and not the Biblical God who is involved in creation
It's an insult to Christ to make him an instrument of creation - Son of God must be a product of the Father's nature, not will, and hence must be eternal
-
If Christ is not fully God he cannot make us divine - Son must be of a different order of being to the Father - Father was transcendent, son is part of God's personality
-
Criticism: we are not made divine to the same extent as God, so Jesus needn't be fully divine
Criticism: sonship is often adoptive in the Bible, so Christ needn't be God's nature
-
The incarnation was necessary because of sin, to redeem us, and therefore his humanity is not a weakness in doctrine -the Word exists so that our sin could die with him and we can share in his resurrection - no one else was free from sin, so no one else could save us
God's love for us is shown in his willingness to share in our condition - suffering is voluntary so his divinity is not impaired
-
Background
-
The Empire needed unity in the churches at this time - the fourth and fifth centuries saw the theological basis of Christian doctrine receive a definite shape which remains basic for Christian self-understanding today
Through most of Christian history, the doctrine of the Trinity has been the unquestioned - and unquestionable - touchstone of truly orthodox faith and teaching
Christ was criticised by the Pagans - he had been an object of worship since Paul's time, but many agreed he should be worshipped in second place
Irenaeus argued that the redemption and creation of humanity were the work of a single deity and humankind including Jesus had been created in the image of God
Dominant view at the time was that Father, Son and HS were all divine but distinct
Arius
In 318, Arius denied that the Father and Son were coeternal and of the same nature - instead he claimed that the Father existed before the Son and there was a time when Christ didn't exist
3 divine persons - but second and third only called God because they have some divine attributes - not divine by nature, but given divinity by God
Christ was constituted by God's will and counsel - preserves Christ's duality of nature: 'a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures - an offspring, but not as one of the things begotten'
'He is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father'
Son is generated by the Father, so cannot be the same as the Father - a Christ who was fully God wouldn't feel pain or fear
-
-
Council of Nicea (325)
-
-
-
Once the council accepted these formulas, they became the law not only for the Church but for the empire
Baillie: rejects starting from God - wants to develop a Christology from below, with starting on Jesus the man to develop the identity of Christ
Docetic Superman would come from a Christology from above - Baillie rejects this idea, and the idea that because the Divine word created all persons, it can be a person - Jesus must instead be someone who is scared/pained
If there was no humanity in Christ then his suffering was just an act, and fake
Similarities between Baillie and Schleiermacher - Christ is God-conscious to the utmost degree - for Schleiermacher the trinity is an outdated idea - the historical Jesus lived and died and we can only know about it through evidence
Modern implications
Credal definitions no longer core to belief, but are foundations for theological Christologies
Jesus of history much more important due to secularism - also emphasised what Jesus did and the meaning - emphasis now on proving God's existence
Pannenburg: Jesus the man first and foremost, obedient to God who is his father - resurrection confirms his identity as being one with the Father
-
-