A theology of Christmas Cur Deus Homo
61 Slides4.01 MB
A theology of Christmas Cur Deus Homo
Incarnation “Many people people “Many have sought sought to to have be God, God, but but be only one one God God only has sought sought to to has be man.” man.” be
Humanity of Christ in History Questions: Questions Why was the incarnation necessary? What does it mean that God became man? How has this been understood throughout history?
Humanity of Christ in History Key terms: Incarnation Incarnation The biblical biblical understanding understanding that that The Christ took took on on aa human human nature nature Christ Hypostatic Union Union Hypostatic The theological theological description description of of the the The union of of the the two two natures natures of of Christ Christ union Theanthropos Theanthropos Theological name name of of Christ Christ Theological affirming that that he he is is the the “God-man” “God-man” affirming
Incarnation John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Christological Herterodoxy Early Christmas heterodoxies: 1. Docetism 2. Apollinarianism 3. Nestorianism 4. Monophysitism
Docetism Docetism 325 C.E. 500 C.E.
Docetism Belief: From the Greek, dokeo, “to seem, think, or appear.” They were a “Christian” sect of Gnosticism that believed that Christ was an emanation from the true good God. Christ was not truly a man since all things material are inherently evil. Therefore, Christ only “seemed” to have body Proponent(s): Marcion Opponent: Irenaeus (ca. 130–ca. 200) Supportive writings: Developed the Muratorian Canon (170 A.D.) attests to all the books of the N.T. except Hebrews, James, and 1 & 2 Peter.
The Gnostic Christ Spiritual Good t a an Em Evil Demiurge s n o i True God Christ Physical Evil
Apollinarianism Docetism Apollinarianis m 325 C.E. 381 Council of Constantinople 500 C.E.
Apollinarianism Belief: Proponent: Condemned: Christ was God who took on a human body without a human mind. The divine mind took the place of what would have been the human mind. The Word became flesh only in the sense that God took on a human body. As some have termed it, Christ was “God in a bod.” Apollinarius of Laodicea (ca.310390), friend of Athanasius and teacher of Jerome. Council of Constantinople 381 and Chalcedon 451.
The Early Church Fathers 90-5 Iraneus (c.175-c.195) Lyons Pelagius (c.350-418) Briton Rome Constantinople Clement of Rome (c.90-100) Jerome (c.345-c.419) Marcion (c.100-c.160) Nestorius (c.381-c.455) John Chrysostom (c.344-407) Montanus second century) Eutyches (c.378-454) Basil (329-c.379) Hippolytus (c.170-235) Papias c.60-c.130) Gregory of Nyssa (330-c.395) Gregory of Nazianzus (330-389) Polycarp (c.70-c160) Apollinarius (c.300-c.390) Carthage Augustine (354-430) Tertullian (c.160-c.220) West Legend Map Italics: Condemned as heretics Bold: Church Fathers Large Bold: Major Bishoprics Antioch Ignatius (d.107) Eusebius of Caesarea (c.265-c.339) East Justine Martyr (c.100-c.165) Jerusalem Alexandria Clement of Alexandria (c.155-c.220) Athanasius (c.296-373) Origen (c.185-c.254) Arius (c250-336)
Apollinarianism Divine Logos Human Mind Human Body
“He assumes assumes that that man man Apollinarianism “He who came came down down from from above above who is without without aa mind, mind, not not that that is the Godhead Godhead of of the the OnlyOnlythe begotten fulfills fulfills the the function function begotten of mind, mind, and and is is the the third third part part of of his his human human composite, composite, of inasmuch as as soul soul and and body body inasmuch are in in it it on on its its human human side, side, are but not not mind, mind, the the place place of of but which is is taken taken by by God God the the which Word.” Word.”
Apollinarianism What is wrong with Apollinarianism?
Apollinarianism “What “What God God has has not not assumed assumed is is not not saved.” saved.” –Gregory –Gregory of of Nazianzus Nazianzus
Nestorianism Docetism Nestorianism Apollinarianis m 325 C.E. 381 Council of Constantinople 431 Council of Ephesus 500 C.E.
Nestorianism Belief: Proponent: Condemned: Christ was fully man and fully God, and these two natures were united in purpose, not person. They had difficulty understanding how someone with two natures could be a single individual. Nestorius (d. ca. 451), the great preacher and disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia, is said to be the main proponent of this teaching, although most would see his condemnation as inaccurate. Council of Chalcedon 451.
The Early Church Fathers 90-5 Iraneus (c.175-c.195) Lyons Pelagius (c.350-418) Briton Rome Constantinople Clement of Rome (c.90-100) Jerome (c.345-c.419) Marcion (c.100-c.160) Nestorius (c.381-c.455) John Chrysostom (c.344-407) Montanus second century) Eutyches (c.378-454) Basil (329-c.379) Hippolytus (c.170-235) Papias c.60-c.130) Gregory of Nyssa (330-c.395) Gregory of Nazianzus (330-389) Polycarp (c.70-c160) Apollinarius (c.300-c.390) Carthage Augustine (354-430) Tertullian (c.160-c.220) West Legend Map Italics: Condemned as heretics Bold: Church Fathers Large Bold: Major Bishoprics Antioch Ignatius (d.107) Eusebius of Caesarea (c.265-c.339) East Justine Martyr (c.100-c.165) Jerusalem Alexandria Clement of Alexandria (c.155-c.220) Athanasius (c.296-373) Origen (c.185-c.254) Arius (c250-336)
Nestorianism Separate Human Person Divine Person
Nestorianism What is wrong with Nestorianism?
Monophysitism Docetism Monophysiti sm Nestorianism Apollinarianis m 325 C.E. 381 Council of Constantinople 431 Council of Ephesus 500 C.E. 451 Chalcedonian Definition
Monophysitism Belief: Christ’s human nature was integrated with his divine nature forming a new nature. Christ was from two natures before the union, but only one after the union. Alternant name: Eutychianism Proponent: Eutyches (ca.378-454), great preacher and disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Condemned: Council of Chalcedon 451.
The Early Church Fathers 90-5 Iraneus (c.175-c.195) Lyons Pelagius (c.350-418) Briton Rome Constantinople Clement of Rome (c.90-100) Jerome (c.345-c.419) Marcion (c.100-c.160) Nestorius (c.381-c.455) John Chrysostom (c.344-407) Montanus second century) Eutyches (c.378-454) Basil (329-c.379) Hippolytus (c.170-235) Papias c.60-c.130) Gregory of Nyssa (330-c.395) Gregory of Nazianzus (330-389) Polycarp (c.70-c160) Apollinarius (c.300-c.390) Carthage Augustine (354-430) Tertullian (c.160-c.220) West Legend Map Italics: Condemned as heretics Bold: Church Fathers Large Bold: Major Bishoprics Antioch Ignatius (d.107) Eusebius of Caesarea (c.265-c.339) East Justine Martyr (c.100-c.165) Jerusalem Alexandria Clement of Alexandria (c.155-c.220) Athanasius (c.296-373) Origen (c.185-c.254) Arius (c250-336)
Monophysitism Human Humine Divine
Monophysitism What is wrong with Monophysitism?
Definition of Chalcedon (451)
First Eight Ecumenical Counc 2. Constantinople I (381) 5. Constantinople II (553) 4. Chalcedon (451) 6. Constantinople III (680-681) 1. Nicea I (325) 7. Nicea II (787) 3. Ephesus (431) These seven of councils were convoked by emperors and had representation from the East and West
Definition of Chalcedon “Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer . . .”
Definition of Chalcedon “. . . one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Onlybegotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.”
Orthodox Definition of the Hypostatic Union Christ is one person who exists forevermore in two complete natures: God and Man.
Chacedonian divide Roman Catholics: Christ is both full divine and fully man. The controlling force within Christ was his Deity. He neither had faith or hope since this would undermine his deity. Even from his mother’s womb, he was aware of all things being omniscient. He exercised all the attributes of his deity at all times during his life. Heretical Bent: docetism
Chacedonian divide Lutheran: Christ is both full divine and fully man. In the incarnation, Christ’s humanity fully contained his deity (finitum capax infiniti). While there is no confusion in the natures, there is an intermingling of the properties of each nature (communicatio idiomatum). Heretical Bent: Monophysitism
Chacedonian divide Reformed: Christ is both full divine and fully man. In the incarnation, Christ’s humanity cannot contain his deity (finitum non capax infiniti). Therefore, Christ exists in the humanity of Jesus, and in the eternity of the Second Person of the Trinity. The unity of the natures is in one person. There is only one state of consciousness contained fully in Christ. Heretical Bent: Nestorianism
Illustrations Fire and iron
Illustrations Light: waves and particle
Illustrations Eyes: two eyes, one visio
Humanity of Christ in History Unity Diversity Trinity Nature Persons Christ Person Natures
Heresy Teaching Proponents Condemned Council of Christ was God Apollinarius who took on a (ca.310-390) Constantinople Apollinaria 381 human body nism without a human mind. Christ was fully man and fully God, and Nestorianis these two natures were m united in purpose, not person. Nestorius (d. ca. 451) Council of Ephesus 431 Council of Christ’s Eutyches human nature (ca.378-454) Chalcedon 451 Monophysit was integrated with his divine ism
Problem Passages What did Christ mean when He said in the garden, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42)?
Problem Passages What did Christ mean when he said in Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone”? How could he, being God, not know something?
Problem Passages When Christ stated on the Cross, “My God My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46), was it his human nature or his divine nature that was forsaken?
Humanity of Christ In the Bible
Humanity of in the Bible A. Incarnation 1. Virgin Birth 2. Kenosis B. Impeccability
Incarnation
Incarnation “Many people people “Many have sought sought to to have be God, God, but but be only one one God God only has sought sought to to has be man.” man.” be
Incarnation Definition: Lat. in carne, “in flesh.” The understanding the that the eternal Son of God became flesh.
Incarnation John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Incarnation 1. Virgin birth Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit in a woman who had never had any sexual relationship. He, therefore, did not have any male seed contributing to his humanity.
Incarnation Luke 1:34-35 “Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.’”
Incarnation Facts Facts about about the the virgin virgin birth: birth: 1)The 1)The miracle miracle is is in in the the conception, conception, not not the the birth. birth. 2)It 2)It is is said said to to fulfill fulfill aa prophecy prophecy predicted predicted in in Isa. Isa. 7:14 7:14 (Matt. (Matt. 1:221:2223). 23). 3)Matthew 3)Matthew and and Luke Luke are are the the only only two two to to explicitly explicitly mention mention the the virgin virgin birth. birth. 4)The 4)The birth birth narratives narratives give give no no theological theological interpretation interpretation as as to to why why Christ Christ was was born born of of aa virgin virgin other other than than the the fulfillment fulfillment of of prophecy. prophecy. 5)It 5)It was was not not part part of of the the early early Christian Kerygma.
Incarnation Why was Christ born of a virgin?
Incarnation Possible reasons for the virgin birth:
Incarnation 1. To fulfill the prophecy in Isa. 7:14.
Incarnation 2. To point to the uniqueness of Christ.
Incarnation 3. To substantiate his deity.
Incarnation 4. To substantiate his humanity.
Incarnation 5. So that he would not have imputed sin and inherited sin.
The Effect of Adam’s Sin Imputed Sin/Guilt: Rom. 5:12, 18 Inherited Sin: Ps. 51:5
Incarnation 7. So that he might be the “Second Adam,” undoing the failures of the first Adam (recapitulation).
Incarnation “It was was fitting, fitting, surely surely that that just just as as death death had had “It entered into into the the human human race race because because of of the the entered disobedience of of man, man, so so by by the the obedience obedience of of disobedience man, life life should should be be restored. restored. Further, Further, just just as as man, the sin sin that that was was the the cause cause of of our our the condemnation had had is is origin origin in in aa woman, woman, it it was was condemnation equally fitting fitting that that the the author author of of our our equally justification and and salvation salvation should should be be born born of of aa justification woman. It It was was also also fitting fitting that that the the devil, devil, who who woman. conquered man man by by tempting tempting him him to to taste taste of of conquered the fruit fruit of of the the tree, tree, should should be be conquered conquered by by aa the man through through suffering suffering he he endured endured on on the the man wood of of aa tree. tree. There There are are also also many many other other wood things which, which, carefully carefully considered, considered, show show aa things certain indescribable indescribable beauty beauty in in this this manner manner of of certain accomplishing our our redemption.” redemption.” accomplishing
