Christology

November 28, 2008

            Christology as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is “the study of the Person of Christ, and in particular of the union in Him of the Divine and human natures and of His significance for Christian faith.”[1] After the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, many heresies developed with regards to the combination of the divine and human natures of Christ.  The Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 established the orthodox belief that Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully God.[2] But this begs the question: how can a person be fully human – complete with limitations and growth, both intellectually and physically – and fully God – omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and unchanging?  There are two basic viewpoints amongst Christians: the classic view that the existence of Christ as God-man is an unavoidable paradox, and the kenotic view that Christ gave up his divine attributes in order to become fully human.[2]

            In A. D. 325, Emperor Constantine called together a council at Nicea to come to a final conclusion over the nature of Christ. Though the exact number of church fathers in attendance is disputed, the traditional figure is 318.[3] Together, these fathers developed a creed that concisely communicates their beliefs about the nature of Christ:

We believe… in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead.[3]

            This declaration firmly established the belief that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.  However, it also sparked debates between differing views of how Jesus’ deity and humanity could coexist within him.

            Groups rose up following Docetic teaching, which stated that Jesus was fully divine, and his human body was an illusion.  On the other hand, Adoptionists claimed that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son when he was baptized by John or some other specified event like his first Passover, Ebionites taught that Jesus was a human messiah that was not divine, and Arianism taught that, though Jesus was divine, he was created and, therefore, less divine than God the Father.  Apollinarius of Laodicea developed a Christology that suggested that Christ was not completely human, but that the logos had replaced the human mind.  Nestorians believed that Christ was actually two persons, one human and one divine, that were unified in one body.  Eutychians claimed that the distinct divine nature consumed the distinct human nature to create a third, divine-human nature.[4] As each Christological view gained support, they began to be associated with particular cities, which created a political element in this theological debate.[5]

            When he ascended to the imperial throne in 450 A.D., one of the first things Marcian did was to call together a council to sort through the religious difficulties.  He hoped that, with the empire united religiously, it would also unite politically, once again.5 On October 8, 451, around 600 bishops gathered together to sort through the differing views regarding the concurrent humanity and divinity of Jesus.[6] After weeks of debate, the council adopted a creed that specifically addressed the accepted views of Christ.  The creed declared that they believed Christ to be “perfect both in deity and in humanness…actually God and actually man, with a rational soul and a body.”[7] He is real in the same respect as God is real, and human in all respects that we are human, except that he was without sin.[7] The council directly addressed the two natures of Christ as follows:

            We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten — in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function.  The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union.  Instead, the “properties” of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one “person” and in one reality.  They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.[7]

            As shown, the fathers at the council believed in the two natures of Christ as being distinct without being separate.  This explanation does not seem to adequately address the apparent problem that is caused by the combination of divinity and humanity in Christ.  However, it does deny those who claimed Christ’s human mind was replaced by the Logos, as well as those who argued that Christ’s two natures were two distinct persons within his body.

            The common view of both the theologically minded and laypeople is that Christ exercised the full range of both divine and human attributes.[2] They maintain that Christ was at once omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent as God and limited in knowledge, presence, and power as Jesus son of Joseph of Nazareth.  Though this is apparently a paradox, they do not consider it a contradiction.  The Gospels are filled with references to Christ’s humanity, from undergoing physical and intellectual growth (Luke 2:52) to enduring temptations (Matt. 4:1-11).  At the same time, Christ’s divine attributes were also evidenced: he knew when a coin was going to be found in a fish’s mouth (Matt. 17:24-27) and he knew Judas’ intentions to betray him (John 13:21-27).  Beyond omniscience, Christ performed numerous miracles from feeding 5000 men with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish (Mark 6:30-44) to raising a man from the dead (John 11:1-44).  Those who believe in the traditional understanding of Christ being fully God and fully man understand this paradox in similar light as the concept of Trinity.  In the same way that the Trinity is three Persons in one God, Christ was two persons in one body: God the Son and Jesus the human.[2]

            In one attempt to show how the two natures of Christ can coexist, Thomas Morris, a Christian philosopher at Notre Dame, set forth a two part explanation.  First, one must understand the fundamental differences between the terms “merely human” and “fully human”.  “Merely human” means that a person contains all the attributes necessary for him to be human, and nothing more.  “Fully human,” on the other hand, requires the person to contain all the attributes necessary for him to be human, but does not necessitate that there is nothing beyond these attributes.  Therefore, for Christ to be “fully human” means that he has all the attributes necessary for being a human, but he can also have more characteristics, beyond what is “merely human”.  For Christ to be “fully human” and “fully God”, he must have all the attributes necessary for being both God and man.  Secondly, since the attributes of man are more than adequately covered within the attributes of God, it is possible for Christ to have both sets of attributes, with his human attributes acting as a subset of his divine attributes.  Christ had two minds: a divine mind and a human mind.  In concentric circles everything within the inner circle is also within the outer circle and not vice versa.  In similar fashion, the divine mind had access to everything within the human mind, but the human mind did not know everything within the divine mind.2

            In order to explain the growth that the human nature underwent, two points must be accepted and understood.  Aside from Morris’ explanation, the traditional view maintains that Jesus, the person in the Trinity, took upon himself a human nature.  This is important in understanding how humanity and deity combine and work together.  The divine nature is the part that is dominant and controlling.  This was the nature that existed first, being part of the second person in the Trinity.  In addition to his divine nature, this person took upon himself a human nature, which is different from a human person.[8]

            Secondly, there is a distinction between the existence of the logos in Jesus and its manifestation.  Classic Christologists maintain that the logos existed in Jesus from the beginning, that it always existed in the bodily form of Jesus.  However, it did not always or consistently act through the human mind.  Theologians use this to explain how the divine was present, even in the baby Jesus.  Though the logos was there, it did not make itself manifest all at once, but gradually, as Jesus the human developed.8 This implies that Jesus was unaware of his position as mediator between humanity and God, though he gradually became more and more aware of this fact as he developed and the divine nature imparted wisdom and knowledge.  It is possible that the time when the divine nature disclosed to Jesus full knowledge of his role as Son of God was at his baptism, when the voice from heaven declared, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”9 However, this transfer of knowledge does not imply that Jesus the human became omniscient.  It only means that this was when Jesus fully understood what his role was in the story of the world’s salvation.

            When one reflects on this division of two minds – a divine mind that controls how much knowledge the human mind has about itself – one may wonder how two minds does not equal two persons.  A person’s mind is the center of what makes him a person.  Therefore, with two minds there exists two persons.  How does this view differ from the ancient heresy of Nestorianism?  In response to this charge, classic Christologists will say that ordinarily the ratio of minds to persons is one-to-one.  But this is not always the case.  For example, when a person realizes that he is dreaming, he is demonstrating two minds: one that is conjuring the dream, and the second that is aware that the dream is separate from him, that he has control of what happens.  Similarly, people with multiple personality disorders demonstrate that it is possible for more than one distinct mind.  The difference between Christ and a person with multiple personalities disorder is that Christ had a mind that encompassed and controlled his other mind, instead of each mind being on an equal level.  Though multiple personality disorders do not show exactly how Christ’s multiple minds would have cooperated, they do prove that it is possible for multiple minds to exist within the same body.2

            In Christ, however, we are not talking about multiple minds, but multiple natures.  The two minds of Morris’ explanation do not equate with the two natures of other traditional approaches.  “Nature” is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing” or its essence.10  A human nature is what comprises that which is human.  A mind is “the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons” and “the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism.”11 According to the dictionary, while Morris is supporting two parts within Christ that think, feel, and perceive, other traditional approaches show Christ as having two essences.  Where the dual-essence argument seems in line with Jesus being fully God and fully man, two minds does not seem to line up at all.

            Another problem that Morris’ view runs into is based off of one of its most basic assertions: that Christ’s divine nature, because it contained all that was required to be human, allowed him to simultaneously be human.  If one were to follow this logic, then any human could be said to be simultaneously a rock.  A rock is hard and, though not all of a human is hard, it has some parts that are hard.  A rock is made of dirt and, based on the Biblical account of the creation of man found in Genesis 2:7, “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.”9 When a rock breaks apart, it forms smaller and smaller bits of rock, until it is only dirt and dust.  After a man dies, his body decomposes, eventually leaving only dust.  Based on these three connections, and following the logic put forth by Morris, a human being simultaneously has the natures of a human being and a rock.  Other, similar, ridiculous connections can be made with similar results.  A plant, for example is composed of cells that have high water content, just like humans.  Though humans do not gain their food from sunlight, it is commonly witnessed that humans have more energy on sunny days than on gloomy days.  Does this mean that a human is simultaneously a plant?

            Regardless, assuming that Christ does indeed have two natures, as classic Christology proposes, what does this mean in regards to a will?  The Catholic doctrine regarding Christ’s will is simple.  Being able to will something is an inseparable part of being human, so Jesus must have had a human will.  Being God, he also must have had the divine will.  Therefore, Jesus had two wills.  The problem was that if Christ had two wills, two minds, two natures, what kept him from being two persons?  The Monothelites believed they came up with the solution: Christ had two natures, but only one will.  The fallen human will could not be present in the perfection of Jesus, so that only leaves room for the perfect divine will.  However, as was quickly pointed out, the removal of a human will removes an integral part of Christ’s humanity.  Monothelitism was dismissed soon after its creation, as a heresy.  The human will is not fallen in and of itself, like any other human thing is not necessarily bad.  It is, however, tainted by sin.  Jesus had no sin, so he did not have this fallen will, only a rational, or free will.  This free will always acted in harmony and subjection by choice to the divine will, which explains Christ’s actions always being accordance with God’s desires.12

            The coexisting divine will within Christ may be the reason why he was able to live a full life without sin, when Adam was unable to do the same.  Both Adam and Jesus had untainted human wills, which sought to do what God willed for their lives.  However, Jesus succeeded where Adam failed.  Where Adam walked with God through the garden, Jesus had God as an integrated part of his person.  While Adam had wanted to do what God willed, when he was tempted, he succumbed.  Jesus also wanted to do what God willed, but when he was tempted, Jesus rebuked Satan, casting the devil away from his presence.  Each man wanted to do what God willed, and, while they each may have always had a reminder within themselves of what God wanted, Jesus had God’s will engraved, integrated, built into his soul in a way that Adam did not.

            The other major approach to the Christology is the kenotic view.  The view comes from the Greek term kenosis, from the passage in Philippians 2 that says that Christ “did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied [kenosis] himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.”9 Kenotics say that Christ relinquished some of his divine attributes in order to become human.  When he became human, Christ temporarily gave up all qualities that prove inconsistent with being human, such as his omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.2  There are multiple other New Testament references that allude to Christ giving up something (2 Cor. 8:9), or lowering himself (John 3:13).2

            On multiple occasions, Scripture makes it clear that Christ was not omniscient.  Christ said that no one but the Father knows when Christ’s second coming will be (Mark 13:32).  Also, when Christ was in Gethsemane right before his arrest, he earnestly prayed that “if it is possible” God provide another way for the salvation of the world (Matt. 26:39).9  Kenotics will argue that Christ could not have earnestly prayed this prayer if he was omniscient and knew that his death was the only way.  Christ was also tempted “in every respect… as we are”, but unless he gave up some of his divine attributes, Christ, as God, “cannot be tempted by evil” (Heb. 4:15; Jm. 1:13).9 Therefore, Christ must have relinquished some of his divine attributes in order to become human.

            Kenotics view the Incarnation of Christ as the occasion where the divine nature of Christ loses most of its power.  Rather than simply assuming the human soul of Christ, the living logos actually became that human soul.13 The trouble I find with this position on the divine logos and the human soul of Christ is that, if the logos became the human soul, would it not cease to be divine?  It seems to me that the divinity, the infinite quality, the all-sustaining role that the logos plays in the story of the world are all vitally important roles that define the nature of the logos.  Regardless, most kenotics agree that when the divine nature of Christ became limited, it was self-imposed limitations, that is, the divine nature of Christ purposefully limited itself so that Christ might be able to develop as humanly as possible.

            The kenotic viewpoint is strongest at some of the weakest points in the traditional viewpoint.  It avoids the apparently contradictory point of Christ being fully God and fully human simultaneously.  As mentioned before, if Christ had two minds and two sets of attributes, to many people, he simply could not have been one person.2 Because Christ, by virtue of having relinquished certain divine qualities, was completely human, Christians can take Christ’s humanity seriously.  Scripture encourages us on multiple occasions to follow the example of Christ (1 Cor. 11:1, Phil. 2:5), but if he was divine, how can we, as mere humans, expect to be able to accurately follow his example?  Kenotic Christology allows Christ to be a true human example for humans.2

            A complication with the kenotic view has to do with the person Christ after his ascension.  After Christ was resurrected, he was glorified, and he currently sits at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19).  In the book of Acts, and in various other passages, it is suggested that Christ retains his humanity after his ascension.  Kenotic Christologists believe that Christ gave up some of his divine attributes in order to become fully human, but classic Christologists point out that this means one of two things: either Christ never used his surrendered divine qualities again (so he can remain human after his ascension) or he “regained” them after returning to heaven.  If he no longer uses his divine attributes, what is so glorious about that?  On the other hand, if Christ “regained” his divine attributes upon returning to heaven and he is still able to remain fully human, why cannot he have also had these attributes on earth and been fully human?

            There are two main ways that kenotics approach this problem.  The first is as follows: Christ did not need to give up his divine attributes to become a human, but he did need to give them up in order to become the human necessary for the salvation of mankind.  He could not have truly experienced temptation while being omniscient, because he would have known that he was not going to sin.  Satan would not have tried to kill someone he knew to be all-powerful, and, in order to fully bear the punishment of man, Christ needed to experience true separation from God.  Therefore, he must have given up attributes like his omniscience, his omnipotence, and his omnipresence.  However, after his redemption of the world, Christ was free to take up these divine attributes once more.2

            The second way kenotics approach this difficulty is by redefining what it means to be human.  They claim that there is a difference between the temporary state that humanity is in currently and the glorified state that humanity will assume in the next life.  In order to die and redeem mankind, Christ needed to give up aspects of his divinity so that he could become a human in the temporary state.  After death, Christ was glorified, as humans will be in the next life.  This form of humanity, although it does not guarantee omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience, does not rule them out by definition.  Therefore, Christ was free to take up the divine attributes he previously put aside without compromising his humanity.2

            For Martin Luther, the key to Jesus having two natures was the communicatio idiomatum, or transference of properties from one nature to the other.8 However, all of these properties can be attributed to the same person, that is, Jesus Christ.  This allows for Jesus to be omnipresent, yet spatially limited; omnipotent, yet limited in strength; omniscient, yet have to learn.  Because of the divine quality of omnipresence, Luther reasoned that the divine qualities must be present in the human nature, the only other place within the person of Christ for the omnipresent divine nature to exist.  Lutheran Christology has a few points in which it sounds similar to the kenotic viewpoint.  One of these is that it distinguishes between the possession and use of those divine attributes transferred to the human nature.  Even amongst Lutheran theologians, there is debate as to whether Christ renounced the use of his divine attributes, or if he merely exercised them in secret.  Additionally, the transference of qualities is unidirectional; the human attributes are not communicated to the divine nature, because there cannot be a limitation on the divine, whether that limitation is in glory, power, presence, knowledge, or otherwise.[8]

            Lutheran Christology provides an interesting position, because it seems to dance in limbo between the classic, paradoxical view and the kenotic view.  On the one hand, it affirms strongly that the divine nature and human nature were at once together within the person of Jesus.  It also allows that the divine attributes are transferred to the human nature.  As one theologian puts it, “even the infant Jesus was in possession of the entire divine majesty and glory… yet Christ refrained from the full use of His imparted majesty…though rays of [the] divine…frequently manifested themselves.”[8] This explains why Christ was able to perform miracles.  It also provides a plausible explanation for cases such as the healing of the woman with internal bleeding in Luke 8.  Traditionally, Jesus question, “Who touched me?” is viewed as Jesus giving the woman a chance to come forward.  However, if this was a case where his divine nature merely flared up, we can read the question as genuine.  Jesus, aware that he had used some of his power, is honestly unsure of whom his power had healed.  On the other hand, Lutheran Christology also allows that Jesus did not fully exercise his divine nature, either by prior renunciation of power for the duration of time that he was human or by personal discretion as a human as to when was an appropriate time to exercise his divine power.[8]

            Calvinists agreed partially with Lutheran Christology, but they criticized the Lutheran stance on one major point in two different ways.  They claimed that the Lutheran application of the transference of divine attributes tended towards Docetism because the communication of divine attributes to the human nature does not allow Jesus to have developed on a solely human level.  Jesus’ development as a human was necessary for him to be truly human, to understand what life is like for Calvinists also pointed out that the communication of divine attributes was similar to the Eutychians assertion that the divine nature had combined with the human nature to create a new nature.[8] The biggest problem with the Eutychian stance was that, if Christ’s divine nature consumed the human nature and became a third nature, then Christ would no longer be God or man, in which case he would not be able to redeem as either God or man.4 Calvin focused on clarifying the relationship between the human and divine natures in Christ.  He concluded that, contrary to Luther’s proposition, Christ’s divine nature was not enclosed in his human body.  Calvin points out that, “the Son of God descended miraculously from heaven, yet without abandoning heaven; was pleased to be conceived miraculously in the Virgin’s womb, to live on the earth, and hang upon the cross, and yet always filled the world as from the beginning.”[8] So, rather than toying with the idea of combining the two natures, Calvin states that the divine nature’s omnipresence is demonstrated through Jesus the Son’s role in governing and sustaining the world.[8]

            Calvin took Eusebius’ idea that Jesus held a munus triplex, or “three-fold office,” during his earthly ministry and fully expounded upon this idea.14 This idea suggested that Jesus’ ministry on earth could be summarized through his roles as prophet, priest, and king.  Initially, Calvin only taught a “two-fold office,” but, in his Geneva Catechism of 1541, Calvin attributed the role of prophet to Jesus, saying that he was “a sovereign messenger and ambassador of God.”[15] Jesus role as prophet was to represent God to man.[16] Jesus role as a priest involves his atonement for his people.  He also secures God’s blessing for them; that God will not deal with them as a judge, but as a gracious father.[17] Even after his ascension, Jesus continues to intercede on our behalf each time that we sin.[16] Jesus is a king of a spiritual kingdom, but his subjects are originally from this world.  As their king, Jesus equips them with gifts and tools for eternal life and protects them from their enemies.[17] The current understanding of Christ as “Lord” or “King” is weaker than the original intent, because the modern world lacks a figure with the authority and power of a king.  We talk about “making Jesus lord of our lives,” but Jesus is already the lord of everything.  It is an inherent part of who he is; our personal decisions do not make Jesus anything.  He is the eternal, the constant, and we are the ones who waver and change.[16]

            One last view that I stumbled upon also affirms that Jesus is fully God and fully man without relinquishing any divine rights, prerogatives, or qualities.  The key to this view is that, though Christ is a human being, he is not a human person.18 Christ is a human being in every way – he grows, learns, eats, sleeps, cries, laughs, et cetera, he has a human soul and a human will – but he is not a complete person.  Christ is the only human being that is not a self-contained human person. The physical human being that is Jesus of Nazareth was the vehicle that allowed the logos that is the second person of the Trinity to join us in human life so that we might be connected to God through him.  Therefore, the personhood of Jesus Christ – his very existence as a person – is dependent on the logos.  The difference between what makes a human being and what makes a human person is completeness.  The human being that is Christ is incomplete until the person that is the logos enters him and makes him a complete person.18

            Between the traditional Christological view and the kenotic one, I am unsure which one I believe.  To me both have holes that are difficult to explain, and I do not agree that theologians and philosophers have adequately explained some of them.  Regarding the traditional view, I cannot see how two minds can coexist within one person.  Luther’s position on the two natures of Christ is only more confused.  It is dangerously close to the fifth century heresy of Eutyches, which stated that Christ was of two natures, not that he had two natures.19 This view was declared heretical at a council held in Constantinople in late AD 448.20

            Calvin’s view does a good job of covering the holes in Luther’s Christology.  However, I was unable to locate an adequate discussion on the union of divine and human within Christ.  The majority of the information that I found on Calvin’s Christology surrounds the development of his ideas of the munus triplex.  Although this is an important aspect of Christology, to be sure, the area of Christology that I was focusing on was the union of God and man through the being of Jesus Christ.

            The use of multiple personality disorders as an example in defense of Morris’ Christology does not satisfy me, because these minds do not necessarily work together.  I understand that the example is only there to prove that multiple minds can exist within a single person, and I can accept that Morris is not asserting that Christ had a personality disorder.  However, that still leaves me with the problem of how his minds, if indeed Christ had two minds, cooperated.  I cannot understand how Christ could operate with an infinite mind and a finite one.  How could Christ be acting through the infinite mind one moment, knowing the innermost thoughts of someone for example, and yet not have this knowledge carry over to his finite mind?

            The differentiation between a mind and a nature is helpful here, but their cooperation is still an issue.  If the nature of a thing is all that make it what it is, how can something have two natures?  Why is Christ not constantly being torn between behaving as one nature and not the other?  Is it because his divine overpowers the human nature?  If this is true, what is the use of having a human nature at all, since it is essentially powerless and useless?

            As for the kenotic view, I struggle with Christ having to give up his divine attributes.  It does not seem possible, how can one give up something that is intrinsically a part of you?  I understand that simply because I cannot do something does not mean that God cannot do it either, but it seems like relinquishing divine attributes is ceasing, in part, to be God.  It brings to mind the logical contradiction: if God can do anything, can he stop being God?  But then, is “being” considered “doing” anything?

            The last take of traditional Christology, regarding the completeness of Christ sounds good, but it, too, leads to difficult questions.  The first question that arises in my mind is that of completeness, the foundation of this stance.  Jesus as a human being is incomplete without the person of God the Son.  Does this mean that Jesus could not have existed without the logos being an integrated part of him?  The human being is transformed with the inclusion of the divine personhood of the logos.  But does the logos affect the humanity of the human being?  Does the inclusion of the divine negate the complete humanity of Jesus?  Or is the point that, though Jesus was a human being, he was not completely human?

            All in all, I do not believe that we were meant to understand everything in this world.  Our human minds are finite and there is no way, aside from divine revelation, that we can understand things that extend beyond our understanding of the world.  The spiritual realm that the divine nature of Christ represents is something beyond our understanding.  Though we have souls that belong to that realm, our souls are tied to our bodies.  The bottom line is that, though we can have a basic understanding of how Christ was able to be fully God and fully man, this union “is a mystery that surpasses reason” that we will never be able to understand through conventional human means.16


Bibliography

Bonocore, Mark J.. “The Council of Chalcedon and the Papcy.” Apolonio’s Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality. Available from http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm. Internet; accessed 21 November 2008.

Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002.

Chapman, John. “Monothelitism and Monothelites.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm. Internet; accessed 26 November 2008.

Chapman, John. “Robber Council of Ephesus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05495a.htm. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

“Christian Heresy.” The Illustrated History of the Roman Empire. Available from http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/heresy.html. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

Christianity Today International. “October 8: Council of Chalcedon; Christian History Institute.” Glimpses of Christian History. Available from http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2003/10/daily-10-08-2003.shtml. Internet; accessed 21 November 2008.

“Christology.” Christology – Dictionary Definition of Christology | Encyclopedia.com. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O95-Christology.html (accessed November 6, 2008).

“Definition of Chalcedon.” CHRISTIA File Archives. Available from http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/creeds.chalcedon.txt. Internet; accessed 22 November 2008.

Hedrick, Charles. “More About Christian Beliefs: The Incarnation.” Soc.Religion.Christian. Available from http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/incarnation.html. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

Hesselink, I. John. Calvin’s First Catechism. Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.

House, H. Wayne. “Charts.” Discernment.org. Available from http://www.discernment.org/charts.htm. Internet; accessed 22 November 2008.

Maas, Anthony. “Kenosis.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08617a.htm. Internet; accessed 22 November 2008.

Miller, E. F. Karl. “Jesus Christ, Threefold Office of.” Available from http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc06/htm/iii.lvii.v.htm. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

“Mind.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Available from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind. Internet; accessed 26 November 2008.

“Nature.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Available from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature. Internet; accessed 26 November 2008.

Ocáriz Braña, Fernando, Lucas F. Mateo Seco, J. A. Riestra, and Michael Adams. The Mystery of Jesus Christ: A Christology and Soteriology Textbook. Scepter Publishers, 1994.

Papal Encyclicals Online. “First Council of Nicea – 325 AD.” Papal Encyclicals Online. Available from http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm. Internet; accessed 21 November 2008.

Riddlebarger, Kim. “The Triple Cure: Jesus Christ – Our Prophet, Priest and King.” Grace Online Library. Available from http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=507. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

Storms, Sam. “Classical View.” Enjoying God Ministries. Available from http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/classical-view/. Internet; accessed 22 November 2008.

The Student Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996.

“Threefold Office.” NationMaster Encyclopedia. Available from http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Threefold-Office. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.


[1] “Christology,” Christology – Dictionary Definition of Christology | Encyclopedia.com, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O95-Christology.html (accessed November 6, 2008).

[2] Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002), 101-12.

[3] Papal Encyclicals Online. “First Council of Nicea – 325 AD.” Papal Encyclicals Online. Available from http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm. Internet; accessed 21 November 2008.

[4] House, H. Wayne. “Charts.” Discernment.org. Available from http://www.discernment.org/charts.htm. Internet; accessed 22 November 2008.

[5] Christianity Today International. “October 8: Council of Chalcedon; Christian History Institute.” Glimpses of Christian History. Available from http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2003/10/daily-10-08-2003.shtml. Internet; accessed 21 November 2008.

[6] Bonocore, Mark J.. “The Council of Chalcedon and the Papcy.” Apolonio’s Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality. Available from http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm. Internet; accessed 21 November 2008.

[7] “Definition of Chalcedon.” CHRISTIA File Archives. Available from http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/creeds.chalcedon.txt. Internet; accessed 22 November 2008.

2 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002), 101-12.

2 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002), 101-12.

[8] Storms, Sam. “Classical View.” Enjoying God Ministries. Available from http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/classical-view/. Internet; accessed 22 November 2008.

9 The Student Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996.

2 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002), 101-12.

10 “Nature.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Available from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature. Internet; accessed 26 November 2008.

11 “Mind.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Available from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind. Internet; accessed 26 November 2008.

9 The Student Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996.

12 Chapman, John. “Monothelitism and Monothelites.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm. Internet; accessed 26 November 2008.

2 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002), 101-12.

9 The Student Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996.

13 Maas, Anthony. “Kenosis.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08617a.htm. Internet; accessed 22 November 2008.

2 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002), 101-12.

8 Storms, Sam. “Classical View.” Enjoying God Ministries. Available from http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/classical-view/. Internet; accessed 22 November 2008.

4 House, H. Wayne. “Charts.” Discernment.org. Available from http://www.discernment.org/charts.htm. Internet; accessed 22 November 2008.

8 Storms, Sam. “Classical View.” Enjoying God Ministries. Available from http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/classical-view/. Internet; accessed 22 November 2008.

14 “Threefold Office.” NationMaster Encyclopedia. Available from http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Threefold-Office. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

15 Hesselink, I. John. Calvin’s First Catechism. Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.

16 Riddlebarger, Kim. “The Triple Cure: Jesus Christ – Our Prophet, Priest and King.” Grace Online Library. Available from http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=507. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

17 Miller, E. F. Karl. “Jesus Christ, Threefold Office of.” Available from http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc06/htm/iii.lvii.v.htm. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

18 Hedrick, Charles. “More About Christian Beliefs: The Incarnation.” Soc.Religion.Christian. Available from http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/incarnation.html. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

18 Hedrick, Charles. “More About Christian Beliefs: The Incarnation.” Soc.Religion.Christian. Available from http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/incarnation.html. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

19 “Christian Heresy.” The Illustrated History of the Roman Empire. Available from http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/heresy.html. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

20 Chapman, John. “Robber Council of Ephesus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05495a.htm. Internet; accessed 28 November 2008.

16 Ocáriz Braña, Fernando, Lucas F. Mateo Seco, J. A. Riestra, and Michael Adams. The Mystery of Jesus Christ: A Christology and Soteriology Textbook. Scepter Publishers, 1994.

Advertisements

Join the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s