Two prominent religious schools delivered quality theological education that enriched knowledge and faith and were an essential element of the early writing of church doctrine. The School of Antioch and School of Alexandria both emphasized the study of the character, personality and nature of Christ, as well as the human condition. Both schools had an appreciation and understanding for deeper elements of Christology as relating to issues the church was experiencing however they had very contrasting methods of Biblical interpretation and different theological viewpoints of Christology. Some major differences were objectively benign in terms of doctrinal cohesion and overall good relations; some of which were so uncompromising that Ecumenical …show more content…
Their contrasting perspectives highlighted some of the most foundational issues in biblical interpretation. The difference between these two schools hinged on their individual approaches to the biblical writings as history. The School of Antioch preferred a literal interpretation of the Bible; they believed the primary level of exegesis justified historical beliefs as law, for this reason overruling the idea of symbolic interpretation. The School of Alexandria on the other hand supported a method of a biblical clarification, allegorical exegesis or a concern for the wholeness of Christ's manhood. They allegorized the Scripture and held firm to the fact that the human side of Christ was of less significance. They embraced the "hypostasis union" or the "nature union" of the Godhead and manhood to emphasize the oneness of Jesus Christ. The theologians of Antioch also discarded both Docetism and Apollinarianism. (Docetism: Christ only "appeared" or "seemed to be a man, born, to have lived and suffered and Apollinarianism: A Christological theory, explain how Christ could be both human and divine. That human beings composed of body, soul, and spirit, and in Jesus the human spirit was replaced by the Logos, or the second person of the Trinity.) The school of Antioch emphasized the humanity of Christ and taught a distinction between the humanity and deity of Christ. In their viewpoint, Christ was perfect in humanity as well as flawless in deity. They described the dual nature of Christ by proclaiming the divine Logos (the second person) resided within a complete human being. The Antiochian view was asserting that the blending of deity and humanity was not so much a blending of substance as it was an ethical or accommodating intermingling. Christ energized as a normal individual; however his humanity and deity
One of the main principles of Christianity is the belief in both the divinity and humanity of Jesus, that these two natures are combined harmoniously in one being. In general, all modern Christians believe that Jesus was human, he was considered to be “The Word was made flesh” (John, I: 14). However, Jesus was more than just a human, despite being subjected to pain, suffering and death like all other human beings, he was sinless and also possessed the power to heal and to defy death in order to ascend, both body and spirit, into heaven. He was all man and all God, a combination of these two elements, remaining distinct but united in one being. The deity of Jesus is a non-negotiable belief in Christianity, which is referred to in many parts of scripture, “God was revealed in the flesh” (I Timothy, 3:16). The Christian faith does not perceive Jesus as God but rather a reincarnation of God, a mysterious deity who is the second person of the Holy Trinity. Throughout history, controversy has surrounded the issue of the humanity and divinity of Jesus, leading to the formation of Docetism, the belief that Jesus was fully divine but not fully human, Arianism, that Jesus was superior to all of creation, but less divine than God, and Nestorius, that there were two separate persons within Jesus. This the proportion of the divine and human within Je...
The crucifixion of Christ is one of the central defining moments in human history. The revelation of God in the cruciform Christ is the central defining image for Christians. This is at the very heart of the case being made by Michael Gorman in Inhabiting the Cruciform God. Gorman, examining Paul's soteriology, makes the argument that for Paul justification is centered on theosis. Gorman thesis centers around defending his definition of this theosis in Paul's writings. Gorman writes, “Theosis is tranformative participation in the kenotic, cruciform character of God through Spirit-enable conformity to the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected/glorified Christ.”1 The following will examine Gorman's defense of this thesis focusing especially
Paul and Jesus both have similar topics they teach. Not only that, but Paul and Jesus have very similar teaching styles, with the key difference being how they react to mistakes made by their pupils. Paul and Jesus both lose their temper at points and get very angry, but Jesus transforms his anger into forgiveness, where Paul does not. These similarities and differences presented allow us to better understand what Jesus taught by referencing Galatians as a guide. Overall, we see that Mark and Paul’s letter to the Galatians show the similar beliefs Paul and Jesus had, but also show how they react when those beliefs are
This amazement continues when one ponders why the similarities are rarely, if ever, discussed when the topic of Judaism or Christianity comes up in an academic setting. It would seem as if the shared beliefs between the two are not simply a product of chance, but rather the opposite. It is clear that Zoroastrian theology had an enormous effect on the formation and rise of Christianity.
In all human history, there are rare occasions of great individuals who not only have profound effect on future generations, but who also stand the test of time and scrutiny for millennia. These people are often thought to be great leaders of society or business but when we go back even farther in time, the great thinkers and societal leaders and influencers were more often also some of the great religious influences of their day. Religious influences like Origen of Alexandria and Tertullian, even the great philosophers like Socrates and Plato have all left a make on society and Christianity. This essay briefly introduces Athanasius of Alexander and Eusebius of Caesarea, two major influences of the Christian belief that were significant in shaping some of the fundamental principles of Christian faith and principles.
"The elements of the Person of Christ are to be established; the faith which accompanies the theoretic process always presupposes their unity; this is for faith immediately certain, though not as yet narrowly defined, not as yet mediately cognised through the knowledge of the distinct elements, which
With this in mind, the objective of this essay is to focus on the main ideas of each theologian, and discuss how each theologian’s ideas are compensatory to the other. This is important because even though each theologian’s writings were inspired by the harsh realities of the societies, and also by the effect each writer experienced in their moment in history, their critiques specifically of Christian institutions remain a consistent amongst all three writings. Furthermore, not only are their critiques consistent, but their goals for providing new frameworks for the future of the Church and Christian discipleship are consistent as well.
As the developments in Eastern Christianity were happening independent of Western Christianity, the differences in approaches grew to a serious estrangement between the two (Ware 23-24). As Ware suggests, some of the more prominent differences between the eastern and western Christianity are in the approach of religious truth, the perception of sin and salvation, and the view of the Holy Spirit. For Orthodox Christians, truth must be experienced personally (Ware 132). There is thus less focus on the exact definition of religious truth and more on the practical and personal experience of truth in the life of the individual and the church. This emphasis on personal experience of truth flows into the actual definition of the word Orthodox, which essentially means the correct theological observance of religion (“orthodox”). In the Western churches sin and salvation are seen primarily in legal terms. God gave humans freedom, and if they misuse it and brake God's commandments, they deserve punishment. God's grace results in forgiveness of the transgression and freedom from bondage and punishment. The Eastern churches see the matter in a different way. For Orthodox theologians, humans were created in the image of God and made to participate fully in the divine life. The full communion with God that Adam and Eve enjoyed meant complete freedom and true humanity, because humans are most human when they are completely united with God.
Throughout the first 400 years that Christianity was present in the world it changed dramatically. It started small in an area near the eastern Mediterranean area but within these 400 years, it grew to encompass the whole of the Mediterranean and its surrounding. Throughout this time of growth, there was also much change within the beliefs of Christianity with the main belief centering around Jesus Christ. While Christianity grew and made it to new areas it was introduced to new people that interpreted the different scriptures and preaching of what it meant to be a Christian. Some of the most influential writings in these years came from Irenaeus of Lyons, a second-century writer, Christian, theologian, and bishop. He expressed his beliefs of what made a Christian a Christian within his writing. One of his most famous writings, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, highlights the idea of the Holy Trinity and the Rule of Faith in the interpretation of the bible. Irenaeus believed that the Rule of Faith was ultimately necessary and required when reading and interpreting the word of Christianity saying, in the words of Isaiah, “If ye believe not, neither shall ye understand” (paragraph 3). In the eyes of Irenaeus, the Rule of Faith is one of the main things that makes a Christian a Christian.
Jesus and Paul are two crucial characters in the New Testament. They both depict the Gospel on which Christianity is based upon, but there is debate about rather these two versions of the Gospel are complementary. Scholars like George Shaw claim that Paul is “anti-Christian,” and he “produced a fantastic theology” (Shaw 415-416). On the other hand, I believe that even though Jesus and Paul may present the Gospel different at times, they are still advocating the same religion. Through the understanding of the Gospels and Paul’s letters it is clear that Jesus and Paul have the same underlining goals and values.
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen is associate professor of systematic theology at Fuller Theological Seminary and holds a teaching post at the University of Helsinki and Iso Kirja College in Finland. He is the author of Christology: A Global introduction, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical, and Global Perspectives (Back Cover). Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen presents the latest, comprehensive introduction to the various opinions about Christology from around the world. His book presents three main perspectives on Christology (biblical, historical, and contemporary).
The first scripture that comes to mind when I think of Christian education is the Hebrew Shema and its challenge to families. “These comm...
Beautiful mountains surround the private campus. Although there is diversity, the students are mostly white and their parents represent the upper echelon of society with the exception of a minority of students who were awarded scholarships and financial aid. At age eighteen a white male student enthusiastically reads aloud to his twenty classmates a passage from Metaphysics, by Aristotle. After graduating at age 22 he gains admittance to the Masters program at the Law School at University of Southern California. Upon graduating he pursues a successful career in entertainment law. He becomes financially secure, and spends the rest of his life tending to the needs of his wife and fostering the growth and development of his children.
Four movements, now heresies, of the past each adopted one of these four views mentioned previously. They are: Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Apollinarianism, and Arianism. Nestorianism and Eutychianism fall under the controversy of the relationship between the two natures. The controversy of Nestorianism arose over the propriety of the term theotokos (“God-bearing”) as a description of Mary. At the Council of Chalcedon in 428 Nestorius gave his view of theotokos to which he held and overly dividing view of the two natures of Christ. Nestorius felt that the term was of doubtful propriety unless the term anthropotokos (“human-bearing”) was also used. Nestorius was later condemned when Cyril of Alexandria; who held the belief in Christ having one nature got involved. Nestorius’ pronouncement towards the birth of Christ caused Cyril to oppose him. Nestorius said that God cannot have a mother; no woman can give birth to God. Cyril of Alexandria suggested that Nestorius was proposing that Jesus has two natures joined in a purely moral union. After Nestorianism came Eutychianism. Eutyches who was repeatedly summoned to the standing Synod of Constantinople in 448, finally appeared and stated his position whereas Christ has two natures before the incarnation, that was but one afterwards. The result of the Synod was the Eutyches was deposed and excommunicated and the one- nature doctrine rejected.
Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.