UNION BIBLICAL SEMINARY,

PUNE- 411037
COURSE CODE: BTT 11
PERSON AND WORK OF JESUS, THE CHRIST
Topic: Christological debates during the Patristic Period
(Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Arius, Athanasius, and Appolinarius)

Instructor: Mr. David M Kumar

Presented by: Jeremiah Prasad, Dharma Durai, K. B. Caroline and Clinton Paul
(Group 3)

Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Definition of Christology ................................................................................................................. 3
3. Jesus as Human and Divine ............................................................................................................. 3
3.1. Jesus as human ....................................................................................................................... 3
3.2. Jesus as divine ......................................................................................................................... 3
4. Ebionitism, Docetism and Gnosticism............................................................................................. 3
4.1. Ebionitism/who were the Ebionites? ...................................................................................... 3
4.2. Docetism ................................................................................................................................. 4
4.3. Gnosticism............................................................................................................................... 4
5. Christological Debates .................................................................................................................... 4
5.1. Irenaeus’ Debate ..................................................................................................................... 4
5.1.1. Brief Background and Development Theology of Irenaeus ............................................ 4
5.1.2. Divine .............................................................................................................................. 5
5.1.3. Human ............................................................................................................................. 5
5.1.4. Logos ............................................................................................................................... 5
5.2. Clement of Alexandria’s Debate ............................................................................................. 6
5.2.1. Logos ............................................................................................................................... 6
5.2.2. Divine and Human ........................................................................................................... 6
5.3. Origen’s Debate ...................................................................................................................... 7
5.3.1 Origen’s Understanding of Creation: ..................................................................................... 7
5.3.2 Origen’s understanding of Logos and Son of God as pure logos ........................................... 7
5.3.3 Hypostatic Union of Jesus and logos Christology............................................................ 8
5.3.4 Union of soul of Christ with Logs .................................................................................... 8

1
 5.3.5 The Two Begettings of Christ .......................................................................................... 8
5.3.6 Logos is the means of creation and communication of God .......................................... 9
5.3.7 The eternal generation of son......................................................................................... 9
5.3.8 Relation between the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit according to Origen................... 9
5.3.9 Redemption consists of Imparting Divine Logos and Deification Requires Logos ........ 10
5.3.10 Mediator Christology .................................................................................................... 10
5.3.11 Chalcedonian Creed and Two Natures Jesus Christ ...................................................... 11
5.4. Christological Understanding of Contemporary theologians: .............................................. 11
5.5. Critic of Logos Christology..................................................................................................... 12
5.5.1. Advantages of logos Christology ................................................................................... 12
5.5.2. Weaknesses of Logos Christology ................................................................................. 12
5.5.3. Implication of Logos Christology ................................................................................... 12
5.6. Arius and Athanasius............................................................................................................. 13
5.6.1. Arius (250-336).............................................................................................................. 13
5.6.2. Athanasius of Alexandria (296 – 373) ........................................................................... 13
5.6.3. Debate between Arius and Athanasius ......................................................................... 13
5.6.4. Argument with Arianism ............................................................................................... 14
5.6.5. His Response ................................................................................................................. 14
5.6.6. Further Argument ......................................................................................................... 14
5.6.7. Athanasius Responses ................................................................................................... 15
5.6.8. Council of Nicaea (325) ................................................................................................. 15
5.7 Appolinarius .......................................................................................................................... 15
5.7.1 Appolinarius’ Argument ................................................................................................ 15
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Webliography ........................................................................................................................................ 17

1. Introduction
Philippians 2:6-8 says that “who being found in the form of God, did not consider it robbery
to be equal with God...... being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself and
became obedient to the point of death.”
Therefore in this presentation, we shall deal with Christological debate on Jesus as fully
human or fully divine in nature. We would be focusing essentially on the Patristic period

2
especially during the era of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Arius, Athanasius and
Appolinarius.
2. Definition of Christology
Christology is the Christian reflection, teaching, and doctrine concerning Jesus of Nazareth.
Christology is the part of theology that is concerned with the nature and work of Jesus,
including such matters as the incarnation, the resurrection, and his human and divine natures
and their relationship. Christology is that part of theology which deals with our Lord Jesus
Christ. Christology (from Greek Χριστός and λόγια) is the field of nature and person of Jesus
Christ as recorded in the canonical Gospels and the epistles of the New Testament.1

3. Jesus as Human and Divine

3.1.Jesus as human
During the second century the Christological debates focused on the divinity of Jesus Christ
and most of the church Fathers believe Jesus as Human being.2 The affirmation of Jesus as
human in clearly depicted in New Testament, the alienation of sin is different from human
being. Jesus as Jew grew in maturity, physically, spiritually and was influenced by the culture
and religious understanding of his people. Jesus experienced hunger, thirst, pain, tempted,
rejected, insulted, betrayed, tortured and crucified.3

3.2.Jesus as divine
Through the concept of Logos, we can also understand Jesus as divine as the Gospel
mentioned. Jesus resurrection is God’s victory over sin and death. The gospel describe about
Jesus’ obedience and humbleness even on the death on the cross. God was in Christ who
reconcile the world to himself (2nd Corin.5:19) the suffering of Christ is also for the Father.
The nature of forgiveness in Christ is the expression of God presenting forgiveness to human
being.4

4. Ebionitism, Docetism and Gnosticism

4.1.Ebionitism/who were the Ebionites?
The Ebionitism is derived from the Hebrew term which means “the poor one”, the Ebionitism
were a sect of Jew in the first and second centuries and they regards Jesus as an ordinary
Human Being, the son of Mary and Joseph.5 The Ebionites also emphasize on the humanity
of Jesus, the importance of the Law, and rejects the apostolic authority of Paul. They rejects
the virgin Birth, they pay special homage to John the Baptist (revered as a preacher of
repentance, the Baptizer of Jesus). Eusebius observed the two groups of Ebionites, the first
group considered the natural birth of Jesus characterized by unusual moral character. The
second group accepted the virgin birth but rejected the preexistence of the son of God. The

1
Samuel. George, Christology (Kolkata: SCEPTRE, 2013), 1.
2
Veli- Matti Karkkainen. Christology: A global Introduction. (Michigan: Baker Academic. 2003), 63.
3
Samuel George Christology. (Kolkata: SCEPTRE, 2003), 17.
4
George Christology…….18.
5
Karkkainen. Christology: A global Introduction……….64.

3
idea of Ebionites was rejected by Christians as it contradicts the understanding of Jesus Christ
as savoir.6

4.2.Docetism
Docetism derived from Greek word “dokeo” which refers to the doctrine that the manhood of
Christ was apparent not real, a divine being was dressed as a man in order to communicate
revelation but was not really involved in the human state and withdraw before the passion.
The modern revisionist of Christologies concern is to avoid any form of Docetism.7 By the
middle of the second century, Christian Gnosticism was widespread, it was found in Asia,
Egypt, Rome, and Carthage and in Lyons. Docetic attempt is to combine an alien philosophy
with the Christian Gospel. Docetic made Jesus humanity a mere “semblance”(illusion) and
distinguished between the heavenly Christ and the early Jesus as to assert that the Heavenly
Christ came down at baptism and departed before the crucifixion so that heavenly Christ had
no share in the shame and agony of the cross.8

4.3.Gnosticism
Gnosticism was a second century heresy claiming that salvation could be gained through
secret knowledge. Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “to know”.
They believe that Jesus Christ only appeared to have human form but that he was actually
spirit only. 9 The term is used to describe a religious movement of the early Christian
centuries which emphasis on the knowledge. Irenaeus, Tertullian and others regarded it as a
Christian heresy.10
5. Christological Debates
5.1.Irenaeus’ Debate

5.1.1. Brief Background and Development Theology of Irenaeus

Irenaeus was originated from Asia, he is important in the study of Christology because of the
way he tried to identify and stabilize true Christianity and to distinguish it from heresy and
also because of his rich theology he developed. 11 He even became the most important
theologians of the second century and remained in an orthodox tradition. The original work
of Irenaeus was lost apart from few pieces, the reason could be because of his adoption of the
view that Christ would return and reign for a thousand years on the earth. The book widely
known was Against Heresies (Latin- Adversus Heresies or Adv. Haer in short) and a short
handbook or Catechism, The demonstration of the apostolic preaching. Irenaeus came in
contact with Montanism12 and Gnosticism.

6
Karkkainen. Christology: A global Introduction……….64.
7
Francis Young, “Docetism” The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed.Alan Richardson & John
Bowden.(Philadelphia: The Westminster ,1983),160.
8
Sydney Cave, The Doctrine of the Person f Christ. (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 1962), 79.
9
“Gnosticism”http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/a/Gnosticism.htm. 25/11/14, 3:21pm.
10
R. MCL. Wilson, “Gnosticism” The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan Richardson &
John Bowden.(Philadelphia: The Westminster,1983), 226.
11
Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans ,1991), 57.
12
who was against the life and the faith of the church.

4
 5.1.2. Divine
Irenaeus writes that God is the Father of creator and lawgiver, maker of heaven and earth.
God brought it into being out of nothing and those who claim a higher god are blaspheming
him. Creatures cannot make things except by shaping a material that has already exists but
God has not only shaped the word but also made the material as well. 13 Christ is both God
and man and he uses “one and the same”. Son of God and Son of Man lived, suffered and
died. Irenaeus suggested that the divine word remained impassible (untouched by
suffering).If he were not man, humanity would not be saved in him, if he were not God, he
would not have power to save. He developed the thought that God created man in his own
image and likeness. All three elements body, soul and spirit are needed for the perfect man in
likeness of God.14 Irenaeus put creation and incarnation together, in creation the whole of the
universe comes into being and in incarnation it is a single human being who comes into
existence and found to have purity which the whole world has lost. The need of the world
which God created is to be liberated from sin, and sin has no power over the man whom
Mary bore. When God becomes incarnate, he becomes man. God is destined to live life
without sin from the very beginning. In Jesus Christ there appears the one who possesses
everything that man as creature ought to have, and nothing of what Adam brought upon as a
result of his yielding to temptation.15

5.1.3. Human
Christ is God and he is also man, these are two irreconcilable truths. Very God and Very man
in one with no separation between His divinity and His humanity. In the creation, the two
hands of God were upon the world i.e. Son and the Spirit. Human being estranged from God
because of sin and so God sent his son who becomes flesh and the Holy Spirit makes his
dwelling place in a human body and soul.16Jesus Christ is true God and true man; he brings
human being to God and God to human being. The birth of Jesus by Virgin Mary was
regarded exclusively as a sign of His divinity. Like God, the son is eternal, begotten of the
Father from eternity. Irenaeus explain of God’s acts in Christ- God himself is in Christ and
offers his salvation in his incarnate son, for only the creator can save men from the devil. God
has in fact revealed himself in Christ and through him has entered human life, by his very
mercy and love to come to man in his helplessness. If Christ had been bound by sin and
defeated he would not have the power to liberate man. The humanity in Jesus is the pure
humanity which God created and the evil has no hold over it.17

5.1.4. Logos
“In God there is word and wisdom, son and spirit, through whom and in whom he made all
things, freely without help”. Word and wisdom exist with God always. 18 The word created
the universe, God is always complete in itself. God being in all mind and all Logos speaks

13
Robert L. Calhoun, Scripture, creed, Theology. (Eugene: Cascade books, 2011), 135-136.
14
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church………..63-64.
15
Gustaf Wingreen, Man and the Incarnation: A study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus. (Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg, 1959), 84-85.
16
Gustaf Wingreen, Man and the Incarnation……………………..86-87.
17
Wingreen, Man and the Incarnation……………………..98-102.
18
Calhoun, Scripture, creed, Theology. (Eugene: Cascade books, 2011), 135-136.

5
what he thinks and thinks what he speaks. His thoughts are Logos and Logos is mind and
mind comprehending in all things. God is Logos and Logos is God, they are one and the
same.19
5.2.Clement of Alexandria’s Debate
Alexandria was the greatest city of the East; it was a centre of Greek learning with a fine
library and Greek-speaking Judaism. 20 Clement was a Greek philosopher and later on
converted from paganism; he was a theologian and also head of the catechetical school of
Alexandria.21 Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) is considered important in the history of
Christian doctrine.

5.2.1. Logos
Clement of Alexandria taught about logos, God is knowable only by reason of his logos. The
logos of God are mind of God Logos is perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ, the word in which
all truth comes. The Logos is the perfect mirror of God. The son is changeless/unalterable
image of the Father in which the Father’s true being is set forth. The Logos is the coeternal
with the Father.22 He also taught that God revealed to the philosophers and to the prophets. It
is through the eternal Word that all revelation comes is from heaven. By incarnation Jesus
becomes visible; he has begotten and created his own humanity. God is absolute unity
(monas), Jesus Christ is the logos which communicates and make known about truth to
human being. The incarnation in Jesus Christ is real and final revelation of the truth. Holy
Spirit is clear/definite but plays as subordinate which communicates the truth o the scriptures
and teaching the believers inwardly. 23Like Logos, Holy Spirit is active in the lives of the
prophets and the thinkers. Like the magnet holding together the iron rings, the Holy Spirit
holds together the whole universe of rational beings.

5.2.2. Divine and Human

Christ is both human and divine, God and man.24Clement is interested in the Christology;
Jesus is above all the teacher and the wisdom and word of the Father, the savior and
physician who heals body and soul. Christ is admirable in every aspect and claims Christ as
the one who possessed of beauty of both the body and soul, the beauty is true and a perfect
image, the image is of his father. Christ himself is wisdom.25 According to Clement, God is
the source of all good things and his understanding about God includes Greek philosophy.
The knowledge of God cannot be directly described but can be approached by parables and
illustrations. Faith is regarded as the first stage of learning that enables one to change from
heathen to virtue and knowledge as the developed expression of the faith.26

19
Calhoun, Scripture, creed, Theology……..137.
20
Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……95-99.
21
Samuel George, Christology. (Kolkata: SCEPTRE, 2003),21.
22
Calhoun, Scripture, creed, Theology………179.
23
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……99.
24
Cave, The Doctrine of the Person f Christ…………….86-87.
25
A. N. Williams, The Divine sense the Intellect in Patristic Theology. (New York: Cambridge University,
2007), 48-52.
26
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……99.

6
 5.3.Origen’s Debate

5.3.1 Origen’s Understanding of Creation:

The most remarkable feature of the Origen’s thought is his account of creation, and the
Christology which depend upon it. Before this world existed there was a prior creation of
rational spirits or minds. 27God was never without his creation, and created just so many
minds as his providence could manage. There were pure unembodied intelligences and
remained as there as long as they were content with the contemplation God.28 But they
were free and they exercise their freedom by turning from him: the devil resisted God, and
others turned with him. Even archangels sinned, though slightly.29 The demons sinned
gravely, and particularly to Plot to ruin other creatures. Some spirits sinned less than
demons, but more than angels, and for them god provided this world. And human bodies as
punishment. But punishment for Origen is beneficial, educational, medicine for sick souls. 30

5.3.2 Origen’s understanding of Logos and Son of God as pure logos

Every person coming into the world has a definite spiritual past, which accounts for the
inequality of the Birth experience. There is only one life in this world contrary to what his
enemies alleged.31 Origin does not teach the transmigration of the souls to other bodies but
ultimate destiny. After retraining process in this world and others, is to become son of God,
pure mind or logos. Free will which wrought the fall can bring about restoration. Logically all
spirits may be restored in the apokatastasis,the restoration of all (Acts3:21).32Son exists in
timeless eternity. At the same time son exists as a distinct being beside the father. Father,
son and spirit are three hypostasis and hypokeimenon.all terms for being in the objective
senses that each is a being.33 Origen certainly insisted that Jesus Christ is both God and man
a composite being with human nature and divine nature. There is a union or combination,
not merely association of two. Yet the divine word remain unchanged in being.34 To account
for this Origen postulates a created spirit as the subject of the visible, tangible Jesus who
can grow and suffer. This created mind was uniquely united with the son of God: this union
was like that of an iron- red hot in fire: it becomes indistinguishable from the fire, In the
Incarnation.35

27
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……107
28
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……107
29
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……107
30
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……107
31
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……107
32
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……107.
33
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……105
34
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……106
35
Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church……106

7
 5.3.3 Hypostatic Union of Jesus and logos Christology
Origen was a successor clement at the school of Alexandria. He is well known for his treatise
on theology: on first principles probably was the first systematic theology. 36 His Alexandrian
background defined his stand on Christology. Human nature of Jesus is understood in the
hypostatic union as generic human nature. His Christology is better known as Logos
Christology.37

5.3.4 Union of soul of Christ with Logs

Logos Christology finds its full development in the writings of Origen. 38 He taught that God
was completely transcendent, so the divine cannot mingle with flesh.39 The divine then be
mediated through soul and therefore the soul is the point of contact for the logos. In the
incarnation the human soul of Christ was united with the logos. 40 This closeness between
human and divine is the way for Christ human soul between to share the properties of
Logos.This union between Logos and Jesus makes him true God.41

In the patristic church Jesus unity with God was often understood as perfect
homoisistheoi.This seem to have been leading Christological idea in Origen. 42 The pre-
existent soul of the Jesus was, in distinction to the souls of the other man, completely
surrendered to the Logos and thus united with it already before they were bound together in
one body. In this sense the universal unification of the human with the divine begins with
Jesus.43

5.3.5 The Two Begettings of Christ

However to maintain the Primacy of God the father, he taught the principle of autotheos
which means God only and alone is God. He believed that the father had begotten the son by
an eternal act: therefore, Christ existed from eternity. Using John1:1 he argues that there were
two begettings of the son: one at the time of virgin birth and the other at the time of eternity
by the father.44He insists that although both Logos and father is co-eternal, the logos is sub-
ordinate to the father.45

36
Alister E. Macgrath,Christian theology: An Introduction…,357
37
Samuel George, Christology(Kolkatta,Sceptre,2013),23
38
Samuel George, Christology…..,23
39
Samuel George, Christology…..,23
40
Samuel George, Christology…..,23
41
Samuel George, Christology…..,23
42
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,…,41
43
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,…,41
44
Samuel George, Christology…..,24
45
Alister E. Macgrath,Christian theology: An Introduction…,357

8
 5.3.6 Logos is the means of creation and communication of God
Origen held God to be transcendent in a manner combining platonic and Aristotle notions,
God is pure spirit without body or parts. Origen argues that God is pure mind, and any
similarities to creatures is in their rationality, their logos. 46 In his essential self he is
indescribable, unknowable. He is the absolute unity, in contrast to the multiciplity of creation.
Altogether solitary (monas) and so to speak unitary (henas).Such a transcendent God can be
thought and known only through another ,and that the other is his wisdom, word or son.47 All
rational beings all minds reflect the thought of this primary logos; they derive their being
through him, since (being another beside God) he is the principle of multiplicity. 48 The divine
logos is the means where by God creates and communicates with his creation. Without him
God could only remain unique, absolute, motionless, uncommunicated. In generation the son,
the father in principle generates everything else.49

5.3.7 The eternal generation of son

God was however always Father: he could not change from one condition (not father) to
another (father).So the son exists in Gods timeless eternity. When popular Christological
texts speak of he son being begotten by the father (as in Ps 2:7), or of the word being uttered
(Ps 45:1).It does not as for Justin imply an act or event. For Origen the father constantly
begets the son by what modern theologies call eternal generation. A favorite text is Heb1:3
where the son is called the effulgence of his Gods glory with wisdom 7:26, where wisdom
(the word/the son) is the effulgence of eternal light God cannot be without his glory.so
everlastingly possesses the son. He asserts against modalists and economic Trinitarians that
‘there is not when the son is not’.50

5.3.8 Relation between the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit according to Origen
At the same time the son exists as a distinct being beside the father, father son and the spirit
are three in hypostasis and hypokeimenon,all terms for being in the objective sense, that each
is a being. Origen makes it clear that the son is god by derivation, not intrinsically and self-
sufficiently like the father. The Gospel calls the father God in an absolute sense (Gk ho
theos,autotheos),While the son is merely God as predicate( the word was god(theos) not God
was the word. In this and other aspects the son is less than the father. The father is superior to

46
Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans ,1991), 105.
47
Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church...105.
48
Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church...105.
49
Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church...105.
50
Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church...105.

9
everything (including the son) and the source of all other being: he son is superior to all the
rational creatures (including the Holy Spirit); the Holy Spirit is superior to the saints (that is
holy beings, including angels and sanctified human beings).51

5.3.9 Redemption consists of Imparting Divine Logos and Deification Requires

Logos
Athanasius in his writing about the incarnation of Logos in the fourth century explained that
man was originally created to participate in the in the divine Logos and how this destiny is
full filled through JesusChrist.52 Participation in the divine Logos has to do with rationalness
of man, corresponding to Greek definition of man as acreature that involved with
reason.53Here the rationality of man is not understood as simply as natural quality, but as
relatedness to God. However through sin man has forfeited his participation in the divine
Logos.54 Redemption consists of imparting the divine Logos. And thus his rational essence to
man again. By this means death is conquered and immortality is imparted. It was the concern
for the deification of man that made it so important.55This formula is already to be found in
Origen. The whole man would not have been saved had not logos assumed the whole man.56

5.3.10 Mediator Christology

The simplest form of mediator Christology is that in which the pre-existent heavenly being is
incorporated in Jesus is not God himself but a being that is subordinated to God but which
stands higher than man.57Such a concept probably lies at the basis of the Jewish-Christian
angel Christology of the postapostolic period. 58 Here the strict Jewish monotheism was
steadily maintained at the price of not granting full divinity to Jesus. 59 The structure of
subordination of the Logos under the father in the sense that Logos is being less than the
father in being and essence is maintained for a long time from philio. 60Philo characterized the
Logos is inferior to God because Logos has a beginning and has gone forth out of God. 61In a
similar sense apologists called the Logos the first of God’s creatures originating from the will
of the father. 62 Origen also thought the same, designating the Logos as the first of God’s

51
Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church...105.
52
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,(London:scm press,1968),40
53
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man…..,40
54
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man….,40
55
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,….40
56
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man….,40
57
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man….,123
58
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,…,123
59
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man….,123
60
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man….,123
61
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man….,123
62
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man….,124

10
creatures. 63 Origen spoke expressly of middle position of the Logos between the one and
many, between the God who transcends all becoming and the created things.64

5.3.11 Chalcedonian Creed and Two Natures Jesus Christ

Chalcedonian creed speaks of two natures, divine and human, existing in one person, in an
irreversible ontological union. There is free and full co-operation of the two natures without
conflict and confusion. 65 During the reformed period there was a famous debate between
Lutheran and reformed theologians about the way the two natures relate to each
other.Lutherens arguedfor the principle of fintumcapaxinfiniti:the human Jesus was able to
receive and bear the infinite(including the properties of divine nature) based on the
ancientcommunicatioidiomatumrule.66 Reformed theology denied this in its belief in finitum
non capaxinfiniti which says that the infinite in and of itself cannot bear the infinite. The
word/Logos assumes flesh rather than literally become flesh.67

5.4. Christological Understanding of Contemporary theologians:

A radical challenge to the Chalcedonian view came first from classical
Liberals.FridriechSchleiermacher replaced the two nature doctrine with a doctrine of divine
human relation: Jesus Christ is not divine being in human form but rather a kind of prophetic
figure who realizes the divine nature present in all humans, an ideal and perfected human.
68
Christ incarnation is neither final nor absolute.69 Similarly for A .Ritchal, incarnation was
no longer something transcendent and unique to one historical person, but rather a matter of
moral and ethical obedience: divinity denoted Jesus unique vocation. Theprogramme of
classical Liberalism was continued by 20th century liberals, Such as J.A.T. Robinson to
whom Jesus represents the human face of God among the other faces of God in religion.70
The incarnation is understood in terms of religious consciousness. This leads to a pluralistic
view in which Jesus becomes one among many other incarnations such as the many avatharas
of Hinduism. 71 For example RaimonPhanikar holds that Jesus is Christ but Christ is not
Jesus. (Meaning that Jesus of Nazareth is one of the manifestations of Logos, Thechristic
principle cannot be confined to one historical person alone).Evangelicals and main line

63
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man….,124
64
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man….,124
65
WillamA.Dyrness and Veli-MattiKarkkainen,GlobalDictonary of theology,(England:Inter varsity
Press:2008),173
66
WillamA.Dyrness and Veli-MattiKarkkainen,GlobalDictonary of theology…,173
67
WillamA.Dyrness and Veli-MattiKarkkainen,GlobalDictonary of theology,…,173
68
WillamA.Dyrness and Veli-MattiKarkkainen,GlobalDictonary of theology,...,173
69
Doctrine and practice of the early church Page 105
70
Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church...105.
71
Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church...105.

11
christians have offered sharp critique against both Liberals and pluralistic views in their
desire to continue affirming the Chalcedonian tradition.72

5.5.Critic of Logos Christology

5.5.1. Advantages of logos Christology

1. Logos Christology is to be seen above all it could make Jesus unity with the father and the
same time his differentiation forms him understandable73.
2. Logos doctrine of apologists consists in the fact that it is made that the divinity present in
Jesus familiar to Hellenistic society as power that was decisive for its conception of the
world. The logos theory succeeded impressively in explain the role of pre-existent son of God
in mediating creation, to which the New Testament testifies, with in a different sphere of
tradition74.

5.5.2. Weaknesses of Logos Christology

1. The unity of Logos with God cannot be so strictly conceived in the categories of platonic
cosmology. It is required by Christian interest in salvation and the idea of revelation.75
2. The precarious loosening of connection of the son’s divinity with Jesus of Nazareth, God’s
historical revelation.76
3. The Problem of Unbroken influence that the philosophical concept of God, the conception
of simple un-changeable and simple origin (arche) of the world at hand attained in the Centre
of Christian theology through the logos doctrine.77

5.5.3. Implication of Logos Christology

This subordination caused Origen later to be regarded as precursor of Arianism, and he was
attacked for it. But through this subordinationism, and the sharp distinction of the pre-existent
son from the father, look like what Arius taught, his strong doctrine of eternal generation was
exactly what Alexander upheld against Airus.78
Logos doctrine constituted the real kernel of Arian controversy. For the soteriological
reasons fathers the fathers were extremely concerned that the logos revealed in Jesus Posses
equal divinity with the father. 79 Athanasius especially expressed this concern: If the most

72
Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church...105.
73
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,(London:scm press,1968),163
74
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,…,164
75
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,…,164
76
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,…,165
77
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,…,165
78
Doctrine and practice of the early church Page 106
79
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,…,164

12
High God is not present in Jesus, then also we do not share in the divine life through Jesus.
But there was little possibility of doing Justice to this soteriological concern with in the frame
work of Logos doctrine.80 The inner logic of the logos doctrine supported Arius rather than
Athanasius, because the Procession of Logos means the first step of creation and logos is the
first creature, a subordinationist tendency belonged to the platonically conceived logs
doctrine from the beginning.81
Over the centuries the logos Christology became very significant way of interpreting Christ
incarnation.82 One finds problem with Origen’s Position. It looks as if he is saying that the
divinity was in the soul of Jesus, not in his body? Also his logos had a lower degree of
divinity than the father. Origen’s Christology is complex. And that its interpretation at points
is highly problematical.83
5.6.Arius and Athanasius

5.6.1. Arius (250-336)

Arius was a Libyan Christian priest at Alexandria. He was well known for his ascetical and
moral teachings among his community. He attracted many to his teachings especially about
the absolute oneness of the divinity as the highest perfect being. His theological teachings
came to be known as Arianism where he affirmed the finite nature of Christ and was
denounced by the early church as a major heresy at the council of Nicaea in 325 CE.84

5.6.2. Athanasius of Alexandria (296 – 373)

Athanasius was born in Alexandria in 296 and received a good grounding in secular learning
and he made himself well verse in the Scriptures. He was a short, dark and a poor man from a
Coptic family in Egypt. He went on to become the Bishop of Alexandria. He was also a
renowned theologian, Church Father and an able apologist. He is particularly known for his
conflict with Arius and Arianism. His starting pointing of Christology is evidently John 1:1 it
is of the word flesh type. He writes, “The Logos has become man, and has not just entered
into man.” His Christology has a very stereological emphasis.85

5.6.3. Debate between Arius and Athanasius

Arius emphasizes the self-substance of God. God is the one and only source of all created
things, nothing exists which does not ultimately derive from God. This is clearly raises the
question of the relation of the Father to the son.86 The Father is regarded as existing before
the Son. “There was when he was not.” This decisive affirmation places Father and son on
different levels, and is consistent with Arius’ rigorous insistence that the Son is a creature.

80
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,…,164
81
Wolfhartpannenberg,Jesus God and man,(London:scm press,1968),164
82
Samuel George, Christology…..,24
83
Samuel George, Christology…..,24
84
Alister,E.MeGrath, Christian Theology An Introduction. ( Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994), 255.
85
Alister,E.MeGrath, Christian Theology An Introduction. ( Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994), 255.
86
Henny, Bettenson, The Early Church Fathers, ( London: oxford University Press, 1974), 274.

13
Only the Father is “unbegotten,” the Son, like all other creatures, derives from this one source
of being. However, Arius is careful to emphasize that the Son is like every other creature.
There is a distinction of rank between the Son and other creatures, including human beings. 87
Arius has some difficulty in identifying the precise nature of this distinction. The Son, he
argued, is “a perfect creature, yet not as one among other creatures, a begotten being, yet not
as one among other begotten beings.” The implication seems to be that the Son outranks other
creatures, while sharing their essentially created and begotten nature.

5.6.4. Argument with Arianism

If God created Jesus He could create further extensions of Himself and He would not be
constant, there would be more sons. Here is where the doctrine of the Incarnation began, and
it is very important to know Jesus was and is God.88

5.6.5. His Response

For this question Athanasius response it followings, God was not always a father. There was
a time when God was all alone, and was not yet a father; only later did he become a father.
The son did not always exist.89 Everything created is out of nothing. So the logos of God
came into existence out of nothing. There was a time when he was not. Before he was
brought into being, he did not exist. He also had a beginning to his created existence.90
An important aspect of Arius distinction between Father and Son concerns the unknowability
of God. Arius emphasizes the utter transcendence and inaccessibility of God. God cannot be
known by any other creature.91
Athanasius’s struggles with the Arian Christology, especially in his teaching on salvation,
confronted, on one hand though indirectly, the pagan teaching of Julian, and on the other
hand, it dealt with “the anathema appended to the symbol of the Nicene Council” which
expressed the opinion of Arius and his followers. Arianism “believed in a single supreme
God who made contact with the world through lower creatures such as the Son and the Spirit.
The Son was a suffering divine hero who was to be worshipped, very much like the hero gods
of the Greeks.”

5.6.6. Further Argument

we can summarize in the following manner, (i) The Son is a creature, who like all other
creatures, derives from the will of God.(ii) The term Son is thus a metaphor, an honorific
term intended to underscore the rank of the Son among other creatures. It does not imply that
Father and Son share the same being or status. (iii).The status of the Son is itself a
consequence not of the nature of the Son, but of the will of the Father.92

87
Henny, Bettenson, The Early Church Fathers, ( London: oxford University Press, 1974), 275 - 276.
88
, Bettenson, The Early Church Fathers, ( London: oxford University Press, 1974), 274.
89
Veli Matti Karkkainen, Christology A Global Introduction, ( Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003), 66
90
Henny, Bettenson, The Early Church Fathers, ( London: oxford University Press, 1974), 277.
91
Henny, Bettenson, The Early Church Fathers, ( London: oxford University Press, 1974), 278.
92
Henny, Bettenson, The Early Church Fathers, ( London: oxford University Press, 1974), 279.

14
 5.6.7. Athanasius Responses
But Athanasius responding that, Jesus is God incarnate. The logic of his argument says (i) No
creature can redeem another creature. (ii) Only God can save. (iii) Jesus Christ saves. (iv)
Therefore Jesus Christ is God.93

5.6.8. Council of Nicaea (325)

The Arian controversy of the fourth century is widely regarded as one of the most significant
in the history of the Christian church. Arius teaching provoked a hostile response from
Athanasius. The Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine, the first Christian emperor,
with a view to sorting out the destabilizing Christological disagreements within his empire.94
He was determined to re-establish doctrinal unity in the church. This was the first ecumenical
council, that is, an assembly of Christians drawn from the entire Christian world, whose
decisions are regarded as normative for the churches. Nicaea settled the Arian controversy by
affirming that Jesus was homoousios (one in being or of one substance) with the Father, thus
rejecting the Arian position in favour of a vigorous assertion of the divinity of Christ. Arius
and his followers were condemned and an official creed was formulated, it reads,95
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten, not made of one
substance with the Father, through Whom all things were made.....

5.7 Appolinarius
Appolinarius was particularly upset with the increasing spreading of the belief that in Christ
the Logos assumed human nature totally. In that case he thought that Logos would be
contaminated by the weakness of human nature. And Jesus’ sinless nature cannot be
maintained. 96 Appolinarius was supporting Christ’s full divinity, but he was against Christ’s
full humanity.

5.7.1 Appolinarius’ Argument

After Nicea, the question was raised: If Jesus Christ be truly God, how can he be at the same
time truly man? Appolinarius tried to safeguard the unity of the person of the God-man by
denying that he had complete manhood. He assumed that man was composed of 3 parts:
Body, Soul, Intellect (nous). In Jesus, the nous or intellect was displaced by the divine Logos.
But Appolinarius was condemned at Constantinople in 381. 97 So, Appolinarius assured that
Christ’s human mind was occupied by divine logos.
Appolinarius did make a lasting contribution to orthodox theology in declaring that Christ
was consubstantial (of one substance) with the Father as regarding his divinity and
consubstantial with us as regarding his humanity. This formula, which originated with

93
Henny, Bettenson, The Early Church Fathers, ( London: oxford University Press, 1974), 280.
94
Alister,E.MeGrath, Christian Theology An Introduction. ( Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994), 255.
95
Alister,E.MeGrath, Christian Theology An Introduction. ( Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994), 255.
96
Samuel. George, Christology (Kolkata: SCEPTRE, 2013), 26.
97
Walter. A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (U.S.A: Baker Book House Company, 2001), 242.

15
Appolinarius, later became official orthodox doctrine. Appolinarius was also one of the first
to claim that God suffered and died on the cross, a claim which received immediate
condemnation but later became acceptable in orthodox theology.98Christ was having same
substance with Father in divinity. The divine nature of the Christ’s was over emphasised by
Appolinarius.
In working out what it meant that Christ was both God and man, Appolinarius first had to
determine how these two seemingly independent conceptions could be commingled. There
was a great difficulty here, because believers can worship God, but refuse to worship a
human being, so the question of our worship of Christ could lead one to think that we both do
and we do not worship this same person, which is clearly absurd. 99 During the Era of
Appolinarius people faced difficulties in worshiping Jesus the Christ, because of the idea of
Jesus with human nature, which manipulates the complete divinity in Christ.

Conclusion
The nature of Jesus Christ is complex. For Jesus’ personality included the qualities and
attributes which constitute deity. The problem with these qualities are that they differ from
human not merely in degree but in kind. This fact reminds us that the person of Jesus was not
simply union of human and divine qualities, but His personality possesses divine
characteristics as well as sinless human nature. The debate arose because of different
understanding of Church fathers. We find difficulty in specifying the exact content of this
doctrine because it is a mystery.

Bibliography

Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius “The Coherence of his Thought”. London: Roultledge, 2005.

Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius, The coherence of His Thought. London: Routledge, 1998.

Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, The Orations of St. Athanasius against the Arians
London: Griffith Farran & Co. 1980.

Bettenson, Henry. The Early Christian Fathers. London: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Boyd, R.H.S. Khiristadvaita A Theology for India. Madras: CLS, 1977.

Calhoun, Robert L. Scripture, creed, Theology. Eugene: Cascade books, 2011.

Dyrness, William A. and Veli-Matti Karkkainen. Global Dictionary of theology.
England:Inter varsity Press:2008, 173

George, Samuel. Christology. Kolkata: ESPACE, 2013.

George, Samuel. Christology. Kolkata: SCEPTRE, 2003.

98
Alan Richardson, John Bowden, Eds. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian theology.(Great Britain: SCM
Press Ltd, 1983),

16
Hall G. Stuart. Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans,
1991.

Jocz, Jacob. The Jewish People and Jesus Christ: A study in the Controversy between Church
and Synagogue. London: SPCK, 1954.

John Newton, “Athanasius,” in Who’s Who in Christian History, 1992.

Karkkainen Veli- Matti. Christology: A global Introduction. Michigan: Baker Academic.

2003.

McGrath. Alister. Chritstian Theology An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus God and man. London: scm press,1968

Williams A. N. The Divine sense the Intellect in Patristic Theology. New York: Cambridge
University, 2007.

Willis R. John. The teachings of the Church Fathers. Boston: Herder and Herder, 1966.

Wilson R. MCL. “Gnosticism” The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan
Richardson & John Bowden. Philadelphia: The Westminster, 198, 226.

Wingreen Gustaf. Man and the Incarnation: A study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus.
Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1959.

Webliography
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01616a.htm/ accessed on 17 – 11- 2014 at 5:30 p.m

17