Tonight our instructor began by defining homoousias as, "of one being" or "one substance", and Theotokos as, "Mother of God". He then discussed a few of the various beliefs that developed as the followers of Jesus moved towards a deeper understanding of who Jesus was. The Ebionites did not believe that Jesus was God, but instead believed that he was a holy man or a great prophet, and that he had been born of man and adopted by God. Docetism did not believe that Jesus was man, and for them he only appeared to be human and pretended to die on the cross. Nestorianism wanted to defend the humanity of Jesus because for them it blurred the reality of who Jesus was. Although their instinct was correct they attempted to maintain a distinction between divine and human. Monophysites tried to insist on the one nature, and Monthelites one will, or one energy, but neither of these fully understood who Jesus was.
As we move from scripture to doctrine the terms become more philosophical in expression. The reason that it is necessary to move to a more philosophical discussion is the need to understand who Jesus is. For instance, are we saved by knowledge or faith? A balance of faith and reason is required if we are to reach a consensus on key truths. This fascination about Jesus causes us to desire more truth, and (naturally) we'll never reach a full understanding, because more answers result in ever more questions. This pursuit of faith and reason however is good, because it saves us from fundamentalism.
Pressure from within and pressure from without resulted in more heresies. These tended to be the result of attempts to rationalize who Jesus was, or deny the mystery, or provide an overly simplistic understanding of who He was. It simply did not match the witness of the scriptures. To accept Christianity is to accept paradox as normal; Jesus was both God and Man. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the light (life)". Christology is first and foremost a pastoral ministry, born in the context of preaching, and an invitation to others which results in catechesis.
The Council of Niciea I, opened by Constantine I, in about 325 AD, was to resolve the rise of Arianism. Arius in N. Africa, in an attempt to maintain Old Testament monotheism, believed that Christ was more than just a man; that he was higher than the angels but not God himself and not eternal. Jesus came into being by God. However, the word Gemetos translates into begotten not made, suggesting that he was eternal. Substance is it's truth, and truth is it's substance. The truth of the Father and the truth of the Son spoke to the oneness of God. If the Father is God, and the Son is God, then the Church had to redefine the number one. They explained that God is one like two people in love are one. Since God is Love the Trinity exists like the two people in love. There is the one who loves, the one who is loved, and the power of love shared between them.
Athanasius was concerned with the question, "What is the meaning of salvation?" Can a creature accomplish (offer) this? He concluded that Jesus must be fully man and fully God to accomplish our salvation. He said that, "God became man so that man could become God", and his image of God was that of a loving relationship, who created us in His image.
The Council of Ephasis was opened to counter the heresy of Nestorianism. Nestorianism had no clear understanding of nature or person, and felt that Jesus shared in a united morality with God as the result of obedience. Unfortunately, this makes Jesus just a man, totally obedient and morally united with God. The heresy of the Monophysites was a conflict between Hypostasis vs physis, or person vs nature. The question of nature is "what is it", implying the nature of Christ as a duality, while the question of person is "who is it", implying the nature of Christ as singular.
The Monothelites idea of one will would mean that Jesus' sacrifice would not apply to us, and that would make His sacrifice meaningless. Who is the person of Christ? There is only one 'who' in the reality of Christ; He is fully human and fully God. So then how does God interact with man? He is one person with two natures, human and divine, in a hypostatic union, which means distinct but not separate, in communication with each other. The story of man's humanity (struggles and crucifixion) becomes the story of God. The story of God's divinity (love and grace) becomes the story of man. Both stories remain intact, and one story cannot dominate. The council of Nicea determined that Jesus was one being (homoousias) with the Father. The council of Chalcedon determined that Jesus was one being (homoousias) with us.
God did not create sin or disorder, sin and disorder came into being by choice; an abuse of freedom and an abuse of love. Freedom and love must be healed to reunite us with God, and because freedom and love exist in the will, man must have free will. Jesus said, "Not my will but yours be done". The mystery is if God has free will why does he choose man? The answer is that in perfect love God does not need man, and in perfect response man does need God. The Trinity is complete in perfect love and communion. The height of freedom is not choice, it is in being the kind of person that God wants us to be. The world is getting freedom wrong because it is not in total obedience to God. In the 1st Garden Adam failed to obey God and lost everything, and in the 2nd Garden Jesus (the second Adam) obeyed God, gaining everything. It's another paradox which is how we know it's true.
No comments:
Post a Comment